Roman Catholic..anything wrong with it?

[Major1]

Christ ascended into Heaven by His own power. Mary was assumed into Heaven by the power of God.

If the sola scripturist doesn't know the difference, perhaps he should disqualify himself from the conversation. As it is written, 'if you can't be trusted with the small things, you can't be trusted with the larger things'.

Like I said, reading comprehension matters.

Since Christ is God and Mary gave birth to God, can you explain the difference between the power of God and the Power of Christ.

The popes said.............
Pope Pius XII, in Munificentissimus Deus (1950), defined that Mary, "after the completion of her earthly life" (note the silence regarding her death), "was assumed body and soul into the glory of heaven."

Where in the Bible does it say that Mary............
"was assumed body and soul into the glory of heaven by the power of God."

Sola Scriptura is not the point here. The point is truth. Like YOU SAID, and I agree totally that Reading comprehension is the key and I wait eagerly to read your answer to the question.

 

[Major1]

A 2000 year teaching magisterium of which the gates of hell have not prevailed.

If it's not from Heaven. Let it fall.

What about if it is not in the Bible???

 

[Albion]

Christ ascended into Heaven by His own power. Mary was assumed into Heaven by the power of God.

If the sola scripturist doesn't know the difference.

Stop using this matter to vilify belief in Sola Scriptura.

I believe in Scripture myself and I correctly used the word Assumption in my own reply to your comment. You, of course, you ignored that.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Goatee didn't say anything about the test of time. He talked about the Church surviving the storms that have been constantly thrown at her. A mere human institution would have collapsed a long time ago, and we would all be Arians.

Goodness gracious me. If withstanding various storms connotes a valid religion then we all ought to be Buddhists. They have assuredly been around much longer than Christianity and have withstood far more storms.

 

[Goatee]

Certainly, any of the Orthodox denominations can make the same claims.

Did I specify any Catholic rite? I said CC.

 

[Goatee]

Sarcasm?????

You dish it out just as well buddy

 

[Goatee]

What about if it is not in the Bible???

What about the fact that the BiBle did not exist for a few hundred years?

Where would you be then? Where would the Sola Scripture people be without the Bible?

 

[prodromos]

Sarcasm?????

Hypocrisy????

 

[PeaceB]

Getting back to the original question, “Roman Catholic…anything wrong with it?” I went to a RC mass this weekend and noticed (and in some cases, was reminded of) a few things.

I highly doubt that you are telling the truth. Could you please name the specific parish, and the date that you attended? A link would be welcome.

1) A total lack of Bibles in the pew backs. There were only hymnals and a card telling you how to respond at different points of the liturgy.

1) You have not possessed a Bible since you left the Catholic Church. What you have is a portion of the Bible. Your "Bible" lacks at least 7 books.

2) We have no need to carry the complete Scriptures to Mass, in order to prove ourselves to Protestant brothers and sisters in Christ who are keen to pharisaically judge us so as to boost their own egos. You would not even know what the books of the New Testament are, except for the fact that the Catholic Church told you, and meticulously preserved and copied the Scriptures for well over a thousand years.

3) The Mass is not a bible study. We have those on Wednesday night. Nor is the Mass a Protestant service. If you knew what the Mass was, you would participate with reverent attention, rather than fretting about what is mounted in the back of the pew and noting who is carrying a Bible and who is not, in order to confirm your preconceived notions about our lack of reverence for Sacred Scripture.

4) Faith comes through hearing the word of God. And the word of God is heard many times more at a Catholic Mass than at a Protestant service.

2) None of the readers identified which chapters and verses were being read, only from which books. I suppose since no one had a Bible no one was going to be following along anyway.

Most parishes in the US have missals that contain the complete text of the readings for the day. Many people, such as myself, carry their own missal to Mass, and/or review the readings at home before Mass. All of the readings are set years in advance and widely available on the internet, so that anyone can read them at any time that he or she pleases.

3) In two of the three readings, verses were omitted. The result was a change in both context and meaning. I only caught this because I was familiar with the readings, didn’t think they sounded right, and checked them on my phone.

1) Your church and every other church omits verses. Does your church read out an entire gospel or an entire letter every Sunday?

2) You are attempting to insinuate that the Catholic Church purposely removes text in order to falsely distort the true meaning of the text. This is a baseless claim. You claim to have been at a Catholic Mass this weekend. You can easily find all of the readings for this year online. So tell us, exactly which texts were removed from which readings, and how did that change "both the context and meaning"? If you are not lying, then you should be able to do this.

3) You claim to have attended a Mass this weekend. You claimed that 2/3 of the readings removed text from the Scriptures. There are 3 readings only on Sundays. Fridays and Saturday Masses only have two readings, so we know that you did not attend Mass on Friday or Saturday. The three readings on Sunday were 1) Zec 9:9-10; 2) Rom 8:9, 11-13; and 3) Mt 11:25-30. The Sunday readings are the same everywhere on the Earth. When asked whether Rom 8:9, 11-13 was one of the readings with the missing verse, you wrote that it was not. Since you wrote that 2/3 of the Readings had missing verses, this means that Zec 9:9-10; and Mt 11:25-30 must be the Readings with missing verses to which you refer. As it is already clear that verse 10 is removed from the second reading (Rom 8:9, 11-13), but two other readings supposedly had verses removed, why did you only state that 2/3 of the Readings contained missing verses? You should have stated that 3/3 of the Readings contained missing verses. Thus, it appears that you are lying.

Or are we to believe that with the supreme bible knowledge that you so consistently claim to have, you were able to orally listen to bible verses for which you had no chapter and verse numbers, instantly recognize missing verses from the 9th Chapter of the Book of Zechariah, but somehow fail to notice that a verse was removed from the 8th Chapter of Romans? You are more familiar with the 9th Chapter of the Book of Zechariah than you are with the 8th Chapter of Romans? Really? Your claims appear rather specious upon scrutiny. You appear to be making things up in order to support your false insinuations.

4) The entire sermon was about five minutes at best, and didn’t really relate well to any of the readings. The rest of the service was about 55 minutes of scripted ceremony.

1) Five minutes of truth is better than 45 minutes of error.

2) We do not need to listen to a man speak for 45 minutes, because there is someone much greater present at Mass. His sheep recognize Him. Did you?

3) The vast majority of the "scripted ceremony" to which you refer is right out of the Bible, and anyone who claims to know Scripture as well as you so often profess should recognize that.

4) Would a sheep or a goat think that proclaiming the word of God is "scripted ceremony"?

5) Would a sheep or a goat think that praying the Lord's prayer is "scripted ceremony"?

6) Would a sheep or a goat think that asking the Lord for mercy is "scripted ceremony"?

7) Would a sheep or a goat think that professing Jesus Christ as Lord and savior is "scripted ceremony"?

8) "For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes." Would a sheep or a goat think that obeying the Lord's command to "Do this in remembrance of me" in Holy Communion is a "scripted ceremony"?

All of the above occur at each Mass, so what does that make you?

9) Every Protestant church service has a format that is set in advance. What are we to believe, that everyone at your parish just shows up and everyone decides what is to be done on the fly? That your pastor and worship team do not prepare any structure for the service in advance? Please. The difference is that the Catholic liturgy is based on Scripture and Tradition handed down from the Apostles, while the liturgy at your church is based on nothing more than the personal whims of the pastor on any given Sunday.

 

[PeaceB]

Deleted Post

 

[Panevino]

Since Christ is God and Mary gave birth to God, can you explain the difference between the power of God and the Power of Christ.

The popes said.............
Pope Pius XII, in Munificentissimus Deus (1950), defined that Mary, "after the completion of her earthly life" (note the silence regarding her death), "was assumed body and soul into the glory of heaven."

Where in the Bible does it say that Mary............
"was assumed body and soul into the glory of heaven by the power of God."

Sola Scriptura is not the point here. The point is truth. Like YOU SAID, and I agree totally that Reading comprehension is the key and I wait eagerly to read your answer to the question.

Mary is considered a proto Christian and her assumption is a foreshadow of ours, the first Christian "raptured" so to speak.
While Catholics don't believe in a Protestant Pre trib rapture we do believe in a parrousia / rapture in our eschatology.
The vision of her in rev12 is part of the data of he assumption, a polyvalent sign. Notice her physical attributes are included rather than only a soul as those described under the altar in rev6:9

 

[Albion]

The vision of her in rev12 is part of the data of he assumption, a polyvalent sign. Notice her physical attributes are included rather than only a soul as those described under the altar in rev6:9

But there are a number of different beings described in Revelation with attention to their apparently physical attributes.

Then, too, we ought to keep in mind that the whole book is a vision. John describes it as such right at the beginning. These characteristics you refer to are not necessarily to be taken in a literal way. Indeed, there is every reason to think they are not literally correct, even when teaching something that is true and important.

 

[Panevino]

But there are a number of different beings described in Revelation with attention to their apparently physical attributes.

Then, too, we ought to keep in mind that the whole book is a vision. John describes it as such right at the beginning. These characteristics you refer to are not necessarily to be taken in a literal way. Indeed, there is every reason to think they are not literally correct, even when teaching something that is true and important.

Agreed

 

[Major1]

Mary is considered a proto Christian and her assumption is a foreshadow of ours, the first Christian "raptured" so to speak.
While Catholics don't believe in a Protestant Pre trib rapture we do believe in a parrousia / rapture in our eschatology.
The vision of her in rev12 is part of the data of he assumption, a polyvalent sign. Notice her physical attributes are included rather than only a soul as those described under the altar in rev6:9

Please post the Bible Scriptures which support your opinion of Mary's assumption.

If you can not do so, then they remain an opinion and nothing more.

Rev. 12 can not be Mary. I am always amazed at how the Catholic can teach you tradition without the Word of God as if no one else has any understanding of the Scriptures.

This is an excellent example and I hope that you will read this with understanding.
The RCC teaches YOU that the woman in Rev. 12 is Mary. But if she is, the RCC and YOU will have to renounce the "Perpetual Virginity of Mary.

Look at Revelation 12:17 and read it carfully.............
17 Then the dragon became furious with the woman and went off to make war on the rest of her offspring".

That one verse removes the possibility of Mary being a perpetual virgin. She had other offspring!

 

[PeaceB]

Please post the Bible Scriptures which support your opinion of Mary's assumption.

If you can not do so, then they remain an opinion and nothing more.

Your logic is that a person must provide Scripture that teaches every belief that he holds as Christine doctrine.

You believe that the letter to the Hebrews is the inspired word of God. You hold this as Christine doctrine.

Following your own logic, you must provide a chapter and verse in Scripture that teaches that the letter to the Hebrews is the inspired word of God. If you cannot, by your own logic, your belief that the letter to the Hebrews is the inspired word of God is "an opinion and nothing more".

So you will 1) provide us with a chapter and a verse in Scripture that teaches that the letter to the Hebrews is the inspired word of God, 2) admit that your belief is "an opinion and nothing more", or 3) admit that your logic is faulty.

Which is it?

 

[Major1]

But there are a number of different beings described in Revelation with attention to their apparently physical attributes.

Then, too, we ought to keep in mind that the whole book is a vision. John describes it as such right at the beginning. These characteristics you refer to are not necessarily to be taken in a literal way. Indeed, there is every reason to think they are not literally correct, even when teaching something that is true and important.

Many years ago I had a wonderful professor who spoke to what you just said.

Anyway, he told us to get a grip on the idea that John was tele transported by the Holy Spirit of God to the future. There he was shown what was going to happen and then taken back to his own time.

Then he was told to write down what he saw. The problem or reason that it sounds strange and hard to understand is that he wrote down what he saw and experienced in his own language of that day.
He did not have the ability to record what he saw as he did not understand what he saw. He wrote it down not understanding it but was obedient in doing so.

That is why some of the explanations seem to be of some kind of conflict. Four horses bringing War and famine. A city being destroyed in ONE hour. Blood 6 feet deep in the valley of Armageddon and so on.

I am not saying that is the case, but it does hold some merit as we today see computers and phones that give us instant communications and war materials that can account for the destruction we see.

The more I have studied the End Times the more "Literal" it is made to seem to me.

 

[Panevino]

Please post the Bible Scriptures which support your opinion of Mary's assumption.

If you can not do so, then they remain an opinion and nothing more.

Rev. 12 can not be Mary. I am always amazed at how the Catholic can teach you tradition without the Word of God as if no one else has any understanding of the Scriptures.

This is an excellent example and I hope that you will read this with understanding.
The RCC teaches YOU that the woman in Rev. 12 is Mary. But if she is, the RCC and YOU will have to renounce the "Perpetual Virginity of Mary.

Look at Revelation 12:17 and read it carfully.............
17 Then the dragon became furious with the woman and went off to make war on the rest of her offspring".

That one verse removes the possibility of Mary being a perpetual virgin. She had other offspring!

She is a spiritual mother like Sarah in the OT

 

[PeaceB]

Why have you not read what I have already posted? I have answered this question now 3 times for you.

What about Reading comprehension?????

First of all I have NO logic to present what so ever. I read the Bible and teach the Bible. I do not teach religion in any way.

Secondly, YES. For a person to be a Christian, he must depend on the truth of God's Word as the basis for his belief. Christianity is found in the Bible in the life, death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ and NOTHING ELSE.

Third....YES, the book of Hebrews is the inspired Word of God.
The Bible clearly claims to be inspired of God. According to 2 Timothy 3:16–17........
“All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.”

Peter expressed the same concept in 2 Peter 1:21..........
“For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.”

Reading comprehension is very important.

These direct statements of the inspiration of the Bible are confirmed by dozens of references throughout the Old and New Testaments. It is actually up to you to either accept them or reject them. All God asks us to do is believe.

I repeat to you what I have stated twice before. Those who attack the written Word of God also attack the incarnate Word of God, Jesus Christ. If the Bible is in error, then Christ is in error too. The two stand or fall together. For this reason evangelical Christians insist that the Bible is indeed the inspired Word of God and that the authors were guided by the Spirit so that they wrote the truth without any error.

Now there is only one reason I can think of that you would attack the inspiration of the book of Hebrews.

You see, what you do not realize is that Theologically speaking, scholars generally regard the book of Hebrews to be second in importance only to Paul's letter to the Romans in the New Testament. No other book so eloquently defines Christ as high priest of Christianity, superior to the Aaronic priesthood, and the fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets. This book presents Christ as the Author and Perfecter of our faith and as a Catholic that just tears up to pieces.

You see, the Bible and especially Hebrews does not prove Catholic teachings and doctrine. In fact there are a lot of things that you as a Catholic accept which can not be found in the Bible at all.

So what has to be done?????? What are you doing????? Cast doubt, deny the truth of the Scriptures and fall on Catholic dogma instead of Bible truth.

Now......would you please post the Bible verse that supports the sinlessness of Mary?

Also, would you post the verses which teach Mary was a virgin after Jesus was born.

Then could you also post the Scriptures which say that Bishops can not be married.

Then maybe you could post those Scriptures about crossing ones self.

Also, I have always wondered where the Rosary came from. Can you post the Bible verse for that action.

I really think you should spend more time trying to validate your beliefs to Scripture truth instead of worrying about the book of Hebrews. But that is just me.

So will you........
1) provide us with a chapter and a verse in Scripture that teaches you those things that you claim are Bible doctrine which I just asked you....(Again).
2) admit that your belief is "an opinion and nothing more", or
3) admit that your logic is faulty.

Which is it?????

I believe that the letter to the Hebrews is Scripture, because I hold to the Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church, and the Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church teaches that the letter to the Hebrews is Scripture. You reject the Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church, so you must show us where the Bible teaches that the letter to the Hebrews is Scripture.

These are the two Bible verses that you quoted:

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.”​

“For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.”
​

Your logic is that a person must provide a Bible verse that teaches every belief that he holds as Christian doctrine.

You believe that the letter to the Hebrews is Scripture. Specifically, you believe that the the letter to the Hebrews is among the Scripture referred to in 2 Tim 3:16-17. You hold this as Christine doctrine.

Following your own logic, you must provide a chapter and verse in the Bible that teaches that the letter to the Hebrews is Scripture. If you cannot, by your own logic, your belief that the letter to the Hebrews is Scripture is "an opinion and nothing more".

Neither of the two verses that you cited above teach that the letter to the Hebrews is Scripture. In fact, neither of the two books listed above mention the letter to the Hebrews at all.

So you will 1) provide us with a chapter and a verse in the Bible that teaches that the letter to the Hebrews is Scripture, 2) admit that your belief is "an opinion and nothing more", or 3) admit that your logic is faulty.

Which is it?

I will be happy to provide you with Bible verses that support those Catholic doctrines, as soon as you show me where the Bible states that the letter to the Hebrews is Scripture, which you hold as a true doctrine of the Christian faith.

 

[Albion]

She is a spiritual mother like Sarah in the OT

How does that verify the idea of her body being assumed into heaven?

 

[Panevino]

How does that verify the idea of her body being assumed into heaven?

That post was in response to a different query, i.e. Essentially the question was ..The woman who gives birth to Jesus in rev 12 can't be Mary as the woman is also refered to as having seed/children which the dragon makes war with rev 12:17.
Mary like Sarah in OT is a mother of many. And that does not prompt a rejection of PV Doctrine as also suggested in the question responded to