• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

Interesting news article regarding Mary

Discussion in 'One Bread, One Body - Catholic' started by KC Catholic, Oct 20, 2000.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. KC Catholic

    KC Catholic Everybody's gone surfin'...Surfin' U.S.A

    +76
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Others
    Many times we are asked to explain why the Catholic Church does not outwardly respond to those followers who take a devotion of Mary to a level of deity.

    I found a great article from Catholic News Service regarding the recent Marian Congress held in Rome.

    From: www.catholicnews.com/data...000921.htm

    ROME (CNS) -- Widespread claims of Marian apparitions are a sign of spiritual thirst, but often they also are the fruit of an immaturity in the faith, said Servite Father Salvatore Perrella.

    The priest, who teaches at the Marianum Institute in Rome, was one of more than 200 theologians gathered in Rome for the Sept. 15-24 Mariological-Marian International Congress.

    Although the theme of the congress was ``The Mystery of the Trinity and Mary,'' a recurring topic among the scholars specializing in studies of the Blessed Virgin Mary was the place of Marian devotion in modern faith.

    ``The healthy devotion promoted by church doctrine honors Mary and worships her son,'' Father Perrella told Catholic News Service.

    Often, he said, modern claims of Marian apparitions come from ``uneducated people who let their feelings get the best of them. They sincerely believe, yet they act as if Mary is omnipotent and they can go to her to get anything'' when God alone is omnipotent.

    Father Perrella said that many of the alleged visions, crying statues and other phenomena are reported by people who do not go to church regularly, do not have an adult faith informed by church teaching and the Gospel, and do not have an adult devotion to the Mother of God.

    ``We must never embarrass these people or say they are stupid. Their devotion rises from the heart and God is heart, but not only (heart). We are called to believe with our heart and our minds,'' the Servite said.

    ``You'll never hear a priest or bishop say an apparition is more important than the Gospel,'' he said.

    Father Perrella said pious devotion to Mary, love for her and a feeling of closeness to her are good and healthy as long as Catholics remember ``our true relationship must be with Jesus, which is what Mary taught.''

    Mary must be honored as the first and most perfect follower of Jesus, he said. She is one of the gifts Jesus gave to all who would follow him.

    Mary is a sign of tenderness and motherly love, the priest said, ``but she isn't small, overly humble or a fool. Read the Magnificat. She knows what she is doing. She is free and strong. She gives herself freely to God knowing what she is doing.''

    Too often, he said, Catholics have almost made a ``thing'' out of Mary.

    ``Mary is not a Barbie doll we can dress as we want -- one minute a queen, one minute something else. She was a woman of faith who lived at a very difficult time for women. She was flesh and bones, action, tenderness and strength,'' Father Perrella said.

    ``That is the Mary of the Bible and that is the Mary of our faith,'' he said.

    Tina Beattie, a member of the Center for Marian Studies in England, said too often the media leave the impression that modern people ignore Mary or are ``fanatics'' in their devotion to her.

    ``There are many in the mainstream Catholic culture who have a quiet devotion to Mary,'' one which does not ignore traditions, popular piety or approved apparitions just because they make modern Anglo-Saxon society nervous, Beattie said.

    She said congress participants were discussing how Marian devotion is expressed in different cultures; Mariology and its relationship to feminism; and Mary's relationship to the poor and those seeking justice.

    Women theologians especially ``are bringing questions about the way Mary has traditionally been understood as passive and obedient. They see Mary's relationship to God in a more active, perhaps courageous, way,'' Beattie said.

    ``I think there is questionable merit in presenting a model of ideal femininity as essentially passive and obedient to a male God, and many women are saying this can lead to social and sexual relationships which are not healthy,'' she said.

    ``There is a hope among many women in the church that as we re-imagine Mary, we also re-imagine ourselves and society,'' Beattie said.

    The congress theme of Mary and the Trinity, she said, ``is not at all presenting Mary as the fourth person of the Trinity,'' as some critics of Catholic Marian devotion would claim.

    ``Theologically and in terms of faith, there is great agreement that Mary is the human being in the most perfect relationship with the Trinity and the one who has been most open to God,'' Beattie said.

    ************************************************************
    I thought this article may answer some questions and lay to rest some confusion and misunderstandings about Mary's role in our lives.

    I know some people will still have their doubts, but at least there is an official acknowledgement that there are fringe groups who are worshipping Mary and that is wrong and NOT sanctioned by the church or its leaders in any way.

    And it also re-enforces the truth that the majority of mainstream Catholics have a quiet and respectful devotion to Mary and worship only God.

    Just something to share.
     
    We teamed up with Faith Counseling. Can they help you today?
  2. Jesusong

    Jesusong Veteran

    +91
    Pentecostal
    Married
    It doesn't surprise me that Catholic people elevate & exhalt Mary to the place she does not belong. But they are only following the example of their church. When Mary is assumed to be in heaven bodily, given the title Queen of Heaven, & Mediatrix, all of which has no Biblical foundation or reference. The Catholic Church has led the people away from looking to God the Father, through the mediatorship of our Lord Jesus Christ, (who by the way is the ONLY mediator between God & man, according to Paul the Apostle), by allowing substitutes for Jesus. "If you don't feel worthy to go through Jesus, then go through His mother, or one of the saints", is what I always remember being taught by the priests at CCD.

    The Catholic Church has created a problem that only they can remedy. Only by denouncing these apparitions, & all exalted titles given to Mary can the people begin to worship God in a true way, by approaching Him by faith through our Lord Jesus Christ.
     
  3. onesheep

    onesheep Sheep that looks like Bob

    987
    +14
    Catholic
    Thanks for posting this. I think it gives a good idea of what the RCC is trying to say about Mary.
     
  4. KC Catholic

    KC Catholic Everybody's gone surfin'...Surfin' U.S.A

    +76
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Others
    Well...

    Aside from your generalizations - the Catholic Church has not misdirected anyone away from God. If you read the Catachesim of the Church and really research the teachings you will see that the church does not place Mary in an inappropriate place.

    As Wols and others have mentioned - Mediatrix is a misunderstood term and not a dogma of the Chruch. The Pope and other leaders of the church have stated that there will not be a dogma for Mary becoming the Mediatrix.

    As for the "Queen of Heaven" there are biblical references in Revelations supporting this stance.

    I would encourage you to re-read the article I posted because it states clearly what the Church believes and professes about Mary.

    And everything that the Church teaches can be validated baised on Bible scripture and sacared tradition.
     
  5. KC Catholic

    KC Catholic Everybody's gone surfin'...Surfin' U.S.A

    +76
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Others
    Your're welcome!

    I hope others will take the time to read it as well.
     
  6. Jesusong

    Jesusong Veteran

    +91
    Pentecostal
    Married
    KC you said:

    validate the Assumption of Mary scripturally.

    validate the intercession of Mary scripturally.

    validate Mary being the Queen of Heaven scripturally.

    validate The Imaculate Conception scripturally.
    (for those who don't know, this teaches that Mary was conceived without sin)

    I look forward to your response.
     
  7. Wolseley

    Wolseley Beaucoup-Diên-Cai-Dāu

    +1,744
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Others
    Well, as KC mentioned, Catholics obtain their doctrine from Scripture and Tradition; we interpret these two in light of each other, while Protestants interpret Scripture in light of itself. I can give the verses we use for what you have asked, but since Protestants reject Sacred Tradition, this will be more or less a fruitless enterprise, since you will simply say we have misinterpreted these verses, or applied them to the wrong things.

    However, I have an equal series of questions for you. The earliest Church made full use of the Old Testament Scriptures, the writings of the Apostles, and the oral teachings of the Apostles (i.e., Tradition). Thousands of examples from 33 A.D. to 800 A.D. make that eminently clear. Protestants today, however, feel that only Scripture, and Scripture alone, should be used to "prove" various doctrines. Bearing that in mind, let's turn the tables a bit, and let us examine these questions:

    validate the doctrine of "Scripture alone" by means of Sacred Tradition.

    validate the doctrine of "salvation by faith alone" by means of Sacred Tradition.

    validate the concept of "once saved, always saved" by means of Sacred Tradition.

    validate the concept of the Eucharist being merely symbolic by means of Sacred Tradition.

    validate the doctrine of universal predestination by means of Sacred Tradition.

    validate the concept of the universal priesthood of the believer by means of Sacred Tradition.

    validate the variety of doctrines contained within premillenianl dispensationalism by means of Sacred Tradition.

    You may NOT use the Bible, either New or Old Testaments, to do this. For the purpose of this exercise, we're going to say that Scripture does not exist. You must depend entirely and solely on the writings of the earliest Christians; which, one would naturally assume, reflect what those Christians actually held and believed. You may quote from any early Christian source you choose---Clement, Igantius, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Cyrprian, Origen, Athanasius, Hermas, Basil, Gregory Nazianzus, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine; or you may wish to quote from various early Christian Church councils---Hippo, Carthage, Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus, Chalcedon; the choice is yours, but you must prove to me the veracity of the above specified doctrines based on the Traditional writings of these sources, alone. You cannot use Scripture of any sort to prove to me that the earliest Christians practiced and believed these things.

    I await your response.

    Blessings and peace,
    ----Wols.



     
  8. DEVIL STOMPER777

    DEVIL STOMPER777 Guest

    +0
    WOW!
    Y'know WOLS ARE THE MAN! I sure hope to gain the insight you have some day. Sometimes u just make my head hurt(LOL)!
    Glad to have u on this board brother!
    GOD BLESS,<JESUS><
     
  9. Jesusong

    Jesusong Veteran

    +91
    Pentecostal
    Married
    I cannot defend these concepts & doctrines by "Sacred Traditions". My faith in God, Jesus Christ, & The Holy Spirit stands on, or is "validated" by the scriptures alone. It is through the scriptures that I learned about God, Jesus, & The Holy Spirit.

    Sacred Traditions are too subjective and are not based on any absolute authority other than the organization that appeals to it, & they themselves define what is considered "Sacred Tradition". One organization's sacred tradition would not be equal to another's definition of the same. Practices based on sacred traditions can be changed, added, or deleted, based upon the current interpretive thought of the organization that appeals to it.

    For example: Before Vatican II, lay people were not allowed to touch the communion host. You could only receive it on your tongue. Only a priest, who had consecrated hands could touch, or administer the communion host. Any one other than the priest who handled it commited a mortal sin. And if you die in the state of mortal sin you go straight to hell. This was based on "Sacred Tradition". Today, it's not considered a mortal sin for a lay person to handle the communion host, or administer it. What happened to the authority of the "Sacred Tradition" that said it was a mortal sin?

    Scripture on the other hand is absolute, & unchangable. They are God-breathed, according to
    2Tim 3:16. Just as God is absolute & unchangable, so is His word. God's word is the scripture, both Old & New Testament. The authority of the scripture cannot be arbitrarily invoked when it's to your convenience. Nor can it's authority be stripped when it's not in accordance to your current theological thought.

    Any teachings that is not in direct line with scripture is false, & God is not the author of false teaching.

    My questions in the above post still stand.

    Nowhere in the scriptures do we read that Mary was taken into Heaven bodily after her death.

    Nowhere in the scriptures do we read that in Heaven Mary intercedes for us. In 1Tim 2:5, 1John 2:1-2, we read that Jesus is the only one who can do this.

    Nowhere in the scriptures do we read that Mary is The Queen of Heaven. Rev 12 doesn't say if this woman is a queen. Because of it's ambiguity, the identity of the woman is speculative.

    Nowhere in scripture do we read that Mary was conceived without sin. In 1Peter 2:22, 2Cor 5:21, Heb 4:15, we read that Jesus is the only one without sin.
     
  10. Wolseley

    Wolseley Beaucoup-Diên-Cai-Dāu

    +1,744
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Others
    Which is exactly what I knew your response would be. :)

    The prohibitions of laypeople handling the Eucharistic elements was not based on Tradition. Tradition is properly defined as the original deposit of oral teachings handed down by the Apostles. Prohibition of lay handling of the sacred species, on the other hand, was a discipline imposed by the Church after the Council of Trent; and disciplines imposed by the Church can also be lifted by the Church. You asked about the authority of Sacred Tradition to do this----and my reply (outside of the fact that said discipline is not related to Tradition, as I have outlined above) is that the authority comes from the Church, which is the pillar and foundation of all truth (1 Timothy 3:15).

    You reject the Catholic interpretation of various Scriptures regarding various Catholic doctrines, just as we reject your interpretations of various Scriptures concerning various Protestant doctrines. Which is neither here nor there; that's to be expected.

    I challenge you, however, to make a concentrated study of how the earliest Christians, those living from 33 A.D. to 800 A.D., or if you choose, only up to 300 A.D., interpreted the Scriptures, and which doctrines they applied those Scriptures to. See if you can find anything in those early Christian sources to defend the various Protestant doctrines I named above.

    You won't be able to do it, but you can try. :)

    Incidentally, you cite 2 Timothy 3:16, which is often used as a defence for the idea of sola scriptura; a careful reading of this passage will nowhere reveal a defense of any such doctrine. The passage says "All Scripture", which I certainly would agree with. Now, however, your task is to find me a passage which says "Only Scripture". You won't be able to find that, either....because the Bible nowhere states that the Bible alone is sufficient for all Christian faith and doctrine. The idea that only the Bible is sufficient is a Protestant sacred tradition.

    So, my questions to you stand as well. You and I can interpret Scriptures however we may choose----but how did the earliest Christians interpret them? Can we assume that Ignatius and Polycarp, both of whom were disciples of the Apostle John, learned the Faith properly from him, and reflect that learning in their writings? Did Polycarp pass on that Faith intact to Irenaeus, who was his disciple? Did their interpretation of Scripture corroborate the present-day Catholic interpretation, or the Protestant interpretation? Do the Patristic fathers say anything about the doctrines I named above, and if they do, what do they say? Again, I challenge you to find out.

    In the final analysis, what this whole thing boils down to is the same thing the Reformation was really all about, at the bottom: authority. Who has the authority to define faith, morals, doctrines, rules, beliefs? And what is that authority based on? The Catholic Church has always believed that the Church itself, since it was founded by Christ Himself, has the authority. There were dozens of religious writings abounding in the early centuries of Christianity; it was the Church which decided which of those writings were canonical and could be included in the New Testament, and which were not. The Patristic fathers, whom I have mentioned, produced a great number of writings, as well. It was the Church which decided which of those writings were doctrinally sound, and which ones weren't. A great number of beliefs and concepts were being put forward by a lot of different people in the early Christian era, all claiming Apostolic origin; it was the Church which decided which of those beliefs were actually true, and which were not. All of these decisions were based on the authority of the Church, founded by Christ.

    Protestants base their sole rule of authority on the shortened version of the Bible, a concept which they inherited from Luther. Ironically, the New Testament canon and 98% of the Old Testamant canon of that Bible is the canon which was approved by five seperate Catholic Church councils and at least two Catholic Popes, as well as scores of Catholic theologians. So in one sense of the word, Protestants adhere to Catholic authority, as well----if they didn't, then they'd throw away their Bibles, since the contents of that Bible was decided upon by the Roman Catholic Church.

    As Pat sez to Mike, "Sure, 'tis a curious world we live in, boyo....."

    Blessings and peace,
    ----Wols.




     
  11. Jesusong

    Jesusong Veteran

    +91
    Pentecostal
    Married
    You brought up some interesting points wich I would like to address. If handling the "Sacred Elements" was a discipline imposed by the church, (I thought it was a sacred tradition, but I'll give you that point) then what authority does the church have to lay the charge of mortal sin upon the people who violate that discipline? When I was taught in the Catholic Church, mortal sin was a straight ticket to hell. The people who died in that state because of violating the "discipline" of touching the "sacred elements" are in hell by the authority of the church. The authority of the church now says that it's not a mortal sin to handle the "sacred elements". What happens to those people who were sent to hell because of this violation, which is now not a violation?

    The church is fallible, (Protestant, Orthodox, & Catholic) it can & does make mistakes. This is why we have an infallible guide called "The Word of God", aka The Bible. 2Tim 3:16 does not say "All scripture AND sacred tradition is inspired" (or God breathed), but just the scripture is. Traditions can be beneficial, but they are not inspired by God, & they must be subject to what is inspired by God. When Jesus was being tempted by Satan in the wilderness, He didn't respond by saying, "It is stated by the sacred traditions of the Jewish elders...", No! He wielded the "sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God", by declaring: "It is written"
    "It is written"
    "Again it is written".

    The authority of the believer & the church comes from the Bible. In the Old Testament, the authority of the High Priest came from the Law, which was & is The Word of God. You say:
    I'm assuming you are refering to our refusing to accept the Old Testament Apocrypha.
    The books of: Judith
    Tobit
    Baruch
    Wisdom
    I&II Maccabees
    Ecclesiasticus
    Daniel 3:52-92
    Esther 10:4 through the end
    are not accepted as scripture by the Jews. As the Apostle Paul sates in Rom3:2, "First of all, they have been entrusted with the very words of God." If they knew what was scripture for them, who are we to say that they got it wrong. The method they used to determine what was the Word of God, was the same method the church used in dealing with the New Testament.

    I will conclude this discussion with this:

    By refusing the scriptures as the final authority, anyone can make any teaching or doctrine by fiat decree, & not be accountable because they have become the authority by which they govern themselves.
     
  12. DEVIL STOMPER777

    DEVIL STOMPER777 Guest

    +0
    Scripture,by which we mean the old & new testaments,was inspired by GOD(2Tim.3:16).The Holy Ghost guided the biblical authors to write what he wanted them to write."The inspired authors teach the truth.Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Ghost,we must acknowledge that the books of scripture firmly,faithfully,& w/out error teach that truth which GOD,for the sake of our salvation,wished to see confided to the sacred scriptures"(CCC 107,citing Dei Verbum 11).
    Some Christians claim the Bible is all I need,but this notion is not taught in the Bible.In fact the Bible teaches the contrary idea(2 Pet 1:20-21,3:15-16).The "bible alone" theory was not believed by anyone in the early Church. It is new,having arisen only in the 1500s during the reformation.The theory is a "tradition of men" that nullifies the Word of GOD,distorts the true role of the Bible,& undermines the authority of the Church Jesus established(Mark 7:1-:cool: . TO BE CONT....
     
  13. DEVIL STOMPER777

    DEVIL STOMPER777 Guest

    +0
    cont....
    Although popular w/many "Bible Christian" churches,the "Bible alone" theory simply doesnt work in practice.Historical experiance disproves it.Each year we see additional splintering among "bible believing" religions. Today there are 10s of thousands of competing denominations,each insisting its interpretation of the Bible is the correct one. The resulting divisions have caused untold confusion among millions of sincere but misled Christians.Just open up the yellow pages & see how many different denom are listed,each claiming to go by the "Bible alone",but no 2 can agree on exactly what the Bible means! WE KNOW THIS FOR SURE:THE HOLY GHOST CANNOT BE THE AUTHOR OF THIS CONFUSION(1 COR.14:33).GOD CANNOT LEAD PEOPLE TO CONTRADICTORY BELIEFS BECAUSE HIS TRUTH IS ONE.The conclusion? The "Bible alone" theory must be false.
    GOD BLESS,<JESUS><
     
  14. Wolseley

    Wolseley Beaucoup-Diên-Cai-Dāu

    +1,744
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Others


    Originally, Holy Communion was received in the hand, and this remained the practice for several centuries. In the early Medieval period, however, the Church gradually enforced reception on the tongue, and forbade lay handling of the Host, since at times, non-Christians were known to receive a Host and then instead of consuming it, they would take it out of the church and use it for magical or satanic abuses. This is one of the major reasons why it was prohibited for laymen to handle the sacred species. If, of course, a practicing Catholic were to receive the Host in the hand, and then to engage in such activities, this would naturally be a mortal sin. Simply touching a Host, provided it was done unintentionally, inadvertantly, or with proper reverence, would not be mortal sin. I acknowledge that this is not what you said you were taught, and since I have no way of corroborating what you were taught, I will not deny that's what you may have been taught. Lord knows, due to the wretched state of Catholic catechesis in most of the United States over the last 35 years, you might have been taught just about anything. If you can provide me with better specifics (bibliographic references of the catechism material containing what you were taught in this regard, say) I can make a better examination.

    As for people in hell because they touched a Host (or for any other reason actually), the Church itself has no intrinsic power to send anyone to hell. People send themselves to hell by deliberate disobediance to God. If anyone commits a mortal sin, then our best recourse is to leave them to the judgement of God, Who is assuredly just and will make a proper determination in their case.



    Do not forget that when Jesus was being tempted by the devil there was no Sacred Tradition for Him to quote. The Catholic Church does not regard the Jewish traditions (which Jesus condemned (Matt. 15:3, Mk 7:9) to be part of Christian Sacred Tradition, which got its start with the Apostles after Pentecost.



    Not now, but they were. The decision to jettison these particular books had to do with the fact that the Pharisaic Jews in Palestine considered Hebrew to be a scared language, and the Hebrew originals of these books had been lost; therefore, these books were rejected, but that didn't happen until around 90 A.D. Prior to that time, most Jews regarded the Greek Septuagint to be just as inspired as the Hebrew Masoretic text; as proof of this, consider the following: of the 350 Old Testament quotes found in the New Testament, 300 of them come from the Septuagint, rather than the Masora. Consider also the following quotes---for the sake of brevity, we'll just stick with a few from Matthew:

    Matthew 6:12=Sirach 28:2
    Matthew 6:14=Sirach 28:1-5
    Matthew 7:2=Wisdom 12:22
    Matthew 18:33=Sirach 28:4.

    The New Testament also has the happy habit of quoting from non-Jewish, pseudepigraphal, and even pagan, sources; consider the following:

    ---1 Corinthians 15:34=from "Thais" by Menander, Greek poet 342-291 B.C.
    ---Titus 2:14=from Epimenides of Knossos, Cretan poet 6th century B.C.
    ---Jude 6= The Book of Enoch
    ---Jude 7= Testament of the 12 Patriarchs
    ---Jude 9= The Assumption of Moses
    ---Jude 15= The Book of Enoch.



    I beg to differ. The Greek books were rejected by the Palestinian Jews because of the loss of the Hebrew originals, and they considered Hebrew to be a sacred language; ergo, they felt if said books had really been important, God would have preserved them in Hebrew. All of the New Testaent was written in Greek; and in any case, by 90 A.D. the Christians were totally separate from the Jews anyway. Secondly, 1 and 2 Maccabees contain evidence of friendship treaties with the Maccabean Jews and the Roman Republic, a fact which the Jews of 90 A.D., having lost their country to the Romans, had no desire to acknowledge, one more reason why they were rejected. The canon of the Christian Scriptures, on the other hand, wasn't settled until nearly four hundred years after Christ was born---first, the Decree of Pope Damasus in 382 A.D., and then the Council of Hippo in 393 A.D. Jerome translated the works---including the "Apocrypha"---into Latin by 405, and it was all declared canonical Scripture.



    This is true, if you're talking about Protestants. By rejecting the authority and the Magesterium of the Catholic Church, anyone can interpret Scripture to fit their own ideas, since they are their own authority and governance; and if they conflict with someone else's ideas, then who's to say which interpretation is right? This is the reason why we have better than 30,000 Protestant denominations......and only one Catholic Church.

    Peace and blessings,
    ----Wols.
     
  15. IB4CHRIST

    IB4CHRIST Guest

    +0
    Greetings!
    I have come from the Left Behind Messageboard and this is my first post on this board . I had read a book called "Rome Sweet Rome" written by Scott Hahn, who was a Presbyterian minister and had converted to Catholicism. I encourage all Catholics and non-Catholics to read it because it deals with the very stuff we seem to always disagree on. Hahn talks about this conflict between Scripture alone and Sacred Tradition and points out this verse: 2 Thessalonians 2:15 "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter." I also read another book called "Why Do Catholics Do That" by Kevin Orlin Johnson which has a whole chapter based on Sacred Tradition. Here are some other verses to look up:
    Lk. 1:1-4, 10:16
    Jn. 16:12-13, 21:25
    Heb. 13:22
    2 Jn 12
    3 Jn 13, 14
    These verses make it very clear that the disciples did not write everything down. I hope that this might help solve some of the conflicts that have arisen.
     
  16. onesheep

    onesheep Sheep that looks like Bob

    987
    +14
    Catholic
    Darn, Wols, you may revert me back to Catholicism yet. ;)

    And welcome, IB4CHRIST, happy to hear from you.

    Regarding the last 35 years of teaching I have to agree with Wolseley. Last night I was discussing with my sister this very subject about our 12 years of Catholic school. My oldest 2 sisters remember being taught about a very narrow God. We all had the understanding that the Church said you could not marry a non-Catholic.

    However, I also remember my parents teaching us the opposite. They taught us you can marry outside the Catholic faith but that it wasn't recommended and why. And I believe this is where many problems occur.

    My parents' faith is an everyday, Living God, Jesus is my salvation faith and it was important to them that we understand Catholicism but that we also understand God, Jesus and our salvation. They were actively involved with our spiritual education. It did help that my mother was a teacher at our school. But they didn't leave it all to the school or the church.

    My point? Dig in, research and study. Because that's the only way you're going to truly know.

    In the words of Forrest Gump, "And that's all I've got to say about that." :D
     
  17. BeNotAfraid

    BeNotAfraid Guest

    +0
    I am a revert to Catholicism. The more I searched for the truth the more I was lead by the Holy Spirit back home to the church. One of my biggest stumbling blocks was Catholic Marian theology, I was able to over come this with prayer and study. Be careful about reading Scott Hahn books, you may just end up back at Mass this Sunday. I am sooooo happy to be back home with Christ in the Eucharist and I pray that the Holy Spirit will guide you back home as well.

    In Christ's Peace
     
  18. onesheep

    onesheep Sheep that looks like Bob

    987
    +14
    Catholic
    :D Anything is possible with the Grace of God! :D
     
  19. DEVIL STOMPER777

    DEVIL STOMPER777 Guest

    +0
    Hiya B.N.A
    Glad to hear you found your way home! Im a convert to The Faith & it was from years in the wilderness & w/much prayer & guidance by the Holy Ghost that I found The Church to be where Christ wanted me to be! Remember Jesus promised he would never leave us orphans(John14:1:cool: . But would send the Holy Ghost to guide & protect us(John 15:26).He gave the sacraments to heal,feed& strengthen us!
    GOD BLESS,<JESUS><
     
  20. Wolseley

    Wolseley Beaucoup-Diên-Cai-Dāu

    +1,744
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Others
    BeNot Afraid and IB4Christ, thanks for posting! You guys warm my heart. May God bless both of you. :)



    Not I, onesheep. I can present the case for Catholicism, but only the Holy Spirit can convince someone of its veracity. And if He decides to go after you, you won't get away. :)



    It's true. Unfortunately, there is always a period of anywhere from 50 to 100 years after a major ecumenical council when the Church is socially very unsettled, and it's our misfortune to be passing through one of those unsettled periods as we speak---Vatican II ended 35 years ago. Things are slowly getting better, but it's still going to take some time. (Not to be nasty about it, but there are still a lot of extremely liberal clergy and laypeople now in their 50's who still think it's the Glorious Summer of 1968 When the World Was Wide Open and Anything Was Possible, and they still have all of the screwy ideas that they were trying to pass off as orthodox Catholic teaching, under the guise of "the Spirit of Vatican II", when it didn't have doodley-squat to do with Vatican II. Again, not to be nasty, but in the next twenty years, a good number of those folks are going to go to their reward, and I predict that once they are out of the way, we'll see a remarkable change back to solid Catholic teaching, scholarship, and leadership, worldwide.)

    But for a lot of Catholics in their 30's and 40's, they were criminally cheated out of their own Faith, because they were never taught anything, and so to fill the void that was left, they fell for the first thing that came along, usually Evangelical or Fundamentalist Protestanism, and they left the Church. Those of us who were left cared enough about the Church that we taught ourselves the Faith, since our immediate elders were too busy leading peace marches and feminist workshops to be bothered to teach it to us. This is why you have some Protestant churches which can truthfully claim to be made up of 80% ex-Catholics.

    However, that's changing, too; and one of the major movements now happening is the new apologetics wave, including people like Scott Hahn, and Karl Keating, and Pat Madrid. These guys are all about 40 years of age, and came up under the dearth of teaching (or are converts to the Faith), but they are the vanguard of the new Catholic orthodoxy. The new Catechism is another facet of this, as is the new fidelity pledge to Rome for faculty in Catholic universities and the recent CDF document that everybody got so worked up about.

    Is all this working? Well, according to the Encyclopedia Britannica and the World Almanac, in the period from 1991 to 1998, the Catholic Church gained more than 16 million adherents, which is a three-to-one advantage over the number of people the Church lost. So for every one Catholic we lose, we gain three converts from somewhere else. During that same period, all Protestant churches combined lost nearly 52 million adherents.

    I guess we must be doing something right. :) Oh, and for the 36 million former Protestants left from the 16 million who became Catholics, the Orthodox Churches gained more than 45 million new adherents in the same period, as well.

    Go figure.

    Blessings,
    ----Wols.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...