“All of the attitude towards and actions in response to Mary by Catholics add up to worship. I really don’t know what else to call it. Yet, each Catholic I talk with here denies any such behavior.”(WT)
You also keep repeating the claim that the Church has deified Mary, with no substantiation. What’s common here? Your perceptions, perhaps?
“Therefore, they must be unaware of the behavior. But someone not inducted into the belief system looks at the overt action and thinks “idol worship”. There are any number of those observers who have posted that opinion on these threads for years.
I severely doubt that they all met and decided in concert to level this accusation, which means each came to the same conclusion independently. “(WT)
There is a very much more plausible explanation. Perhaps it has something to do with protestants spreading the same lies from their pulpits, week after week, for 400 years. Could that have something to do with similar accusations? Of course you, WT, claim that you figure all your faith out from the bible, by your own guidance from the Holy Spirit? Are you telling us you never went to a preacher to hear what they had to say about the Word of God? You haven’t been preconditioned, have you?
Your obvious hate for the Catholic Church is quite clear, since you claim to be given the chore (by God, I suppose) to correct all the errors of the Church. Now, WT, you seem to be an expert on understanding scripture. Since you never were indoctrinated or conditioned, as those dumb Catholics are, please tell me, how did you find the scriptures? Were you walking past a used book store, and stumble on a bible, buy it, decide to read it and therefrom base your faith? I’m sorry, but I doubt your veracity.
Since you are convinced of the sinfulness of the Catholic Church, and the “man made organization,” (your words, not mine) I assume you will agree to avoid Catholic documents, or at least claim they are suspect?
Hate to break this to you, but the Bible is a Catholic Church document. The canon of the Bible was decided by all the Catholic bishops in the year 399, and approved by the reigning pope. Had that not been done, there would be no Bible today. As has been mentioned several times in this thread, over the centuries, the Bible was preserved by the Catholic Church, by having monks make copies. Without the positive efforts of the Catholic Church to save scripture, you would have no way to make your statements about your misinterpretations. Don’t believe me, look up history.
You will also notice, until the year 399 there was no bible to base your faith upon. I guess that’s why there were no protestants then. Come to think of it, all the centuries when producing a Bible was monumental task, there were no protestants to take up the task, and only when the printing press was invented, did some folks think about making “different versions” of the Bible. Your for-bearers in the 16th century decided that several books of the Old Testament and several books of the New Testament didn’t agree with their idea of what faith in God should be and deleted those books. They also changed many phrases to agree with their new religion. I like to call it, “The Word of God, According To The Way We would Have Written It.” Your scripture study is all for naught, if you do not have a Catholic Bible.
From your post 706: “I’ve opined this before and I’ll do so again. The Catholic interpretation of passages like these are clearly of a process: make the policy to be disseminated to the flock first, then find some Biblical passage that can possibly be spun to support it.”
Seems to me, if the Church is the originator of the canon of the Bible (which She is), the bishops who studied the “books” would have realized that when they decided what writings were actually inspired, and which were not, and therefor would have little need to spin passages to suit some idolatrous idea. The realization that there was no Bible for 400 years also points to the fact that Christ said “listen to the Church,” and NOT “Read my book.”
“Nobody reads these passages and comes away with the meaning the church places on them without prior conditioning.”(WT) One can play that game both ways. Nobody reads these passages and comes away with the meaning the protestant places on them, without prior conditioning. Since your preconditioning is based upon being opposed to Catholicism (a negative feature), and my Catholic conditioning is based upon bringing me closer to God (a positive feature), who’s conditioning is better or worse?
Your religion is based upon opposition to Catholicism, as all protestantism is. If there was no Catholic Church, there could be no protestantism, because there would be nothing to oppose. The very name of the system of “protestant” points to the protest. You are true to that tradition. From your post 725”
” I don’t hate Catholics, but I’m deeply contemptuous of the policy declaring men in the Catholic church and regard them as running a con job on innocent folks.”
The Church was founded by Jesus Christ, as He said he would, and did, and His instructions were and are, “listen to the Church.” Christ is the Head of the Church He founded. When the Church speaks, it is Christ Who speaks. If you are contemptuous of the Church, you are contemptuous of Christ. There are bad men in the Church, some in positions of power, and it has always been thus, and presumably always will be so. The Church was made for sinners, that we may be guided to all truth. To reject the Church is to reject Christ, and you do so at you own risk. There is no salvation outside the Church. As several have already mentioned, you are the perfect proof of the article which started this thread. Your hate of Catholicism has blinded you to the truth, and your whole religion is based upon opposing Christ and the Church He founded. It's a shame you can't drop the blinders of hate and see the beauty of the Truth and thereby save your soul by true worship as God revealed to and demands of us. -Glenn
You also keep repeating the claim that the Church has deified Mary, with no substantiation. What’s common here? Your perceptions, perhaps? Mediatrix. CoRedemptrix.
Perhaps it has something to do with protestants spreading the same lies from their pulpits, week after week, for 400 years.
I am not a Protestant. Nevertheless, It's very easy to preach Catholic departure from the scriptures and the simple path to God that Jesus taught. It's written in the Catholic doctrine. The current issue is called "Mariology" and it is not hidden.
If a preacher called the congregation to attention of this fact, it can hardly be called a lie.
Your obvious hate for the Catholic Church is quite clear, since you claim to be given the chore (by God, I suppose) to correct all the errors of the Church. Now, WT, you seem to be an expert on understanding scripture. Since you never were indoctrinated or conditioned, as those dumb Catholics are, please tell me, how did you find the scriptures? Were you walking past a used book store, and stumble on a bible, buy it, decide to read it and therefrom base your faith? I’m sorry, but I doubt your veracity.
I don't hate the Catholic church. I have contempt for its ecumenical council creating manmade policies that depart from the simple word of the Lord and teach a false doctrine.
I read the Bible and do what it says, and don't do what it says not to do. Whatever extraBiblical doctrine exists, we all agree that what is written is true. If, as the Catholic church claims, there are procedures necessary to the salvation of the individual soul not written but available only to those who submit to Catholic dogma, I have cause to doubt its veracity.
Hate to break this to you, but the Bible is a Catholic Church document.
There appear to be several relatively recent nonCatholic translations of the original text. They seem to agree wit the Kings James version.
But, nevertheless, you are saying that, since there is a Catholic guided translation, one must be Catholic to be saved, and all Catholic doctrines must ipso facto, presumed valid and necessary for salvation?
Certain Catholic doctrines are not found in and are inconsistent with the very Bible translation it published.
Since your preconditioning is based upon being opposed to Catholicism (a negative feature), and my Catholic conditioning is based upon bringing me closer to God (a positive feature), who’s conditioning is better or worse?
I am opposed to Catholic doctrines because I read the Bible and don't find them there. If reading the Bible conditions me, then I am conditioned.
Your religion is based upon opposition to Catholicism, as all protestantism is. If there was no Catholic Church, there could be no protestantism, because there would be nothing to oppose. The very name of the system of “protestant” points to the protest. You are true to that tradition. From your post 725”
I am not a Protestant. My "religion" is what Jesus said to do and not to do, according to the written word.
When Jesus speaks of a "church" it is actinicly clear that He speaks of the aggregate of all those who choose follow Him. The interpretation the church gives to the Matthew passage that presumes to bestow some royal lineage down through Peter is flatly inconsistent with what Christ said elsewhere.
America reputed the divine right of kings and all that malarkey long ago. It must be likewise invalid when applied to a faith, especially when applied to a faith, else the founding fathers were flat wrong to create a representative republic and should have replicated a monarchy.
