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.
First, WT, I must apologize. The moderator is correct, and I cannot read minds, hearts or souls. I have wronged you, by accusing you of hate. I am sorry.
Deifying Mary. Those words, CorRedemptrix, Mediatrix do not imply she is God, by any means. Perhaps you should read what the Church says about them. You said that a council has deified her, and that’s what I asked you to substantiate.
“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.”(WT)
True that many things taught are not written in scripture. That is the point that Christ made when He said, “Hear the Church.” He did not say, “Read My book,” because He formed a Church to give the whole truth, and scripture also says not all things He said or taught are there. Now, I suppose we’re flogging a dead horse here, since it’s been pretty much the same for 400 years, but the matter of importance is that for 1500 years, the Church existed doing the teaching He wished. Veneration of Mary is one thing (as among many as complained about or doubted, I guess is closer to say, by protestants.
“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.”(WT)
Which council? Or all councils? How do you determine they are false, man made policies? I suppose, when you say, “...simple word of the Lord...” that is a point to be considered, since we know from that same source, not all He taught is there, and it was never meant to be all the teaching required.
“There appear to be several relatively recent nonCatholic translations of the original text. They seem to agree wit the Kings James version.”(WT)
There are no original texts. If there were, there would be little question by anybody about what it says. The best (as far as I know of) is the Latin Vulgate, organized by St Jerome, after the Catholic Church decided the canon. It is assumed/guessed/postulated that he had original sources, but far as I know, nobody really knows that either.That is the Catholic Bible
“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?”(WT)
No. What I’m saying is that no bible existed (notwithstanding OT scripture), and that indeed, no bible is necessary to realize the truth from oral sources from the Church Christ founded. That’s why it’s not a man made institution, but a Divinely instituted organic, living, breathing organization, made by God to save souls. That’s why it cannot be destroyed, and is now the oldest organization on earth. True, it is run by men, and sometimes bad men, and even they cannot destroy it. All dogma is truth, and it cannot be contrary to the Bible, since they are just 2 sources of truth, and Truth cannot be in conflict with itself. What you call apparent conflicts are due to misinterpretation or misunderstanding. That does not mean that everything that is true is contained in the Bible, even though all that’s in the Bible is true.
“Certain Catholic doctrines are not found in and are inconsistent with the very Bible translation it published.”(WT)
You have to be more specific. I’m not sure what you mean by doctrines. There are many things in Catholic theology which we may believe, and some things we must believe to be Catholic.
“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.”(WT)
That could well be true. We know from the bible itself that not all truth is there. It was never meant to explain all truth, as I said above.
“I am not a Protestant. My “religion” is what Jesus said to do and not to do, according to the written word.”(WT)
That is perhaps, the nub of the problem. Why, “according to the written word”? He said to listen to the Church, did He not? When He instituted His Church, there was no written word, and would be not written word for 400 years before anybody could know what to read, with a confirmation of truth, and to confirm what was the true written word, the Church He founded would have to confirm that.
“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.”(WT)
I suppose you think it is inconsistent, but not with folks for 1500 years before anybody doubted it. Besides, the faith God instituted always had a distinct leader to settle any differences of opinion. The high priests of the jews sat on the chair of Moses. The pope sits on the chair of Peter. If God wishes us to know the truth, as He said He did, we must by necessity have a final arbiter of theological questions, or we’d have 30,000 “churches” with differing opinions of almost all questions, and nobody would know the Truth. That just doesn’t sound to me like a loving God who wants His creatures know the Truth. Besides, what you are saying is that instead of a pope elected in the Church God founded, you are your own pope. So I suppose, we are arguing about which pope is the true pope, no?
“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.”(WT)
I can’t answer that. I don’t know if the founding fathers were perfectly correct, or not. You are making a comparison of a group of men as opposed to Christ and His chosen apostles. I guess you are saying the Faith should be a democracy? Vote for truth? Not being smart. I just am not sure what you mean. In any case, no man made government has ever lasted 2000 years, nor make the claim that it will be here til the end of the world. Even Hitler wanted his to last 1000 years. -Glenn