Why is it wrong to love Mary?

[area52]

Sorry Area 52,
You’ve got it wrong. The Old Testiment was writen first. Oral tradition surrounded it many years before Jesus. However, the New Testiment is entirely developed off of Oral tradition taught by the Apostles. Mark didn’t write his gospel until about 55 AD. 20 years later. His gospel is probably based off of what Peter spoke to him about while at Rome. The Didache, an early liturgy, is to be said to have been writen around the same time. Earlier than many of the books of the New Testiment. Pauls letters are his way of passing oral teachings to places he could not be at immediately. The New Testiment was first listed as we have it now by Athenasius couple of hundred years later! Christians read many works including the Shepherd of Hermas which isn’t cannon.

I stand corrected my brother!

What I was getting at was that traditions (as it was established by Roman church) diluted what was the in the Old Testament and also in the New Testament regarding the teaching from God and of Jesus much like the Israelites and Pharisees. (read post #714)

 

[AutumnSakura]

I love the Theotokos! She was the first person I asked intercession from after I decided to convert to Orthodoxy. I do find it interesting that Protestants think we believe that the Theotokos/Saints have the power of their own to hear our prayers, instead of the obvious reason for this ability: the Holy Spirit, which binds the Body of Christ together in Love. Is that so strange? For what is impossible with man (conversing with the dead), is possible with God (being of one Body despite a mere physical death). Are they omniscient of their own accord? Of course not, but they are able to hear us through the Gifts of the Spirit.

I have recently discussed the “Mary issue” with several Protestant friends and family, and they seem to willfully ignore all the Biblical evidence for her intercession for the faithful (wedding at Cana), her absolute humility and commitment to God (the Annunciation), her role as the first consecrated Virgin, etc. Arguments such as “she was Jewish, she had to have sex and procreate!” fail under any semi-careful inspection of the Bible. How could one who has died to the world and given herself over to God completely need to have a marriage? She was only ever betrothed to Joseph, never wedded. And since Protestants lack any theology of Theosis, they don’t understand that the flesh of the body can be sanctified and imbued with God’s Energies and Grace. If they did, they would understand that her womb literally was the Holy of Holies, and no man could ever enter once the uncontainable Christ entered.

It’s sad that they are lacking a wonderful chance to grow deeper in their relationship to Christ.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

I stand corrected my brother!

What I was getting at was that traditions (as it was established by Roman church) diluted what was the in the Old Testament and also in the New Testament regarding the teaching from God and of Jesus much like the Israelites and Pharisees. (read post #714)

It was the Roman Catholic Church which had done nothing more than pass on the Faith and Practices-such as the Mass- that they received from the Apostles themselves from the beginning. Nothing was “diluted”. I would argue rather it was enriched by the constant guidance of the Holy Spirit.

“When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth…”(John 16:13)

Two, I have a question about Jesus’ “brothers”.

If Jesus had “brothers” and Mary had other children besides Jesus, why did the Lord, while hanging on the cross, tell “the beloved disciple” (John) "behold YOUR Mother? And then say to Mary, "Behold your son? And Why then after His death did John take her into his home? Shouldn’t have she gone on to the home of one of her other sons?

The fact of the matter is that “the beloved disciple” in John’s Gospel is a literary effect on John’s part. We are all “the beloved disciple”. John is having us walk with him through his Gospel. Mary’s only son is Jesus. Are if we are to be true disciples we are to do as He commands.

So as he took Mary into his home, so are we to take Mary into our homes.

 

[Jimmy_B]

I think you have that backward. Scripture was not derived from tradition. Scriptures was written by writers who were inspired by God. Traditions are mans doing following what was in the Scripture and adding more to it.

Hello area 52,

*Your comments are in conflict with early Christian (Catholic) History and with early Protestant history. Martin Luther and the early Protestant Church, did not see a problem with the Veneration of Mary, the Communion of Saints, or the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. This is a new development in “Christianity”, occurring within the last one hundred years. Don’t trust me, look it up. *

*Moreover, your revisionist view of Christian history is in error, where you state, “Traditions are mans doing following what was in the Scripture and adding more to it.” This belief is backwards. Tradition preceded “Scripture” (the Bible). The Catholic Church didn’t “add” anything, the “Protestant” church removed elements of Christianity. *

The formation of the Bible occurred between 300 AD and 500 AD. Protestant churches were founded well into the 16th Century. The Bible didn’t find its way into the hands of the average Christian until the advent of the printing press, towards the end of the 16th century. The Bible was organized and put together by “men”, Catholic “men”, approved by Catholic Popes, more “men” and passed down by “men” in the Roman Catholic Church. In others words, the Bible is “man’s doing”, inspired and guided by God.

*Is it your belief that the Bible (as we know it today) was present in the early Christian Church, 1st, 2nd and 3rd century? *

*Are you asserting that the Protestant church did not remove elements of Christianity? *

*If so, you are incorrect, and for starters, maybe you can explain what happened to Daniel, chapters 13 and 14. *

I use this example, because many Christians are not aware of the fact that Daniel 13 and 14 are not in most KJV (“Protestant”) Bibles, where, on the other hand, they (Daniel 13 and 14) are in the “Catholic” Bible.

*Thank you for your post. *

 

[guanophore]

Sacred Tradition

It is appropriate (and required) to cite your sources here.

In the Old Testament story, the “Written Word” played an important part in the plans of God.

Why are you posting this on the “Why is it wrong to love Mary” thread?

Countless times the expression “it is written” was used to recall the instructions of Jehovah. Paul said, “Whatever was written in earlier times was written for our instruction, that through perseverance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope” (Romans 15:4). And even our Lord Jesus continually referred to Scripture in His daily teaching and refuting of the errors of His day.

Is there some reason you think that Catholics don’t agree with this? What does it have to do with loving Mary? I am sure that Mary was well acquainted with the writings.

As the centuries rolled by, they seemed to regard the writings of their rabbis and scholars with equal respect as the original inspired writings. Some of God’s teachings had been diluted and many, many additions and innovations had been added to the “Sacred Writings.”

No doubt, but your polemic seems to indicate that no Sacred Oral Tradition existed. This is patently false. Jesus and His
Apostles taught from the Sacred Tradition.

Jesus and His disciples did not regard these traditions of men and Jesus taught against them (as in Matthew 12:1-12).

This is a sweeping generalization that is not accurate. Not all the Traditions were “of men” and Jesus only opposed those that went contrary to the Word of God. The rest he approved and celebrated, such as the dedication of the Temple, a feast that is not contained in the Jewish canon, but that He recognized.

But in vain do they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.’ Neglecting the commandment of God,” Jesus said, “you hold to the tradition of men … you nicely set aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition … invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down …” (Mark 7:1-13).

And precepts that do not set aside commandments, and which value the Word of God are not problematic. Such are those about Mary, the mother of Jesus.

Do you think it is possible today for creedal doctrines and denominational traditions to be different from the teachings of the apostles? If so, should we continue in those things?

Yes, clearly there are many that differentiate from the Apostolic Teachings. People are free to continue in whatsoever errors they choose. It is not my place to say what should and should not be done in the faith practice of others.

If our goal is to be disciples of Jesus, then we must abide in His Word (John 8:31). God has gone to great lengths to confirm and preserve the words of His New Covenant with mankind. Every generation must be turned back to “The Book” which defines its terms. If our traditional doctrines and practices are different from the Scriptures, then they must be abandoned.

Seeing that this is your position, why are you on a Catholic forum? Surely you know by now that we are passionately committed to holding fast to the traditions that were handed on to us by the Apostles, either by word of mouth, or by letter!?

Do you want us to abandon our faith in favor of yours?

 

[Jimmy_B]

I find it amazing that there exist “Protestants” here at CAF, who are arguing, just a much with Martin Luther and the early Protest Church as with Catholicism.

Did you know that Martin Luther Venerated Mary:
In his, Martin Luther’s sermon of August 15, 1522, the last time Martin Luther preached on the Feast of the Assumption, he stated:
“There can be no doubt that the Virgin Mary is in heaven. How it happened we do not know. And since the Holy Spirit has told us nothing about it, we can make of it no article of faith . . . It is enough to know that she lives in Christ.”
“The veneration of Mary is inscribed in the very depths of the human heart.” (Sermon, September 1, 1522).

Did you know that Martin Luther Venerated Mary (continued):
“[She is the] highest woman and the noblest gem in Christianity after Christ . . . She is nobility, wisdom, and holiness personified. We can never honor her enough. Still honor and praise must be given to her in such a way as to injure neither Christ nor the Scriptures.” (Martin Luther’s Sermon, Christmas, 1531).
“No woman is like you. You are more than Eve or Sarah, blessed above all nobility, wisdom, and sanctity.” (Martin Luther’s Sermon, Feast of the Visitation, 1537).
“One should honor Mary as she herself wished and as she expressed it in the Magnificat. She praised God for his deeds. How then can we praise her? The true honor of Mary is the honor of God, the praise of God’s grace . . . Mary is nothing for the sake of herself, but for the sake of Christ . . . Mary does not wish that we come to her, but through her to God.” (Martin Luther’s Explanation of the Magnificat, 1521).

Luther gives the Blessed Virgin the exalted position of “Spiritual Mother” for Christians:

*“It is the consolation and the superabundant goodness of God, that man is able to exult in such a treasure. Mary is his true Mother .” *(Martin Luther’s Sermon, Christmas, 1522)
More here.

 

[guanophore]

I stand corrected my brother!

What I was getting at was that traditions (as it was established by Roman church) diluted what was the in the Old Testament and also in the New Testament regarding the teaching from God and of Jesus much like the Israelites and Pharisees. (read post #714)

And what brother is getting at is that Sacred Tradition is what produced the Bible that you now use. A distinction has to be made between traditions (customs) of men, and Sacred Tradition (The Word of God). The Roman Church did not establish Tradition, this was done by Jesus and the apostles. The Sacred Traditions do not “dilute” anything. If you think Sacred Tradition is “Roman” go over to the Eastern Forum, and tell them that the Tradition of considering Mary is worthy of honor is a bunch of man made junque. You will find that they same Apostolic Teaching is preserverd by them,a nd has nothing to do with Rome. Ask what the term “theotokos” means, and why this is used.

 

[area52]

Hello Jim,

I stand corrected. Thanks for the education. However, what I was getting at is that traditions of man became more important than what was being taught by His word- written down as the Bible.

I use this example, because many Christians are not aware of the fact that Daniel 13 and 14 are not in most KJV (“Protestant”) Bibles, where, on the other hand, they (Daniel 13 and 14) are in the “Catholic” Bible.

Daniel 13 (Susanna) and Daniel 14 (Bel and Dragon) are 2 of the books listed as Apocrypha. These books are non canonical books and therefore not inspired by God, but by man. Therefore, it was not included in the Bible.

“The Apocrypha / Deuterocanonical books teach many things that are not true and are not historically accurate. While many Catholics accepted the Apocrypha / Deuterocanonicals previously, the Roman Catholic Church officially added the Apocrypha / Deuterocanonicals to their Bible at the Council of Trent in the mid 1500’s A.D., primarily in response to the Protestant Reformation. The Apocrypha / Deuterocanonicals support some of the things that the Roman Catholic Church believes and practices which are not in agreement with the Bible. Examples are praying for the dead, petitioning “saints” in Heaven for their prayers, worshipping angels, and “alms giving” atoning for sins. Some of what the Apocrypha / Deuterocanonicals say is true and correct. However, due to the historical and theological errors, the books must be viewed as fallible historical and religious documents, not as the inspired, authoritative Word of God.” (see note)

Note: from gotquestions.org/apocrypha-deuterocanonical.html

 

[Jimmy_B]

Hello Jim,

I stand corrected. Thanks for the education. However, what I was getting at is that traditions of man became more important than what was being taught by His word- written down as the Bible.

Daniel 13 (Susanna) and Daniel 14 (Bel and Dragon) are 2 of the books listed as Apocrypha. These books are non canonical books and therefore not inspired by God, but by man. Therefore, it was not included in the Bible.

“The Apocrypha / Deuterocanonical books teach many things that are not true and are not historically accurate. While many Catholics accepted the Apocrypha / Deuterocanonicals previously, the Roman Catholic Church officially added the Apocrypha / Deuterocanonicals to their Bible at the Council of Trent in the mid 1500’s A.D., primarily in response to the Protestant Reformation. The Apocrypha / Deuterocanonicals support some of the things that the Roman Catholic Church believes and practices which are not in agreement with the Bible. Examples are praying for the dead, petitioning “saints” in Heaven for their prayers, worshipping angels, and “alms giving” atoning for sins. Some of what the Apocrypha / Deuterocanonicals say is true and correct. However, due to the historical and theological errors, the books must be viewed as fallible historical and religious documents, not as the inspired, authoritative Word of God.” (see note)

Note: from gotquestions.org/apocrypha-deuterocanonical.html

Hello area52,
There is a Catholic response to what you posted here, but it might be better if we tackled this one on another thread. My short answer is; you’re wrong, well most of what you posted here, anyways.

BTW, Do you love Mary? I am sorry if I am repeating this question to you, I don’t remember your answer.

 

[sambos671]

Oral Tradition came before writen scripture. This is true. This would apply to the Old Testiment as well. It wasn’t until after Jethro rebuked Moses’ about dispencing judgement by himself to the entire nation of Isreal that: 1) Moses’ selected others to help him 2) the Law was given to him by the Lord.

This is where I come up with difficulty towards the Catholic Church’s view of Mary. This is what the Chatechism says:

Christ, the Son of God made man, is the Father’s one, perfect, and unsurpassable Word. In him he has said everything there will be no other word than this one. St. John of the Cross, amoung others, commented strikingly on Hebrews 1:1-2:
In giving us his Son, his only Word (for he possesses no other), he spoke everything to us at once in this sole Word - and he has no more to say

and again

The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive Covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ…it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries

Yet much of what is believed about Mary comes from Oral Tradition. Well, what then is this Oral tradition. Paul states it clearly in his letters but let me pull from another source. Ireaneus:

This, beloved, is the preaching of the truth, and this is the character of our salvation, and this is the way of life, which the prophets announced and Christ confirmed and the Apostles handed over and the Church, in the whole world, hands down to her children. This it is necissary to keep with all strictness, being pleasing to God, by good works and a sound mind, not thinking there is another God the Father besides our Creator, and think they have found something greater than the truth…The Son of God and the economy of his incarnation, which the Apostles handed over and the prophets foretold would be a racapitulation of mankind…While others do not admit the gifts of the Holy Spirit and…So,error, conserning the three heads of our seal

Strangely enough, no mention of the immaculate conception, assumption, perpetual virginity of Mary. He does state that Mary was a virgin so to fulfill the redemtion of man because he came initially from virgin soil. Also Eusibius mentions Jesus brothers “according to the flesh”. Natural brothers? So the Oral Tradition handed down is the Gospels and to interpret the Old Testiment though the revelation of Jesus. To know the Trinity and to understand there is one God. The Church officially started to teach the immaculate conseption due to Lourdes and St. Teresia. The Church has not recognized officially Our Lady of Guadolupe. And again Theotokos is about Jesus not Mary. Jesus is God therefore Mary is the mother of God. There were those teaching at the time that Jesus was a common man (not God) and that his father could have been a Roman Soldier (sound familiar?) or some other persons illigitimate child. So is this a new revelation? The scriptures obviously don’t speak of these particular issues. Has the Church gone beyond the original revelation handed down by the apostles?

Mary should be honored. I believe she prays for the church as do all others who are with God. But does she pray specifically for my prayers? Or yours? Does she even know my life? Or does she converse of behalf of mankind and look forward to the return of our Lord like all the others beseeching God when all would be fulfilled as spoken of in Revelations?

My questions of these maters

 

[justasking4]

You might want to check the post that you use. The post under my name are not from me. Whoever you are repsonding to may miss your comments…

Quote:
Originally Posted by sambos671
My questions on Mary is this: Why immaculate conseption?

So that Jesus could take his human flesh from her flesh, untainted by original sin. Also, so that she could reverse the decision of Eve, by totally receiving God’s commandments in obedience. She represents God’s intentin with Eve, which she rejected.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Why the Assumption?

I think you will have to ask Jesus on this one. Why would He not allow His mother’s body to rot in the grave?

In heaven, Mary embodies that toward which we all look, the resurrection of our bodies, and life everlasting.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Why do you have to say more Hail Marys for penance than Our Fathers?

This is a custom of the priest giving the penance, so you will have to ask him.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Why do you have to say more Hail Marys on the rosery than Our Fathers?

because the rosary is a devotional looking at the eyes of Christ through Mary. If you wanted to use a different kind of devotion for prayer, you could do that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Why didn’t Pope John Paul II beseech the Holy Spirit who leads us to all truth?

He did, every day. Don’t get the impression that the saints in heaven are not fully in communion with the Trinity. It is not as if we as one “instead” of the other, but together with.

---

 

[justasking4]

I find it amazing that there exist “Protestants” here at CAF, who are arguing, just a much with Martin Luther and the early Protest Church as with Catholicism.

Did you know that Martin Luther Venerated Mary:
In his, Martin Luther’s sermon of August 15, 1522, the last time Martin Luther preached on the Feast of the Assumption, he stated:
“There can be no doubt that the Virgin Mary is in heaven. How it happened we do not know. And since the Holy Spirit has told us nothing about it, we can make of it no article of faith . . . It is enough to know that she lives in Christ.”
“The veneration of Mary is inscribed in the very depths of the human heart.” (Sermon, September 1, 1522).

Did you know that Martin Luther Venerated Mary (continued):
“[She is the] highest woman and the noblest gem in Christianity after Christ . . . She is nobility, wisdom, and holiness personified. We can never honor her enough. Still honor and praise must be given to her in such a way as to injure neither Christ nor the Scriptures.” (Martin Luther’s Sermon, Christmas, 1531).
“No woman is like you. You are more than Eve or Sarah, blessed above all nobility, wisdom, and sanctity.” (Martin Luther’s Sermon, Feast of the Visitation, 1537).
“One should honor Mary as she herself wished and as she expressed it in the Magnificat. She praised God for his deeds. How then can we praise her? The true honor of Mary is the honor of God, the praise of God’s grace . . . Mary is nothing for the sake of herself, but for the sake of Christ . . . Mary does not wish that we come to her, but through her to God.” (Martin Luther’s Explanation of the Magnificat, 1521).

Luther gives the Blessed Virgin the exalted position of “Spiritual Mother” for Christians:

*“It is the consolation and the superabundant goodness of God, that man is able to exult in such a treasure. Mary is his true Mother .” *(Martin Luther’s Sermon, Christmas, 1522)
More here.

Luther can make mistakes just as other men have. These opinions of Luther are not grounded in Scripture for the most part and he was still heavily influenced by his roman catholic upbringing.

 

[Tomster]

Luther can make mistakes just as other men have. These opinions of Luther are not grounded in Scripture for the most part and he was still heavily influenced by his roman catholic upbringing.

Yes, Luther made quite a few mistakes as he was quite fallible. One other mistake he made, one which he regretted, was putting the Bible in the hands of the people and telling them to interpret it themselves.

 

[Roy5]

WHY DID ST. PAUL IGNORE MARY?

 If Catholics want to venerate Mary, fine. I don't have any serious objection when Hindus venerate the great goddess Mahadevil or Buddhist venerate Kwannon, the goddess of mercy. People with a spirirtual bent honor God in all sorts of ways. But I am satisfied to worship God through Christ and leave it at that.  This does not mean I don't have the highest respect for Mary. Obviously she played a major role in the coming of Christ. But I can't pray to her or the saints. Seems too much like polytheism to me. Sorry about that.

  But no one has given an answer to the question: if Mary should be so central in Christian theology why did St. Paul write all those scriptural letters to the first churches with instructions to early Christians - and containing basic doctrines - but not once mention Mary? And, of course, re-read John 2:4 and Luke 8:19-21

and explain how that supports such notions as the Immaculate Conception (1854) and the Assumption (1950)?

   Catholicism seems to be in conflict over whether to advance into the modern era or retain various medieval characteristics that need to be jettisoned if intelligent and thinking people in the world today are going to stay with it.. Was it yesterday (Feb 12) that I read in the paper about the new emphasis on exorcism in the Catholic Church? Give me a break. This is as wild as some of those Protestant evangelists who claim to cast out devils and have people falling all over the floor.

   Happy Valentine's Day. Whether Valentine existed or is a myth, I like him.

 

[Tomster]

WHY DID ST. PAUL IGNORE MARY?

 If Catholics want to venerate Mary, fine. I don't have any serious objection when Hindus venerate the great goddess Mahadevil or Buddhist venerate Kwannon, the goddess of mercy. People with a spirirtual bent honor God in all sorts of ways. But I am satisfied to worship God through Christ and leave it at that.  This does not mean I don't have the highest respect for Mary. Obviously she played a major role in the coming of Christ. But I can't pray to her or the saints. Seems too much like polytheism to me. Sorry about that.

  But no one has given an answer to the question: if Mary should be so central in Christian theology why did St. Paul write all those scriptural letters to the first churches with instructions to early Christians - and containing basic doctrines - but not once mention Mary? And, of course, re-read John 2:4 and Luke 8:19-21

and explain how that supports such notions as the Immaculate Conception (1854) and the Assumption (1950)?

   Catholicism seems to be in conflict over whether to advance into the modern era or retain various medieval characteristics that need to be jettisoned if intelligent and thinking people in the world today are going to stay with it.. Was it yesterday (Feb 12) that I read in the paper about the new emphasis on exorcism in the Catholic Church? Give me a break. This is as wild as some of those Protestant evangelists who claim to cast out devils and have people falling all over the floor.

   Happy Valentine's Day. Whether Valentine existed or is a myth, I like him.

As I posted elsewhere, what assurance have we that the dogmatic definitions of the Church, though intelligible enough to those who lived at the time of the first Councils, retain their identical validity today? Language tends to change its meaning, philosophical systems grow out of date; what then, if this be so, becomes of the Creeds and doctrinal formulas expressed in terms now outmoded, presupposing a philosophy no longer acceptable to the modern mind. These questions were raised by the Modernists. The only answer they could provide was tantamount to an abandonement of traditional Christianity; they dissolved the age-long theological concepts of Catholicism into a residue of imagery and symbolism. In striving to adapt the Christian message to the mentality of their contemporaries, they succeeded only in emptying it of vital significance. Thus the way was open to the most insidious of all forms of scepticism: unbelief disguised as a serious interest in religion.

“Brother, be sober and watch for your adversary, the devil, goes about like a roaring lion seeking whom he may devour.”

 

[sambos671]

I’m just stirring the waters a bit here. I don’t agree with this, however, keeping in line with the thread; many Protestants (or so I am told) believe that the veneration of Mary is a pagan hold over in the orthodox churches (Eastern and Catholic). That this heralds back to Isis and Horis, and goddess worship common in many cultures. Just ask a Wiccan. (It’s my mischievious side coming out)

 

[Jimmy_B]

WHY DID ST. PAUL IGNORE MARY?

That’s is a misleading quote;

“Why did St. Paul ignore Mary”

It wrongly assumes that Mary wasn’t important. St. Paul didn’t ignore Mary, He loved Mary, as all early Christian did, she in the mother of God.

Paul’s focus was entirely on Jesus Christ, just as Catholics, past and present, our focused is entirely on Jesus Christ. Mary leads many Catholics to Jesus, Is there something wrong with that?

I talked with a person the other day, who told me that he heard a (“protestant”) preacher on the radio and that, that ‘guy on the radio” lead him to Jesus. Paul didn’t mention anything about radios, did he?

Jesus left us His Church, so that we can learn about Him and He left us His Sacraments, which draw us, closer to Him. Please tell me where you see the problem in this?

 

[justasking4]

Originally Posted by justasking4
Luther can make mistakes just as other men have. These opinions of Luther are not grounded in Scripture for the most part and he was still heavily influenced by his roman catholic upbringing.

Tomster
Yes, Luther made quite a few mistakes as he was quite fallible. One other mistake he made, one which he regretted, was putting the Bible in the hands of the people and telling them to interpret it themselves.

Your right in one sense. It is dangerous because those that study it can then compare its teaching with what the catholic church teaches and see many differences.

 

[Jimmy_B]

Your right in one sense. It is dangerous because those that study it can then compare its teaching with what the catholic church teaches and see many differences.

There is no “danger” in that, everybody knows that Martin Luther is not a friend of the Roman Catholic Church, he was Ex-Communicated.

Many Catholics were murdered in early England and elsewhere, in part, because of the trouble Martin Luther started. Martin Luther didn’t found any religion.

Throughout history, there have been many anti-C|atholic, “would-be Martin Luthers”, who have misinterpreted the Bible, Jim Jones and David Koresh come to mind. The only difference is, Martin Luther’s false doctrine was used by King Henry the VIII to start a new religion.

This occurred when he (King Henry the VIII) could not force the Roman Catholic Church to grant him an annulment, and he was apparently growing tired of murdering his wives. He (King Henry the VIII) started the first “Protestant” religion, based on the flawed interpretations by Martin Luther, which were put into place at the end of a sword, wielded by the might of an English King and unfortunately, the rest is history.

Don’t take my word for it, research, Protestant History, or English History. Why do you think the Protestant Bible is name after an English King, King James?

Does that mean that King Henry the Eighth was the fist Protestant “Pope” and that King James was the third Protestant “Pope”? It sure looks that way, in the light of history.

Please correct if I am wrong…

 

[justasking4]

Jimmy B;3313909]
Originally Posted by justasking4
Your right in one sense. It is dangerous because those that study it can then compare its teaching with what the catholic church teaches and see many differences.

Jimmy B
There is no “danger” in that, everybody knows that Martin Luther is not a friend of the Roman Catholic Church, he was Ex-Communicated.

Many Catholics were murdered in early England and elsewhere, in part, because of the trouble Martin Luther started. Martin Luther didn’t found any religion.

No doubt many lost their lives. Many lost protestants lost their lives also at the hands of the catholic church. John Huss, a reformer was burned at the stake by the catholic church. The church that is supposedly the church that Jesus established and is led by the Holy Spirit.

Throughout history, there have been many anti-C|atholic, “would-be Martin Luthers”, who have misinterpreted the Bible, Jim Jones and David Koresh come to mind.

I agree and there are still others.

The only difference is, Martin Luther’s false doctrine was used by King Henry the VIII to start a new religion.

This occurred when he (King Henry the VIII) could not force the Roman Catholic Church to grant him an annulment, and he was apparently growing tired of murdering his wives. He (King Henry the VIII) started the first “Protestant” religion, based on the flawed interpretations by Martin Luther, which were put into place at the end of a sword, wielded by the might of an English King and unfortunately, the rest is history.

True. No doubt politics was also a part of this.

Don’t take my word for it, research, Protestant History, or English History. Why do you think the Protestant Bible is name after an English King, King James?

Does that mean that King Henry the Eighth was the fist Protestant “Pope” and that King James was the third Protestant “Pope”? It sure looks that way, in the light of history.

No popes in protestanism in the roman catholic sense.

Please correct if I am wrong… :thumbsup

: