curtpenn said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If it was believed and practiced by an "early" group of Christians, but it was NOT taught, believed, or practiced by Jesus, the apostles, and the first Christians, then it does not have authority. Remember that heresies like gnosticism were abound that predated the practice of praying to Mary, and those heresies were shunned for the reason that it did not trace back to Jesus, the apostles, and the first Christians. So why should the practice of praying to Mary be any different?

---

To piggyback on curtpenn, Irenaeus of Lyons wrote a five book set called Against Heresies between 174 and 189 AD that refuted ALL the heresies that occurred during that time.

He never once address veneration or intercession.

---

I am not sure why you guys keep looking at outside texts to determine if something is heretical. All that is needed is scripture, not mortal man's opinion.

And in that regard, Busty is right - there is no scriptural support for veneration or intercession. None.

Unfortunately, I think that is what we will continue going back to. We will point to scripture, and you will point to scripture's silence or the writings of third parties. The difference between us all comes down to what we find authoritative. I think your position invites a very slippery slope, but I doubt anyone will be changing their minds on this point. Too much indoctrination.

---

It is possible to change. I was raised Southern Baptist, baptized at 7 and had perfect Sunday School attendance for 10 straight years. Very active for decades and spent a couple of summers in my Baylor days as an Interim Music & Youth Director. Met my wife of 41 years at Prestonwood (pre mega church days). Wasn't really looking for a change, but grew tired of the Paige Patterson wing of the SBC. Tired enough to leave FBC, Dallas for Park Cities Baptist. Saw what happened to wonderful Godly men such as Russel Dilday as well as the changes made at Baylor re board selection in order to avoid the threat of the Fundamentalists (talk about unintended consequences...). Just happened to enroll our children in St John's Episcopal School, Dallas, when I was in my 30s because we couldn't tolerate DISD schools in our neighborhood. One thing led to another and we were confirmed in the Episcopal Church when I was 42. Still there after 26 years even though I despise the direction of the national church and am aware of many heresies. Heresy aside, I fully believe the properly understood orthodox Trinitarian teachings of the Anglican way to be a true via media between Protestant and Catholic and in fulfillment of Jesus' prayers for unity. And we have better music.

---

Thanks for sharing. I enjoyed reading that.

Interestingly, my story is somewhat similar. Raised Southern Baptist, baptized as a youth (also at Prestonwood, just FYI - also before mega-church days, if of course the facility off of Arapaho wasn't megachurch), and parents taught Sunday School. In my 20's, got really involved in a bible study that was intense, and I learned more about scripture in a couple of years than I had been taught my entire life. Also started attending Metro (also at the old Prestonwood) on Mondays, where I grew in my knowledge and faith. Likewise became disenchanted with Baptists, and have been attending various non-denominational churches for years. We are now members of a church in the Austin area which follows Acts 2, and mimics the early "home" church. It's a bit different, but I too got tired of the worship team and coffee bar.

While I agree it's possible to change minds, I am not sure anyone is going to do so on this thread, again, based on what we find authoritative. If one can tolerate man-made "traditions" that in many ways contradict scripture, the appeal to sola scripture probably isn't going to be an argument they will accept. As I said originally, I don't have a problem with tradition, but as with all man-made traditions, there has to be something they're weighed against, to determine if they're true, regardless of how long they've been around.

Mothra said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

You are asking me to judge someone based on their personal prayers to God. I WILL NOT insert my thoughts, beliefs and especially judgement on someone else's personal prayers to God without the knowledge of what is in their heart mind and soul.

My final post on this topic.

---

But they're NOT praying to God. That's the whole topic!!

---

The "whole topic" is that requesting intercession is not the same as praying to God.

---

Eh, I think that's a bit of a distinction without a difference. They ARE praying for intercession to a human being, assuming that human has the capacity to hear their prayers, and then intercede on their behalf, which as pointed out above, has no scriptural support.

---

Yeah, we're never going to agree about "praying to" vs asking for intercessory prayer. To me, there is no distinction between invoking Mary or any saint (which includes those we have known in our lifetimes) and asking anyone we know for their prayers. All the same to me. I don't "pray to" my priest or my best friends. I don't "pray to " Mary or any saint. End of story.

curtpenn said:

---

Mothra said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

You are asking me to judge someone based on their personal prayers to God. I WILL NOT insert my thoughts, beliefs and especially judgement on someone else's personal prayers to God without the knowledge of what is in their heart mind and soul.

My final post on this topic.

---

But they're NOT praying to God. That's the whole topic!!

---

The "whole topic" is that requesting intercession is not the same as praying to God.

---

Eh, I think that's a bit of a distinction without a difference. They ARE praying for intercession to a human being, assuming that human has the capacity to hear their prayers, and then intercede on their behalf, which as pointed out above, has no scriptural support.

---

Yeah, we're never going to agree about "praying to" vs asking for intercessory prayer. To me, there is no distinction between invoking Mary or any saint (which includes those we have known in our lifetimes) and asking anyone we know for their prayers. All the same to me. I don't "pray to" my priest or my best friends. I don't "pray to " Mary or any saint. End of story.

---

I understand that distinction. But whatever you want to call it, your asking for a dead human to pray for you or intercede for you, and there simply isn't any scriptural support for that practice, or any scriptural support they can even hear our prayers.

And because I weigh man-made traditions against scripture, I will always find that troubling. But I know that's not a problem for many Catholics (most of whom, at least in my personal experience, don't have enough knowledge of scripture to know the difference).

Mothra said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If it was believed and practiced by an "early" group of Christians, but it was NOT taught, believed, or practiced by Jesus, the apostles, and the first Christians, then it does not have authority. Remember that heresies like gnosticism were abound that predated the practice of praying to Mary, and those heresies were shunned for the reason that it did not trace back to Jesus, the apostles, and the first Christians. So why should the practice of praying to Mary be any different?

---

To piggyback on curtpenn, Irenaeus of Lyons wrote a five book set called Against Heresies between 174 and 189 AD that refuted ALL the heresies that occurred during that time.

He never once address veneration or intercession.

---

I am not sure why you guys keep looking at outside texts to determine if something is heretical. All that is needed is scripture, not mortal man's opinion.

And in that regard, Busty is right - there is no scriptural support for veneration or intercession. None.

Unfortunately, I think that is what we will continue going back to. We will point to scripture, and you will point to scripture's silence or the writings of third parties. The difference between us all comes down to what we find authoritative. I think your position invites a very slippery slope, but I doubt anyone will be changing their minds on this point. Too much indoctrination.

---

It is possible to change. I was raised Southern Baptist, baptized at 7 and had perfect Sunday School attendance for 10 straight years. Very active for decades and spent a couple of summers in my Baylor days as an Interim Music & Youth Director. Met my wife of 41 years at Prestonwood (pre mega church days). Wasn't really looking for a change, but grew tired of the Paige Patterson wing of the SBC. Tired enough to leave FBC, Dallas for Park Cities Baptist. Saw what happened to wonderful Godly men such as Russel Dilday as well as the changes made at Baylor re board selection in order to avoid the threat of the Fundamentalists (talk about unintended consequences...). Just happened to enroll our children in St John's Episcopal School, Dallas, when I was in my 30s because we couldn't tolerate DISD schools in our neighborhood. One thing led to another and we were confirmed in the Episcopal Church when I was 42. Still there after 26 years even though I despise the direction of the national church and am aware of many heresies. Heresy aside, I fully believe the properly understood orthodox Trinitarian teachings of the Anglican way to be a true via media between Protestant and Catholic and in fulfillment of Jesus' prayers for unity. And we have better music.

---

Thanks for sharing. I enjoyed reading that.

Interestingly, my story is somewhat similar. Raised Southern Baptist, baptized as a youth (also at Prestonwood, just FYI - also before mega-church days, if of course the facility off of Arapaho wasn't megachurch), and parents taught Sunday School. In my 20's, got really involved in a bible study that was intense, and I learned more about scripture in a couple of years than I had been taught my entire life. Also started attending Metro (also at the old Prestonwood) on Mondays, where I grew in my knowledge and faith. Likewise became disenchanted with Baptists, and have been attending various non-denominational churches for years. We are now members of a church in the Austin area which follows Acts 2, and mimics the early "home" church. It's a bit different, but I too got tired of the worship team and coffee bar.

While I agree it's possible to change minds, I am not sure anyone is going to do so on this thread, again, based on what we find authoritative. If one can tolerate man-made "traditions" that in many ways contradict scripture, the appeal to sola scripture probably isn't going to be an argument they will accept. As I said originally, I don't have a problem with tradition, but as with all man-made traditions, there has to be something they're weighed against, to determine if they're true, regardless of how long they've been around.

---

My wife (also raised Baptist) and I met at the Arapaho location in '81 prior to the construction of the then new church there. Put quite a few dollars into that new church - a least for newlyweds. Taught junior high Sunday School for a couple of years. Moved from Plano to Munger Place to do the old house thing and were growing tired of the Billy Weber/Mark Kay/Zig Zeigler precursor to the prosperity gospel so changed to FBC.

We've been at Incarnation Episcopal, Dallas, since '97. It's a conservative parish in a conservative diocese (conservative by Episcopalian standards, lol) that maintains a commitment to proper order, orthodoxy, and great music while offering more contemporary services for those so inclined. My children were baptized and confirmed there. My son-in-law grew up there. Our grandkids were baptized there. Probably have my ashes interred there.

Hard to explain, but I discovered that the ancient liturgy and physical acts of piety such as making the sign of the cross, kneeling or bowing when entering/exiting pews, reverencing the altar, etc. all spoke to me and soon became second nature. I'm all in on "smells and bells", vestments, and worship following the church calendar. All of these "developments" create a much more profoundly transcendent sense of worship for me. I understand others have different experiences. I view Communion as the central act of worship and hold to Christ being truly present in the elements of bread and wine (aka "Real Presence" ). It seems to me that if Sola Scriptura types took Jesus seriously they would be more observant of the Eucharist and the "plain words of Scripture" - "This is my body. This is my blood... Do this as often...". Everything else that happens during Sunday worship is secondary AFAIC. Teaching/preaching is secondary and can occur anywhere at any time.

Mothra said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Mothra said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

You are asking me to judge someone based on their personal prayers to God. I WILL NOT insert my thoughts, beliefs and especially judgement on someone else's personal prayers to God without the knowledge of what is in their heart mind and soul.

My final post on this topic.

---

But they're NOT praying to God. That's the whole topic!!

---

The "whole topic" is that requesting intercession is not the same as praying to God.

---

Eh, I think that's a bit of a distinction without a difference. They ARE praying for intercession to a human being, assuming that human has the capacity to hear their prayers, and then intercede on their behalf, which as pointed out above, has no scriptural support.

---

Yeah, we're never going to agree about "praying to" vs asking for intercessory prayer. To me, there is no distinction between invoking Mary or any saint (which includes those we have known in our lifetimes) and asking anyone we know for their prayers. All the same to me. I don't "pray to" my priest or my best friends. I don't "pray to " Mary or any saint. End of story.

---

I understand that distinction. But whatever you want to call it, your asking for a dead human to pray for you or intercede for you, and there simply isn't any scriptural support for that practice, or any scriptural support they can even hear our prayers.

And because I weigh man-made traditions against scripture, I will always find that troubling. But I know that's not a problem for many Catholics (most of whom, at least in my personal experience, don't have enough knowledge of scripture to know the difference).

---

I understand your position. Just think there is scriptural support for it (at least inferred from my interpretation at least). The Transfiguration and St Paul's account in 2 Corinthians come to mind, for instance. St John seems to present an image of heavenly worship including the prayers of the saints in Revelation, as well.

curtpenn said:

---

Mothra said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If it was believed and practiced by an "early" group of Christians, but it was NOT taught, believed, or practiced by Jesus, the apostles, and the first Christians, then it does not have authority. Remember that heresies like gnosticism were abound that predated the practice of praying to Mary, and those heresies were shunned for the reason that it did not trace back to Jesus, the apostles, and the first Christians. So why should the practice of praying to Mary be any different?

---

To piggyback on curtpenn, Irenaeus of Lyons wrote a five book set called Against Heresies between 174 and 189 AD that refuted ALL the heresies that occurred during that time.

He never once address veneration or intercession.

---

I am not sure why you guys keep looking at outside texts to determine if something is heretical. All that is needed is scripture, not mortal man's opinion.

And in that regard, Busty is right - there is no scriptural support for veneration or intercession. None.

Unfortunately, I think that is what we will continue going back to. We will point to scripture, and you will point to scripture's silence or the writings of third parties. The difference between us all comes down to what we find authoritative. I think your position invites a very slippery slope, but I doubt anyone will be changing their minds on this point. Too much indoctrination.

---

It is possible to change. I was raised Southern Baptist, baptized at 7 and had perfect Sunday School attendance for 10 straight years. Very active for decades and spent a couple of summers in my Baylor days as an Interim Music & Youth Director. Met my wife of 41 years at Prestonwood (pre mega church days). Wasn't really looking for a change, but grew tired of the Paige Patterson wing of the SBC. Tired enough to leave FBC, Dallas for Park Cities Baptist. Saw what happened to wonderful Godly men such as Russel Dilday as well as the changes made at Baylor re board selection in order to avoid the threat of the Fundamentalists (talk about unintended consequences...). Just happened to enroll our children in St John's Episcopal School, Dallas, when I was in my 30s because we couldn't tolerate DISD schools in our neighborhood. One thing led to another and we were confirmed in the Episcopal Church when I was 42. Still there after 26 years even though I despise the direction of the national church and am aware of many heresies. Heresy aside, I fully believe the properly understood orthodox Trinitarian teachings of the Anglican way to be a true via media between Protestant and Catholic and in fulfillment of Jesus' prayers for unity. And we have better music.

---

Thanks for sharing. I enjoyed reading that.

Interestingly, my story is somewhat similar. Raised Southern Baptist, baptized as a youth (also at Prestonwood, just FYI - also before mega-church days, if of course the facility off of Arapaho wasn't megachurch), and parents taught Sunday School. In my 20's, got really involved in a bible study that was intense, and I learned more about scripture in a couple of years than I had been taught my entire life. Also started attending Metro (also at the old Prestonwood) on Mondays, where I grew in my knowledge and faith. Likewise became disenchanted with Baptists, and have been attending various non-denominational churches for years. We are now members of a church in the Austin area which follows Acts 2, and mimics the early "home" church. It's a bit different, but I too got tired of the worship team and coffee bar.

While I agree it's possible to change minds, I am not sure anyone is going to do so on this thread, again, based on what we find authoritative. If one can tolerate man-made "traditions" that in many ways contradict scripture, the appeal to sola scripture probably isn't going to be an argument they will accept. As I said originally, I don't have a problem with tradition, but as with all man-made traditions, there has to be something they're weighed against, to determine if they're true, regardless of how long they've been around.

---

My wife (also raised Baptist) and I met at the Arapaho location in '81 prior to the construction of the then new church there. Put quite a few dollars into that new church - a least for newlyweds. Taught junior high Sunday School for a couple of years. Moved from Plano to Munger Place to do the old house thing and were growing tired of the Billy Weber/Mark Kay/Zig Zeigler precursor to the prosperity gospel so changed to FBC.

We've been at Incarnation Episcopal, Dallas, since '97. It's a conservative parish in a conservative diocese (conservative by Episcopalian standards, lol) that maintains a commitment to proper order, orthodoxy, and great music while offering more contemporary services for those so inclined. My children were baptized and confirmed there. My son-in-law grew up there. Our grandkids were baptized there. Probably have my ashes interred there.

Hard to explain, but I discovered that the ancient liturgy and physical acts of piety such as making the sign of the cross, kneeling or bowing when entering/exiting pews, reverencing the altar, etc. all spoke to me and soon became second nature. I'm all in on "smells and bells", vestments, and worship following the church calendar. All of these "developments" create a much more profoundly transcendent sense of worship for me. I understand others have different experiences. I view Communion as the central act of worship and hold to Christ being truly present in the elements of bread and wine (aka "Real Presence" ). It seems to me that if Sola Scriptura types took Jesus seriously they would be more observant of the Eucharist and the "plain words of Scripture" - "This is my body. This is my blood... Do this as often...". Everything else that happens during Sunday worship is secondary AFAIC. Teaching/preaching is secondary and can occur anywhere at any time.

---

Thanks for sharing. I totally understand where you're coming from. My wife was raised Presbyterian, and although we don't agree with the direction of the church, or the preaching (which is awful, at least at her home church), I totally get the reverence inherent in the liturgical and physical acts you're talking about, as the Presbys share a lot of those, and wish more were incorporated into non-denominational bible churches. As someone raised Baptist, it was completely foreign to me when we got married. But, 22-years later, on special days like Easter and Christmas, I enjoy those services much more than the Baptist and non-denominational churches that I attended as a child and younger man. And every year, we attend a Catholic Church's Boar's Head and Yule Log Festival in early January that has a re-enactment of the wise men meeting Christ. It's very reverent.

Our current church is much more reverent and liturgical than the churches I attended previously. We also attended Christ Church for a while here in Austin, which is also much more liturgical than your traditional Bible Church (though they share many of the same beliefs). Worship teams and coffee bars are not for me.

showing this to the average new england man in 1801 would cause them to die instantly https://t.co/QAZWUM7XIj pic.twitter.com/fAYltVx5xK

— owen cyclops (@owenbroadcast) September 22, 2023

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Vigilantius, Lactantius, and Origen were some of these early church fathers/writers that spoke against praying to Mary and the sains. Here is what Origen (248 A.D.) said:

"We judge it improper to pray to those beings who themselves offer up prayers to God, seeing even they themselves would prefer that we should send up our request to the God to whom they pray, rather than send them downwards to themselves, or apportion our power of prayer between God and them." (Origen, Against Celsus, Book V, Chap. XI)

You gotta be careful with Irenaeus. He was wrong about a LOT of things. It would be a fallacy to say that just because someone like him didn't mention it as a heresy, it means it wasn't one, or wasn't regarded as one.

---

I'm glad you brought this quote up again. By divine providence, I was listening to a podcast that addressed this very quote.

When you go to the original source, Origen is refuting a claim that Celsis, a pagan philosopher, that Christians worshippd God that they should also worship the stars, moon, and planets.

Origen is stating in this quote that we only worship God, not the objects in the sky. Here is what Origen really believed about intercession:

For we indeed acknowledge that angels are ministering spirits, . . . and that they ascend, bearing the supplications of men, to the purest of the heavenly places in the universe, or even to supercelestial regions purer still; and that they come down from these, conveying to each one, according to his deserts, something enjoined by God to be conferred by them upon those who are to be the recipients of his benefits. . . . For every prayer, and supplication, and intercession, and thanksgiving, is to be sent up to the Supreme God through the High Priest, who is above all the angels, the living Word and God. And to the Word Himself shall we also pray and make intercessions, and offer thanksgivings and supplications to Him, if we have the capacity of distinguishing between the proper use and abuse of prayer. . . .

And it is enough to secure that the holy angels of God be propitious to us, and that they do all things on our behalf, that our disposition of mind towards God should imitate as far as it is within the power of human nature the example of these holy angels, who again follow the example of their God; ... (Contra Celsum, V, 4-5)

What specifically did Irenaeus get wrong?

---

Where does Irenaeus say that these angels are the recipients of prayers?

And if he said "We judge it improper to pray to those beings who themselves offer up prayers to God....", why wouldn't that include Mary and the saints?

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

You are not to determine someone's heart when they pray, sure....but what if they're praying not to God, but to someone else? Can you not discern the idolatry in that?

---

At this point, I and others have stated many times that praying does NOT equal worshiping. To pray means to ask. Please substitute "pray" for "ask for intercession." After this many times of being told the same thing, this is disrespectful and rude. Quite frankly, there may be no need to continue the conversation if you are not willing to meet us on this point, I'm done with this discussion.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

When a Catholic prays the rosary, they are praying to Mary, not God. For every one praise of God in the rosary, there are TEN praises to Mary. Even the beads they use have pagan roots. They are used to keep track of the number of prayer repetitions. Jesus himself told us to not use vain repetitions when we pray, as the pagans do (Matthew 6:7). They are directly disobeying Jesus. They are also calling Mary "our life" and "our hope", and refer to her as "holy queen". There is a "Queen of Heaven" in the bible, and it's a pagan goddess. If someone does these things, how can their "heart" be anything else but idolatrous? If it's not at least your tenth thought, then there is truly something wrong with your discernment, if you are a believer.

---

Quite frankly, I expected better from you on this. You possess a great deal of knowledge and to resort to this sophomoric claims that I would expect from a small town Baptist preacher that doesn't know any better. These statements of "beads of pagan roots" and "repetition of prayers" are almost embarrassing for you.

I'll address Matthew 6:7 to help others better understand. Jesus, in Matthew 26:44:

So, leaving them again, he went away and prayed for the third time, saying the same words again.

Whoa, Jesus is repeating prayers. He must not have read what he said in Matt 6:7

In Thessalonians 5:17 - St. Paul urges us to "Pray without ceasing."

Same thing, maybe Paul was still blind and couldn't read Matt 6:7.

In Rev 4:8, Each of the four living creatures had six wings and was covered with eyes all around, even under its wings. Day and night they never stop saying: "'Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God Almighty,'

The angels here have no excuses. They have eyes all around, they should have most certainly read Matthew 6;7.

Maybe there's a logical explanation. In Matthew 6:7, Jesus is addressing the pagans that believed that they could wear down there gods like in 1 Kings 18 when the worshipers of Baal tried to call down fire when their babbling of prayers.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

There is so much about praying the rosary that is at the very least unscriptural, if not outright pagan idolatry. You aren't "judging" them by discerning this. If you are a believer in Jesus, then you should tell these people the truth, not out of "judgement" but to warn them.

---

Do you even know what the rosary is? Seriously. Once again, I would have expected you to at least understand what the rosary is comprised of if you were going to comment about it so authoritatively.

The rosary stated around the 12th century. The monks and other religious would memorize and pray all 150 of the Psalms. Of course, most lay people could not read, some pious people would repeat the Our Father "Pater Nostra" 150 times like the monks prayed the Psalms.

Traditions states that sometime around the 14th century, our Blessed Mother appeared to St. Dominic and gave him the structure of the rosary. The beginning of each rosary starts with the Apostle's Creed, an Our Father, 3 Hail Mary's (for an increase for the virtues of Faith, Hope, and Love), and a Glory Be prayer. Next 5 decades of Hail Mary's are prayed.

Now each rosary covers a specific mystery. The three original mysteries are the Glorious, Joyful, and the Sorrowful mysteries. Today is Friday. Most Catholic pray the Sorrowful mysteries on Fridays. (It's my favorite mystery.)

The Sorrowful first decade is the Agony in the Garden. We say an Our Father followed by 10 Hail Mary's. While saying these prayers, we contemplate on Jesus' suffering in the Garden of Gethsemane.
The Sorrowful second decade is the Scourging at the pillar, preceded by the Our Father followed by another decade. We dwell upon his brutal scouring which according to the the Shroud of Turin, 120 lashes with a Roman flagellum.
Third Sorrowful mystery is the Crowning of Thorns: Our Father, decade, and the contemplation of the spitting, punching, mocking, and pressing or beating the CAP of thorns onto Christ's head.
4th Sorrowful mystery is the Carrying of the Cross on the Via De La Rosa. Another Our Father, decade with the imagining of what it was like to carry a nearly 100 lb beam of wood for nearly a mile up hill to Golgatha. He fell three times. It's possible the third fall dislocated his shoulder, nearly paralyzing necessitating Simon of Cyrene carrying his cross.
5th Sorrowful mystery - Our Father, final decade while praying about the excruciating pain of having a nail driven thru the median nerve of the wrist and feet. The cruciform position of the body making exhaling extremely painful to the point where the lungs fill up with fluid and the heart gives out.

Finally we finish the rosary with a Glory Be.

When the monks and others replaced the 150 Psalms with 153 Hail Mary's (50 from each mystery (Sorrowful, Joyful, and Glorious). This allowed them to contemplate on the life of Jesus rather than just the Psalms.

The rosary is "scripture (Jesus's life) on a rope".

Anyone can pray the rosary. Not just Catholics. It's a universal prayer dwelling on the life of Jesus.

Our Easter Rite Catholics implore the Jesus prayer. "Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner." They repeat this with their breathing. {inhale]"Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God," {exhale} "have mercy on me, a sinner." I do this every day for a bit. It's very peaceful. I try to remember to do this when I approach the altar for the Eucharist every Sunday and Friday.

---

You don't read and apply scripture with sound reasoning and in good faith. Do you honestly not see the difference between Jesus imploring God from his heart multiple times in separate prayers to deliver him from the unbelievable amount of suffering he was to face, and Catholics ritualistically repeating pre-written and memorized phrases over and over in succession and a set number of times in the same prayer? If you're really in anguish, or in dire need, naturally it's going to lead you to ask God multiple times throughout the day for help, which is going to mean using the same words and phrases. This is NOT the same thing as ritualistically repeating a the same words and phrases in a set prayer one has memorized, and doing it over and over again a set number of times in the same sitting. This isn't a special, unique prayer that comes from the individual heart. This is corporate religiosity. Which do you think God really wants?

And Jesus didn't repeat the same words over and over in the same sitting. He made multiple separate prayers, but he said them in different ways: "And going a little farther he fell on his face and prayed, saying, "My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as you will."....... Again, for the second time, he went away and prayed, "My Father, if this cannot pass unless I drink it, your will be done."......So, leaving them again, he went away and prayed for the third time, saying the same words again."

When it says Jesus "said the same words again", it doesn't mean that he repeated the same phrase he had been saying, it just means he made the same request of God again, as he had done the previous two times.

And how does "pray without ceasing" mean ritualistically repeating the same words and phrases over and over again? This is yet again an example of interpreting scripture in bad faith in order to defend one's belief and practice.

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

It is not my place to make a determination of what is in a person's heart when they are praying. That is for God, and God alone.

However, as I have said before, if I see someone break out a rosary and start to pray, "Idol Worshipper" is not the first, or even 10th, thought that comes to mind.

"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you."
Matthew 7:1

---

If by saying "Do not judge" Jesus meant for us not to never discern wrong beliefs and practices in others, then that would defeat the whole purpose of evangelizing, which Jesus charges his followers.

You are not to determine someone's heart when they pray, sure....but what if they're praying not to God, but to someone else? Can you not discern the idolatry in that?

When a Catholic prays the rosary, they are praying to Mary, not God. For every one praise of God in the rosary, there are TEN praises to Mary. Even the beads they use have pagan roots. They are used to keep track of the number of prayer repetitions. Jesus himself told us to not use vain repetitions when we pray, as the pagans do (Matthew 6:7). They are directly disobeying Jesus. They are also calling Mary "our life" and "our hope", and refer to her as "holy queen". There is a "Queen of Heaven" in the bible, and it's a pagan goddess. If someone does these things, how can their "heart" be anything else but idolatrous? If it's not at least your tenth thought, then there is truly something wrong with your discernment, if you are a believer.

There is so much about praying the rosary that is at the very least unscriptural, if not outright pagan idolatry. You aren't "judging" them by discerning this. If you are a believer in Jesus, then you should tell these people the truth, not out of "judgement" but to warn them.

---

Matthew 7 is a warning against hypocrisy and not an injunction against judgement per se. Too many miss this point - "For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you". You should take that to heart.

---

How am I being hypocritical?

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

John Calvin had extensive knowledge of Church history. In his work A Treastise on Relics, he argued that prayers to the saints, prayers for the dead, the veneration of relics, the lighting of candles (in homage to the saints), and the veneration of icons are all rooted in Roman paganism. He writes:

Quote:

---

Hero-worship is innate to human nature, and it is founded on some of our noblest feelings, gratitude, love, and admiration, but which, like all other feelings, when uncontrolled by principle and reason, may easily degenerate into the wildest exaggerations, and lead to most dangerous consequences. It was by such an exaggeration of these noble feelings that [Roman] Paganism filled the Olympus with gods and demigods, elevating to this rank men who have often deserved the gratitude of their fellow-creatures, by some signal services rendered to the community, or their admiration, by having performed some deeds which required a more than usual degree of mental and physical powers.

The same cause obtained for the Christian martyrs the gratitude and admiration of their fellow-Christians, and finally converted them into a kind of demigods. This was more particularly the case when the church began to be corrupted by her compromise with Paganism [during the fourth and fifth-centuries], which having been baptized without being converted, rapidly introduced into the Christian church, not only many of its rites and ceremonies, but even its polytheism, with this difference, that the divinities of Greece and Rome were replaced by Christian saints, many of whom received the offices of their Pagan predecessors.

The church in the beginning tolerated these abuses, as a temporary evil, but was afterwards unable to remove them; and they became so strong, particularly during the prevailing ignorance of the middle ages, that the church ended up legalizing, through her decrees, that at which she did nothing but wink at first........

......Thus St. Anthony of Padua restores, like Mercury, stolen property; St. Hubert, like Diana, is the patron of sportsmen; St. Cosmas, like Esculapius, that of physicians, etc. In fact, almost every profession and trade, as well as every place, have their especial patron saint, who, like the tutelary divinity of the Pagans, receives particular hours from his or her protgs.

---

---

Jean Calvin wasn't above advocating burning at the stake as punishment for perceived heresies, btw. So why quote from Calvin - Sola Scriptura and all that?

---

What do you think about the history of Catholic saints having roots in pagan idols?

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

We know based on the revelation of God through Jesus. Because by faith we accept the testimony of the historical resurrection of Jesus given to us by Jesus' apostles, whose testimony is reliably preserved in the New Testament. And because Jesus was resurrected, he was from God, and therefore his word has the authority of God. And Jesus himself gave the stamp of authority to the Old Testament ("every jot and tittle") and to the word from his apostles (John 14:26).

What is the basis for your faith tradition's teaching that the Bible is the inspired word of God? Is it on the same revelation of God through the historical life, death, and resurrection of Jesus? If so, that's our shared starting point. And sola scriptura is the logical outflow from that starting point, as explained above.

---

"We know based on the revelation of God through Jesus. Because by faith we accept the testimony of the historical resurrection of Jesus given to us by Jesus' apostles..."

Here's the heart of your fallacy right here; if we "knew" then it wouldn't be faith, it would be knowledge. We believe, accept, give intellectual assent to propositional truth, but ultimately we cannot know this side of the grave. I have faith and hope, but no objective proof.

---

Don't get so hung up on semantics. You can "know" things by faith. Faith is "the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." (Hebrews 11:1)

---

You make a living here with semantics. Ironic. You can believe things by faith and hope for them by faith, but you cannot know.

---

If all you have to harp on was my choice of the word "know", it would seem to indicate the solidity of my argument.

---

From St Paul's letter to the Corinthians (you know, Sola Scriptura, and all that): For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

That you choose to argue over believing/thinking over actually knowing tells us all we need to "know" about the solidity of your argument.

---

It was Sam Lowry who said he "knew" why Scripture was the word of God, and asked how I "know" it is. So I answered in like manner.

That would mean your criticism applies mostly to him, since he started the discussion in that way. So therefore you are really questioning the solidity of his argument. And since you are defending his position, that would also put you yourself under the same criticism.

How's that for turning your own pedantry against you?

---

You haven't turned anything. All you've managed is to demonstrate the Chief of Pedantics position on this thread is fully owned by you.

---

What do you think about it being Sam Lowry who said "know", and how you defended his position, but then criticized me for saying I "know"? Stay on point.

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Those who divide the honor, glory, and praise that is due Jesus and give it to someone else, and those who promote it, they are the one dividing themselves from the body. Satan smiles at that.

---

This statement does not make logical sense. We give glory and honor to God and the Holy Spirit. This is dividing between two other persons.

Jesus doesn't get jealous or upset when we love His mother. It makes Him happy.

---

Problem is, God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit have something in common with one another that make them worthy of glory and honor.

Mary on the other hand...

---

I would say Mary is worthy of honor. There are many Bible quotes saying that humans are worthy of honor. I think it's a safe assumption that Jesus honored Mary the same way any good Jewish son would honor his mother. You could say Jesus' miracle of turning water to wine was at her request.

Worthy of worship is a different matter.

---

Would you say she is being worshiped by Catholics?

---

I say what I said before. Depends on what is in the individual's heart.

---

"The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?" (Jeremiah 17:9).

There are many who will convince themselves they are not worshiping Mary in their heart, but they really are. Could someone ever not be worshiping Mary in their heart, yet bow to her statue, pray to her for intercession, sing hymns to her, celebrate festivals for her, have pictures and statues of her all over their house, or fervently rush to any area where an apparition of her was reported? Or believe she was sinless, was bodily assumed to heaven, and should be prayed to for intercession, which sounds like someone from the bible we all know? Or believe Pope Pius IX when he wrote:

"For God has committed to Mary the treasury of all good things, in order that everyone may know that THROUGH HER are obtained every hope, every grace, and ALL SALVATION. For this is his will, that we obtain everything through Mary." (Pius IX, Ubi Primum, 1849)

By our actions, our heart is revealed.

---

Your actions here reveal plenty about your heart.

---

Thank you!

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Which books of the OT did Jesus quote from or allude to that were removed by Christians?

---

First Catholics are Christians. We're the original franchise since 33 AD.

To answer your question: None of them.

The New Testament never quotes from Judges, Ruth, Ezra, Ester, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Lamentations, Obadiah, Johan, or Zaphaniah. Should we remove these?

---

No, the first Christians were not Catholics. There were no popes, bishops, priests, nuns, etc. and as it's been repeatedly shown over and over in this thread, neither Jesus, his apostles, nor the first Christians believed in or practiced praying to Mary or to saints.

I am not saying to remove OT books that weren't quoted in the NT. I'm asking you to expound on your comment - "Jesus and the apostles quoted from the Septuagint, which contains all 46 books of the OT, but Protestants removed 7 of them. Yet, they claim to be able to interpret scripture with the Holy Spirit." If Jesus or the apostles quoted from a book in the OT that was removed by Protestants, then you'd have an argument. But if you can't name one of those books, then you don't.

---

Of course there were bishops and priests. You've "shown" exactly nothing re Jesus, his apostles, nor the first Christians concerning their beliefs or practices concerning Mary or the saints. You have inferred from silence, just as the early Church inferred from tradition and reason.

---

But you are making the positive assertion that prayer to Mary and the saints was taught, believed, and practiced by Jesus, his apostles, or the first Christians. The onus of showing something is on you, and you failed, even on the grounds of tradition and reason.

Believing positively on something based on the silence of Jesus is a foolish and dangerous way to think. It's what people do to corrupt the faith. And I've shown you more than enough biblical principles as well as common sense reason as to why the practice is wrong, so it isn't an argument from silence, really.

---

Another lie from you? Show me where I claimed Jesus or his apostles taught or practiced the veneration of Mary or the saints. It is clear that early Christians did. That they are not early enough for you is your problem. I failed nothing. You are just invincibly ignorant.

While it may be true believing something based on silence may sometimes be dangerous, it may also not be dangerous. The thing is not dispositive in and of itself. You haven't shown anything other than insistence that your own understanding trumps that of the majority of all Christians ever. Satan approved hubris is your fruit.

---

If it was believed and practiced by an "early" group of Christians, but it was NOT taught, believed, or practiced by Jesus, the apostles, and the first Christians, then it does not have authority. Remember that heresies like gnosticism were abound that predated the practice of praying to Mary, and those heresies were shunned for the reason that it did not trace back to Jesus, the apostles, and the first Christians. So why should the practice of praying to Mary be any different?

---

Still waiting for you to show where I claimed Jesus or his apostles taught or practiced the veneration of Mary or the saints, btw.

---

So if you know they didn't, why are you doing it?

---

Caught in your lie and can't get out, can you? Too funny, spin meister.

---

There was no lie. It is funny, though, how you're arguments have devolved into just hurling insults and pedantry.

curtpenn said:

---

Mothra said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

You are asking me to judge someone based on their personal prayers to God. I WILL NOT insert my thoughts, beliefs and especially judgement on someone else's personal prayers to God without the knowledge of what is in their heart mind and soul.

My final post on this topic.

---

But they're NOT praying to God. That's the whole topic!!

---

The "whole topic" is that requesting intercession is not the same as praying to God.

---

Eh, I think that's a bit of a distinction without a difference. They ARE praying for intercession to a human being, assuming that human has the capacity to hear their prayers, and then intercede on their behalf, which as pointed out above, has no scriptural support.

---

Yeah, we're never going to agree about "praying to" vs asking for intercessory prayer. To me, there is no distinction between invoking Mary or any saint (which includes those we have known in our lifetimes) and asking anyone we know for their prayers. All the same to me. I don't "pray to" my priest or my best friends. I don't "pray to " Mary or any saint. End of story.

---

Since praying to Mary or the saints has no scriptural support, then by what revelation is that practice based on? By what revelation is the belief that those saints can hear you "invoke" them, that they are in heaven, and that they hold certain "offices" based on, if not the bible?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Which books of the OT did Jesus quote from or allude to that were removed by Christians?

---

First Catholics are Christians. We're the original franchise since 33 AD.

To answer your question: None of them.

The New Testament never quotes from Judges, Ruth, Ezra, Ester, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Lamentations, Obadiah, Johan, or Zaphaniah. Should we remove these?

---

No, the first Christians were not Catholics. There were no popes, bishops, priests, nuns, etc. and as it's been repeatedly shown over and over in this thread, neither Jesus, his apostles, nor the first Christians believed in or practiced praying to Mary or to saints.

I am not saying to remove OT books that weren't quoted in the NT. I'm asking you to expound on your comment - "Jesus and the apostles quoted from the Septuagint, which contains all 46 books of the OT, but Protestants removed 7 of them. Yet, they claim to be able to interpret scripture with the Holy Spirit." If Jesus or the apostles quoted from a book in the OT that was removed by Protestants, then you'd have an argument. But if you can't name one of those books, then you don't.

---

Of course there were bishops and priests. You've "shown" exactly nothing re Jesus, his apostles, nor the first Christians concerning their beliefs or practices concerning Mary or the saints. You have inferred from silence, just as the early Church inferred from tradition and reason.

---

But you are making the positive assertion that prayer to Mary and the saints was taught, believed, and practiced by Jesus, his apostles, or the first Christians. The onus of showing something is on you, and you failed, even on the grounds of tradition and reason.

Believing positively on something based on the silence of Jesus is a foolish and dangerous way to think. It's what people do to corrupt the faith. And I've shown you more than enough biblical principles as well as common sense reason as to why the practice is wrong, so it isn't an argument from silence, really.

---

Another lie from you? Show me where I claimed Jesus or his apostles taught or practiced the veneration of Mary or the saints. It is clear that early Christians did. That they are not early enough for you is your problem. I failed nothing. You are just invincibly ignorant.

While it may be true believing something based on silence may sometimes be dangerous, it may also not be dangerous. The thing is not dispositive in and of itself. You haven't shown anything other than insistence that your own understanding trumps that of the majority of all Christians ever. Satan approved hubris is your fruit.

---

If it was believed and practiced by an "early" group of Christians, but it was NOT taught, believed, or practiced by Jesus, the apostles, and the first Christians, then it does not have authority. Remember that heresies like gnosticism were abound that predated the practice of praying to Mary, and those heresies were shunned for the reason that it did not trace back to Jesus, the apostles, and the first Christians. So why should the practice of praying to Mary be any different?

---

Still waiting for you to show where I claimed Jesus or his apostles taught or practiced the veneration of Mary or the saints, btw.

---

So if you know they didn't, why are you doing it?

---

Caught in your lie and can't get out, can you? Too funny, spin meister.

---

There was no lie. It is funny, though, how you're arguments have devolved into just hurling insults and pedantry.

---

What's funny is you flat out lied about what I said and aren't man enough to own it. Tells us all we need to know about your judgement and discernment.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Those who divide the honor, glory, and praise that is due Jesus and give it to someone else, and those who promote it, they are the one dividing themselves from the body. Satan smiles at that.

---

This statement does not make logical sense. We give glory and honor to God and the Holy Spirit. This is dividing between two other persons.

Jesus doesn't get jealous or upset when we love His mother. It makes Him happy.

---

Problem is, God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit have something in common with one another that make them worthy of glory and honor.

Mary on the other hand...

---

I would say Mary is worthy of honor. There are many Bible quotes saying that humans are worthy of honor. I think it's a safe assumption that Jesus honored Mary the same way any good Jewish son would honor his mother. You could say Jesus' miracle of turning water to wine was at her request.

Worthy of worship is a different matter.

---

Would you say she is being worshiped by Catholics?

---

I say what I said before. Depends on what is in the individual's heart.

---

"The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?" (Jeremiah 17:9).

There are many who will convince themselves they are not worshiping Mary in their heart, but they really are. Could someone ever not be worshiping Mary in their heart, yet bow to her statue, pray to her for intercession, sing hymns to her, celebrate festivals for her, have pictures and statues of her all over their house, or fervently rush to any area where an apparition of her was reported? Or believe she was sinless, was bodily assumed to heaven, and should be prayed to for intercession, which sounds like someone from the bible we all know? Or believe Pope Pius IX when he wrote:

"For God has committed to Mary the treasury of all good things, in order that everyone may know that THROUGH HER are obtained every hope, every grace, and ALL SALVATION. For this is his will, that we obtain everything through Mary." (Pius IX, Ubi Primum, 1849)

By our actions, our heart is revealed.

---

Your actions here reveal plenty about your heart.

---

Thank you!

---

You're welcome!

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

We know based on the revelation of God through Jesus. Because by faith we accept the testimony of the historical resurrection of Jesus given to us by Jesus' apostles, whose testimony is reliably preserved in the New Testament. And because Jesus was resurrected, he was from God, and therefore his word has the authority of God. And Jesus himself gave the stamp of authority to the Old Testament ("every jot and tittle") and to the word from his apostles (John 14:26).

What is the basis for your faith tradition's teaching that the Bible is the inspired word of God? Is it on the same revelation of God through the historical life, death, and resurrection of Jesus? If so, that's our shared starting point. And sola scriptura is the logical outflow from that starting point, as explained above.

---

"We know based on the revelation of God through Jesus. Because by faith we accept the testimony of the historical resurrection of Jesus given to us by Jesus' apostles..."

Here's the heart of your fallacy right here; if we "knew" then it wouldn't be faith, it would be knowledge. We believe, accept, give intellectual assent to propositional truth, but ultimately we cannot know this side of the grave. I have faith and hope, but no objective proof.

---

Don't get so hung up on semantics. You can "know" things by faith. Faith is "the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." (Hebrews 11:1)

---

You make a living here with semantics. Ironic. You can believe things by faith and hope for them by faith, but you cannot know.

---

If all you have to harp on was my choice of the word "know", it would seem to indicate the solidity of my argument.

---

From St Paul's letter to the Corinthians (you know, Sola Scriptura, and all that): For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

That you choose to argue over believing/thinking over actually knowing tells us all we need to "know" about the solidity of your argument.

---

It was Sam Lowry who said he "knew" why Scripture was the word of God, and asked how I "know" it is. So I answered in like manner.

That would mean your criticism applies mostly to him, since he started the discussion in that way. So therefore you are really questioning the solidity of his argument. And since you are defending his position, that would also put you yourself under the same criticism.

How's that for turning your own pedantry against you?

---

You haven't turned anything. All you've managed is to demonstrate the Chief of Pedantics position on this thread is fully owned by you.

---

What do you think about it being Sam Lowry who said "know", and how you defended his position, but then criticized me for saying I "know"? Stay on point.

---

I'm all over the point. The point being you demonstrate daily your excessive pedantry for all to see here.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Mothra said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

You are asking me to judge someone based on their personal prayers to God. I WILL NOT insert my thoughts, beliefs and especially judgement on someone else's personal prayers to God without the knowledge of what is in their heart mind and soul.

My final post on this topic.

---

But they're NOT praying to God. That's the whole topic!!

---

The "whole topic" is that requesting intercession is not the same as praying to God.

---

Eh, I think that's a bit of a distinction without a difference. They ARE praying for intercession to a human being, assuming that human has the capacity to hear their prayers, and then intercede on their behalf, which as pointed out above, has no scriptural support.

---

Yeah, we're never going to agree about "praying to" vs asking for intercessory prayer. To me, there is no distinction between invoking Mary or any saint (which includes those we have known in our lifetimes) and asking anyone we know for their prayers. All the same to me. I don't "pray to" my priest or my best friends. I don't "pray to " Mary or any saint. End of story.

---

Since praying to Mary or the saints has no scriptural support, then by what revelation is that practice based on? By what revelation is the belief that those saints can hear you "invoke" them, that they are in heaven, and that they hold certain "offices" based on, if not the bible?

---

This is simple; Mary and the saints are alive and in the presence of Christ even now. Why would they not be willing to offer their intercessions on our behalf if asked?

You cannot prove this is contra Scripture from Scripture, nor can you "know" (there's that word again) that which you deny is wrong or impossible. You can only believe you are correct. At least the majority of all Christians ever have Scripture, tradition, and reason on their side.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

John Calvin had extensive knowledge of Church history. In his work A Treastise on Relics, he argued that prayers to the saints, prayers for the dead, the veneration of relics, the lighting of candles (in homage to the saints), and the veneration of icons are all rooted in Roman paganism. He writes:

Quote:

---

Hero-worship is innate to human nature, and it is founded on some of our noblest feelings, gratitude, love, and admiration, but which, like all other feelings, when uncontrolled by principle and reason, may easily degenerate into the wildest exaggerations, and lead to most dangerous consequences. It was by such an exaggeration of these noble feelings that [Roman] Paganism filled the Olympus with gods and demigods, elevating to this rank men who have often deserved the gratitude of their fellow-creatures, by some signal services rendered to the community, or their admiration, by having performed some deeds which required a more than usual degree of mental and physical powers.

The same cause obtained for the Christian martyrs the gratitude and admiration of their fellow-Christians, and finally converted them into a kind of demigods. This was more particularly the case when the church began to be corrupted by her compromise with Paganism [during the fourth and fifth-centuries], which having been baptized without being converted, rapidly introduced into the Christian church, not only many of its rites and ceremonies, but even its polytheism, with this difference, that the divinities of Greece and Rome were replaced by Christian saints, many of whom received the offices of their Pagan predecessors.

The church in the beginning tolerated these abuses, as a temporary evil, but was afterwards unable to remove them; and they became so strong, particularly during the prevailing ignorance of the middle ages, that the church ended up legalizing, through her decrees, that at which she did nothing but wink at first........

......Thus St. Anthony of Padua restores, like Mercury, stolen property; St. Hubert, like Diana, is the patron of sportsmen; St. Cosmas, like Esculapius, that of physicians, etc. In fact, almost every profession and trade, as well as every place, have their especial patron saint, who, like the tutelary divinity of the Pagans, receives particular hours from his or her protgs.

---

---

Jean Calvin wasn't above advocating burning at the stake as punishment for perceived heresies, btw. So why quote from Calvin - Sola Scriptura and all that?

---

What do you think about the history of Catholic saints having roots in pagan idols?

---

Just struck me as ironic/funny you would appeal to authority and choose Calvin as said authority. He believed a number of things that are questionable and wasn't above literally condemning those with whom he disagreed (sound familiar?).

One supposes you don't have a Christmas tree, exchange gifts, hang greens, kiss under the mistletoe, dye Easter eggs, and on an on. Right?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

You are not to determine someone's heart when they pray, sure....but what if they're praying not to God, but to someone else? Can you not discern the idolatry in that?

---

At this point, I and others have stated many times that praying does NOT equal worshiping. To pray means to ask. Please substitute "pray" for "ask for intercession." After this many times of being told the same thing, this is disrespectful and rude. Quite frankly, there may be no need to continue the conversation if you are not willing to meet us on this point, I'm done with this discussion.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

When a Catholic prays the rosary, they are praying to Mary, not God. For every one praise of God in the rosary, there are TEN praises to Mary. Even the beads they use have pagan roots. They are used to keep track of the number of prayer repetitions. Jesus himself told us to not use vain repetitions when we pray, as the pagans do (Matthew 6:7). They are directly disobeying Jesus. They are also calling Mary "our life" and "our hope", and refer to her as "holy queen". There is a "Queen of Heaven" in the bible, and it's a pagan goddess. If someone does these things, how can their "heart" be anything else but idolatrous? If it's not at least your tenth thought, then there is truly something wrong with your discernment, if you are a believer.

---

Quite frankly, I expected better from you on this. You possess a great deal of knowledge and to resort to this sophomoric claims that I would expect from a small town Baptist preacher that doesn't know any better. These statements of "beads of pagan roots" and "repetition of prayers" are almost embarrassing for you.

I'll address Matthew 6:7 to help others better understand. Jesus, in Matthew 26:44:

So, leaving them again, he went away and prayed for the third time, saying the same words again.

Whoa, Jesus is repeating prayers. He must not have read what he said in Matt 6:7

In Thessalonians 5:17 - St. Paul urges us to "Pray without ceasing."

Same thing, maybe Paul was still blind and couldn't read Matt 6:7.

In Rev 4:8, Each of the four living creatures had six wings and was covered with eyes all around, even under its wings. Day and night they never stop saying: "'Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God Almighty,'

The angels here have no excuses. They have eyes all around, they should have most certainly read Matthew 6;7.

Maybe there's a logical explanation. In Matthew 6:7, Jesus is addressing the pagans that believed that they could wear down there gods like in 1 Kings 18 when the worshipers of Baal tried to call down fire when their babbling of prayers.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

There is so much about praying the rosary that is at the very least unscriptural, if not outright pagan idolatry. You aren't "judging" them by discerning this. If you are a believer in Jesus, then you should tell these people the truth, not out of "judgement" but to warn them.

---

Do you even know what the rosary is? Seriously. Once again, I would have expected you to at least understand what the rosary is comprised of if you were going to comment about it so authoritatively.

The rosary stated around the 12th century. The monks and other religious would memorize and pray all 150 of the Psalms. Of course, most lay people could not read, some pious people would repeat the Our Father "Pater Nostra" 150 times like the monks prayed the Psalms.

Traditions states that sometime around the 14th century, our Blessed Mother appeared to St. Dominic and gave him the structure of the rosary. The beginning of each rosary starts with the Apostle's Creed, an Our Father, 3 Hail Mary's (for an increase for the virtues of Faith, Hope, and Love), and a Glory Be prayer. Next 5 decades of Hail Mary's are prayed.

Now each rosary covers a specific mystery. The three original mysteries are the Glorious, Joyful, and the Sorrowful mysteries. Today is Friday. Most Catholic pray the Sorrowful mysteries on Fridays. (It's my favorite mystery.)

The Sorrowful first decade is the Agony in the Garden. We say an Our Father followed by 10 Hail Mary's. While saying these prayers, we contemplate on Jesus' suffering in the Garden of Gethsemane.
The Sorrowful second decade is the Scourging at the pillar, preceded by the Our Father followed by another decade. We dwell upon his brutal scouring which according to the the Shroud of Turin, 120 lashes with a Roman flagellum.
Third Sorrowful mystery is the Crowning of Thorns: Our Father, decade, and the contemplation of the spitting, punching, mocking, and pressing or beating the CAP of thorns onto Christ's head.
4th Sorrowful mystery is the Carrying of the Cross on the Via De La Rosa. Another Our Father, decade with the imagining of what it was like to carry a nearly 100 lb beam of wood for nearly a mile up hill to Golgatha. He fell three times. It's possible the third fall dislocated his shoulder, nearly paralyzing necessitating Simon of Cyrene carrying his cross.
5th Sorrowful mystery - Our Father, final decade while praying about the excruciating pain of having a nail driven thru the median nerve of the wrist and feet. The cruciform position of the body making exhaling extremely painful to the point where the lungs fill up with fluid and the heart gives out.

Finally we finish the rosary with a Glory Be.

When the monks and others replaced the 150 Psalms with 153 Hail Mary's (50 from each mystery (Sorrowful, Joyful, and Glorious). This allowed them to contemplate on the life of Jesus rather than just the Psalms.

The rosary is "scripture (Jesus's life) on a rope".

Anyone can pray the rosary. Not just Catholics. It's a universal prayer dwelling on the life of Jesus.

Our Easter Rite Catholics implore the Jesus prayer. "Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner." They repeat this with their breathing. {inhale]"Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God," {exhale} "have mercy on me, a sinner." I do this every day for a bit. It's very peaceful. I try to remember to do this when I approach the altar for the Eucharist every Sunday and Friday.

---

You don't read and apply scripture with sound reasoning and in good faith. Do you honestly not see the difference between Jesus imploring God from his heart multiple times in separate prayers to deliver him from the unbelievable amount of suffering he was to face, and Catholics ritualistically repeating pre-written and memorized phrases over and over in succession and a set number of times in the same prayer? If you're really in anguish, or in dire need, naturally it's going to lead you to ask God multiple times throughout the day for help, which is going to mean using the same words and phrases. This is NOT the same thing as ritualistically repeating a the same words and phrases in a set prayer one has memorized, and doing it over and over again a set number of times in the same sitting. This isn't a special, unique prayer that comes from the individual heart. This is corporate religiosity. Which do you think God really wants?

And Jesus didn't repeat the same words over and over in the same sitting. He made multiple separate prayers, but he said them in different ways: "And going a little farther he fell on his face and prayed, saying, "My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as you will."....... Again, for the second time, he went away and prayed, "My Father, if this cannot pass unless I drink it, your will be done."......So, leaving them again, he went away and prayed for the third time, saying the same words again."

When it says Jesus "said the same words again", it doesn't mean that he repeated the same phrase he had been saying, it just means he made the same request of God again, as he had done the previous two times.

And how does "pray without ceasing" mean ritualistically repeating the same words and phrases over and over again? This is yet again an example of interpreting scripture in bad faith in order to defend one's belief and practice.

---

That you accuse Coke Bear of acting in bad faith really makes my blood boil and makes me wish I could reach through this screen and jerk a knot in your tail. You are fortunate to be able to function anonymously behind a keyboard. Sorry (sort of) if this isn't very Christ-like, but there it is. I will ask for forgiveness. You should do likewise.

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

You are not to determine someone's heart when they pray, sure....but what if they're praying not to God, but to someone else? Can you not discern the idolatry in that?

---

At this point, I and others have stated many times that praying does NOT equal worshiping. To pray means to ask. Please substitute "pray" for "ask for intercession." After this many times of being told the same thing, this is disrespectful and rude. Quite frankly, there may be no need to continue the conversation if you are not willing to meet us on this point, I'm done with this discussion.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

When a Catholic prays the rosary, they are praying to Mary, not God. For every one praise of God in the rosary, there are TEN praises to Mary. Even the beads they use have pagan roots. They are used to keep track of the number of prayer repetitions. Jesus himself told us to not use vain repetitions when we pray, as the pagans do (Matthew 6:7). They are directly disobeying Jesus. They are also calling Mary "our life" and "our hope", and refer to her as "holy queen". There is a "Queen of Heaven" in the bible, and it's a pagan goddess. If someone does these things, how can their "heart" be anything else but idolatrous? If it's not at least your tenth thought, then there is truly something wrong with your discernment, if you are a believer.

---

Quite frankly, I expected better from you on this. You possess a great deal of knowledge and to resort to this sophomoric claims that I would expect from a small town Baptist preacher that doesn't know any better. These statements of "beads of pagan roots" and "repetition of prayers" are almost embarrassing for you.

I'll address Matthew 6:7 to help others better understand. Jesus, in Matthew 26:44:

So, leaving them again, he went away and prayed for the third time, saying the same words again.

Whoa, Jesus is repeating prayers. He must not have read what he said in Matt 6:7

In Thessalonians 5:17 - St. Paul urges us to "Pray without ceasing."

Same thing, maybe Paul was still blind and couldn't read Matt 6:7.

In Rev 4:8, Each of the four living creatures had six wings and was covered with eyes all around, even under its wings. Day and night they never stop saying: "'Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God Almighty,'

The angels here have no excuses. They have eyes all around, they should have most certainly read Matthew 6;7.

Maybe there's a logical explanation. In Matthew 6:7, Jesus is addressing the pagans that believed that they could wear down there gods like in 1 Kings 18 when the worshipers of Baal tried to call down fire when their babbling of prayers.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

There is so much about praying the rosary that is at the very least unscriptural, if not outright pagan idolatry. You aren't "judging" them by discerning this. If you are a believer in Jesus, then you should tell these people the truth, not out of "judgement" but to warn them.

---

Do you even know what the rosary is? Seriously. Once again, I would have expected you to at least understand what the rosary is comprised of if you were going to comment about it so authoritatively.

The rosary stated around the 12th century. The monks and other religious would memorize and pray all 150 of the Psalms. Of course, most lay people could not read, some pious people would repeat the Our Father "Pater Nostra" 150 times like the monks prayed the Psalms.

Traditions states that sometime around the 14th century, our Blessed Mother appeared to St. Dominic and gave him the structure of the rosary. The beginning of each rosary starts with the Apostle's Creed, an Our Father, 3 Hail Mary's (for an increase for the virtues of Faith, Hope, and Love), and a Glory Be prayer. Next 5 decades of Hail Mary's are prayed.

Now each rosary covers a specific mystery. The three original mysteries are the Glorious, Joyful, and the Sorrowful mysteries. Today is Friday. Most Catholic pray the Sorrowful mysteries on Fridays. (It's my favorite mystery.)

The Sorrowful first decade is the Agony in the Garden. We say an Our Father followed by 10 Hail Mary's. While saying these prayers, we contemplate on Jesus' suffering in the Garden of Gethsemane.
The Sorrowful second decade is the Scourging at the pillar, preceded by the Our Father followed by another decade. We dwell upon his brutal scouring which according to the the Shroud of Turin, 120 lashes with a Roman flagellum.
Third Sorrowful mystery is the Crowning of Thorns: Our Father, decade, and the contemplation of the spitting, punching, mocking, and pressing or beating the CAP of thorns onto Christ's head.
4th Sorrowful mystery is the Carrying of the Cross on the Via De La Rosa. Another Our Father, decade with the imagining of what it was like to carry a nearly 100 lb beam of wood for nearly a mile up hill to Golgatha. He fell three times. It's possible the third fall dislocated his shoulder, nearly paralyzing necessitating Simon of Cyrene carrying his cross.
5th Sorrowful mystery - Our Father, final decade while praying about the excruciating pain of having a nail driven thru the median nerve of the wrist and feet. The cruciform position of the body making exhaling extremely painful to the point where the lungs fill up with fluid and the heart gives out.

Finally we finish the rosary with a Glory Be.

When the monks and others replaced the 150 Psalms with 153 Hail Mary's (50 from each mystery (Sorrowful, Joyful, and Glorious). This allowed them to contemplate on the life of Jesus rather than just the Psalms.

The rosary is "scripture (Jesus's life) on a rope".

Anyone can pray the rosary. Not just Catholics. It's a universal prayer dwelling on the life of Jesus.

Our Easter Rite Catholics implore the Jesus prayer. "Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner." They repeat this with their breathing. {inhale]"Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God," {exhale} "have mercy on me, a sinner." I do this every day for a bit. It's very peaceful. I try to remember to do this when I approach the altar for the Eucharist every Sunday and Friday.

---

You don't read and apply scripture with sound reasoning and in good faith. Do you honestly not see the difference between Jesus imploring God from his heart multiple times in separate prayers to deliver him from the unbelievable amount of suffering he was to face, and Catholics ritualistically repeating pre-written and memorized phrases over and over in succession and a set number of times in the same prayer? If you're really in anguish, or in dire need, naturally it's going to lead you to ask God multiple times throughout the day for help, which is going to mean using the same words and phrases. This is NOT the same thing as ritualistically repeating a the same words and phrases in a set prayer one has memorized, and doing it over and over again a set number of times in the same sitting. This isn't a special, unique prayer that comes from the individual heart. This is corporate religiosity. Which do you think God really wants?

And Jesus didn't repeat the same words over and over in the same sitting. He made multiple separate prayers, but he said them in different ways: "And going a little farther he fell on his face and prayed, saying, "My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as you will."....... Again, for the second time, he went away and prayed, "My Father, if this cannot pass unless I drink it, your will be done."......So, leaving them again, he went away and prayed for the third time, saying the same words again."

When it says Jesus "said the same words again", it doesn't mean that he repeated the same phrase he had been saying, it just means he made the same request of God again, as he had done the previous two times.

And how does "pray without ceasing" mean ritualistically repeating the same words and phrases over and over again? This is yet again an example of interpreting scripture in bad faith in order to defend one's belief and practice.

---

That you accuse Coke Bear of acting in bad faith really makes my blood boil and makes me wish I could reach through this screen and jerk a knot in your tail. You are fortunate to be able to function anonymously behind a keyboard. Sorry (sort of) if this isn't very Christ-like, but there it is. I will ask for forgiveness. You should do likewise.

---

I really don't think your blood is boiling against me. It's really against the truth that I'm saying. You hate it, and you can't argue against it. I don't doubt you'd want to hurt me if we were having this discussion face to face. You are being led by the spirit of the god of this world, which is hostile to the truth of Jesus and his true gospel.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Of course I agree with Bishop Strickland here, and am thankful for Catholics standing up for Christian principles.

But it isn't very "Christian" for Catholics to rely not on Jesus Christ, but rather....Mary:

Thank you brothers. Our power is…”Hail Mary full of grace…” https://t.co/ycfPjFi6Z2

— Bishop J. Strickland (@Bishopoftyler) June 27, 2023

---

Huh?

"The canonization of the bible by the Catholic Church was just a recognition of what had already been deemed scripture by the first Christians."

If that's the case, why were protestant Bibles shortened to 66 books in the late 19th/early 20th century?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

You are not to determine someone's heart when they pray, sure....but what if they're praying not to God, but to someone else? Can you not discern the idolatry in that?

---

At this point, I and others have stated many times that praying does NOT equal worshiping. To pray means to ask. Please substitute "pray" for "ask for intercession." After this many times of being told the same thing, this is disrespectful and rude. Quite frankly, there may be no need to continue the conversation if you are not willing to meet us on this point, I'm done with this discussion.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

When a Catholic prays the rosary, they are praying to Mary, not God. For every one praise of God in the rosary, there are TEN praises to Mary. Even the beads they use have pagan roots. They are used to keep track of the number of prayer repetitions. Jesus himself told us to not use vain repetitions when we pray, as the pagans do (Matthew 6:7). They are directly disobeying Jesus. They are also calling Mary "our life" and "our hope", and refer to her as "holy queen". There is a "Queen of Heaven" in the bible, and it's a pagan goddess. If someone does these things, how can their "heart" be anything else but idolatrous? If it's not at least your tenth thought, then there is truly something wrong with your discernment, if you are a believer.

---

Quite frankly, I expected better from you on this. You possess a great deal of knowledge and to resort to this sophomoric claims that I would expect from a small town Baptist preacher that doesn't know any better. These statements of "beads of pagan roots" and "repetition of prayers" are almost embarrassing for you.

I'll address Matthew 6:7 to help others better understand. Jesus, in Matthew 26:44:

So, leaving them again, he went away and prayed for the third time, saying the same words again.

Whoa, Jesus is repeating prayers. He must not have read what he said in Matt 6:7

In Thessalonians 5:17 - St. Paul urges us to "Pray without ceasing."

Same thing, maybe Paul was still blind and couldn't read Matt 6:7.

In Rev 4:8, Each of the four living creatures had six wings and was covered with eyes all around, even under its wings. Day and night they never stop saying: "'Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God Almighty,'

The angels here have no excuses. They have eyes all around, they should have most certainly read Matthew 6;7.

Maybe there's a logical explanation. In Matthew 6:7, Jesus is addressing the pagans that believed that they could wear down there gods like in 1 Kings 18 when the worshipers of Baal tried to call down fire when their babbling of prayers.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

There is so much about praying the rosary that is at the very least unscriptural, if not outright pagan idolatry. You aren't "judging" them by discerning this. If you are a believer in Jesus, then you should tell these people the truth, not out of "judgement" but to warn them.

---

Do you even know what the rosary is? Seriously. Once again, I would have expected you to at least understand what the rosary is comprised of if you were going to comment about it so authoritatively.

The rosary stated around the 12th century. The monks and other religious would memorize and pray all 150 of the Psalms. Of course, most lay people could not read, some pious people would repeat the Our Father "Pater Nostra" 150 times like the monks prayed the Psalms.

Traditions states that sometime around the 14th century, our Blessed Mother appeared to St. Dominic and gave him the structure of the rosary. The beginning of each rosary starts with the Apostle's Creed, an Our Father, 3 Hail Mary's (for an increase for the virtues of Faith, Hope, and Love), and a Glory Be prayer. Next 5 decades of Hail Mary's are prayed.

Now each rosary covers a specific mystery. The three original mysteries are the Glorious, Joyful, and the Sorrowful mysteries. Today is Friday. Most Catholic pray the Sorrowful mysteries on Fridays. (It's my favorite mystery.)

The Sorrowful first decade is the Agony in the Garden. We say an Our Father followed by 10 Hail Mary's. While saying these prayers, we contemplate on Jesus' suffering in the Garden of Gethsemane.
The Sorrowful second decade is the Scourging at the pillar, preceded by the Our Father followed by another decade. We dwell upon his brutal scouring which according to the the Shroud of Turin, 120 lashes with a Roman flagellum.
Third Sorrowful mystery is the Crowning of Thorns: Our Father, decade, and the contemplation of the spitting, punching, mocking, and pressing or beating the CAP of thorns onto Christ's head.
4th Sorrowful mystery is the Carrying of the Cross on the Via De La Rosa. Another Our Father, decade with the imagining of what it was like to carry a nearly 100 lb beam of wood for nearly a mile up hill to Golgatha. He fell three times. It's possible the third fall dislocated his shoulder, nearly paralyzing necessitating Simon of Cyrene carrying his cross.
5th Sorrowful mystery - Our Father, final decade while praying about the excruciating pain of having a nail driven thru the median nerve of the wrist and feet. The cruciform position of the body making exhaling extremely painful to the point where the lungs fill up with fluid and the heart gives out.

Finally we finish the rosary with a Glory Be.

When the monks and others replaced the 150 Psalms with 153 Hail Mary's (50 from each mystery (Sorrowful, Joyful, and Glorious). This allowed them to contemplate on the life of Jesus rather than just the Psalms.

The rosary is "scripture (Jesus's life) on a rope".

Anyone can pray the rosary. Not just Catholics. It's a universal prayer dwelling on the life of Jesus.

Our Easter Rite Catholics implore the Jesus prayer. "Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner." They repeat this with their breathing. {inhale]"Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God," {exhale} "have mercy on me, a sinner." I do this every day for a bit. It's very peaceful. I try to remember to do this when I approach the altar for the Eucharist every Sunday and Friday.

---

You don't read and apply scripture with sound reasoning and in good faith. Do you honestly not see the difference between Jesus imploring God from his heart multiple times in separate prayers to deliver him from the unbelievable amount of suffering he was to face, and Catholics ritualistically repeating pre-written and memorized phrases over and over in succession and a set number of times in the same prayer? If you're really in anguish, or in dire need, naturally it's going to lead you to ask God multiple times throughout the day for help, which is going to mean using the same words and phrases. This is NOT the same thing as ritualistically repeating a the same words and phrases in a set prayer one has memorized, and doing it over and over again a set number of times in the same sitting. This isn't a special, unique prayer that comes from the individual heart. This is corporate religiosity. Which do you think God really wants?

And Jesus didn't repeat the same words over and over in the same sitting. He made multiple separate prayers, but he said them in different ways: "And going a little farther he fell on his face and prayed, saying, "My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as you will."....... Again, for the second time, he went away and prayed, "My Father, if this cannot pass unless I drink it, your will be done."......So, leaving them again, he went away and prayed for the third time, saying the same words again."

When it says Jesus "said the same words again", it doesn't mean that he repeated the same phrase he had been saying, it just means he made the same request of God again, as he had done the previous two times.

And how does "pray without ceasing" mean ritualistically repeating the same words and phrases over and over again? This is yet again an example of interpreting scripture in bad faith in order to defend one's belief and practice.

---

That you accuse Coke Bear of acting in bad faith really makes my blood boil and makes me wish I could reach through this screen and jerk a knot in your tail. You are fortunate to be able to function anonymously behind a keyboard. Sorry (sort of) if this isn't very Christ-like, but there it is. I will ask for forgiveness. You should do likewise.

---

I really don't think your blood is boiling against me. It's really against the truth that I'm saying. You hate it, and you can't argue against it. I don't doubt you'd want to hurt me if we were having this discussion face to face. You are being led by the spirit of the god of this world, which is hostile to the truth of Jesus and his true gospel.

---

You are a liar in league with the father of lies. Your "truth" is nothing but slander and falsehoods built on your own titanic hubris. The stench of your fundamentalist self righteousness permeates every post. Does it upset me that you dare accuse good people here who are serious about their faith in Christ? Damn right it does. That you can't see that your specious accusations of "bad faith" are completely false tells us all we need to know about you,
your critical thinking skills, and your version of Christianity. Jesus wept…

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Where does Irenaeus say that these angels are the recipients of prayers?

And if he said "We judge it improper to pray to those beings who themselves offer up prayers to God....", why wouldn't that include Mary and the saints?

---

You stated that he got a "lot of things wrong". My question is to what did he get wrong? You're recent theology claims that he got "things wrong" but that's just your fallible opinion. History argues against your position. I would like to research what you claim he got wrong.

Quote:

---

But even this rational light itself ought not to be worshipped by him who beholds and understands the true light, by sharing in which these also are enlightened; nor by him who beholds God, the Father of the true light of whom it has been said, God is light, and in Him there is no darkness at all. Those, indeed, who worship sun, moon, and stars because their light is visible and celestial, would not bow down to a spark of fire or a lamp upon earth, because they see the incomparable superiority of those objects which are deemed worthy of homage to the light of sparks and lamps. So those who understand that God is light, and who have apprehended that the Son of God is the true light which lights every man that comes into the world, and who comprehend also how He says, I am the light of the world, would not rationally offer worship to that which is, as it were, a spark in sun, moon, and stars, in comparison with God, who is light of the true light. Nor is it with a view to depreciate these great works of God's creative power, or to call them, after the fashion of Anaxagoras, fiery masses, that we thus speak of sun, and moon, and stars; but because we perceive the inexpressible superiority of the divinity of God, and that of His only-begotten Son, which surpasses all other things. And being persuaded that the sun himself, and moon, and stars pray to the Supreme God through His only-begotten Son, we judge it improper to pray to those beings who themselves offer up prayers (to God), seeing even they themselves would prefer that we should send up our requests to the God to whom they pray, rather than send them downwards to themselves, or apportion our power of prayer between God and them. And here I may employ this illustration, as bearing upon this point: Our Lord and Saviour, hearing Himself on one occasion addressed as Good Master, referring him who used it to His own Father, said, Why do you call Me good? There is none good but one, that is, God the Father. Matthew 19:17 And since it was in accordance with sound reason that this should be said by the Son of His Father's love, as being the image of the goodness of God, why should not the sun say with greater reason to those that bow down to him, Why do you worship me? for you will worship the Lord your God, and Him only shall you serve; for it is He whom I and all who are with me serve and worship. And although one may not be so exalted (as the sun), nevertheless let such an one pray to the Word of God (who is able to heal him), and still more to His Father, who also to the righteous of former times sent His word, and healed them, and delivered them from their destructions.

---

I've included ALL of the 11th Chapter of Against Heresies. He wasn't arguing against intercessory requests to saints and angels, he was arguing against intercessory requests to the sun, moon, and stars.

Please ensure to use correct context when using the Church fathers.

TOCQUEVILLE: IN THE FUTURE, THE WEST WILL INCREASINGLY CONSIST OF ONLY APOSTATES AND CATHOLICS

In his famous “Democracy in America,” Alexis de Tocqueville predicted that the intrinsic instability of protestantism would result in western people increasingly falling into two… pic.twitter.com/GiLmySfNJj

— Joshua Charles (@JoshuaTCharles) September 25, 2023

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Of course I agree with Bishop Strickland here, and am thankful for Catholics standing up for Christian principles.

But it isn't very "Christian" for Catholics to rely not on Jesus Christ, but rather....Mary:

Thank you brothers. Our power is…”Hail Mary full of grace…” https://t.co/ycfPjFi6Z2

— Bishop J. Strickland (@Bishopoftyler) June 27, 2023

---

Huh?

---

Do you not see the problem in what he said there? If you don't, and you are Catholic, then that is precisely the problem I'm addressing.

Realitybites said:

---

"The canonization of the bible by the Catholic Church was just a recognition of what had already been deemed scripture by the first Christians."

If that's the case, why were protestant Bibles shortened to 66 books in the late 19th/early 20th century?

---

Protestants didn't shorten the bible, if the bible should only contain books that were inspired scripture. They removed books in the Catholic Bible because that contained 7 deuterocanonical books that the Israelites did not believe were inspired scripture. Catholics themselves didn't even believe they were inspired canon. Jerome, the translator of the Septuagint into the Latin Vulgate (the Catholic Bible), didn't think they belonged in the bible, but he was pressured to translate it anyway, so he put in his prologue that these books were "apocryphal" and were not held by the Israelites to be inspired canon. Even the first (real) pope, Gregory I, didn't think they belonged. Catholics in the beginning didn't think those books were part of canon, until they formally included them in the bible in the mid 1400's, and that's only because they were responding to the Protestant Reformation, and needed some books that supported their theology. So, really, Protestants didn't shorten the bible, but rather it was Catholics who added to the bible.

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

You are not to determine someone's heart when they pray, sure....but what if they're praying not to God, but to someone else? Can you not discern the idolatry in that?

---

At this point, I and others have stated many times that praying does NOT equal worshiping. To pray means to ask. Please substitute "pray" for "ask for intercession." After this many times of being told the same thing, this is disrespectful and rude. Quite frankly, there may be no need to continue the conversation if you are not willing to meet us on this point, I'm done with this discussion.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

When a Catholic prays the rosary, they are praying to Mary, not God. For every one praise of God in the rosary, there are TEN praises to Mary. Even the beads they use have pagan roots. They are used to keep track of the number of prayer repetitions. Jesus himself told us to not use vain repetitions when we pray, as the pagans do (Matthew 6:7). They are directly disobeying Jesus. They are also calling Mary "our life" and "our hope", and refer to her as "holy queen". There is a "Queen of Heaven" in the bible, and it's a pagan goddess. If someone does these things, how can their "heart" be anything else but idolatrous? If it's not at least your tenth thought, then there is truly something wrong with your discernment, if you are a believer.

---

Quite frankly, I expected better from you on this. You possess a great deal of knowledge and to resort to this sophomoric claims that I would expect from a small town Baptist preacher that doesn't know any better. These statements of "beads of pagan roots" and "repetition of prayers" are almost embarrassing for you.

I'll address Matthew 6:7 to help others better understand. Jesus, in Matthew 26:44:

So, leaving them again, he went away and prayed for the third time, saying the same words again.

Whoa, Jesus is repeating prayers. He must not have read what he said in Matt 6:7

In Thessalonians 5:17 - St. Paul urges us to "Pray without ceasing."

Same thing, maybe Paul was still blind and couldn't read Matt 6:7.

In Rev 4:8, Each of the four living creatures had six wings and was covered with eyes all around, even under its wings. Day and night they never stop saying: "'Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God Almighty,'

The angels here have no excuses. They have eyes all around, they should have most certainly read Matthew 6;7.

Maybe there's a logical explanation. In Matthew 6:7, Jesus is addressing the pagans that believed that they could wear down there gods like in 1 Kings 18 when the worshipers of Baal tried to call down fire when their babbling of prayers.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

There is so much about praying the rosary that is at the very least unscriptural, if not outright pagan idolatry. You aren't "judging" them by discerning this. If you are a believer in Jesus, then you should tell these people the truth, not out of "judgement" but to warn them.

---

Do you even know what the rosary is? Seriously. Once again, I would have expected you to at least understand what the rosary is comprised of if you were going to comment about it so authoritatively.

The rosary stated around the 12th century. The monks and other religious would memorize and pray all 150 of the Psalms. Of course, most lay people could not read, some pious people would repeat the Our Father "Pater Nostra" 150 times like the monks prayed the Psalms.

Traditions states that sometime around the 14th century, our Blessed Mother appeared to St. Dominic and gave him the structure of the rosary. The beginning of each rosary starts with the Apostle's Creed, an Our Father, 3 Hail Mary's (for an increase for the virtues of Faith, Hope, and Love), and a Glory Be prayer. Next 5 decades of Hail Mary's are prayed.

Now each rosary covers a specific mystery. The three original mysteries are the Glorious, Joyful, and the Sorrowful mysteries. Today is Friday. Most Catholic pray the Sorrowful mysteries on Fridays. (It's my favorite mystery.)

The Sorrowful first decade is the Agony in the Garden. We say an Our Father followed by 10 Hail Mary's. While saying these prayers, we contemplate on Jesus' suffering in the Garden of Gethsemane.
The Sorrowful second decade is the Scourging at the pillar, preceded by the Our Father followed by another decade. We dwell upon his brutal scouring which according to the the Shroud of Turin, 120 lashes with a Roman flagellum.
Third Sorrowful mystery is the Crowning of Thorns: Our Father, decade, and the contemplation of the spitting, punching, mocking, and pressing or beating the CAP of thorns onto Christ's head.
4th Sorrowful mystery is the Carrying of the Cross on the Via De La Rosa. Another Our Father, decade with the imagining of what it was like to carry a nearly 100 lb beam of wood for nearly a mile up hill to Golgatha. He fell three times. It's possible the third fall dislocated his shoulder, nearly paralyzing necessitating Simon of Cyrene carrying his cross.
5th Sorrowful mystery - Our Father, final decade while praying about the excruciating pain of having a nail driven thru the median nerve of the wrist and feet. The cruciform position of the body making exhaling extremely painful to the point where the lungs fill up with fluid and the heart gives out.

Finally we finish the rosary with a Glory Be.

When the monks and others replaced the 150 Psalms with 153 Hail Mary's (50 from each mystery (Sorrowful, Joyful, and Glorious). This allowed them to contemplate on the life of Jesus rather than just the Psalms.

The rosary is "scripture (Jesus's life) on a rope".

Anyone can pray the rosary. Not just Catholics. It's a universal prayer dwelling on the life of Jesus.

Our Easter Rite Catholics implore the Jesus prayer. "Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner." They repeat this with their breathing. {inhale]"Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God," {exhale} "have mercy on me, a sinner." I do this every day for a bit. It's very peaceful. I try to remember to do this when I approach the altar for the Eucharist every Sunday and Friday.

---

You don't read and apply scripture with sound reasoning and in good faith. Do you honestly not see the difference between Jesus imploring God from his heart multiple times in separate prayers to deliver him from the unbelievable amount of suffering he was to face, and Catholics ritualistically repeating pre-written and memorized phrases over and over in succession and a set number of times in the same prayer? If you're really in anguish, or in dire need, naturally it's going to lead you to ask God multiple times throughout the day for help, which is going to mean using the same words and phrases. This is NOT the same thing as ritualistically repeating a the same words and phrases in a set prayer one has memorized, and doing it over and over again a set number of times in the same sitting. This isn't a special, unique prayer that comes from the individual heart. This is corporate religiosity. Which do you think God really wants?

And Jesus didn't repeat the same words over and over in the same sitting. He made multiple separate prayers, but he said them in different ways: "And going a little farther he fell on his face and prayed, saying, "My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as you will."....... Again, for the second time, he went away and prayed, "My Father, if this cannot pass unless I drink it, your will be done."......So, leaving them again, he went away and prayed for the third time, saying the same words again."

When it says Jesus "said the same words again", it doesn't mean that he repeated the same phrase he had been saying, it just means he made the same request of God again, as he had done the previous two times.

And how does "pray without ceasing" mean ritualistically repeating the same words and phrases over and over again? This is yet again an example of interpreting scripture in bad faith in order to defend one's belief and practice.

---

That you accuse Coke Bear of acting in bad faith really makes my blood boil and makes me wish I could reach through this screen and jerk a knot in your tail. You are fortunate to be able to function anonymously behind a keyboard. Sorry (sort of) if this isn't very Christ-like, but there it is. I will ask for forgiveness. You should do likewise.

---

I really don't think your blood is boiling against me. It's really against the truth that I'm saying. You hate it, and you can't argue against it. I don't doubt you'd want to hurt me if we were having this discussion face to face. You are being led by the spirit of the god of this world, which is hostile to the truth of Jesus and his true gospel.

---

You are a liar in league with the father of lies. Your "truth" is nothing but slander and falsehoods built on your own titanic hubris. The stench of your fundamentalist self righteousness permeates every post. Does it upset me that you dare accuse good people here who are serious about their faith in Christ? Damn right it does. That you can't see that your specious accusations of "bad faith" are completely false tells us all we need to know about you,
your critical thinking skills, and your version of Christianity. Jesus wept…

---

What makes me a "liar in league with the father of lies"? You haven't made an argument against the truth I've said. Rather, you just found it more convenient to call me a liar without critical thinking skills than actually demonstrate it.

Those who are in league with the "father of lies" are those who promote unbiblical beliefs and practices, especially the ones that involve a false gospel, and stealing the glory, honor, and praise from God/Jesus and giving them to someone else. The "father of lies" is the one who led you to believe that it is being a "Pharisee" to believe that we should only put our hope of eternal salvation on Jesus, and not on anyone else, which is what Christianity is. He is the one that led you to follow beliefs and practices that are deeply rooted in Roman paganism. He is the one that led you to think that believing that saints can hear our prayers is on level with the belief that Jesus can hear our prayers. And he is the one who led you to childishly threaten someone on the internet simply because he was telling the truth.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Where does Irenaeus say that these angels are the recipients of prayers?

And if he said "We judge it improper to pray to those beings who themselves offer up prayers to God....", why wouldn't that include Mary and the saints?

---

You stated that he got a "lot of things wrong". My question is to what did he get wrong? You're recent theology claims that he got "things wrong" but that's just your fallible opinion. History argues against your position. I would like to research what you claim he got wrong.

Quote:

---

But even this rational light itself ought not to be worshipped by him who beholds and understands the true light, by sharing in which these also are enlightened; nor by him who beholds God, the Father of the true light of whom it has been said, God is light, and in Him there is no darkness at all. Those, indeed, who worship sun, moon, and stars because their light is visible and celestial, would not bow down to a spark of fire or a lamp upon earth, because they see the incomparable superiority of those objects which are deemed worthy of homage to the light of sparks and lamps. So those who understand that God is light, and who have apprehended that the Son of God is the true light which lights every man that comes into the world, and who comprehend also how He says, I am the light of the world, would not rationally offer worship to that which is, as it were, a spark in sun, moon, and stars, in comparison with God, who is light of the true light. Nor is it with a view to depreciate these great works of God's creative power, or to call them, after the fashion of Anaxagoras, fiery masses, that we thus speak of sun, and moon, and stars; but because we perceive the inexpressible superiority of the divinity of God, and that of His only-begotten Son, which surpasses all other things. And being persuaded that the sun himself, and moon, and stars pray to the Supreme God through His only-begotten Son, we judge it improper to pray to those beings who themselves offer up prayers (to God), seeing even they themselves would prefer that we should send up our requests to the God to whom they pray, rather than send them downwards to themselves, or apportion our power of prayer between God and them. And here I may employ this illustration, as bearing upon this point: Our Lord and Saviour, hearing Himself on one occasion addressed as Good Master, referring him who used it to His own Father, said, Why do you call Me good? There is none good but one, that is, God the Father. Matthew 19:17 And since it was in accordance with sound reason that this should be said by the Son of His Father's love, as being the image of the goodness of God, why should not the sun say with greater reason to those that bow down to him, Why do you worship me? for you will worship the Lord your God, and Him only shall you serve; for it is He whom I and all who are with me serve and worship. And although one may not be so exalted (as the sun), nevertheless let such an one pray to the Word of God (who is able to heal him), and still more to His Father, who also to the righteous of former times sent His word, and healed them, and delivered them from their destructions.

---

I've included ALL of the 11th Chapter of Against Heresies. He wasn't arguing against intercessory requests to saints and angels, he was arguing against intercessory requests to the sun, moon, and stars.

Please ensure to use correct context when using the Church fathers.

---

I remembered Irenaeus saying something about Jesus being around 50 years old when he was crucified. When I said he got a "lot" wrong I was thinking about another Church father, maybe Tertullian.

Regardless, what about Irenaeus' point? He is clearly saying that we should not pray to beings which themselves have to offer prayers up to God (like you ask Mary to), but rather we must pray to God ourselves. He says we should not divide our prayers between those to God and those to anyone else (we should not "apportion our power of prayer between God and them.") So how does this square with the Catholic practice of praying, i.e. "invoking" Mary and the saints?

This is the salient point you are trying your best to avoid.

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Mothra said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

You are asking me to judge someone based on their personal prayers to God. I WILL NOT insert my thoughts, beliefs and especially judgement on someone else's personal prayers to God without the knowledge of what is in their heart mind and soul.

My final post on this topic.

---

But they're NOT praying to God. That's the whole topic!!

---

The "whole topic" is that requesting intercession is not the same as praying to God.

---

Eh, I think that's a bit of a distinction without a difference. They ARE praying for intercession to a human being, assuming that human has the capacity to hear their prayers, and then intercede on their behalf, which as pointed out above, has no scriptural support.

---

Yeah, we're never going to agree about "praying to" vs asking for intercessory prayer. To me, there is no distinction between invoking Mary or any saint (which includes those we have known in our lifetimes) and asking anyone we know for their prayers. All the same to me. I don't "pray to" my priest or my best friends. I don't "pray to " Mary or any saint. End of story.

---

Since praying to Mary or the saints has no scriptural support, then by what revelation is that practice based on? By what revelation is the belief that those saints can hear you "invoke" them, that they are in heaven, and that they hold certain "offices" based on, if not the bible?

---

This is simple; Mary and the saints are alive and in the presence of Christ even now. Why would they not be willing to offer their intercessions on our behalf if asked?

You cannot prove this is contra Scripture from Scripture, nor can you "know" (there's that word again) that which you deny is wrong or impossible. You can only believe you are correct. At least the majority of all Christians ever have Scripture, tradition, and reason on their side.

---

If they are "alive" in Christ even now, still, based on what revelation from God do you believe that they can "hear" prayers, or that they even accept them, and that they hold their respective "offices" where they have influence with God?

We can only "know" things that are directly revealed to us by God. I believe I'm correct based on the revelation of God that we have in Scripture. What is your belief that we can pray to, i.e. "ask" saints for intercession based on? On what revelation?

If the saint you're spiritually communicating i.e. praying to is any saint at all and can actually hear you, then I'll bet he/she would shout down at you to stop what you're doing and go to God/Jesus only, if they could.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Of course I agree with Bishop Strickland here, and am thankful for Catholics standing up for Christian principles.

But it isn't very "Christian" for Catholics to rely not on Jesus Christ, but rather....Mary:

Thank you brothers. Our power is…”Hail Mary full of grace…” https://t.co/ycfPjFi6Z2

— Bishop J. Strickland (@Bishopoftyler) June 27, 2023

---

Huh?

---

Do you not see the problem in what he said there? If you don't, and you are Catholic, then that is precisely the problem I'm addressing.

---

Your issue is he said the Hail Mary?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

"The canonization of the bible by the Catholic Church was just a recognition of what had already been deemed scripture by the first Christians."

If that's the case, why were protestant Bibles shortened to 66 books in the late 19th/early 20th century?

---

Protestants didn't shorten the bible, if the bible should only contain books that were inspired scripture. They removed books in the Catholic Bible because that contained 7 deuterocanonical books that the Israelites did not believe were inspired scripture. Catholics themselves didn't even believe they were inspired canon. Jerome, the translator of the Septuagint into the Latin Vulgate (the Catholic Bible), didn't think they belonged in the bible, but he was pressured to translate it anyway, so he put in his prologue that these books were "apocryphal" and were not held by the Israelites to be inspired canon. Even the first (real) pope, Gregory I, didn't think they belonged. Catholics in the beginning didn't think those books were part of canon, until they formally included them in the bible in the mid 1400's, and that's only because they were responding to the Protestant Reformation, and needed some books that supported their theology. So, really, Protestants didn't shorten the bible, but rather it was Catholics who added to the bible.

---

There's a great deal of incorrect arguments in here. There was no one Hebrew canon. As mentioned before, the Sadducees,Pharisees, Essenes, and others had different cannons.

Jerome didn't want to include the deuterocanonical because he didn't find evidence that they were written in Hebrew. He was not "pressured" to include them. He obeyed the Church's request. As it turns out, we found Hebrew copies of Sirach, Tobit, and Baruch in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

The Essense's canon contained these books. And the the 46 books were all in the Septuagint. The Septuagint was quoted more than 300 times. While none of the deuterocanon was directly quoted, several illusions to Maccabees and others are found in the NT. The Septuagint is what Jesus and His apostles used.

The Church formally defined the canon at the Council of Trent in 1546 (not the 1400's - the Protestant Rebellion occurred in the 1500's with Luther, not before he was born.) The full canon (73 books) were ratified by the councils at Hippo (393), Carthage (397, 419), II Nicea (787), and Florence (1442) before they were again in 1546.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- no one is saying we have to prove Scripture to be the word of God. You're spending too much time and energy arguing against a point that no one is making. - You're basing an entire belief system on something that cannot be proven, only believed. That is precisely the point I am making. You have no proof of anything. Only belief.

- I "rail" against the things that are either unbiblical, or clearly against biblical principles. Praying to anyone other than God/Jesus is one of those. - Requesting intercession is neither unbiblical nor against biblical principles. You beg the question every time you make such a silly assertion.

- where is your evidence that the early church did in fact practice praying to Mary and the saints, as you claim? - Others have already covered this. If you didn't believe them, doubt you'd believe me.

- how do you know those saints are truly in heaven? How do you know they hear you? Who told you they have the "jurisdiction" over the areas they've been assigned? I believe they hear me just as you believe Jesus hears you. Prove for us that Jesus hears you? I prefer "association" to "jurisdiction". It is a more accurate term. Most of the associations are part of history and tradition. There is much we think we know about the lives of early Christians and martyrs. History didn't end with the Revelation of St John.

- you say there's "pushback" on that type of prayer. Would that include you? Because in another thread, you did not see any problem with them, and in fact you defended them. I defended specific phrases that had alternate explanations to the worst case scenarios you created. I do think some go too far in their leanings re Mary which is just a small part of why I am not Roman Catholic. The Bishop of Rome and his role is my greatest difficulty. Regardless, such beliefs are not salvific and are adiaphora.

- Mary isn't a co-anything. Catholic beliefs about her are completely unbiblical, and even extend into idolatry. Some Catholics DO believe she is co-Mediator. There is currently a movement within Catholicism to dogmatize this belief. Pope John Paul II received more than four million signatures from 157 countries urging him to exercise papal infallibility to pronounce Mary as "Co-Redemptrix [co-redeemer], Mediatrix [mediator] of All Graces, and Advocate for the People of God." Past popes have regarded Mary as Co-mediator. During a radio message in 1935, Pope Pius XI gave the title "Co-redemptrix" to Mary. This is what happens when you don't stop the "veneration" of Mary and recognize it as unbiblical - it grows and grows, and when you don't base yourself in sola scriptura, this is what eventuallly happens. Who knows what can happen in future. You have a current pope who is clearly a progressive, and he's inserted progressive bishops into his College of Cardinals. What Catholics believe today, could easily be dogmatized against by a future pope. - I see no problem with Mary as co mediator to the extent she intercedes on our behalf to her beloved Son. From Wikipedia so take it for what it's worth:

Co-Redemptrix (also spelled Coredemptrix; Co-Redemptress is an equivalent term) is a title used by some Catholics for the Blessed Virgin Mary, and refers to Mary's role in the redemption of all peoples.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-Redemptrix#cite_note-1][1][/url]
According to those who use the term, Co-Redemptrix refers to a subordinate but essential participation by the Blessed Virgin Mary in redemption, notably that she gave free consent to give life to the Redeemer, which meant sharing his life, suffering, and death, which were redemptive for the world. Related to this belief is the concept of Mary as Mediatrix, which is a separate concept but regularly included by Catholics who use the title Co-Redemptrix. Some, in particular the adherents of the Amsterdam visions, have petitioned for a dogmatic definition, along with Mediatrix.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-Redemptrix#cite_note-2][2][/url]
The concept was especially common in the late Middle Ages, when it was promoted heavily among the Franciscans, and often resisted by the Dominicans. By the early 16th century the hopes of the concept becoming Catholic doctrine had receded, and have never seriously revived. In more recent times, the title has received some support from the Catholic Magisterium[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-Redemptrix#cite_note-3][3][/url] though it is not included in the concluding chapter of the apostolic constitution Lumen gentium of the Second Vatican Council, which chapter many theologians hold to be a comprehensive summary of Roman Catholic Mariology. As a Cardinal, Pope Benedict XVI suggested that the Marian title caused confusion and did not sufficiently reflect scripture.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-Redemptrix#cite_note-autogenerated1-4][4][/url] Pope Francis has repeatedly suggested the title should not be used.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-Redemptrix#cite_note-autogenerated1-4][4]

[/url]Seems to me you are misrepresenting something. As usual.

---

---

If you want to make the argument that we can't prove Scripture is the word of God, fine. Just go make it in a thread where that's the debate. It isn't the debate here.

---

Sola scriptura begs this question, so it's necessarily part of the debate. That's what we're trying to get across to you.

---

So you're trying to make the point that scripture may not be the inspired word of God.

This argument has taken an interesting turn. BT is exactly right in his assessment.

---

No, that is not the point I'm making. I know it's the inspired word of God because that's what my faith tradition teaches. I'm asking you and BTD how you know.

---

Oh that's easy. Because that is what Christianity has taught since scripture was written.

Now, is the purpose of your comments to try and make a corollary between the "faith traditions" you adhere to that contradict scripture?

---

How is "Christianity" defined? What did it teach before Scripture was written?

My purpose is to find out whether the sola scriptura argument is circular (i.e. based on Scripture), self-contradictory (i.e. based on tradition), or in some other category. Right now it's not clear what the third option would be.

---

Your argument appears to incorrectly assume that for those who hold to sola scriptura, tradition has no meaning or value whatsoever. That is not the case, and that does not appear to be what BT is saying. We can know from faith traditions that the Word of God is the ultimate authority for the Christian faith because that is what has been passed down from generation to generation.

Sola scriptura does not hold that traditions have no value. Instead, it holds that traditions are valid only when they conform with Scripture. It holds that traditions that contradict the Bible are not of God and are not a valid aspect of the Christian faith. It was the protestant response to the Roman Catholic Church making traditions superior to the authority of Scripture - many of which were in fact contradictory to scripture (see prayers to the saints and/or Mary, immaculate conception, transubstantiation, papal authority, works instead of grace).

In other words, sola scriptura avoids subjectivity and keeps personal opinion from taking priority over the teachings of the Bible. The essence of sola scriptura is basing one's spiritual life on the Bible alone and rejecting any tradition or teaching that is not in full agreement with the Bible. That appears to me to have been BT's point, which you seem to have either missed or perhaps are purposely attempting to twist.

---

I don't see how you can know from tradition that the Bible is authoritative, unless the tradition is equally authoritative. The lesser authority doesn't define the greater.

Scripture alludes to many Catholic beliefs without stating them expressly, yet you reject these beliefs. So in your view it seems that beliefs must do more than just conform with Scripture. They must be expressly derived from it. This is what brought up the whole sola scriptura issue. But of course the "plain meaning" of Scripture often depends on your subjective interpretation or the interpretation of your particular faith community. This is the problem you've never really addressed.

I'm avoiding any commentary on other posters' intentions or intelligence and would suggest we all do the same. Hopefully we can keep things pleasant and productive.

---

Your position suggests that all tradition is equally authoritative, or its not. Yet, we know of faith traditions and off-shoots of Christianity that were around for centuries (and some still today) that are antithetical to scripture and Catholic tradition. Gnosticism comes immediately to mind - an off-shoot of heretical teachings that lasted around 3-4 centuries. And of course, the biggest off-shoot would be Islam, which of course is the fastest growing faith today, and has millions of adherents. Are these faith traditions authoritative because they've been around for centuries?

I reject your all-or-nothing premise, and also leave room for faith and the working of the Holy Spirit, which help us discern what is right and truthful.

I am not sure what Catholic beliefs you allege Scripture alludes to. I only take issue with those that are antithetical to your very own Holy Scriptures, or have little to no scriptural support. As I said early on in this debate, the idea that all scripture is so opaque that it cannot be plainly understood is a theory any reasonable person would reject. Paul said it best: "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." I believe him.

---

I'm just trying to establish whether any tradition is authoritative.

---

I suppose the answer to that question lies in how you define authoritative. If by authoritative, you mean tradition trumps Scripture (including Catholic Scripture) on areas where they contradict, then no, such tradition is not authoritative. But of course that seems pretty elementary, does it not?

---

Scripture is central to what we call the deposit of faith, so by definition anything that actually contradicts Scripture would also contradict the magisterium. Nothing can trump Scripture. Even if a pope contradicts it, that pope is in error.

---

And yet Catholic doctrine includes the following contradictions: prayers to the saints and/or Mary, immaculate conception, transubstantiation, papal authority, works instead of grace.

---

Catholics don't believe in works instead of grace. Other than that, contradiction is a strong word with a specific meaning. Some of these beliefs are taught in the Bible, some are referred to, some may not be mentioned, but none are contradicted.