Catholics, what exactly do you believe about Mary?

[Major1]

curious rephrasing
Here's what you said - the exact wording that I quoted:

I find it interesting that you decided to distort your own comment this time, changing the criteria.
So back to the comment at hand you said,
One example of that certainly does exist in N.T. scripture. The story goes like this; "..they prayed and said, “You, Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which one of these two you have chosen to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place.” And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven apostles." ESV

I understand your need to make Acts 1:24-25 the doctrine you can rest succession on. I for one can not accept that at all. I do not see that this move was the leading of the Holy Spirit, nor that it was God's leading in the casting of lots.

IS Matthias actually the one who took the place of Judas??? No he was not.

IMO, in God's own time the Lord Jesus Himself appointed someone to take the place of Judas which is one of the requirements of being an Apostle....the personal, face to face calling from Jesus Christ.

After the Scripture you posted from Acts, nothing else is recorded of him and his ministry. It seems to me that the Holy Spirit ignored him, but that is just my opinion.

IMO it was Paul who was called by Jesus to replace Judas.

 

[Major1]

Jesus is no longer in the manger either. Do you put out a nativity scene at Christmas?

And besides, when we read of Christ's passion or where Paul vows to preach nothing but Christ crucified, do we not form a mental image of our crucified Lord in our mind? There is no difference between observing an image through our mind's eye and observing a beautiful representation of the crucified Savior with our external eyes.

NO!

 

[Tangible]

NO!

Care to expand a bit on that?

 

[FenderTL5]

I understand your need to make Acts 1:24-25 the doctrine you can rest succession on.

Then you understand nothing of me, because I have no need of a proof-text scripture like the protestants do. In the heat of your arguments, you posited an absolute that was an error. I merely pointed it out.
I'm quite comfortable in the understanding of history and the operation of the church.
For example, we have Clement writing while John the Apostle was still living,
"Through countryside and city the apostles preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry" First Epistle of Clement Letter to the Corinthians 42:4–5, 44:1–3 A.D. 80"
The early church was episcopal and liturgical, history proves it and the scriptures certainly do not deny it.

I for one can not accept that at all. I do not see that this move was the leading of the Holy Spirit, nor that it was God's leading in the casting of lots.
IS Matthias actually the one who took the place of Judas??? No he was not.

Acts chapter 1 says, "he was numbered with the eleven apostles"
That you'd reject Tradition or extra-Biblical writings/history is not a surprise.
To reject scripture is a surprise.

 

[Goatee]

but that is just my opinion.

The truth at last!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Goatee]

Then you understand nothing of me, because I have no need of a proof-text scripture like the protestants do. In the heat of your arguments, you posited an absolute that was an error. I merely pointed it out.
I'm quite comfortable in the understanding of history and the operation of the church.
For example, we have Clement writing while John the Apostle was still living,
"Through countryside and city the apostles preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry" First Epistle of Clement Letter to the Corinthians 42:4–5, 44:1–3 A.D. 80"
The early church was episcopal and liturgical, history proves it and the scriptures certainly do not deny it.


Acts chapter 1 says, "he was numbered with the eleven apostles"
That you'd reject Tradition or extra-Biblical writings/history is not a surprise.
To reject scripture is a surprise.

Well said.

 

[Goatee]

Anyway, back on topic, I think we Catholics have such a strong love for Mary, mother of Our Lord. I am positive that she intercedes for all of her earthly children.

St Padre Pio had such a strong love of Our Holy Mother as did many a saint. He would say the Rosary many times a day!

The True Tabernacle of Our Lord. Full of Grace. Can you imagine God placing His son in anything but a spotless, stain free vessel?

 

[Goatee]

NO!

I bet you love Halloween though?

 

[Major1]

Then you understand nothing of me, because I have no need of a proof-text scripture like the protestants do. In the heat of your arguments, you posited an absolute that was an error. I merely pointed it out.
I'm quite comfortable in the understanding of history and the operation of the church.
For example, we have Clement writing while John the Apostle was still living,
"Through countryside and city the apostles preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry" First Epistle of Clement Letter to the Corinthians 42:4–5, 44:1–3 A.D. 80"
The early church was episcopal and liturgical, history proves it and the scriptures certainly do not deny it.


Acts chapter 1 says, "he was numbered with the eleven apostles"
That you'd reject Tradition or extra-Biblical writings/history is not a surprise.
To reject scripture is a surprise.

The extra Biblical writings of Clement is not inspired and thus can not be used in your argument.
You are welcome to use it as a personal support for you but it does not apply to our conversation.

Again, you are welcome to disagree with me. However the Bible gives very simple and understandable requirements for a man to be an apostle.

1. An apostle of Jesus Christ must be a Jew. He had to be from Messiah’s nation.
2. An apostle must have received a specific call and commission to his office directly from Christ. Luke 6:13 .......“And when day came, He called His disciples to Him and chose twelve of them, whom He also named as apostles.”
3. They must have been an eyewitness of the ministry of the Lord Jesus Christ and have heard His teaching. ( 1 Corth. 9:1, 15:8, Acts 22:6-21)

Now those are IMPOSSIBLE to be achieved by anyone after Jesus was crucified.

Therefore the facts are that No biblical evidence exists to indicate that the original apostles were replaced when they died.

Now you can post one Catholic apology web site comment after another but those are the undeniable facts. Jesus appointed the apostles to do the founding work of the Church, and foundations only need to be laid once. After the apostles’ deaths, other offices besides apostleship, not requiring an eyewitness relationship with Jesus, would carry on the work.

 

[Major1]

Care to expand a bit on that?

you said...............
"Jesus is no longer in the manger either. Do you put out a nativity scene at Christmas?"

My answer was NO.

Jesus is not in a manger.
Jesus is not is Bethlehem.
Jesus is not in Jerusalem.
Jesus is not on the cross.
Jesus is not in the grave.

Jesus Christ is sitting at the right hand of God as the ONLY intercessor for YOU and me.

Mark 16:19 ................

" So then the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was taken up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of God".

1 Peter 3:22 .............

" (Christ) who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him.

Hebrews 7:25......
" Jesus lives to intercede for those who believe in Him ".

1 John 2:1–2...........
"Jesus is our Advocate when we sin. Positioned between us and holy God, Christ declares our righteous standing because of His sacrifice and our faith in Him".

1 Tim. 2:5............
"For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus".

 

[Goatee]

No Biblical evidence so that means anything outside of the bible cannot be relied upon regarding succession? Not even the early church fathers, some of whom were close to the Apostles?

Imagine putting everything down in writing that the Apostles were taught by Jesus!!! There wouldn't be enough paper in the word to make such a Bible!

John did say that such were the vast amount of teachings of Jesus that there would not be enough books in the world to contain them!

Thus, the Apostles taught others the words of Jesus. They passed on these teachings. It's called the work of the Holy Spirit via Sacred Tradition.

The early church fathers knew so much more than what we have in the Bible. They must have!! Having been close to the Apostles!

 

[FenderTL5]

..thus can not be used in your argument.
You are welcome to use it as a personal support for you but it does not apply to our conversation.

When did you become the arbiter of the forum guidelines?

 

[Goatee]

you said...............
"Jesus is no longer in the manger either. Do you put out a nativity scene at Christmas?"

My answer was NO.

Jesus is not in a manger.
Jesus is not is Bethlehem.
Jesus is not in Jerusalem.
Jesus is not on the cross.
Jesus is not in the grave.

Jesus Christ is sitting at the right hand of God as the ONLY intercessor for YOU and me.

Mark 16:19 ................

" So then the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was taken up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of God".

1 Peter 3:22 .............

" (Christ) who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him.

Hebrews 7:25......
" Jesus lives to intercede for those who believe in Him ".

1 John 2:1–2...........
"Jesus is our Advocate when we sin. Positioned between us and holy God, Christ declares our righteous standing because of His sacrifice and our faith in Him".

1 Tim. 2:5............
"For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus".

No, not just in heaven my dear buddy:

Matthew 18:20
20 For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them.”

 

[Major1]

Then you understand nothing of me, because I have no need of a proof-text scripture like the protestants do. In the heat of your arguments, you posited an absolute that was an error. I merely pointed it out.
I'm quite comfortable in the understanding of history and the operation of the church.
For example, we have Clement writing while John the Apostle was still living,
"Through countryside and city the apostles preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry" First Epistle of Clement Letter to the Corinthians 42:4–5, 44:1–3 A.D. 80"
The early church was episcopal and liturgical, history proves it and the scriptures certainly do not deny it.


Acts chapter 1 says, "he was numbered with the eleven apostles"
That you'd reject Tradition or extra-Biblical writings/history is not a surprise.
To reject scripture is a surprise.

As I explained in another post, Mathasis was NOT called by Jesus but by the apostles themselves.

 

[Major1]

When did you become the arbiter of the forum guidelines?

My goodness gracious. Please forgive me. It was only a comment my friend. Only a comment.
Like, if you are using that thesis, you might want to try something else as that one will probably not work for you.

But really, You feel free to do anything you choose to do. If you want to believe what Clement wrote is inspired and you want to use it for your church doctrine, please go right ahead and do so.

 

[Goatee]

As I explained in another post, Mathasis was NOT called by Jesus but by the apostles themselves.

Oh, so the Holy Spirit wasn't working through the Apostles when they chose Mathasis?

 

[Major1]

Jesus is no longer in the manger either. Do you put out a nativity scene at Christmas?

And besides, when we read of Christ's passion or where Paul vows to preach nothing but Christ crucified, do we not form a mental image of our crucified Lord in our mind? There is no difference between observing an image through our mind's eye and observing a beautiful representation of the crucified Savior with our external eyes.

That is called RATIONALIZATION.

You can and you are welcome to believe that all you want to. I have said and say again to you that if that is what you believe....then do it. Again, I am not argueing with you or anyone else. I am simply posting Bible verse that show and say that you might want to read them again and re-think your position as the Bible does not agree with your thoughts.

Now as you have observed, some our Catholic friends have taken office and become angry with these Bible verses and have focused their feeling toward me personally. They have called me names, been sarcastic and confrontational. But if you will read my posts you can see that I am not arguing but instead posting what God says. I do that again for you my friend.

Exodus 20:4-5..............
"You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me."

Now again........If it does not bother you to read those verses and then bow down to any statue, then by all mean go ahead and do what you want to do. Your stress and anger should not be with me as it was Moses who wrote the words God told him to write, NOT ME.

 

[Goatee]

I am not arguing but instead posting what God says.

Posting what 'YOU' 'THINK' God is saying!

 

[kepha31]

Kepha post such long posts that honestly I do not read through them anymore. They are just the same thing over and over.

The reason my posts are so long is that you keep repeating the same falsehoods. KATAHOLOS is Greek for what? Still can't find Romans 1:8 and Acts 9:31?
How can the Catholic Church be guilty of false teachings (which is what you imply) when you insist it didn't exist?

]If he asked me something I missed it just as did you my post #865. IF you would like to repeat it I will try to respond and answer it.

You certainly don't answer my questions. For the the 6th time, what verse lists the books belonging in the Bible?

I am pretty sure that all educated people are aware that there are no actual words in Scriptures concerning an "Alter Call" any more than there are the words Catholic Church in the Scriptures.

There you go again. How many times do I have to go over this? CATHOLIC is English, KATAHOLOS is Greek, they mean the same thing. You are denying Romans 1:8 and Acts 9:31. You deny Ignatius of Antioch because you have nothing to do with the Church of 106 AD.

 

[kepha31]

The extra Biblical writings of Clement is not inspired and thus can not be used in your argument.
You are welcome to use it as a personal support for you but it does not apply to our conversation.

The writings of Clement, as with most of the ECF, certainly can be used as a testimony of the beliefs and practices of the early church WHEN THERE WAS NO BIBLE. It was the Catholic Church that ruled Clement as uninspired, but that doesn't make them useless. You don't like Clement or any ECF because none of them were Protestant.

Catholicism doesn't proof text for doctrines, they come to us from the Apostles called The Deposit of Faith.

Again, you are welcome to disagree with me. However the Bible gives very simple and understandable requirements for a man to be an apostle.

No, it does not. The Bible gives requirements for a man to become a bishop by the laying on of hands. It's called apostolic succession that you have re-defined.

1. An apostle of Jesus Christ must be a Jew. He had to be from Messiah’s nation.
2. An apostle must have received a specific call and commission to his office directly from Christ. Luke 6:13 .......“And when day came, He called His disciples to Him and chose twelve of them, whom He also named as apostles.”
3. They must have been an eyewitness of the ministry of the Lord Jesus Christ and have heard His teaching. ( 1 Corth. 9:1, 15:8, Acts 22:6-21)

Now those are IMPOSSIBLE to be achieved by anyone after Jesus was crucified.

Therefore the facts are that No biblical evidence exists to indicate that the original apostles were replaced when they died.

Now you can post one Catholic apology web site comment after another but those are the undeniable facts. Jesus appointed the apostles to do the founding work of the Church, and foundations only need to be laid once. After the apostles’ deaths, other offices besides apostleship, not requiring an eyewitness relationship with Jesus, would carry on the work.

A bishop is not an Apostle. John was the last Apostle, but according to you, there were no bishops ordained by any Apostle, including Timothy.

​