Questions about "The Queen of Heaven"

[ebia]

Do Catholics believe the Pope is a God on earth?

No

 

[Vendetta]

Cool to see this thread still going strong.So far I think the most shocking thing I've read is that someone drank 15 20oz mugs of beer and still had the capacity (although somewhat limited) to argue sola fide.That's one thing I'll say about yall, drinking is not taboo.Down here in the Bible belt,the Southern Baps have almost demonized drinking (moderation) in public.Legalism is often an issue.

I started around 10 am and had about 7 of them by 1. Went to a casino and was sober when I left. Had about 7-8 more between 8 and midnight, so by the time my 4:30 AM conversation started I was a little buzzed, but by 6 AM I was nearly sober. I'm not sure why I wasn't really drunk that day. It's not like I have a huge tolerance or anything, as I don't drink very often. It was a bachelor party, so it was an occasion where I'd have more than one. Still that's the equivalent of 25 12 oz beers in about 20 hours. It's doable, but I probably had quite a bit less than that, since I had my mental processes functioning. I'm sure I accidentally skipped a few numbers in my count.

My dad's side of the family are Southern Baptist, so I know all about the alcohol = evil argument. Thankfully, Catholics are not alone in defending drinking moderation. I even heard a respected Calvinist pastor give a compelling argument about it.

Do Catholics believe the Pope is a God on earth?

Not a chance.

 

[RINO 72]

I started around 10 am and had about 7 of them by 1. Went to a casino and was sober when I left. Had about 7-8 more between 8 and midnight, so by the time my 4:30 AM conversation started I was a little buzzed, but by 6 AM I was nearly sober. I'm not sure why I wasn't really drunk that day. It's not like I have a huge tolerance or anything, as I don't drink very often. It was a bachelor party, so it was an occasion where I'd have more than one. Still that's the equivalent of 25 12 oz beers in about 20 hours. It's doable, but I probably had quite a bit less than that, since I had my mental processes functioning. I'm sure I accidentally skipped a few numbers in my count.

My dad's side of the family are Southern Baptist, so I know all about the alcohol = evil argument. Thankfully, Catholics are not alone in defending drinking moderation. I even heard a respected Calvinist pastor give a compelling argument about it.



Not a chance.

Yep there's no Casino's here in Texas.Gee wonder why.

 

[packermann]

Newbie,

In ancient times, you had a king and a royal steward (prime minister). When the king was out of town, the royal steward was in command until king returned. So Jesus came to usher in the kingdom of God, and He predicted in parables that he would leave but will eventually come back. In Matthew 19, Jesus says that He is giving the keys to the kingdom to Peter. Within its historical context, a royal steward received the keys to the kingdom to symbolize that the king had delegated his authority until the king returns.

Protestants say that they only need Jesus and the Bible, but that has not worked out that well. Look at all the Protestant denominations! During the Civil War, Christians in the Bible Belt argued that the Bible taught that we can have slaves. Northern Christians said that slavery was evil. Both used their their pet Bible verses to support their positions. Pope had always condemned forced slavery based on race.

Jesus prayed to the Father in John 17 that we are be one so that the world may know that Jesus came from the Father. This is not just an invisible unity, but a unity that the world can see.

As long as we hold to the Bible only (which really means that my interpretation of the Bible is right and anyone who disagrees with my interpretation is wrong), we will have a divided Christianity. We need to get back to what Jesus gave us. Jesus left us no writing. He left us Peter to speak for Him until He comes again. And it is only because of the seat of Peter that I can believe in the Bible. This is why we Catholics believe in the Bible as the Word of God.

1. Jesus delegated Peter and his successors to be in charge.
2. In AD 397, the bishops gatthered all the ancient documents and determined what should be canonized as being part of the Bible, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
3. This was approved by Peter's sucessor in 405 AD.
4. This Bible was handed down by the Catholic Church throughout the centuries.


Protestants want to discard the pope but keep the Bible. but this is like killing the goose that lays the golden eggs. Without the pope, there is no rationale to still believe in the Bible. This is why liberalism started within Protestantism. First, Protestants questioned the pope's authority. Then they questioned the Bible's authority.

 

[Davidnic]

Do Catholics believe the Pope is a God on earth?

Nope. The Pope is a man, he can not officially teach and proclaim theological error because the Holy Spirit protects from that. But he can be wrong on matters of theology in personal opinion if he is not teaching with authority. They do not proclaim in an infallible manner often. The pope is also not impeccable. They can personally sin, and in the past we have had some doozys. In fact we see it as more proof of the Holy Spirits protection that the popes who were less than desirable ethical people never used any official teaching authority in any manner went against our dogmas or tried to proclaim any dogmas that would be error.

Along with the Pope Councils have the authority to teach without error and the Bishops in union with the Pope can also teach with a degree of authority that must be accepted. We call all this the Magisterium of the Church. That can be broken down into extraordinary Magisterium and Ordinary Magisterium. Each with it's own degree of how much we must accept what is being taught.

All Dogmas also have grades of certainty that define if they are not able to be disputed or are simply well founded theological opinion.

Short form of all that is the pope is not a god and can make mistakes or act incorrectly on a moral level as a person. But when proclaiming teaching in a specific way, that we cal Ex Cathedra (From the Chair of Peter) The Holy Spirit protects him from error. When he makes observations as a private theologian he can be wrong.

For example Benedict XVI just wrote two books on Christ. And those are personal opinion and any theological views in them could be wrong. Personally he is a very very good theologian so we give the works respect, but they are not protected by the Holy Spirit.

Not all of our popes have been theological powerhouses. Some were simple monks who were chosen for their goodness, some great theologians and some very poor men like all of us prone to sin. But all are protected from error by the Holy Spirit when teaching in a special manner that calls upon the authority Christ gave to Peter in Scripture. But like Peter, who denied Christ, this authority does not protect them on their personal walk as humans prone to sin as we all are. Those matters are between them and God.

 

[Vendetta]

Not all of our popes have been theological powerhouses.

Indeed, for a century or so, Italian families clutched at the papacy for its political power. The popes during this century were not very pious men. They did evil, evil things.

 

[RINO 72]

Newbie,

In ancient times, you had a king and a royal steward (prime minister). When the king was out of town, the royal steward was in command until king returned. So Jesus came to usher in the kingdom of God, and He predicted in parables that he would leave but will eventually come back. In Matthew 19, Jesus says that He is giving the keys to the kingdom to Peter. Within its historical context, a royal steward received the keys to the kingdom to symbolize that the king had delegated his authority until the king returns.

Protestants say that they only need Jesus and the Bible, but that has not worked out that well. Look at all the Protestant denominations! During the Civil War, Christians in the Bible Belt argued that the Bible taught that we can have slaves. Northern Christians said that slavery was evil. Both used their their pet Bible verses to support their positions. Pope had always condemned forced slavery based on race.

Jesus prayed to the Father in John 17 that we are be one so that the world may know that Jesus came from the Father. This is not just an invisible unity, but a unity that the world can see.

As long as we hold to the Bible only (which really means that my interpretation of the Bible is right and anyone who disagrees with my interpretation is wrong), we will have a divided Christianity. We need to get back to what Jesus gave us. Jesus left us no writing. He left us Peter to speak for Him until He comes again. And it is only because of the seat of Peter that I can believe in the Bible. This is why we Catholics believe in the Bible as the Word of God.

1. Jesus delegated Peter and his successors to be in charge.
2. In AD 397, the bishops gatthered all the ancient documents and determined what should be canonized as being part of the Bible, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
3. This was approved by Peter's sucessor in 405 AD.
4. This Bible was handed down by the Catholic Church throughout the centuries.


Protestants want to discard the pope but keep the Bible. but this is like killing the goose that lays the golden eggs. Without the pope, there is no rationale to still believe in the Bible. This is why liberalism started within Protestantism. First, Protestants questioned the pope's authority. Then they questioned the Bible's authority.

Matthew 16 is probably the verse you are referring to.And when you say Protestants only need the Bible and Jesus,well you got it half right.We do have to be careful not to make the Bible the fourth member of the Trinity, it would be wise if you did the same with Mary.

 

[Virgil the Roman]

. . . Southern Baps have almost demonized drinking (moderation) in public.

Just the closet alcoholics demonise!

"Legalism is often an issue."​

Truthfully, drinking laws are rather stupid. Common sense, reason, and God's law that drunkeness is a sin, ought to be sufficient. And the fact that St Paul recommended to St Timothy, "a little wine for your stomach;" also at the Wedding feast at Cana, not only did the Wedding party have copious amounts of wine: our Blessed Lord gave them even more! Hence, why Christ is good. He knows what's best for us!

 

[ebia]

Matthew 16 is probably the verse you are referring to.And when you say Protestants only need the Bible and Jesus,well you got it half right.We do have to be careful not to make the Bible the fourth member of the Trinity, it would be wise if you did the same with Mary.

They do. If you read some of the Catholic writing on Mary you'd be surprised how careful it is to make this crystal clear. Even Louis de Montfort, who is like the extoller of Marian devotion.

 

[Rhamiel]

They do. If you read some of the Catholic writing on Mary you'd be surprised how careful it is to make this crystal clear. Even Louis de Montfort, who is like the extoller of Marian devotion.

thank you brother
some of the differances is that we always emphasise that Mary is a creature and part of Gods creation like

Christ ascended into heaven
Mary was assumed into heaven, she was taken up while Christ went up on His own power
there is more then just these two things

 

[Foundthelight]

Peter and his successors (the Bishops of Rome) are the representatives of Jesus on Earth. They are not God on earth.

 

[WarriorAngel]

I hear you bro and I totally respect your faith.

This statement that Ive quoted from your post is why and where we part ways in our beliefs though.....for me there is not much aside from the biblical points.

I have not read the link you posted but you have intrigued me enough to do so. I plan to sometime today hopefully.

But the thing for me is this....whether or not Mary was sinless has no bearing on who and what Christ is to me. There are differences in our faiths but the differences are not having to do with who Christ is and what He has done for us.

As far as I can tell we both agree that Christ died for "the joy that was set before Him" which is relationship and reconciliation to us. We are both sinners made perfect through His sacrifice. We both love Him for His sacrifice and we are eternally gratefull for that....

We may feel differently about saints and customs but that doesnt change how we feel about Christ.

God Bless.

Mary's sinless is in part how God shows all of mankind received their King.
He Who came from Heaven and no sin may touch His Essence - per Revelation...
Though He came to dwell among us, He would not dwell in flesh that is sin.

Her sinlessness as a point of being His Flesh, His Being on earth He took on, shows He is God.
Otherwise He would be another...which He was not.

Mary came to participate through the Will of God - to bring man their salvation.
Her Son is our salvation, we had need of her, God had need of her and He had need of her full cooperation and participation.
In for a penny and in for a pound.
She did His will perfectly.

Without doing His will, we would not have the Christ at the appointed time, for her will was not abolished, as neither was Eve's.
Where Eve messed up, Mary did the polar opposite.

Yah, we needed her. As much as ppl like to think not, God never imposes His will on us. He needed her. He created her for the appointed time, as the appointed woman whom had enmity.
But because of the fullness of graces given to her, she was His from the beginning and no touch of satan was in her.

To carry our God in the womb - something to ponder and stop to think about, the Ruler and Maker of the Universe was in her humble womb. He was nourished through her, partaking all His flesh from only her. For the seed of Him was God.

She was an integral piece of us receiving our Savior to the world to die for us.
He had need to receive Flesh to be us to save us, if she didnt provide that Flesh, which He knew she would because He created her with graces unlike any other, if she gave over to her own will and refused and didnt have the love for God that only graces can sustain, then we would have lost and yet the promise of God hinged on a humble woman.

His trust in her was so great because He gave her the abundance of Him in His graces - He allowed her - as He did with Eve to give 'feedback' and all of man's salvation depended on the beloved creature God made for His Mother to be so He could be with us and save us.

Its quite an extraordinary thing to think about.

Just as man must let a woman accept His proposal in marriage, God - Giver of free will, trusted in her.

We should to.

It doesnt bother me. I dont look down on you bc you have more than the bible. I hope you dont look down on me.

You all may very well have beliefs and traditions that are right on! Its not that i think if its not in the bible than its not true.....Its more like the bible is enough for me, thats all. Maybe Im like the bible says, just a baby only feeding on the milk and not the solid food! I dunno! I do know that I love Jesus and He is my entire life! I know that he loves me enough that He would rather die than to have to spend eternity without me!

Amen!

Ay, He loves us and provided us with teachers to always show us.
Just as the Holy Spirit provided the eunuch with a teacher to understand how the Lord Jesus came, and as Savior fulfilled the OT.

We have need to understand the scriptures more than we have need to just read them, for every man or woman or child has an opinion.
But the written has a teacher. For God always provides.

Even prophetic earthly kingdoms gave rise to how Christ would explain to us how He set it up on earth as it is in Heaven.

In Kings the Queen Mother sat beside her son, the King.

In the Gospel we see the disciples arguing over who should sit beside Christ on His right side and He said that position was already promised.
And as the Bereans were shown how to understand the OT - and told to look at it for themselves, we know nothing, not a dot or tittle was without something for our understanding.

He is showing us how it is in Heaven...thru the OT prophesies that His right hand side is the Queen - Mother.

 

[xfisherman]

Any teachings not from the scriptures are to be taken as not true.Simple and plain.

 

[MikeK]

Any teachings not from the scriptures are to be taken as not true.Simple and plain.

While that is indeed a simple view, and rather plain as well, it's also unfortunately incorrect and not at all in line with what those who walked with Christ practiced after His resurection.

 

[Vendetta]

Any teachings not from the scriptures are to be taken as not true.Simple and plain.

On top of this being a logically invalid argument, I'm willing to wager an awful lot that nobody thought this during the time period of the canonization of scripture. Furthermore, if scripture shows that Jesus gave the apostles the power to teach things, and one of those things is the passing on of the ability to teach, AND the people who that ability was passed to were Catholic clergy, then the Catholic magisterium has all the authority to teach extrabiblically (but not contrabiblically). This is indeed what has happened.

 

[Foundthelight]

Any teachings not from the scriptures are to be taken as not true.Simple and plain.

When Paul spoke of the Scriptures he was speaking of what we call the Old Testament. Since the New Testament didn't exist at that time, Paul couldn't have been speaking of any of the Gospels or letters. By that strictly scriptural example, how can we, or you, consider the New Testament as scripture? Paul certainly didn't.

Think about it.

 

[Vendetta]

When Paul spoke of the Scriptures he was speaking of what we call the Old Testament. Since the New Testament didn't exist at that time, Paul couldn't have been speaking of any of the Gospels or letters. By that strictly scriptural example, how can we, or you, consider the New Testament as scripture? Paul certainly didn't.

Think about it.

Many of Paul's letters predated the writing of the Gospels, anyway.

 

[Foundthelight]

Many of Paul's letters predated the writing of the Gospels, anyway.

I was pointing out to the person I quoted that Scripture is determined by men guided by the Holy Spirit, not by itself. I guess I wasn't obvious enough.

 

[LOCO]

Any teachings not from the scriptures are to be taken as not true.Simple and plain.

Really, what about those thousands of Christian converts in the 400years between Christs ressurrection and the compilation of the first Bible?

They did not have access to the Bible. It did not exist then.

They were taught orally by the Apostles then the successors to the apostles and then successors to them etc.

Do you consider them Christian?

 

[WarriorAngel]

Many of Paul's letters predated the writing of the Gospels, anyway.

Actualy i think Matthews was the 1st written. I am guessing around 43 AD.
The Epistles were written in the 50's - 60's AD as problems arose. They were written because the Bishops petitioned an address to problems.
The Gospels were written for the Bishops to maintain because again, by their requests.

It was the Church who had need of the writings. The writings didnt just happen for the heck of it.

I also wanted to add that Jesus stayed for 40 days to teach the Apostles what He wanted for His Church [instructions written no where]
And taught them how to understand the OT fulfillment.
Without Him teaching and them in turn teaching first to others, no one could just 'read' the OT and understand it.