curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

It's nice to think about the possibility that our loved ones in heaven can see us and hear us. The bible doesn't specifically say that they can't, so it would be wrong to dogmatically claim that. When I say that we shouldn't "pray" to our late loved ones, this doesn't mean talking out loud to them with short messages, like "I love you and miss you" or "I'm sorry I didn't treat you better" or whatever, in the hopes that they are able to hear you. I find myself doing that occasionally. Perhaps God allows us to have a special spiritual connection with those we had special connections with while they were alive on earth. That would be wonderful if true, but we don't know. So if someone wants to do that, I don't think that is necessarily unbiblical and an offense to God.

What I mean by "prayer" is that you do it like you do for God - there is the full belief that not only the person you're praying to has the ability to hear you, but also that an appeal to them can effect an outcome. With God, it is worshipful. It means humbling oneself and perhaps bowing, getting on your knees, hands together, etc. and then communicating spiritually with God. Praises and thanks are given, forgiveness and blessings are asked for, supplications are made. This is what Catholics do to Mary, and to a lesser degree perhaps, to saints. And as we've seen from Catholic prayers to Mary, there is even the elevation of Mary to the level of Jesus. That is what is wrong. This kind of spiritual, worshipful communication is reserved for God alone, and elevating Mary in that way is idolatry.

---

As an Anglican, I don't pretend to speak for Roman Catholics, but I'm fairly sure there is nothing in the Roman Catechism that elevates Mary to the level of Jesus. You may have misconstrued or misunderstood. As you accuse others of Mariolatry, you are likely guilty of Bibliolatry. This is typical of many Protestants, in general. They claim Sola Scriptura (or some combo of Solas), yet insist that their individual interpretation must be the only correct one.

---

Did you read the prayers in The Glories of Mary that I posted above? If you can not discern that those elevate Mary to that of Jesus, then you are either dishonest, or deceived.

Bibliolatry? Yeah, that's called....Christianity.

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
Catholicism elevates Mary's attributes and role to that of Jesus and the Father. This is pure idolatry. I ask my Catholic friends to take a step back and look at this for what it truly is. Stop with the prayers, veneration(worship!), and dedication to Mary, and stop with the disingenuous biblical exegesis/eisegesis and fallacious, convoluted ad hoc explanations to justify such. REPENT - and start giving your prayers, worship, and dedication to Jesus only - lest you one day hear these frightful, terrible words from Jesus: "I never knew you. Depart from me."

---

Elevating Mary's attributes - No. Catholics don't do that. EVERYTHING "attributed" to Mary is ONLY because of her Son. One can NOT love Mary more than Jesus did. Once again, veneration is NOT worship. It is great respect; reverence.

Giving Mary respect and honor as the Mother of God makes Jesus happy. Would you be happy if someone told you, Oh, I just love your mother! She is so sweet and always cheers me up when I'm down. She's a great friend and blessing in my life!"?

Would you be jealous? Would you be angry? No! Neither is Jesus when we appreciate His Mother.

I would dire you, or anyone else to sincerely ask the Blessed Virgin Mary to pray (or intercede) for you for 9 days - a novena. Ask for something very difficult. Maybe it's a removal of a "thorn" from your body. Maybe it's difficult work, family, or financial situation. Whatever. We all have difficult crosses to bear.

If you are worried about idolatry, try a simple pray like,

"Dear Father in Heaven, if this prayer is idolatry or sinful, please forgive me … Dear Blessed Mother, please pray for me for this matter (whatever it is you desire help with.)"

Worse case, in 9 days nothing happens, and God knows that you did not commit a sin because it was a test.

Best case, the "thorn" is removed and you see that Mary can intercede for people.

---

Again, if you can't see this as elevating Mary to the role of Jesus, and see that as idolatry, then you are deceived.

I will never dare to pray to Mary and commit idolatry. Jesus gave us NO indication in his Word that we are to pray, worship, and venerate anyone but him. So that is what I will obey.

Question: why did Catholicism REMOVE the part about bowing to idols in the Ten Commandments? Please really think about this. And I ask that YOU pray ONLY to Jesus, to give you the Holy Spirit so you can discern whether what you're doing is idolatry or not.

---

You make the typical mistake of conflating asking someone to pray for you with "praying to" that person. This is simply wrong. Your invalid assumptions lead to invalid conclusions.

---

You have to pray "to" someone who isn't alive on earth anymore, in order to ask them to pray for you. Your mistake is conflating "asking" with "praying". They are not the same.

And NOWHERE in scripture are we instructed to pray to anyone but God alone. There is no indication whatsoever that people in heaven can even hear our prayers. And that's assuming who you're praying to is indeed in heaven and not hell. Stop praying to Mary, and pray directly to Jesus. Praying to Mary is an offense to Jesus' character because you are saying He isn't powerful enough, loving enough, or desiring enough to want to hear from you and deal with you directly.

Revelation 3:20 - "Behold, I (Jesus) stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me."

JESUS is knocking. JESUS wants you to open the door to HIM. JESUS will come in, JESUS will eat with you, and you with HIM.

JESUS wants this personal relationship with you. YOU directly. NOT through Mary, NOT through the saints, NOT through anyone else.

---

No, you don't have to "pray to someone who isn't alive on earth anymore in order to ask them to pray for you". I am not praying to my late father or Mary when I ask them to intercede. You are just wrong. Of course JESUS wants a personal relationship with you directly. These things are not mutually exclusive just because you claim they are. Sorry for your blindness to the fullness of the faith. It is your loss.

---

Oh, you're not praying to your late father or Mary?? What, you have their heavenly telephone number and call them collect??

Prayer is spiritual communication. We are commanded to pray to God, who hears us in Spirit. We don't have to verbalize because God hears our thoughts. Saying that your late father or Mary can "hear" your thoughts is giving them attributes that God only possesses. You have absolutely nothing in scripture that tells you they have that kind of ability.

If you are committing idolatry, then YES, it IS mutually exclusive! You won't be able to have a close personal relationship with Jesus because of the ongoing sin of idolatry, for which you are unrepentant.

HOW would it be my "loss" in the "fullness of faith"?? Are you saying that going to directly to Jesus is somehow LESSER than going through dead saints and Mary? That Jesus isn't enough? That Jesus is DEFICIENT?

There is indeed blindness here. I really hope you strongly consider everything I've said, and open your heart to the truth.

---

Love your use of CAPS, btw. Makes your case so compelling. That you choose to reject what the majority of Christians who have ever lived believed and practiced is YOUR problem (did it work?). How do you know only God hears our requests for prayers? You may believe that most sincerely, but cannot prove it. Cutting yourself off from the intercessions of others is your "loss". Does asking others to pray for you render Jesus LESSER or DEFICIENT? Of course NOT. Saints are NOT DEAD and neither is Mary. There is indeed blindness here. I really hope you strongly consider everything I've said and open your heart to the truth.

---

Neither is a compelling case made by the criticism of the use of CAPS. Neither is the use of the fallacy of the majority. But nevertheless....

If it can not be proven that only God can hear prayers....should that give one license to believe that anyone they want can hear prayers?? We need scriptural proof if it is to be a Christian belief. And if it can't be proven that only God hears prayers....then likewise it can't be proven that Mary or the saints can hear them. Therefore, it can't be proven that intercessions are even a real thing, which then by extension means that "cutting yourself off" from those intercessions can't be asserted as a loss.

So why not just stick with what the bible claims, and stop trying to make claims for ourselves?

curtpenn said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Giving Mary respect and honor as the Mother of God makes Jesus happy. Would you be happy if someone told you, Oh, I just love your mother! She is so sweet and always cheers me up when I'm down. She's a great friend and blessing in my life!"?

---

Sure, I'd be very happy, if say, my wife were to say that about my mother.

If, however, I want to have a close relationship with my wife, but she keeps going to my mother to give her messages to relay to me instead of just coming to me directly; or she keeps going to my mother to have her tell me her wants and needs; or when she gets in trouble she keeps calling my mother to get me to help her instead of calling me directly for help; and when I look around our house, I keep seeing her hanging up pictures and statues of my mother, often kissing them and talking to them......

....I'd start thinking she really loves my mother, and not me. I'd start thinking she was afraid of me, doesn't trust me, doesn't feel close to me, and feels like she needs my mother to tell me things so that I'd listen. Worst of all, I'd think that she doesn't think I love her enough to want to deal with her and her alone directly. If I wanted to have a close relationship with my wife, I'd feel very offended and hurt by all that.

So no, I wouldn't like that at all. Not one bit. And neither would anyone else. And especially not Jesus.

---

Do you ever pray for your wife? Does she ever pray for you?

---

I'm sure.

But if my wife kept praying for my mother, that my mother would pray for me, instead of praying for me directly, then that would be an issue.

---

Asking Mary to pray for you is no different than asking your wife to pray for you.

---

Pretty sure my wife would disagree ...

---

Sad for you both then.

---

Sorry, I was making a joke. As in, my wife would not want other non-family women involved in my prayers anymore than she would want me chatting with them socially.

To the more serious question, I will have to get back to you, busy day today and I will be away from the site all day.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mary was sinless because of Christ.

The fallacy would only apply if you were talking to someone outside the tradition, like an unbeliever or an apostate. Applying it this context is like accusing a constitutional lawyer of appealing to the Constitution. The whole debate we're having is about interpreting a tradition.

---

But not sinless because of Jesus' sacrifice, according to Catholic belief.

The fallacy is that 2000 years of Catholic belief and practice means it is more correct than a belief and practice that isn't as old.

---

It is because of Jesus' sacrifice, according to Catholic belief.

---

If that's true, then the Catholic belief is incoherent. A sacrifice is for those with sin, not without.

---

There's no sinlessness without the sacrifice.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Neither is a compelling case made by the criticism of the use of CAPS. Neither is the use of the fallacy of the majority. But nevertheless....

If it can not be proven that only God can hear prayers....should that give one license to believe that anyone they want can hear prayers?? We need scriptural proof if it is to be a Christian belief. And if it can't be proven that only God hears prayers....then likewise it can't be proven that Mary or the saints can hear them. Therefore, it can't be proven that intercessions are even a real thing, which then by extension means that "cutting yourself off" from those intercessions can't be asserted as a loss.

So why not just stick with what the bible claims, and stop trying to make claims for ourselves?

---

Lots of "ifs" in your comment. Here's another one: If it can't be "proven" that only God hears prayers then it can't be proven that the cloud of witnesses (Heb 12:1) that surround us can't hear us.

Ironic that you ultimately appeal to authority when the authority to which you appeal, Holy Scripture, largely exists in its canonical form thanks to the workings of the Holy Spirit via the Catholic Church undivided.

You understand that all of these arguments are circular, right? You can only assert that your personal interpretation of a document must be correct because you say it is. I subscribe to the Anglican notion (via Richard Hooker) of Prima Scriptura as opposed to Sola Scriptura. The Bible is the primary source, but its interpretation must be informed by reason and tradition (collected historical teaching). Holy Scripture does not exist in a vacuum.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Here's another excerpt from The Glories of Mary, by St. Alphonsus de Ligouri. This book is sanctioned and promoted by the Catholic Church. It has gone through 800 editions. It has been quoted by Popes and bishops for many, many years. Alphonsus de Ligouri was even made a Doctor of the Church, a title given to only 37 Catholic saints to date, a prestigious and exclusive title bestowed by the Pope for those saints who made "outstanding contribution....to the understanding and interpretation of the sacred Scriptures and the development of Christian doctrine." (D'Ambrosio, link here)


...from Prayer to Our Lady of Perpetual Help #7

O Mother of Perpetual Help,

thou art the dispenser of every grace
that God grants us in our misery;
it is for this cause that He hath made thee so powerful,
so rich, so kind,
that thou mightest assist us in our miseries.
Thou art the advocate of the most wretched
and abandoned sinners,
if they but come unto thee;
come once more to my assistance,
for I commend myself to thee.
In thy hands I place my eternal salvation;
to thee I entrust my soul.....


In this Catholic Prayer, Mary is called the "advocate" of sinners. But the bible explicitly says that our advocate is Jesus: 1 John 2:1 - "But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate before the Father - Jesus Christ, the Righteous One."

This prayer also says to entrust the salvation of one's soul to Mary, not Jesus. I don't think this needs any explanation as to why this is absolutely heretical.

Catholicism elevates Mary's attributes and role to that of Jesus and the Father. This is pure idolatry. I ask my Catholic friends to take a step back and look at this for what it truly is. Stop with the prayers, veneration(worship!), and dedication to Mary, and stop with the disingenuous biblical exegesis/eisegesis and fallacious, convoluted ad hoc explanations to justify such. REPENT - and start giving your prayers, worship, and dedication to Jesus only - lest you one day hear these frightful, terrible words from Jesus: "I never knew you. Depart from me."

---

You place your own interpretation on the above and condemn those who receive this differently. Anyone who intercedes on our behalf is of course an advocate. This is the definition of advocate. Invoking Mary as our advocate is no different than you invoking your wife or pastor to advocate/pray for you.

"In thy hands I place my eternal salvation;
to thee I entrust my soul....."

This suggests the supplicant already has eternal salvation and a soul so that he is worthy of Mary's advocacy. No heresy there. It may be that some Catholics elevate Mary to some level with which you are uncomfortable, but it simply isn't true that "Catholicism elevates Mary's attributes and role to that of Jesus and the Father". Your hasty generalization fallacy does not stand.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mary was sinless because of Christ.

The fallacy would only apply if you were talking to someone outside the tradition, like an unbeliever or an apostate. Applying it this context is like accusing a constitutional lawyer of appealing to the Constitution. The whole debate we're having is about interpreting a tradition.

---

But not sinless because of Jesus' sacrifice, according to Catholic belief.

The fallacy is that 2000 years of Catholic belief and practice means it is more correct than a belief and practice that isn't as old.

---

It is because of Jesus' sacrifice, according to Catholic belief.

---

If that's true, then the Catholic belief is incoherent. A sacrifice is for those with sin, not without.

---

There's no sinlessness without the sacrifice.

---

Yes, exactly. The sacrifice for those with sin.

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Neither is a compelling case made by the criticism of the use of CAPS. Neither is the use of the fallacy of the majority. But nevertheless....

If it can not be proven that only God can hear prayers....should that give one license to believe that anyone they want can hear prayers?? We need scriptural proof if it is to be a Christian belief. And if it can't be proven that only God hears prayers....then likewise it can't be proven that Mary or the saints can hear them. Therefore, it can't be proven that intercessions are even a real thing, which then by extension means that "cutting yourself off" from those intercessions can't be asserted as a loss.

So why not just stick with what the bible claims, and stop trying to make claims for ourselves?

---

Lots of "ifs" in your comment. Here's another one: If it can't be "proven" that only God hears prayers then it can't be proven that the cloud of witnesses (Heb 12:1) that surround us can't hear us.

Ironic that you ultimately appeal to authority when the authority to which you appeal, Holy Scripture, largely exists in its canonical form thanks to the workings of the Holy Spirit via the Catholic Church undivided.

You understand that all of these arguments are circular, right? You can only assert that your personal interpretation of a document must be correct because you say it is. I subscribe to the Anglican notion (via Richard Hooker) of Prima Scriptura as opposed to Sola Scriptura. The Bible is the primary source, but its interpretation must be informed by reason and tradition (collected historical teaching). Holy Scripture does not exist in a vacuum.

---

Your first paragraph is only supporting my point. We are told God hears our prayers. We are not told any saint or Mary can. Follow the bible, not man made traditions which are fallible.

The Catholic Church was not around when the Old Testament (Law and Prophets) was compiled. Jesus affirmed the inerrancy and authority of it, when he said it can't be broken and every jot and tittle must be accomplished. Therefore, the authority of the Old Testament is verified to Christians even before the Catholic Church "canonized" it centuries later.

We have evidence that the earliest Christians were already circulating the four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as their authority. Long before any Catholic council. And the letters of Paul are authoritative in themselves as the writings of one of the first apostles. It's kind of "no duh" that these books are what Christians should use.

Yes, Catholics contributed to the process of canonization. But an accurate understanding of history tells us that no single authority or council ultimately decided on a limited set of books out of all the books that were out there. You have to get your history away from Dan Brown novels. The truth is that the earliest Christians already had considered these books are the authoritative word of God. The Catholic Church just made it "official". Did that require the Holy Spirit's influence? Absolutely. But the argument is NOT that the Catholic Church is NEVER influenced by the Holy Spirit. But when they aren't, it is clear that they aren't, Mariology being an example. The beliefs in the Catholic Church today about Mary would never even have entered the minds of the earliest Christians. in fact, they most certainly would have considered these heretical.

Whatever "tradition" you want to include as authoritative as the bible, it at least must not conflict with the bible. If it does, then the tradition must be thrown out. I disagree that my argument is circular. Jesus himself validated the Old Testament in its entirety, and Jesus was authoritative due to the first hand eyewitness testimonies that we have today in the Gospels and Paul's letters about his resurrection. Their testimonies are validated by their first hand eyewitness and their willingness to suffer persecution and die for proclaiming it. This is an appeal to authority that is stamped by actual history. The argument for the Catholic beliefs about Mary do not come close to this.

If you're looking for a circular argument, then look no further than the Catholic Church - "we are the authority of Jesus' Church, and only we can decide what the bible says. Why do we have this authority? Well, because the bible says we do. And only we can decide what it says."

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Here's another excerpt from The Glories of Mary, by St. Alphonsus de Ligouri. This book is sanctioned and promoted by the Catholic Church. It has gone through 800 editions. It has been quoted by Popes and bishops for many, many years. Alphonsus de Ligouri was even made a Doctor of the Church, a title given to only 37 Catholic saints to date, a prestigious and exclusive title bestowed by the Pope for those saints who made "outstanding contribution....to the understanding and interpretation of the sacred Scriptures and the development of Christian doctrine." (D'Ambrosio, link here)


...from Prayer to Our Lady of Perpetual Help #7

O Mother of Perpetual Help,

thou art the dispenser of every grace
that God grants us in our misery;
it is for this cause that He hath made thee so powerful,
so rich, so kind,
that thou mightest assist us in our miseries.
Thou art the advocate of the most wretched
and abandoned sinners,
if they but come unto thee;
come once more to my assistance,
for I commend myself to thee.
In thy hands I place my eternal salvation;
to thee I entrust my soul.....


In this Catholic Prayer, Mary is called the "advocate" of sinners. But the bible explicitly says that our advocate is Jesus: 1 John 2:1 - "But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate before the Father - Jesus Christ, the Righteous One."

This prayer also says to entrust the salvation of one's soul to Mary, not Jesus. I don't think this needs any explanation as to why this is absolutely heretical.

Catholicism elevates Mary's attributes and role to that of Jesus and the Father. This is pure idolatry. I ask my Catholic friends to take a step back and look at this for what it truly is. Stop with the prayers, veneration(worship!), and dedication to Mary, and stop with the disingenuous biblical exegesis/eisegesis and fallacious, convoluted ad hoc explanations to justify such. REPENT - and start giving your prayers, worship, and dedication to Jesus only - lest you one day hear these frightful, terrible words from Jesus: "I never knew you. Depart from me."

---

You place your own interpretation on the above and condemn those who receive this differently. Anyone who intercedes on our behalf is of course an advocate. This is the definition of advocate. Invoking Mary as our advocate is no different than you invoking your wife or pastor to advocate/pray for you.

"In thy hands I place my eternal salvation;
to thee I entrust my soul....."

This suggests the supplicant already has eternal salvation and a soul so that he is worthy of Mary's advocacy. No heresy there. It may be that some Catholics elevate Mary to some level with which you are uncomfortable, but it simply isn't true that "Catholicism elevates Mary's attributes and role to that of Jesus and the Father". Your hasty generalization fallacy does not stand.

---

If you are saying that the belief in placing one's eternal salvation in the hands of someone other than Jesus, and entrusting your soul to anyone but Jesus/God isn't absolutely heretical, then quite simply it's the three D's: you are either dumb, dishonest, or deceived (I could add a fourth "d" - demonic). Seriously - making desperate reaches, ad hoc arguments, and mental gymnastic workarounds like this just makes you look silly to the rational world.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Here's another excerpt from The Glories of Mary, by St. Alphonsus de Ligouri. This book is sanctioned and promoted by the Catholic Church. It has gone through 800 editions. It has been quoted by Popes and bishops for many, many years. Alphonsus de Ligouri was even made a Doctor of the Church, a title given to only 37 Catholic saints to date, a prestigious and exclusive title bestowed by the Pope for those saints who made "outstanding contribution....to the understanding and interpretation of the sacred Scriptures and the development of Christian doctrine." (D'Ambrosio, link here)


...from Prayer to Our Lady of Perpetual Help #7

O Mother of Perpetual Help,

thou art the dispenser of every grace
that God grants us in our misery;
it is for this cause that He hath made thee so powerful,
so rich, so kind,
that thou mightest assist us in our miseries.
Thou art the advocate of the most wretched
and abandoned sinners,
if they but come unto thee;
come once more to my assistance,
for I commend myself to thee.
In thy hands I place my eternal salvation;
to thee I entrust my soul.....


In this Catholic Prayer, Mary is called the "advocate" of sinners. But the bible explicitly says that our advocate is Jesus: 1 John 2:1 - "But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate before the Father - Jesus Christ, the Righteous One."

This prayer also says to entrust the salvation of one's soul to Mary, not Jesus. I don't think this needs any explanation as to why this is absolutely heretical.

Catholicism elevates Mary's attributes and role to that of Jesus and the Father. This is pure idolatry. I ask my Catholic friends to take a step back and look at this for what it truly is. Stop with the prayers, veneration(worship!), and dedication to Mary, and stop with the disingenuous biblical exegesis/eisegesis and fallacious, convoluted ad hoc explanations to justify such. REPENT - and start giving your prayers, worship, and dedication to Jesus only - lest you one day hear these frightful, terrible words from Jesus: "I never knew you. Depart from me."

---

You place your own interpretation on the above and condemn those who receive this differently. Anyone who intercedes on our behalf is of course an advocate. This is the definition of advocate. Invoking Mary as our advocate is no different than you invoking your wife or pastor to advocate/pray for you.

"In thy hands I place my eternal salvation;
to thee I entrust my soul....."

This suggests the supplicant already has eternal salvation and a soul so that he is worthy of Mary's advocacy. No heresy there. It may be that some Catholics elevate Mary to some level with which you are uncomfortable, but it simply isn't true that "Catholicism elevates Mary's attributes and role to that of Jesus and the Father". Your hasty generalization fallacy does not stand.

---

If you are saying that the belief in placing one's hands in your eternal salvation in someone other than Jesus, and entrusting your soul to anyone but Jesus/God isn't absolutely heretical, then quite simply it's the three D's: you are either dumb, dishonest, or deceived (I could add a fourth "d" - demonic). Seriously - making desperate reaches, ad hoc arguments, and mental gymnastic workarounds like this just makes you look silly to the rational world.

---

Everything you accuse me of is exactly what you are doing. Look in the mirror. Mental gymnastics are your specialty. This just makes you look silly to the rational world. All you have is a ridiculous straw man.

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Here's another excerpt from The Glories of Mary, by St. Alphonsus de Ligouri. This book is sanctioned and promoted by the Catholic Church. It has gone through 800 editions. It has been quoted by Popes and bishops for many, many years. Alphonsus de Ligouri was even made a Doctor of the Church, a title given to only 37 Catholic saints to date, a prestigious and exclusive title bestowed by the Pope for those saints who made "outstanding contribution....to the understanding and interpretation of the sacred Scriptures and the development of Christian doctrine." (D'Ambrosio, link here)


...from Prayer to Our Lady of Perpetual Help #7

O Mother of Perpetual Help,

thou art the dispenser of every grace
that God grants us in our misery;
it is for this cause that He hath made thee so powerful,
so rich, so kind,
that thou mightest assist us in our miseries.
Thou art the advocate of the most wretched
and abandoned sinners,
if they but come unto thee;
come once more to my assistance,
for I commend myself to thee.
In thy hands I place my eternal salvation;
to thee I entrust my soul.....


In this Catholic Prayer, Mary is called the "advocate" of sinners. But the bible explicitly says that our advocate is Jesus: 1 John 2:1 - "But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate before the Father - Jesus Christ, the Righteous One."

This prayer also says to entrust the salvation of one's soul to Mary, not Jesus. I don't think this needs any explanation as to why this is absolutely heretical.

Catholicism elevates Mary's attributes and role to that of Jesus and the Father. This is pure idolatry. I ask my Catholic friends to take a step back and look at this for what it truly is. Stop with the prayers, veneration(worship!), and dedication to Mary, and stop with the disingenuous biblical exegesis/eisegesis and fallacious, convoluted ad hoc explanations to justify such. REPENT - and start giving your prayers, worship, and dedication to Jesus only - lest you one day hear these frightful, terrible words from Jesus: "I never knew you. Depart from me."

---

You place your own interpretation on the above and condemn those who receive this differently. Anyone who intercedes on our behalf is of course an advocate. This is the definition of advocate. Invoking Mary as our advocate is no different than you invoking your wife or pastor to advocate/pray for you.

"In thy hands I place my eternal salvation;
to thee I entrust my soul....."

This suggests the supplicant already has eternal salvation and a soul so that he is worthy of Mary's advocacy. No heresy there. It may be that some Catholics elevate Mary to some level with which you are uncomfortable, but it simply isn't true that "Catholicism elevates Mary's attributes and role to that of Jesus and the Father". Your hasty generalization fallacy does not stand.

---

If you are saying that the belief in placing one's hands in your eternal salvation in someone other than Jesus, and entrusting your soul to anyone but Jesus/God isn't absolutely heretical, then quite simply it's the three D's: you are either dumb, dishonest, or deceived (I could add a fourth "d" - demonic). Seriously - making desperate reaches, ad hoc arguments, and mental gymnastic workarounds like this just makes you look silly to the rational world.

---

Everything you accuse me of is exactly what you are doing. Look in the mirror. Mental gymnastics are your specialty. This just makes you look silly to the rational world. All you have is a ridiculous straw man.

---

So your argument is, in essence, "I know you are, but what am I?"?

This isn't difficult - If you can't see that placing one's eternal salvation and soul in the hands of anyone else but Jesus is heretical in Christianity, then you are either deficient in intelligent thought, or you're in denial and lying, or you are not in the truth of the Holy Spirit (which includes demonic). There just isn't any other option. This isn't mental gymnastics, this is swinging your arms when you walk. I have absolutely no idea what you mean by "straw man", because you chose not to explain your argument, instead you chose to just throw back my argument against me. Btw, you should try to come up with your own words instead of just repeating back what I said verbatim. It makes for much more interesting conversation.

Question for the Catholics:

Here are the Ten Commandments according to the Catholic Church (just the first two):

• I am the Lord your God: You shall not have strange Gods before me.
• You shall not take the name of the Lord God in vain.

Now here are the Ten Commandments as they are written in the Bible (just the first part, for comparison):

""I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.

"You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain"......

Question: why did the Catholic Church remove the whole part about graven images and bowing to them?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Question for the Catholics:

Here are the Ten Commandments according to the Catholic Church (just the first two):

• I am the Lord your God: You shall not have strange Gods before me.
• You shall not take the name of the Lord God in vain.

Now here are the Ten Commandments as they are written in the Bible (just the first part, for comparison):

""I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.

"You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain"......

Question: why did the Catholic Church remove the whole part about graven images and bowing to them?

---

https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07664a.htm

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Question for the Catholics:

Here are the Ten Commandments according to the Catholic Church (just the first two):

• I am the Lord your God: You shall not have strange Gods before me.
• You shall not take the name of the Lord God in vain.

Now here are the Ten Commandments as they are written in the Bible (just the first part, for comparison):

""I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.

"You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain"......

Question: why did the Catholic Church remove the whole part about graven images and bowing to them?

---

https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07664a.htm

---

I'm not looking for a "just google it" response. Providing a link to support your own explanation is fine, but not a link just by itself. Give me your explanation how this link explains how Catholics justify removing a part of the Ten Commandments. There'd better be a really, really good explanation for removing something from God's word - if a good explanation can even exist for messing with Scripture. Especially since Catholics ostensibly deem Scripture to be supremely authoritative. The obvious appearance to any rational, intelligent person is that this is evidence of the Catholic Church's full knowledge of their guilt.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Here's another excerpt from The Glories of Mary, by St. Alphonsus de Ligouri. This book is sanctioned and promoted by the Catholic Church. It has gone through 800 editions. It has been quoted by Popes and bishops for many, many years. Alphonsus de Ligouri was even made a Doctor of the Church, a title given to only 37 Catholic saints to date, a prestigious and exclusive title bestowed by the Pope for those saints who made "outstanding contribution....to the understanding and interpretation of the sacred Scriptures and the development of Christian doctrine." (D'Ambrosio, link here)


...from Prayer to Our Lady of Perpetual Help #7

O Mother of Perpetual Help,

thou art the dispenser of every grace
that God grants us in our misery;
it is for this cause that He hath made thee so powerful,
so rich, so kind,
that thou mightest assist us in our miseries.
Thou art the advocate of the most wretched
and abandoned sinners,
if they but come unto thee;
come once more to my assistance,
for I commend myself to thee.
In thy hands I place my eternal salvation;
to thee I entrust my soul.....


In this Catholic Prayer, Mary is called the "advocate" of sinners. But the bible explicitly says that our advocate is Jesus: 1 John 2:1 - "But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate before the Father - Jesus Christ, the Righteous One."

This prayer also says to entrust the salvation of one's soul to Mary, not Jesus. I don't think this needs any explanation as to why this is absolutely heretical.

Catholicism elevates Mary's attributes and role to that of Jesus and the Father. This is pure idolatry. I ask my Catholic friends to take a step back and look at this for what it truly is. Stop with the prayers, veneration(worship!), and dedication to Mary, and stop with the disingenuous biblical exegesis/eisegesis and fallacious, convoluted ad hoc explanations to justify such. REPENT - and start giving your prayers, worship, and dedication to Jesus only - lest you one day hear these frightful, terrible words from Jesus: "I never knew you. Depart from me."

---

You place your own interpretation on the above and condemn those who receive this differently. Anyone who intercedes on our behalf is of course an advocate. This is the definition of advocate. Invoking Mary as our advocate is no different than you invoking your wife or pastor to advocate/pray for you.

"In thy hands I place my eternal salvation;
to thee I entrust my soul....."

This suggests the supplicant already has eternal salvation and a soul so that he is worthy of Mary's advocacy. No heresy there. It may be that some Catholics elevate Mary to some level with which you are uncomfortable, but it simply isn't true that "Catholicism elevates Mary's attributes and role to that of Jesus and the Father". Your hasty generalization fallacy does not stand.

---

If you are saying that the belief in placing one's hands in your eternal salvation in someone other than Jesus, and entrusting your soul to anyone but Jesus/God isn't absolutely heretical, then quite simply it's the three D's: you are either dumb, dishonest, or deceived (I could add a fourth "d" - demonic). Seriously - making desperate reaches, ad hoc arguments, and mental gymnastic workarounds like this just makes you look silly to the rational world.

---

Everything you accuse me of is exactly what you are doing. Look in the mirror. Mental gymnastics are your specialty. This just makes you look silly to the rational world. All you have is a ridiculous straw man.

---

So your argument is, in essence, "I know you are, but what am I?"?

This isn't difficult - If you can't see that placing one's eternal salvation and soul in the hands of anyone else but Jesus is heretical in Christianity, then you are either deficient in intelligent thought, or you're in denial and lying, or you are not in the truth of the Holy Spirit (which includes demonic). There just isn't any other option. This isn't mental gymnastics, this is swinging your arms when you walk. I have absolutely no idea what you mean by "straw man", because you chose not to explain your argument, instead you chose ad hominem.

---

You've chosen by virtue of your own hubris to interpret one phrase a certain way and created an argument based on that assumption. Begging the question right there. Further extrapolation of your argument and accusing others who disagree of being in denial, lying, or demonic (sure, no ad hominem there... while being exactly a form of tu quoque) while imagining you've demonstrated anything beyond question qualifies you for membership in the Fundy Taliban. Your straw man results from effectively denying what most Christians who have ever lived and who are alive today believed and considered orthodox practice based on a misguided and misconstrued take on some prayer that few probably even know of.

People like you are a large part of the reason my wife and I left the Baptist church of our childhood (that and lousy praise and worship/happy clappy music) and would never go back. Shame really. My late father taught Sunday School for 50 years as did his father before him. They were both fine Baptist deacons as was my father-in-law. You and the Paige Patterson types are responsible for much evil. Disclosure: we were members at First, Dallas when Patterson was active.

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Here's another excerpt from The Glories of Mary, by St. Alphonsus de Ligouri. This book is sanctioned and promoted by the Catholic Church. It has gone through 800 editions. It has been quoted by Popes and bishops for many, many years. Alphonsus de Ligouri was even made a Doctor of the Church, a title given to only 37 Catholic saints to date, a prestigious and exclusive title bestowed by the Pope for those saints who made "outstanding contribution....to the understanding and interpretation of the sacred Scriptures and the development of Christian doctrine." (D'Ambrosio, link here)


...from Prayer to Our Lady of Perpetual Help #7

O Mother of Perpetual Help,

thou art the dispenser of every grace
that God grants us in our misery;
it is for this cause that He hath made thee so powerful,
so rich, so kind,
that thou mightest assist us in our miseries.
Thou art the advocate of the most wretched
and abandoned sinners,
if they but come unto thee;
come once more to my assistance,
for I commend myself to thee.
In thy hands I place my eternal salvation;
to thee I entrust my soul.....


In this Catholic Prayer, Mary is called the "advocate" of sinners. But the bible explicitly says that our advocate is Jesus: 1 John 2:1 - "But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate before the Father - Jesus Christ, the Righteous One."

This prayer also says to entrust the salvation of one's soul to Mary, not Jesus. I don't think this needs any explanation as to why this is absolutely heretical.

Catholicism elevates Mary's attributes and role to that of Jesus and the Father. This is pure idolatry. I ask my Catholic friends to take a step back and look at this for what it truly is. Stop with the prayers, veneration(worship!), and dedication to Mary, and stop with the disingenuous biblical exegesis/eisegesis and fallacious, convoluted ad hoc explanations to justify such. REPENT - and start giving your prayers, worship, and dedication to Jesus only - lest you one day hear these frightful, terrible words from Jesus: "I never knew you. Depart from me."

---

You place your own interpretation on the above and condemn those who receive this differently. Anyone who intercedes on our behalf is of course an advocate. This is the definition of advocate. Invoking Mary as our advocate is no different than you invoking your wife or pastor to advocate/pray for you.

"In thy hands I place my eternal salvation;
to thee I entrust my soul....."

This suggests the supplicant already has eternal salvation and a soul so that he is worthy of Mary's advocacy. No heresy there. It may be that some Catholics elevate Mary to some level with which you are uncomfortable, but it simply isn't true that "Catholicism elevates Mary's attributes and role to that of Jesus and the Father". Your hasty generalization fallacy does not stand.

---

If you are saying that the belief in placing one's hands in your eternal salvation in someone other than Jesus, and entrusting your soul to anyone but Jesus/God isn't absolutely heretical, then quite simply it's the three D's: you are either dumb, dishonest, or deceived (I could add a fourth "d" - demonic). Seriously - making desperate reaches, ad hoc arguments, and mental gymnastic workarounds like this just makes you look silly to the rational world.

---

Everything you accuse me of is exactly what you are doing. Look in the mirror. Mental gymnastics are your specialty. This just makes you look silly to the rational world. All you have is a ridiculous straw man.

---

So your argument is, in essence, "I know you are, but what am I?"?

This isn't difficult - If you can't see that placing one's eternal salvation and soul in the hands of anyone else but Jesus is heretical in Christianity, then you are either deficient in intelligent thought, or you're in denial and lying, or you are not in the truth of the Holy Spirit (which includes demonic). There just isn't any other option. This isn't mental gymnastics, this is swinging your arms when you walk. I have absolutely no idea what you mean by "straw man", because you chose not to explain your argument, instead you chose ad hominem.

---

You've chosen by virtue of your own hubris to interpret one phrase a certain way and created an argument based on that assumption. Begging the question right there. Further extrapolation of your argument and accusing others who disagree of being in denial, lying, or demonic (sure, no ad hominem there... while being exactly a form of tu quoque) while imagining you've demonstrated anything beyond question qualifies you for membership in the Fundy Taliban. Your straw man results from effectively denying what most Christians who have ever lived and who are alive today believed and considered orthodox practice based on a misguided and misconstrued take on some prayer that few probably even know of.

People like you are a large part of the reason my wife and I left the Baptist church of our childhood (that and lousy praise and worship/happy clappy music) and would never go back. Shame really. My late father taught Sunday School for 50 years as did his father before him. They were both fine Baptist deacons as was my father-in-law. You and the Paige Patterson types are responsible for much evil. Disclosure: we were members at First, Dallas when Patterson was active.

---

It's "hubris", "misguided", "misconstrued", a "strawman", and "Fundy Taliban" to interpret the passage "Mary, in thy hands I place my eternal salvation"....as saying that they're putting their eternal salvation in Mary's hands??

If you're not going to be honest with the English language, and honest with plain meaning, then your entire argument against me and what I said is completely invalid. You are no better than Waco1947 when he says that God did not create the heavens and the earth, when the bible says God created the heavens and the earth. Yes, it is THAT bad, what you're doing. If what I'm saying about these prayers to Mary, which should be OBVIOUS to any rational and honest person, is the kind of thing that set you off to where you left your church (I'm not Baptist, btw) then my God, man....what are you going to do when someone tries to tell you the sky is blue?

We "evil", "Fundy Taliban" Christian types believe in obeying God and putting our eternal salvation and entrusting our soul in Jesus' hands......if that drives away people who want to put their salvation and entrust their soul in the hands of someone other than God, then so be it.

Quote:

---

....Your straw man results from effectively denying what most Christians who have ever lived and who are alive today believed and considered orthodox practice based on a misguided and misconstrued take on some prayer that few probably even know of.

---

It doesn't matter what most "Christians" did or what was orthodox. The question before you is, is it wrong? Think for yourself, and don't rely on the fallacy of the majority. After all, Jesus reminded us that the way to destruction was wide, and many people would take that path.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Question for the Catholics:

Here are the Ten Commandments according to the Catholic Church (just the first two):

• I am the Lord your God: You shall not have strange Gods before me.
• You shall not take the name of the Lord God in vain.

Now here are the Ten Commandments as they are written in the Bible (just the first part, for comparison):

""I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.

"You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain"......

Question: why did the Catholic Church remove the whole part about graven images and bowing to them?

---

https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07664a.htm

---

I'm not looking for a "just google it" response. Providing a link to support your own explanation is fine, but not a link just by itself. Give me your explanation how this link explains how Catholics justify removing a part of the Ten Commandments. There'd better be a really, really good explanation for removing something from God's word - if a good explanation can even exist for messing with Scripture. Especially since Catholics ostensibly deem Scripture to be supremely authoritative. The obvious appearance to any rational, intelligent person is that this is evidence of the Catholic Church's full knowledge of their guilt.

---

Well, they would never remove anything from Scripture. It's not taught as part of the commandment because it's part of the Old Dispensation.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Question for the Catholics:

Here are the Ten Commandments according to the Catholic Church (just the first two):

• I am the Lord your God: You shall not have strange Gods before me.
• You shall not take the name of the Lord God in vain.

Now here are the Ten Commandments as they are written in the Bible (just the first part, for comparison):

""I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.

"You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain"......

Question: why did the Catholic Church remove the whole part about graven images and bowing to them?

---

https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07664a.htm

---

I'm not looking for a "just google it" response. Providing a link to support your own explanation is fine, but not a link just by itself. Give me your explanation how this link explains how Catholics justify removing a part of the Ten Commandments. There'd better be a really, really good explanation for removing something from God's word - if a good explanation can even exist for messing with Scripture. Especially since Catholics ostensibly deem Scripture to be supremely authoritative. The obvious appearance to any rational, intelligent person is that this is evidence of the Catholic Church's full knowledge of their guilt.

---

Well, they would never remove anything from Scripture. It's not taught as part of the commandment because it's part of the Old Dispensation.

---

How is that part of the "Old Dispensation", but not the others?

I don't think you went far back enough in the comments to read about my first post about The Glories of Mary by Alphonsus de Ligouri. Here are those excerpts again:

"Oh Mary, sweet refuge of poor sinners, assist me with thy mercy, banish me from the infernal enemies, and come thou to take my soul and present it to the eternal judge, my queen, do not abandon me, I give you my heart and soul."

"Oh immaculate and holy pure virgin Mary, Mother of God, Queen of the World, thou are the joy of the saints, thou art the peacemaker between sinners and God, thou art the advocate of the abandoned, the secure haven of those who are on the sea of this world, thou art the consolation of this world, the ransomer of slaves, the comforter of the afflicted, the salvation of the universe."

"We have confidence but in thee, O most faithful virgin, O great Mediatress of peace between men and God, the love of all men and of God to whom the honor and benediction with the Father and the Holy Ghost, amen."

"O sovereign lady, saint of all saints, our strength and our refuge, God as it were, of this world, glory of heaven, accept those who love thee."

"O sovereign princess, turn o Mary thy loving eyes on me, look at me and draw me to thee"

Mary, Blessed Virgin, Immaculate Queen, I dedicate my family forever to thy service, I appoint thee ruler of my whole house. Bless us, defend us, provide for us, counsel us, comfort us, assist us in our infirmities, especially in the sorrows of death, grant that we may go to heaven."

"Every prayer of Mary's is like an established Law for our Lord, obliging him to be merciful for everyone for whom she intercedes"

"Mary throws open the door of God's mercies to anyone she pleases, when she pleases, as she pleases"


Can you see the elevation of Mary to that of Jesus now? You should have been able to earlier, but that's another thing. Please wake up, open your eyes, stop with the ad hoc excuses, and see this for what it clearly is.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

So you were completely wrong when you said "We receive the Holy Spirit at baptism (Acts 2:38). There is no reason to believe this spiritual act happens separate and without immersion in water". Correct?.

---

The reason I believe we receive the Holy Spirit at baptism is because of Acts 2:38. This is a didactic verse, given for our instruction. There are a few examples in Acts of those who received the Holy Spirit before baptism, usually as a sign that the people needed baptism. (Peter at first did not want to enter the home of Gentiles,)


The vast majority of baptism examples in Acts follow the order of receiving the Spirit at baptism. When a example contradicts the instruction I follow the instruction.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Question for the Catholics:

Here are the Ten Commandments according to the Catholic Church (just the first two):

• I am the Lord your God: You shall not have strange Gods before me.
• You shall not take the name of the Lord God in vain.

Now here are the Ten Commandments as they are written in the Bible (just the first part, for comparison):

""I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.

"You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain"......

Question: why did the Catholic Church remove the whole part about graven images and bowing to them?

---

https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07664a.htm

---

I'm not looking for a "just google it" response. Providing a link to support your own explanation is fine, but not a link just by itself. Give me your explanation how this link explains how Catholics justify removing a part of the Ten Commandments. There'd better be a really, really good explanation for removing something from God's word - if a good explanation can even exist for messing with Scripture. Especially since Catholics ostensibly deem Scripture to be supremely authoritative. The obvious appearance to any rational, intelligent person is that this is evidence of the Catholic Church's full knowledge of their guilt.

---

Well, they would never remove anything from Scripture. It's not taught as part of the commandment because it's part of the Old Dispensation.

---

How is that part of the "Old Dispensation", but not the others?

---

It's positive law rather than natural law. The Old Testament contains both, but only the latter is eternal and immutable.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Here's another excerpt from The Glories of Mary, by St. Alphonsus de Ligouri. This book is sanctioned and promoted by the Catholic Church. It has gone through 800 editions. It has been quoted by Popes and bishops for many, many years. Alphonsus de Ligouri was even made a Doctor of the Church, a title given to only 37 Catholic saints to date, a prestigious and exclusive title bestowed by the Pope for those saints who made "outstanding contribution....to the understanding and interpretation of the sacred Scriptures and the development of Christian doctrine." (D'Ambrosio, link here)


...from Prayer to Our Lady of Perpetual Help #7

O Mother of Perpetual Help,

thou art the dispenser of every grace
that God grants us in our misery;
it is for this cause that He hath made thee so powerful,
so rich, so kind,
that thou mightest assist us in our miseries.
Thou art the advocate of the most wretched
and abandoned sinners,
if they but come unto thee;
come once more to my assistance,
for I commend myself to thee.
In thy hands I place my eternal salvation;
to thee I entrust my soul.....


In this Catholic Prayer, Mary is called the "advocate" of sinners. But the bible explicitly says that our advocate is Jesus: 1 John 2:1 - "But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate before the Father - Jesus Christ, the Righteous One."

This prayer also says to entrust the salvation of one's soul to Mary, not Jesus. I don't think this needs any explanation as to why this is absolutely heretical.

Catholicism elevates Mary's attributes and role to that of Jesus and the Father. This is pure idolatry. I ask my Catholic friends to take a step back and look at this for what it truly is. Stop with the prayers, veneration(worship!), and dedication to Mary, and stop with the disingenuous biblical exegesis/eisegesis and fallacious, convoluted ad hoc explanations to justify such. REPENT - and start giving your prayers, worship, and dedication to Jesus only - lest you one day hear these frightful, terrible words from Jesus: "I never knew you. Depart from me."

---

You place your own interpretation on the above and condemn those who receive this differently. Anyone who intercedes on our behalf is of course an advocate. This is the definition of advocate. Invoking Mary as our advocate is no different than you invoking your wife or pastor to advocate/pray for you.

"In thy hands I place my eternal salvation;
to thee I entrust my soul....."

This suggests the supplicant already has eternal salvation and a soul so that he is worthy of Mary's advocacy. No heresy there. It may be that some Catholics elevate Mary to some level with which you are uncomfortable, but it simply isn't true that "Catholicism elevates Mary's attributes and role to that of Jesus and the Father". Your hasty generalization fallacy does not stand.

---

If you are saying that the belief in placing one's hands in your eternal salvation in someone other than Jesus, and entrusting your soul to anyone but Jesus/God isn't absolutely heretical, then quite simply it's the three D's: you are either dumb, dishonest, or deceived (I could add a fourth "d" - demonic). Seriously - making desperate reaches, ad hoc arguments, and mental gymnastic workarounds like this just makes you look silly to the rational world.

---

Everything you accuse me of is exactly what you are doing. Look in the mirror. Mental gymnastics are your specialty. This just makes you look silly to the rational world. All you have is a ridiculous straw man.

---

So your argument is, in essence, "I know you are, but what am I?"?

This isn't difficult - If you can't see that placing one's eternal salvation and soul in the hands of anyone else but Jesus is heretical in Christianity, then you are either deficient in intelligent thought, or you're in denial and lying, or you are not in the truth of the Holy Spirit (which includes demonic). There just isn't any other option. This isn't mental gymnastics, this is swinging your arms when you walk. I have absolutely no idea what you mean by "straw man", because you chose not to explain your argument, instead you chose ad hominem.

---

You've chosen by virtue of your own hubris to interpret one phrase a certain way and created an argument based on that assumption. Begging the question right there. Further extrapolation of your argument and accusing others who disagree of being in denial, lying, or demonic (sure, no ad hominem there... while being exactly a form of tu quoque) while imagining you've demonstrated anything beyond question qualifies you for membership in the Fundy Taliban. Your straw man results from effectively denying what most Christians who have ever lived and who are alive today believed and considered orthodox practice based on a misguided and misconstrued take on some prayer that few probably even know of.

People like you are a large part of the reason my wife and I left the Baptist church of our childhood (that and lousy praise and worship/happy clappy music) and would never go back. Shame really. My late father taught Sunday School for 50 years as did his father before him. They were both fine Baptist deacons as was my father-in-law. You and the Paige Patterson types are responsible for much evil. Disclosure: we were members at First, Dallas when Patterson was active.

---

It's "hubris", "misguided", "misconstrued", a "strawman", and "Fundy Taliban" to interpret the passage "Mary, in thy hands I place my eternal salvation"....as saying that they're putting their eternal salvation in Mary's hands??

If you're not going to be honest with the English language, and honest with plain meaning, then your entire argument against me and what I said is completely invalid. You are no better than Waco1947 when he says that God did not create the heavens and the earth, when the bible says God created the heavens and the earth. Yes, it is THAT bad, what you're doing. If what I'm saying about these prayers to Mary, which should be OBVIOUS to any rational and honest person, is the kind of thing that set you off to where you left your church (I'm not Baptist, btw) then my God, man....what are you going to do when someone tries to tell you the sky is blue?

---

This is simple; I cannot place something into your hands that I don't already have. To further complicate matters, I doubt the original was written in contemporary English. Face it, you have nothing but your overwrought and tortured insistence that you are correct to rely upon here.

1Co 2:9 But as it is written: Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, Nor have entered into the heart of man The things which God has prepared for those who love Him."

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

We "evil", "Fundy Taliban" Christian types believe in obeying God and putting our eternal salvation and entrusting our soul in Jesus' hands......if that drives away people who want to put their salvation and entrust their soul in the hands of someone other than God, then so be it.

---

Do you even hear yourself? The Pharisees would be proud.

saabing bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

So you were completely wrong when you said "We receive the Holy Spirit at baptism (Acts 2:38). There is no reason to believe this spiritual act happens separate and without immersion in water". Correct?.

---

The reason I believe we receive the Holy Spirit at baptism is because of Acts 2:38. This is a didactic verse, given for our instruction. There are a few examples in Acts of those who received the Holy Spirit before baptism, usually as a sign that the people needed baptism. (Peter at first did not want to enter the home of Gentiles,)


The vast majority of baptism examples in Acts follow the order of receiving the Spirit at baptism. When a example contradicts the instruction I follow the instruction.

---

The question here is whether the act of water baptism is what effects the entry of the Holy Spirit. We clearly see later in Acts chapter 10 that this isn't the case. So this should bring into question whether the meaning you extracted from 2:38 is correct, whether that verse is actually teaching that water baptism is necessary to receive the Holy Spirit.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Question for the Catholics:

Here are the Ten Commandments according to the Catholic Church (just the first two):

• I am the Lord your God: You shall not have strange Gods before me.
• You shall not take the name of the Lord God in vain.

Now here are the Ten Commandments as they are written in the Bible (just the first part, for comparison):

""I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.

"You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain"......

Question: why did the Catholic Church remove the whole part about graven images and bowing to them?

---

https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07664a.htm

---

I'm not looking for a "just google it" response. Providing a link to support your own explanation is fine, but not a link just by itself. Give me your explanation how this link explains how Catholics justify removing a part of the Ten Commandments. There'd better be a really, really good explanation for removing something from God's word - if a good explanation can even exist for messing with Scripture. Especially since Catholics ostensibly deem Scripture to be supremely authoritative. The obvious appearance to any rational, intelligent person is that this is evidence of the Catholic Church's full knowledge of their guilt.

---

Well, they would never remove anything from Scripture. It's not taught as part of the commandment because it's part of the Old Dispensation.

---

How is that part of the "Old Dispensation", but not the others?

---

It's positive law rather than natural law. The Old Testament contains both, but only the latter is eternal and immutable.

---

So the Catholic Church believes God's word is mutable. This is as about the reddest flag that can be raised. This sounds like it's coming out the same hell that Waco1947 gets his beliefs from.

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Here's another excerpt from The Glories of Mary, by St. Alphonsus de Ligouri. This book is sanctioned and promoted by the Catholic Church. It has gone through 800 editions. It has been quoted by Popes and bishops for many, many years. Alphonsus de Ligouri was even made a Doctor of the Church, a title given to only 37 Catholic saints to date, a prestigious and exclusive title bestowed by the Pope for those saints who made "outstanding contribution....to the understanding and interpretation of the sacred Scriptures and the development of Christian doctrine." (D'Ambrosio, link here)


...from Prayer to Our Lady of Perpetual Help #7

O Mother of Perpetual Help,

thou art the dispenser of every grace
that God grants us in our misery;
it is for this cause that He hath made thee so powerful,
so rich, so kind,
that thou mightest assist us in our miseries.
Thou art the advocate of the most wretched
and abandoned sinners,
if they but come unto thee;
come once more to my assistance,
for I commend myself to thee.
In thy hands I place my eternal salvation;
to thee I entrust my soul.....


In this Catholic Prayer, Mary is called the "advocate" of sinners. But the bible explicitly says that our advocate is Jesus: 1 John 2:1 - "But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate before the Father - Jesus Christ, the Righteous One."

This prayer also says to entrust the salvation of one's soul to Mary, not Jesus. I don't think this needs any explanation as to why this is absolutely heretical.

Catholicism elevates Mary's attributes and role to that of Jesus and the Father. This is pure idolatry. I ask my Catholic friends to take a step back and look at this for what it truly is. Stop with the prayers, veneration(worship!), and dedication to Mary, and stop with the disingenuous biblical exegesis/eisegesis and fallacious, convoluted ad hoc explanations to justify such. REPENT - and start giving your prayers, worship, and dedication to Jesus only - lest you one day hear these frightful, terrible words from Jesus: "I never knew you. Depart from me."

---

You place your own interpretation on the above and condemn those who receive this differently. Anyone who intercedes on our behalf is of course an advocate. This is the definition of advocate. Invoking Mary as our advocate is no different than you invoking your wife or pastor to advocate/pray for you.

"In thy hands I place my eternal salvation;
to thee I entrust my soul....."

This suggests the supplicant already has eternal salvation and a soul so that he is worthy of Mary's advocacy. No heresy there. It may be that some Catholics elevate Mary to some level with which you are uncomfortable, but it simply isn't true that "Catholicism elevates Mary's attributes and role to that of Jesus and the Father". Your hasty generalization fallacy does not stand.

---

If you are saying that the belief in placing one's hands in your eternal salvation in someone other than Jesus, and entrusting your soul to anyone but Jesus/God isn't absolutely heretical, then quite simply it's the three D's: you are either dumb, dishonest, or deceived (I could add a fourth "d" - demonic). Seriously - making desperate reaches, ad hoc arguments, and mental gymnastic workarounds like this just makes you look silly to the rational world.

---

Everything you accuse me of is exactly what you are doing. Look in the mirror. Mental gymnastics are your specialty. This just makes you look silly to the rational world. All you have is a ridiculous straw man.

---

So your argument is, in essence, "I know you are, but what am I?"?

This isn't difficult - If you can't see that placing one's eternal salvation and soul in the hands of anyone else but Jesus is heretical in Christianity, then you are either deficient in intelligent thought, or you're in denial and lying, or you are not in the truth of the Holy Spirit (which includes demonic). There just isn't any other option. This isn't mental gymnastics, this is swinging your arms when you walk. I have absolutely no idea what you mean by "straw man", because you chose not to explain your argument, instead you chose ad hominem.

---

You've chosen by virtue of your own hubris to interpret one phrase a certain way and created an argument based on that assumption. Begging the question right there. Further extrapolation of your argument and accusing others who disagree of being in denial, lying, or demonic (sure, no ad hominem there... while being exactly a form of tu quoque) while imagining you've demonstrated anything beyond question qualifies you for membership in the Fundy Taliban. Your straw man results from effectively denying what most Christians who have ever lived and who are alive today believed and considered orthodox practice based on a misguided and misconstrued take on some prayer that few probably even know of.

People like you are a large part of the reason my wife and I left the Baptist church of our childhood (that and lousy praise and worship/happy clappy music) and would never go back. Shame really. My late father taught Sunday School for 50 years as did his father before him. They were both fine Baptist deacons as was my father-in-law. You and the Paige Patterson types are responsible for much evil. Disclosure: we were members at First, Dallas when Patterson was active.

---

It's "hubris", "misguided", "misconstrued", a "strawman", and "Fundy Taliban" to interpret the passage "Mary, in thy hands I place my eternal salvation"....as saying that they're putting their eternal salvation in Mary's hands??

If you're not going to be honest with the English language, and honest with plain meaning, then your entire argument against me and what I said is completely invalid. You are no better than Waco1947 when he says that God did not create the heavens and the earth, when the bible says God created the heavens and the earth. Yes, it is THAT bad, what you're doing. If what I'm saying about these prayers to Mary, which should be OBVIOUS to any rational and honest person, is the kind of thing that set you off to where you left your church (I'm not Baptist, btw) then my God, man....what are you going to do when someone tries to tell you the sky is blue?

---

This is simple; I cannot place something into your hands that I don't already have. To further complicate matters, I doubt the original was written in contemporary English. Face it, you have nothing but your overwrought and tortured insistence that you are correct to rely upon here.

---

You are to put your eternal salvation and entrust your soul only in the hands of Jesus. If you were a Christian and had the Holy Spirit, this is a no-brainer. If you truly don't understand this, and why it's wrong to put them in any other hands other than Jesus, then you are not a Christian, or you are a very, very deceived one.

If you have evidence that this is a mistranslation, then provide it. But regardless of the translation, millions of Catholics are praying this prayer exactly how it is in English, and believing it too. All under the knowledge of the Magisterium.

** add: did you look at the other prayers I posted? Come up with any ad hoc explanations around those yet?

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

We "evil", "Fundy Taliban" Christian types believe in obeying God and putting our eternal salvation and entrusting our soul in Jesus' hands......if that drives away people who want to put their salvation and entrust their soul in the hands of someone other than God, then so be it.

---

Do you even hear yourself? The Pharisees would be proud.

---

So.....you think it's being a "Pharisee" if we don't believe Christians should put their eternal salvation and entrust their soul to anyone else but Jesus?

In other words, you think it's being "Pharisee" for believing Christians should be.......Christians??

The Lord Jesus Christ fulfilled hundreds of prophecies written hundreds of years before His birth of Him, He performed miracles, predicted His own death and resurrection and then died and rose again. The world revolves around Him because He is God in the flesh. Christmas, Easter and New Years are ALL about Him and the World Celebrates Him. He created all things visible and invisible, in heaven and in earth.

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

So I must reject the 'fullness of truth' claim as completely false and frankly hubris in its essence.

---

Because Jesus established a Church, made Peter it's leader, thru Apostolic Succession, has an unbroken line for nearly 2000 years of Doctrine and Dogmas that developed over time, the Church will claim that She is the FULLNESS of truth. This isn't saying that our Protestant brethren don't have some truth. On the contrary, Protestants have a GREAT deal of truth in their beliefs, just not the FULLNESS.

---

Where do Catholics get this belief that Peter had primacy over the other apostles and Jesus' Church? Nowhere in the bible does it say this. The same "binding and loosing" authority that Peter is supposedly given in Matthew 16 is also given to all the apostles in chapter 18. In the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15, James the brother of Jesus is the one who has the final say. In his letters, Paul writes that he had to correct Peter because Peter was wrong, thus indicating that Paul was at least equal to Peter. Even in his own epistles (1, 2 Peter) Peter doesn't indicate a primacy role. And in the book of Revelation, Jesus sends his message to the leaders of seven churches through John the apostle, who was exiled on the island of Patmos. Peter, or his "apostolic successor", isn't even involved.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Question for the Catholics:

Here are the Ten Commandments according to the Catholic Church (just the first two):

• I am the Lord your God: You shall not have strange Gods before me.
• You shall not take the name of the Lord God in vain.

Now here are the Ten Commandments as they are written in the Bible (just the first part, for comparison):

""I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.

"You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain"......

Question: why did the Catholic Church remove the whole part about graven images and bowing to them?

---

https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07664a.htm

---

I'm not looking for a "just google it" response. Providing a link to support your own explanation is fine, but not a link just by itself. Give me your explanation how this link explains how Catholics justify removing a part of the Ten Commandments. There'd better be a really, really good explanation for removing something from God's word - if a good explanation can even exist for messing with Scripture. Especially since Catholics ostensibly deem Scripture to be supremely authoritative. The obvious appearance to any rational, intelligent person is that this is evidence of the Catholic Church's full knowledge of their guilt.

---

Well, they would never remove anything from Scripture. It's not taught as part of the commandment because it's part of the Old Dispensation.

---

How is that part of the "Old Dispensation", but not the others?

---

It's positive law rather than natural law. The Old Testament contains both, but only the latter is eternal and immutable.

---

So the Catholic Church believes God's word is mutable. This is as about the reddest flag that can be raised. This sounds like it's coming out the same hell that Waco1947 gets his beliefs from.

---

God made a new covenant, superseding the old. Christians have always believed this. I encourage you to read the encyclopedia article I linked yesterday. I chose it carefully. It has lots of good cultural context on early and medieval Christianity. See for example the various meanings of "worship." What you see as the plain language isn't always so plain.

Mt 24:24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

Mr 13:22 For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Question for the Catholics:

Here are the Ten Commandments according to the Catholic Church (just the first two):

• I am the Lord your God: You shall not have strange Gods before me.
• You shall not take the name of the Lord God in vain.

Now here are the Ten Commandments as they are written in the Bible (just the first part, for comparison):

""I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.

"You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain"......

Question: why did the Catholic Church remove the whole part about graven images and bowing to them?

---

https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07664a.htm

---

I'm not looking for a "just google it" response. Providing a link to support your own explanation is fine, but not a link just by itself. Give me your explanation how this link explains how Catholics justify removing a part of the Ten Commandments. There'd better be a really, really good explanation for removing something from God's word - if a good explanation can even exist for messing with Scripture. Especially since Catholics ostensibly deem Scripture to be supremely authoritative. The obvious appearance to any rational, intelligent person is that this is evidence of the Catholic Church's full knowledge of their guilt.

---

Well, they would never remove anything from Scripture. It's not taught as part of the commandment because it's part of the Old Dispensation.

---

How is that part of the "Old Dispensation", but not the others?

---

It's positive law rather than natural law. The Old Testament contains both, but only the latter is eternal and immutable.

---

So the Catholic Church believes God's word is mutable. This is as about the reddest flag that can be raised. This sounds like it's coming out the same hell that Waco1947 gets his beliefs from.

---

God made a new covenant, superseding the old. Christians have always believed this. I encourage you to read the encyclopedia article I linked yesterday. I chose it carefully. It has lots of good cultural context on early and medieval Christianity. See for example the various meanings of "worship." What you see as the plain language isn't always so plain.

---

The new covenant is that we now can have complete forgiveness for everything that offends God, through the one sacrifice of Jesus Christ. But what offended God in the Old Covenant is still what offends God today. God does not change. The only difference is that for those who have Jesus Christ, God does not look at their sin, He looks at us through Jesus and therefore we are justified.

Believing and teaching that God is no longer offended by bowing to graven images today because it is no longer relevant, is the same idea that progressive Christians like Waco1947 use to justify homosexual acts. It's straight out of the same Hell.

Catholics may have deceived themselves into justifying their behavior by distinguishing hyperdulia from latria in order to justify worshiping Mary and to get around the offense to God, but God isn't going to buy into their technicalities. The language is plain, and the fruits of it are plain - Catholics give Mary the adoration, praise, and worship that is reserved for God and God alone. The prayers to Mary call her sovereign, the Mediator between sinners and God, the glory of heaven, their strength and their refuge, and their salvation. The ad hoc excuse making to get around this plain language and meaning is ridiculous. Any true believer with the Holy Spirit KNOWS you should never even approach elevating a person to a level even close to Jesus like this. Where's the Magisterium? Why doesn't it condemn this? Obviously, it is not of Jesus. Follow Jesus, not the Magisterium.

The good thing is, we can still have complete forgiveness through Jesus Christ, no matter our sin. Catholics can still repent...while they can.