Queen of Heaven?

[Fireinfolding]

And the gospel of John, written around year 100, 57 years after Marys death in the year 43 according to the sources we have. Why would John in any way waste his time to mention Mary?

Writing was expensive in those days. You wouldnt want to waste paper there. Here is a resource on the cost of writing The Cost of the Gospels and the Synoptic Problem – Jimmy Akin

These threads can be a big waster of time, but I like to come on when I am bored and have an excess of it and gather all the new excuses and reasonings in the things of Mary.

I have reached my boredom point so I will bow out while I still have my sanity.

Thanks for the back and forth

 

[boughtwithaprice]

The Apostolic Constitution of Pope Pius XII on the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary


Your body is holy and glorious


In their sermons and speeches on the feast day of the Assumption of the Mother of God, the holy fathers and the great doctors of the church were speaking of something that the faithful already knew and accepted: all they did was to bring it out into the open, to explain its meaning and substance in other terms. Above all, they made it most clear that this feast commemorated not merely the fact that the blessed Virgin Mary did not experience bodily decay, but also her triumph over death and her heavenly glory, following the example of her only Son, Jesus Christ.


Thus St John Damascene, who is the greatest exponent of this tradition, compares the bodily Assumption of the revered Mother of God with her other gifts and privileges: It was right that she who had kept her virginity unimpaired through the process of giving birth should have kept her body without decay through death. It was right that she who had given her Creator, as a child, a place at her breast should be given a place in the dwelling-place of her God. It was right that the bride espoused by the Father should dwell in the heavenly bridal chamber. It was right that she who had gazed on her Son on the cross, her heart pierced at that moment by the sword of sorrow that she had escaped at his birth, should now gaze on him seated with his Father. It was right that the Mother of God should possess what belongs to her Son and be honoured by every creature as God’s Mother and handmaid.


St Germanus of Constantinople considered the preservation from decay of the body of the Mother of God, the Virgin Mary, and its elevation to heaven as being not only appropriate to her Motherhood but also to the peculiar sanctity of its virgin state: It is written, that you appear in beauty, and your virginal body is altogether holy, altogether chaste, altogether the dwelling-place of God; from which it follows that it is not in its nature to decay into dust, but that it is transformed, being human, into a glorious and incorruptible life, the same body, living and glorious, unharmed, sharing in perfect life.


Another very ancient author asserts: Being the most glorious Mother of Christ our saviour and our God, the giver of life and immortality, she is given life by him and shares bodily incorruptibility for all eternity with him who raised her from the grave and drew her up to him in a way that only he can understand.


All that the holy fathers say refers ultimately to Scripture as a foundation, which gives us the vivid image of the great Mother of God as being closely attached to her divine Son and always sharing his lot.


It is important to remember that from the second century onwards the holy fathers have been talking of the Virgin Mary as the new Eve for the new Adam: not equal to him, of course, but closely joined with him in the battle against the enemy, which ended in the triumph over sin and death that had been promised even in Paradise. The glorious resurrection of Christ is essential to this victory and its final prize, but the blessed Virgin’s share in that fight must also have ended in the glorification of her body. For as the Apostle says: When this mortal nature has put on immortality, then the scripture will be fulfilled that says “Death is swallowed up in victory”.


So then, the great Mother of God, so mysteriously united to Jesus Christ from all eternity by the same decree of predestination, immaculately conceived, an intact virgin throughout her divine motherhood, a noble associate of our Redeemer as he defeated sin and its consequences, received, as it were, the final crowning privilege of being preserved from the corruption of the grave and, following her Son in his victory over death, was brought, body and soul, to the highest glory of heaven, to shine as Queen at the right hand of that same Son, the immortal King of Ages.

 

[Fireinfolding]

I do like the fact that its called an ASSUMPTION. Its the only part I agree with. Who would believe some guys in the 6th century hundreds of years after the fact. And who talks like that?

Okay, sorry I had to peek and I am kicking myself for it

 

[eleos1954]

And i should probably warn you about the force of the ecco chamber.
You managed to repeat fully the error of ... wait, that was you also the first time ! So you understood nothing. The ecco chamber strikes again !

According to official Catholic doctrine, in order for a person to be saved, it's quite a tedious task. It involves steps such as actual grace, faith, good works, baptism, participation in the sacraments, penance, indulgences, and keeping the commandments.

Where is Jesus? Going to church .... no earthly church system saves a person .... salvation is in Jesus alone ... those in Him are His church.

Ephesians 2:8-10​

For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

grace through faith

Echo chambers can create misinformation and distort a person's perspective so they have difficulty considering opposing viewpoints and discussing complicated topics.

There are opposing viewpoints between protestant and catholic beliefs that's no secret

While the Pope is the head of the Catholic Church, Protestantism is a general term that refers to Christianity that is not subject to papal authority.

Echo chambers? Catholics have theirs .... protestants have theirs ..... they are in opposition on several things .... no reason to mingle the two beliefs into one church system.

People are free to believe whatever they want and we discuss those differences ..... nothing wrong with that.

God looks at the heart and only He can know it .... many hearts all over the earth. We all have heart problems and only Jesus is the cure.

So no .... I am not subject to nor will I ever be subject to papal authority .... I am subject to Jesus and Him alone ... only He has authority over everything in heaven and earth. Catholics believe differently ... so be it. Protestants believe differently ... so be it.

Matthew 28:18

And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.

Some day we will all know the truth and I look forward to that day. Even so, come Lord Jesus! AMEN!

 

[eleos1954]

So, it it is an agreement with the Catholic Church, and the Catholic Church does not compromise... Either both are compromising or neither are, and they are in full agreement?

No .... catholics believe in papal authority .... protestants do not .... there can not be full agreement.

 

[PeterDona]

According to official Catholic doctrine, in order for a person to be saved, it's quite a tedious task. It involves steps such as actual grace, faith, good works, baptism, participation in the sacraments, penance, indulgences, and keeping the commandments.

Right, so my original postulate is that what people think of as the catholic "tradition", really refers to 100's of years of church fathers interpreting scripture, and coming to some kind of level in understanding scripture.

So now you want to point to salvation as an issue where supposedly the RCC got it wrong. Do I get you correctly?
I think the discussion of salvation is outside the scope of this thread, so I will not go deeply into it. Only one interesting story. After doing street missions for a number of years, I decided one day to finally investigate what was the difference between the catholic church and other churches. And having to select a topic, I decided on salvation. So I found a debate between a catholic and a protestant on that topic. The catholic debater, Scott Hahn, opened the debate by stating that this was an area where there was not really disagreement. My mind screamed inside me "this has got to be wrong", and so I waited eagerly until the protestant took the stage. But the protestant did not reject the statement. He also thought that they pretty much agreed. I was totally struck. I guess this removed my biggest objection to becoming catholic.

Now you are warned. Here is the dangerous video that will claim that catholics and protestants agree on the topic of salvation. If your life is dear to you, dont watch it ;-)

 

[chevyontheriver]

I already stated again and again she was mentioned by name in Acts 1 which was the last time after his ascension that she is named at all

There were many Mary's at his crucificxion.

You believe the crucifixion is before or after his ascension?

I am talking AFTER his ascension. Theres no mention of her again.

You are confused. Yes, there is a chronology of when things happened in the NT. Starting with the annunciation and then to the birth of Jesus, the flight to Egypt, the return to Nazareth and Jesus in the temple. Then a big gap until the wedding feast at Cana, the public ministry of Jesus, the trial and crucifiction and resurrection of Jesus. Then Pentecost, the initial growth of the Church, the conversion of Paul, and much of the ministry of Paul, including his letters. Notice that in the above there were many things, some very significant, that I didn't even mention.

Notice also that the Gospels were not written as they happened. And that they do not include absolutely everything about Jesus. Which means they were edited from the raw material of the experiences of those who knew Jesus. Things were excluded for a reason. Things were included for a reason. But this was all later than the events that are recorded. If Mary had been as insignificant as you want to portray she would have had even less of a role in the Gospels of Luke or John.

Mary was last named chronologically in Acts. But Luke and Acts were written and edited actually later. In fact Luke seems to have gotten information from Mary for his Gospel. John, to whom Mary was entrusted, also seems to have gotten information from Mary for his Gospel. Thus the two latest Gospels benefited from the things Mary treasured in her heart about Jesus. And so those Gospels were written and Mary went with John to Patmos and her dormition and ascension happened there long after the Gospels had been written.

You seem to be saying Mary was unimportant because she was not mentioned after Acts 1. You would have a case for that IF all of the NT was written immediately after it happened. And perhaps if the New Testament covered every year up to the death of Mary in great detail. But that just is not the case. The last Gospels to be written, written much later than Paul's letters were written, have the most about Mary. And then there is the book of Revelation, written probably by John, probably after Mary's assumption, describing a woman with a crown of stars, the ark of the New Covenant no less, the mother of a king. What did John know about Mary that you don't know? He had years to figure out what Mary knew after he took her home with him.

 

[Fireinfolding]

What a mess

 

[chevyontheriver]

I am not interested in proving to you something I read some time ago when I was interested in this issue. I provided what I learned about it and thats all. Do not make it some kind of a court/tribunal process "prove it or admit you are wrong". Not interested.

So you are not retracting what you said even though you can't prove a lick of it. OK.

If I am wrong, then I am wrong, but I do not see any proof I am, yet.

You reject the common witness of everybody else in this thread. OK.

Also, there are barriers put in place: Should a non-Catholic Christian participate in a Catholic Mass? | GotQuestions.org

Ha! That's Protestants telling Protestants they can't participate in a Catholic mass. How special.

Just being able to quietly sit there like a tourist and watch the liturgy is not what I mean.

Protestants can dip their fingers in the holy water fonts and make the sign of the cross if they want to, kneel if they want to, sing if they want to, pray if they want to, follow along in the missal if they want to, receive a blessing from the priest if they want to, quietly sit there like a tourist if they want to.

BTW, Catholics are not allowed by their own church to actively participate in a protestant service:
It is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics: for the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it, for in the past they have unhappily left it.

Some Clarity on Praying with Non-Catholics

Sometimes praying with non-Catholics is allowed, and sometimes, it's not. Here's where you can go to learn the difference.

www.catholic.com

Did you read your own linked article? It's way more thorough in explaining just how the Council document Unitatis Redintegratio says: “In certain circumstances, such as prayers ‘for unity’ and during ecumenical gatherings, it is allowable, indeed desirable that Catholics should join in prayer with their separated brethren”

 

[eleos1954]

Right, so my original postulate is that what people think of as the catholic "tradition", really refers to 100's of years of church fathers interpreting scripture, and coming to some kind of level in understanding scripture.

So now you want to point to salvation as an issue where supposedly the RCC got it wrong. Do I get you correctly?
I think the discussion of salvation is outside the scope of this thread, so I will not go deeply into it. Only one interesting story. After doing street missions for a number of years, I decided one day to finally investigate what was the difference between the catholic church and other churches. And having to select a topic, I decided on salvation. So I found a debate between a catholic and a protestant on that topic. The catholic debater, Scott Hahn, opened the debate by stating that this was an area where there was not really disagreement. My mind screamed inside me "this has got to be wrong", and so I waited eagerly until the protestant took the stage. But the protestant did not reject the statement. He also thought that they pretty much agreed. I was totally struck. I guess this removed my biggest objection to becoming catholic.

Now you are warned. Here is the dangerous video that will claim that catholics and protestants agree on the topic of salvation. If your life is dear to you, dont watch it ;-)

Papal authority .... Protestants don't (shouldn't) adhere to papal authority .... it's simple

Doctrinally, in Catholic churches, the pope is regarded as the successor of St. Peter, who was head of the Apostles. The pope, as bishop of Rome, is thus seen to have full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the universal church in matters of faith and morals, as well as in church discipline and government.

No ... I don't buy into this and never will .... and am free to do so ... catholics do and they are free to do so ... so be it.

I study the Word of God myself and don't rely on youtube videos LOL ... I mean really? LOL
.

 

[PeterDona]

LOL ... LOL.

is this a ragequit?

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

 

[Fireinfolding]

Another point which you probably have not yet seen, is that when Jesus calls Mary "woman", it is not a statement of disrespect, rather it refers back to Genesis 3:15. Mary is the woman whose seed shall crush the head of the serpent. So be careful when interpreting "woman" in NT. Also here (galatians 4:4) "woman" could well be a reference to that Genesis 3:15 woman.

I missed this one and I would like to respond, I did see that and I do not see him as disrespecting her. However Paul indicates the woman represents Christ and the church not Christ and Mary.

For example, when he references Genesis

Ephes 5:31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.

He continues,

Ephes 5:32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.

And the bruising of Satan is mentioned as under their feet here

Romans 16:20 And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly.

The bruising of Satan is by God under your feet (shortly)
not Mary's (not too long ago)

And just a we have Jesus Christ who come into this world by Mary ( a singular woman) we have Christ being formed in his church/the many (who is also shown in scripture as a singular woman) For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.

Likewise, Paul had the Son of God revealed in him Gal 1:16 "so that" he might preach him. Paul himself also travails as a woman would with them

Gal 4:19 My little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you,

The God of peace gives us the victory, again

Romans 16:20 And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet (shortly).
The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. Amen.

That's how I see the woman, and bruising of Satan.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

I missed this one and I would like to respond, I did see that and I do not see him as disrespecting her. However Paul indicates the woman reprsents Christ and the church not Christ and Mary

For example, when he references Genesis

Ephes 5:31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.

He adds,

Ephes 5:32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.

And the bruising of Satan is mentioned as under their feet here

Romans 16:20 And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly.

The bruising of Satan is by God under your feet (shortly)
not Mary's (not too long ago)

And just a we have Jesus Christ who come into this world by Mary ( a singular woman) we have Christ being formed in his church (who is also shown as a woman) For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.

As Paul had the Son revealed in him Gal 1:16 so that he might preach him, he himself also travails as a woman would with them

Gal 4:19 My little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you,

He gives us the victory, again

Romans 16:20 And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet (shortly).
The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. Amen.

Thats how I see the woman, and bruising of Satan.

That’s an interesting interpretation, but it is not rational. If you place the emphasis on us as believers, then you make sin beget salvation, and that is not the way it works. Neither does the Church divide herself.
The Church had a beginning and all of us who believe are saved into her. We do not know imbue her with the power to save, she derives that from the grace of God alone, not us.
So tell me, where did the Church start? Who was the original member on the last Sabbath before the resurrection?

 

[boughtwithaprice]

According to official Catholic doctrine, in order for a person to be saved, it's quite a tedious task. It involves steps such as actual grace, faith, good works, baptism, participation in the sacraments, penance, indulgences, and keeping the commandments.

I just want to point out that Jesus Christ, the one that you claim to follow tells us that the way for a person to be saved is a tedious task.

From Matthew 7

13- Enter ye in at the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in thereat 14 How narrow is the gate, and strait is the way that leadeth to life: and few there are that find it


Nowhere does He say, just take me as your savior and don’t worry about anything. He tells us to be very worried, and count the cost before you decide to follow Him, it’s not easy.

From Luke

26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. 27 And whosoever doth not carry his cross and come after me, cannot be my disciple. 28 For which of you having a mind to build a tower, doth not first sit down, and reckon the charges that are necessary, whether he have wherewithal to finish it: 29 Lest, after he hath laid the foundation, and is not able to finish it, all that see it begin to mock him, 30 Saying: This man began to build, and was not able to finish.
31 Or what king, about to go to make war against another king, doth not first sit down, and think whether he be able, with ten thousand, to meet him that, with twenty thousand, cometh against him? 32 Or else, whilst the other is yet afar off, sending an embassy, he desireth conditions of peace. 33 So likewise every one of you that doth not renounce all that he possesseth, cannot be my disciple. 34 Salt is good. But if the salt shall lose its savour, wherewith shall it be seasoned? 35 It is neither profitable for the land nor for the dunghill, but shall be cast out. He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.

Doesn’t sound to me like we just say the name of Jesus and do nothing.

The Catholic Church is from the Apostles from the beginning. Salvation requires repentance, and living virtuously requires training. Training requires humility and the desire to be trained.
Our flesh wars against the spirit. The Christian life is hard, but we are given the power to overcome if we ask.
There is no boasting in the Catholic faith. All the power that I have to obey the commands of God, comes from His grace, and His grace comes from His cross. We accept His cross when we die to ourselves and say not our will, but thine be done. Only the Catholic Church teaches souls to follow the narrow way.
Don’t believe me? What do you think of contraception? It serves no purpose and has destroyed the marriages of many, and taken many souls to hell. It’s use is a direct contradiction of Jesus words when He said, If any man look at a woman with lust, he has committed adultery in his heart. The Catholic Church teaches that it is evil to use contraception. Does yours? If not then your Lord’s teaching is being ignored. Is there anything else you ignore while claiming to follow Jesus alone?

 

[Fireinfolding]

That’s an interesting interpretation, but it is not rational.

Paul gave the interpretation of the mystery in Genesis not me, how is his interpretation irrational?

If you place the emphasis on us as believers, then you make sin beget salvation, and that is not the way it works. Neither does the Church divide herself.

Paul placed the emphasis of the woman in Genesis on the church.

The Church had a beginning and all of us who believe are saved into her. We do not know imbue her with the power to save, she derives that from the grace of God alone, not us.
So tell me, where did the Church start? Who was the original member on the last Sabbath before the resurrection?

So you are going to tell me Mary, who has to be built on your said Peter ("the" supposed rock) Christ would build his church upon even before Peter (that particular rock) was even upon the scene? Mat 16:18 Mary was the first member of it?

They are all here as noted in Acts 1, even Mary is there

Acts 2:1 And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.

Acts 2:47 Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.

So, if the church is to be built on Peter (your doctrine, correct?) how could the church be built upon him/ singularly (while trying to convince me that Mary/singularly is somehow the first member of said church?

But even if she was the first member of the church built on Peter (lets say) how does the God of peace bruise Satan under her (individiual foot) when it says plainly that the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet "shortly". It doesn't say "God has already bruised Satan under Mary's immaculate foot.

Which words were my own interpration, Paul gave the interpretation of the great mystery in Genesis (not me) I just posted his. He tells us its Christ and the church. Even Jesus removed the singular onto the many whenever people hyper focus on Mary (singularly) and brings in many as equal in the same correction or the very same as is shown in Luke 11:28 and Mark 3:33-35. The mystery in Genesis is told us by Paul in Ephes 5:32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church. And if anyone foot will bruise Satan Romans 16:20 tells us that the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet (shortly). There was no interpretation, it doesnt say the God of Peace has already bruised Satan under hers.

 

[eleos1954]

I just want to point out that Jesus Christ, the one that you claim to follow tells us that the way for a person to be saved is a tedious task.

From Matthew 7

13- Enter ye in at the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in thereat 14 How narrow is the gate, and strait is the way that leadeth to life: and few there are that find it


Nowhere does He say, just take me as your savior and don’t worry about anything. He tells us to be very worried, and count the cost before you decide to follow Him, it’s not easy.

From Luke

26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. 27 And whosoever doth not carry his cross and come after me, cannot be my disciple. 28 For which of you having a mind to build a tower, doth not first sit down, and reckon the charges that are necessary, whether he have wherewithal to finish it: 29 Lest, after he hath laid the foundation, and is not able to finish it, all that see it begin to mock him, 30 Saying: This man began to build, and was not able to finish.
31 Or what king, about to go to make war against another king, doth not first sit down, and think whether he be able, with ten thousand, to meet him that, with twenty thousand, cometh against him? 32 Or else, whilst the other is yet afar off, sending an embassy, he desireth conditions of peace. 33 So likewise every one of you that doth not renounce all that he possesseth, cannot be my disciple. 34 Salt is good. But if the salt shall lose its savour, wherewith shall it be seasoned? 35 It is neither profitable for the land nor for the dunghill, but shall be cast out. He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.

Doesn’t sound to me like we just say the name of Jesus and do nothing.

The Catholic Church is from the Apostles from the beginning. Salvation requires repentance, and living virtuously requires training. Training requires humility and the desire to be trained.
Our flesh wars against the spirit. The Christian life is hard, but we are given the power to overcome if we ask.
There is no boasting in the Catholic faith. All the power that I have to obey the commands of God, comes from His grace, and His grace comes from His cross. We accept His cross when we die to ourselves and say not our will, but thine be done. Only the Catholic Church teaches souls to follow the narrow way.
Don’t believe me? What do you think of contraception? It serves no purpose and has destroyed the marriages of many, and taken many souls to hell. It’s use is a direct contradiction of Jesus words when He said, If any man look at a woman with lust, he has committed adultery in his heart. The Catholic Church teaches that it is evil to use contraception. Does yours? If not then your Lord’s teaching is being ignored. Is there anything else you ignore while claiming to follow Jesus alone?

No the tedious tasks I was referring to are those in the catholic church doctrine and how it is claimed one is saved. Also I didn't say ALL teachings of the catholic church are wrong ... I don't agree with some of them ... and we can agree to disagree ... it's not like I have some hatred for the catholic church and/or it's people ... on the contrary have many friends and family who are catholic ... and although we may disagree on doctrine and interpretation we don't allow it to be a stumbling block on how we treat one another ... we simply agree to disagree.

Who's your authority regarding biblical doctrine?

Doesn’t sound to me like we just say the name of Jesus and do nothing

I didn't say this

Works ... we can't work our way to heaven .... our works are filthy rags. If one is in Jesus they/we will have good works ... it is meant to serve as evidence of a change that has taken place ... or are taking place in our hearts (a gift) of our acceptance as our Lord and savior and by the power of the Holy Sprit ... we are being transformed by the power of the Holy Spirit changing our thinking .... if one's thinking is changed their actions will change. If a man looks at a women ... has committed adultery in His heart ... if his thinking hasn't been changed .... then actions will eventually follow. We think things first and then act on our thinking .... in either a good way or a bad way.

There are methods of contraception that prevent pregnancy ... we have methods that prevent fertilization ... if fertilization has not yet taken place .... then there is no life .... procreation has not taken place. Children are considered a blessing.
I do not find scripture that presents procreation as an obligation of every couple in order to please God. They are indeed a blessing and a gift from God and should be cherish and brought up in the Lord in the context of marriage between a man and a woman.

If a woman has a medical condition .... and if she were to conceive and it is known by doing so would be harmful to herself and/or the baby (possibly death of one or the other or both) ...what is the catholic position on this?

Catholics are not the only ones who teach "the narrow way" ... the narrow way is through Jesus.

Each of us have a personal relationship with the Lord ... we walk on a path with Him .... He meets each one of us where we are on that path and walks with us ..... helping us along the way.

God's ultimate act of grace is the salvation He provides through Jesus Christ. The Bible tells us that we are saved by grace through faith in Jesus (Ephesians 2:8). This means that our salvation is not earned or deserved; it is a free gift from God

 

[boughtwithaprice]

Paul gave the interpretation of the mystery in Genesis not me, how is his interpretation irrational?



Paul placed the emphasis of the woman in Genesis on the church.




So you are going to tell me Mary, who has to be built on your said Peter ("the" supposed rock) Christ would build his church upon even before Peter (that particular rock) was even upon the scene? Mat 16:18 Mary was the first member of it?

They are all here as noted in Acts 1, even Mary is there

Acts 2:1 And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.

Acts 2:47 Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.

So, if the church is to be built on Peter (your doctrine, correct?) how could the church be built upon him/ singularly (while trying to convince me that Mary/singularly is somehow the first member of said church?

But even if she was the first member of the church built on Peter (lets say) how does the God of peace bruise Satan under her (individiual foot) when it says plainly that the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet "shortly". It doesn't say "God has already bruised Satan under Mary's immaculate foot.

Which words were my own interpration, Paul gave the interpretation of the great mystery in Genesis (not me) I just posted his. He tells us it’s Christ and the church. Even Jesus removed the singular onto the many whenever people hyper focus on Mary (singularly) and brings in many as equal in the same correction or the very same as is shown in Luke 11:28 and Mark 3:33-35. The mystery in Genesis is told us by Paul in Ephes 5:32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church. And if anyone foot will bruise Satan Romans 16:20 tells us that the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet (shortly). There was no interpretation, it doesnt say the God of Peace has already bruised Satan under hers.

Your interpretation is in discarding Mary, not Paul’s words.
You ask very good questions, and they deserve an answer.
Yes Mary was the only member of the Church on the Sabbath after the crucifixion. Peter denied knowing Jesus, and was among those that did not believe when the report of the resurrection came from the women. The remainder of the apostles had all scattered and ran after the crucifixion. The other women did not believe as they still expected to anoint a dead body. Mary was the only one. She truly is the mother of the Church. Why discard her?
How then is the Church built on Peter? Peter denied Christ and lost his authority and over the other Apostles. He could only be restored by God Himself, and after the Resurrection, prior to the Ascension, he was. Jesus did not call him Peter, as his denial lost him that title. Jesus, said Simon, son of Jonah, lovest thou Me? (Twice), when Simon said he did, Jesus said feed my lambs. The third time, Simon, son of Jonah, lovest thou Me? It was because Peter denied Jesus three times that he lost his authority, so after the third time, Jesus restores it. Simon, son of Jonah, lovest thou Me? Feed my sheep. With that, Peter was restored as the chief shepherd.
Mary had always assumed a maternal supporting role, and she clearly recognized that the authority over the Church was given to the Apostles. She was however the first member of the Church, and there is no reason to discard her or take away from the honor that is due her, as the mother of God.
You can even see the parallel verses in second Samuel and Luke 1 regarding the ark of the Covenant. The ark contained, manna, the stone tablets, and Aaron’s rod that budded. Within the body of Mary was the bread of life, Jesus, the Word of God, Jesus, the great high priest, Jesus.
As the ark of the old covenant contained bread, the law and the priestly authority, so Mary, the ark of the New Covenant contained the fulfillment of these three things in her son Jesus.
The ark does not preach or teach, but contains the presence of God and is put in a place of highest honor, just as the Catholic Church does for Mary, and all those that call themselves Christian should give her equal honor.
Other parallels are David danced before the ark, John that baptist leaped for joy. The ark stayed with David three months, Mary stayed three months with Elizabeth. David said what is this that the ark of the Lord should come to me. Elizabeth said what is this that the mother of my Lord should come to me. It is very striking when you compare the two passages. Mary is the ark of the New Covenant and that is how we treat her, not as some sinful stable girl that just happened to bear Jesus in her womb, only to be discarded as not very meaningful.

 

[Fireinfolding]

Your interpretation is in discarding Mary, not Paul’s words.

You are interpreting my words as discarding Mary when I have said that Jesus elevated all believers the same as Mary. I even pointed out Mary was named in Acts along with everyone else, not firstly, but lastly, and never mentioned again. That is not me discarding her thats how you are taking it. But I am not those who failed at mentioning her again, it was the Lords apostles that do that.

You ask very good questions, and they deserve an answer.
Yes Mary was the only member of the Church on the Sabbath after the crucifixion.

Which Mary? Which verse are you even talking about?
Can you please post scripture for your church membership points

Peter denied knowing Jesus, and was among those that did not believe when the report of the resurrection came from the women

And Paul likewise (who followed after) said,

1 Cr 15:9 For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

So?

The remainder of the apostles had all scattered and ran after the crucifixion.

Are you talking about here

Mat 26:31 Then saith Jesus unto them, All ye shall be offended because of me this night:
for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad.

That's before the crucifixion not after

The other women did not believe as they still expected to anoint a dead body. Mary was the only one. She truly is the mother of the Church. Why discard her?

That made no sense whatsoever, who is discarding Mary the mother of our Lord simply because I can squeeze her out of some of the places people try to stuff her into?

How then is the Church built on Peter?

That's not a protestant dilemna that would be on your side of things wouldnt be?

Peter denied Christ and lost his authority and over the other Apostles.

Where are the words, Peter had authority over all the other apostles? When they were arguing over who should be the greatest why didnt Jesus step in and put in a good word for Peter for that position?

He could only be restored by God Himself, and after the Resurrection, prior to the Ascension, he was. Jesus did not call him Peter, as his denial lost him that title.

Are you serious? You cannot be being serious,

He was Simon Peter here before he even confessed Christ

Mat 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

And Jesus adressed him as Simon Peter, Simon , son of Jonas here

John 21:15 So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs.

He could not be called by his name because his denial (which Jesus predicted) lost him his name title?

Never in my life have I heard that one. This is alot of dancing to get Mary into this queen of heaven position

Jesus, said Simon, son of Jonah, lovest thou Me? (Twice), when Simon said he did, Jesus said feed my lambs. The third time, Simon, son of Jonah, lovest thou Me? It was because Peter denied Jesus three times that he lost his authority, so after the third time, Jesus restores it. Simon, son of Jonah, lovest thou Me? Feed my sheep. With that, Peter was restored as the chief shepherd.

Peter tells others to feed the sheep and points to Jesus as being the chief Shepherd (not himself) below...

Peter says,

1 Peter 5:2 Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind;

1 Peter 5:3 Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being ensamples to the flock.

1 Peter 5:4 And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away.

Mary had always assumed a maternal supporting role, and she clearly recognized that the authority over the Church was given to the Apostles. She was however the first member of the Church, and there is no reason to discard her or take away from the honor that is due her, as the mother of God.

I hold her the same as anyone else, no need to discard her, Jesus counted his disciples who do the will of God the same as her, not greater or lesser just the same.

You can even see the parallel verses in second Samuel and Luke 1 regarding the ark of the Covenant. The ark contained, manna, the stone tablets, and Aaron’s rod that budded. Within the body of Mary was the bread of life, Jesus, the Word of God, Jesus, the great high priest, Jesus.

We differ on the Ark too but the differences are far too vast

As the ark of the old covenant contained bread, the law and the priestly authority, so Mary, the ark of the New Covenant contained the fulfillment of these three things in her son Jesus.
The ark does not preach or teach, but contains the presence of God and is put in a place of highest honor, just as the Catholic Church does for Mary, and all those that call themselves Christian should give her equal honor.
Other parallels are David danced before the ark, John that baptist leaped for joy. The ark stayed with David three months, Mary stayed three months with Elizabeth. David said what is this that the ark of the Lord should come to me. Elizabeth said what is this that the mother of my Lord should come to me. It is very striking when you compare the two passages. Mary is the ark of the New Covenant and that is how we treat her, not as some sinful stable girl that just happened to bear Jesus in her womb, only to be discarded as not very meaningful.

Yeah we differ, not seeing any of that. Its amazing they use the woman clothed with the sun with the moon under her feet to be Mary when the next verse the same woman (as "Queen of heaven") fleeing into the wilderness (Rev 12:1-2)

How do they squeezed her into the earlier part of Revelation where that is seen in Rev 11:19

Rev 11:19 And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament: and there were lightnings, and voices, and thunderings, and an earthquake, and great hail.

So she is understood to be the ark (now in heaven too) in Rev 11:19 then in the next chapter she again the woman clothed with the sun moon under her feet a crown on her head (fleeing into the wilderness in the next verse?)

Not seeing it but you tried at least.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

No the tedious tasks I was referring to are those in the catholic church doctrine and how it is claimed one is saved. Also I didn't say ALL teachings of the catholic church are wrong ... I don't agree with some of them ... and we can agree to disagree ... it's not like I have some hatred for the catholic church and/or it's people ... on the contrary have many friends and family who are catholic ... and although we may disagree on doctrine and interpretation we don't allow it to be a stumbling block on how we treat one another ... we simply agree to disagree.

Who's your authority regarding biblical doctrine?


I didn't say this


There are methods of contraception that prevent pregnancy ... we have methods that prevent fertilization ... if fertilization has not yet taken place .... then there is no life .... procreation has not taken place. Children are considered a blessing.
I do not find scripture that presents procreation as an obligation of every couple in order to please God. They are indeed a blessing and a gift from God and should be cherish and brought up in the Lord in the context of marriage between a man and a woman.

If a woman has a medical condition .... and if she were to conceive and it is known by doing so would be harmful to herself and/or the baby (possibly death of one or the other or both) ...what is the catholic position on this?

Catholics are not the only ones who teach "the narrow way" ... the narrow way is through Jesus.

Each of us have a personal relationship with the Lord ... we walk on a path with Him .... He meets each one of us where we are on that path and walks with us ..... helping us along the way.

God's ultimate act of grace is the salvation He provides through Jesus Christ. The Bible tells us that we are saved by grace through faith in Jesus (Ephesians 2:8). This means that our salvation is not earned or deserved; it is a free gift from God

Yes it is a free gift from God, it cannot be earned.
God’s gift is three fold, like His nature. It is not faith alone, but the three theological virtues that are given freely by God are Faith, Hope and Charity. Paul tells us in 1Cor13 that if we had great faith that we could move mountains but have not Charity, we are nothing. You know that you have these gifts if you have Faith to know that God is and is a rewarder of those that diligently seek Him, Hope that God will fulfill His promise in you and will cleanse you of all unrighteousness now if you ask Him, and Charity to love God and study His law that you may live pleasing to Him. It is not faith alone rather Faith, Hope and Charity. Once you have these gifts, you are a babe in Christ. If we have these gifts then we earnestly desire the other virtues.

Regardless of the means of contraception, it is evil to use it. Look at the fruits. Over 60,000,000 babies dead. When contraception is used, a child is by the very act unwanted, that is evil. Other fruits come from an increase in lust. Widespread casual sex, increase in divorce, living together before marriage, the change in view of sex being a sacred act of a loving couple to just being another appetite to satisfy for pleasure. The view that it is pure pleasure has lead to porn, homosexuality, bestiality, pedophilia, masturbation, fetishes and now even robot sex.
All this comes from wanting the pleasure of sex without responsibility, as that is the very purpose of contraception. If you cannot see that it is a sin, it does not mean that it isn’t. I would not have known its sin, unless the Catholic Church taught me. Other faiths don’t give it much thought