You wrote:
“You’re a funny guy/gal. You know nothing of me.”
Actually you communicate more than you realize. I’ve dealt with your type before. It becomes routine after a while.
“I was going to let this rest but since you asked allow me to retort.”
Oh, gee, please do.
“Your post is in error and makes my point exactly.”
No, actually nothing I said was in error and your about to prove it.
“Let’s say that you are correct, that the Catholic religion was adopted 40 years after Constantine. That would mean that anyone prior to that time was appointed pope after the fact.”
No. The one does not follow the other. Your view - as you’ve posted it - is predicated upon a false idea. You are forgetting - actually you probably never knew - that Constantine, when he seized control of Rome on his way to becoming the undisputed emperor of the Empire, was met by an already installed Bishop of Rome who succeeded a universally well known and famous line of Bishops of Rome. So, not only did you not know which emperor established Christianity as the official religion of the empire, but you falsely assume there were no Bishops of Rome before the time of Consatntine when in fact EVERYONE - Christian and pagan both - knew there was a Bishop of Rome.
“So you get to pick and choose your lineage. How convenient for you.”
No. Again, the line of Bishops was known about long, long before Constantine. Is this really as good as it’s going to get from you? Really? Not only are you presenting things that are historically false, but they don’t even mke sense on the surface either. Typical.
How about you edjumacate me on other things:
“Why do you spread ash on your forehead?”
1) I don’t spread ash on my forehead. A priest puts ash on my forehead in the sign of the cross.
2) 2 Sam 13:19; Neh 9:1; Jon 3:5,6; 1 Macc 3:47; Jer 6:26; Ezek 27:30,31. Apparently you know even less about the Bible than you do history.
“What is the purpose of carrying palm leafs?”
Used as decoration in the Temple - 1 King 6:29,32,35; 7:36; 2 Ch 3:5. A symbol of beauty (Song 7:7). Used to represent the righteous man:
“The righteous shall flourish like the palm-tree:
He shall grow like a cedar in Lebanon.
They are planted in the house of Yahweh;
They shall flourish in the courts of our God.
They shall still bring forth fruit in old age;
They shall be full of sap and green” (Ps 92:12-14).
Jews were commanded by God to use them: Lev 23:40.
And most importantly - used as a sign of triumphal victory, welcoming a king: 1 Macc 13:51; including Christ - Jn 12:13; Rev 7:9).
“Explain the fixation with Mary?”
Since we have no fixation with Mary, there’s nothing to explain. We know who made her what she is and we honor her for the saint God made her.
“How did Peter get elected Pope?”
He was appointed, not elected.
“Why do you call the pope and priests “Holy Father” when Jesus specifically states not to?”
You are confusing two different anti-Catholic attacks and conflating them as one. Not only can you not make a sensible argument, you can’t even keep straight the typical anti-Catholic false attacks. Let me help you since I know this from both sides better than you apparently know it from either. There would be two false anti-Catholic attacks:
1) Why do you call men ‘Father’ when Jesus said call no man father? (Matthew 23:9)
- First, Jesus did not expect us to actually stop calling the men who are our fathers ‘Father’. I once was dealing with an anti-Catholic who, true to form, brought this up without ever realizing the obvious. I asked him, “So what do you call your Dad?” He stopped in his tracks. He suddenly realized, if he was to be consistent, he had to stop calling his father ‘Father’ or ‘Dad’ (since that means ‘Father’). That incredibly obvious thought had never occured to him. Yeah, anti-Catholics aren’t very bright.
- the most complete answer I could give is this one: http://www.catholic.com/tracts/call-no-man-father
2) Second false anti-Catholic attack: “Why do you call the pope ‘Holy Father’ when the Bible reserves that for God the Father?”
An anti-Catholic once showed me in his Bible where there was a verse about the ‘holy Father’ but I no longer remember where that is (perhaps it was John 17:11). In any case, it is not improper to refer to the pope as the Holy Father because it is acknowledged that that title is dependent upon God and is about his office and not his person.
http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/why-is-the-pope-called-the-holy-father-instead-of-just-father
So, what have we seen here? We see that you cannot make an argument, cannot present any evidence for your claims, and apparently have little or no idea of what you’re talking about. You also seem to have no knowledge of the Bible or Biblical practices. Nothing new there. Typical and Predictable.
Unfortunately the only thing you proved to me is that your bias runs deep. You are skilled in rhetoric. When presented with facts you explain them in circles. You then use degradation in a flaccid attempt to intimidate.
My faith doesn’t require your acceptance. See the scripture posted in 46. As brothers we are commanded to help each other.
Peace.