Is the Pope Catholic? - The Greatest Schism in Catholic Church History!

Spiritual Food Blogspot ^ | May 10, 2016 | Rev. Joseph Dwight

[Mrs. Don-o]

Fair enough, Elsie. Perhaps you’d like to consider a third or fourth possibility?

[BipolarBob]

. You had a virginal pregnancy in your family?
That is not what I claimed. I said I had a marriage therefore I can relate to what Joseph may have felt going into the marriage with future plans and all.
You imply you know what was in Mary and Joseph's contract.
I imply that most marriages carry along with it the expectation of sex. Joseph had no reason to expect anything less.
the image is both of the Spirit's actual Bride, Mary,
Actually it is the bride of Jesus (which is The Church). Talk about me being crass when you have Jesus marrying His own mother! Dismount from the white steed.
Catholics have Mary in an exalted position in Heaven far above the normal believer. This is not Scriptural. In fact the one recorded time she tried to use her relationship to an advantage, she was unable to. Jesus made her equal, not superior, in position in this verse. Matt 12:48-50.

[WVKayaker]

Plus, you tell untruths.

...None of this is disputed by Protestant Scripture scholars, who are well aware of the Bible’s broad semantic range of "brother".

I am a "Protestant Scholar" having formal education on the subjects you broach. The untruth claim fails but you try to tell me that I am a liar.

What a crock! Nothing you posit is born out in a proper exegesis of Scripture. It can only be found by first listening to the "Roman Catholic cult" and then trying to isolate verses or phrases to justify their disconnect. The slander is coming from your group, not from Scripture.

Then you tell us that the "most likely scenario", yet nothing you posit even comes close to establishing your premise.

Good luck when it starts getting hot. No number of candles, nor repetitious words will get anybody out of hell! It is not by pleading to some demigoddess, but solely based on with in Jesus name.

I take this one (from Elsie's long, but certainly not complete, list of Roman Catholic error and heresy) passage to contrast with what Scripture details:

...in the words of St. Ambrose, "Open to us, O Mary, the gates of paradise, since Thou hast its keys." "Aperi nobis, O Virgo coelum, cujus claves habes." Nay more, the Church says, that "Thou art its gate."

But, contrary to Roman Catholic teaching, Jesus says:

John 14:6 Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 7 If you really know me, you will know[b] my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.”

[Elsie]

Have you not thrown out the Prot one?

[Elsie]

...None of this is disputed by Protestant Scripture scholars, who are well aware of the Bible’s broad semantic range of "brother".

The best thing (in this Prot's opinion) that pope Francis could do; would be to order a new translation of the Scriptures.

One that actually HAS 'cousin' in place of brother where it 'should' be.

Then all of these convoluted claims by FR Catholics about 'brother/cousin' would be OVER!

How 'bout it Francis?

Got gonads?

[Mrs. Don-o]

Well, "cousin" wouldn't quite cut it because, according to the relevant Scripture usages, it could be half-siblings, cousins, nephew-uncle, fellow-Jews, or fellow-believers in Christ.

The closest in English might be "close kinsmen."

Even better would be "brothers," with a footnote explaining usage.

Your tone, by the way, is belligerent. Tone it down a bit, maybe?

Brother?

[BlackElk]

WVKayaker:

One small but important point. If someone says that you have uttered that which is not true, in and of itself that is not an accusation of lying. Lying requires more, namely intention to lie. One may speak that which is untrue while merely being mistaken and not intending to lie.

You are a Reformed Christian. I and Mrs. Don-o are Catholics. If we were all in agreement on the meaning of Scripture, we would all be Reformed Christians or we would all be Catholic. It goes without saying that, instead, we have differences as to the meanings of many Scriptural passages. That does not make any of us "liars." Is it not perfectly possible to have what people of good will would call "good faith differences?"

I have not reviewed this entire exchange but a similar point may be made as to accusations that Catholics who disagree with Reformed Christianity are somehow guilty of slander which again involves knowing falsehood.

That you have a background as a "Protestant scholar" does ot make you infallible. That we Catholics disagree with your "scholarship" and its conclusions or that you disagree with Catholic "scholars" does not make either you or us "liars" or guilty of "slander." Ditto as to what constitute "proper exegesis of Scripture." Ditto as to accusations of heresy.

Before, anyone concludes otherwise, this post of mine is NOT an invitation to theological dispute or to chewing on the old Reformation vs. Counterreformation slippers but simply an observation as to civilized and accurate and respectful conversation among folks who are in disagreement as to matters of faith and Scripture. You don't have to be a "liar" to be a Reformed Christian. We don't have to be "liars" to be Catholics. If such matters simply MUST be discussed here among those who disagree with one another, perhaps we can all refrain from making accusations of moral turpitude in matters amounting to no more than theological differences as to belief.

[WVKayaker]

One may speak that which is untrue while merely being mistaken and not intending to lie.

I never claimed infallibility, unlike the Roman Catholics. But, in the exchange of ideas, the statement that Protestant scholars agree with Catholic teachings is pure bunk!

I am not "reformed". I am a Christian, who follows the direction of God's Holy Spirit, as Jesus promised. The Roman Catholics claim to be the arbiters of the truth, but Jesus promised to guide us to all Truth. He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

I will repeat the last part of my post and allow you to explain the meaning of what is is... and you need to reply with Scripture, not just some random opinion! What I posted was demonstrating just one of the errors in Roman Catholic teachings. It doesn't take scholarship. It just requires one to read and understand. The Roman Catholic cult places their fictitious mary apparition as equal to God!

********

I take this one (from Elsie's long, but certainly not complete, list of Roman Catholic error and heresy) passage to contrast with what Scripture details:

...in the words of St. Ambrose, "Open to us, O Mary, the gates of paradise, since Thou hast its keys." "Aperi nobis, O Virgo coelum, cujus claves habes." Nay more, the Church says, that "Thou art its gate."

But, contrary to Roman Catholic teaching, Jesus says:

John 14:6 Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 7 If you really know me, you will know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.”

[BlackElk]

You are not infallible as you concede. Neither am I nor do I claim to be infallible. Whether you are A Reformed Christian or simply a Christian must be left by me to your subjective self-analysis.

As I indicated at the beginning of the last paragraph of my previous post, I decline your invitation to theological dispute. I will leave it to others more knowledgeable and more charitable than I to take up that task.

You have ignored the essence of my post which was a simple request for civility in discourse and to refrain from calling those who disagree with you "liars" simply because they disagree with you. I do not imagine for a moment that you are a "liar" because you disagree with Catholicism. If you are not willing to extend an analogous courtesy, so be it. I am certainly not going to engage you in some unseemly theological debate as though it were necessary to prove my point.

[WVKayaker]

You have ignored the essence of my post which was a simple request for civility in discourse and to refrain from calling those who disagree with you "liars" simply because they disagree with you.

So, please show me where I called someone a liar... It seems that your reading comprehension may be difficult. Civility is a nice form of saying "why can't we all get along"? How did that work out for Rodney King?

Understanding Scripture and the things that we learn from Scripture does not require theology. It requires the ability to listen to God.

I don't need to be infallible to be part of Jesus' family, and I don't need to listen to somebody trying to put me into a box. Good night, from the Philippines...

Contrast the fallacious ramblings of the RCC's claims of their eucharist with what Scripture actually tells us... and let me know if Scripture is lying or maybe that is coming from the Roman Catholic cult...

24 For Christ did not enter a sanctuary made with human hands that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God’s presence. 25 Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. 26 Otherwise Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But he has appeared once for all (emphasis mine) at the culmination of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27 Just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, 28 so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.

[Mrs. Don-o]

WVKayaker, I very intentionally chose my words carefully so that I did *NOT* call you a liar. Why? Because that would imply moral fault. I merely said you repeated "untruths," because a person can pass on untruths innocently, if he or she believed them to be true and if he or she has been reasonably moral diligent in researching what is true and what is false.

I would not willingly insult you. I respect you too much for that.

Now, as to the untruth. If "worship" is equated with "adoration," and "adoration" means "the rendering of honor which is due to God alone" then no, Catholics do not "worship" Mary.

The difficulties you experience with the quotes you referenced (and there are many more) can be attributed, I think, to some combination of the following factors:

1. Christ associates us in His saving work. None of us have sufficiently considered the many ways in which Christ associates all of us --- not just Mary --- in His great work of salvation. Christ, Whose work is completed and all-sufficient, nevertheless graciously invites our participation, yes, even to experiencing His suffering and His Passion, not only in its painful aspect but also in its meaningful, efficacious and saving aspect. This is so frequently reiterated in Scripture I feel sure that examples will instantly present themselves to your mind.

2. Ours is a non-courtly culture. As 21st century Americans, none of us are entirely at home with the courtly language that permeates both Scripture and the vast body of devotional literature which was developed in a more courtly age.

   For instance, as American individualists, we don't appreciate hierarchies --- and by this I mean, persons arrayed in ranks and orders--- even though Heaven is portrayed by St. John in courtly and hierarchical imagery, even to the distinct and ordered choirs of the heavenly host! So those who hate courtliness with its ordered, ascending levels of dignity (elders with thrones and crowns, Angels, Archangels, Cherubim and Seraphim, etc. etc.) and Mary Queen Mother, will hate heaven.

   But no, I don't think you'll hate heaven. I think you'll see all this in joyful wonder, and rejoice that Christ is all in all.

3. The courtly and romantic genre of devotional language. This is an aspect of the above, but requires extra attention. It is a constitutive element of courtly language, that (1) the honor given to any member of the court, pertains to the sovereign, and (2) the emotionally outre is expected, since the fervent panegyric of the courtier is not the language of the legislator, the diplomat or the scholar.

   This is true to a high degree in the devotional poetry of Christendom through the millennia, but it's even true of secular literature. You can find it in Elizabethan-era odes to the Queen, Spencerian and even Puritan (!!) poetry. (Anne Bradstreet and John Milton, for example.) Those who have ears to hear, I direct to this link on courtly language, which explains just the merest tad of what I'm talking about.

   Going back to historic Christian ways of thinking about this, it's related to Basil: "The honor given to the icon is transferred (Siapaivei) to the prototype." A painting, for instance, is an icon of Mary. Mary herself is an icon of God (an image) to a wonderful degree, since she is a human being (created in the image and likeness of God) who has been freed by her Savior from all sin. Thus she --- hailed by a messenger from Heaven as"Kecharitomene", most highly favored, full of grace --- is an unclouded icon, as we all shall be when we are utterly freed from sin.

   Bottom line: all honor given to Mary, the patriarchs, the prophets, the martyrs, confessors and virgins, holy men and women or any other persons, places or things which are images of God, is given to God, Who Alone is Holy and Who has made all things, each to reflect a beam of His glory.

4. Private RevelationSometimes people just confuse "private revelation" with Catholic doctrines, when nobody has to believe Private Revelation, not even the person to whom it is purportedly given.

This barely skims the surface. I always rejoice to see people who show they have tried to learn, to study, to understand, and to appreciate. We do not adore some demigoddess. We will say for eternity in Heaven what we say in every Mass:

"Glory to God in the Highest!
For you alone are the Holy One
You alone are the Lord.
You alone are the Most High, Jesus Christ,
With the Holy Spirit,
In he Glory of God the Father."

"Jesus, my Lord, my God, my All."

BTW, WVKayacker, let me benefit from your expertise. Could you suggest any Protestant scholars who have written on the significance of feminine types in the Psalms, the Proverbs, the Prophets, and the historical books of the OT? That would be of great interest to me.

[maryz]

What a beautiful, thoughtful and accurate post! :)

[Mrs. Don-o]

Thank you, my friend.

[BipolarBob]

ascending levels of dignity (elders with thrones and crowns, Angels, Archangels, Cherubim and Seraphim, etc. etc.) and Mary Queen Mother, will hate heaven.

So now you know the order of dignity that is not listed in the Bible. You have assigned Mary a title not in the Bible. Just why do we need the Bible? It's just the Word of God. Let's just read Catholic literature so we'll all be on the same page, right?

[Mrs. Don-o]

"The statement that Protestant scholars agree with Catholic teachings is pure bunk! "

Of course it is! When they agree with Catholic teachings, they become Catholics!

But nobody said that "Protestant scholars agree with Catholic teachings" tout court. I suppose you're talking about what I said here:

"None of this is disputed by Protestant Scripture scholars, who are well aware of the Bible’s broad semantic range of 'brother'."

Re-reading this, I am sure you can see I was writing about "Protestant Scripture scholars" who do not "dispute" the "Bible's broad semantic range of 'brother'."

My topic was not Protestant agreement with Catholic teachings, but Protestant awareness of Scriptural semantics.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to clarify that.

[Mrs. Don-o]

A title? Is Christ the King? Is Mary his Mother? Q.E.D.!

[BipolarBob]

A title?
Yes, Catholics are fond of handing out titles for which they have no authority. Take for example your Pope (please!). Peter was supposedly the first Pope but that is not what he or the Scriptures say. Acts 10:25,26. Here he proclaims he is (1)only a man (2)just like you are (3) prevents Cornelius from giving him any undue homage. Peter (and the Bible) claims equality among believers. Q.E.D.backatcha!

[Mrs. Don-o]

The are different senses in which a person can be "queen." It could be purely arbitrary, like the Erie County Strawberry Queen; or an elected fun-title like Prom Queen. Or a perverse display like Drag Queen. Or a sarcastic epithet like Drama Queen. Or an hereditary sovereign with full monarchical power, like Queen Isabella of Castile y Leon. Or it could be an ornamental figurehead like Queen Elizabeth II.

To say Mary is a Queen Mother is simply to state a contingent fact. Christ is King. Mary is His mother, Therefore Mary is a Queen Mother. That was my point. It's not some new dignity awarded to her by man, but a contingent relationship set up by God. You might want to reference Revelation 12.

As for the Pope being, like Peter, (1)only a man (2)just like you are (3) (who) prevents Cornelius from giving him any undue homage -- this is not under dispute. All Catholics agree with this.

Equality among believers though, is true in one sense, but not in another. It's like "All men are created equal" in the Declaration. True in the sense of everybody equally possessing fundamental human rights, e.g. the right to simply go on living. But not true in the sense of culture, character, or competence.

St. Paul says all are equal because all are one, i.e. one in Christ. But in another place he says, (1 Corinthians 12:28-31):

And God has placed in the church:
first of all apostles,
second prophets,
third teachers,
then miracles,
then gifts of healing,
of helping,
of guidance, and
of different kinds of tongues.

Are all apostles?
Are all prophets?
Are all teachers?
Do all work mighty deeds?
Do all have gifts of healing?
Do all speak in tongues?
Do all interpret?
Strive eagerly for the greatest spiritual gifts.

So one could note that Peter was given the Power of the Keys, is listed first in the many listings of the Apostles in the NT, acts as spokesman for the other Apostles (E.g. Jesus asks them a question, Peter voices the answer), and is given the threefold Shepherd's role because Jesus takes him at his word when he says he loves Jesus "more than these".

So Peter as a soul in an equal soul. But Peter has a role given to him by God, which gives him special prominence. It does not make him sinless. It does not make him error-free. It does make him the (flawed but genuine) leader, whose role --- after his stumble and his return to Christ --- is to "strengthen the brethren." (Luke 22:32)

[BipolarBob]

The are different senses in which a person can be "queen."
But Queen Mother and Queen of Heaven goes way beyond our paygrade to assign. To use human logic to assign Mary some Queen Mother title is abuse of Scripture. Rev. 12 is about the Church (see my post 125).
So one could note that Peter was given the Power of the Keys
So were all of the other Apostles (exception Judas). The Key to Heaven is the knowledge that Jesus is our Redeemer.
But Peter has a role given to him by God
As do we all.
is listed first in the many listings of the Apostles in the NT
"So the last will be first, and the first will be last." Matt. 20:16

[Mrs. Don-o]

"But Queen Mother and Queen of Heaven goes way beyond our paygrade to assign."

True --- but she's not put in a position assigned by you or me. Assigned by God.

"Last shall be first, and the first, last" is one of the really winsome and beautiful reasons it's so great that Mary, the handmaid of the Lord, is the woman with the crown of twelve stars (Rev. 21). She's the humblest of them all. It must please God's heart to raise up the lowly like this.