Mary above all

[Stillicidia]

.

 

[Meowzltov]

You disregarded all else I said, because of only the first sentence.

And you didn't respond to what I said at all.

 

[Stillicidia]

.

 

[Job8]

So what? Mary is a different Queen of heaven. Just as Lucifer (translated: morning star) is different than Jesus (also called the morning star).

Yeah, sure. This is generally how Catholics dismiss the pagan corruption of their church. And bringing Lucifer into the picture simply muddies the waters. Well as a matter of fact, Lucifer (as Satan) is behind every form of paganism and idolatry.

 

[ViaCrucis]

[Satan] is behind every form of paganism and idolatry.

And deception. Might want to be careful about that part.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Job8]

And deception. Might want to be careful about that part.

-CryptoLutheran

Correct. Primarily deception. Then intimidation.

 

[farout]

Please look up "queen of heaven" in your Bible, and the pagan connotation that goes with that title. Then confirm from any Catholic source that Mary is called "Queen of Heaven" by the RCC. That is the primary pagan influence right there. Furthermore since God is worshiped as King of Heaven, it follows that the Queen of Heaven will also receive worship. When we closely examine the prayers and hymns to Mary, this is clearly evident.

And this is just one of dozens of pagan doctrines and practices which were adopted into the Catholic church when Constantine decided to make Christianity the state religion. Pontifex Maximus was the pagan high priest of Rome, and now we have the Pope carrying that very same title. Only wilful blindness can ignore all this connections.

You have said the truth. However there are some born again RC's I am certain this is offensive to most Catholics that read this, and they will be upset. My desire is never to offend, but to ask Catholics to read the Bible for them self, check out what you have said and draw their own conclusion. It takes a lot od courage to question ones faith and see if it teaches what Scripture says. Lests hope the Holy spirit will speak in what you have said.

 

[maryofoxford]

[

Please look up "queen of heaven" in your Bible, and the pagan connotation that goes with that title. Then confirm from any Catholic source that Mary is called "Queen of Heaven" by the RCC. That is the primary pagan influence right there. Furthermore since God is worshiped as King of Heaven, it follows that the Queen of Heaven will also receive worship. When we closely examine the prayers and hymns to Mary, this is clearly evident.

And this is just one of dozens of pagan doctrines and practices which were adopted into the Catholic church when Constantine decided to make Christianity the state religion. Pontifex Maximus was the pagan high priest of Rome, and now we have the Pope carrying that very same title. Only wilful blindness can ignore all this connections.

A.) "Since God is worshiped as King of Heaven, it follows that the Queen of Heaven will also receive worship." According to who?? You?? Do you agree with the 10 commandments? If so, than you'd agree that, "Falsely accusing your neighbor" is a sin. Right? So, in this instance how should you go about determining if you are falsely accusing the (roughly 2 Billion people that claim they are Catholics), of heresy? (assuming that they all follow the teachings of the Catholic faith.) Well, quite simple really. You read exactly what the Catholic faith claims as it's doctrines, in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. (You could also go to this on the internet) The Catholic Church plainly reveals all of it's beliefs right there.

Now that doesn't mean that there won't be people "claiming" to be Catholic, that believe and teach whatever the heck they personally believe in. There are even priests and some Bishops that have and will continue to do that behind the backs of the leaders of the Catholic faith. This is why it's so important to read what the actual doctrines are! We do NOT believe that Mary, mother of the word incarnate, Jesus Christ, is to EVER be worshiped. It doesn't matter if you, personally, think that the Queen of Heaven must be worshiped because the King of Heaven is, or not. The Catholic Church doesn't teach that, and anyone that does worship Mary is automatically excommunicated, for they are no longer in communion (agreeing) with what we hold to be truth. (By the way, you may feel free to tell anyone you see doing this exactly that too. Carry a copy of the page to show to them. It's always a good and holy thing to correct the sinners.)

Please read the following taken from the apologetic section of www.biblechristiansociety.com

Why do Catholics call Mary the Queen of Heaven? Doesn't God rebuke the Israelites in the O.T. for worshipping a false goddess called the Queen of Heaven? Should we not refer to Mary with that title, therefore, since it is the title of a false goddess?
In Jeremiah 7:18, God is indeed upset with the Israelites for worshipping a false goddess called the "queen of heaven". However, just because God rebuked them for worshipping the false queen of heaven, doesn't mean that we cannot pay honor to the true Queen of Heaven...the Blessed Mother.
That type of thinking would lead you to believe that just because people worship a false god that they call "god," we, therefore, should not call the true God, by that same name...God...because that's the same title the idolaters use for their god! That is faulty logic and it makes no sense whatsoever.

Again, the fact that there is a false "queen of heaven", does not lead to the conclusion that we worship a false goddess when we call Mary the "Queen of Heaven." Just as the fact that there is a false "god", does not lead to the conclusion that we worship a false god when we call our Father in Heaven, God.

And there is a true Queen of Heaven, we see this quite clearly in Revelation 12:1, "And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars..." Let's see. There's a woman...she's in Heaven...and she has a crown on her head. I could be wrong, but I don't think it's the maid! No! It is the true Queen of Heaven, Mary, the mother of the male child who is to rule the nations.

We do not worship Mary, we honor her, just as Jesus honors her. So, there is absolutely nothing wrong, from a scriptural point of view, in calling Mary the Queen of Heaven, and in honoring her just as Jesus honors her.

````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````

Again, as I previously stated: We do NOT worship anyone but God alone! Mary is given the title Queen of Heaven, because of her son and Lord, Jesus Christ. Without Jesus Christ as the Word Incarnate, 2nd person of the Trinity, Mary would not have that title and would be just another poor Jewish woman.

In Judaism; the WIFE of the King is NOT the Queen, it is always the MOTHER of the King that is given that title. So unless you'd like to say either that Jesus is not the King of Heaven, or that Mary is not His mother, or that neither was Jewish, than she is deserving of that title.

Lastly, your entire last paragraph is so historically wrong in every sense that I won't even bother to address it until you produce some legitimate proof. Because, only about two words of the entire paragraph were true, but still taken out of context. Produce thy proof, brother.

May God bless you and keep you.

 

[newlightseven]

I will say this, yes, Mary is blessed. She is the mother of Jesus.

 

[maryofoxford]

Here is the truth of the matter; and what upsets Catholics on here so very much.

Although, we believe in the apostles' creed and the nicene creed. Although we publicly declare this as our belief every day at every mass. We come on here and are told by others that we do not believe what we say we do.

Then, we are accused of believing all sorts of things that we do NOT believe, because someone has either READ something that another non-catholic has written against our faith, or HEARD someone say something against our faith, or they, (or someone that wasn't a properly trained, former Catholic), that misunderstood our beliefs, has said something against our faith. (The last one is particularly upsetting because for a person to say that they were a former Catholic (or a former Catholic priest or nun) seems to lend a bit of credence to what they say next.

This is what I will say now, as a properly trained Catholic: If you think that the Catholic Church believes something that goes against the Bible (what we also refer to as Sacred Scripture), how about first ASKING if we actually believe that to be true, instead of accusing us of actually believing it? A step further would be to then ask us to show the Biblical texts that support that belief.

The truth is that "VERY few people disagree with what the Catholic Church TRULY believes; but Many people disagree with what the Catholic Church is FALSELY accused of believing!" (paraphrase from Bishop Fulton Sheen).

We are constantly inundated with so many false accusations that we can't possibly answer them all in the time and space allowed. In this thread alone there are too many to address; and when we take the time to address one, than 10 more false accusations will take it's place. Again, it's one thing if the accusations were true, but these are all FALSE. If they are true, as in, we do refer to Mary, the mother of Jesus Christ, as the Queen of Heaven; then the reasons we are accused of doing this is a false accusation!

So, I, and I'm sure my Catholic brothers and sisters, would appreciate it greatly if you would treat us as you would want to be treated. I'd love to answer every false accusation put on here, and explain our over 2,000 yr old faith; but I also need to take care of my home and other responsibilities.

There is an area on here that is available for people that have questions about what we believe. You will get some very good solid Catholic answers if you would only go to the Faiths section of this site. Look under; One Bread-One Body Catholic, and then click on the Catechism studies section.

May the Lord Love You and Keep You, and May His Face Shine Upon YOU!

 

[Ken Behrens]

For one thing, the very idea that a person should only base their faith on feelings of "love" is so dangerous that I don't know where to begin.

I'm going to guess that you didn't attend a Catholic Seminary, I did. Seminarians aren't trained to be priests until they have their bachelors degree in something. It doesn't have to be Philosophy. and the philosophy that is taught their is Christian philosophy! Which is vastly different from non-christian philosophy. Most seminaries that aren't Catholic also teach philosophy.

Everything that you've written is totally wrong, from beginning to end, and it would take pages to undue all of it.

In the meantime, please state all of your sources.

I did not say feelings of love. God is agape, feelings of love is eros. You should know that. One of the philosophical bases is not to change the meaning of a word in the middle of a discussion.

I have formal Catholic education through the Master's degree. I have 12 years professional ministry experience in the Catholic church. I was at one point asked to teach in a seminary.

It does not have to be philosophy, that is true. The shortage of priests now allows for anyone to switch career tracks. I am speaking of the classical program. The reason I bring it up is because Catholics define Scripture in terms of philosophy; I believe it should be those other way around.

You are right, it would take many pages for me to demonstrate why I have interpreted history differently from what you learned. I am here in this website at the invitation of the original poster (although in her thread by my own choice, since no one responded originally for quite some time, so I thought I would get things rolling. It looks like I did, lol.), who has the same experience I do of Catholics, and fruits speak louder than arguments.

And I'm sorry about your friend. Discernment is not made on Scripture alone, as the Catholics are the first to teach. But it is neither made based on traditions that are too many and too complex to determine which are still relevant, and which are not.

 

[Ken Behrens]

Not true at all. The churches were united under the common teachings of the Apostles.

I meant by 50 AD, when the false apostles and many other true apostles not mentioned in the Bible had already established churches. But when you come right down to it, even the churches of Acts 2 were not mostly under the apostles. Most of the thousands saved at the first Pentecost were visitors to Jerusalem, and went home to their own synagogues, beyond the apostles' travelling. Then the churches founded by Philip the evangelist. Paul did not care much what the 12 taught. Just the gnostic churches alone prove you wrong. And then, you must look at what is meant by their own "ideas". If they were united, why the new testament apocrypha? All following Jesus, but many with different thinking. Relevant to the OP, some believed in celibacy, some did not. Some venerated Mary, some did not. Some even taught Jesus had left physical children in France. And those subdivide into whether He first married Mary Magdalene formally or did not. And then the Anglicans, some of whom claim to be under the apostle Joseph of Arimathea. And on and on and on......

 

[thecolorsblend]

Although, we believe in the apostles' creed and the nicene creed. Although we publicly declare this as our belief every day at every mass. We come on here and are told by others that we do not believe what we say we do.

Your entire post was a home run but this was the part I wish people would consider.

We're accused of everything under the sun. Frankly CF members are all a bunch of faceless strangers to me. So if I deny it when someone says "Catholics believe such-and-such" (because it's not true), I wish people would keep in mind that there's truly nothing in it for me to lie. Why would I bother lying to people whose opinions (with all due respect) I couldn't care less about? There's no point in it.

 

[Aldebaran]

It is Mary the mother of our Lord who is blessed among women, not Mary Magdeline. It is because of her yes to God that Christ became incarnate and became the savior. Nothing that any other human being did compares to that.

But Mary's mother gave birth to Mary. Shouldn't we be venerating her even more? Oh, and then there's Mary's grandmother. Wouldn't she be even greater and worthy of veneration?

 

[thecolorsblend]

But Mary's mother gave birth to Mary. Shouldn't we be venerating her even more?

No. Why would we?

Oh, and then there's Mary's grandmother. Wouldn't she be even greater and worthy of veneration?

No. Why would she?

 

[Aldebaran]

No. Why would we?

No. Why would she?

Because Jesus wouldn't have been born without Mary, so people think she needs to be venerated so highly. But Mary wouldn't have existed if not for her own mother. So why not just keep venerating whoever gave birth to someone who is highly spoken of to a higher degree. It follows the same logic.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Because Jesus wouldn't have been born without Mary, so people think she needs to be venerated so highly. But Mary wouldn't have existed if not for her own mother. So why not just keep venerating whoever gave birth to someone who is highly spoken of to a higher degree. It follows the same logic.

Mary's venerable position in Christianity is because she, uniquely, bore God. It is Mary's unique position in redemptive history as the mother of God that makes her venerable. That is, she is highly honored and blessed because of Christ. Further, Mary is not honored more highly than Christ (such would be blasphemy and idolatry, since Christ is Eternal and Almighty God and Mary was only human); and so the idea that there is somehow a daisy chain of veneration seems to represent a demonstrable failure in recognizing why Christians honor the Lord's mother.

Mary is called blessed, and is venerated on account of Christ. Because she, unique among not only all women, but all other people, had the privilege and the honor of being mother of Christ, and thus gave birth to God in the flesh, and cradled God in her arms, and it was God who suckled at her breast. Most Christians believe that is sufficient enough reason to regard her blessed, and to regard her with honor.

When God uses someone for a great purpose, we recognize it and honor it. Which is why we honor our father Abraham, it's why we honor the ancient Prophets, it's why we honor the holy Apostles. And it's why we honor the blessed virgin mother of our Lord.

To honor the blessed and holy mother of God is not some uniquely Roman Catholic thing. It's just a Christian thing.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Meowzltov]

Yeah, sure. This is generally how Catholics dismiss the pagan corruption of their church. And bringing Lucifer into the picture simply muddies the waters. Well as a matter of fact, Lucifer (as Satan) is behind every form of paganism and idolatry.

I notice you didn't deal with what I posted.

 

[Job8]

I notice you didn't deal with what I posted.

If I would deal with this issue as it ought to be dealt with, I would be banned from this site.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Because Jesus wouldn't have been born without Mary, so people think she needs to be venerated so highly.

His birth comes from her faith and obedience. That is why she receives honor.

But Mary wouldn't have existed if not for her own mother. So why not just keep venerating whoever gave birth to someone who is highly spoken of to a higher degree. It follows the same logic.

It's completely illogical. Our Lady's ancestors are not known to have possessed anything remotely similar to the faith and obedience Our Lady demonstrated.

It looks like what you're attempting to argue ad absurdum against the validity of honoring Our Lady but it's a sort of flimsy point considering Our Lady's singular uniqueness just in the scriptural canon.