Why Do Catholics

[Albion]

I'm ok with that, ... you are free to seek Jesus and God according to the lights that God has given you but I encourage you to inform your conscience more on how God has revealed Himself to us. The Bible is not the only mode of transmitting the Word of God. This is not taught in Sacred Writing. I hope that you are able to admit this.

Oh, absolutely not. There is no sound basis for rejecting the adequacy of scripture, and I showed why the notion of "Tradition" being authorized by scripture is untrue. God, of course, reveals something of himself in nature, etc. but that's not what you are talking about, and I absolutely cannot sympathize with turning legend and myth into dogma. One of the most unfortunate aspects of Sacred Tradition is that it does not even follow its own rules, so that if one were to be convinced that this is a true revelation, what the church has done is make whatever it chooses into doctrine, claiming Tradition, when actually there is no such line of thought running continuously through history from the Apostles forward--the very basis for the theory!

Dogmas for Catholics are the Word of God ... They are Divinely Revealed ...

That pretty much explains the difference. I feel that the Word of God is the basis for all dogma, not any denomination or church acting on its own which, in the end, is basically what "Tradition" is all about.. The church likes and supports some of these extra-scriptural dogmas for one reason or another--often because, as with Mary, it seems to heighten devotion--so it proclaims them. The best of intentions coupled with a lack of evidence really are not a proper basis for doctrine that is considered a sin for the members not to affirm.

Any part of the Gospel touches on the whole of it like a seamless thread.

Sounds nice, but it's just attractive wording. I could just as easily make up something about Scripture Alone. How about this: The Gospel is a unique and heavenly link between God and his Creation that is never to be equalled by mundane imitations.

The Rosary ... is the very prayer of the Gospel ... what do you have against the Gospel?

C'mon, friend. The Rosary contains the Lord's Prayer and the words that the archangel spoke to Mary...along with a phrase made up by the Pope. THAT you are trying to pass off as "the Gospel?" The Gospel? Maybe about 1% of the Gospel.

The scapular is not worn for any kind of magical purposes and it is not superstitious. There are promises attached to it though by our Lady.

Then I can stand by my earlier assessment.

Is it wrong to believe in the promises made by the Mother of our Saviour?

How do you know that she made any? Because the legend (like the legend of the origin of the Rosary) has been told you by the church and you accept it without questioning as a loyal member of that church?

I covered this before in a previous post in this thread. All who are baptized have a participation in the mission of Christ the Redeemer.

That's true. It's also why I think it better to stick to serving Our Lord rather than diverting some of it to other of his creatures.

Mary has a participation in a manner Par Excellence. "CO-" ... does that mean anything to you?

I'm trying not to return such smartalecky comments in kind.

We are not calling Holy Mary the Redeemer of the human race.

Oh no. Over a million Catholics (including clergy) petitioned the Vatican a few years back to have the Pope declare -- infallibly-- that very idea! It was suggested by the media that although the Vatican moves with caution on these kinds of things, there were signs that it might come at some time. This shows that among Catholics the idea is already widely believed and all that is necessary to make it a dogma is the formal decree.

Mediatrix of all graces. That is, God has willed to give us ALL through Mary ...

Please. That is Mary worship without question IMO. To attribute to one of God's creations, even the blessed Virgin, power and responsibility that belongs to God alone, is exactly what you've been laboring to convincel me does NOT happen.

The Church does not approve every single theory out there.

No, but there appears only one that it does not--making a wholly new religion with Mary as God. That leaves quite a lot of room for wrongful devotions to be winked at or encouraged.

Well, it looks like we both got to have "our say" and do it without the accusations and recriminations that often occur on these forums.

 

[Albion]

Actually, from what I read, your kind of case in point

Excuse me. I thought you actually were interested in knowing why we feel that hagiolatry is wrong.

If you are just looking for a fight with a "bad ol' Protestant 'cause they hate us" find someone else.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Being completely honest , I cringe every time I read and see Holy, Blessed, Our Mother, etc. in front of Mary . A line is being crossed by Catholics that should never be crossed .

Do you think it is inappropriate to use "Holy" or "Blessed" in describing the Bible?

If Scripture can be spoken of so loftily, why shouldn't such language be applied to the woman in whose womb God Himself dwelt bodily for nine months?

Now, I can better understand "Mother" language. It used to bother me too until it was rather simply explained:

In Christ His Father has become our Father, correct? Correct.

In Christ He has become our brother, correct? Correct.

It's not much of a leap to then see Christ's mother, Mary, as being in some sense our own adoptive mother.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[steve_bakr]

Do you think it is inappropriate to use "Holy" or "Blessed" in describing the Bible?

If Scripture can be spoken of so loftily, why shouldn't such language be applied to the woman in whose womb God Himself dwelt bodily for nine months?

Now, I can better understand "Mother" language. It used to bother me too until it was rather simply explained:

In Christ His Father has become our Father, correct? Correct.

In Christ He has become our brother, correct? Correct.

It's not much of a leap to then see Christ's mother, Mary, as being in some sense our own adoptive mother.

-CryptoLutheran

Indeed, some recent Christian traditions seem to deflate or de-emphasize the importance of Mary in God's plan of Salvation.

 

[Catherineanne]

Being completely honest , I cringe every time I read and see Holy, Blessed, Our Mother, etc. in front of Mary . A line is being crossed by Catholics that should never be crossed .

And AHJE , the majority the practices you listed regarding veneration of Mary are atrociously idolatrous . I don't understand how you can't realize that . Veneration of Mary and saints simply is not biblical , don't do it .

Through Christ we are adopted as children of God. That means that we have the unique privilege of calling God Our Father. We also have the unique privilege of calling Mary Our Mother, and Christ himself our brother and Lord.

This is not idolatry; this is 100% Biblical and Christian.

Veneration is not worship; the two are very different. If you don't get that difference, then by all means don't bother with any of it, but leave the rest of us alone, because the Nicene Creed affirms the communion of saints, and affirms Our Lady as mother of the Lord, and that is not about to change any time soon.

Funny thing is, if you wander in evangelical circles they are happy enough to hero worship their favourite evangelists and preachers, and to hold them up as shining examples to everyone. Why is it any different to do the very same thing with the saints who have gone before us, and who now stand before the Throne of the Lamb, worshipping and praising God on our behalf, and interceding for the world? What on earth is the difference?

 

[Ashlantal]

Through Christ we are adopted as children of God. That means that we have the unique privilege of calling God Our Father. We also have the unique privilege of calling Mary Our Mother, and Christ himself our brother and Lord.

This is not idolatry; this is 100% Biblical and Christian.

Veneration is not worship; the two are very different. If you don't get that difference, then by all means don't bother with any of it, but leave the rest of us alone, because the Nicene Creed affirms the communion of saints, and affirms Our Lady as mother of the Lord, and that is not about to change any time soon.

Funny thing is, if you wander in evangelical circles they are happy enough to hero worship their favourite evangelists and preachers, and to hold them up as shining examples to everyone. Why is it any different to do the very same thing with the saints who have gone before us, and who now stand before the Throne of the Lamb, worshipping and praising God on our behalf, and interceding for the world? What on earth is the difference?

The difference is that I don't hold frequent ritualistic practices that contain questionable and borderline idolatrous language and actions when I honor these other people .

 

[Albion]

The difference is that I don't hold frequent ritualistic practices that contain questionable and borderline idolatrous language and actions when I honor these other people .

Seems clear enough.

 

[Catherineanne]

The difference is that I don't hold frequent ritualistic practices that contain questionable and borderline idolatrous language and actions when I honor these other people .

Neither do I. And I don't know anyone else who does.

 

[Catherineanne]

Very interesting theories . Could be factual

The chances of that link containing fact are about on a par with the factual status of the moon being made of green cheese.

Christians believe that Christ is the second person of the Trinity; Emmanuel, God with us. Our Lady is his mother.

This is nothing whatever to do with any other coincidental occurences in any other religion at any other time. Other gods had mothers; good for them. That does not make Marian devotion equal to Isis worship, or Hera worship, or Freya worship or any other form of godess worship for one simple reason. Here it is again; Our Lady is NOT worshipped as God is worshipped. She is venerated as is appropriate for the Mother of Christ, and as prophecied in her own words, quoted in Luke; 'From henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.'

We therefore have the option of fulfilling this prophecy, and indeed calling her the Blessed Virgin Mary, or deciding to ignore it, and instead cast doubt on her status as the Mother of Christ. Why on earth anyone would want to do that, given what Luke clearly says, is beyond me, but each to his own.

Just don't try to dissuade those of us who do want to accept the prophecy from doing so.

 

[AHJE]

Oh, absolutely not. There is no sound basis for rejecting the adequacy of scripture,

When did I ever question the adequacy of Sacred Writing? ...

and I showed why the notion of "Tradition" being authorized by scripture is untrue.

It is as clear as day that the Bible says that Divine Tradition EXISTS. And that it is the very Word of God. How does denying this help you or anyone?
Wouldn't you want to seek the Word of God wherever it truly is?

God, of course, reveals something of himself in nature, etc. but that's not what you are talking about, and I absolutely cannot sympathize with turning legend and myth into dogma.

These are your assumptions ... baseless I might add.

One of the most unfortunate aspects of Sacred Tradition is that it does not even follow its own rules, so that if one were to be convinced that this is a true revelation, what the church has done is make whatever it chooses into doctrine, claiming Tradition, when actually there is no such line of thought running continuously through history from the Apostles forward--the very basis for the theory!

The problem is that you find it difficult to trust the SENT Church FROM THE BEGINNING, ... I trust what Jesus has started and begun.

That pretty much explains the difference. I feel that the Word of God is the basis for all dogma,

You limit the Word of God to Sacred Writing ... this is unbiblical. Why is that so hard to see or to admit? ... I hope that on some deep level we are both on the same side trying to help each other out. I'm just trying to help as I am sure you are as well.

not any denomination or church acting on its own which, in the end, is basically what "Tradition" is all about..

This is not what Jesus said, ... see St. John 7:18 ... the Church is SENT. Therefore, Her witness is trustworthy since it seeks the Glory of Christ the Lord who SENT Her.

Sounds nice, but it's just attractive wording. I could just as easily make up something about Scripture Alone. How about this: The Gospel is a unique and heavenly link between God and his Creation that is never to be equalled by mundane imitations.

Um, ... Divine Tradition is not mundane. It is Heavenly and Supernatural.

C'mon, friend. The Rosary contains the Lord's Prayer and the words that the archangel spoke to Mary...along with a phrase made up by the Pope. THAT you are trying to pass off as "the Gospel?" The Gospel? Maybe about 1% of the Gospel.

Seems like you have not learned what the Holy Rosary is all about. Do you know what Catholics are doing while praying a DECADE (of 10 Hail Mary's)? We are in our hearts contemplating one of the Mysteries of the Gospels, whether it is the Annunciation, or the Nativity, or the Agony in the Garden, or the Crowning with Thorns, or the Resurrection, or the Glorious Ascension, or the Descent of the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost ... This is what we are contemplating in union with Mary, she who kept the things of God reflecting upon them in her heart. (see St. Luke 2:19)
The contemplation of the Mysteries of the Gospel are the SOUL of the Holy Rosary while the prayers that you hear are the BODY of the same.

I love to pray the Most Holy Rosary, ... it is a veritable grace from God, unmistakable, and undeniable.

Then I can stand by my earlier assessment.

There is nothing wrong with the Scapular, ... there is so much richness to the Religion that Jesus has given to us and Divinely Revealed to us. By it we have a Covenant Relationship to Him and a variety of ways to be blessed.

How do you know that she made any? Because the legend (like the legend of the origin of the Rosary) has been told you by the church and you accept it without questioning as a loyal member of that church?

Do you question the book of Hebrews each time you pick up the Holy Bible? or the book of James? or the book of Acts? I'm sure that you don't since you are convinced that its source is from the Lord. The Church is from the Lord, Albion.

I'm trying not to return such smartalecky comments in kind.

Seems like you are avoiding the issue ... "Co-" is simply that a participation in the mission and sufferings of Christ. Mary did so in a manner that is Par Excellence. Look at Simeon's prophecy in St. Luke 2:35 and Col 1:24.

Oh no. Over a million Catholics (including clergy) petitioned the Vatican a few years back to have the Pope declare -- infallibly-- that very idea! It was suggested by the media that although the Vatican moves with caution on these kinds of things, there were signs that it might come at some time. This shows that among Catholics the idea is already widely believed and all that is necessary to make it a dogma is the formal decree.

NOT that Mary is the Redeemer. Rather, that she is the Co-Redemptrix by participation in a manner Par Excellence.

I too am looking forward for the Solemn Proclamation of the 5th Marian Dogma. For when it is finally declared infallibly, by God's providence, the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary will be manifested in a way as never before. Her power from God to act will be much greater ...

In the beginning satan took down the woman ... but the world shall see what is coming to the enemy by the action of the New Woman, the New Eve, BY THE MERITS of JESUS CHRIST! Alleluia!

In short, ... I believe that satan will be snuffed by a Woman. To his utter humiliation. And for the Glory of God the righteous Judge!

Please. That is Mary worship without question IMO. To attribute to one of God's creations, even the blessed Virgin, power and responsibility that belongs to God alone, is exactly what you've been laboring to convincel me does NOT happen.

Let me get this straight, ... you have no problems receiving the Saviour of the World via Mary but you object to receiving graces by her Immaculate hands? ... (scratching my head ???)

Well, it looks like we both got to have "our say" and do it without the accusations and recriminations that often occur on these forums.

PRAISED BE JESUS CHRIST!

 

[christseeker45]

staff edit

Those are big lies, only the confused would say such nonsense and you still have not answered my question. John was warning about Nero and the persecutions that were happening then and Jerusalem was the harlot that rode on the beast which was the Empire of Rome.

Things things you believe come from us, the Scriptures come from us so you better had get rid of everything and start your own thing. The biggest problem are ignorant Protestants who have no grasp of Church history or were their beliefs come from.

So way do you worship one God since the pagans had that concept? Why do you believe Jesus was born of a Virgin since the pagans had that concept first. If you are so head strong than you will have to discard most of Christianity because paganism had many things first

 

[steve_bakr]

staff edit

The contents of this post shows a lack of understanding of the fundamentals of Catholicism, and the statements in it are inappropriate.

 

[Albion]

When did I ever question the adequacy of Sacred Writing? ...

By definition, anyone or any church that believes in Sacred Tradition rejects the adequacy of Scripture. It doesn't mean that you or they reject Scripture itself, but if it is maintained that another source of revelation is to be used, the adequacy of Scripture is denied.

It is as clear as day that the Bible says that Divine Tradition EXISTS

.
No, it doesn't. I've explained why your proof texts absolutely do not show anything at all about any "Divine Tradition." If you want to discount that, it is your right. However, I do not want to be "talked down" in every post by being told, point blank, the same allegation--one that you know I find to be false and why I feel that way. If there is something ELSE, of course, I'm more than happy to discuss that.

Wouldn't you want to seek the Word of God wherever it truly is?

Who wouldn't?

you find it difficult to trust the SENT Church FROM THE BEGINNING, ... I trust what Jesus has started and begun.

Oh look, my friend, that is what every cult says with all its might and main. Are you convinced when someone who belongs to one of them makes THAT its overture to you? Not very persuasive, is it?

Then why do you think so little of me that you think simply insisting "Mine is the one and only one that God authorizes. That's it. Nothing more to say."

Really?

 

[steve_bakr]

By definition, anyone or any church that believes in Sacred Tradition rejects the adequacy of Scripture. It doesn't mean that you or they reject Scripture itself, but if it is maintained that another source of revelation is to be used, the adequacy of Scripture is denied.

.
No, it doesn't. I've explained why your proof texts absolutely do not show anything at all about any "Divine Tradition." If you want to discount that, it is your right. However, I do not want to be "talked down" in every post by being told, point blank, the same allegation--one that you know I find to be false and why I feel that way. If there is something ELSE, of course, I'm more than happy to discuss that.

Who wouldn't?

Oh look, my friend, that is what every cult says with all its might and main. Are you convinced when someone who belongs to one of them makes THAT its overture to you? Not very persuasive, is it?

Then why do you think so little of me that you think simply insisting "Mine is the one and only one that God authorizes. That's it. Nothing more to say."

Really?

It is a false supposition that the recognition of a Sacred Tradition somehow dimishes the efficacy of Holy Scripture. Besides, the NT was formed as part of Living Tradition.

 

[Albion]

It is a false supposition that the recognition of a Sacred Tradition somehow dimishes the efficacy of Holy Scripture.

I think I showed why being directed by Tradition necessarily means a rejection of--not the efficacy, but the adequacy or sufficiency--of Scripture. At least get correct what I wrote when you set out to reject it.

 

[AHJE]

I think I showed why being directed by Tradition necessarily means a rejection of--not the efficacy, but the adequacy or sufficiency--of Scripture. At least get correct what I wrote when you set out to reject it.

2 Thes. 2:14/15 and 1 Thes. 2:13 are not speaking about Sacred Writing and yet it is indeed speaking about the Word of God which we are obligated to hold fast to.

If you deny this, ... then you are denying the Holy Bible. Doesn't Sacred Writing say that we may use it to give correction where error is made? The man made tradition of Sola Scriptura is condemned by the Bible itself.

...

Peace be with you.

 

[Albion]

2 Thes. 2:14/15 and 1 Thes. 2:13 are not speaking about Sacred Writing and yet it is indeed speaking about the Word of God which we are obligated to hold fast to.

If you deny this, ... then you are denying the Holy Bible

Let's not get too dramatic about this. What I am denying is your interpretation of those verses.

So let's see the substance of your theory. If you think, as you said, that they are speaking about the Word of God that we are obligated to hold fast to...what exactly is it that we are to hold fast to? What beliefs?

 

[FreeinChrist]

MOD HAT

This thread is closed for review and clean up