Praying to Mary

Asaiah

Hi all,

I have one major issue with the Catholic church and that is devotion to Mary. Now as a Christian I love and respect Mary, she is the most honoured woman in history as she was chosen to carry the messiah, the son of God. The word of God made flesh Jesus Christ.

However it seems excessive in modern Catholicism. Where Mary has taken a central role and people pray directly to her. I've seen crosses featuring the trinity plus Mary. I've heard her called the queen of heaven. As a bible reader from a young age I've seen no evidence for Mary being queen of heaven.

Jesus said that he is the only mediator between man and the Father.

Is devotion and prayer to Mary an essential part of Catholicism? Is Mary the queen of heaven and/or the co-redemptrix?

Christains of all flavours, What are your thoughts on the Mary?

hinault

Asaiah wrote: »

Hi all,

I have one major issue with the Catholic church and that is devotion to Mary. Now as a Christian I love and respect Mary, she is the most honoured woman in history as she was chosen to carry the messiah, the son of God. The word of God made flesh Jesus Christ.

However it seems excessive in modern Catholicism. Where Mary has taken a central role and people pray directly to her. I've seen crosses featuring the trinity plus Mary. I've heard her called the queen of heaven. As a bible reader from a young age I've seen no evidence for Mary being queen of heaven.

Jesus said that he is the only mediator between man and the Father.

Is devotion and prayer to Mary an essential part of Catholicism? Is Mary the queen of heaven and/or the co-redemptrix?

Christains of all flavours, What are your thoughts on the Mary?

:rolleyes:

This is another Boards.ie Religion and Spirituality Christianity urban myth.

In the Catholic Church Adoration, called latria, is solely reserved for God.

Dulia, called Veneration, is the honor given to a person, who deserves such honor for his or her excellence in one area or another.

Hyperdulia, which is a level of veneration given to one whose excellence exceeds that of all other humans, is given to Mary.

Catholics worship God fully aware that He is the Supreme Being and infinitely perfect, Latria.

Catholics honor the saints aware that they were virtuous Christians and enjoy glory in heaven, and this is referred to as dulia.

Catholics honor Mary aware that she is inferior to God, but God's holiest creation, and this is referred to as hyperdulia.

LordSutch

I think traditionally this has been one of the main (perceived) distinctions between Roman Catholic Christan worships & Protestant Christian worship. For example, we in the C of I don't have statues of the virgin Mary in our Churches, while RC Churches do have them & people kneel in front of them ... hence they must pray to them > would be the perceived view.

Personally, I too have always presumed over the decades that RCs do pray to Mary.
Hail Mary comes to mind, is that not a prayer to Mary?

It's a view/perception/distinction that has been there since the Reformation?

As you can see, my view has always been based on perception & presumption, so I don't really know what the truth is regarding the practice. Each to their own I guess.

God bless.

solodeogloria

Good morning!

To pin my colours to the mast I'm an evangelical Protestant.

Borderline Mary worship is unbiblical.

I was in the Vatican Museum last month. Many things were inspiring and praiseworthy. However there was one room in dedicated to a unbiblical doctrine. The Immaculate Conception. Codified into Catholicism in the 19th century. Mary was a godly woman who submitted to God. She wasn't a demi-god. She isn't the "queen of heaven". Nowhere in the Bible is she conferred with this status.

Last year I was at a wedding of two really good friends of mine. They are devout Roman Catholics. The groom was a key reason why I believe in Jesus today. Much of the service was lovely. At the end however, they prayed at a statue of Mary to the "queen of heaven". I found it ghastly. It is pagan folk religion. The gospel doesn't encourage praying to saints. We are all saints. They are no better than us. Even Mary sinned.

That statue and that prayer is precisely why the Reformation was required then and it is why it is required now. Putting Papal teaching over the Bible is the problem. God's word is better. God's word is true. Why add to it in such futile ways? It brings out the Reformer in me and makes me give thanks for those who risked their lives for the Reformation.

The Roman Catholic Church has obviously added to apostolic Christianity. How do I know that? Simple. Why isn't it in the New Testament?

We have free access to God through Jesus' saving death on the cross. We can pray to Him directly. We don't need purgatory. Jesus' death was enough. Purgatory doesn't have any Biblical basis anyway.

There is no mediator between man and God other than the Lord Jesus Christ:

1 Timothy 2:5-6 ESV wrote:

For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time.

This post is intentionally provocative. We need to talk about this properly though. Hopefully we can do that in gracious way that honours Jesus.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

uck51js9zml2yt

The only reference to the Queen of heaven in the Bible refers to Ashtoreth, a pagan goddess..
Mary was given the title Co Redemptrix and was made equal in the redemption process with Jesus.

She equally wasn't sinless as in the Magnification she refers to Jesus as her Saviour. You don't need saving if you've never sinned.

I notice hinault ignored the Queen of heaven question...and he won't see my post........sadly nothing new there:)

georgieporgy

"All generations will call me blessed "
Any New Testament experts willing to explain that away?

Nick Park

georgieporgy wrote: »

"All generations will call me blessed "
Any New Testament experts willing to explain that away?

Mary was well blessed. Every Christian i know of whatever denominational stripe believes that.

I'm not sure quite why that would need 'explained away' in the context of a discussion as to whether it is correct to pray to Mary, construct graven images of her, or to give her titles such as 'the Queen of Heaven'.

hinault

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

To pin my colours to the mast I'm an evangelical Protestant.

Borderline Mary worship is unbiblical.

I was in the Vatican Museum last month. Many things were inspiring and praiseworthy. However there was one room in dedicated to a unbiblical doctrine. The Immaculate Conception. Codified into Catholicism in the 19th century. Mary was a godly woman who submitted to God. She wasn't a demi-god. She isn't the "queen of heaven". Nowhere in the Bible is she conferred with this status.

Last year I was at a wedding of two really good friends of mine. They are devout Roman Catholics. The groom was a key reason why I believe in Jesus today. Much of the service was lovely. At the end however, they prayed at a statue of Mary to the "queen of heaven". I found it ghastly. It is pagan folk religion. The gospel doesn't encourage praying to saints. We are all saints. They are no better than us. Even Mary sinned.

That statue and that prayer is precisely why the Reformation was required then and it is why it is required now. Putting Papal teaching over the Bible is the problem. God's word is better. God's word is true. Why add to it in such futile ways? It brings out the Reformer in me and makes me give thanks for those who risked their lives for the Reformation.

The Roman Catholic Church has obviously added to apostolic Christianity. How do I know that? Simple. Why isn't it in the New Testament?

We have free access to God through Jesus' saving death on the cross. We can pray to Him directly. We don't need purgatory. Jesus' death was enough. Purgatory doesn't have any Biblical basis anyway.

There is no mediator between man and God other than the Lord Jesus Christ:


This post is intentionally provocative. We need to talk about this properly though. Hopefully we can do that in gracious way that honours Jesus.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

This post contains a number of untruths.

I've only bothered to bold one of the untruths told in this thread.

The "advice" given in the quoted post if followed puts the followers eternal fate in very very grave jeopardy.

homer911

hinault wrote: »

This post contains a number of untruths.

I've only bothered to bold one of the untruths told in this thread.

The "advice" given in the quoted post if followed puts the followers eternal fate in very very grave jeopardy.

You are making yourself look very foolish hinault. Even Mary acknowledged she needed a Saviour. You don't need a Saviour if you are sinless. Sometimes you need to challenge that Catholic Catechism based on what the Bible says

hinault

homer911 wrote: »

You are making yourself look very foolish hinault. Even Mary acknowledged she needed a Saviour. You don't need a Saviour if you are sinless. Sometimes you need to challenge that Catholic Catechism based on what the Bible says

Mary was conceived without sin. The Bible states that Mary is "full of grace".
What grace? Sanctifying grace.

Mary gave birth to God Incarnate Jesus Christ.
Would He who is without sin be borne by someone who was touched with even a trace of sin?

Jesus Christ is the very antithesis of sin.

It is literally inconceivable that God would select a sinful human woman to conceive and give birth to He who redeems the world.

georgieporgy

Asaiah wrote: »

Hi all,

I have one major issue with the Catholic church and that is devotion to Mary. Now as a Christian I love and respect Mary, she is the most honoured woman in history as she was chosen to carry the messiah, the son of God. The word of God made flesh Jesus Christ.

However it seems excessive in modern Catholicism. Where Mary has taken a central role and people pray directly to her. I've seen crosses featuring the trinity plus Mary. I've heard her called the queen of heaven. As a bible reader from a young age I've seen no evidence for Mary being queen of heaven.

Jesus said that he is the only mediator between man and the Father.

Is devotion and prayer to Mary an essential part of Catholicism? Is Mary the queen of heaven and/or the co-redemptrix?

Christains of all flavours, What are your thoughts on the Mary?

http://www.scotthahn.com/mary.html

Try this site for lots of info and the answers to all your questions from someone who started out as a Presbyterian minister. Unlike a lot of sola scriptura folk, he actually did read the bible and that led him to the Catholic Church.
His wife who was worried about him doing such a crazy thing got a few colleagues to try to talk sense into him. In the end they too followed him into the Church.

solodeogloria

Good evening!

I'd love for someone to answer our questions instead of ignoring them.

One of the things I loved about my time in the Vatican last month was walking around the Vatican Museum and seeing how the Catholic Church had made an intellectual contribution to the world. I would argue more than Protestantism did in many ways.

However on this forum I see people asking fair questions and I don't see any Catholic posters willing to answer them. Rather I've had one poster insinuate I'm going to hell (or at least take a jolly roasting in purgatory!) for raising fair points from my reading of the Bible on this issue and another imply that sola scriptura advocates don't read the Bible!

Surely we can do better than this? Why can't we sit and learn from one another here.

The idea that God couldn't have been incarnated from a sinful woman is absurd. Surely God can do anything? Moreover, the idea that Mary was full of grace means that she wasn't a sinner is equally absurd. Grace means undeserved and unmerited favour. She had unmerited favour in the Lord which makes sense of why she had a Saviour. If this was such a big deal why wasn't it official dogma until the 19th century!

As for Mary sinning I'm thinking of Mark 3:20-21 where the family of Jesus claim that He is out of His mind for teaching the Gospel. If Mary was sinless she would be God surely? Who can forgive sins but God alone? Why? Because God isn't culpable of sin.

I might be a "heretic" from your eyes but I am a "heretic" that seeks to understand and can admire some things about the Catholic Church.

Sadly - there is nothing to admire about it from this forum. Someone raised a valid question and there hasn't been an answer.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

Nick Park

hinault wrote: »

Mary was conceived without sin. The Bible states that Mary is "full of grace".
What grace? Sanctifying grace.

The Bible also describes Stephen as "full of grace and power". So that would make Stephen sinless too?

Mary gave birth to God Incarnate Jesus Christ.
Would He who is without sin be borne by someone who was touched with even a trace of sin?

The problem with this reasoning is that you must then apply it Mary as well. Would she who is without sin (Mary) be borne by someone who was touched with even a trace of sin? So that would make Mary's mother (and father as well, since there was only one virgin birth) sinless as well.

But then, of course, for Mary's parents to be sinless, both sets of grandparents would need to be sinless as well.

We can take this 'logic' to its absurd conclusion with hundreds of sinless people stretching back through generations. Or we can accept the obvious fact that an omnipotent God is well capable of ensuring that the sinless Saviour came from the womb of a woman who, just like the rest of us, was a sinner.

It is literally inconceivable that God would select a sinful human woman to conceive and give birth to He who redeems the world.

It would certainly be inconceivable if God had ordered His salvation plan according to our feeble ideas of how things should be. Thankfully He didn't. He did something that we would think of as completely inconceivable - He let the sinless Son of God carry all our moral filthiness to the Cross and die a shameful death. Once we grasp the enormity of that, then we should submit ourselves to God's revealed Word rather than to our notions of what is conceivable or not.

hinault

Nick Park wrote: »

The Bible also describes Stephen as "full of grace and power". So that would make Stephen sinless too?

Does it?
Where in the Bible is this stated, because it's not mentioned in the gospels.

Besides, St.Stephen played no role in the incarnation of God.

Nick Park wrote: »

The problem with this reasoning is that you must then apply it Mary as well. Would she who is without sin (Mary) be borne by someone who was touched with even a trace of sin? So that would make Mary's mother (and father as well, since there was only one virgin birth) sinless as well.

But then, of course, for Mary's parents to be sinless, both sets of grandparents would need to be sinless as well.

Do you carry the sin of your parents, grandparents?
Of course you don't.
But to suggest so would be absurd.

Nick Park wrote: »

We can take this 'logic' to its absurd conclusion with hundreds of sinless people stretching back through generations. Or we can accept the obvious fact that an omnipotent God is well capable of ensuring that the sinless Saviour came from the womb of a woman who, just like the rest of us, was a sinner.

Mary was sinless, Nick.

Whether you accept that Mary is sinless is immaterial.

This example illustrates the utter waste of time exchanging views with
non-Catholics here.

Nick Park wrote: »

It would certainly be inconceivable if God had ordered His salvation plan according to our feeble ideas of how things should be. Thankfully He didn't. He did something that we would think of as completely inconceivable - He let the sinless Son of God carry all our moral filthiness to the Cross and die a shameful death. Once we grasp the enormity of that, then we should submit ourselves to God's revealed Word rather than to our notions of what is conceivable or not.

These are the same feeble ideas expressed throughout the Bible:rolleyes:

You've submitted yourself to something.

I won't be exchanging further views with you on this topic.

Matt Markinson

The reason you're not getting many replies from Catholics is because for one reason or another 1) not many Catholics use this forum anymore, 2) the issue seems to have already been done to death on other older threads, 3) it would literally be a full time job on this site answering and re-answering the same constantly repeated false claims and misrepresentations about Catholicism, over and over again. 4) all of the above is boring and repetitive.

I'm all for disagreeing with and questioning the doctrines of the Catholic Church, but there so many misrepresentations, red herrings, straw men and fallacies here regarding actual Catholic teaching, it's hard to know where to start or even if to bother. I don't know if it's by design or accident people are taught/spread so much misinformation about Catholicism.

I would first suggest for anyone genuinely interested in discussing the truth of what the Catholic Church actually teaches, and does not teach and rather than constantly repeating or listening to inaccurate slanders (perhaps not intentionally/knowingly) that are aimed at dividing Christians, you go to the actual source.

This has the potential to be a very long topic, I'm off line and only on intermittently at best for the next few days.

So very briefly (and remember it's brief and off the cuff, I've tried to be accurate but for 100% accuracy go to the correct source (i.e. not me, the actual documents [make sure they correctly quoted in their correct context] of the Church) rather than nitpick this post for some minor unintentional error)

So trying to take them roughly in the order they were made :
( and if I've missed anything, again it's not intentional)

Is devotion and prayer to Mary an essential part of Catholicism?
No, not essential at all. No rosary is required if you don't want to. No devotion to Mary is required, no prayer to Mary is required, and no Catholic is required to believe in the apparitions of Mary at Lourdes, Knock, Fatima. (Because these are private revelations, and the Church is clear the last public revelation to Christians was by the last of the apostles). All these practices are optional and open to Catholics, but not required or compulsory.

- Is Mary the queen of heaven ?
It depends on what sense you're talking about.
Like Queen Elizabeth II or Queen Victoria ? No.
In an honorary title / non literal sense like the Queen mother ? - Yes, if you wish
The title is inspired by the verse Rev 12:1-2

- and/or the co-redemptrix?
Firstly co-redemptrix is not either a dogma or a doctrine of Catholicism.
It's speculative theology. Most contrary to the way the term is being attempted to be used here, it is NOT used to mean she is in any way equal with Christ. It refers to her co-operation in the incarnation, and her consent, the opposite to eve's lack of trust in God.

- Do Catholics pray to Mary ?
Yes, some do and to many other saints in heaven as well. But it is not in worship. The meaning of the word to pray is not worship, it is to ask, e.g. "pray tell". The words of the actual prayer make the distinction. Asking someone else, including a saint, to also pray for you is not worship. Prayer to the saints is a whole other thread.

-Statues
Look up the word graven the next time you use it. Graven is an idol that is considered to be a God a worshiped as a God, like the Golden Calf. It is not an inanimate lump of plaster. There are statues and picture of Christ all over Catholic Churches, they are not Christ, a statue of Mary is Mary, nor does anyone worship Mary or statues or pictures, so once knowing that, continuing to spread the falsehood about other Chrstians, is in fact not very Christian. Using a picture or statue as an area where you focus for prayer, does not mean that you think that image is in fact God.

"Last year I was at a wedding of two really good friends of mine. They are devout Roman Catholics. The groom was a key reason why I believe in Jesus today. Much of the service was lovely. At the end however, they prayed at a statue of Mary to the "queen of heaven". I found it ghastly. It is pagan folk religion. The gospel doesn't encourage praying to saints. We are all saints. They are no better than us. Even Mary sinned. "

Perhaps if they really are good friends of yours, you should sit down face to face with them one to one, and genuinely ask them to explain to you what they were actually doing, and what the Church actually teaches, rather than having a complete misconception of what they are doing, and then making such allegations about them behind their back on a public forum ? Because if the groom was key in giving you belief in Christ as you claim, I would be pretty sure he will have a correct understanding of what the Church actually teaches, rather than you listening to an internet forum. As for saints, you are partly correct, Catholicism teaches everyone in heaven is a saint, regardless if they have been officially given the title by the Church or not.

I believe you are an Anglican. Well Marian devotions such as the Rosary, Angelus, and Regina Coeli are all associated and practiced within the Anglo-Catholic and High Church movements within Anglicanism. A Protestant, "reformation" Church.

The immaculate conception is a another very lengthy subject, but suffice to say, the ark of Christ (Mary) was not going to have the stain of sin or original sin, that would be a complete impossibility for the new Eve, because sin and God(Christ), cannot intermix, Christ also becoming fully human. Solo, sit down and ask your friend about this doctrine, because I believe you might be genuinely interested in the answer, unlike some.

It took me quite a while to write the above ( I can understand now why most Catholics don't bother here, it really would lead to a full time job), and as I will only be online intermittently, I wont be responding for at least a few days, and I definitely won't be responding to any repeated misrepresentation of Catholic teaching or any misrepresentation of what I posted.

solodeogloria

Matt Markinson wrote: »

The reason you're not getting many replies from Catholics is because for one reason or another 1) not many Catholics use this forum anymore, 2) the issue seems to have already been done to death on other older threads, 3) it would literally be a full time job on this site answering and re-answering the same constantly repeated false claims and misrepresentations about Catholicism, over and over again. 4) all of the above is boring and repetitive.

I'm all for disagreeing with and questioning the doctrines of the Catholic Church, but there so many misrepresentations, red herrings, straw men and fallacies here regarding actual Catholic teaching, it's hard to know where to start or even if to bother. I don't know if it's by design or accident people are taught/spread so much misinformation about Catholicism.

I would first suggest for anyone genuinely interested in discussing the truth of what the Catholic Church actually teaches, and does not teach and rather than constantly repeating or listening to inaccurate slanders (perhaps not intentionally/knowingly) that are aimed at dividing Christians, you go to the actual source.

This has the potential to be a very long topic, I'm off line and only on intermittently at best for the next few days.

So very briefly (and remember it's brief and off the cuff, I've tried to be accurate but for 100% accuracy go to the correct source (i.e. not me, the actual documents [make sure they correctly quoted in their correct context] of the Church) rather than nitpick this post for some minor unintentional error)

So trying to take them roughly in the order they were made :
( and if I've missed anything, again it's not intentional)

Is devotion and prayer to Mary an essential part of Catholicism?
No, not essential at all. No rosary is required if you don't want to. No devotion to Mary is required, no prayer to Mary is required, and no Catholic is required to believe in the apparitions of Mary at Lourdes, Knock, Fatima. (Because these are private revelations, and the Church is clear the last public revelation to Christians was by the last of the apostles). All these practices are optional and open to Catholics, but not required or compulsory.

- Is Mary the queen of heaven ?
It depends on what sense you're talking about.
Like Queen Elizabeth II or Queen Victoria ? No.
In an honorary title / non literal sense like the Queen mother ? - Yes, if you wish
The title is inspired by the verse Rev 12:1-2

- and/or the co-redemptrix?
Firstly co-redemptrix is not either a dogma or a doctrine of Catholicism.
It's speculative theology. Most contrary to the way the term is being attempted to be used here, it is NOT used to mean she is in any way equal with Christ. It refers to her co-operation in the incarnation, and her consent, the opposite to eve's lack of trust in God.

- Do Catholics pray to Mary ?
Yes, some do and to many other saints in heaven as well. But it is not in worship. The meaning of the word to pray is not worship, it is to ask, e.g. "pray tell". The words of the actual prayer make the distinction. Asking someone else, including a saint, to also pray for you is not worship. Prayer to the saints is a whole other thread.

-Statues
Look up the word graven the next time you use it. Graven is an idol that is considered to be a God a worshiped as a God, like the Golden Calf. It is not an inanimate lump of plaster. There are statues and picture of Christ all over Catholic Churches, they are not Christ, a statue of Mary is Mary, nor does anyone worship Mary or statues or pictures, so once knowing that, continuing to spread the falsehood about other Chrstians, is in fact not very Christian. Using a picture or statue as an area where you focus for prayer, does not mean that you think that image is in fact God.

"Last year I was at a wedding of two really good friends of mine. They are devout Roman Catholics. The groom was a key reason why I believe in Jesus today. Much of the service was lovely. At the end however, they prayed at a statue of Mary to the "queen of heaven". I found it ghastly. It is pagan folk religion. The gospel doesn't encourage praying to saints. We are all saints. They are no better than us. Even Mary sinned. "

Perhaps if they really are good friends of yours, you should sit down face to face with them one to one, and genuinely ask them to explain to you what they were actually doing, and what the Church actually teaches, rather than having a complete misconception of what they are doing, and then making such allegations about them behind their back on a public forum ? Because if the groom was key in giving you belief in Christ as you claim, I would be pretty sure he will have a correct understanding of what the Church actually teaches, rather than you listening to an internet forum. As for saints, you are partly correct, Catholicism teaches everyone in heaven is a saint, regardless if they have been officially given the title by the Church or not.

I believe you are an Anglican. Well Marian devotions such as the Rosary, Angelus, and Regina Coeli are all associated and practiced within the Anglo-Catholic and High Church movements within Anglicanism. A Protestant, "reformation" Church.

The immaculate conception is a another very lengthy subject, but suffice to say, the ark of Christ (Mary) was not going to have the stain of sin or original sin, that would be a complete impossibility for the new Eve, because sin and God(Christ), cannot intermix, Christ also becoming fully human. Solo, sit down and ask your friend about this doctrine, because I believe you might be genuinely interested in the answer, unlike some.

It took me quite a while to write the above ( I can understand now why most Catholics don't bother here, it really would lead to a full time job), and as I will only be online intermittently, I wont be responding for at least a few days, and I definitely won't be responding to any repeated misrepresentation of Catholic teaching or any misrepresentation of what I posted.

Good evening!

Thank you for your post. I thank you because I sense that this is an earnest, honest effort to engage. I appreciate that a lot. As for it being a full time job, we've all answered questions on varying topics. I've been more than happy to discuss and explain the hope that I have in Jesus.

However - I think it's unfair to state that I've not discussed about Catholicism with my friend. We have discussed and disagreed. However it is good to use examples of things that raise the issue to us particularly. I think it is fair to explain that that was a springboard to my feeling that the Reformation needs to continue and it's work isn't done.

As for Anglo-Catholicism admittedly I'm very low church and not the greatest fan of it in the world. Just claiming that it happens within Anglicanism doesn't mean that it is right. Moreover it wasn't a feature really until the 19th century. The short answer is I'm more on the Reformed side of the church.

Why is answering questions such an ordeal? Surely we should share with one another?

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

Matt Markinson

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

Thank you for your post. I thank you because I sense that this is an earnest, honest effort to engage. I appreciate that a lot. As for it being a full time job, we've all answered questions on varying topics. I've been more than happy to discuss and explain the hope that I have in Jesus.

However - I think it's unfair to state that I've not discussed about Catholicism with my friend. We have discussed and disagreed. However it is good to use examples of things that raise the issue to us particularly. I think it is fair to explain that that was a springboard to my feeling that the Reformation needs to continue and it's work isn't done.

As for Anglo-Catholicism admittedly I'm very low church and not the greatest fan of it in the world. Just claiming that it happens within Anglicanism doesn't mean that it is right. Moreover it wasn't a feature really until the 19th century. The short answer is I'm more on the Reformed side of the church.

Why is answering questions such an ordeal? Surely we should share with one another?

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

As for the Anglican Anglo-Catholicism practices I do know that knowingly making the same false allegations and misrepresentations against it would not be tolerated in Anglicanism and soon seen and put to bed for what they are, yet some think, for whatever agenda, it's ok to do it with Catholicism. (not accusing you btw)

Back the meat of the post :
Thank you for sensing correctly. I am sorry about yet again crude quick abrupt manner of at least getting some kind of answer to you, but really due to personal circumstances I really don't have the time to spend here that this deserves (actually any time). I'm not a talented writer at the best of times, never mind when in a hurry. In fact it's a little miracle I'm able to post here at all at present. I'm surprised that if your friend explained what he was doing correctly about that specific situation you detailed, that you still think what you do, but I'd advise you to talk more with him. Btw, I consider my self extremely fortunate to be Catholic, because it's only through my spirituality and spiritual experiences, and the grace of God, I truly understand Catholicism. Trying to convey and explain it here (very poorly) through a non spiritual means such this written forum, is near impossible for me. Also in case any misunderstands my motives, I have no desire to 'convert' / convince any non Catholic Christian to Catholicism. (Because whenever they reach salvation, it will be through the Catholic Church anyway, even if they don't actually consider themselves Catholic). I posted here because I do believe strongly in Christian unity and ecumenism, and I know it's Christ will that all Christians should be united, not divided. Whatever form that unity takes, or eventually takes I know not, but I do know that perpetuating a totally incorrect understanding of other 'denominations' is a barrier to same, and only in the interests of the one also known as the divider, the accuser, and the liar from the beginning. (Note I use the term denomination to try and speak in some sort of language that non Catholics might be familiar with, because when they see the word Catholic, they most likely just think denomination, whereas I only see the correct meaning of the term, i.e. Universal.) There will be a very considerable spiritual revival in this country though the Holy Spirit, that much I do know, when that will be or if it will be in my lifetime I know not, and ecumenism is part of making his paths straight.

Sorry yet again for the quick, rough and ready reply, I really must be gone.

solodeogloria

Matt Markinson wrote: »

As for the Anglican Anglo-Catholicism practices I do know that knowingly making the same false allegations and misrepresentations against it would not be tolerated in Anglicanism and soon seen and put to bed for what they are, yet some think, for whatever agenda, it's ok to do it with Catholicism. (not accusing you btw)

Good morning!

I would actively criticise any of those things in any church I saw them in. I'm very critical of lots of things in my own denomination.

I don't think these allegations are false though. Particularly those about the Immaculate Conception and praying to saints and purgatory being unbiblical.

I recognise that my original point was strongly stated but it was strongly stated to get discussion going.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

Delirium

hinault wrote: »

This example illustrates the utter waste of time exchanging views with
non-Catholics here.

MOD NOTE

This is the Christianity forum, i.e it's a discussion forum about Christianity.

No one is forcing you to take part in any of the discussions, so it would be appreciated if you could knock of the belly-aching about interactions with non-Catholics on the forum.

Thanks for your attention.

Matt Markinson

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

I would actively criticise any of those things in any church I saw them in. I'm very critical of lots of things in my own denomination.

I don't think these allegations are false though. Particularly those about the Immaculate Conception and praying to saints and purgatory being unbiblical.

I recognise that my original point was strongly stated but it was strongly stated to get discussion going.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

Criiticims are fine, dealing with repeated false allegations and misrepresentations (not all from you) about what the Church actually teaches are a waste of my time and yours. That's my point. Critisise what the actual teachings and practice is, not what it isn't. There's no point discussing it untill then. I still urge you to talk to your friend about what you saw, rather than call him names here.

Matt Markinson

You could start off by educating yourself about what Anglican Anglo-Catholicism actually teaches about Mariology and why.

Matt Markinson

I also reccomend reading what former Presbyterian and baptist minsters, have to say about Mary, what they thought the Catholic church taught and what it actually does, and how they overcame their own objections. I've pointed people genuinely interested in the truth in the right direction. Until anyone has researched to at least that level, it's a waste of my time and there's discussing it further.

Matt Markinson

PPS I'll know by the level of your post if you have or not.

solodeogloria

Matt Markinson wrote: »

You could start off by educating yourself about what Anglican Anglo-Catholicism actually teaches about Mariology and why.

Good morning!

I'm aware of the differing theological positions in my denomination. I'm not obliged to agree with it. There is no official dogma of the CofE on churchmanship. The 39 Articles of Religion is the closest we get. Even still the teachings of the CofE do not supersede the Bible. The Articles themselves secure a sola scriptura position. No man should be able to profess man made teaching as infallible doctrine.

I think you're conflating not agreeing because the reasoning isn't persuasive to not understanding.

It is simply honest to say that I find praying to saints or to Mary ghastly and out of place Biblically speaking.

If we can't have an honest conversation about this here where can we have it?

I expect professing Catholics to be able to present their position themselves. You should know what your church holds to. I present my understanding from the Bible and that must be the playing ground in terms of what is apostolic.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

Matt Markinson

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

I'm aware of the differing theological positions in my denomination. I'm not obliged to agree with it.

I never said you were, and going by the allegations and misrepresentations you've made, you haven't studied them or what they teach at all.

solodeogloria wrote: »

There is no official dogma of the CofE on churchmanship. The 39 Articles of Religion is the closest we get. Even still the teachings of the CofE do not supersede the Bible. The Articles themselves secure a sola scriptura position. No man should be able to profess man made teaching as infallible doctrine.

Straight away - the 39 articles are not scripture so that's claiming sola scriptura out the window. No teaching in the Catholic church superceeds scripture either, that's another misrepesentation. Quickly - No Catholic tradition can contradict scripture, that's a Church dogma. Secondly if scripture is twisted to contradict an established christian practice, then that's proof that interpretation is false. Thirdly, only those who have the spirirtual authority to interpret scripture can give an accurate interprrtation, that means the whole church, it's Bishops in and the Pope. No single person has that authority. i.e. even the Pope can't change Catholic teaching. (and before anyone tries a red herring, declaring a belief of the Church a dogma is not a new teaching.)


I think you're conflating not agreeing because the reasoning isn't persuasive to not understanding.

solodeogloria wrote: »

It is simply honest to say that I find praying to saints or to Mary ghastly and out of place Biblically speaking.

Then that proves yet again, you haven't studied the actual theology at all, if you did you would merely disagree rather than hysterically claim think it "gastly". Try making that ignorant pronoucement to Anglicans who practice and understand, and see how you get on.

solodeogloria wrote: »

If we can't have an honest conversation about this here where can we have it?

If you can't do it here, I suggest you put your accusations to your Catholic friend about what you saw, instead of slandering and misrepresting them here.

solodeogloria wrote: »

I expect professing Catholics to be able to present their position themselves. You should know what your church holds to. I present my understanding from the Bible and that must be the playing ground in terms of what is apostolic.

Again I can see this has descended into a waste of time where your're only interested in misrepresenting Catholic teaching and my posts. I had my suspicisions, but against my better judement, I gave you the benefit of the doubt and my very limited time, which you have wasted.

What you are doing is very akin to a Catholic claiming that Prodestants whorship the bible, and whorship a book, and therefore they are whorshipping a graven image. That might be forgiveable if they were fed rubbish, and hadn't bothered to ask a Prodestant what they actually believe. If they persisted in making this ignorant claim even after it had been explained to them that's not what Prodestants believe, then it would be a waste of time conversing with them any further. So that's where I leave it. And I'll leave it to you to continue to misrepresent my posts and Catholic teaching. But that is on you, and says more about you than I need to point out.

solodeogloria

Good morning!

Disagreement isn't the same as not understanding.

I disagree with the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church or other churches on this issue. I think we should be honest about our disagreements.

I also disagree that disagreeing with Catholic teaching is slander. I brought up two examples to show how personally I've seen excessive devotion to Mary in practice. I do find it ghastly.

I disagree that criticism of Roman Catholic belief is slander. That's absurd. We should be able to have robust discussions here. I'm sorry that you are offended by my position but there is no right not to be offended.

I'm expressing my honest view. Perhaps my language was inflammatory and if it was I apologise. If you want to demonstrate how these teachings are Biblical I'm happy to hear and to learn. Otherwise I have to disagree.

The suggestion that I've not read anything on these issues isn't true.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

keano_afc

hinault wrote: »

I won't be exchanging further views with you on this topic.

Your default answer when someone points out the errors in what you post. He's probably on the ignore list now too.

Trying to debate with you is an utter waste of time. Why are you even here? All you do is post your opinion and once anyone politely debates it, you go on the defensive and disengage. Like others I disagree with the idea of a Catholic only forum, but maybe its a good idea if all you want out of this place is answers you agree with. Its going to be a lonely place though.

hinault

Matt Markinson wrote: »

I also reccomend reading what former Presbyterian and baptist minsters, have to say about Mary, what they thought the Catholic church taught and what it actually does, and how they overcame their own objections. I've pointed people genuinely interested in the truth in the right direction. Until anyone has researched to at least that level, it's a waste of my time and there's discussing it further.

An excellent point.

I can recommend to the non-Catholics here to read Scott Hahn's book "Rome Sweet Home"

Hahn was a convinced presbyterian. Hahn was a scholar, minister and preacher.

Hahn tells how the majority of the sermons given in his church when he was growing up were not extolling the "virtues" of prebyterianism, but were in fact all about criticising the Catholic Church. In that culture his convinced presbyterianism was in large measure anti-Catholic.

Because of his scholarly pursuits and his intellectual curiosity, he accepted the offer of books cleared from a Catholic parochial house in his locality.
The textbooks were ancient and had been used in the formation of priests.

Hahn began reading the books in his spare time and it struck him that the narrative about the Catholic Church that he had been brought up and lectured about, was at the very least inaccurate when compared to the texts that he was reading.
At practically every point what he had been led to believe was challenged by what these text books saying.

Hahn's intellectual interest was spiked this led him to investigate more and more what Catholicism was about.
He engaged in cross analysis - he took the textbooks and cross referenced them to the Bible. He took papal encyclicals and cross referenced them to the Bible.

Hahn began to realise that everything written in the textbooks and the encyclical could be predicated upon what the Bible said.

He then began asking questions of his fellow presbyterian ministers and he quickly realised that their answers were not as well justified by Scripture as the answers supplied in the encyclicals and Catholic textbooks. This was very painful to Hahn because the presbyterians he was asking questions of had been colleagues, teachers and scholars - friends!
Hahn was concerned that as he moved more toward the Catholic faith that many of friends would turn their backs on him because he had begun to doubt presbyterianism and had begun to embrace Catholicism.

Hahn says in his book that the Mass and Mary were two of the most difficult topics for him, a convicted presbyterian scholar, to accept and understand.

I'd strongly recommend that several people here read Hahn's book.

Here's Hahn briefly discussing Mary
https://stpaulcenter.com/media/video/scott-hahn-on-the-queenship-of-the-blessed-virgin-mary

hinault

Matt Markinson wrote: »

I also reccomend reading what former Presbyterian and baptist minsters, have to say about Mary, what they thought the Catholic church taught and what it actually does, and how they overcame their own objections. I've pointed people genuinely interested in the truth in the right direction. Until anyone has researched to at least that level, it's a waste of my time and there's discussing it further.

An excellent point.

I can recommend to the non-Catholics here to read Scott Hahn's book "Rome Sweet Home"

Hahn was a convinced presbyterian. Hahn was a scholar, minister and preacher.

Hahn tells how the majority of the sermons given in his church when he was growing up were not extolling the "virtues" of prebyterianism, but were in fact all about criticising the Catholic Church. In that culture his convinced presbyterianism was in large measure anti-Catholic.

Because of his scholarly pursuits and his intellectual curiosity, he accepted the offer of books cleared from a Catholic parochial house in his locality.
The textbooks were ancient and had been used in the formation of priests.

Hahn began reading the books in his spare time and it struck him that the narrative about the Catholic Church that he had been brought up and lectured about, was at the very least inaccurate when compared to the texts that he was reading.
At practically every point what he had been led to believe was challenged by what these text books saying.

Hahn's intellectual interest was spiked this led him to investigate more and more what Catholicism was about.
He engaged in cross analysis - he took the textbooks and cross referenced them to the Bible. He took papal encyclicals and cross referenced them to the Bible.

Hahn began to realise that everything written in the textbooks and the encyclical could be predicated upon what the Bible said.

He then began asking questions of his fellow presbyterian ministers and he quickly realised that their answers were not as well justified by Scripture as the answers supplied in the encyclicals and Catholic textbooks. This was very painful to Hahn because the presbyterians he was asking questions of had been colleagues, teachers and scholars - friends!
Hahn was concerned that as he moved more toward the Catholic faith that many of friends would turn their backs on him because he had begun to doubt presbyterianism and had begun to embrace Catholicism.

Hahn says in his book that the Mass and Mary were two of the most difficult topics for him, a convicted presbyterian scholar, to accept and understand.

I'd strongly recommend that several people here read Hahn's book.

Here's Hahn briefly discussing Mary
https://stpaulcenter.com/media/video/scott-hahn-on-the-queenship-of-the-blessed-virgin-mary

Leroy42

hinault wrote: »

An excellent point.

I can recommend to the non-Catholics here to read Scott Hahn's book "Rome Sweet Home"

Hahn was a convinced presbyterian. Hahn was a scholar, minister and preacher.

Hahn tells how the majority of the sermons given in his church when he was growing up were not extolling the "virtues" of prebyterianism, but were in fact all about criticising the Catholic Church. In that culture his convinced presbyterianism was in large measure anti-Catholic.

Because of his scholarly pursuits and his intellectual curiosity, he accepted the offer of books cleared from a Catholic parochial house in his locality.
The textbooks were ancient and had been used in the formation of priests.

Hahn began reading the books in his spare time and it struck him that the narrative about the Catholic Church that he had been brought up and lectured about, was at the very least inaccurate when compared to the texts that he was reading.
At practically every point what he had been led to believe was challenged by what these text books saying.

Hahn's intellectual interest was spiked this led him to investigate more and more what Catholicism was about.
He engaged in cross analysis - he took the textbooks and cross referenced them to the Bible. He took papal encyclicals and cross referenced them to the Bible.

Hahn began to realise that everything written in the textbooks and the encyclical could be predicated upon what the Bible said.

He then began asking questions of his fellow presbyterian ministers and he quickly realised that their answers were not as well justified by Scripture as the answers supplied in the encyclicals and Catholic textbooks. This was very painful to Hahn because the presbyterians he was asking questions of had been colleagues, teachers and scholars - friends!
Hahn was concerned that as he moved more toward the Catholic faith that many of friends would turn their backs on him because he had begun to doubt presbyterianism and had begun to embrace Catholicism.

Hahn says in his book that the Mass and Mary were two of the most difficult topics for him, a convicted presbyterian scholar, to accept and understand.

I'd strongly recommend that several people here read Hahn's book.

So in short, you think that he did a good thing by questioning the faith preached to him, by opening up to other interpretations he was led down a different path.

Yet you seem to think that questions from others is a waste of time!

you still haven't answered the question raised by your statement that Mary was without sin, as otherwise Jesus, being God and so without sin, couldn't have been borne to her and the logical following from that that her parents, and their parents, and their parents etc etc would then also need to be sinless.

And why would Mary not get the original sin like every other person in the world?

keano_afc

Leroy42 wrote: »

So in short, you think that he did a good thing by questioning the faith preached to him, by opening up to other interpretations he was led down a different path.

Yet you seem to think that questions from others is a waste of time!

you still haven't answered the question raised by your statement that Mary was without sin, as otherwise Jesus, being God and so without sin, couldn't have been borne to her and the logical following from that that her parents, and their parents, and their parents etc etc would then also need to be sinless.

And why would Mary not get the original sin like every other person in the world?

Both of us know you wont be getting an answer to any of your queries.

"Welcome to the ignore list"

hinault

Leroy42 wrote: »

So in short, you think that he did a good thing by questioning the faith preached to him, by opening up to other interpretations he was led down a different path.

Yet you seem to think that questions from others is a waste of time!

you still haven't answered the question raised by your statement that Mary was without sin, as otherwise Jesus, being God and so without sin, couldn't have been borne to her and the logical following from that that her parents, and their parents, and their parents etc etc would then also need to be sinless.

And why would Mary not get the original sin like every other person in the world?

Having been given the entire truth, there is no other truth that I or any other Catholic can possibly obtain from any other system of belief.

These are the facts.

In respect of Mary, the absurd point made earlier and to which you refer was answered earlier in this thread by me.

Do you carry the sins of your parents, grandparents and all the rest of your forefathers? Of course you don't.

Leroy42

hinault wrote: »

Do you carry the sins of your parents, grandparents and all the rest of your forefathers? Of course you don't.

Sorry, am I to understand that you do not believe in the concept of original sin? If Mary did not have original sin, then how come, and on what basis, apart from your own imaginings, is that based on? She is full of grace? That is all you have proffered so far.

hinault wrote: »

Mary was conceived without sin. The Bible states that Mary is "full of grace".
What grace? Sanctifying grace.

Mary gave birth to God Incarnate Jesus Christ.
Would He who is without sin be borne by someone who was touched with even a trace of sin?

Jesus Christ is the very antithesis of sin.

It is literally inconceivable that God would select a sinful human woman to conceive and give birth to He who redeems the world.

You raised the issue of Mary being sinless, and stated as fact that Jesus could not be borne to any person connected with sin as the basis for Mary being without sin yet you have failed to give any actual evidence to your opinion.

Leroy42

hinault wrote: »

Having been given the entire truth, there is no other truth that I or any other Catholic can possibly obtain from any other system of belief.

These are the facts.

But Hann thought exactly the same before he started to read and question. Everyone thinks their religion is the one truth, that all others are simply misguided. Arrogance is a sin and for someone to state that their truth is fact, based on nothing more than belief is a curious position to take.

keano_afc

hinault wrote: »

Having been given the entire truth, there is no other truth that I or any other Catholic can possibly obtain from any other system of belief.

These are the facts.

In respect of Mary, the absurd point made earlier and to which you refer was answered earlier in this thread by me.

Do you carry the sins of your parents, grandparents and all the rest of your forefathers? Of course you don't.

That isn't an answer to the question though.

You opine that Mary has to be sinless in order to carry the sinless Saviour. Nick Park quite reasonably asks why the same scenario would not apply to Mary's previous generations if she is sinless. You have failed to respond to this. Can you not answer?

The point was also made about Mary's need for a Saviour which she herself states. Why, in your opinion, would a sinless being need a Saviour? Yet again you have not answered.

As I previously said, your presence in this forum seems to be a complete waste of time. I cant say what I would like to due to the charter, but perhaps you need to evaluate exactly why you post here.

hinault

Leroy42 wrote: »

Sorry, am I to understand that you do not believe in the concept of original sin?

Your understanding is incorrect.

I do believe in Original Sin.
I accept too Church teaching that Mary was born without Original Sin.

Leroy42 wrote: »

If Mary did not have original sin, then how come, and on what basis, apart from your own imaginings, is that based on?

So I imagine the Church's teaching upon Mary being born without Sin?

Church teaching upon Mary being born without Original Sin is centuries old.
In fact this teaching goes back to the gospels.

Mary's cousin Elizabeth refers to Mary as "the mother of my Lord" in the gospel of St.Luke (that's assuming that you read and accept what the Bible teaches).

The Angel Gabriel greets Mary's and refers to Mary saying that she is full of Grace, in the gospel of St.Luke.

The gospel further recounts that Mary herself says "henceforth all generations shall call me blessed"

Leroy42 wrote: »

You raised the issue of Mary being sinless, and stated as fact that Jesus could not be borne to any person connected with sin as the basis for Mary being without sin yet you have failed to give any actual evidence to your opinion.

If you accept the gospel, you accept that God Incarnate was born by Mary.
Presumably you accept this?

Assuming that you do accept this, you accept to that Jesus Christ mission was to redeem the world. Therefore Mary's role as the human mother of Jesus is central to the ministry which redeems the world.

It is not suggested for one second that her role is superior in that mission, because no one can be superior to God.
What is argued is that her role is central as is the role played by St.Joseph.
Mary and Joseph submitted their obedience to the Divine Will of God, through raising Jesus the person, who went on to fulfill his mission.

Could He have entered the world to complete his mission in another way? For sure He could.
But that's not the focus in this regard. The focus in this regard is how an individual submitted themselves to His will, rather than His will being imposed on people.

One final point, Jesus fulfilled the commandments.
One of those commandments is Honour your father and mother.
The Church following that commandment honour Mary and Joseph, in the same way that Jesus honoured both of them during his ministry on Earth.

Postscript: this link to the Catechismal teaching about Mary is a good summation
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p122a3p2.htm

hinault

Leroy42 wrote: »

But Hann thought exactly the same before he started to read and question. Everyone thinks their religion is the one truth, that all others are simply misguided. Arrogance is a sin and for someone to state that their truth is fact, based on nothing more than belief is a curious position to take.

Hahn did not possess the full truth. His conversion is authentic testimony to that.

Hahn's description of presbyterian sermons validate the view that the entire premise of prebyterianism is based not on what it proposes, but on what it opposes namely the Catholic Church.

By the grace of God, Hahn's intellectual curiosity was the catalyst which would eventually bring him home spiritually.

Saying that ones possesses the full truth isn't arrogance. It is a statement of fact.

Leroy42

hinault wrote: »

Hahn did not possess the full truth. His conversion is authentic testimony to that.

Hahn's description of presbyterian sermons validate the view that the entire premise of prebyterianism is based not on what it proposes, but on what it opposes namely the Catholic Church.

By the grace of God, Hahn's intellectual curiosity was the catalyst which would eventually bring him home spiritually.

Saying that ones possesses the full truth isn't arrogance. It is a statement of fact.

It is a statement of fact according to you. You have nothing to actually base that fact on, part from your belief in that fact. I'm not questioning your belief, I'm not even questioning if it could be right, but to claim it as the only truth, doesn't that remove the need for faith.

You have no more access to the truth than anyone else, you have not seen heaven, you have not seen God. You may well be right, but even if there is a God, why would there only be one? Why not two, or ten, or the magic 12 number so beloved of Jesus.

History is full of people claiming to be gods, but you think that your book is the real one, the only one

Hann thought he had the truth, until he looked elsewhere. Are you really saying that you just happened to be born into a society that already had the truth and therefore there is no need to look any further. And you don't think that is arrogant?

uck51js9zml2yt

hinault wrote: »

Having been given the entire truth, there is no other truth that I or any other Catholic can possibly obtain from any other system of belief.

These are the facts.

In respect of Mary, the absurd point made earlier and to which you refer was answered earlier in this thread by me.

Do you carry the sins of your parents, grandparents and all the rest of your forefathers? Of course you don't.

Hinault wont see this, so maybe someone who isnt on ignore can ask it .

The bit in bold is contradiction of an earlier comment he made about Mary needing to be sinless to prevent sin being passed to Jesus.

If he accepts that we dont carry the sins of our parents etc how can Jesus have been contaminated with the sin of Mary?

If there was an emoji to show a head banging off a wall I'd use it here:rolleyes:

hinault

Leroy42 wrote: »

It is a statement of fact according to you. You have nothing to actually base that fact on, part from your belief in that fact. I'm not questioning your belief, I'm not even questioning if it could be right, but to claim it as the only truth, doesn't that remove the need for faith.

You have no more access to the truth than anyone else, you have not seen heaven, you have not seen God. You may well be right, but even if there is a God, why would there only be one? Why not two, or ten, or the magic 12 number so beloved of Jesus.

OK, Let's cut to the chase here.
Which system of believe is the Truth?

If as you claim Catholicism isn't the Truth, tell me which other system of belief is the Truth.

There can only be one Truth - if that Ttruth is not Catholicism, tell me which system belief is the Truth.

hinault

Leroy42 wrote: »

I
Hann thought he had the truth, until he looked elsewhere. Are you really saying that you just happened to be born into a society that already had the truth and therefore there is no need to look any further. And you don't think that is arrogant?

Hahn realised that what he had believed in, was not the Truth because he subsequently received the Truth through Catholicism.

Leroy42

hinault wrote: »

OK, Let's cut to the chase here.
Which system of believe is the Truth?

If as you claim Catholicism isn't the Truth, tell me which other system of belief is the Truth.

There can only be one Truth - if that Ttruth is not Catholicism, tell me which system belief is the Truth.

I have no idea. I don't claim that Catholicism isn't the truth it may very well be. How would I know?

But you don't know either. You think you know, you base your belief on certain belief's, such as the message in the bible, but nobody, well except God I suppose, really knows the truth.

And therein lies the difference. Religions people, of all hues, claim that their belief is the truth and all others, based on no more evidence that their belief, are wrong.

I fully accept their right to hold that belief, and fully acknowledge that their belief is based on real convictions, but that does not make it true.

What makes it even more odd it that many of the tenants of their belief is based on their own interpretations of the bible. They don't take the words at face value but have to try to put interpretations on each passage that helps it fit with their belief.

So Mary is considered born without sin because in St Lukes gospel states that the angel Gabriel said she was full of grace. But Luke wasn't there, we don't even have the original document and some of the earliest versions we do have have differences in them. But even if the angel did say that, why not just say she was born without sin. It requires firstly a belief in the actual story, then an acceptance of the verbatim recording even though in many cases the people writing them were not there, and even after that it requires a great deal of interpretation to come to any truth as you see it.

Leroy42

hinault wrote: »

Hahn realised that what he had believed in, was not the Truth because he subsequently received the Truth through Catholicism.

Until he reads something else which sounds more like the truth he seeks!

hinault

Leroy42 wrote: »

I have no idea. I don't claim that Catholicism isn't the truth it may very well be. How would I know?

But you don't know either.

You don't know :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

OK, you don't know who possesses the Truth.

Do you accept that there is the Truth?

hinault

Leroy42 wrote: »

I fully accept their right to hold that belief, and fully acknowledge that their belief is based on real convictions, but that does not make it true.

What you fully accept and what you fully acknowledge is meaningless and not worth anything to anyone else - except you.

hinault

Leroy42 wrote: »

So Mary is considered born without sin because in St Lukes gospel states that the angel Gabriel said she was full of grace. But Luke wasn't there, we don't even have the original document and some of the earliest versions we do have have differences in them. But even if the angel did say that, why not just say she was born without sin. It requires firstly a belief in the actual story, then an acceptance of the verbatim recording even though in many cases the people writing them were not there, and even after that it requires a great deal of interpretation to come to any truth as you see it.

You don't accept the NT account given in St.Lukes gospel?

Can we cut to the chase here - are you an atheist/agnostic?

Leroy42

hinault wrote: »

What you fully accept and what you fully acknowledge is meaningless and not worth anything to anyone else - except you.

Exactly, glad you finally agree with me

hinault

Leroy42 wrote: »

Until he reads something else which sounds more like the truth he seeks!

You don't accept Dr.Scott Hahn's testimony?

hinault

Leroy42 wrote: »

Exactly, glad you finally agree with me

I don't agree with you because you appear to think that your acknowledging anyone else's right to belief in something, has some value.
It doesn't. It's meaningless.

Leroy42

hinault wrote: »

You don't know :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

OK, you don't know who possesses the Truth.

Do you accept that there is the Truth?

Yes, I accept that there is A truth, there is an answer. I have no idea what that answer is. Either do you. You think you do, you are convinced you do, but any logical look at it means that you cannot possibly know. The whole of religion is even based on faith.

hinault wrote: »

You don't accept the NT account given in St.Lukes gospel?

Can we cut to the chase here - are you an atheist/agnostic?

What difference does it make what I believe. That doesn't change anything. I am free to question, just as Hann questioned, and I am merely asking you to provide evidence of your belief. If I am Jewish does that in some way demote my questioning. Are only true believers allowed to question, but of course a true believer doesn't question they simply accept the statements from the church.

If by accepting you mean without question, then I guess I don't accept it. I have never thought of it like that until now though.

As I said in other threads I do accept the beliefs, but am open enough to question them. My belief does not rely on a fixed, never moving and never questioned belief in what others have told me.

When I am asking a question about 'facts' someone has raised and their answer to me is to question my motives for the question rather than providing evidence then I deem that 'fact' to be their belief, not a fact.

I certainly do not believe that God wants us to simply forsake our freewill in subservience of him, if he did he would simply take away freewill. I believe he wants us to follow him because we have arrived at that point where it makes sense to do so, not because the church told us too, or deemed a certain interpretation to be the truth. I believe that it is this ability to think that separates us from other living things and that God gave us that ability on purpose.

Leroy42

hinault wrote: »

You don't accept Dr.Scott Hahn's testimony?

I don't personally know the man, I can only go on the things that he says, which I take at face value. I have no reason to no accept them.

However, you seem to fully accept that this man, who so firmly believed what he was told before, but then changed his mind when presented with a new truth, would be incapable of changing his mind again if presented with something else.