PDA

View Full Version : The Roman Church and "Mary"



Christ_†_Alone
10-04-01, 02:49 PM
~What Does the Roman Catholic Church Teach about Mary?~

I could quote the entire Vatican II here, but for the
sake of space, I won't. I'll only quote the sections
that directly pertain to who they say Mary is, and why
they say she is our co-redeemer.

In Chapter VIII, titled Our Lady, here are some of
the 'titles' they have given to Mary, the mother of
Jesus Christ.

#52. Mother of God and of our Lord Jesus Christ
#53. the Mother of God and of the Redeemer
#54. Mother of God, mother of Christ, and mother of
humanity
#59. exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things
#61. Mother to us in the order of grace
#62. advocate, helper, benefactress and mediatrix

Chapter VIII Our Lady, teaches that Mary, by her
willingness to obey the Lord God, and supernaturally
conceive, carry, deliver and be the mother to Jesus,
is our co-redeemer. #62 goes on to say, 'by her
manifold intercession continues to procure for us the
gifts of eternal salvation'.

~Where Does This Come From?~

This teaching isn't new, and isn't exclusive to the
Roman Catholic church. In fact, it IS found in the bible,
IN PART, and it's also found in cultures and religions
all over the world.

From long before the birth of Jesus Christ, up to
modern day, cultures and religions all over the world
have had a "Mother & Child" deity/goddess. Here is just
an example of names that have been given to the SAME
goddess, in different places, at different times,
throughout history. All of these goddesses have come
from the same woman, Semiramis, Queen of Babylon.
(this is by no means a comprehensive list):

Babylon: Semiramis, Rhea, Mylitta
(Mediatrix, Queen of heaven)

Assyria: Venus, Aphrodite, Astarte, Beltis, Ishtar,
Eostre, Easter, Ashtaroth
(Mother of grace and mercy, the hope of the whole
world, the celestial Dove, the wrath subduer)

Athens: Amarusia
(Mother of the gracious acceptance)

Rome: Bona Dea, Fortuna
(the good goddess)

India: Lakshmi, Isi
(the mother of the universe)

China: Kuanyin
(goddess of mercy)

Egypt: Isis

Asia: Cybele

Greece: Ceres, Irene


~What Does the Bible Say?~

Roman Catholicism teaches that Mary, the mother of
Jesus Christ, is "Queen of Heaven", that because she
is sinless, our co-redeemer and co-mediator to God,
she ascended up to heaven and God made her Queen over
all things. If you were to get out your bible, you can
actually find several references to the queen of heaven.

Starting in Jeremiah 7:18, we find God speaking to
Jeremiah. God's mad, REALLY mad. He says to Jeremiah
"the children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the
fire, and the women knead their dough, to make cakes
to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings
unto other gods, that they may provoke me to anger".

So there she is, this queen of heaven. Then begins a
series of Bible references, that feels like a wonderful
adventure through history. By reading each reference, we
follow the trail of idolatry:

2Kings 17:16, Deut. 4:19, 1Kings 16:31, 22:53, Judges 2:11, Judges 3:7, 11, 12, 13, Judges 10:6 and 1Samuel 7:3,4.

Where we end up, is finding out that the
'queen of heaven' is no other than Ashtaroth, false
goddess, whom was quite popular among the pagan world.

So... if Ashtaroth is queen of heaven, and she's
actually the same goddess as Semiramis, and she's also
called queen of heaven, then Mary (Mother of Jesus)
certianly can't be queen of heaven, can she?

~The Truth From His Word~

The truth is, Mary is NOT our co-redeemer, any more
than she is the queen of heaven, or our advocate with
the Father, or our mediator. Scripture says we have
ONE mediator between us and the Father, and that one
mediator, is Christ Jesus, alone. No amount of wishful
thinking by the Roman Catholic church, is going to make
Mary anyone's co-redeemer.


Christ Jesus was THE only lamb of God, Christ Jesus was
the one arrested on false charges, humiliated, beaten
beyond recognition, and put on trial. Christ Jesus was
the one sentenced to death, and Christ Jesus was the one
who hung on the cross at Calvary. He was the ONE who
died, and rose again, and ascended up to the Father and
sits at the right hand of majesty, NOT His mother.

It is my solemn prayer that the truth I share here, would
touch your heart, and motivate you to seek out the truth
in God's word for yourselves.

Fledge
10-04-01, 03:59 PM
Good Post!
I liked it and agree.

Mary, blessed and special and chosen as she was...was just a human. Imperfect, sinful, and in just as much need of a savior as we are today.

Christ_†_Alone
10-04-01, 06:42 PM
Hi Fledge,

you're right, all humans have sinned, including Mary.

HIS
10-04-01, 07:40 PM
I agree with both of you...

My question would be: IF this is so, just how far is the RC Church from God's Word?

Only on this issue? Only on a few issues? Significantly off on some, many, or all?

Just curious as to what your opinions are...

HIS

HIS
10-04-01, 08:15 PM
Let me re-phrase:

My question would be: IF their beliefs on Mary are so far from the truth that is in the Scripture, just how far might the rest of their beliefs be from God's Word?

Is their error only on this issue? Only on a few issues, but none dealing with Theology or Salvation? Significantly off on some, many, or all?


HIS

Brandan
10-04-01, 08:44 PM
Catholicism errs on many doctrines. "Sainthood", purgatory, mass, transubstantiation during communion, the popehood / priesthood, venial / mortal sins, confession, works based soteriology, etc...

Christ_†_Alone
10-04-01, 09:08 PM
I'm in agreement with kermie there...

I'm no RC scholar, but I do and have had access to their own church writings, and when I've studied them, compared to Scripture, all kinds of things just don't line up.

Christ_†_Alone
10-04-01, 09:54 PM
"Only God Himself truly knows and I believe many will find in Paradise a goodly number of Catholics and a lot fewer "baptists" or "pentecostals" or "non-denominationals" etc. than they think."

This was a statement I recently read, by a man who is a professor of Theology.

This is the kind of thing that should concern every single Bible believing Christian, with a burden to share the gospel, preach the truth, and see the lost brought to Christ. This lends to the impression that we are battling against our OWN brothers and sisters, in an effort to preach the gospel.

People (like this man quoted) who are in positions of authority, especially in areas of doctrine or theology, have great influence over the people who look up to them.

While I would never say, that a Catholic cannot or will not go to Heaven (because God calls His people out of all kinds of places, every day), I can say with full assurance from the Scriptures, that the teachings of the Roman Catholic church are heretical, deny and contradict the Scriptures in numerous places, and do indeed fall into the "cult" category.

Most Christians do not understand or agree that the teachings of Rome are indeed cult teachings, because they do not know what Rome teaches. Most Christians have never obtained a copy of the Roman Catholic Catechism, and studied it along side the Holy Bible, to find out, what Rome really believes, and teaches. If they did, they would have a greater understanding of why the Reformation happened in the first place, and where the church they most likely attend, actually came from.

Most mainline Protestant churches were founded on the Word of God, BY those men who stood against Rome's false doctrines, and declared the Scriptures ALONE, as the final authority, not Rome. And here we are, a few hundred years later, running back to Rome, calling them brothers and sisters in the Lord, and forsaking sound doctrine, for unity and fellowship??

Any time a believer stands against Rome's teachings, they are instantly labelled a Catholic-basher. Odd, but when a Christian stands against the Mormon teachings, they're not labelled a Mormon-basher, or JW teachings, a JW-basher. Yet Rome seems to be exempt in the mind's eye... somehow untouchable.

I would encourage you to share here your insight into the teachings of Rome, that anyone reading might come to a better understanding of WHY they do indeed, fall into the category of cult, and are far from Biblical Christianity. I have a list a mile long, and will share these things as time permits.

HIS
10-04-01, 10:51 PM
I'm confused by your statements CA:


While I would never say, that a Catholic cannot or will not go to Heaven (because God calls His people out of all kinds of places, every day), I can say with full assurance from the Scriptures, that the teachings of the Roman Catholic church are heretical, deny and contradict the Scriptures in numerous places, and do indeed fall into the "cult" category.
[/B]


If one adheres to the Roman Catholic teachings which you say are, "heretical, deny and contradict the Scriptures in numerous places, and do indeed fall into the cult category," then how can you say or suggest that they have any change of going to Heaven?

Do all roads of belief lead to Heaven?

I am certain that Jesus only talked about one door(way) into Heaven.

There is also the Scripture that says, "One Lord, one faith, and one baptism."

It would seem reasonable to me that the Scripture suggests we are either following God's plan or a man made plan.

Kermie listed a number of other teachings from the RC Church that he says, "don't line up."

Again, if they are this far off in all of these areas, how is it that anyone can assume God is giving "revelation" of who He is and His plan of salvation to the leadership of this church?

Are the followers of this faith being "perfected" by these teachings?

I ask in all humbleness and sincerity...


HIS

Fledge
10-04-01, 10:56 PM
I think the point being made was not that Catholics are doomed to hell...case closed.
God can, and does send the Truth to all kinds, all beliefs. A catholic (anybody for that matter), even amid the false teachings and heresy can find the Truth, and receive it and be saved...truly saved.

Of course, if they persist in believing the falsehoods, and proclaim them to be true, even when they know better (or especially when they know better) ya got to wonder about their salvation. Again, however...it isn't our place to judge they hearts and souls...but we can sure learn a lot by their beliefs, and we are called to judge beliefs and actions.

Andrew
10-04-01, 11:02 PM
Well His,

There are people who call themselves RCs who put their faith in Christ alone and dont buy all the other stuff the RCs teach. My ex-neighbour is one such person. Why doesnt he switch to another church? He has his own reasons, constraints as well as excuses.

At the end of the day, God just looks into you for the Blood. If its there you enter. if not too bad. He doesnt care what denomination you are from.

God bless.

HIS
10-04-01, 11:35 PM
Andrew & Fledge,

Thank you both for your postings. I certainly understand what you are trying to say to me.

I think anytime you make an effort to "earnestly contend for the truth," it can be perceived by some as judging. There might be political correctness in the world, but I don't believe this should creep into the Church. We must hold fast to the doctrine and teachings which were once (and for all) delivered unto the (original) saints.

When you love someone, you make the effort to show them the error of their ways that they are clearly following. If we don't, who will?

So, it is better to "pull someone out of the fires," then to leave them there burning...

I hope you understand these comments...They are not meant to condemn anyone or suggest that they do not truly love God and/or His ways.


HIS

Andrew
10-05-01, 12:06 AM
Yes sure no problemo.

as for my ex-neighbour, I've spoken to him many times about this. I've told him what's wrong with the RC, tested his faith, asked him how he knows if he's saved, told him about salvation by grace thru faith alone in Christ Jesus, told him to chuck Mary aside, explained to him about the coming rapture etc. In fact, 90% of what he knows abt God/Christianity comes from chats with me and my brother (who has prob told him the same).

He accepts all this but still does not consider making a switch cos i think he's "drowning" in his business half the time (in the rat race*LOL) and his wife is Catholic, and mum a real staunch one, so he has some constraints.

I'll continue to bombard him with the facts (in love and patience) but ultimately he being the spiritual head of his own family has to make the decision himself.

That said, I believe this "RC" is saved.

Christ_†_Alone
10-05-01, 02:14 PM
If one adheres to the Roman Catholic teachings which you say are, "heretical, deny and contradict the Scriptures in numerous places, and do indeed fall into the cult category," then how can you say or suggest that they have any change of going to Heaven?


those who hold to false teachings are bought to the truth in the same way those who hold to NO teachings, are: by the Holy Spirit.

God knows where His sheep are, and He calls them out, no matter where they are.

HIS
10-05-01, 06:46 PM
Andrew...Thanks for your reply. My prayer is that you are able to continue to be good friends with your neighbor and that God will continue to work through you to lead him into a more perfect understanding of the truth.

**************


Originally posted by Christ_†_Alone
God knows where His sheep are, and He calls them out, no matter where they are.

This quote above is perfectly fine with me, however, the key phrase is "he calls them out."

As long as those who he calls out hear His voice and come out.

God bless...

HIS

Christ_†_Alone
10-05-01, 08:00 PM
* John 5:25 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.

* John 10:4 And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice.

* John 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me

* Matthew 17:5 While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.


If God has called a man, he hears, there is no mistake about it.

HIS
10-05-01, 08:11 PM
CA,

Just curious...

These "sheep" referred to in your referrences above....These represent saved or unsaved people?

Christ_†_Alone
10-05-01, 09:05 PM
His sheep, are the elect.

If we are not saved, yet, but of the elect, we will hear His call and respond. All present Christians have done this very thing. All believers who have lived and died before us, have also done this very thing.

If we are saved, and striving to serve Him, yet plagued by false teachings, He will guide us out of that as well.

Parousia70
10-06-01, 10:14 AM
Hi all,

20 years ago, I became a Dispensationalist Christian
15 years ago, I quit Christianity and Followed the Grateful Dead
6 years ago, Jerry Garcia died so I looked back into Christianity
4 years ago, I married a Catholic
3 years ago, I converted to Catholicism
2 years ago, I became a Preterist

Today, I stil attend Catholic Mass regularly and am involved in several multi-denominational study groups.

Although I do not agree with everything the Catholic Church Teaches (just like most american Catholics) I do believe God is present in the Catholic Church ( maybe thats just the preterist in me) :D

Strangely enough, much I what I THOUGHT the Catholic Church taught I found out isn't taught at all, at least was never taught to me by any official in the Church. In fact I was suprised to find out just how similar Catholicism is to the rest of Christianity in many aspects.

I'd be happy to elaborate on any particular topic as to my view...
ie: Saints, Mary, Communion, etc......

Humbly in Christ ALONE!,
Peter

Kathleen
10-11-01, 04:25 PM
Hi Peter,

I have a question for you if you don't mind!

I little while back the parents of my significant other were pressuring me to convert to catholicism. It's a long story but let's just say I didn't get sucked into their ultimatum!!
You know the prayers that are said when a catholic person passes? What is all of that about? There is alot there that I don't understand regarding these prayers for the dead. And these catholic people (in my life) can't seem to answer any of my questions.

:confused:

Any info? Thanks & God Bless You!:)

Christ_†_Alone
10-11-01, 10:52 PM
Prayers for the Dead

This subject will be treated under the following three heads:

I. General Statement and Proof of Catholic Doctrine;

II. Questions of Detail;

III. Practice in the British and Irish Churches.

I. GENERAL STATEMENT AND PROOF

Catholic teaching regarding prayers for the dead is bound up inseparably with the doctrine of purgatory and the more general doctrine of the communion of the saints, which is an article of the Apostle's Creed.

The definition of the Council of Trent (Sess. XXV), "that purgatory exists, and that the souls detained therein are helped by the suffrages of the faithful, but especially by the acceptable sacrifice of the altar", is merely a restatement in brief of the traditional teaching which had already been embodied in more than one authoritative formula -- as in the creed prescribed for converted Waldenses by Innocent III in 1210 (Denzinger, Enchiridion, n. 3 73) and more fully in the profession of faith accepted for the Greeks by Michael Palaeologus at the Second Ecumenical Council of Florence in 1439: "[We define] likewise, that if the truly penitent die in the love of God, before they have made satisfaction by worthy fruits of penance for their sins of commission and omission, their souls are purified by purgatorial pains after death; and that for relief from these pains they are benefitted by the suffrages of the faithful in this life, that is, by Masses, prayers, and almsgiving, and by the other offices of piety usually performed by the faithful for one another according to the practice [instituta] of the Church" (ibid., n. 588). Hence, under "suffrages" for the dead, which are defined to be legitimate and efficacious, are included not only formal supplications, but every kind of pious work that may be offered for the spiritual benefit of others, and it is in this comprehensive sense that we speak of prayers in the present article. As is clear from this general statement, the Church does not recognize the limitation upon which even modern Protestants often insist, that prayers for the dead, while legitimate and commendable as a private practice, are to be excluded from her public offices. The most efficacious of all prayers, in Catholic teaching, is the essentially public office, the Sacrifice of the Mass.

(this LONG article in it’s full context is found here: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04653a.htm)

macdaddyof7
10-12-01, 06:27 AM
Does any one have any idea what the early church, 1'st 2'nd or 3'rd century, had to say about Mary. from what I've read it was very similar to what the RCC ( Roman Catholic Church) teaches. I was wondering if any one had a referance in the early Church writings agenst any of the doctrines of Traditions developing about Mary.

It would help me greatly with a conflict of Faith I'm having.

Thanks

Kathleen
10-12-01, 10:06 AM
YAY..more reading for me!
Thanks CA:)

God Bless!

jhamrick
10-12-01, 10:41 AM
in response to MAcdaddy:

From what I know, and someone more versed feel free to correct me, Catholicism didn't begin until the reign of Constantine, when Christianity was made legal, but it was under compromising conditions. The Christians were to worship in the temples of Dianna. Of course, all of the church did not adhere to this, and those that did took on some of the worship practices of the Roman gods, including transferring the Dianna worship over to Mary.

This is loosely referenced from the book THe Two Babylons. It has been so long, I don't even remember the author.

Christ_†_Alone
10-13-01, 09:19 AM
Does any one have any idea what the early church, 1'st 2'nd or 3'rd century, had to say about Mary. from what I've read it was very similar to what the RCC ( Roman Catholic Church) teaches. I was wondering if any one had a referance in the early Church writings agenst any of the doctrines of Traditions developing about Mary.

Depending on who you talk to, or who you read, will determine what information you come away with as fact (obviously). A pro-Rome opinion will tell you Mariology has been with the church since the beginning, while a staunch reformer will tell you it's been around since BEFORE the Christian church, but back in those times it was Semiramis worship, or Diana, or whichever goddess cult was popular in certain cultures of the day - and was just adopted into the Roman church, and Mary replaced the false goddesses.

The fact is, the modern adoration of Mary, has been a progressive movement within the Roman church. With each passing century, she has become more and more worshipped and adored, venerated or idolized (however you want to phrase it.)

If you read the NT, you will notice an astounding SILENCE on Mary. This is should be quite striking to anyone, who wonders how she was thought of, by the earliest NT church fathers. If she were a person to be exalted as she is now, in the Roman church, surely someone in the NT would have had that revealed to them. Yet all the writings, wisdom, information, and importance of Mary, are found OUTSIDE the Holy Scriptures.

This also, should be a red flag to anyone truly seeking the truth on this issue. The moment anyone steps outside of the bounds of Scripture, when searching for truths of this stature, they've made their first wrong move.

While there are probably hundreds of thousands of books, articles, letters, and other things written on the issue, we have to ask ourselves "what saith the Scriptures?"

Eusebius, Tertullian, Justin Martyr, Clement, Augustine, are just SOME of the authors of some of the early writings, around since the beginning of the NT church. But what you'll find when you read these guys, is a STRIKING lack of "Mary exaltation". The early church did NOT exalt her, the way the modern Roman church does.

I hope this has been of some help to you.

macdaddyof7
10-18-01, 07:06 PM
Thank you for the names of early Christian writers. Unfortunately this has not helped me prove that the early Christians were against the heresies developing about Mary. I’m not trying to go outside the Bible for articles of Faith. I’m trying to prove a historical fact. I’m sure there must be some writings condemning the Mary worship. I could find thousands written in the past 100 years. I would like to find one written before 1500 AD.
Here is a sample of what I have found.

The Odes of Solomon
"So the Virgin became a mother with great mercies. And she labored and bore the Son, but without pain, because it did not occur without purpose. And she did not seek a midwife, because he caused her to give life. She bore as a strong man, with will . . . " (Odes of Solomon 19 [A.D. 80]).

Justin Martyr
"[Jesus] became man by the Virgin so that the course which was taken by disobedience in the beginning through the agency of the serpent might be also the very course by which it would be put down. Eve, a virgin and undefiled, conceived the word of the serpent and bore disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary received faith and joy when the angel Gabriel announced to her the glad tidings that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her and the power of the Most High would overshadow her, for which reason the Holy One being born of her is the Son of God. And she replied `Be it done unto me according to your word' [Luke 1:38]" (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew 100 [A.D. 155]).

Irenaeus of Lyons
"Consequently, then, Mary the Virgin is found to be obedient, saying, `Behold, O Lord, your handmaid; be it done to me according to your word.' Eve, however, was disobedient, and, when yet a virgin, she did not obey. Just as she, who was then still a virgin although she had Adam for a husband--for in paradise they were both naked but were not ashamed; for, having been created only a short time, they had no understanding of the procreation of children, and it was necessary that they first come to maturity before beginning to multiply--having become disobedient, was made the cause of death for herself and for the whole human race; so also Mary, betrothed to a man but nevertheless still a virgin, being obedient, was made the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race.. Thus, the knot of Eve's disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. What the virgin Eve had bound in unbelief, the Virgin Mary loosed through faith" (Against Heresies 3:22:24 [A.D. 189]).

Tertullian
"And again, lest I depart from my argumentation on the name of Adam: Why is Christ called Adam by the apostle, if as man he was not of that earthly origin? But even reason defends this conclusion, that God recovered his image and likeness by a procedure similar to that in which he had been robbed of it by the devil. It was while Eve was still a virgin that the word of the devil crept in to erect an edifice of death. Likewise through a Virgin the Word of God was introduced to set up a structure of life. Thus what had been laid waste in ruin by this sex was by the same sex re-established in salvation. Eve had believed the serpent; Mary believed Gabriel. That which the one destroyed by believing, the other, by believing, set straight" (The Flesh of Christ 17:4 [A.D. 210].

Any specific articles against any of this would be greatly appreciated.

matman
10-18-01, 09:15 PM
Originally posted by Parousia70

Strangely enough, much I what I THOUGHT the Catholic Church taught I found out isn't taught at all, at least was never taught to me by any official in the Church. In fact I was suprised to find out just how similar Catholicism is to the rest of Christianity in many aspects.

I'd be happy to elaborate on any particular topic as to my view...
ie: Saints, Mary, Communion, etc......

Humbly in Christ ALONE!,
Peter

Peter,

First, I am in no way questioning your salvation. I have no right, and that is none of my business.

With that clear, I just have a few things I wanted to throw out...

You said "Strangely enough, much of what I THOUGHT the Catholic Church taught I found out isn't taught at all...never taught to my by any official in the Church..."

So what I understand from that is it doesn't matter what the "church" as a whole believes, it matters what is taught in a specific church? I ate lunch with my pastor today, who was for 25 years Catholic, but for the last 25+ has been a Bible believing Christian. He will be the first to say there is a huge difference.

Example of what I'm trying to say: The Mormon doctrine states that Adam is God. But do they "teach" this in church? No. They wait until you get deep into the church. Their doctrine states that Jesus is the Spirit brother of Satan, but do they "teach" this in church? Not likely.

Much of the core doctrine of a church isn't "learned" or taught until you are deep into it.

I heard someone the other day say "If the Pope isn't going to heaven, the Godly man he is, there's no hope for any of us."

Well, excuse me but my salvation has nothing to do with the Popes. I understand what my friend was saying, but when you start to sift through the core of Roman Catholocism, it starts to look less like Christianity and more like pseudo-Christianity.

Again, I hope not to offend anyone. I am still learning but would be willing to back everything I ever say on here with information everyone can check.

Thanks,
Matt

Christ_†_Alone
10-18-01, 09:40 PM
Hi Matt, (wow, kermie just changed the colors as I'm typing this, lol).

you said:

So what I understand from that is it doesn't matter what the "church" as a whole believes, it matters what is taught in a specific church?

You know, I have had so many Roman Catholics say this very thing to me.

Yet, when I question them on what the Roman Catholic Catechism says, and if they believe it, or their church teaches it, never once yet, have any of them said NO.

Most RC members emphatically deny that they pray to Mary, yet if I quote what the RCC teaches, and ask if this is true in their church, they say "well yes, but that's not what you think it means, we just ask her to pray for us" (which is exactly what it says, and exactly contradictory to Scripture).

For example: (this is long, but read it carefully)

In communion with the holy Mother of God
(full context is here: http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/pray3.html#WAY)

2673 In prayer the Holy Spirit unites us to the person of the only Son, in his glorified humanity, through which and in which our filial prayer unites us in the Church with the Mother of Jesus.[27]

2674 Mary gave her consent in faith at the Annunciation and maintained it without hesitation at the foot of the Cross. Ever since, her motherhood has extended to the brothers and sisters of her Son "who still journey on earth surrounded by dangers and difficulties."[28] Jesus, the only mediator, is the way of our prayer; Mary, his mother and ours, is wholly transparent to him: she "shows the way" (hodigitria), and is herself "the Sign" of the way, according to the traditional iconography of East and West.

2675 Beginning with Mary's unique cooperation with the working of the Holy Spirit, the Churches developed their prayer to the holy Mother of God, centering it on the person of Christ manifested in his mysteries. In countless hymns and antiphons expressing this prayer, two movements usually alternate with one another: the first "magnifies" the Lord for the "great things" he did for his lowly servant and through her for all human beings[29] the second entrusts the supplications and praises of the children of God to the Mother of Jesus, because she now knows the humanity which, in her, the Son of God espoused.

2676 This twofold movement of prayer to Mary has found a privileged expression in the Ave Maria:
Hail Mary [or Rejoice, Mary]: the greeting of the angel Gabriel opens this prayer. It is God himself who, through his angel as intermediary, greets Mary. Our prayer dares to take up this greeting to Mary with the regard God had for the lowliness of his humble servant and to exult in the joy he finds in her.[30]
Full of grace, the Lord is with thee: These two phrases of the angel's greeting shed light on one another. Mary is full of grace because the Lord is with her. The grace with which she is filled is the presence of him who is the source of all grace. "Rejoice . . . O Daughter of Jerusalem . . . the Lord your God is in your midst."[31] Mary, in whom the Lord himself has just made his dwelling, is the daughter of Zion in person, the ark of the covenant, the place where the glory of the Lord dwells. She is "the dwelling of God . . . with men."[32] Full of grace, Mary is wholly given over to him who has come to dwell in her and whom she is about to give to the world.
Blessed art thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. After the angel's greeting, we make Elizabeth's greeting our own. "Filled with the Holy Spirit," Elizabeth is the first in the long succession of generations who have called Mary "blessed."[33] "Blessed is she who believed...."[34] Mary is "blessed among women" because she believed in the fulfillment of the Lord's word. Abraham. because of his faith, became a blessing for all the nations of the earth.[35] Mary, because of her faith, became the mother of believers, through whom all nations of the earth receive him who is God's own blessing: Jesus, the "fruit of thy womb."

2677 Holy Mary, Mother of God: With Elizabeth we marvel, "And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?"[36] Because she gives us Jesus, her son, Mary is Mother of God and our mother; we can entrust all our cares and petitions to her: she prays for us as she prayed for herself: "Let it be to me according to your word."[37] By entrusting ourselves to her prayer, we abandon ourselves to the will of God together with her: "Thy will be done."
Pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death: By asking Mary to pray for us, we acknowledge ourselves to be poor sinners and we address ourselves to the "Mother of Mercy," the All-Holy One. We give ourselves over to her now, in the Today of our lives. And our trust broadens further, already at the present moment, to surrender "the hour of our death" wholly to her care. May she be there as she was at her son's death on the cross. May she welcome us as our mother at the hour of our passing[38] to lead us to her son, Jesus, in paradise.

2678 Medieval piety in the West developed the prayer of the rosary as a popular substitute for the Liturgy of the Hours. In the East, the litany called the Akathistos and the Paraclesis remained closer to the choral office in the Byzantine churches, while the Armenian, Coptic, and Syriac traditions preferred popular hymns and songs to the Mother of God. But in the Ave Maria, the theotokia, the hymns of St. Ephrem or St. Gregory of Narek, the tradition of prayer is basically the same.

2679 Mary is the perfect Orans (pray-er), a figure of the Church. When we pray to her, we are adhering with her to the plan of the Father, who sends his Son to save all men. Like the beloved disciple we welcome Jesus' mother into our homes,[39] for she has become the mother of all the living. We can pray with and to her. The prayer of the Church is sustained by the prayer of Mary and united with it in hope.[40]

IN BRIEF
2680 Prayer is primarily addressed to the Father; it can also be directed toward Jesus, particularly by the invocation of his holy name: "Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on us sinners."

2681 "No one can say 'Jesus is Lord', except by the Holy Spirit" (1 Cor 12:3). The Church invites us to invoke the Holy Spirit as the interior Teacher of Christian prayer.

2682 Because of Mary's singular cooperation with the action of the Holy Spirit, the Church loves to pray in communion with the Virgin Mary, to magnify with her the great things the Lord has done for her, and to entrust supplications and praises to her.
_______

Christ_†_Alone
10-18-01, 09:43 PM
And the point of posting that was...

Many Catholics say they do NOT pray to Mary, then turn right around and say they ask HER to pray FOR them, and if you ask them if that article I posted is what their church teaches and believes, they say YES, but tell you that YOU don't understand it, and that they do not worship Mary, or think she is deity in any way, she just helps them, by interceding with her Son.


Now... you tell me, does that sound like alot of double-speak, or what?

Word Walker
10-25-01, 04:41 PM
Anyone interested in learning a history of the differences between Catholic and Protestant Churches should check out this site.


http://www.victorious.org/chur40.htm

______________Here's a small example of some of this article:

The Christian creed adopted at the Council of Nicaea in 325 (called for and presided over by Constantine) was theologically encouraging, but it was also in this era that the church first accepted such unscriptural ideas as praying for the dead, the veneration of angels and dead saints, the use of images, and the celebration of daily mass. This regression from scripture continued through the Council of Ephesus in 431 A.D., where the worship of Mary became an official doctrine of the church, referring to her as the "Mother of God." And only nine years later in 440, Leo, bishop of Rome was the first to declare himself the successor of St. Peter and laid claim to the role of Universal Bishop, a forerunner of papal authority. While this was widely disputed, Leo commanded that all should obey him on the false notion that he held the primacy of St. Peter.


Later, Leo's successor, Gregory I, was given the title of universal "Pope" (Latin "papas" or father) by the wicked emperor Phocas in 604. He refused the title, however his successor, Boniface III, did accept it and became the first in a long line of successors to be recognized as Pope. Under the new papal authority in the seventh century, many more new beliefs were added to the church, such as the unbiblical doctrine of purgatory (593), the required use of Latin in prayer and worship (600), and prayers said to Mary, dead saints and angels (600).

<And......>

As the Roman Catholic Church continued with new independence, it added even more remarkable doctrines that were not taken from the Bible. In 1079, Pope Gregory VII declared the shocking decree of celibacy for the priesthood. Peter the Hermit invented the technique of praying with rosary beads in 1090. A few of the other beliefs and practices authorized by the church were: The inquisition of alleged heretics (1184), the sale of indulgences (1190), the doctrine of transubstantiation (1215), auricular confession of sins to a priest instead of to God (1215), adoration of the wafer (1220), the forbidding of Bible reading by laity (1229), the scapular (1251), the forbidding of sharing the communion cup with laity (1414), the establishment of purgatory as an irrefutable dogma (1439), and the composition of the "Ave Maria" (1508).

<The Differences between the Two......>

Luther's ambitions of reformation emerged from his lifelong search for spiritual conclusions in his personal life. After many years of studying the scriptures, he came to reject all theology based only on tradition and embraced the idea of a personal relationship with Jesus Christ through faith. He believed that all our actions stem from God and that He chose to forgive the sinner by His sovereign grace — that we are justified not by our deeds, but by faith alone. In 1520, Luther wrote a treatise to Pope Leo X, called "The Freedom of A Christian," which outlined the conclusions of his study of scripture. In it, he made this famous statement: "The word of God cannot be received and cherished by any works whatever, but only by faith. Therefore it is clear that as the soul needs only the Word of God for its life and righteousness, so it is justified by faith alone and not by works; for if it could be justified by anything else, it would not need the Word and consequently, it would not need faith."

<Etc......>

_________________


Anyone interested should check out the link at the top of this message, as these were just portions of the essay....

Peter
10-30-01, 03:58 PM
I've read the responses here with some ammusement. All the discussion seems to be focused on Rome and the West. What's missing here is the fact that Rome pulled away from the Church slowly over time until the final insult in 1204 when she attacked Constantinople.

The person who has read the Church fathers is right on target. The church has held to certain views about Mary from the beginning. The RCC continued to "improve" on these doctrines while the Church left well enough alone. The Church has held from the beginning that Mary was ever virgin. She was given the title of Theotokos as a means of explaining that Jesus was fully man AND God. In no way does the Church believe Mary was the originator of the God-head, merely she gave birth to God in human form.

Lastly, it's interesting to read how the Church was "unbiblical" in the 4th century when the New Testament hadn't even been agreed upon yet! Remember, it was the Church without error that assembled the present scriptures during the 4-6th centuries.
The Church was not founded on the Bible, the Church gave birth to the Bible. The Church was founded on the teachings of Christ and the leadership of the Holy Spirit. At no time has the living Head of the Church (Christ) stopped being that.

Cephas
10-31-01, 09:16 AM
Hello CA,

This is a great web site. Many interesting things to read.
I would like to make a comment about your following statement.

The truth is, Mary is NOT our co-redeemer, any more
than she is the queen of heaven, or our advocate with
the Father, or our mediator. Scripture says we have
ONE mediator between us and the Father, and that one
mediator, is Christ Jesus, alone. No amount of wishful
thinking by the Roman Catholic church, is going to make
Mary anyone's co-redeemer.

It seems you don't have the Catholic understanding of co-redeemer. Co meaning with and not equal to. Co refers to her cooperation with and under her divine son Jesus Christ. If we read 1 Cor. 3:9,

"For we are God's co-workers..."

This doe not mean we are equal to God but that his work is also done by us. So, in that sense, we are all co-redeemers.

Yes, there is only one mediator but we are also to pray for each other. In 1 Tim 2:1-4,

"First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all men, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life, godly and respectful in every way. This is good, and it is acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth"

So the fact that Jesus is the one Mediator between God and man does not prevent other people from acting as intercessors. And we know intercessory prayer certainly does not displease God, for in the same passage we just cited, Paul tells us: "This is good, and it is acceptable in the sight of God our Savior."

So, I wouldn't say this is wishful thinking. There certianly is scripture to back it up.

Peace

jhamrick
10-31-01, 10:49 AM
C,
The scripture you posted said nothing about intercession from any dead person.

Also, if "co" doesn't mean equal, it still implies that Mary has a part, no matter how small, in our redemption, which is still completely unbiblical.

If there is scriptural back-up, please post it, but I hope it is more specific than the verses you gave.

blackhaw
10-31-01, 10:49 AM
Cephas:

Your post was very intersting. I think many do not understand Catholic doctrine very well. that is why I have to ask you these questions about Mary being a co-redeemer. You cited many passages that state we work with God but are not equal with God. Okay. But we do not share in the redeeming work with Jesus. I do not see that found anywhere in scripture. I also do not see where Mary is cited as helping with the redeeming work with Jesus. Can you give verses as to such? Now if she is just a worker like us with God then why give her a title of co-redeemer? Also I know people can act as intercessors but can dead people do that? Is there scripture to support this? I have never seen it but if there is some I would like to know about it.

Cephas
10-31-01, 12:05 PM
jhamrick and blackhawk,

Also, if "co" doesn't mean equal, it still implies that Mary has a part, no matter how small, in our redemption, which is still completely unbiblical.

Well, didn't she give birth to Jesus? I wouldn't say that is unbiblical.

Don't be offended. The Catholic knows full well that Christ died on the cross and no one else. But, we are his co-workers in bringing people to Christ so that they might be redeemed. So, through the grace of God, we took part in that persons redemption.

Intercesion of any dead person?
The Catholic does not look at the Saints as dead. They are alive in Heaven. Here are a few scriptures, albeit, not conclusive.

Praise the Lord! Praise the Lord from the heavens, praise him in the heights! Praise him, all his angels, praise him, all his host!" (Ps. 148:1-2)

In Revelation, John sees that "the twenty-four elders [the leaders of the people of God in heaven] fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and with golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints" (Rev. 5:8).

"[An] angel came and stood at the altar [in heaven] with a golden censer; and he was given much incense to mingle with the prayers of all the saints upon the golden altar before the throne; and the smoke of the incense rose with the prayers of the saints from the hand of the angel before God" (Rev. 8:3-4).

"[t]he prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects" (Jas. 5:16). Saints are considered righteous so from this verse we can see that all prays are not created equally.

I could also appeal to the early Church Fathers but I don't know how much weight that will hold in this forum. Anyway, I hope this gives you somewhat of an understanding of Catholic theology. You might not accept it but it is not as off the wall as some would claim it to be.

Peace

Brandan
10-31-01, 12:15 PM
Originally posted by Cephas
The Catholic does not look at the Saints as dead. They are alive in Heaven.
Or purgatory.... Is that why the Catholics "pray for the dead?" Or are they alive? Or wait, what defines "sainthood" in Catholicism? These terms need to be defined....

P.S. Welcome to the forums Cephas! :D

blackhaw
10-31-01, 12:23 PM
Cephas:

So are you saing that the Catholic church believes we are all Co-redeemers with God? I thought it was Mary only that held that title.

Cephas
10-31-01, 12:32 PM
Hello Kermie,

Thanks for the welcome!

Your right! These terms do need defined. But, forgive me, these terms are easily found on the internet at any good Catholic website. I really wanted to address the co-redemptive part of Mary and that it is not as it might seem to be on the surface. I hope I have done that with the little knowledge I have.

Peace

Brandan
11-01-01, 08:31 AM
I just added a Poll to this thread.... "Is the Roman Catholic Church a Cult?" -- Go ahead and vote...

jhamrick
11-01-01, 11:03 AM
I voted yes in the poll, but after a little thought, I'm not sure if it is a cult, or a false religion. Is there a difference?

Word Walker
11-01-01, 11:07 AM
I do not believe that the Catholic Church is a cult but it has become misguided over the years and needs to return to it true origins. Sometimes I look at the catholic church as being similar to the pharisees that Jesus rebuked for their ritualistic nature which did not truly reflect the will of God.


A good article on the differences between the Protestant and Catholic churches can be found at: http://www.victorious.org/chur40.htm

The following is a short excerpt from this article.
_________________________________________________

Catholic comes from the Greek, KATHOLIKOS, which means "throughout the whole, or universal," and was used as a general reference to the entire Christian church until the reformation period. However, as early as the fourth century, the Catholic church began adopting traditions and beliefs which were never a part of original Christianity as seen in the New Testament. It appears that many of these new ideas first emerged from the era of the Roman Emperor, Constantine who ruled from 313 to 337 A.D.


In contrast to his predecessor, Diocletian, who had vowed to destroy Christianity in 303, Constantine claimed a conversion to Christianity and virtually instituted it as the empire's religion by his Edict of Milan in 313 A.D. This proclamation of religious freedom brought about many positive changes for the church, and was certainly a much welcomed turnabout from the years of brutal persecution. But instead of converting completely from the old practices of paganism, this and the new Christian religion were somewhat mingled together. Since an Emperor was viewed as a god by pagan standards, and he already held the lifelong position of "Pontifex Maximus," chief priest of the pagan state religion, Constantine felt it only proper that he should also claim a high position of leadership in the church — he also authorized many of his secular officials as church leaders. This merger of a pagan, Christian and political hierarchy, produced a diluted spiritual leadership for the church, and its beliefs and doctrines thereafter became increasingly infected with a strange combination of traditions and pagan beliefs.


The Christian creed adopted at the Council of Nicaea in 325 (called for and presided over by Constantine) was theologically encouraging, but it was also in this era that the church first accepted such unscriptural ideas as praying for the dead, the veneration of angels and dead saints, the use of images, and the celebration of daily mass. This regression from scripture continued through the Council of Ephesus in 431 A.D., where the worship of Mary became an official doctrine of the church, referring to her as the "Mother of God." And only nine years later in 440, Leo, bishop of Rome was the first to declare himself the successor of St. Peter and laid claim to the role of Universal Bishop, a forerunner of papal authority. While this was widely disputed, Leo commanded that all should obey him on the false notion that he held the primacy of St. Peter.

________________________________________________

blackhaw
11-01-01, 11:13 AM
I voted no. I think the word cult is being thrown around here a little too loosely. Even if you believe the RCC has really gone the way of Satan instead of Christ I think cult is the wrong word. I think that false religion would be better. With that said however I am not in the opinion that the RCC is a false religion. I do not believe everything that they do but I think that false religion is way too strong. I think that the RCC is a Christian denomination like Methodists or Baptists. They just hold views that are farther away than Baptists are. Now I really do not want to debate this becasue it is not a strong held belief of mine but I will listen to anyone who thinks it is or is not a false religion and probably asks questions.

Peter
11-01-01, 12:23 PM
Where does one begin. First, please be very careful of any information found on the internet. Any fruitcake with a computer can post information. Always check sources and verify. (Test every wind of doctrine) Never quote just one source. (In the presence of two witnesses is a thing established.)

Read the fathers of the first three centuries and you will see for yourself that "mass", as it has been called, was practiced long before the 4th century, the practice of praying for and to the triumphant saints goes to at least the 2nd century and the formation of the offices of bishops is in the mid 1st century (Linus, whom Paul mentions, was the first bishop of Rome). Liturgical worship has always been the practice of Christianity. This is mentioned in Acts. Acts chp 3 finds Peter and John in the temple during the ninth hour prayers. Acts 13 mentions that those gathered were in a fast and were liturgizing. Prior to the legalization of Christianity in the 4th century, the Church often went to the Catacombs to worship. These services included the taking of the Holy eucharist and prayers for the departed.
There is even a tomb in the catacombs inscribed with "Pray for us Peter and Paul." This tomb is from the 2nd century. The writing has been authenticated as originating with the tomb itself. (Interestingly, there are also icons of the two saints carved into the same tomb. I've seen them myself.)

I agree that Rome needs to return to her roots. The one, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church. The one she broke away from and still exists.

Word Walker
11-01-01, 02:52 PM
Originally posted by Peter
Where does one begin. First, please be very careful of any information found on the internet. Any fruitcake with a computer can post information. Always check sources and verify. (Test every wind of doctrine) Never quote just one source. (In the presence of two witnesses is a thing established.)


Since the source is important:

_________________________________________________

Dale A. Robbins is the founder and president of VCM, and has served in pastoral and evangelistic ministries for twenty-five years. He has written numerous Christian publications and articles, and is the author of the nationally distributed book, What People Ask About The Church. He earned his Doctorate from American Bible College & Seminary, and is a vice-president of Golden State School of Theology. Robbins is a pioneer of internet ministries, and for many years was a producer of widely-seen Christian television programs in the Northern California area. He is listed in recent editions of Who's Who in Religion. He and his wife, Jerri, an accomplished Gospel singer, are frequently featured on nationwide TV broadcasts. Together, they have ministered in scores of cities and churches across America.

_______________________________________________

Second witness:

______ http://cnview.com/on_line_resources/the_truth_about_roman_catholics_final.htm

...... Furthermore, the long-held claim that the Roman Catholic Church was the only church which never changed is not supported by church history not even Roman Catholic history. How sad to realize that this false claim influenced so many to join or to stay in this false church which actually is the product of centuries of changes. Most of these changes came as a result of yielding to heathen customs and practices which were subsequently incorporated into Roman Catholic teachings and worship. The following is a partial list of heathen, unscriptural practices which became a part of Roman Catholic dogma over a period of seventeen centuries. Some of the dates given are approximate. In many cases, these heresies were even debated for years before being given the status of required beliefs:

1 . Prayers for the dead . …………-------------------……300 A.D.
2. Making the sign of the cross ………………………… …300 A.D.
3. Veneration of angels & dead saints …………---------…….375 A.D.
4. Use of images in worship………………………………… . 375 A.D.
5. The Mass as a daily celebration……………………………… 394 A.D.
6 Beginning of the exaltation of Mary; the term, "Mother of God" applied a Council of Ephesus……………. .----------------------------------------- 431 A.D.
7 Extreme Unction (Last Rites)……………………………… ..526 A.D.
8. Doctrine of Purgatory-Gregory 1…………………………… .593 A.D..
9. Prayers to Mary & dead saints ……………………………… .600 A.D.
10. Worship of cross, images & relics ……………………… … 786 A.D.
11 Canonization of dead saints ………………………………… ..995 A.D.
12. Celibacy of priesthood …………………………………… …1079 A.D.
13. The Rosary ……………………………………………… … 1090 A.D.
14. Indulgences ……………………………………………… …..1190 A.D.
15. Transubstantiation-Innocent III …………………………… 1215 A.D.
16. Auricular Confession of sins to a priest …………………… 1215 A.D.
17. Adoration of the wafer (Host)…………………………… .. 1220 A.D.
18. Cup forbidden to the people at communion …………………..1414 A.D.
19. Purgatory proclaimed as a dogma……………………………..1439 A.D.
20. The doctrine of the Seven Sacraments confirmed …………….1439 A.D.
21 Tradition declared of equal authority with Bible by Council of Trent…………………………………………----------------… 1545 A.D.
22. Apocryphal books added to Bible ………------------……….1546 A.D.
23. Immaculate Conception of Mary……………………………….1854 A.D.
24, Infallibility of the pope in matters of faith and morals, proclaimed by the Vatican Council ……………… 1870 A.D.
25. Assumption of the Virgin Mary (bodily ascension into heaven shortly after her death) ……………………………-----------------------------------……1950 A.D.
26. Mary proclaimed Mother of the Church……………………… 1965 A.D.

Although some of the preceding Roman Catholic heresies are now being questioned by many, both inside and outside the church, none have been officially repudiated and all continue to be practiced by millions of Catholics around the world. The urgent need today is for Roman Catholics; yes, and all who claim to be Christians, to examine their own beliefs and the teachings of their churches by the only sure standard-the Bible. Whatever contradicts, adds to or subtracts from the sixty-six books of the Old and the New Testaments, is error no matter how many may cling to it. ......
_________________________________________

As to the 2nd witness, author....

________ http://cnview.com/some_about_me.htm

.....I know Catholicism. I have 53 years experience.
Catholics are hard working people. In St. Augustine Parish in Pleasant Grove, a suburb of Dallas Texas, in the 1970's I worked hard in that Catholic church. ....

______________________________________________

Anyways it seemed important to you so I hope this helps.

:cool:

Cephas
11-01-01, 09:56 PM
Hello Word Walker,

I’ve picked these from various post you had made throughout this thread.

You said,

The Christian creed adopted at the Council of Nicaea in 325...unscriptural ideas as praying for the dead, the veneration of angels and dead saints, the use of images, and the celebration of daily mass.

The canon of the New Testament wasn’t formally compiled until about 390AD so I don’t see how it would then be considered unscriptural at that time? That aside, it isn’t unscriptural. I’ll spare you of printing out, word for word, each scripture but I will give you scripture in addition to those I posted on my second thread. (Heb 12:12) gives strong evidence for a ‘communion of saints’ as it were. And, (Eph 6:18-20) ask us to supplicate for the Saints. Read further on.

You said,

Later, Leo's successor, Gregory I, was given the title of universal "Pope" (Latin "papas" or father) by the wicked emperor Phocas in 604. He refused the title, however his successor, Boniface III, did accept it and became the first in a long line of successors to be recognized as Pope.

This statement is deceptive. It tries to imply that Gregory I did not accept the Primacy of the Pope. What Gregory did object to was the title universal and the not the word “Pope”. Gregory I say’s, “For if one, as he supposes, is universal bishop, it remains that you are not bishops.” {Epistle LXVIII} He felt to call a bishop universal would go against the teachings of the Church that all Bishops are true successors of the Apostles. Later on, in this same Epistle, Gregory affirms the Primacy, “Now eight years ago, in the time of my predecessor of holy memory Pelagius, our brother and fellow-bishop John in the city of Constantinople, . . . held a synod in which he attempted to call himself Universal Bishop. Which as soon as my said predecessor knew, he dispatched letters annulling by the authority of the holy apostle Peter the acts of the said synod; of which letters I have taken care to send copies to your Holiness.” So, Mr. Word Walker, you can’t believe every piece of anti-Catholic literature you read..

You said,

Under the new papal authority in the seventh century, many more new beliefs were added to the church, such as the unbiblical doctrine of purgatory (593), the required use of Latin in prayer and worship (600), and prayers said to Mary, dead saints and angels (600).

Again, this is not unbiblical.
Purgatory now has come up twice. I’ll give it a feeble attempt. I think a good start is parable of Lazarus and the rich man (Luke 16:19-31). It refers to the place Sheol and it includes both good and bad men. Heaven can't have sinners in it (Rev 21:27) and hell wouldn't have saved persons in it. 1 Corinthians 15:29, Paul refers to people being "baptized for the dead." And he appears to pray for a dead man, Onesiphorus, in 2 Timothy 1:16-18.

We also have support in the “Apocrypha”. Books that you say where added by the Catholic Church in 1546 AD, which, I might add, is completely false. The Councils at Hippo and Carthage, dating 393 and 397 respectively, finalized the 73 canonical books, which included the “Apocrypha”. It wasn’t until Reformation that these books where throw out by Luther and other reformers that the Catholic Church felt the need, at the Council of Trent, to reiterate in stronger terms what had already been said 11 centuries earlier. I also might add that Luther wanted to throw out Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelations from the New Testament (This is found in Luther’s Preface to Biblical books). These books in the “Apocrypha” or, what we call, deuterocanical support the idea of Purgatory and Prayers for the dead in addition to the ones I posted earlier.

And, one more thing before I run out of breathe. The Church has never said it doesn’t change per se. It would like to call itself Progressive. A good anecdote is the one of fence painted white and, after time, fades in colour. It then is repainted. The structure hasn’t changed at all but only has added a new coat of fresh paint. I had to laugh at your list of 25 heresies, especially, making the sign of the cross. Aren’t we stretching things a bit here? Saying these 'hereies' are unbiblical. We call it a devolopement of dogma/doctrine.

Cheers :)

Andrew
11-01-01, 10:58 PM
I voted No. The RCs may have some unblibical practices, but so do many protestant churches. I dont bother what denomination a person comes from, as long as he truly confesses Jesus as Lord and believes in his heart that God raised him from the dead, he is saved and is my bro in Christ.

To me, a defining characteristic of a cult is that the followers are forced to submit to their leader and deprived of freedom of expression, mixing with the "world" etc. I dont see that in the RC churches here.

Word Walker
11-01-01, 11:50 PM
I spent over an hour answering everything point by point only to have the window close on me before I could post it. :mad:

First of all please don't add MR. to a reply as it makes you seem snooty and degrading.


So, Mr. Word Walker, you can’t believe every piece of anti-Catholic literature you read..

________________________________

I am going to answer the points one at a time, one post at a time, starting with the last topic I was replying to as I have this material open still.


Originally posted by Cephas
We also have support in the “Apocrypha”. Books that you say where added by the Catholic Church in 1546 AD, which, I might add, is completely false. The Councils at Hippo and Carthage, dating 393 and 397 respectively, finalized the 73 canonical books, which included the “Apocrypha”. It wasn’t until Reformation that these books where throw out by Luther and other reformers that the Catholic Church felt the need, at the Council of Trent, to reiterate in stronger terms what had already been said 11 centuries earlier.

"For some fifteen hundred years the Apocrypha was not accepted as canonical by the people of God. Then, in 1546, just 29 years after Luther posted his 95 Theses, the Council of Trent elevated the Apocrypha, or rather the part of it that supported the council's position, to the level of inspired Scripture." (Geisler and Nix, p. 274) - http://www.str.org/free/studies/apocryph.htm

I think your facts are a little backwards there...



I also might add that Luther wanted to throw out Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelations from the New Testament (This is found in Luther’s Preface to Biblical books). These books in the “Apocrypha” or, what we call, deuterocanical support the idea of Purgatory and Prayers for the dead in addition to the ones I posted earlier.

The Jews never did (and still don't) accept these books as inspired on par with the rest of the OT Scripture (the Palestinian Canon, 22 books in Hebrew, equivalent to our 39 Old Testament books). However, the Apocrypha were translated into Greek along with the rest of the Old Testament in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the OT, circa 250 B.C.) to make up the Alexandrian canon. The 1 century Jewish historian Josephus said the prophets wrote from Moses to Artaxerxes (Malachi). The Talmud concurs. Jews did not consider this collection of their books as canon. - http://www.str.org/free/studies/apocryph.htm

and

"In Addition, the Catholic church has traditionally regulated the type of Bible translation used in the church. For centuries, the only version authorized for use was the Latin Vulgate, a translation from the original languages by Jerome, in around 400 A.D. This Bible reads very similar to Protestant translations, however with a major exception. The Catholic version contains the Apocrypha, a collection of seven complete books and a few additions to others. These are considered non-inspired writings written between the period of the Old and New Testaments. Only one is actually dated. Two books, Judith and Tobit tell of the Assyrian and Babylonian invasions. Two more, 1st and 2nd Maccabees record the Jewish war of independence of around 165 B.C. Two more, Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom of Solomon, are considered books of wisdom. Another is an addendum to Jeremiah, and there are short additions to Esther and Daniel. The Protestants do not include them because they have never met the criteria for divine inspiration. Further, the writings of Jewish historian Josephus (in 90 A.D.) indicated that the Jews did not accept the books of the Apocrypha as a part of their scriptures, and although Jesus and the Apostles quoted frequently and accurately from almost every other Old Testament book, never once did they quote from the Apocrypha. - http://www.victorious.org/chur40.htm "

I will post replys to the other items mentioned in your message as soon as possible.

Brandan
11-02-01, 07:55 AM
I voted yes. The denial of the 5 Solas is enough reason for me.
http://www.5solas.org/media.php?id=1

Christ_†_Alone
11-02-01, 03:59 PM
I voted yes also.
Their doctrine was enough reason for me.

Word Walker
11-02-01, 04:46 PM
Sorry if the formatting gets messed up. I did this offline and then pasted it.

Quote by: Word Walker____________________________________________
The Christian creed adopted at the Council of Nicaea in 325...unscriptural ideas as praying for the dead, the veneration of angels and dead saints, the use of images, and the celebration of daily mass.
__________________________________________________ ____________

Response by: Cephas____________________________________________ ___
The canon of the New Testament wasn't formally compiled until about 390AD so I don't see how it would then be considered unscriptural at that time?
__________________________________________________ ___________

Simply put, the original quote was pointing out the fact that the ideas incorporated at that time are unscriptural as compared to the scripture that exists today. Seeing, as they are unscriptural, you should ask yourself why then in 390 AD were these ideas not revoked? Also considering that the scriptures, which were eventually formalized, were in existence before 325 AD, the inclusion of the ideas into the church should not have taken place to begin with.

An explanation for the inclusion of these ideas are shown in a portional quote of as follows:

____ - http://www.victorious.org/chur40.htm -___________________________

However, as early as the fourth century, the Catholic church began adopting traditions and beliefs which were never a part of original Christianity as seen in the New Testament. It appears that many of these new ideas first emerged from the era of the Roman Emperor, Constantine who ruled from 313 to 337 A.D.
In contrast to his predecessor, Diocletian, who had vowed to destroy Christianity in 303, Constantine claimed a conversion to Christianity and virtually instituted it as the empire's religion by his Edict of Milan in 313 A.D. This proclamation of religious freedom brought about many positive changes for the church, and was certainly a much welcomed turnabout from the years of brutal persecution. But instead of converting completely from the old practices of paganism, this and the new Christian religion were somewhat mingled together. Since an Emperor was viewed as a god by pagan standards, and he already held the lifelong position of "Pontifex Maximus," chief priest of the pagan state religion, Constantine felt it only proper that he should also claim a high position of leadership in the church — he also authorized many of his secular officials as church leaders. This merger of a pagan, Christian and political hierarchy, produced a diluted spiritual leadership for the church, and its beliefs and doctrines thereafter became increasingly infected with a strange combination of traditions and pagan beliefs.
__________________________________________________ _____




Quote by: Cephas____________________________________________ __
(Heb 12:12) gives strong evidence for a 'communion of saints' as it were. And, (Eph 6:18-20) ask us to supplicate for the Saints. Read further on.
__________________________________________________ ___________

In this case we first need to realize that there are two definitions of Saint. One held by the Catholic Church and a completely different one held by the Protestant church.

Catholic Definition:
- A person who has died and has been declared a saint by canonization.- Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University

- A person officially recognized, especially by canonization, as being entitled to public veneration and capable of interceding for people on earth. - Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

Protestant Definition:
One separated from the world and consecrated to God; one holy by profession and by covenant; a believer in Christ (Ps. 16:3; Rom. 1:7; 8:27; Phil. 1:1; Heb. 6:10). The "saints" spoken of in Jude 1:14 are probably not the disciples of Christ, but the "innumerable company of angels" (Heb. 12:22; Ps. 68:17), with reference to Deut. 33:2. This word is also used of the holy dead (Matt. 27:52; Rev. 18:24). It was not used as a distinctive title of the apostles and evangelists and of a "spiritual nobility" till the fourth century. In that sense it is not a scriptural title. - Source: Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary

With that said let's look at the verses in question: (Hebrews 12:12)

Hebrews 12:9 Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?
Hebrews 12:10 For they verily for a few days chastened us after their own pleasure; but he for our profit, that we might be partakers of his holiness.
Hebrews 12:11 Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous: nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby.
Hebrews 12:12 Wherefore lift up the hands which hang down, and the feeble knees;
Hebrews 12:13 And make straight paths for your feet, lest that which is lame be turned out of the way; but let it rather be healed.
Hebrews 12:14 Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord:


I don't see how this in anyway "gives strong evidence for a 'communion of saints'"…

Next:

Ephesians 6:18-20 Actually disproves the intermediary position of the catholic saint and the need for the person to be dead and canonized before becoming a saint.

Ephesians 6:18 Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints;
Ephesians 6:19 And for me, that utterance may be given unto me, that I may open my mouth boldly, to make known the mystery of the gospel,
Ephesians 6:20 For which I am an ambassador in bonds: that therein I may speak boldly, as I ought to speak.

Verse 18 says that we are to pray FOR the saints, NOT to them. I will provide different translation however for comparisons sake.

<NIV> 18 And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests. With this in mind, be alert and always keep on praying for all the saints.

<NASB> 18 With all prayer and petition pray at all times in the Spirit, and with this in view, be on the alert with all perseverance and petition for all the saints,

<NLT> 18 Pray at all times and on every occasion in the power of the Holy Spirit. Stay alert and be persistent in your prayers for all Christians everywhere.

<RSV> 18 Pray at all times in the Spirit, with all prayer and supplication. To that end keep alert with all perseverance, making supplication for all the saints,

<YLT> 18 through all prayer and supplication praying at all times in the Spirit, and in regard to this same, watching in all perseverance and supplication for all the saints

ETC…….

Now if we look at both the catholic and the Protestant definition of “Saint” it becomes quite clear that the Protestant version is the more accurate of the two. A “Saint” is not someone we pray to; we are saints. Christians who have given their heart to the Lord are saints, not someone who died and was recognized by the leaders of a church organization. That is why Paul tells us to Pray in the Spirit FOR the perseverance and supplication of the saints. In other words pray for one another, one Christian for another, that we remain strong in our faith and worship of God.

Word Walker
11-02-01, 04:47 PM
Quote by: Word Walker____________________________________________
Later, Leo's successor, Gregory I, was given the title of universal "Pope" (Latin "papas" or father) by the wicked emperor Phocas in 604. He refused the title, however his successor, Boniface III, did accept it and became the first in a long line of successors to be recognized as Pope.
__________________________________________________ _____________

Response by: Cephas____________________________________________ _
This statement is deceptive. It tries to imply that Gregory I did not accept the Primacy of the Pope. What Gregory did object to was the title universal and the not the word "Pope". Gregory I say's, "For if one, as he supposes, is universal bishop, it remains that you are not bishops." {Epistle LXVIII} He felt to call a bishop universal would go against the teachings of the Church that all Bishops are true successors of the Apostles.
__________________________________________________ _____________

Perhaps Gregory own response would be more enlightening:


http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08493a.htm _________________________
The pope expressly disclaims the name "universal" for any bishop, including himself. He says that the Council of Chalcedon had wanted to give it to Leo I, but he had refused it (Epp., V, xviii, ibid., 740, xx, 747, etc.). This idea rests on a misconception (Hefele-Leclercq, "Histoire des Conciles", II, Paris, 1908, pp. 834-5), but his reason for resenting the title in any bishop is obvious throughout his letters. "He understood it as an exclusion of all the others [privative quoad omnes alios] so that he who calls himself œcumenic, that is, universal, thinks all other patriarchs and bishops to be private persons and himself the only pastor of the inhabited earth" (so Horace Giustiniani at the Council of Florence; Hergenröther, "Photius", I, 184). For this reason Gregory does not spare his language in denouncing it. It is "diabolical arrogance" (Epp., V, xx, in P. L., XXVII, 746, xxi, 750, etc.); he who so calls himself is antichrist.
__________________________________________________ _____________

Actually Gregory felt that calling a bishop “universal” meant a lot more than simply “they are not bishops”. He also felt it was "diabolical arrogance"(Epp., V, xx, in P. L., XXVII, 746, xxi, 750, etc.); he who so calls himself is antichrist.. And yet, “Boniface III, did accept it and became the first in a long line of successors to be recognized as Pope. “

Since it’s obvious that bishop does not mean pope, it simply remains to be seen whether or not “Universal Bishop” meant “Pope”. Did the Catholic church proclaim Gregory as “Pope” (Universal Bishop) or not?

__________________________________________________ ______________
Leo I (440-461 AD) is considered by some historians as the first "Pope." With the condition of the Empire and its weak emperors, Leo became the strong man of the hour and taking advantage claimed himself (by divine appointment, of course) "Primate of all Bishops" and obtained from Emperor Valentinian III imperial recognition……….
Gregory I (590-604) generally is regarded the first "Pope." At that time the "Patriarch" of Constantinople called himself "Universal Bishop." Gregory considered this vicious and haughty and even refused to apply it to himself. In his personal life he was basically a good man and worked hard at reforms within the church. - http://www.biblicist.org/bible/popes.htm

AD 590 The new pope, Gregory the Great wrote to the Emperor Maurice asking for the title to be abolished because it caused pride to reign, but Maurice was unyielding. - http://www.antipas.org/books/papacy_in_history/pap_part1_3.html
__________________________________________________ ___________

So, obviously “Universal Bishop” and “Pope” are meant as the same thing and by refusing this title he was refusing to be the “pope”(Universal Bishop) of that time.



__________________________________________________ ________________

Quote by: Word Walker ____________________________________________
Under the new papal authority in the seventh century, many more new beliefs were added to the church, such as the unbiblical doctrine of purgatory (593), the required use of Latin in prayer and worship (600), and prayers said to Mary, dead saints and angels (600).
__________________________________________________ _____________

Quote by: Cephas ________________________________________________
Again, this is not unbiblical.
Purgatory now has come up twice. I'll give it a feeble attempt. I think a good start is parable of Lazarus and the rich man (Luke 16:19-31). It refers to the place Sheol and it includes both good and bad men. Heaven can't have sinners in it (Rev 21:27) and hell wouldn't have saved persons in it. 1 Corinthians 15:29, Paul refers to people being "baptized for the dead." And he appears to pray for a dead man, Onesiphorus, in 2 Timothy 1:16-18.
__________________________________________________ ____________

Heaven can’t have sinners and Hell can’t have those that are saved, is not an argument that proves purgatory. Perhaps they “sleep” until the return of our Lord. (John 11:11) or have already been separated into heaven and hell or a form thereof, just as in the “parable” of Lazarus. In this parable we see 2 areas where the sinners and godly are separated and cannot cross over to one another. Therefore unlike the description of purgatory which you have given where there are both sinners and godly together, we see rather a place of separation.

Luke 16: 26 And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.

I believe, however, that this may not be a parable as you suggest but a reality, which exists, or rather existed. After all name me even one other parable that Jesus told, where during the telling of the parable, he mentions the names of actual people. Even this though I believe has changed since Jesus died on the cross for our sins. For without His shed blood we could never come into the presence of the Lord but now that he has died for our sins, who’s to say? The differences, that Jesus’ atonement for us has made, is a topic for another study. As to purgatory and the praying for souls who have died, there is nothing scriptural to back this up, except perhaps in the uninspired books of the Apocrypha, which was covered in a previous post.


Reply by: Cephas _______________________________________________
We also have support in the "Apocrypha". Books that you say where added by the Catholic Church in 1546 AD…. …These books in the "Apocrypha" or, what we call, deuterocanical support the idea of Purgatory and Prayers for the dead in addition to the ones I posted earlier.
__________________________________________________ ___________

I realize that the author in the previous post said “added” but to clarify, he simply meant that the Apocrypha was suddenly declared ”inspired” as all the rest of the Bible had been, up to that point. The threat that Luther posed to the church traditions and “unscriptural ideas” forced the Catholic Church to take a bolder stand for these previously uninspired writings. After all, these seem to be the basis for the unscriptural ideas to begin with, even you admit that.

__________________________________________________ _____________
They were never included en toto in the canon by the church until the Reformation. At that time Rome officially canonized a particular list (not the full list) of the books of the Apocrypha at the Council of Trent, the fourth session, April, 1546, more than 1500 years after the books were written. These books supported the doctrine of salvation by works and prayers for the dead only 29 years after Luther posted his 95 Theses. This was the first occasion that an ecumenical council (as opposed to local or provincial council) actually ruled on the canon.
To be precise, the Apocrypha was not taken out, it was added in. It had, however, held a very respected position in church history, but its place in the canon has always been tenuous. - http://www.str.org/free/studies/apocryph.htm
__________________________________________________ _____________


Reply by: Cephas _______________________________________________
A good anecdote is the one of fence painted white and, after time, fades in colour. It then is repainted. The structure hasn't changed at all but only has added a new coat of fresh paint. I had to laugh at your list of 25 heresies, especially, making the sign of the cross. Aren't we stretching things a bit here? Saying these 'hereies' are unbiblical. We call it a devolopement of dogma/doctrine.
__________________________________________________ ____________

That is unfortunate. Still you’re the one who will answer to God one day for your laughter, not me. As to the list, it was not compiled by me but by a man who had been a devoted Catholic for 53 years of his life. Hence the reason I included him at all. If you want to debate and laugh at a man, who has probably been a catholic longer than you’ve been alive, then by all means follow the link I provided and do so but do it to his face rather than to his back.

As to the “development” of the “dogma/doctrine” you’re right. Unfortunately it’s has developed from Christianity into something completely different from that which Jesus taught. Underneath all the added rituals and “unscriptural ideas” there was a fence painted white but that fence has changed many colors since then.

Cephas
11-03-01, 10:55 AM
Hello, Word Walker,

You said:
First of all please don't add MR. to a reply as it makes you seem snooty and degrading.

Please know, that it was meant with respect. It can be hard to know the feelings behind the words written so I shall respect your wishes.

You said:
I spent over an hour answering everything point by point only to have the window close on me before I could post it.

That’s why I like copying everything to Word&copy first. I’ve had that happen to many times to me also.

You said:
The Jews never did (and still don't) accept these books as inspired on par with the rest of the OT Scripture (the Palestinian Canon, 22 books in Hebrew, equivalent to our 39 Old Testament books). However, the Apocrypha were translated into Greek along with the rest of the Old Testament in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the OT, circa 250 B.C.) to make up the Alexandrian canon. The 1-century Jewish historian Josephus said the prophets wrote from Moses to Artaxerxes (Malachi). The Talmud concurs. Jews did not consider this collection of their books as canon.

The Jews do not consider the New Testament as inspired either.:) I do appreciate you noting that the Apocrypha was part of the Septuagint dating 250 BC (Greek translation of the Old Testament). It is widely know that Greek Old Testament was considered the Bible of the Apostles because it (the Septuagint) was the one they quoted from most often. I’d also like to point out that most of the early Church Fathers considered the Septuagint as the standard form of the Old Testament. And, as I have noted in my previous post, the Apocrypha was considered part of the canon of scripture. So, why do some Protestants arbitrarily decide to remove 7 books from the Bible when for some 1500 years it was considered inspired scripture? Who gave them the authority to decide what stays and what doesn’t stay? For the most part Protestants accepted the New Testament as inspired as it was decided at the early councils and, then, they reject the Apocrypha.

You said:
Two more, 1st and 2nd Maccabees record the Jewish war of independence of around 165 B.C. Two more, Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom of Solomon, are considered books of wisdom. Another is an addendum to Jeremiah, and there are short additions to Esther and Daniel. The Protestants do not include them because they have never met the criteria for divine inspiration.

What criteria is that?


You said:
The Christian creed adopted at the Council of Nicaea in 325...unscriptural ideas as praying for the dead, the veneration of angels and dead saints, the use of images, and the celebration of daily mass.

Then you said:
Simply put, the original quote was pointing out the fact that the ideas incorporated at that time are unscriptural as compared to the scripture that exists today. Seeing, as they are unscriptural, you should ask yourself why then in 390 AD were these ideas not revoked? Also considering that the scriptures, which were eventually formalized, were in existence before 325 AD, the inclusion of the ideas into the church should not have taken place to begin with.

Why was it not revoked? Because, there is scripture to support it. Also, the Apocrypha was and is part of that same Scripture the early councils formalized. But, most importantly, you know as well as I do that the Bible doesn’t state all doctrine implicitly whether they be the views of you or I (i.e. trinity, bible alone, faith alone, prayers for the dead). I would ask why you would support things on scripture alone since you use an unscriptural process in deciding what was inspired scripture? What did you, and others, appeal to in deciding what was inspired scripture? And, please, don’t say scripture tells us it is inspired because that is a circular argument. (Example of a circular argument) How old is that rock? 7000 yrs old. How do you know? Because of the dead organisms in that rock were here 7000 years ago! Well…okay, but how do you know how old the organisms are? Because we found them in a 7000 year old rock! So, here is where we come to the heart of the matter. With so many various interpretations of the Bible, who interpretation should we consider true and how do we know what books are considered inspired? For the Catholic, these issues are resolved by Tradition, Church history (early Church Fathers) and the Magesterium (Church authority). The fact is, we needed the Church to decide what was inspired scripture was. So, the ultimate authority was in the Church and not the Bible alone. If it was the Bible alone, then how did the Church grow by leaps and bounds from the period of our Saviors death and the assembly of canon scripture and beyond? So, Word Walker, when you say something is unscriptural that is not the end of the line for a Catholic.

The issue about Gregory I was not about his rejection of the word universal but about the primacy of the seat of Peter. And that is where your original post was deceptive because it is implying that he rejected the primacy, which, he did not.
Who cares if he didn’t like the word universal? Are you going to say Catholic theology stands or falls because Gregory I didn’t like the word univerasal?

Your original post:
Later, Leo's successor, Gregory I, was given the title of universal "Pope" (Latin "papas" or father) by the wicked emperor Phocas in 604. He refused the title, however his successor, Boniface III, did accept it and became the first in a long line of successors to be recognized as Pope. Under the new papal authority in the seventh century, many more new beliefs were added to the church, such as the unbiblical doctrine of purgatory (593), the required use of Latin in prayer and worship (600), and prayers said to Mary, dead saints and angels (600).

Where, under this new papal authority, suggest that Gregory I did not support the primacy. But, in his epistle, it is clear that he did. Which I will post one more time:

“Now eight years ago, in the time of my predecessor of holy memory Pelagius, our brother and fellow-bishop John in the city of Constantinople, . . . held a synod in which he attempted to call himself Universal Bishop. Which as soon as my said predecessor knew, he dispatched letters annulling by the authority of the holy apostle Peter the acts of the said synod; of which letters I have taken care to send copies to your Holiness.”


You said:
However, as early as the fourth century, the Catholic Church began adopting traditions and beliefs, which were never a part of original Christianity as seen in the New Testament. It appears that many of these new ideas first emerged from the era of the Roman Emperor, Constantine who ruled from 313 to 337 A.D.
In contrast to his predecessor, Diocletian, who had vowed to destroy Christianity in 303, Constantine claimed a conversion to Christianity and virtually instituted it as the empire's religion by his Edict of Milan in 313 A.D. This proclamation of religious freedom brought about many positive changes for the church, and was certainly a much-welcomed turnabout from the years of brutal persecution. But instead of converting completely from the old practices of paganism, this and the new Christian religion were somewhat mingled together. Since an Emperor was viewed as a god by pagan standards, and he already held the lifelong position of "Pontifex Maximus," chief priest of the pagan state religion, Constantine felt it only proper that he should also claim a high position of leadership in the church — he also authorized many of his secular officials as church leaders. This merger of a pagan, Christian and political hierarchy, produced a diluted spiritual leadership for the church, and its beliefs and doctrines thereafter became increasingly infected with a strange combination of traditions and pagan beliefs.


I am not sure why you posted this one but since this is 5 solas I’ll grant your right to a stump speech. But, I would like you to remember what Paul said:

“To the weak I became weak, so that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that I might by all means save some. (1 Cor 9:22; NRSV - read the context of 9:19-21).”

Cont'

Cephas
11-03-01, 11:07 AM
Cont'

You said:
In this case we first need to realize that there are two definitions of Saint. One held by the Catholic Church and a completely different one held by the Protestant church.

Catholic Definition:
- A person who has died and has been declared a saint by canonization.- Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University

- A person officially recognized, especially by canonization, as being entitled to public veneration and capable of interceding for people on earth. - Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

Protestant Definition:
One separated from the world and consecrated to God; one holy by profession and by covenant; a believer in Christ (Ps. 16:3; Rom. 1:7; 8:27; Phil. 1:1; Heb. 6:10). The "saints" spoken of in Jude 1:14 are probably not the disciples of Christ, but the "innumerable company of angels" (Heb. 12:22; Ps. 68:17), with reference to Deut. 33:2. This word is also used of the holy dead (Matt. 27:52; Rev. 18:24). It was not used as a distinctive title of the apostles and evangelists and of a "spiritual nobility" till the fourth century. In that sense it is not a scriptural title. - Source: Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary

When we say ‘Communion of Saints’ it is by the so-called ‘Protestant’ definition that we mean saints. This is even more obvious when we say the Apostles’ Creed. The Protestant definition is the Catholic definition. It is only when someone has been exceptional in there walk with God that the are given the official title. You may ask, “Well, that is not fair. Why should someone have that title when we are all for Christ?!” Because even scripture differentiates between the holiness of people.
"…the prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects" (Jas. 5:16).

You said:
With that said let's look at the verses in question: (Hebrews 12:12)
I don't see how this in anyway "gives strong evidence for a 'communion of saints'"…

Your right, it doesn’t. I gave you the wrong verse.:( It should be Hebrews 12:1.

“Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us rid ourselves of every burden and sin that clings to us and preserve in running the race that lies before us…”
You said:

Ephesians 6:18-20 Actually disproves the intermediary position of the catholic saint and the need for the person to be dead and canonized before becoming a saint.

Ephesians 6:18 Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints;
Ephesians 6:19 And for me, that utterance may be given unto me, that I may open my mouth boldly, to make known the mystery of the gospel,
Ephesians 6:20 For which I am an ambassador in bonds: that therein I may speak boldly, as I ought to speak.

How does this disprove the intermediary position of a saint? If anything, it supports the idea of praying for the dead and intercession.

You said about the parable of Lazarus:
I believe, however, that this may not be a parable as you suggest but a reality, which exists, or rather existed. After all name me even one other parable that Jesus told, where during the telling of the parable, he mentions the names of actual people. Even this though I believe has changed since Jesus died on the cross for our sins. For without His shed blood we could never come into the presence of the Lord but now that he has died for our sins, who’s to say? The differences, that Jesus’ atonement for us has made, is a topic for another study. As to purgatory and the praying for souls who have died, there is nothing scriptural to back this up, except perhaps in the uninspired books of the Apocrypha, which was covered in a previous post.

Your right, Jesus’ atonement is a topic for another study. I would not say there is nothing in scripture to support Purgatory or Praying for souls as your commentary on Lazarus at least tries to answer a Catholic view. I believe a good argument can be made. Especially when you take in the thoughts of the early Church fathers, the Apocrypha and supporting scripture in the New Testament.


Your reply to my laughing at the so-called heresies:
That is unfortunate. Still you’re the one who will answer to God one day for your laughter, not me. As to the list, it was not compiled by me but by a man who had been a devoted Catholic for 53 years of his life. Hence the reason I included him at all. If you want to debate and laugh at a man, who has probably been a catholic longer than you’ve been alive, then by all means follow the link I provided and do so but do it to his face rather than to his back.

Do you want me to quote Protestants who became Catholics after 53 yrs of their life? Would my position hold any more weight for you because of that? So, why are you expecting it from me? Of course you have you own biases as, undoubtedly, I do but could you walk in my shoes and see how I might find these ‘heresies’ laughable.

As to the “development” of the “dogma/doctrine” you’re right. Unfortunately it’s has developed from Christianity into something completely different from that which Jesus taught. Underneath all the added rituals and “unscriptural ideas” there was a fence painted white but that fence has changed many colors since then.

No. Protestantism is the part of Christianity that has become something completely different. Since Reformation, there have been over 30,000 different denominations. Christianity has become subjective because of it and a moral relativism is the direct result whose affects have cheapened the Gospel. Without an authority we each become our own Pope. It is not unscriptural that Peter is the rock on which Christ builds his Church. And, what ever he bounds on earth shall be bound in heaven. Jesus Christ here institutes authority to prevent a moral relativism. No. it is not Catholism that is unscriptural.

Our theological differences aside, I still consider you a brother in Christ. I really do think 5 solas is a great web site and whoever put it together ought to be commended. I didn’t come here to debate 5 solas but to give a defense of Catholism. I actually came upon this web site quite by mistake while I was surfing the net. Unfortunately, I don’t have the time to continue this debate because of other pressing issues that require my attention. But, I will read any response you post and check in from time to time.

Pease, Stephen

Word Walker
11-06-01, 10:47 AM
This is starting to sound like a long winded school yard argument. Is, Isn't, Is, Isn't...... etc... We could go back and forth answering the half a dozen or so different topics, quoting from diffeent sources and not getting anywhere.

Let's agree to disagree on certain points. I don't believe Catholicism is a cult and never have. I'm not anti-catholic. I do disagree with a number of the catholic rituals but at it's core cathocism believes in the same basic essentials as most protestant churches and what we're arguing over is the frills.

Most of the disagreements, I believe, come from doctrines which were included through reference to the Apocrypha. As to whether the Apocrypha is a valid portion of the Bible or not, I doubt we'll ever agree on this.

I think that if we are going to debate this issue, it should be on one topic, beginning with the Apocrypha and whether it should justifyably be a part of the Bible or not. I am not conceding any previous points but I do refuse to continue writing 2,3 or 4 page rebuttals, repeating the evidences already provided but from different sources.

Please understand, I do not do this as a personal attack on you or your beliefs. I am simply stating the truth as I believe it to be, just as I believe you are doing. I hope that through this we can at least come to some sort of deeper understanding, even if we do not agree.

Liamsdad
11-06-01, 02:35 PM
Well, here are some things about Mary and the RCC...
1- The rosary is "repetituous" prayer which Jesus warned against.

2- Recently the Pope has made Mary co-redemptrix of mankind, basically it is Jesus PLUS Mary. Jesus said I AM the way, the Truth, and the LIFE, no man cometh to the Father but by me.

3- Mary is exalted to the position of goddess hood in that according to the teachings of the RCC, we cannot pray directly to Jesus, but must go through intercession of Mary and the Saints.

nuff said...

Brandan
11-06-01, 03:45 PM
Welcome back to the forums Liamsdad. We missed havin' you around... :D

Word Walker
11-06-01, 04:50 PM
Originally posted by Liamsdad
Well, here are some things about Mary and the RCC...
1- The rosary is "repetituous" prayer which Jesus warned against.

2- Recently the Pope has made Mary co-redemptrix of mankind, basically it is Jesus PLUS Mary. Jesus said I AM the way, the Truth, and the LIFE, no man cometh to the Father but by me.

3- Mary is exalted to the position of goddess hood in that according to the teachings of the RCC, we cannot pray directly to Jesus, but must go through intercession of Mary and the Saints.

nuff said...

I was wondering, especially in the case of number 2, if you had some litereature from a catholic site to back this up?

Liamsdad
11-06-01, 05:06 PM
No, I don't, but I will look for the references. I also know that Newsweek did an article on the coming "Marian Age" that the pope is declaring. I will try to find it for you.

Oh, the Rosary goes....
"Hail Mary, full of Grace, the Lord is with thee, blessed art thou amongst women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.

Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for me a sinner, now and at the hour of my death."

Well, that is in direct opposition to 1 Timothy 2:5
"For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus," NKJV

I find the rosary and that verse of scripture in direct opposition to one another.

I am in Louisiana, thus Catholic country, my grandfather was Roman Catholic and several of my relatives are. It really bothers me, when they have to pay priests to pray other relatives out of purgatory.

Thats my opinion.

One other thing, though, I often offend Catholics when I offer to pray for them. They say "I am unworthy to go to Jesus, we must go through the priests and the intercession of the saints.

Word Walker
11-06-01, 06:10 PM
Originally posted by Liamsdad
One other thing, though, I often offend Catholics when I offer to pray for them. They say "I am unworthy to go to Jesus, we must go through the priests and the intercession of the saints.

I know of someone who used to remark about how much the Catholic Church seemed to be similar to the Jewish Pharisees of Jesus' time. All dress and ceremony but no heart or understanding where christ is concerned. It amazes me how hard the Catholics work to get what Jesus gave of freely. (Lighting candles, praying for the dead, etc....) :rolleyes:

Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Ephesians 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.


I agree with what you say and also have problems with a few of their other customs which developed over the years. Maybe you can shed some light on this as well...

Romans 14:12 So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.

AND

2 Corinthians 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.

(If we are to give an account of ourselves how does someone else praying after we're dead help?)


Hebrews 9:26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
Hebrews 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

(It does not say and after this the praying by others and the lighting of candles, it says "after this the judgement.)

What's your opinion?

Christ_†_Alone
11-06-01, 06:21 PM
Originally posted by Word Walker
I was wondering, especially in the case of number 2, if you had some litereature from a catholic site to back this up?

When I wrote this article:
http://carla_b.tripod.com/realfacts/id2.html

approx. 2 years ago, I didn't get my information from a Catholic website, but straight from a Roman Catholic study guide on Vatican II.

As far as I know, anyone can get a copy of this, and read the source quotes for themselves, to see that this IS exactly what it says.

It's odd to see how many Catholics, and defenders of the Catholic faith, will flat out deny that Vatican II does indeed say this, and that the Roman Catholic church does indeed teach this.

Cephas
11-06-01, 09:16 PM
Liamsdad,

You said,
Oh, the Rosary goes....
"Hail Mary, full of Grace, the Lord is with thee, blessed art thou amongst women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.

Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for me a sinner, now and at the hour of my death."

Well, that is in direct opposition to 1 Timothy 2:5
"For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus," NKJV

Then you said,
One other thing, though, I often offend Catholics when I offer to pray for them.

Well then. Aren't you in direct opposition when you pray for others? Why do I need you to pray for me when there is only one mediator? I think you need to understand what your saying before you try to tell others how to believe.

You said,
I am in Louisiana, thus Catholic country, my grandfather was Roman Catholic and several of my relatives are. It really bothers me, when they have to pay priests to pray other relatives out of purgatory.

They don't pay Priest to do that. I think lying is a sin the last time I checked. And confession is free too!

You said,
Recently the Pope has made Mary co-redemptrix of mankind, basically it is Jesus PLUS Mary. Jesus said I AM the way, the Truth, and the LIFE, no man cometh to the Father but by me.

Basically, you have a false understanding. Read my very first post in this thread on page 8 or 9.

One other thing, though, I often offend Catholics when I offer to pray for them. They say "I am unworthy to go to Jesus, we must go through the priests and the intercession of the saints.

I hope I don't offend you when I say I will pray to Jesus that you will see the truth in the Catholic Church.

Peace

HIS
11-06-01, 11:50 PM
Cephas,

Praying "TO" someone other than God is absolutely wrong, and I agree.

Praying "FOR" someone (anyone) is not wrong. We have a biblical commandment to do so:

James 5:16 Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.

Now...If somone confesses their faults to another, they should NOT be asking for forgiveness from another UNLESS this sin is against the one they are asking.

There is certainly only one mediator between God and man. That was the "man" Christ JESUS. He became our mediator through the shedding of his blood on the cross...

Cephas
11-07-01, 05:54 PM
Hi His,

You said,

Praying "TO" someone other than God is absolutely wrong, and I agree.

Why is it? You said we should have others pray for us. Why can't I pray to a Saint and have them pray for me also? Especially since the verse you qouted says, "The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much." Saints are considered righteous. I truly don't see a problem with this. I like what my Pastor said the other day, "the Saints bring us to the feet of Christ." The Saints more fully reveal who Jesus is and are people worth knowing about. Now, if you take a look at the Hail Mary, the first part of the prayer is Scripture and the very last sentence is we are asking Mary to pray for us. Nothing in it goes agaist Holy Scripture. Having said that, not to many Catholics I know pray to the Saints or Mary(they don't know what they're missing) because it is not required. I like to think the Church is big enough for those who do and those who don't.

You said,

Now...If somone confesses their faults to another, they should NOT be asking for forgiveness from another UNLESS this sin is against the one they are asking.

No, not at all, since the Lord Himself gave St. Peter and the disciples the power and authority to "bind and loose" (Mt 16:19, 18:17-18). Jesus gave the Apostles the power to forgive sins. You must understand that although the Priest does absolve us from our sins he is acting on behalf of Jesus Christ. We know it is Jesus Christ who is doing the forgiving. It is a way of formally dealing with sin.

Peace

blackhaw
11-07-01, 06:09 PM
cephas:

Where in scripture does it say to pray to dead people again? I think you or Peter might of posted the scripture you use but I do not want to try and find it somewhere. Obviously there is a BIG difference between my friend Ben praying for me (He is alive here on Earth) and one of the saints or Mary. (who is present with the Lord.) So yes a prayer of a righteous man avialeth much but then again we Christians are all situationally righteous becasue of what Jesus did on the cross. So all Christians are righteouss. And all are prayer availeth much.

Also you said:

"No, not at all, since the Lord Himself gave St. Peter and the disciples the power and authority to "bind and loose" (Mt 16:19, 18:17-18). Jesus gave the Apostles the power to forgive sins. You must understand that although the Priest does absolve us from our sins he is acting on behalf of Jesus Christ. We know it is Jesus Christ who is doing
the forgiving. It is a way of formally dealing with sin."

I am confused here. the priest is an extention of the Apostles right and that is what gives him the ability to forgive sins. Is this correct? If so then do they really forgie sins or not? You said that the Apostles were granted the ability ot Forgive sins then said that the priests do not forgive sins they just tell people that their sins are forgiven for Jesus. Am I confused? If not then the apsotles never really had the power to forgive sins just the power to tell people that God forgave their sins. The apostles forgiving sins would go angasit Jewish custom. Only God could forgive sins. Well I will wait for you to explain what you and your church's beliefs are.
blackhaw

Christ_†_Alone
11-07-01, 09:39 PM
Originally posted by blackhaw
cephas:

Where in scripture does it say to pray to dead people again? I think you or Peter might of posted the scripture you use but I do not want to try and find it somewhere. Obviously there is a BIG difference between my friend Ben praying for me (He is alive here on Earth) and one of the saints or Mary.

Well, I don't know what cephas believes, but I know if you ask several Catholics where they stand on praying to Mary, you'll get quite a few different answers, such as:

1. we don't pray TO Mary, we ask Mary to pray FOR us
2. we don't pray to Mary at all, and why are you Catholic bashing?
3. it's okay to pray to Mary, you see, she isn't dead, she was taken up into Heaven bodily, like Jesus was
4. you're deceived, and you just don't understand REAL church teachings.

Of course this is just a sampling of what you MIGHT hear, if you ask several different staunch Catholics.

Where the teaching comes from that Mary never physically died, but ascended to heaven bodily, comes from, is a good question indeed, because it surely isn't in the Bible - yet - many Catholics believe it, defend it, and will deny the very possibility that it is NOT true, because it's a part of their belief system, and that's that.

And it's convenient to teach this, because THAT way, it makes it okay to pray and ask her to pray for them, because after all, she isn't dead at all.

The bottom line is, what does the BIBLE say about it?

Luke 11:

1 ¶ And it came to pass, that, as he was praying in a certain place, when he ceased, one of his disciples said unto him, Lord, teach us to pray, as John also taught his disciples.

2 And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth.

3 Give us day by day our daily bread.

4 And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil.

The very idea that even 1 person from each country around the world, could pray and "ask" Mary to pray FOR them, and that she would hear each and every one of them, exalts her instantly to deity. How could a human woman possibly be able to hear the "non-prayers" of so many Catholics, around the world, each day, unless she IS considered deity in some fashion?

The fact of the matter is, simply, the Catholic church has indeed exalted Mary to a level the Bible NEVER places her in. The church doctrines concerning Mary, over the last 1500 years have changed dramatically, in a pro-Mary glorifying way, while the Scriptures themselves have never changed - they still say, and DON'T say, the very same things now, as they did then.

A few things to think on...

blackhaw
11-07-01, 11:13 PM
good post CA. Let me rephrase the question for Cephas or Peter or whoever knows the Catholic and/or orthodox doctrine better than me. Where in the bible is it found that you should talk to people in Heaven so that they can pray for you? if not fro the Bible where do you get it from? Now i phrased this in a way so that 1-3 of CA's 4 should not be given as an answer. if your answer is 4 explain to me the doctrine and why you or the Catholic or Orthodox church believes this way? I really want to know and i do not see how it can be justified. (not Catholic bashing)

Blackhaw

Thanks CA for helping me reshape my question so I won't get the answers you put in your post.

HIS
11-08-01, 01:07 AM
I am in agreement with CA and Blackhaw...

Clearly, the only way any of us will be justified in our saying and overcome when we are judged is by allowing God to be true.

The only way we can allow God to be true is by believing and accepting His Word as the only and final authority for all of our beliefs.

Rom 3:4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.

Anything more or less than this standard will surely put your salvation at risk. If what you hear or feel in your spirit does not agree with the Scripture, you better check your source.

Cephas . . . I don’t for one minute doubt your love for God. All I ask is that you reconsider some of the teachings you have been given and search the Scriptures to see whether those things (you have been shown or heard) really line up with all of the Scripture. (see Acts 17:11 and Isa 28:9,10)

Ask yourself the question: Do I see a biblical example or specific statement for this teachings?

If yes, then determine if you can fine more than one (i.e., in the mouth of two or three witnesses, let every word be established). I cannot think of one significant doctrine where God did not provide multiple examples or other texts to establish or prove its relevance in his plan for mankind.

NO ONE should hold to any teachings on the basis of ONE passage or verse in the Bible. If all you have is one verse to back up your “faith” for any given doctrine or creed, then you are very likely misinterpreting the verse. Furthermore, when this doctrine is something that is suggested as being relative to your salvation, then it becomes all the more critical to have multiple passages to prove and justify it. In most (if not all) cases dealing with salvation, you should be able to draw from the Old Testament writings as well as the New Testament.

Hope you can see my concern and point here...

Yours in Christ Jesus,
HIS

Peter
11-08-01, 12:20 PM
In Orthodoxy, a common joke is never give a short answer where a long one will serve the same purpose. :-) But let me try to respond in a short way anyway. This response is in reference to Blackhaw's question of where do we find evidence of speaking to those in heaven so they will pray for us?

The first obvious text is in Revelation 5:8

"Now when He had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty four elders fell down before the Lamb, each having a harp, and golden bowls of incense, which are the prayers of the saints."

Here we find not only the elders offering our prayers, but the angels as well.

Note that the prayers were mixed with incense. Read Psalm 141:2.
"Let my prayer be set before You as incense."

If scripture interprets scripture, we understand Psalm 141 through Revelation 5.

A second obvious passage is in Revelation 8:3. Again an angel is offering the prayers of the saints upon the alter. (And he was given incense to do it with.)

In Genesis 28 we find Jacob's vision of the ladder. The angels descending and ascending show how there is communion between heavenly beings and earth. And in light or Rev. 5, the vision makes a whole lot of sense. The angels are gathering the prayers of the people. (Jacob called the place 'the house of the Lord.")

At the transfiguration of Jesus (Matt. 17:2), Peter's response to seeing Moses and Elijah was to build a tabernacle for them and Jesus (three total). What do you do in a tabernacle? The word itself means to commune or dwell.

Lastly, and by no means the end really, Paul says we are to pray for ALL the saints.

In closing, let me add that most of the misunderstanding on this subject falls under the heading of misunderstanding of definitions. Blackhaw had it right in saying "speak" as opposed to "pray."

The other definition problem comes from "intercessor" and "mediator." Christ IS the only mediator. However, I can offer intercessory prayers for you. That does not make me a mediator.
An intercessor can only ask, a mediator has the power to demand.
(Pardon the strong language of "demand". I use it only in the sense that a mediator has the power to make it so.)

Oh, one more passage. Acts 12:13-16. Those praying for Peter had a perfectly reasonable explanation for what Rhoda found at the front door, it was Peter's angel. When they found out it was Peter, THEN they were astonished.

This answer is by no means complete or authoritative. I offer it only as an insight as to Orthodox thought and practice. We recognize the finale authority of scripture and understand that all practices of the Church must be in agreement with it. When the Orthodox Church assembled the scriptures, including the NT, only those that upheld those things that had been passed down and practiced in the Church were included.

Thank you.

blackhaw
11-08-01, 12:38 PM
Peter:

I will answer more fully later but on more than one occasion in your post you cited incense as a reason we should speak to people in Heaven so that they can pray for you. What exactly is incense? I mean I know kind of waht it is but not how y'all use it in worship. the church I go to does not use it. An explanation of it and why you do it might help me understand your post better. know also that I am not saying that that kind of worship is wrong. I just have not had any experience with it.

Blackhaw

Peter
11-08-01, 01:12 PM
Up until a year ago, I too was not used to the practice. Please understand that I am fairly new to Orthodoxy and that is why I say that my answers are not authoritative. I may not always give an answer that is keeping with the teachings of Orthodoxy.

However, as I understand it, it is used for the following purposes:

1. Worship should be done with all the senses, smell included.
2. Tabernacle and Temple worship both included incense.
3. Heavenly worship includes incense (Jeremiah and Rev.)
4. We are to worship on earth as in heaven (Lord's prayer)
5. The magi brought incense as a gift to the new born King. So do we.

This is a verrrrrrry short answer. There are other reasons that are kinda deep, and I wont try to explain them for fear of messing it up. :-)

Peter
11-08-01, 02:36 PM
Ascribing glory to Mary, now there's a statement that once said, will require a spatula to remove a Protestant from the ceiling. But look at this:

Luke 1:28

"And having come in, the angel said to her,' Rejoice, highly favored one, the Lord is with you; BLESSED ARE YOU AMONG WOMEN.'"

True, not all manuscripts have the caps part quoted, but wait, all do have this:

Luke 1:42

"Then she spoke out with a loud voice and said,'Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb.'"

v. 45

"Blessed is she who believed, for there will be fulfillment of those things which were told her from the Lord."

And even Mary herself, under direction of the Holy Spirit, says

"For behold, henceforth all generations shall call me blessed."

Jesus, in refernce to His own mother,

"Blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it." Luke 11:28

(A woman had said that Mary was blessed for giving birth. Jesus said she was blessed because she was obedient.)

Mary was the first convert. She was the first to say "yes" to the Messiah. She is honored and blessed by all generations for this selfless act.

Liamsdad
11-08-01, 06:17 PM
Okay I dont have a problem with the first part of the rosary. But the second part I do.

First, Catholics do not consider everyone a saint. There is a beatification process. AND the third sign is that a miracle is perfomed IN THAT PERSONS name. NOT, Jesus' but theirs.

Communion according to the RCC is nothing more than cannibalism and crucifying Jesus at every mass. For you do believe that the Wafer and wine become LITERALLY the body and blood of Jesus Christ.

There is no purgatory. AFTER death the judgement. Unfortunately, like other denominations, the RCC like other denominations, has become crooked, in that while we poor protestants are hell bound, check the Catechism, it says that ONLY the RCC is heaven bound. Thus purgatory becomes convenient, so we can be prayed out of it. Here, if you are Catholic, you get a free purgatory service, in not, well, there is a fee.

The Pope is not God, what he says is NOT infallible, but according to the Cathechism that "Holy Father" is God's representative on earth. Well, lets just get rid of the Holy Spirit, the Pope is doing His job.


Check the teachings of the Catechism against the WORD of God, and you will see thousands of contradictions. I already have, the list is too extensive to go into here.

Back to the saints things, a lot of times, Paul addresses his epistles to ALL the saints of God, so apparently everyone had died, been prayed do, had a miracle done in their name, etc. etc.
Check the teachings of the RCC, and according to their definition that is what a saint is.

I thought about becoming Catholic. I wanted to soooo badly, but the veneration of the statues, and the prayers before a crucifix. A MAN absolving ME of my sins, when I have a direct line to Jesus. That is not a "priesthood of believers" as the book of Hebrews calls us, but a priesthood of elect men, who have within their very selves to send me to Heaven or Hell, again check the Catechism, there it is.

Enough said for me. Want post in this topic any longer.

Cephas
11-08-01, 09:28 PM
Liamsdad,

You said,

First, Catholics do not consider everyone a saint. There is a beatification process. AND the third sign is that a miracle is performed IN THAT PERSONS name. NOT, Jesus' but theirs.

Because, that person acted as an intercessor on our behalf to Jesus. Isn’t Jesus allowed to work through anyone? Why are you tying his hands?


Communion according to the RCC is nothing more than cannibalism and crucifying Jesus at every mass. For you do believe that the Wafer and wine become LITERALLY the body and blood of Jesus Christ.

Does that offend you? This is what Jesus said, "'I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.' The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, 'How can this man give us his flesh to eat?'" (John 6:51-52). Then he said, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him" (John 6:53-56). Now, are you going to walk away from this, as did some of his disciples?



There is no purgatory. AFTER death the judgement. Unfortunately, like other denominations, the RCC like other denominations, has become crooked, in that while we poor protestants are hell bound, check the Catechism, it says that ONLY the RCC is heaven bound.

Wrong. The Church doesn’t say you are hell bound. True, after death the judgment but after the judgment, Purgatory(that is, if you are going to Heaven).



The Pope is not God, what he says is NOT infallible, but according to the Cathechism that "Holy Father" is God's representative on earth. Well, lets just get rid of the Holy Spirit, the Pope is doing His job.

But what you say is infallible? With so many different Protestant denominations, whom is the Holy Spirit talking to? Anyway, you are right. The Pope isn’t infallible but Christ who speak through him ex cathedra is.


Check the teachings of the Catechism against the WORD of God, and you will see thousands of contradictions.

I have checked the teachings and I haven’t found any contradictions. Except the part about Jesus being fully God and fully man. :)

You know, I don't have a problem with someone disagreeing with the Church or some certian doctrine or with me but, please, don't post anti-Catholic literature that wasn't meant to fool Catholics.

Peace to you all
Your Brother in Christ,
Steve

Liamsdad
11-12-01, 09:06 AM
Okay, forgive me. I said I wasn't going to post any thing else here.

In defense of something, though, NO I am not infallible, but anything I say MUST be backed up with SCRIPTURE, not teachings of men.

All my Catholic relatives are told not to question the priest and the Pope, that is heresy and a quick ticket to Hell. Catholics are saying this NOT me. So it isnt anti-Catholic.

Here is something that EWTN on their site said about Mary, and YES THEY ARE CATHOLIC...The Second Vatican Council (Lumen gentium ## 61-62), said:

... in suffering with Him as He died on the cross, she cooperated in the work of the Savior, in an altogether singular way, by obedience, faith, hope, and burning love, to restore supernatural life to souls. As a result she is our Mother in the order of grace.

This motherhood of Mary in the economy of grace lasts without interruption, from the consent which she gave in faith at the annunciation, and which she unhesitatingly bore with under the cross, even to the perpetual consummation of all the elect. For after being assumed into heaven, she has not put aside this saving function, but by her manifold intercession, she continues to win the gifts of eternal salvation for us. By her motherly love, she takes care of the brothers of her Son who are still in pilgrimage and in dangers and difficulties, until they be led through to the happy fatherland. For this reason, the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Auxiliatrix, Adiutrix, and Mediatrix. This however it to be so understood that it takes nothing away, or adds nothing to the dignity and efficacy of Christ the one Mediator. For no creature can ever be put on the same level with the Incarnate Word and Redeemer...."

We notice that Vatican II did not add the words "of all graces." However, as many papal

There is her interecession, that some of you said wasnt really intercession but parying FOR us. There is the term Mediatrix.

I have a couple of questions...

Why do you exalt Mary? She was obedient and yes to be honored, but wasn't Jesus work enough.

Why does Jesus need Mary's help and co-operation? It says she cooperated with HIM and she imparts grace through her intercession?

off the subject of that, now,

Why do Catholics believe Mary remained a Virgin, when in the books of James and Jude, They are called the Lord's brothers?

Mary would have been shamed and forced to be put away if she didnt have any more children, according to Jewish custom...She would have been a shame to her husband Joseph.

Why do some people who try to sell their homes, bury a statue of St. Joseph in the yard and pray to him that he would help sell it? I saw that advertisement IN A CATHOLIC magazine...not something protestant.

Why do some Catholics wear amulets (aka scapulars) for protection from sickness, and why must these scapulars BE blessed by a priest, before they are any good??

I am asking these honestly and earnestly...

I know you are going to be mad, etc. etc. I just do not find these fitting with scripture and God's plan..

Peter
11-12-01, 11:37 AM
Yes, the gentlemen were called Jesus' brothers. The exact same word used else where and translated relatives. This is a culture that is highly clanish. Uncles, cousins, everyone is called brother.

We also have the same idea. We call fellow Christians "brother." We are not saying we have the same earthly parents, we are saying we have the same heavenly father.

It has also been noted that these men could have been Joseph's sons from a previous marriage and were therefor Jesus' half brother. There is no Greek word for that however.

But what about the passasge that says that Joseph did not know her until she gave brith. Isnt that clear that she was not ever virgin? Jesus said the "the Father has been working until now, and I have been working." Did the Father suddenly stop working?
In the OT there was a woman who was barren "until the day she died." Does that mean she suddenly gave birth on her death bed?
The use of "until" in this culture has a different meaning that in 2001.

Lastly, while Jesus was on the cross, He gave his mother over to John. and it says that Mary lived with him from that day on. Why? Shouldn't her sons have cared for her. Yes, that was the custom. But having no sons, her son provided a place for her even in his own last hours.

Is it beyond God to be born to a woman and no harm come to her?

Lastly, Luther and Calvin both believed in Mary's ever virginity. In fact to not believe this is relatively new even to Protestants.

As to the other, I'm not going to speak for the Catholics.

Liamsdad
11-12-01, 12:23 PM
How can they be Jesus' half brothers from Joseph, when Joseph, wasn't Jesus Father?

Liamsdad
11-12-01, 12:25 PM
One other thing, the passage, Joseph did not know her UNTIL Jesus was born, implies to me that they did have relations, but it wasnt, until AFTER Jesus was born...

Peter
11-12-01, 12:34 PM
In a truely flesh oriented way, they could not be Jesus' half brothers. Any more than my adopted sister is not my sister. If you want to split hairs, fine. I can play that game. But would rather not.

Does that mean then, to you, that God the Father no longer is working? Or that the dead woman gave birth?


Ask yourself this little question, if your wife gave birth to God, would you really have sex with her later? Luther and Calvin answered no.

Liamsdad
11-12-01, 03:11 PM
Having thoroughly studied the Four Dogmas of Mary that proclaim the truths by the Church of the Motherhood of God, the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, the Immaculate Conception, and her glorious Assumption into Heaven, Mark realized the time had come, at the summit of this era often referred to as the "Marian Era," for Christ's Vicar on earth to officially proclaim and define the fifth and final Marian Dogma which is, of course,Our Lady's universal mediation as Coredemptrix with her Divine Son Jesus, Mediatrix of all grace at God the Father's permission, and Advocate for all of God's children. Her role defines these titles as permitted by God as His chosen vessel. Just as the other doctrines on Mary were nothing new, so also these titles have long been accepted and taught by the Church but not declared Dogma. Mark could see the need, realizing her apparitions and the crises and triumphs of the Church, of which she is Mother of the Church, were pertinent to the entire tableau being formed by Heaven. He could see the pattern intended, "Her titles are her works, her titles are her functions, and the solemn proclamation of our Mother's titles will lead to the full release of her most powerful sanctifying functions of grace and peace for the many crises experienced in the contemporary Church and world."


I was told I was posting Anti catholic doctrine when I said that Mary was considered Co-redemptrix and that The Pope was wanting to usher in the Marian Age (era). Well here is my support from a Catholic site. It is about the Century's top Catholic

It can be found here...http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/archives/1999Nov/216nov15,vol.10,no.216txt/




Which is it Christ alone or Christ plus Mary?



Mark realized the time had come, at the summit of this era often referred to as the "Marian Era," for Christ's Vicar on earth to officially proclaim and define the fifth and final Marian Dogma which is, of course,Our Lady's universal mediation as Coredemptrix with her Divine Son Jesus, Mediatrix of all grace at God the Father's permission, and Advocate for all of God's children.

According to this very statement, Jesus needs help since Mary is coredemptrix, She NOT God mediates Grace to us, AND SHE is our advocate, even though Jesus is at God the Fathers right hand..

Brandan
11-12-01, 05:41 PM
Thank you Liamsdad for your dillegent research.... :D

Christ_†_Alone
11-12-01, 08:00 PM
Originally posted by Liamsdad
Which is it Christ alone or Christ plus Mary?


I think my screen name speaks on where I stand here...

¤Laika¤
11-12-01, 09:44 PM
Oh, thats funny!! Making the sign of the cross is now heretical? It is some new innovation started in 300ad?

I wonder when raising ones hands in worship began, or using electric guitars and drums? Are these also heretical? Do you bow your head and close your eyes when you pray? If so, beware...you may be a heretic!! :eek:

¤Laika¤
11-13-01, 03:30 PM
I voted no in the poll. While I do think that the Roman Church has many unbiblical practices, and even betrays it's own Oral Tradition in ways, I would not go as far as to say it is a cult. In many ways the Church of Rome is misunderstood, but then again, she isn't helping matters by coming up with new doctrines such as Papal Infallibility and Immaculate Conception. Two obvious extra-biblical/extra-Holy Tradition dogmas.

As for all the other stuff, e.i. crossing oneself, asking saints for prayer (we all ask other Christians for prayer), etc... when you really think about it, all these things have their roots in Christ, and His sacrifice for our salvation. The RCC preaches the gospel. It is not a cult. To disagree with a churches theology does not make it automatically a cult.
I grew up in a church that taught that one MUST speak in tongues to be saved. I couldn't DISAGREE more now, but I would never call that church a CULT, simply misguided.

†Laika

Brandan
11-13-01, 03:36 PM
Originally posted by ¤Laika¤
I grew up in a church that taught that one MUST speak in tongues to be saved. I couldn't DISAGREE more now, but I would never call that church a CULT, simply misguided.

Oh, I would.. that's works based soteriology and stands in direct contradiction to Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Sola Scriptura, and Solo Christo.

¤Laika¤
11-13-01, 03:44 PM
Then I would say you are bit quicker to call something a cult than I am.

macdaddyof7
11-13-01, 03:59 PM
“From what I know, and someone more versed feel free to correct me, Catholicism didn't begin until the reign of Constantine, when Christianity was made legal, but it was under compromising conditions. The Christians were to worship in the temples of Dianna. Of course, all of the church did not adhere to this, and those that did took on some of the worship practices of the Roman gods, including transferring the Dianna worship over to Mary.

This is loosely referenced from the book THe Two Babylons. It has been so long, I don't even remember the author.”

I have read the book “The Two Babylons” by Alexander Hislop. The more I tried to prove him right the more the book turns out to be fiction. I am part way through “The Babylon Connection?” and will soon get “Babylon Mystery Religion” both by Ralph Woodrow and both supposed to be factual.

“If you read the NT, you will notice an astounding SILENCE on Mary. This is should be quite striking to anyone, who wonders how she was thought of, by the earliest NT church fathers.”

For a Scriptural case where Mary is exalted, please see Luke 1:43
Regarding the supposed silence on Mary in the New Testament, I did a search and discovered Mary the Mother of Our Lord is mentioned by name 20 times in the New Testament: Matthew 1:16; Matthew 1:18; Matthew 1:20; Matthew 2:11; Matthew 13:55; Mark 6:3; Luke 1:27; Luke 1:30; Luke 1:34; Luke 1:38; Luke 1:39; Luke 1:41; Luke 1:46; Luke 1:56; Luke 2:5; Luke 2:16; Luke 2:19; Luke 2:34; John 19:25; Acts 1:14 . These are all key points in the Gospels.
Will continue later with more info. I’m still looking for those early records against exalting Mary.
The Truth shall set you free.
Mac

¤Laika¤
11-13-01, 04:18 PM
I too have read those books during a time in my life when I was interested in the RCC. I decided that Roman Catholicism was not what I was looking for, but it had nothing to do with those books. They are obvious Anti-catholic propaganda, and the author has very little true understanding of Catholic theology/soteriology.

Catholocism did not begin with the reign of Constantine, in fact there are several writings that show catholic practice as early as the second century (Didache). Also there are many examples of paintings and etchings of Mary, the Aposltes and the Martyrs in the catacombs of Rome. We know through early writings that it was common practice to celebrate the Lord's Supper on the tomb of a martyr in these same catacombs, and it was even called an altar. You cannot ignore history, that is unless you are writing an anti-catholic book to discredit the beliefs and theology of a church you have very little actual knowledge of.

As for this astounding SILENCE on Mary...

I think the verses that Mac posted above speak very loudly and seem to break this so-called silence you speak of.

Mary was the first Christian, if we in anyway honor anyone (not worship...HONOR) it should be her for being a humble and willing vessel. The first to accept Christ, God into not only her heart, but her WOMB!

†Laika

Debbiek
11-14-01, 03:18 PM
hmmmmm, I see some anger in this thread. I was raised Catholic & fail to understand the hatred against Catholics. It's not very Christian -like. I'm a born again nondenominational Christian now, and I can assure you that no one ever told me Mary was a co-redeemer. I can tell you one thing about my former denomination, they are better than other denominations, more Christian like, in many ways. For one, they don't criticize other denominations by name. Never once in my many years of study did any instuctor badmouth any other Christian denomination. There is nothing similar to a cult in the Catholic religion. I've been in cults. According to Romans 14, what you are doing criticizing Catholics is wrong. The quote about the # of certain denominations above being in heaven, with Catholics being more than the other 2, is probably correct. It doesnt alarm me, why should it? THe reason for this statement is probably because the other 2 mentioned denominations are the most judgemental denominations in this country, constantly badmouthing other Christians. I bear no grudge against another Christian, and Catholics are Christians. I never worshipped Mary nor did anyone instruct me to do so, nor did anyone I know worship Mary. In fact, anyone who criticises Catholics is only believing in part of the Bible, forgetting Romans 14. One reason I have remained non denominational for so many years is because I have not found one denomination in this country whose members are taught exactly according to Scripture. They ALL have some error in their teachings that are not according to Scripture. IN Christ, Debbie

Brandan
11-14-01, 03:51 PM
There is no such thing as a "non-denominational" church. Every non-denominational church I've visited preaches a particular theology that distinguishes them from other "non-denominational" churches. Most often, the "non-denominational" churches I've visited are charismatic or pentecostal, arminian, and definitely dispensational.

I belong to a "non-denominational" church. You might as well call it a Reformed Baptist church with pentecostal tendencies (it's quite unique actually.)

And as for "judging" other denominations, we are certainly called as defenders of the faith to do so. Was the Catholic church notified of their errors? Yes, with Martin Luther.

Debbiek, do you have a problem stating that the Mormons are a cult? Do you have a problem stating that the Jehovah's Witnesses are a cult? If so, why not?

Debbiek
11-14-01, 04:31 PM
Kermie I thought a charismatic church WAS a pentecostal church!! Yes I have a problem criticizing other Christians who have accepted Jesus Christ as their Saviour. Romans 14 & elsewhere demands such. I ask anyone to name a denomination in this country whose creed is not in error, according to Scripture. The false religion mentioned in the Bible is not ANY Christian denomination. A cult does not proclaim Jesus is Lord continuously. JEhovah's witnesses believe JEsus is Lord & I dont know anything about Mormons. IF they don't believe Jesus is Lord then they are doomed, & I will call them a cult, but I don't know anything about them. For example, I imagine a lot of Catholics don't even know what vatican II says. I have read the creeds of a lot of denominations. In the last couple of years, The Disciples of Christ denomination in this country just changed their creed stating they no longer consider homosexuality a sin. I'm sure there are a lot of members of that denomination who are going to heaven & arn't even aware of their church's doctrine. A cult's intention is not to save it's members. Anyone who thinks Catholics arn't saved just doesn't know what they are talking about, and disregarding the Bible. You don"t have to speak in tongues to be saved & you don't have to be protestant either. If I can love a Pentecostal & a Baptist, you guys can love your brothers & sisters in Christ= the Catholic. I"m non denominational & proud of it. Debbie

Brandan
11-14-01, 04:49 PM
Well first off, no person can "accept Jesus Christ as Lord."

That sounds to me like works based salvation apart from grace....

Second, WHAT Jesus do the Jehovah's Witnesses believe in?


I"m non denominational & proud of it.Isn't pride a sin?

Debbiek
11-14-01, 05:28 PM
lol Kermie, yes pride is a sin. But I suppose I chose the wrong word. I don't ACT proud, so I'm not sinning in that respect. I'm glad I am not a card carrying member of any church with Scriptural error. I'm not ashamed of belonging to a non denominational church. Hope that clarify's things. The Jehovah's witnesses Ive talked to have some strange views indeed from me, but they believe Christ died for us, cause they told me so. I don't understand what you mean that no one can accept Jesus? ty, Debbie

Brandan
11-14-01, 05:48 PM
People either have faith in Jesus, or they don't. There is nothing in the Bible that says we can "accept" Him into our heart.

Secondly, Jehovah's witnesses believe that Jesus was a CREATION, and not God. They also believe Jesus was Michael the Archangel who became a man. They don't believe Jesus rose from the dead in a physical body. They don't believe Jesus died on the cross. They believe only Jehovah's Witnesses will be saved. They believe works are necessary for salvation. They believe the soul ceases to exist after death. They don't believe there is a hell. They believe the Cross is a pagan symbol and should not be used.

So, do you really think they believe in Jesus?

Christ_†_Alone
11-14-01, 06:02 PM
The bottom line for me was when I studied the teachings of the RC organization, from the Roman Catholic Catechism, and Vatican II, and compared them with the teachings found in the Bible.

My answer was as clear as it could be. Roman Catholicism, is NOT Biblical Christianity.

Others disagree, so be it.

¤Laika¤
11-14-01, 07:22 PM
How do you KNOW that your interpretation of what is Biblical or not is correct?

In fact, whose interpretation is correct? Is it always your own?

Debbiek
11-15-01, 10:15 AM
If Jehovah's witnesses believe Jesus was actually MIchael, then they are mistaken. I never heard that one. Whether you use the term "faith" or "accept" the fact that Jesus is Lord, the result is the same=salvation. NO where in the Bible does it say one has to believe all the other stuff. Jesus is the only way to heaven, and we are not to judge other Christians. This is a very non-Christian thread. Some of you have not thoroughly researched some subject matter. Some of us, such as myself, are more interested in end time matters, be they past or present, etc. There are other Christians who have studied other Biblical matters more in depth than us. Granted, pick any denomination, some of the things they believe are preposterous, because we already know some of it to be Biblically incorrect. On the other hand, if you take time to study these other petty matters, you will find they are Biblically CORRECT. The perfect church described in the BIble is a little bit Baptist, a little bit Catholic, a little Pentecostal, a little Jehovah's witnesses, a little bit Calvinist, a little bit protestant, etc. There are Biblically sound beliefs in these churches that are missing in other churches. I have seen many so called Christians breed hatred into their children by telling them, "Catholics won't go to heaven". Those people who say that are sinning & passing their sin onto their children. Anyone who claims, "Roman Catholocism is not Biblical Christianity" does not grasp the meaning of the entire book of James, Romans 14, or Matthew 7, etc, etc. To have read these books of the Bible and to disregard them by slamming other Christians anyway, would make you not to be a Biblical Christian would it not? It appears you do not fit your own definition of a Biblical Christian. No offense. "Judge not, that ye be not judged". REgarding the permanent salutation attached to the bottom of some posts here saying "may my words accomplish... & ...prosper": I wonder what are your words against these Christians accomplishing? How are your deroggatory words against these Christians prospering? James 4:11-"Speak not evil one of another brethren. HE that speaketh evil of his brother, and judgeth his brother... that art not a doer of the law but a judge." 12- "there art one lawgiver... who art thou that judgest another?".Romans 14:1-4- " Him that is weak in the faith recieve ye, but not to doubtful disputations.For one believeth that he may eat all things:another, who is weak, eateth herbs. Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not: and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth:for God hath recieved him. Who art thou that judgest another man's servant?to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand."13- "Let us not therefore judge one another any more". Also Jehovah's witnesses are not the only denomination who believes works are required as well as faith in Jesus to enter heaven. Here's why: James 3 & elsewhere: James 3 :20- "But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? 22- ..."and by works was faith made perfect" 24- "Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only". 26" For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also". In Christ, Debbie

Brandan
11-15-01, 11:02 AM
Well, Debbie, since Christianity according to you seems to encompass everyone under the son who claims to believe in a "god," I assume you also believe everyone will be saved and that people in hell are Christians too.

*sigh*, ya know, I always thought it was ok to call a spade a spade....

Debbiek
11-15-01, 11:13 AM
No you misunderstood. You have to believe in Jesus being the only begotten Son of GOd who died for our sins & rose from the dead, in order to go to heaven. As i said, if Jehovah's Witnesses don't believe this they are mistaken. I did not say they would go to heaven. Yes there are so called "Christians" who will be in hell. NO where did I say that belief in any god is ok. DEbbie

Christ_†_Alone
11-15-01, 11:15 AM
Originally posted by ¤Laika¤
How do you KNOW that your interpretation of what is Biblical or not is correct? In fact, whose interpretation is correct? Is it always your own?

Scripture is interpreted by Scripture, and the truths inside revealed to the hearts of men, by the Holy Spirit.

Christ_†_Alone
11-15-01, 11:20 AM
Originally posted by kermie
I always thought it was ok to call a spade a spade....

Jesus did... and look at all the pious and religious men who wanted Him dead for it.

Funny how when you speak the truth, so often you're labelled someone who hates people.

When the truth is, the reality is, if we hated people, would we really bother to share what we know to be true? Wouldn't it make more sense to keep the truth a secret, if we REALLY hated people?

What is in fact an anger against false teaching (that coddles so many right into hell), is what is being misinterpreted as hatred towards people.

Something to think about...

Debbiek
11-15-01, 11:25 AM
Something else to think about: why are you so quick to judge others who believe that Jesus is the only begotten Son of God who rose from the dead for our sins, yet you yourself don't want to be judged for disregarding the book of James. How is your sin any less of a sin than theirs? Are there varying degrees of sin? Does your sin stink less?

¤Laika¤
11-15-01, 11:44 AM
Scripture is interpreted by Scripture, and the truths inside revealed to the hearts of men, by the Holy Spirit.


C†A,

Can you please back this up with Scripture for me? While your at it, since this is a 5 solas topic, can you please explain to me the Biblical basis for Sola Scriptura? If this has already been covered somewhere else, feel free to point me to that thread. :)

Thank you



¤Laika

Debbiek
11-15-01, 12:02 PM
I think 5 solas means we are supposed to go by the Bible as the last word of authority, except for the book of James. Debbie

Brandan
11-15-01, 12:16 PM
Open my eyes, that I may behold Wonderful things from Thy law....I will bow down toward Thy holy temple, And give thanks to Thy name for Thy lovingkindness and Thy truth; For Thou hast magnified Thy word according to all Thy name....You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them; and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. (Psalm 119:18; Psalm 138:2; II Tim. 3:14-17)

Brandan
11-15-01, 12:21 PM
Let's get back on topic. If you want to refute Sola Scriptura, go to this thread....

http://www.predestinarian.net/showthread.php?threadid=341

¤Laika¤
11-15-01, 12:58 PM
Thanks Kermie.

Debbie, Why do you say the book of James is NOT authoritative?

Do you believe that the Church errored in including James in the canon?

Debbiek
11-15-01, 01:05 PM
No I am saying read this thread above. Kermie owns the site. The moderator is CHrist Alone. They don't believe in the book of James otherwise they wouldn't be slamming Christians like Catholics, otherwise the site is dedicated, supposedly, to the Bible being the last word of authority. (EXCEPT for the book of James which says not to be doing what they are doing in this thread.) So this site ignores the book of James, Romans 14, Matthew 7, etc. Therefore it is not a Christian site since it ignores certain entire books of the BIble.

Debbiek
11-15-01, 01:10 PM
Maybe a better way to put it is that this site doesn't follow it's own creed. In every other aspect I have found it to be a Christian site, except ignoring noted books & chapters mentioned above. No offense intended.

Brandan
11-15-01, 01:36 PM
Debbie, we do NOT ignore the book of James. Also we are NOT slamming Christians, but an ORGANIZATION that we believe to be cultish: the Roman Catholic Church. We stated WHY we thought the RC Church was cultish.

CA put it well. If we thought the RC Church was a cult and did not proclaim it, we would be disobeying our conscience, and would violate the call God has placed on our lives to defend the truth at all costs (including looking bad in front of people like you.)

Debbie, I'm sorry to say, but I'd rather be labeled an evil judge by someone like you than silently watch millions of people go to hell because they were deceived by the Roman Cathlic Cult.

Also, I question your salvation as well. I don't think you truly understand Biblical Christianity. Do I say this to you because I am judging you? No. You basically said we should not criticize the Jehovah's Witnesses for perverting the Gospel. The JW's don't even believe Jesus is God for crying out loud! That's not the Jesus I know. The Jesus I know doesn't require you to pray to Mary either in order to be saved. The Jesus I know is the sole mediator, and a jesus described the way the RCC or JW's describe him is a different jesus! Call him an idol with the name, "jesus", if you will.

Let's take for example, the St. Louis Rams. I love watching them play football. In fact, I think you could call me a Rams fan. I'm a fan of the Rams who won the Superbowl 2 years ago.

Now, let's say you are a Rams fan also. But you are in fact a fan of a different team called the Rams that play high school football. Now I know you're not a TRUE Rams fan, because you know nothing of the Rams that won the superbowl.

Now the JW's are jesus fans. They like the high school jesus. The made up jesus. Not the one who was God in the flesh, but one they made up in their minds. The same goes for the RCC, except their jesus is a different jesus altogether. Now just like I'm a different Rams fan than the high school rams fan, I'm a different JESUS fan than the JW and the RCC.

See, Jesus isn't Jesus unless it's the Jesus defined by the word of God. Any other jesus leads to the path of hell. If you can't see that, I don't think you know my Jesus either....

¤Laika¤
11-15-01, 01:51 PM
How can anyone think they are in the position of judging another persons heart?

I can understand judging the actions of an organization Kermie, but when you make it personal and question Debbie's salvation, you set yourself up as the judge and only Christ can sit in that seat. I think you need to be careful what you say. It is no mans place to judge another.


¤Laika

Brandan
11-15-01, 01:54 PM
Hey,

I judge what I see. Debbie here believes by association that you don't believe a Christian needs to believe Jesus is God in order to be a Christian.

If that's what she believes, then she needs to understand that she could very well not be a Believer. Hey, she may very well be. But if she isn't, I hope my observation might SCARE her, and cause her to question her beliefs. Hey, I call it like it is. And I am not judging her either. I am simply calling it like I see it.

Debbiek
11-15-01, 01:57 PM
Sorry to keep repeating myself but I never said it's not ok to discuss Jehovah's witnesses if they don't believe Jesus was the only begotten Son of God who died for our sins & rose from the dead. What part of Biblical Christianity don't u think I understand? As you stated you are ruled "by your conscience" as you judge others such as Catholics in the above post. It Is not my conscience that I am led by, but the Bible, book of James, Matthew 7, etc. where I draw my conclusion that this thread is not Biblical Christianity. I am not ignoring the entire book of James & using my conscience to "save millions from a cult". All Christians must put their own religious beliefs to the test of scripture as well. (I forget where that scripture is). All Christians, including myself, have need for improvement. Some areas of need are more apparent than others, such as this thread. Catholics believe that Jesus Christ was the only begotten Son of God who died for our sins & rose from the dead physically. Therefore according to the book of James, Matthew 7, etc. criticizing Catholics is against the scripture. How more plain can it be? Debbie

Debbiek
11-15-01, 02:05 PM
Kermie I dont know what u misunderstood. For your info, I do not believe what u said I believed in your post. I believe that Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God who died for our sins on the cross & rose from the dead. Jeus is LOrd, my Lord & Saviour. I have never indicated anything any different. In Christ, Debbie

Brandan
11-15-01, 02:18 PM
Catholics may believe He is God, but they don't believe He has power to save anyone apart from Mary or works. That's a different Jesus.

Debbiek
11-15-01, 02:36 PM
u r wrong u dont know what they believe. I know because i was raised catholic they do believe in the same Jesus u do & that he performs miracles alone.

¤Laika¤
11-15-01, 03:08 PM
It is clear that you do not, in fact know what Catholics believe. They believe that Christ is the ONLY begotten Son of God, fully man and fully God. He alone is our salvation. Any honor given to Mary is always because of her relationship to Christ, her son. Scripture tells us that she is blessed among all women, and that all generations will call her blessed. The catholic do not confuse this (maybe some do, but the church does not teach Mary worship). You have obviously bought in to some Anti-catholic propaganda and are not willing to study it for yourself, but would rather someone else told you how to view catholics.

I recommend that you truly look into the RCC. You will be surprised how much it is focused on Christ and the Trinity.
I do not agree with many things that the RCC does and teaches, but the same can be said abotu many churches, does not make them cults. If a cult is anything that teaches something different from your own church, then we all have a problem, cause no two churches agree.

Debbiek
11-15-01, 04:26 PM
I have found something Biblically incorrect with every USA Christian denomination. According to the Bible, a Christian is a person who believes that Jesus is the Messiah, was the only begotten Son of God who died for our sins and rose from the dead. Catholics believe this so they are Christians. I know because I used to be a member of that congregation. Therefore since they believe in Jesus as above noted, it is also wrong to ignore the book of James, Matthew 7, etc. by criticizing them. Some so called Christians who enjoy criticizing & judging others, HAVE to say that the people they are criticizing are not Christians, because the Bible strictly forbids it, devoting an entire book to the matter. These books & chapters say not to do this to, "brethren", other Christians. So some "Christians" talk about anybody & everybody they feel like of any denomination, But claim they are not sinning because the person they are talking about is not saved. Thus, they are judging and violating scripture if that person (group or denomination) has told them they believe in Jesus as the risen Messiah. So the instigator merely says, "I question your salvation".(not just at previous post but everywhere) Then they think they are free from sin from abiding by book of James. When in actuality, a true Christian would not offend anyone who testifies that Jesus is the risen Messiah, regardless of any other petty differences. MOst Christians understand the book of James. Saying a CAtholic isn't a Christian is an excuse to violate "James", but that person still must answer to GOd for doing so. This thread is against the scripture of the Bible, book of James, & claiming a Catholic isn't a Christian is not true & does not justify ignoring the scriptures. The theory ,"Well if I say they arn't Christians I can talk about them all I want and I won't be sinning" is incorrect if the person said they believe in Jesus the risen Messiah, which Catholics do.

Brandan
11-15-01, 04:34 PM
I'm tired of debating this. The RCC is a cult in my opinion. If you have a problem with that, take it up with the Bible.