Catholics, what exactly do you believe about Mary?

[Phil 1:21]

I said the image you posted was photo shopped by satanists, and it looked rather horrifying.

It took me all of about five seconds to do an image search and identify it as a painting by Mexican surrealist Octavio Ocampo.

 

[Gabriel Anton]

It took me all of about five seconds to do an image search and identify it as a painting by Mexican surrealist Octavio Ocampo.

Peace be with you.

Thank you for enlightening me about this important art information.

God bless you.

 

[Fidelibus]

The Word of God is perfect and is infallible but just like ALL men I am not

What do you consider the Word of God, the Bible alone? As for you being fallible, I agree. As for the "ALL" men part, I disagree, and so does Scripture. Infallibility belongs to the body of bishops as a whole, when, in doctrinal unity with the pope, they solemnly teach a doctrine as true. We have this from Jesus himself, who promised the apostles and their successors the bishops, the magisterium of the Church: "He who hears you hears me" (Luke 10:16), and "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven" (Matt. 18:18).

Another trick questions my friend? Are you infallible? Are you like me in that you are a sinner saved by grace?

1. No
2. Yes
3. The true Church of Christ, The Catholic Church, teaches that salvation is a process of becoming holier and holier through time. All of this is a work of grace that God performs in our hearts through faith. Works done in faith are the natural completion of believing in Christ. As we trust and do God’s work, he instills within us more grace so that we may become holier and so be ready to meet him at the end of our life. As the Bible says, I am already saved (Rom. 8:24, Eph. 2:5–8), but I’m also being saved (1 Cor. 1:18, 2 Cor. 2:15, Phil. 2:12), and I have the hope that I will be saved (Rom. 5:9–10, 1 Cor. 3:12–15). Like the apostle Paul I am working out my salvation in fear and trembling (Phil. 2:12), with hopeful confidence in the promises of Christ (Rom. 5:2, 2 Tim. 2:11–13).

I actually do not have any "Interpretations" at all. I am not an Interpreter.

Agreed.

I read what the Scripture says, believe what it says and talk about what it says.

So if someone was to read a same bible passage as you, and believes it read different to what you believes it to read, who would you consider to be correct, and who was in error?

If I propose a Bible teaching which is inconsistent with the Word of God then I AM WRONG.

You propose??? Not to sound sarcastic Major1, but this sounds as if you appointed yourself as some sort of little pope!

 

[Fidelibus]

Jesus is not on the cross! Jesus was buried, and rose from the dead and ascended to heaven.

Then how would you explain 1Cor. 1:23 where Paul says, "...but we preach Christ crucified..." Why does Paul preach Christ crucified? Doesn't he know Jesus has been raised from the dead?

 

[kepha31]

Jesus is not on the cross! Jesus was buried, and rose from the dead and ascended to heaven.

My Bible is the perfect Word of God.

We are saved by Jesus, and not by a cross.
Preaching Christ crucified as Paul says is not keeping Him on the cross.
1 Cor. 1:23 Paul preaches a Christ crucified, not just risen. Catholic spirituality focuses on the sacrifice of Christ which is the only means to the resurrection. This is why Catholic churches have crucifixes with the corpus of Jesus affixed to them. Many Protestant churches no longer display the corpus of Jesus (only an empty cross). Thus, they only preach a Christ risen, not crucified.

1 Cor. 2:2 - Paul preaches Jesus Christ and Him crucified. While the cross was the scandal of scandals, and is viewed by the non-Christian eye as defeat, Catholic spirituality has always exalted the paradox of the cross as the true tree of life and our means to salvation.
It's not an Either/Or but a Both/And.

There is no need to say we can only serve a Risen Jesus OR a Suffering Christ. With all due respect, Catholics are quite capable of doing both!

We find Evangelical objections to crucifixes a bit puzzling, perhaps even ironic. They put such great emphasis on Christ's atoning death in their preaching and hymns, and say that every sinner must tell Jesus "I believe that You died for my sins" in order to get saved, yet they are so hostile toward artistic representations of the salvific Event itself!

Folks can make an idol out of anything (as I think you’d readily agree): the Bible, their own spiritual pride, their office as a minister, riches, fame, power, beauty, you name it. So they can make an idol out of a crucifix if they choose to do so.

My argument is that since anything can be corrupted, this is not a sufficient argument to abolish things that can be corrupted, since in that case, everything would have to be abolished!
Crucifixes: Abominable Idols or Devotional Aids?

Gothic period. Iconographic art is rich in meaning and symbolism​

 

[Major1]

Then how would you explain 1Cor. 1:23 where Paul says, "...but we preach Christ crucified..." Why does Paul preach Christ crucified? Doesn't he know Jesus has been raised from the dead?

LOL.......You have asked that question once already. Instead of me re-typing it again or copy and pasting, just go to comment #865.

 

[Major1]

What do you consider the Word of God, the Bible alone? As for you being fallible, I agree. As for the "ALL" men part, I disagree, and so does Scripture. Infallibility belongs to the body of bishops as a whole, when, in doctrinal unity with the pope, they solemnly teach a doctrine as true. We have this from Jesus himself, who promised the apostles and their successors the bishops, the magisterium of the Church: "He who hears you hears me" (Luke 10:16), and "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven" (Matt. 18:18).



1. No
2. Yes
3. The true Church of Christ, The Catholic Church, teaches that salvation is a process of becoming holier and holier through time. All of this is a work of grace that God performs in our hearts through faith. Works done in faith are the natural completion of believing in Christ. As we trust and do God’s work, he instills within us more grace so that we may become holier and so be ready to meet him at the end of our life. As the Bible says, I am already saved (Rom. 8:24, Eph. 2:5–8), but I’m also being saved (1 Cor. 1:18, 2 Cor. 2:15, Phil. 2:12), and I have the hope that I will be saved (Rom. 5:9–10, 1 Cor. 3:12–15). Like the apostle Paul I am working out my salvation in fear and trembling (Phil. 2:12), with hopeful confidence in the promises of Christ (Rom. 5:2, 2 Tim. 2:11–13).




Agreed.



So if someone was to read a same bible passage as you, and believes it read different to what you believes it to read, who would you consider to be correct, and who was in error?




You propose??? Not to sound sarcastic Major1, but this sounds as if you appointed yourself as some sort of little pope!

I have to disagree with you.

You said...........
" Infallibility belongs to the body of bishops as a whole, when, in doctrinal unity with the pope, they solemnly teach a doctrine as true."

That is NOT Bible doctrine in way what so ever. IT IS Catholic doctrine but they are not the same thing.
You as a Roman Catholics assume, as a self-evident truth, that God has appointed someone on earth to give infallible guidance to religious truth. You see, if YOU are right in this, no argument can be successfully leveled against Catholicism for if the Church is infallible, it is obvious we must be the mistaken party in any complaint or controversy we have with her.

What I have experienced over the years is obvious right here on this web site. Anyone can see it happening right in front of your eyes. If a person has not been through these kinds of debates they would be greatly disappointed if they entered into controversial discussion with a Roman Catholic, expecting that by a few Bible texts they could make an end of the whole matter. It will just not happen. No one is much influenced by an authority with which he is not familiar and Roman Catholics generally are not familiar with the Bible. I am not saying that you are NOT but Catholic in general.

So then when YOU or other Catholic believers hear passages quoted from the Bible in apparent contradiction with Catholic doctrine, they assure themselves you must be quoting unfairly, or that you are "Judging" them and that the contradiction is only apparent. For the Catholic, the authority of the Bible rests on the higher authority of the Church and he will only accept from the Bible what has been communicated to him by the Church and right there is and always has been the rub.


Then you said..............
"As the Bible says, I am already saved (Rom. 8:24, Eph. 2:5–8), but I’m also being saved (1 Cor. 1:18, 2 Cor. 2:15, Phil. 2:12), and I have the hope that I will be saved (Rom. 5:9–10, 1 Cor. 3:12–15)."

I AGREE 100 %!!!!! In that we have been saved, are being saved and will be saved.

Then you said............
" The true Church of Christ, The Catholic Church, teaches that salvation is a process of becoming holier and holier through time"

I agree with you that that is what the Catholic church teaches. I disagree however in the idea of that being Biblical.

It is my understanding of the Scriptures that our salvation is instantaneous, and there is no need for any further salvific process. The effect of Jesus’ atonement lasts forever, and it covers the believer’s every sin. Acting or affirming differently insults Jesus Christ. After all, he said of his own work, “It is finished” in John 19:30. He did not say, “My part is done. Now you guys keep this going.”

Since Jesus overcame both death and sin as recorded in 1 Cor. 15:56-57, sin can no longer condemn us as Paul said in Rom. 8:1. As such, why would any ongoing processes of salvation be necessary…I mean…what would it do? Keep us saved? The Bible will have none of that! Salvation is, by its nature, eternal as told to us in 1 John 5:11-13, so any ostensive salvation processes would have no purpose—and I find it difficult to support any construct that has no purpose.

Now, will we grow in grace? Surely that is Biblically true. Will we grow in knowledge. Yes that would also be true. But when we accepted Christ as Saviour, at that moment we got all of what God promised us salvationally speaking.

Then you asked me.............
"So if someone was to read a same bible passage as you, and believes it read different to what you believes it to read, who would you consider to be correct, and who was in error?"

It has been by observation over the years that conflict and disagreements over a certain Scripture usually come from the Denominational affiliation of the individuals involved. One person may be a Catholic and he will most always side with what he has been taught by the Catholic denomination.
A Mormon believer will follow the teachings given to him by his denomination and so on and so on.

It is important IMO to attend a Bible believing church who has educated people in the BIBLE and not in denominational dogma. Religion has become the best tool that Satan has available to him and the only way to overcome that is to READ and STUDY the Scriptures looking for the truth and NOT so denominational dogma.

 

[Goatee]

As I have said before, you are welcome to believe that but the Bible fact is that there is NO BIBLE VERSES which explain or even suggest an apostolic succession.

Nowhere in Scripture did Jesus, the apostles, or any other New Testament writer set forth the idea of “apostolic succession.” Further, neither is Peter presented as “supreme” over the other apostles. The apostle Paul, in fact, rebukes Peter when Peter was leading others astray in Galatians 2:11-14.

Yes, the apostle Peter had a prominent role. Yes, perhaps the apostle Peter was the leader of the apostles (although the book of Acts records the apostle Paul and Jesus’ half brother James as also having prominent leadership roles). Whatever the case, Peter was not the “commander” or supreme authority over the other apostles. Even if apostolic succession could be demonstrated from Scripture, which it cannot, apostolic succession would not result in Peter’s successors being absolutely supreme over the other apostles’ successors.

Your interpretation again!

Only YOU can be right

Everyone else is doomed

CC is in error according to top theologian Major1

 

[Goatee]

Jesus is not on the cross! Jesus was buried, and rose from the dead and ascended to heaven.

My Bible is the perfect Word of God.

Bible is perfect. You have the CC to thank for giving you it. Pity you are so lost in your 'literal' interpretations!

 

[Major1]

We are saved by Jesus, and not by a cross.
Preaching Christ crucified as Paul says is not keeping Him on the cross.
1 Cor. 1:23 Paul preaches a Christ crucified, not just risen. Catholic spirituality focuses on the sacrifice of Christ which is the only means to the resurrection. This is why Catholic churches have crucifixes with the corpus of Jesus affixed to them. Many Protestant churches no longer display the corpus of Jesus (only an empty cross). Thus, they only preach a Christ risen, not crucified.

1 Cor. 2:2 - Paul preaches Jesus Christ and Him crucified. While the cross was the scandal of scandals, and is viewed by the non-Christian eye as defeat, Catholic spirituality has always exalted the paradox of the cross as the true tree of life and our means to salvation.
It's not an Either/Or but a Both/And.

There is no need to say we can only serve a Risen Jesus OR a Suffering Christ. With all due respect, Catholics are quite capable of doing both!

We find Evangelical objections to crucifixes a bit puzzling, perhaps even ironic. They put such great emphasis on Christ's atoning death in their preaching and hymns, and say that every sinner must tell Jesus "I believe that You died for my sins" in order to get saved, yet they are so hostile toward artistic representations of the salvific Event itself!

Folks can make an idol out of anything (as I think you’d readily agree): the Bible, their own spiritual pride, their office as a minister, riches, fame, power, beauty, you name it. So they can make an idol out of a crucifix if they choose to do so.

My argument is that since anything can be corrupted, this is not a sufficient argument to abolish things that can be corrupted, since in that case, everything would have to be abolished!
Crucifixes: Abominable Idols or Devotional Aids?

You said, or rather the post from the source you quoted said............
"We are saved by Jesus, and not by a cross".

Praise the Lord....I agree!

Then that Catholic web site stated.........
"Thus, they only preach a Christ risen, not crucified."

Again.........AMEN!

Then the comment by that Catholic web site stated..........
"Catholic spirituality has always exalted the paradox of the cross as the true tree of life and our means to salvation."

As do all Protestant churches as well. The paradox is that the cross looks bad. The cross was bad. It was cruel, bloody and harsh. But then it was also GOOD because without it we could not be saved as our sins would still condemn us.

Then the Catholic web sites said.......
"It's not an Either/Or but a Both/And. There is no need to say we can only serve a Risen Jesus OR a Suffering Christ. With all due respect, Catholics are quite capable of doing both!"

Amen and that is exactly what all Protestant churches teach and believe and do.

And then they go and ruin it all by saying........
"We find Evangelical objections to crucifixes a bit puzzling, perhaps even ironic."

The bottom line is obvious. Jesus IS NOT ON THE CROSS!!!

I and neither can you change what God has said in Deuteronomy 4:15-16 ..........
"So watch yourselves carefully, since you did not see any form on the day the LORD spoke to you at Horeb from the midst of the fire, so that you do not act corruptly and make a graven image for yourselves in the form of any figure, the likeness of male or female...."

You can only obey that or you can disobey that.

Most pictures and statues of Christ are therefore a direct opposite to how He is described in the Bible. These false images give us an incorrect impression of the true Jesus Christ, and are, in fact, a part of the devil's great master deception and should be treated as such.

It is not wrong to picture (in our mind’s eye) Jesus Christ in His glorified state as He is today, as John described in Revelation 1:14.........
“His head and his hair were white like wool, as white as snow; and His eyes were as a flame of fire; and His feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and His voice as the sound of many waters. And He had in His right hand seven stars: and out of His mouth went a sharp two-edged sword: and His countenance was as the sun shines in his strength.”

God would not have inspired this description unless He wanted us to know Christ’s glorified appearance.(What does the Bible teach regarding pictures and/or statues of Christ?)

 

[Major1]

Your interpretation again!

Only YOU can be right

Everyone else is doomed

CC is in error according to top theologian Major1

God bless you!

Since you think that I am wrong, would you then please take the time to post for me the Bible verses which tells and approve and point to the succession of the Apostolic office.

 

[Major1]

Bible is perfect. You have the CC to thank for giving you it. Pity you are so lost in your 'literal' interpretations!

I am sure you are a great person. But you tend to keep repeating the same old things.

The Catholic contention that the whole world is indebted to the Roman Catholic church for the existence of the Bible is another attempt to exalt the church as an authority in addition to the Bible. In reality, the Bible is inspired and has authority, not because a church declared it so, but because God made it so. God delivered it by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and declared that it would abide forever.

 

[Goatee]

I have to disagree with you.

You said...........
" Infallibility belongs to the body of bishops as a whole, when, in doctrinal unity with the pope, they solemnly teach a doctrine as true."

That is NOT Bible doctrine in way what so ever. IT IS Catholic doctrine but they are not the same thing.
You as a Roman Catholics assume, as a self-evident truth, that God has appointed someone on earth to give infallible guidance to religious truth. You see, if YOU are right in this, no argument can be successfully leveled against Catholicism for if the Church is infallible, it is obvious we must be the mistaken party in any complaint or controversy we have with her.

What I have experienced over the years is obvious right here on this web site. Anyone can see it happening right in front of your eyes. If a person has not been through these kinds of debates they would be greatly disappointed if they entered into controversial discussion with a Roman Catholic, expecting that by a few Bible texts they could make an end of the whole matter. It will just not happen. No one is much influenced by an authority with which he is not familiar and Roman Catholics generally are not familiar with the Bible. I am not saying that you are NOT but Catholic in general.

So then when YOU or other Catholic believers hear passages quoted from the Bible in apparent contradiction with Catholic doctrine, they assure themselves you must be quoting unfairly, or that you are "Judging" them and that the contradiction is only apparent. For the Catholic, the authority of the Bible rests on the higher authority of the Church and he will only accept from the Bible what has been communicated to him by the Church and right there is and always has been the rub.


Then you said..............
"As the Bible says, I am already saved (Rom. 8:24, Eph. 2:5–8), but I’m also being saved (1 Cor. 1:18, 2 Cor. 2:15, Phil. 2:12), and I have the hope that I will be saved (Rom. 5:9–10, 1 Cor. 3:12–15)."

I AGREE 100 %!!!!! In that we have been saved, are being saved and will be saved.

Then you said............
" The true Church of Christ, The Catholic Church, teaches that salvation is a process of becoming holier and holier through time"

I agree with you that that is what the Catholic church teaches. I disagree however in the idea of that being Biblical.

It is my understanding of the Scriptures that our salvation is instantaneous, and there is no need for any further salvific process. The effect of Jesus’ atonement lasts forever, and it covers the believer’s every sin. Acting or affirming differently insults Jesus Christ. After all, he said of his own work, “It is finished” in John 19:30. He did not say, “My part is done. Now you guys keep this going.”

Since Jesus overcame both death and sin as recorded in 1 Cor. 15:56-57, sin can no longer condemn us as Paul said in Rom. 8:1. As such, why would any ongoing processes of salvation be necessary…I mean…what would it do? Keep us saved? The Bible will have none of that! Salvation is, by its nature, eternal as told to us in 1 John 5:11-13, so any ostensive salvation processes would have no purpose—and I find it difficult to support any construct that has no purpose.

Now, will we grow in grace? Surely that is Biblically true. Will we grow in knowledge. Yes that would also be true. But when we accepted Christ as Saviour, at that moment we got all of what God promised us salvationally speaking.

Then you asked me.............
"So if someone was to read a same bible passage as you, and believes it read different to what you believes it to read, who would you consider to be correct, and who was in error?"

It has been by observation over the years that conflict and disagreements over a certain Scripture usually come from the Denominational affiliation of the individuals involved. One person may be a Catholic and he will most always side with what he has been taught by the Catholic denomination.
A Mormon believer will follow the teachings given to him by his denomination and so on and so on.

It is important IMO to attend a Bible believing church who has educated people in the BIBLE and not in denominational dogma. Religion has become the best tool that Satan has available to him and the only way to overcome that is to READ and STUDY the Scriptures looking for the truth and NOT so denominational dogma.

Waw, I never seen such a person wrapped up in his own self esteem.

All you ever do is criticise the Catholic Church teachings etc. You refuse to accept any Catholic answers to scripture. Only YOUR view is correct!

Like I said before, pick up maybe Scott Hahnes book or Steve Ray and in them you will find full explanations to your Catholic doubts. Much better than I can explain as I am not a super theologian like you.

Obviously you have been ingrained so much with your 'all Catholic teachings are wrong' that you are very much lost.

The CC goes hand in hand with the Bible. CC gave you the Bible. Then, people like you decided to alter scripture and then, read it anyway as long as it suited your own personal views / beliefs.

As a non-denom you have interpreted scripture in your very own little way and heaven help anyone who comes up with a Catholic representation of what a passage means!!

Satan loves those who go it alone. He does everything to get people away from the Catholic Church, the church of Christ.

Jesus is the cornerstone of the CC though. Nothing can make it crumble and fall.

 

[Goatee]

I am sure you are a great person. But you tend to keep repeating the same old things.

The Catholic contention that the whole world is indebted to the Roman Catholic church for the existence of the Bible is another attempt to exalt the church as an authority in addition to the Bible. In reality, the Bible is inspired and has authority, not because a church declared it so, but because God made it so. God delivered it by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and declared that it would abide forever.

Your way of dodging the FACT that it was the CC that put scripture together and thus the Holy Bible. You are right, the Holy Spirit inspired the CC to put together the greatest book ever written!

 

[bbbbbbb]

Waw, I never seen such a person wrapped up in his own self esteem.

All you ever do is criticise the Catholic Church teachings etc. You refuse to accept any Catholic answers to scripture. Only YOUR view is correct!

Like I said before, pick up maybe Scott Hahnes book or Steve Ray and in them you will full explanations to your Catholic doubts. Much better than I can explain as I am not a super theologian like you.

Obviously you have been ingrained so much with your 'all Catholic teachings are wrong' that you are very much lost.

The CC goes hand in hand with the Bible. CC gave you the Bible. Then, people like you decided to alter scripture and then, read it anyway as long as it suited your own personal views / beliefs.

As a non-denom you have interpreted scripture in your very own little way and heaven help anyone who comes up with a Catholic representation of what a passage means!!

Satan loves those who go it alone. He does everything to get people away from the Catholic Church, the church of Christ.

Jesus is the cornerstone of the CC though. Nothing can make it crumble and fall.

This seems to be a case of the irrestible force meeting the immovable object. There is no doubt whatsoever that either of you will sway the other's opinion in the slightest, nor is there much hope for swaying anyone else's opinion here. In the meantime I am enjoying the party. Carry on!

 

[Goatee]

Anyway, I am grateful to the CC for having Our Blessed Mother Mary put on a very high pedestal where she truly belongs.

I am sure that Jesus loves the fact that His Mother is greatly loved.

 

[Goatee]

This seems to be a case of the irrestible force meeting the immovable object. There is no doubt whatsoever that either of you will sway the other's opinion in the slightest, nor is there much hope for swaying anyone else's opinion here. In the meantime I am enjoying the party. Carry on!

True. Catholics fighting their corner and Sola Scripture, go it alone theologians, fighting theirs!

 

[bbbbbbb]

Anyway, I am grateful to the CC for having Our Blessed Mother Mary put on a very high pedestal where she truly belongs.

I am sure that Jesus loves the fact that His Mother is greatly loved.

What an interesting post! You readily admit that the CC exalted Mary to her position, rather than God Almighty. How interesting!

 

[Goatee]

What an interesting post! You readily admit that the CC exalted Mary to her position, rather than God Almighty. How interesting!

Lol, your interpretation of what I wrote! Lol

Blind reading at its best! Lol

 

[kepha31]

NOW that is an "Interpretation". YOUR interpretation.

It is not however what the Scripture in fact says. What you have done is to make it say what YOU want it to say.

I do understand that the verse you used comes from a Catholic website and of course you will have to agree with it because you are a Catholic. But what does Paul actually say because he does NOT say anything about Apostolic succession.

He didn't use the words "Apostolic succession", but you are denying Paul is passing his office to Timothy.
"[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2).

Please provide a sensible alternative explanation that proves Paul is not telling Timothy to entrust others where they teach others.

Apostolic succession

When we read the passage what we see in this verse would refer to oral revelation from Paul's inspired mouth to Timothy, but it says nothing about apostolic succession. But lets not forget that Paul had written 13 other letters before 2 Timothy, which was his last. We must include Paul's writings in this co

Because you fail to understand what apostolic succession is.

Now THINK, If this text was the basis for succession, then it would mean that Timothy was Paul's successor. This is nowhere recorded in tradition!

It's not the basis for succession, but a single indicator. No doctrine rests on 1 or 2 verses as in Protestantism. A living legacy is the basis, that you deny anyway. Sometimes Scripture and Tradition overlap, so what Paul is saying in 2 Tim 2 IS TRADITION.

Then please consider with me that in 2 Tim 2:2, we have the famous 4 generation discipleship passage:
1. Paul
2. Timothy
3. Faithful men
4. Others.

What was taught within these four generations may have included oral revelation, but this oral doctrine was also taught in scripture and that is the KEY!

There was no complete Bible for 4 centuries. Paul's letters were accepted as canonical after 250 AD, and rarely quoted before then. It was the TRADITION of the episcopate that played a crucial role in the development of the Bible canon, and that makes sola scriptura contradictory and self defeating. You can't rip a wing off a bird and expect it to fly.

Here's a trick question: What verse gives the list of books that belong in the Bible?

As a Roman Catholic and Orthodox defenders who see the succession of Bishops or the Pope, look elsewhere! First, the one's who were to be entrusted were, "faithful", not Bishops. Timothy was not a Bishop, was he to chose the next bishops to entrust the oral tradition to them?

Because to be a bishop one must first be taught before ordination. The text makes this quite clear. You say they weren't instant bishops therefore there weren't any. You are not making sense.