Catholics, what exactly do you believe about Mary?

[kepha31]

Very well. That is Catholicism nicely summarized for us. That is not Christianity, however. I prefer to be a Christian and not a Catholic. My faith is in Jesus Christ and not in a religious organization which claims to be in His place.

Is Jesus the founder of a religious organization or did He found a book club?

Acts 9:4 He fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?” 5 He asked, “Who are you, Lord?” The reply came, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting.

The Catholic Church does not claim "to be in His place". She claims to be intimate and interconnected with with Jesus, as He clearly and explicitly expressed this to Paul in His union with the church in Damascus. Does the church in Damascus claim to "to be in His place"??? How can Jesus be persecuted in Damascus if He is in heaven?
The Church is an extension of the incarnation united by the Eucharist.

 

[Phil 1:21]

Yes, I agree with your point. So many wrong ideas can be corrected merely by full reading.

The grace doctrine is beautifully communicated in Ephesians 2, v8-9...*and*...v10 is a direct continuation of v8-9!

In other words, the minimum full quote is *not* Ephesians 2:8-9, but instead Ephesians 2:8-10.

In other epistles, Paul usually takes much longer to get around to completing what he is saying. For example, in Galatians you have to get to chapter 5 v 13 (and continuing on into chapter 6) to begin to get the rest of the full message he is saying.

So, we agree perfectly on that.

Context is very important. Well done.

 

[Halbhh]

Jesus gave the Church the authority to bind and loose, ie. to make rules.

Jesus told us to listen to the Church.

Jesus told the Church leaders that those who reject them are rejecting him.

Why would we want to reject those sent by Jesus?

For your statement "Jesus told us to listen to the Church" would you give the reference please? Also, which are you using for "Jesus told the Church leaders that those who reject them are rejecting him", since you use the wording "Church leaders" as the ones rejected, instead of the gospel, or Christ. (note: the "Church" I take to be one, as He prayed it would be in John 17, that is already -- this is already; thus it must be transcendent to our own labeling of any church even if you use merely the examples of conversions outside of any labeled church as an instance. Put another way, no power of any kind can separate us from the love of God, as Paul wrote.)

 

[Albion]

I am not interested in "Christianity as a whole", because that's such a diverse stew it's essentially a meaningless term. Example: Mormons are Christians - and God lives on Planet Kolob. Jehovah's Witnesses are Christians - and Jesus is not God. So I'll focus on Catholicism, my religion, that I know inside and out.

You're the one who is wrong.

Sorry, no. Whether or not you're interested, what I wrote was correct.

You who are outside are in no position to be telling us what our religion is. If you think you know better than we do, you're wrong.

That's the answer every Catholic debater loves to give, but especially converts. Even when it's dead wrong, it make them feel great.

 

[Albion]

The efficacity of prayers for the dead.

Show us where you think that is. Then I'll show you where you're wrong.

 

[Halbhh]

I am not interested in "Christianity as a whole", because that's such a diverse stew it's essentially a meaningless term. Example: Mormons are Christians - and God lives on Planet Kolob. Jehovah's Witnesses are Christians - and Jesus is not God. So I'll focus on Catholicism, my religion, that I know inside and out.

You're the one who is wrong.

Catholicism holds that Holy Tradition is its historical repository of authority. Holy Tradition consists of two primary pieces: "Written" tradition, which primarily means the Scriptures, and "Oral" tradition (which is, in fact, all written down). Scripture is incredibly important, but it is not supreme. Neither is oral tradition.

Rather, the current Teaching Authority of the Church is Supreme - because the Holy Spirit is in the Church here, now, and has always been since the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father and the Son into the Church to remain until the end of the world.

THAT is why the Church's Teaching Authority on matters of faith and morals, whether spoken ex cathedral by the Pope or through the Magesterium is infallible: because it comes from God the Holy Spirit.

That is also why the Written Tradition, the Scripture, is what it is, but what is ultimately MEANS is always subject to God - what God MEANS by it - and God speaks when the Church speaks on matters of faith and morals, in either modality (ex cathedral papal or via the Magesterium). That is the whole basis of infallibility - that God speaks directly through the Church. The Written Tradition - the Scripture and the Patristic Writings - was inspired by the God who speaks through the Church, whose Holy Spirit dwells in the Church. When the Church speaks infallibly today, that is what the Bible MEANS, because the God who inspired the Bible is speaking directly to say what His intent IS.

That is Catholicism. The Bible is revered, but it is subject to the authority of God - and the Holy Spirit reposes in the Catholic Church, and speaks infallibly through the Church, not through the printed page. The Bible read without the Church cannot be properly understood. When it is read to say something contrary to the Church, it is being read contrary to the Holy Spirit, and that contrary reading is by definition wrong in all cases.

See how that works? You don't have to agree with it, but that IS what Catholicism is. Every Catholic here will agree with me. I'm not making it up. That is our religion.

You who are outside are in no position to be telling us what our religion is. If you think you know better than we do, you're wrong.

Isn't the Church Christ's?

Those that believe in Him He said will gain Life. Aren't they His?

Ergo, His sheep are each and every and all who truly believe in Him
(as summarized in the Nicene and Apostles' Creeds)

 

[Blade]

Well on this site one must walk softly in some areas. So "I am right your wrong" "no your wrong I am right". So what..Jesus has to pick a side? There are many tents in this world regarding Christ. But there is only ONE camp. This one camp is NOT yours not mine..its HIM! So many do this.. From Baptist to Word of Faith. As if JESUS is only on one of them. Yeshua is not a Baptist all the way to Word of Faith or Mormon or Catholic.

Do you believe this GOD came in the flesh born of the virgin Mary. Died on the cross for the worlds sins. Was buried. Rose the 3rd day. Is the only way to the Father? If you believe this.. He gave you the right to be called son/daughter of GOD. Now if someone tells me there is other ways to get to the Father..that for me is not of GOD.

While some Catholics think of Mary differently then I believe.. yet they know believe in JESUS as the only way. .. if I have offended please forgive me.

Any time you wonder what and HOW is has the REAL TRUTH..its no me.. ASK HIM! YESHUA is real.

I would ask ..please..i dont think its wise to say "I am right your wrong". Well Jesus on this earth that had no sin..ever. When they called Him good...He said...why call me good? There is only one good. the Heavenly Father. Do you see? So let Him be true and every man/woman be a liar for no flesh will glory in His sight as is written. So lets give HIM all the glory and praise. So my prayer is Father change ME 1st in Jesus name

 

[OpenYourBibles]

Jesus gave the Church the authority to bind and loose, ie. to make rules.

Jesus told us to listen to the Church.

Jesus told the Church leaders that those who reject them are rejecting him.

Why would we want to reject those sent by Jesus?

When your older brother comes and tells you to do something because "Mom said" but the thing he is telling you to do is not actually what "Mom said," he has removed himself from the covering of Mom's authority. We are told to try every spirit. And when the "church leaders" bring doctrine outside of the scope of scripture we are obligated to bring every thought to the obedience of Christ.

We have already discussed on this forum - Paul told us if someone else, even an angel from heaven, comes and brings any other doctrine, he is accursed!

 

[OpenYourBibles]

The bible tells many people different things. That's why there are hundreds of protestant denominations, all claiming that the bible is the Word of God, but teaching multiple contradictory doctrines from the same book. Jesus didn't want this, which is why he gave us a Church and told us to listen to the Church.

You don't accept the real presence of the body and blood of Jesus in the Eucharist, but the early Christians did.

You don't accept the authority of the Church leaders, but the early Christians did.

You don't accept the ability of a priest to forgive sins by the authority of Christ, but the early Christians did.

These and others are scriptural beliefs that you reject.

You are right Jesus did set up a single church - but you are convinced that church is the Catholic one - I am asking you if that is indeed the case then how is the Catholic church of today so far removed from the church Jesus started?

It is not sufficient to say I do wrong because... you do wrong too. For you to answer my claims of where Catholic teachings differ from scripture with accusations of things that I do not believe that are in scripture is not an arguement at all. Especially when you do not know me, or what I believe.

I will show you Bible for every doctrine I hold and practice, can you do the same, or are you dependent on extra biblical even anti-biblical traditions to hold up your faith?

 

[OpenYourBibles]

I did answer. If you take a vow of celibacy of course you cannot marry. However, the Church doesn't force you to be a priest, that is your choice.

The Church praises marriage and is a strong supporter of marriage.

Let me phrase this differently, maybe then we can get to the meat of it:

This priest who has decided he wants to be married, must choose between remaining a priest or becoming a husband - right?

All I am saying, if this is true - it is contrary to what Paul taught.

 

[OpenYourBibles]

I don't think that the new revelations "fly in the face of the old". When speaking of Mary, I think that nothing latterly revealed by Mary "flies in the face" of the old. I think they are additional information that has to be accounted for.

It will not do at all, for example, to simply ignore the healing miracles at Lourdes. Those are real, and within the realm of modern scientific data. They happened, and they are remarkable. They happened at a Marian shrine, where Mary appeared (or at least was said to have appeared by a girl) - that girl devoted her life to God as a religious, and when she died, her body did not decay. This is all a matter of scrutinized public records of the late 19th and 20th Centuries. You can look at her body today, in a glass case in a church.

One can look around the world and one will not find another Lourdes. There are claims of miracles here and there, but no scientific documentation on an ongoing basis, nothing that has been so studied, corroborated, examined.

The hearings at Lourdes are real, and numerous, and scientifically documented.

So by what power do they occur? God? (Can Satan cast out Satan?).

Would God make such a singular display of miracles at a place that offended him because it was based on lies or things that don't appear in the Bible?

Would God cause a filthy donkey to speak his words and warn his prophet? Yes.
Did that sanctify the donkey?

Would God cause a rooster, who pecks the ground and in short order becomes dinner, to crow and convict the heart of Peter? Yes.
Did that justify the rooster?

So would God heal those coming in faith to him for healing? Sure!
Does that sanctify the place?

What about the many miracles Jesus preformed, are each of those places holy now?

In fact Jesus told those that he healed, on a regular basis, "by your faith" you are healed or made whole, or restored. Not because of a place, a vision, a special miracle... but by faith.

I do not discount the healing of God - I simply ask for proof what any of it has to do with Mary, versus an individuals faith. And I also question how the healing happening at that place justifies the veneration show to Mary, if God also used many other vessels over time, including a donkey and a rooster?

 

[Vicomte13]

This is my point exactly, it is the foundations of the Catholic Church that laid out the New Testament as we know it today, yet the teachings are followed/reject haphazard. How can you claim Peter to be the first pope and to be descendants of the Apostolic Church and not follow its teachings which are outlined in the New Testament, which you helped compile!?

Because the authority reposes in God, who lives in the Church, and the Scriptures are a written record of what God said and did in that time, to teach and inspire us. What they are NOT is a new set of stone tablets. It is a history book, the story of Christ coming into the world and beginning the process of leading each successive generation to God. Jesus and the Apostles were facing a Jewish world with specifically Jewish issues. Much of the particular language in the Scriptures, both of Jesus and of the Apostles in their various letters, are addressed to Jewish questions, and Jewish theological concerns under the Jewish Law. But Christianity spread across the world among the Gentiles, who were never under the Jewish Law in the first place, and who were not BROUGHT under it by Jesus. Jesus had a New Covenant that was not a repouring of old wine into new bottles, nor new wine into old bottles. Ecclesiastes was wrong: there ARE new things under the Sun, and Jesus' covenant was one of those.

Jesus' covenant was not bound to a book or a law, but to God, and the Holy Spirit was to lead it. He breathed the Holy Spirit into Apostles, the head of the Church he founded, and sent the Holy Spirit into the Church, to lead it forward.

The Apostles dealt with Jews, and with the Greco-Roman edge of paganism. But as the Church spread, it encountered all sorts of new beliefs, conditions, gods, foods, customs, on different continents and in different ages.

The Church, the Holy Spirit, are not bound to the answers given to the Jews in response to different questions in different times. Rather, God continued to send his revelations, his messages, his messengers (such as Joan of Arc, or the Virgin Mary) to different times and places and conditions. God speaks to the Church. Jesus planted a seed in the Apostles, and the Apostles sprouted out and wrote the first texts recording what Jesus said and did, and keeping track of what God had done for the Jews before that. But the Church flowered, grew, and spread, and as it did, God showed new things. For example: the old Jewish law prohibition on the eating of blood was set aside in order to accomodate people in lands such as Scandinavia and East Africa where blood is a staple. Jesus said NOTHING a man puts in his mouth makes him unclean and made ALL foods clean. The very Jewish apostles still could not stand the thought of eating blood, so the Council of Jerusalem made abstaining from blood one of the terms of the early Jewish-Christian faith.

However, the Holy Spirit later, in the Middle Ages, set this aside. The blood-sausage eaters of the North - Germans, Scandinavians, Saami, and the blood of the African East - the Masai eat blood as a staple. So, is not eating blood a fundamental requirement of salvation? Or did Jesus really mean it when he said that NOTHING that went into a man's mouth made him unclean?

Who can say? Who can resolve that jump ball? The answer is God. And God reposes in the Church, as the Holy Spirit. God DID answer the question, and the Church made it clear that the eating of meals made with blood is NOT a sin for followers of Christ. And that is that. God spoke through the Church and ended what would otherwise be an endless (and fruitless) debate.

We see in the Acts of the Apostles the bishops and leader of the early Church already exercising their authority to decide through the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit remains as present in the Church today, to the Pope and cardinals, as it was to the Apostles. Francis and the archbishops of the Church occupy the same office as Peter and the Apostles, and exercise the same undecayed authority for the same reason: the Holy Spirit dwells in the Church and guides them just exactly as it did Peter. And just as God's message evolved from Adam through Cain and Abel, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and then the First Century Apostles, it continues to do so, guided by God, through His Church.

Your doctrine would limit revelation to what was written in the First Century, but this is arbitrary. Catholics believe that the Holy Spirit still dwells in the Church and guides it every day, until the end of time.

 

[OpenYourBibles]

It can be said that it's wrong to forbid married men to be ordained or, for that matter, forbid unmarried priests to get married. However, I have some sympathy for the Catholic Church on this matter for the following reasons:

1. No one has to take those vows if he doesn't want to.
2. It's the Latin rite of the Catholic Church that bars married priests. The Church has many other rites that have married priests.
3. Even in the Latin rite, it's not a firm prohibition. There are married priests in the Latin rite, men who have converted, after marrying, from Anglican or Lutheran churches.

and most of all

4. It's not a doctrine. If a Catholic says that this is nuts and the Church ought to change it back to the way it once was, there's nothing wrong with doing that. He's not a heretic, not in trouble with the pastor, or anything like that.

As I stated before, the only point I am trying to get across:

If this priest wants to marry after having taken that vow he is faced with remaining celibate and a priest or leaving the priesthood and becoming a husband - right?

This is not what Paul instructed. All of this marriage or not marriage was brought up simply to illustrate where the Catholic Church has gone beyond the instruction of Peter and the Apostles (including Paul).

Whether you call it doctrine, tradition, best practice, or rule - his marriage occurring after being a priest and taking his vow - would strip him of his priestly office. While Paul allowed for married priests, leaders, and even Bishops.

Marry, don't marry, I do not care, but you cannot say that this Catholic teaching, preference, rule, tradition, whatever else is lined up and in accordance with scripture.

 

[Vicomte13]

Would God cause a filthy donkey to speak his words and warn his prophet? Yes.
Did that sanctify the donkey?

Would God cause a rooster, who pecks the ground and in short order becomes dinner, to crow and convict the heart of Peter? Yes.
Did that justify the rooster?

So would God heal those coming in faith to him for healing? Sure!
Does that sanctify the place?

What about the many miracles Jesus preformed, are each of those places holy now?

In fact Jesus told those that he healed, on a regular basis, "by your faith" you are healed or made whole, or restored. Not because of a place, a vision, a special miracle... but by faith.

I do not discount the healing of God - I simply ask for proof what any of it has to do with Mary, versus an individuals faith. And I also question how the healing happening at that place justifies the veneration show to Mary, if God also used many other vessels over time, including a donkey and a rooster?

So, you think that it is of no account that God's fountain of miracles, the spring where it occurred, was dug by a girl under the direction of an apparition of Mary? That God unleashes tens of thousands of healing miracles THERE, specifically THERE, in that abundance, and in such dramatic fashion, right under a statue of Mary.

Obviously God is not OFFENDED by the statues of and adoration of Mary. If he were, one would think that he would not perform those healings at a Marian shrine. If the same thing were occurring in Mecca, it would be a pretty convincing argument for the divine favor shown to Islam. Ditto if it were happening in Salt Lake City. But it's not happening in any of those places. It's happening at the site of a Marian apparition in Catholic France.

Yes, he used a donkey, indicating that Balaam was wrong.
And he does the healings at Lourdes, in a spring dug at the behest of the Virgin Mary, indicating that the Catholics are right.

 

[OpenYourBibles]

That is your opinion and your opinion is false. Your modern interpretation does not match up with the interpretations of the early Christians who learned the gospel from the apostles.

Have you read the writings of the early Church? They interpret scripture as Catholics do today, not as you do.

I have given you multiple examples of where Catholicism does not follow the early church, each with biblical foundation.

I would love for you to use Bible to refute any one of them. Rather than simply proclaiming my opinions false and interpretations off - I've shown you exactly where my beliefs come from, in scripture, will you not return the favor?

 

[Vicomte13]

As I stated before, the only point I am trying to get across:

If this priest wants to marry after having taken that vow he is faced with remaining celibate and a priest or leaving the priesthood and becoming a husband - right?

This is not what Paul instructed. All of this marriage or not marriage was brought up simply to illustrate where the Catholic Church has gone beyond the instruction of Peter and the Apostles (including Paul).

Whether you call it doctrine, tradition, best practice, or rule - his marriage occurring after being a priest and taking his vow - would strip him of his priestly office. While Paul allowed for married priests, leaders, and even Bishops.

Marry, don't marry, I do not care, but you cannot say that this Catholic teaching, preference, rule, tradition, whatever else is lined up and in accordance with scripture.

"For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others--and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it." - Jesus Christ, as quoted in Matthew 19:12

Catholic priests have chosen to live like eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven, accepting what Christ recommended.

Why do you have a problem with this?

 

[Vicomte13]

Sorry, no. Whether or not you're interested, what I wrote was correct.

You are wrong.

 

[OpenYourBibles]

Because the authority reposes in God, who lives in the Church, and the Scriptures are a written record of what God said and did in that time, to teach and inspire us. What they are NOT is a new set of stone tablets. It is a history book, the story of Christ coming into the world and beginning the process of leading each successive generation to God. Jesus and the Apostles were facing a Jewish world with specifically Jewish issues. Much of the particular language in the Scriptures, both of Jesus and of the Apostles in their various letters, are addressed to Jewish questions, and Jewish theological concerns under the Jewish Law. But Christianity spread across the world among the Gentiles, who were never under the Jewish Law in the first place, and who were not BROUGHT under it by Jesus. Jesus had a New Covenant that was not a repouring of old wine into new bottles, nor new wine into new bottles. Ecclesiastes was wrong: there ARE new things under the Sun, and Jesus' covenant was one of those.

Jesus' covenant was not bound to a book or a law, but to God, and the Holy Spirit was to lead it. He breathed the Holy Spirit into Apostles, the head of the Church he founded, and sent the Holy Spirit into the Church, to lead it forward.

The Apostles dealt with Jews, and with the Greco-Roman edge of paganism. But as the Church spread, it encountered all sorts of new beliefs, conditions, gods, foods, customs, on different continents and in different ages.

The Church, the Holy Spirit, are not bound to the answers given to the Jews in response to different questions in different times. Rather, God continued to send his revelations, his messages, his messengers (such as Joan of Arc, or the Virgin Mary) to different times and places and conditions. God speaks to the Church. Jesus planted a seed in the Apostles, and the Apostles sprouted out and wrote the first texts recording what Jesus said and did, and keeping track of what God had done for the Jews before that. But the Church flowered, grew, and spread, and as it did, God showed new things. For example: the old Jewish law prohibition on the eating of blood was set aside in order to accomodate people in lands such as Scandinavia and East Africa where blood is a staple. Jesus said NOTHING a man puts in his mouth makes him unclean and made ALL foods clean. The very Jewish apostles still could not stand the thought of eating blood, so the Council of Jerusalem made abstaining from blood one of the terms of the early Jewish-Christian faith.

However, the Holy Spirit later, in the Middle Ages, set this aside. The blood-sausage eaters of the North - Germans, Scandinavians, Saami, and the blood of the African East - the Masai eat blood as a staple. So, is not eating blood a fundamental requirement of salvation? Or did Jesus really mean it when he said that NOTHING that went into a man's mouth made him unclean?

Who can say? Who can resolve that jump ball? The answer is God. And God reposes in the Church, as the Holy Spirit. God DID answer the question, and the Church made it clear that the eating of meals made with blood is NOT a sin for followers of Christ. And that is that. God spoke through the Church and ended what would otherwise be an endless (and fruitless) debate.

We see in the Acts of the Apostles the bishops and leader of the early Church already exercising their authority to decide through the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit remains as present in the Church today, to the Pope and cardinals, as it was to the Apostles. Francis and the archbishops of the Church occupy the same office as Peter and the Apostles, and exercise the same undecayed authority for the same reason: the Holy Spirit dwells in the Church and guides them just exactly as it did Peter. And just as God's message evolved from Adam through Cain and Abel, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and then the First Century Apostles, it continues to do so, guided by God, through His Church.

Your doctrine would limit revelation to what was written in the First Century, but this is arbitrary. Catholics believe that the Holy Spirit still dwells in the Church and guides it every day, until the end of time.

You say I am limited by scripture, I would counter that I am fulfilled in scripture! You say the word of God had to change to fit these different cultures and peoples that it would encounter beyond the middle east, but I say (as does the Bible) that we must change to fit in it. Why is there so much quoting of scripture (OT) in the NT writings? They are building upon the foundation that was already laid. For every "new" thing, I guarantee you there is scripture to address it, already... try God, you might be surprised.

Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever.
and
All scripture (including ecclesiastes) is given by the inspiration of God and is profitable...

When you begin to blatantly call scripture a lie, you clearly have out-grown your britches. If you will not deal fairly with the word of God (which as has been discussed, "Catholic" bishops decide what should or should not be contained in scripture) then I could never expect you to deal fairly with me. The conversation between you and I is done.

 

[PeaceB]

Show us where you think that is. Then I'll show you where you're wrong.

Show us where you think the Bible teaches Sola Scriptura, and we will show you where you are wrong.

 

[Vicomte13]

While some Catholics think of Mary differently then I believe.. yet they know believe in JESUS as the only way. .. if I have offended please forgive me.

Offended? You have stated the Truth, the fundamental Truth.