"But dude, I REALLY hate the Catholic Church. Truth is not the issue."
Posted on 04/12/2008 7:19:29 AM PDT by DouglasKC
Although valid in his critique of Mariology, why did you choose someone with less than orthodox views on something even more important, like the Trinity?
The author and the “church” he writes for are anit-trinitarian, and officially modalist—a very serious error, amounting even to heresy. Such is more serious even than the mariology he criticizes. The author would not be permitted leadership or even communion in most evangelical churches—if his views on the nature of God were known.
From the text above:
“This is the same mechanism by which Christmas, Easter, Sunday-worship, and the pagan trinity-god were brought into the Roman church—and which most of mainstream Christianity has accepted without question.”
As you can see he also denies the validity of Sunday worship and the celebration of Christmas—though these are small points compared to the Trinity.
If we’re going to discuss orthodox belief, lets find an orthodox author.
Though he’s right about Mary, had I known the author and his organization were actually heretical, I wouldn’t have commented on this thread.
It goes to prove how we all ought to read a posting before commenting—and I’m the chief of sinners in that!
I do not understand your statement. Please make it clear.
Did you have something interesting to say? Or do you prefer to spam the forum with large picture images and vapid troll comments?
You wrote:
“You can mock Twain’s observations all you want, but he is presenting a plain and relatively unbiased observation of what he saw in Europe.”
I didn’t mock Twain. I said he was a humorist and dead. What part of that are you disputing? Was he a humorist? Yes. Is he dead? Yes. I never mocked the man.
His observations simply do not add up to facts.
“You probably have to step outside the Catholic church to see it, but as a Protestant, I agree completely with Twain’s observations.”
And if you step INSIDE the Catholic Church, you’ll see the truth. Every Mass is said to the Father, offering the Son, through the Holy Spirit. That means the Trinity comes first ALWAYS.
“There are no Church’s dedicated to “Jesus” or “Christ” or “the Holy Ghost”, or anything like that.”
Wrong. Ever hear of the Gesu? Ever hear of this parishes named “Holy Trinity”? The simple fact is few parishes are named after the Persons of the Trinity, but they do exist. And they are few NOT because the Persons of the Trinity are of lesser importance, but because they are central at EVERY SINGLE MASS EVER SAID. You mean to tell me you’ve never come across a parish named Holy Redeemer, Good Shepherd, Resurrection, etc.? Are you honestly claiming that? What diocese do you live in?
“Just about every church is dedicated to Mary.”
Nonsense. I can think of the churches in my own area. There are ten Catholic parishes and three are named after Mary in one way or another. The others are named after Christ or saints.
“That’s not Twain making things up, that’s a neutral observation.”
No, that’s Twain’s observation and I have no reason to think is is any more neutral than anyone else’s.
“You may not like it, but Protestants cannot reconcile Biblical teaching with the Catholic devotion to Mary.”
Protestant inability to understand either the Bible or Mary has nothing to do with my liking of disliking of anything.
“It makes no sense. It does not compute. And what we do observe, seems to conflict with Biblical declarations against idolatry. It’s been this way for the last 500 years or so, and I don’t suspect it will change anytime soon.”
500 years or so? Thanks for admitting you were not founded or led by Christ, but have only existed for a mere 500 years.
“This is the chief stumbling block to any ecumenism, in my view, much as I would like to see it happen and for Christian unity to be restored. It’ll never happen until Catholics drop all the extraneous and get back to Jesus front and center. Certainly I cannot conceive of Protestants ever giving in and beginning to pray to Mary or saints or anyone other than the Trinity.”
Since so many Protestants don’t even believe in the Trinity or Incarnation today (almost half of those in some evangelical parishes do NOT BELIEVE in Trinity or Incarnation according to surveys) it would seem the real stumbling block may be Protestant ignorance and disbelief.
http://www.mtio.com/articles/bissart2.htm
Um, please note my 2 verbal comments above, especially the 2nd comment.
A picture can however speak louder than words.
I’ve been a part of FR and the religious threads now for many years, and am hardly a troll.
********************
Exactly right. It's unfortunate that there is so much misinformation about Catholicism. Thanks for trying to correct some of it.
So, is it the statues of Mary inside Catholic churches that you believe cross the line into worship? Catholics have statues Joseph and various other Saints as well. I can’t see how statues of Mary would cross the line, since there are plenty of other statues dedicated to other important figures in Christianity.
Is it the Hail Mary, and the rosary? Well, Catholics have hundreds of prayers that are oriented toward many different important figures, included Archangels, Joseph, and every Saint. Mary just happens to be one of the most important of those figures, according to the belief in the immaculate conception. I don’t see how this crosses the line, either.
Every argument you use to say that the honoring of Mary crosses the line fails because Catholics do the same thing for Archangels, Saints, and other important Christian persons.
I’ve been inside many (many) Roman Catholic churches, particularly very old ones in Europe. No one denies that you worship Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as we all ought to. The question is, has the honoring of Mary ever risen to a level that it distracts a worshiper from giving due honor...that is ALL HONOR to our all glorious Trinity?
In the judgment of all non-Roman Catholic Christians in the west about the Roman church for 500 years has been YES: Mary-veneration has indeed crossed the line into worship, impeding and distracting from the worship of the one true God.
None of the first Christians worshipped Mary.
In fact, Mary was among the first group of Christians on the Day of Pentecost.
Bzzzt.
Completely false.
You won’t hear me defending prayers to any saints, angels, or other important Christian personages. Since all honor and veneration is due to God alone, any prayers in worship done to anyone but God are wrong.
It is one thing to respect and honor great Christians of the past, quite another to erect statues for the purposes of prayers to them...
I challenge you to read say the book of Acts or, any of the letters of Saints Paul or Peter, and ask yourself if worship full of statuary and prayers to anyone other than God, was any, ANY part at all, of how they worshiped in that first generation?
"There are no Church's dedicated to 'Jesus' or 'Christ' or 'the Holy Ghost', or anything like that."
In the archdiocese where I belong to a parish, the Archdiocese of Washington, here are some of the names of some of our parishes:
Epiphany
Holy Name
Holy Redeemer (there are three parishes with this name)
Incarnation
Nativity
Shrine of the Most Blessed Sacrament
Shrine of the Sacred Heart
Ascension
Christ the King
Holy Cross
Holy Face
Holy Ghost
Holy Trinity
Jesus the Divine Word
Jesus the Good Shepherd
Sacred Heart (three of these)
Resurrection
In the archdiocese where I live, the Archdiocese of Baltimore, here are some of the names of some of our parishes:
Church of the Annunciation
Church of the Ascension
Blessed Sacrament
Corpus Christi
Church of the Good Shepherd
Holy Cross
Holy Spirit
Holy Trinity
Most Precious Blood
Church of the Nativity
Prince of Peace
Resurrection (there are two of these in the archdiocese)
Sacred Heart (there are two of these in the archdiocese)
Shrine of the Sacred Heart
Transfiguration
All of these are named after one or more of the Persons of the Holy Trinity, or after some aspect of Jesus’ life or mission.
Next myth.
sitetest
Oh sure, bring FACTS into this!
"But dude, I REALLY hate the Catholic Church. Truth is not the issue."
I also don’t deny (as you do) that Peter and the Apostles where given the authority to loose and bind (Jesus: “Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”). Through Sacred Scripture (and other documents btw) I know that they used that authority to establish Sunday as the day of worship. Any Christian not fallen into the heresy of BIBLIOLITRY recognizes the authority given Peter and the Apostles to loose and bind.
117 posted on April 12, 2008 11:00:36 AM MDT by big'ol_freeper
To do so would be blasphemy against the Holy Spirit ( see Matthew 12:31 ) Binding and loosing has nothing to do with overturning the Holy Word of Elohim. This is the Decree from the first Pontiff of the Roman church to all the world. Emperor Constantine, Emperor of the Roman Empire He had issued an Edict making Sunday the day of rest In 321 CE, while a Pagan sun-worshiper, the Emperor Constantine
They ruled: "Christians shall not Judaize and be idle on Saturday, but shall work on that day."
I do not believe that any man or group of men have the right
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach Adonai
to overturn the direct commands of Elohim.
declared that Sunday was to be a day of rest throughout the Roman Empire: "On the venerable day of the Sun let the magistrates and people residing in cities rest,
Council of Laodicea circa 364 CE ordered that religious observances were
and let all workshops be closed. In the country however persons engaged in agriculture
may freely and lawfully continue their pursuits because it often happens that another day
is not suitable for gain-sowing or vine planting; lest by neglecting the proper moment
for such operations the bounty of heaven should be lost."
to be conducted on Sunday, not Saturday. Sunday became the new Sabbath.
******************
It is the opinion of Catholics that Protestantism is a mistake. Do you accept that as well?
The first pontiff of the Catholic Church was Peter. Constantine was never Pope.
Christians were worshiping on Sunday well before Constantine. In fact we know that from the New Testament and from other documents, that are not part of the canon of Sacred Scripture, that the very first generation of Christians worshiped on Sunday.
I am sorry that you desecrate Our Lord Jesus Christ by denying His Divine Nature and authority over His Church. Scripture does not bind God. Jesus’ sacrifice created a New Covenant and authority to loose and bind (are you intellectual enough to even understand what that means?) was given to Peter and the Apostles to establish His Church, which they did, to include Sunday worship. You can protest all you want, but you are wrong and can’t refute that the first Christians DID worship on Sunday...it is irrefutable.
I believe the council of Ephesus in 431 AD also played a major role, there Mary was proclaimed the Theotokos. Instead of translating the term "God-bearer" it was popular to translate it "Mother of God".
Also, the Isis cult was very popular throughout the Roman Empire at this time. The big difference with Mary being the "perpetual virginity". Isis was supposedly very devoted to her child, but she was married to her brother. So it was already part of the culture to have a mother figure devoted to the baby god. Mary being "Mother of God" makes becoming RC all that much more acceptable to the general populace.
The mythology surrounding Mary was present though in the 2nd century. The "Protoevangelium of James" was quickly identified as a forgery and a great many of the claims surrounding Mary that we argue about are found in it. So there was some interest concerning her from very early on.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.