Oh look...it Kick a Catholic Tuesday!

Wednesday.

without her consent (”Be it done unto to me according to thy word”), there would have been no Incarnation.

For the umpteenth time, Art; she 'consented' to NOTHING!

The angel TOLD her what was going to happen.

NOTHING Mary said after that made a bit of difference.

(She probably KNEW the story of Jonah...)

People are saved who die in the state of sanctifying grace—i.e., with the supernatural virtue of charity. Baptism is the ordinary way that people receive the supernatural virtues.

So teaches the Great and Mighty Church of Rome.

Why did Jesus give his mother to John?

And John consented.

It's right there in the Scriptures.

The belief of the Church —is that Mary was a perpetual virgin.

What a PITIFUL creature your chosen religion has turned Jesus' mother into!!

the chaste maiden ?

The Roman Catholic Church has turned the beautiful, blessed lady of Scripture into an asexual, frigid Jewish wife; who withheld her favors from Joseph for no rational reason.

The Fathers of the Church are unanimous: It was an OUTRAGE for anyone to suggest that St. Joseph would have considered for a moment violating the perpetual virginity of Mary. The idea of her womb carrying any other child after carrying the Incarnate Word of God...

Our Lady of the Perpetual Headache..

To HELL with that "Be fruitful and multiply" thing!!

IGNORE...

Sick, sick, SICK!

It was posted yesterday. I just did not see it until this morning.

It was posted yesterday. I just did not see it until this morning.

My bad. Apology.

“”Why then do you waste your time talking to the priest?” wonders this Protestant.”

Good question. The answer is, that is what is expected by the Priest. And if I did something major, major wrong I would feel better going to a Priest.

I took Catholic instruction from 12 to 13 years old, and came to the conclusion that honest confession works best strictly twixt God and the penitent.

That’s served me well for me through 40 years of marriage, which I’ll take before God too, your boldface “HMMMmmm...” notwithstanding.

And if I did something major, major wrong I would feel better going to a Priest.

What is the demarcation line between small wrongs and major, major wrongs?

“What is the demarcation line between small wrongs and major, major wrongs?”

mortal and venial sins

The belief of the Church, from the earliest days, based on Old Testament types alluded to in the gospels—the Garden of Eden, the Ark of the Covenant, the Queen Mother of several kings, etc.—and on assertions by the disciples of the apostles—e.g., Ignatius of Antioch—is that Mary was a perpetual virgin. Many Fathers of the Church expressed outrage that anyone would suggest that Joseph would dare to violate Mary’s virginity.

Ah yes.....alluded to. Marcion alluded to a lot of things as did the Gnostics.

. Proves nothing except poor biblical interpretation on the part of catholicism.

And yet, not mentioned by Paul, Peter, or any of the writers of the NT note this "belief" you claim so vital to catholicism. Thus the reason I asked if you studied Greek in seminary.

So now we have two simple questions you won't answer.

yes or no on the fifth Marian dogma and did you study Greek? Speaks volumes.

“mortal and venial sins”

Sincerely, I’m not sure what this means. Please provide an example of a sin you would not classify as a “major, major wrong”. Thanks. R2z

Salvation.....catholics have been shown wrong on this so many times. Just check the Greek and you will see

Do not put any man (or government) between you and God. God wants to hear from you; He wants a relationship with you.

“Sincerely, I’m not sure what this means.”

Why don’t you Google it?

Note that catholic is almost always the 3rd or 4th most popular keyword, and it is not because of articles as these, but the incessant posting by RC devotees. If they want to do that, then do not complain when her elitists presumptions are challenged.

There are no presumptions in the Catholic Church. The what you call the presumptions of the Church, the Church itself, is never challenged here.

Then you are either one who does not frequent the RF, or you define "challenged" contrary to any dictionary. As i have never seen you here then the former may be the case. Hopefully.

Not one poster hateful of the Church have I ever spoken with here has ever been curious, except the afore mentioned. Not curious enough to consult the theologians, the Catechism, Canon law, Catholic publications.

As others can attest, multitudes of my heavily referenced posts refuting RCs have been abundantly based upon what theologians, and or the Catechism, Canon law, Catholic publications etc. say, as here , here , here , here , etc.

A challenge like facing a champion boxer in the ring wearing no gloves, wearing street clothes.

Rather, your blindness is like a thief who cannot find a police station.

It’s just a lot of bigotry

Which dismissive is often the recourse of RCs when faced with refutation, while they can assert they have never seen any anti-Prot bigotry here!

You can not find one serious challenge to the Church o FR to cut and paste and post (Now there’s a challenge for you) I have never seen one.

The latter ignorance or blindness the cause of the former. Put your gloves on and respond to some these i posted recently , which are based upon Catholic teaching or apologetic, which i can show.

it is Catholicism and the church of Rome in particular (as the church taking up the most space on the broad way to destruction) that is most manifest as standing in critical and overall contrast to the NT church. Which church, as manifested in Scripture,

1. Was not based upon the premise of perpetual assured infallibility of office as per Rome, which has presumed to infallibly declare that she is and will perpetually be infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.

2. Never promised or taught a perpetual assuredly infallible magisterium was necessary for preservation of truth, including writings to be established as Scripture, and for assurance of faith, and that historical descent and being the stewards of Scripture assured that such had assured infallibility.

3. Never was a church that manifested the Lord's supper as being the central means of grace, around which all else revolved, it being “the source and summit of the Christian faith” in which “the work of our redemption is accomplished,” by which one received spiritual life in themselves by consuming human flesh, so that without which eating one cannot have eternal life (as per RC literalism, of Jn. 6:53,54). In contrast to believing the gospel by which one is regenerated, (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9; Eph. 1:13) and desiring the milk (1Pt. 2:2) and then the “strong meat” (Heb. 5:12-14) of the word of God, being “nourished” (1Tim. 4:6) by hearing the word of God and letting it dwell in them, (Col. 3:16) by which word (Scriptures) man is to live by, (Mt. 4:4) as Christ lived by the Father, (Jn. 6:57) doing His will being His “meat.” (Jn. 4:34) And with the Lord's supper, which is only manifestly described once in the life of the church, focusing on the church being the body of Christ in showing the Lord sacrificial death by that communal meal.

4. Never had any pastors titled "priests" as they did not engage in any unique sacrificial function, that of turning bread into human flesh and dispensing it to the people, or even dispensing bread as their primary ordained function, versus preaching the word. (2Tim. 4:2)

5. Never differentiated between bishops and elders, and with grand titles ("Most Reverend Eminence," “Very Reverend,” “Most Illustrious and Most Reverend Lord,” “His Eminence Cardinal,” “The Most Reverend the Archbishop,” etc.) or made themselves distinct by their ostentatious pompous garb. (Matthew 23:5-7) Or were all to be formally called “father” as that would require them to be spiritual fathers to all (Mt. 23:8-10 is a form of hyperbole, reproving the love of titles such as Catholicism examples, and “thinking of men above that which is written, and instead the Lord emphasizes the One Father of all who are born of the Spirit, whom He Himself worked to glorify).

6. Never required clerical celibacy as the norm, (1Tim. 3:17) which presumes all such have that gift, (1Cor. 7:7) or otherwise manifested that celibacy was the norm among apostles and pastors, or had vowed to be so. (1Cor. 9:4; Titus 1:5,6)

7. Never taught that Peter was the "rock" of Mt. 16:18 upon which the church is built, interpreting Mt. 16:18, rather than upon the rock of the faith confessed by Peter, thus Christ Himself. (For in contrast to Peter, that the LORD Jesus is the Rock (“petra”) or "stone" (“lithos,” and which denotes a large rock in Mk. 16:4) upon which the church is built is one of the most abundantly confirmed doctrines in the Bible (petra: Rm. 9:33; 1Cor. 10:4; 1Pet. 2:8; cf. Lk. 6:48; 1Cor. 3:11; lithos: Mat. 21:42; Mk.12:10-11; Lk. 20:17-18; Act. 4:11; Rm. 9:33; Eph. 2:20; cf. Dt. 32:4, Is. 28:16) including by Peter himself. (1Pt. 2:4-8) Rome's current catechism attempts to have Peter himself as the rock as well, but also affirms: “On the rock of this faith confessed by St Peter, Christ build his Church,” (pt. 1, sec. 2, cp. 2, para. 424) which understanding some of the so-called “church fathers” concur with.)

8. Never taught or exampled that all the churches were to look to Peter as the bishop of Rome, as the first of a line of supreme heads reigning over all the churches, and having the last word in questions affecting the whole Church.

9. Never recorded or taught any apostolic successors (like for James: Acts 12:1,2) after Judas who was to maintain the original 12: Rv. 21:14) or elected any apostolic successors by voting, versus casting lots (no politics). (Acts 1:15ff)

10. Never recorded or manifested (not by conjecture) sprinkling or baptism without repentant personal faith, that being the stated requirement for baptism. (Acts 2:38; 8:36-38)

11. Never preached a gospel of salvation which begins with becoming good enough inside (formally justified due to infused interior charity), via sprinkling (RC "baptism") in recognition of proxy faith, and which thus usually ends with becoming good enough again to enter Heaven via suffering in purgatory, commencing at death.

12. Never supported or made laws that restricted personal reading of Scripture by laity (contrary to Chrysostom), if able and available, sometimes even outlawing it when it was.

13. Never used the sword of men to deal with its theological dissenters.

14. Never taught that the deity Muslims worship (who is not as an "unknown god") is the same as theirs.

15. Never had a separate class of believers called “saints.”

16. Never prayed to anyone in Heaven but the Lord, or were instructed to (i.e. "our Mother who art in Heaven") who were able to hear and respond to virtually unlimited prayers addressed to them (a uniquely Divine attribute in Scripture).

17. Never recorded a women who never sinned, and was a perpetual virgin despite being married (contrary to the normal description of marriage, as in leaving and sexually cleaving) and who would be bodily assumed to Heaven and exalted (officially or with implicit sanction) as

• an almost almighty demigoddess to whom "Jesus owes His Precious Blood" to,

• whose [Mary] merits we are saved by,

• who "had to suffer, as He did, all the consequences of sin,"

• and was bodily assumed into Heaven, which is a fact (unsubstantiated in Scripture or even early Tradition) because the Roman church says it is, and "was elevated to a certain affinity with the Heavenly Father,"

• and whose power now "is all but unlimited,"

• for indeed she "seems to have the same power as God,"

• "surpassing in power all the angels and saints in Heaven,"

• so that "the Holy Spirit acts only by the Most Blessed Virgin, his Spouse."

• and that “sometimes salvation is quicker if we remember Mary's name then if we invoked the name of the Lord Jesus,"

• for indeed saints have "but one advocate," and that is Mary, who "alone art truly loving and solicitous for our salvation,"

• Moreover, "there is no grace which Mary cannot dispose of as her own, which is not given to her for this purpose,"

• and who has "authority over the angels and the blessed in heaven,"

• including "assigning to saints the thrones made vacant by the apostate angels,"

• whom the good angels "unceasingly call out to," greeting her "countless times each day with 'Hail, Mary,' while prostrating themselves before her, begging her as a favour to honour them with one of her requests,"

• and who (obviously) cannot "be honored to excess,"

• and who is (obviously) the glory of Catholic people, whose "honor and dignity surpass the whole of creation." Sources and more.