BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

There are many more, like the dogmas of Mary. But you're not going to get them to see it, or at least admit to it. I showed them a Catholic book of prayers to Mary that blatantly elevated her to the level of God and Jesus, calling her "sovereign", "god of this world", "mediator between man and God", and saying they "place their salvation into Mary's hands". They had absolutely no problem with it and even defended it. If you can't even see this ridiculous level of heresy and idolatry when it's literally screaming in your face, then you're NEVER gonna see it.

---

We can discuss this, AGAIN, at another point.

We are currently discussing what the early Church looked like compared to Acts and infant baptism.

I have demonstrated biblically and with extra biblical sources that today's mass is similar to what happened in Acts and documented as early as 155 AD.

Please show me how your altar calls and sinner's prayers are listed in Acts.

---

How is it not relevant? I'd confidently bet that the worship in the church in Acts looked NOTHING like what's in those prayers to Mary.

Your "gotcha" about altar calls and sinner's prayer not being in Acts just falls flat. There's nothing there that is doctrinally or theologically at odds with the church in Acts. On the other hand, I can virtually guarantee you that the church in Acts would have categorically and emphatically rejected singing and praying to Mary and reciting prayers to "place their salvation into Mary's hands" for the blatant heresy and idolatry that it is.

---

Bless your heart. You are like a one-trick-pony or a dog-with-a-bone about the Glories of Mary.

It's a private devotion that no one is obligated to pray or even read. I've previously provided a link which explains some of the descriptive language in it. Apparently you didn't read it or you are only concerned with accusations and less concerned with learning.

I'm still looking for the source to provide the quote; however, Pope John Paul II, who had an intense devotion to Mary, even struggled with some of the language in the prayer. It is NOT official Catholic doctrine.

Back to the original point, does your church mirror, what I'm previously shown, how the Catholic mass has the same roots in Acts and identical structure as written in 155 AD?

Out of curiosity, what denomination are you?

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Mothra said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Was Sola scriptura part of the early church?

What church is biblical?

Was even the early church biblical?

We worship Christ, not the Bible.

Does tradition or the Bible or both teach us how to worship?

---

1. Which early church? You're going to have to be more specific. There were a number of them.

2. I'd say a biblical church is one that follows the bible.

3. Again, which one?

4. Indeed, we do worship Christ and not the Bible. Or creeds. Or tradition.

5. Both.

You're making the mistake of assuming I am saying throw out tradition. I am not. I am saying tradition needs to be examined in the context of scripture, and where there is a divergence or contradiction, we need to seriously look at whether that tradition might be error.

And of course, that's what you're unwilling to do with the traditions you adhere to.

---

You were doing great right up until the last paragraph. The only tradition my faith really adheres to is the pot-luck on the fifth Sunday in a month in fellowship hall. Probably the same as your church unless it's greater than 500 people.

---

Well, put luck dinners are a tradition I can adhere to, even if it isn't biblical.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

There are many more, like the dogmas of Mary. But you're not going to get them to see it, or at least admit to it. I showed them a Catholic book of prayers to Mary that blatantly elevated her to the level of God and Jesus, calling her "sovereign", "god of this world", "mediator between man and God", and saying they "place their salvation into Mary's hands". They had absolutely no problem with it and even defended it. If you can't even see this ridiculous level of heresy and idolatry when it's literally screaming in your face, then you're NEVER gonna see it.

---

We can discuss this, AGAIN, at another point.

We are currently discussing what the early Church looked like compared to Acts and infant baptism.

I have demonstrated biblically and with extra biblical sources that today's mass is similar to what happened in Acts and documented as early as 155 AD.

Please show me how your altar calls and sinner's prayers are listed in Acts.

---

How is it not relevant? I'd confidently bet that the worship in the church in Acts looked NOTHING like what's in those prayers to Mary.

Your "gotcha" about altar calls and sinner's prayer not being in Acts just falls flat. There's nothing there that is doctrinally or theologically at odds with the church in Acts. On the other hand, I can virtually guarantee you that the church in Acts would have categorically and emphatically rejected singing and praying to Mary and reciting prayers to "place their salvation into Mary's hands" for the blatant heresy and idolatry that it is.

---

Back to the original point, does your church mirror, what I'm previously shown, how the Catholic mass has the same roots in Acts and identical structure as written in 155 AD?

---

I suppose if you repeat a false statement enough, you believe others will start to believe it.

The truth is, you've done nothing of the sort. You've pointed to a few traditions shared by most Christian churches, and attempted to cite them as examples of how the Catholic Church "mirrors" the early church in Acts.

You must have a really strange definition of "mirrors."

Mothra said:

---

Pointing out a few similarities that are common to most Christian churches, and then claiming Catholic mass "mirrors" the early church in Acts because it contains some of those similarities, does not a good or sound argument make.

---

Did you review the list that I presented from Justin Martyr? To ignore that is truly biased. I'm sure most neutral observers would agree that His list is essentially the Catholic mass of today.

Mothra said:

---

BTW, Acts does not speak of priests or bishops. It does speak of deacons or elders of the church, though it does not set them apart from the lay people like the Catholic Church. There is no example in scripture of a Pope, priest, cardinal or bishop - and certainly nothing that looks even remotely similar to the Catholic hierarchy.

---

Yes, bishops and priests are indeed mentioned in the Book of Acts, and they have special roles distinct from the laity.

For example, in Acts 1:20, the apostles speak of the need to replace Judas, quoting Psalm 109:8, 'Let another take his position of overseer.'

Episcopos arises from two words, epi (over) and skopeo (to see), and it means literally "an overseer": We translate it as "bishop." The King James Version renders the office of overseer, episkopen, as "bishopric" (Acts 1:20).

In 107 AD, Ignatius of Antioch wrote, "Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the catholic Church."

BTW, this is the first time that term "catholic" was written.

This indicates the early establishment of ecclesiastical offices.

Acts 14:23 mentions the appointment of elders in every church:

Quote:

---

And when they had appointed elders for them in every church, with prayer and fasting they committed them to the Lord in whom they had believed.

---

The English word "priest" is derived from the Greek word presbuteros, which is commonly rendered into Bible English as "elder" or "presbyter."

The "elders" are also mentioned in Acts 15:6, 23.

This shows the early Church's structure and the special roles of ordained ministers.

Finally, Peter was the first Pope. Was he called "pope"? No. That title came later, but he was the first Bishop of Rome. That office has always had authority of the Church.

Realitybites said:

---

It persisted this way for 7 centuries until the papal rebellion of 1054 when the Roman Catholic Church was founded and unilaterally changed the wording concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit.

---

You were doing so good up until this. The Bishop of Rome has ALWAYS been the leader of the Church. Non of the other Patriarchs had primacy.

Ask yourself this, why have been NO Orthodox ecumenical councils since the final split in 1054? It's because they are NOT united and cannot agree to meet.

Finally, I'd encourage you to look at a book by former Orthodox Michael Loften, Answering Orthodoxy: A Catholic Response to Attacks from the East.

In fairness, I have not read this yet. It's on my list, but I have other topics to research first. I've hear that it is a very fair and well-written book.

Mothra said:

---

1. Which early church? You're going to have to be more specific. There were a number of them.

---

Actually, church were all Catholic.

The seven churches in Asia mentioned in the Book of Revelation were indeed part of the early Christian communities.These churchesEphesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodiceawere established by the apostles and their successors.

While the term Catholic was not formally used until later, these early Christian communities were in full communion with the teachings and authority of the apostles, which is a hallmark of the Catholic Church.

Coke Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

1. Which early church? You're going to have to be more specific. There were a number of them.

---

Actually, church were all Catholic.

The seven churches in Asia mentioned in the Book of Revelation were indeed part of the early Christian communities.These churchesEphesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodiceawere established by the apostles and their successors.

While the term Catholic was not formally used until later, these early Christian communities were in full communion with the teachings and authority of the apostles, which is a hallmark of the Catholic Church.

---

Yes.

That said, the first reformation in the 11th century added a lot of bloat to the system beginning with the Gregorian reforms as canon law was added to canon law to canon law and so on. Some of it seems genuinely inspired, but some other things - clerical celibacy, the deposition of emperors, the church's infallibility, the complex hierarchical professionalization of the clergy - are bolted on in response to real-world problems and not as the result of anything directly biblical.

In other words, it's not hard to see why someone like Luther arrived. It was inevitable. But I think particularly modern Southern Baptists cannot see their own planks since the evangelical protestant ethic is so ingrained in the air we breathe in America.

The inherent distrust of authority, tradition, adornment, architectural splendor, iconography (and therefore all Christian art, which has been so debased by Western evangelicalism through just poorly inspired art generally), and ritual is a direct result of our puritanical and independent roots, not as a result of some perfectly divine reading of scripture. And those roots, it should be said, are not necessarily biblical in all their forms. Just like the Catholic Church formed around the roots of its temporal circumstances, so did their American successors. There are many things protestants could learn about communing with God from their Catholic brothers and sisters, and vice versa, were they given ears to hear.

parch said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

1. Which early church? You're going to have to be more specific. There were a number of them.

---

Actually, church were all Catholic.

The seven churches in Asia mentioned in the Book of Revelation were indeed part of the early Christian communities.These churchesEphesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodiceawere established by the apostles and their successors.

While the term Catholic was not formally used until later, these early Christian communities were in full communion with the teachings and authority of the apostles, which is a hallmark of the Catholic Church.

---

Yes.

That said, the first reformation in the 11th century added a lot of bloat to the system beginning with the Gregorian reforms as canon law was added to canon law to canon law and so on. Some of it seems genuinely inspired, but some other things - clerical celibacy, the deposition of emperors, the church's infallibility, the complex hierarchical professionalization of the clergy - are bolted on in response to real-world problems and not as the result of anything directly biblical.

In other words, it's not hard to see why someone like Luther arrived. It was inevitable.

---

Interesting enough a practice like Clerical celibacy was probably a very good policy in the middle ages but probably should have been dropped once the feudal system started to break down and modern economies developed.

[According to Jason Berry of The New York Times, the Catholic Church adopted the requirement of priestly celibacy in the Middle Ages because Rome was concerned that clerics' children would inherit church property and establish dynasties]

One can imagine the problems that would have developed if Priests could have passed on land to their children in a society where land was the only real way to acquire wealth.

You did not want Priests marrying and having kids in the Middle Ages....but today the Church would benefit from having them doing exactly that...marrying and having lots of kids.

Redbrickbear said:

---

parch said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

1. Which early church? You're going to have to be more specific. There were a number of them.

---

Actually, church were all Catholic.

The seven churches in Asia mentioned in the Book of Revelation were indeed part of the early Christian communities.These churchesEphesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodiceawere established by the apostles and their successors.

While the term Catholic was not formally used until later, these early Christian communities were in full communion with the teachings and authority of the apostles, which is a hallmark of the Catholic Church.

---

Yes.

That said, the first reformation in the 11th century added a lot of bloat to the system beginning with the Gregorian reforms as canon law was added to canon law to canon law and so on. Some of it seems genuinely inspired, but some other things - clerical celibacy, the deposition of emperors, the church's infallibility, the complex hierarchical professionalization of the clergy - are bolted on in response to real-world problems and not as the result of anything directly biblical.

In other words, it's not hard to see why someone like Luther arrived. It was inevitable.

---

Interesting enough a practice like Clerical celibacy was probably a very good policy in the middle ages but probably should have been dropped once the feudal system started to break down and modern economies developed.

[According to Jason Berry of The New York Times, the Catholic Church adopted the requirement of priestly celibacy in the Middle Ages because Rome was concerned that clerics' children would inherit church property and establish dynasties]

One can imagine the problems that would have developed if Priests could have passed on land to their children in a society where land was the only real way to acquire wealth.

You did not want Priests marrying and having kids in the Middle Ages....but today the Church would benefit from having them doing exactly that...marrying and having lots of kids.

---

This is sort of my whole point. A vast swath of Catholic reforms in the Middle Ages were neither practically misguided nor directly biblical. They weren't necessarily anti-biblical though. Paul himself talks about how it's good to remain celibate and unmarried. Not necessarily in a standardized way, though, so you can see they chose more practical backing for many of their canons. It just gets bloated and convoluted as you add to the additions of the additions over centuries of (very) fallible leadership.

Many protestants, Southern Baptists chief among them, argue that they've stripped away all the "unnecessary trappings" of Catholicism that made it such an albatross in the latter half of the last millennium. This, again, is an over-simplification. The Catholic Church saw itself as governing all life, both from within church walls to without, and in that context it makes perfect sense why they made many of the choices they made.

Millions upon millions of American evangelicals see themselves as free of those chains when in reality they've just replaced that portion of Catholic dogma with Republican Party planks.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

There are many more, like the dogmas of Mary. But you're not going to get them to see it, or at least admit to it. I showed them a Catholic book of prayers to Mary that blatantly elevated her to the level of God and Jesus, calling her "sovereign", "god of this world", "mediator between man and God", and saying they "place their salvation into Mary's hands". They had absolutely no problem with it and even defended it. If you can't even see this ridiculous level of heresy and idolatry when it's literally screaming in your face, then you're NEVER gonna see it.

---

We can discuss this, AGAIN, at another point.

We are currently discussing what the early Church looked like compared to Acts and infant baptism.

I have demonstrated biblically and with extra biblical sources that today's mass is similar to what happened in Acts and documented as early as 155 AD.

Please show me how your altar calls and sinner's prayers are listed in Acts.

---

How is it not relevant? I'd confidently bet that the worship in the church in Acts looked NOTHING like what's in those prayers to Mary.

Your "gotcha" about altar calls and sinner's prayer not being in Acts just falls flat. There's nothing there that is doctrinally or theologically at odds with the church in Acts. On the other hand, I can virtually guarantee you that the church in Acts would have categorically and emphatically rejected singing and praying to Mary and reciting prayers to "place their salvation into Mary's hands" for the blatant heresy and idolatry that it is.

---

Bless your heart. You are like a one-trick-pony or a dog-with-a-bone about the Glories of Mary.

It's a private devotion that no one is obligated to pray or even read. I've previously provided a link which explains some of the descriptive language in it. Apparently you didn't read it or you are only concerned with accusations and less concerned with learning.

I'm still looking for the source to provide the quote; however, Pope John Paul II, who had an intense devotion to Mary, even struggled with some of the language in the prayer. It is NOT official Catholic doctrine.

Back to the original point, does your church mirror, what I'm previously shown, how the Catholic mass has the same roots in Acts and identical structure as written in 155 AD?

Out of curiosity, what denomination are you?

---

One trick pony? Have you really not been paying attention? That is merely one egregious example of Catholic deification of Mary I can and have provided out of maybe a hundred. Catholic doctrine is infused with it. None of the Marian dogmas and "veneration" (aka worship) originate from the original apostolic church in Acts. You seem to be focusing way too much on adherence to the original apostolic church structure and worship when what really matters is to be adherent to the truths.

Catholic doctrine or not - that book of prayers to Mary was written by a Doctor of the Catholic Church, a very prestigious honor only having been bestowed on 37 catholics throughout history. It's gone through 800 editions and is fully sanctioned and endorsed by the RCC. It has been quoted many times by popes, bishops, and priests.

And I doubt Pope John Paul II would have had a big problem with those prayers, considering his own personal motto was "totus tuus sum Maria" - "I am all yours, Mary".

NO Christian should even come close to saying or thinking of "placing their salvation in Mary's hands", or even think such a thing can be justifiable as a kind of "descriptive language". It should be so obvious to any Christian how heretical and idolatrous that is, that it shouldn't even need to be explained. Anyone who doesn't see the humongous problem with it, I have serious doubts about their faith.

As for my denomination, it is irrelevant. I am a believer in Jesus Christ as he is revealed to us in the bible. The name of my church won't save me, nor will any rite or ceremony I take part in, or any good work I'm able to perform. Only through the completed work of Jesus in whom I place my trust. My brothers and sisters in Christ include every single person in the world who believes the same, no matter which church they belong to.

Coke and Busy, and anyone else wanting to chime in; what is veneration? Is it in the Bible? If not, is the word it is derived from in the Bible?

Veneration is a feeling of profound respect for someone or something.

It is not worship.

We Catholics only worship the Holy Trinity.

We (all should) have a profound respect for Mary. She is the mother of God. Her yes, fiat, saved humanity.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Coke and Busy, and anyone else wanting to chime in; what is veneration? Is it in the Bible? If not, is the word it is derived from in the Bible?

---

Veneration - "Mary is blessed among women"

Worship - "Mary saved humanity"

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Coke and Busy, and anyone else wanting to chime in; what is veneration? Is it in the Bible? If not, is the word it is derived from in the Bible?

---

Veneration - "Mary is blessed among women"

Worship - "Mary saved humanity"

---

Ask yourself honestly, Mary's "Let it be done according to thy word", allowed the Holy Spirit to over-shadow her and Jesus, our savor, was born.

Could God have done it another way? Absolutely, but he He chose her. Her fiat allowed Jesus to be born. Without her yes, humanity would not have been saved by Jesus.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

There are many more, like the dogmas of Mary. But you're not going to get them to see it, or at least admit to it. I showed them a Catholic book of prayers to Mary that blatantly elevated her to the level of God and Jesus, calling her "sovereign", "god of this world", "mediator between man and God", and saying they "place their salvation into Mary's hands". They had absolutely no problem with it and even defended it. If you can't even see this ridiculous level of heresy and idolatry when it's literally screaming in your face, then you're NEVER gonna see it.

---

We can discuss this, AGAIN, at another point.

We are currently discussing what the early Church looked like compared to Acts and infant baptism.

I have demonstrated biblically and with extra biblical sources that today's mass is similar to what happened in Acts and documented as early as 155 AD.

Please show me how your altar calls and sinner's prayers are listed in Acts.

---

How is it not relevant? I'd confidently bet that the worship in the church in Acts looked NOTHING like what's in those prayers to Mary.

Your "gotcha" about altar calls and sinner's prayer not being in Acts just falls flat. There's nothing there that is doctrinally or theologically at odds with the church in Acts. On the other hand, I can virtually guarantee you that the church in Acts would have categorically and emphatically rejected singing and praying to Mary and reciting prayers to "place their salvation into Mary's hands" for the blatant heresy and idolatry that it is.

---

Bless your heart. You are like a one-trick-pony or a dog-with-a-bone about the Glories of Mary.

It's a private devotion that no one is obligated to pray or even read. I've previously provided a link which explains some of the descriptive language in it. Apparently you didn't read it or you are only concerned with accusations and less concerned with learning.

I'm still looking for the source to provide the quote; however, Pope John Paul II, who had an intense devotion to Mary, even struggled with some of the language in the prayer. It is NOT official Catholic doctrine.

Back to the original point, does your church mirror, what I'm previously shown, how the Catholic mass has the same roots in Acts and identical structure as written in 155 AD?

Out of curiosity, what denomination are you?

---

When you say it's not official doctrine, you're intentionally misrepresenting the impact of the unofficial doctrine. The veneration of Mary, idolization and/or worship by most honest accounts, whether official or not, is part of the RC culture. Additionally in regards to liberalism, RC laypeople have been leading the progressive charge in America over the last two - three decades. They've been leading the gay marriage vote when compared to evangelicals. Again, not "official" but certainly progressivism somehow finds its way into RC layersons lives. And now you have a pope that walks the line furthering the progressive culture while not adopting it outright. By design.

Don't have a problem with devout Christians practicing infant baptism. Will go on record as preferring that believers baptism also be performed.

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

When you say it's not official doctrine, you're intentionally misrepresenting the impact of the unofficial doctrine. The veneration of Mary, idolization and/or worship by most honest accounts, whether official or not, is part of the RC culture.

---

Please show me where Catholics worship Mary as official doctrine. We venerate her as the Mother of God. But she is less than an ant compared to God. We CANNOT worship Mary. She is a creature. That would be idolatry. Your perception of this is your judgement from the outside looking in. I know of NO Catholics that believe that Mary is a God worthy of worship.

We will ask for her intercession because no one is closer to Jesus than her.

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

Additionally in regards to liberalism, RC laypeople have been leading the progressive charge in America over the last two - three decades. They've been leading the gay marriage vote when compared to evangelicals. Again, not "official" but certainly progressivism somehow finds its way into RC layersons lives. And now you have a pope that walks the line furthering the progressive culture while not adopting it outright. By design.

---

The bold part is completely false. There may be a handful of loose canon priest and bishops that push this narrative, but they are in the minority. Look at the Methodist church, the Anglican Church, Baptist and non-doms. They are bending over (pun-intented) to same-sex marriage. The Catholic Church is remaining vigilant on this matter and always will.

Please show me where official Catholic doctrine has allowed for same-sex marriages. In 2023 the Vatical released Fiducia supplicans which allows priest to bless bless the individuals in irregulars marriages, those that have not obtain an annulment or those in same-sex unions, as individuals, but it does NOT recognize them as valid marriages. The hope was that the blessing would encourage them to forego that lifestyle. Many conservative Catholics will state the the document was written too vague, but that has been the theme of Francis' pontificate.

Find me another Church that will refuse to marry same-sex couples. Find me another Church that does not allows divorce. Find me another Church that 100% opposed to contraception.

Are there Catholic priests and bishops that are "blessing" these as couples? Yes, and they are WRONG and committing sin by doing so. One CANNOT bless sin. Father James Martin is one that does this. I pray for him (and all the other priest and bishops that attempt this) everyday to repent of this evil.

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

Don't have a problem with devout Christians practicing infant baptism. Will go on record as preferring that believers baptism also be performed.

---

Well good, it was practiced since the beginning of the Church.

Coke Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

1. Which early church? You're going to have to be more specific. There were a number of them.

---

Actually, church were all Catholic.

The seven churches in Asia mentioned in the Book of Revelation were indeed part of the early Christian communities.These churchesEphesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodiceawere established by the apostles and their successors.

While the term Catholic was not formally used until later, these early Christian communities were in full communion with the teachings and authority of the apostles, which is a hallmark of the Catholic Church.

---

Indeed, they were Catholic, though not in the sense you are using that word. The current iteration of the Catholic Church - which again includes adoration of Mary (or the immaculate conception of Mary, the perpetual virginity of Mary, the assumption of Mary), petitioning saints in heaven for their prayers, apostolic succession, the ordinances of the church functioning as sacraments, infant baptism, confession of sin to a priest, purgatory, indulgences, or the equal authority of church tradition and Scripture, etc., etc. - bears little resemblance to the church in Acts. The origin of these beliefs is not found in any of the teachings of Jesus and His apostles, as recorded in the New Testament. As parch pointed out in his very thoughtful and astute post above - the origin for many of these things is man.

That's my point. When you say the church in Acts mirrors the Catholic Church today, you're simply not being honest. That's not to say any one denomination has the market cornered on this issue. I think parch is correct - they all err in some way and perhaps could learn from each other if they would listen. However, the Catholic Church has some practices and doctrine that very clearly diverge and contradict scripture.

parch said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

1. Which early church? You're going to have to be more specific. There were a number of them.

---

Actually, church were all Catholic.

The seven churches in Asia mentioned in the Book of Revelation were indeed part of the early Christian communities.These churchesEphesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodiceawere established by the apostles and their successors.

While the term Catholic was not formally used until later, these early Christian communities were in full communion with the teachings and authority of the apostles, which is a hallmark of the Catholic Church.

---

Yes.

That said, the first reformation in the 11th century added a lot of bloat to the system beginning with the Gregorian reforms as canon law was added to canon law to canon law and so on. Some of it seems genuinely inspired, but some other things - clerical celibacy, the deposition of emperors, the church's infallibility, the complex hierarchical professionalization of the clergy - are bolted on in response to real-world problems and not as the result of anything directly biblical.

In other words, it's not hard to see why someone like Luther arrived. It was inevitable. But I think particularly modern Southern Baptists cannot see their own planks since the evangelical protestant ethic is so ingrained in the air we breathe in America.

The inherent distrust of authority, tradition, adornment, architectural splendor, iconography (and therefore all Christian art, which has been so debased by Western evangelicalism through just poorly inspired art generally), and ritual is a direct result of our puritanical and independent roots, not as a result of some perfectly divine reading of scripture. And those roots, it should be said, are not necessarily biblical in all their forms. Just like the Catholic Church formed around the roots of its temporal circumstances, so did their American successors. There are many things protestants could learn about communing with God from their Catholic brothers and sisters, and vice versa, were they given ears to hear.

---

Very well said.

Coke Bear said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

When you say it's not official doctrine, you're intentionally misrepresenting the impact of the unofficial doctrine. The veneration of Mary, idolization and/or worship by most honest accounts, whether official or not, is part of the RC culture.

---

Please show me where Catholics worship Mary as official doctrine. We venerate her as the Mother of God. But she is less than an ant compared to God. We CANNOT worship Mary. She is a creature. That would be idolatry. Your perception of this is your judgement from the outside looking in. I know of NO Catholics that believe that Mary is a God worthy of worship.

We will ask for her intercession because no one is closer to Jesus than her.

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

Additionally in regards to liberalism, RC laypeople have been leading the progressive charge in America over the last two - three decades. They've been leading the gay marriage vote when compared to evangelicals. Again, not "official" but certainly progressivism somehow finds its way into RC layersons lives. And now you have a pope that walks the line furthering the progressive culture while not adopting it outright. By design.

---

The bold part is completely false. There may be a handful of loose canon priest and bishops that push this narrative, but they are in the minority. Look at the Methodist church, the Anglican Church, Baptist and non-doms. They are bending over (pun-intented) to same-sex marriage. The Catholic Church is remaining vigilant on this matter and always will.

Please show me where official Catholic doctrine has allowed for same-sex marriages. In 2023 the Vatical released Fiducia supplicans which allows priest to bless bless the individuals in irregulars marriages, those that have not obtain an annulment or those in same-sex unions, as individuals, but it does NOT recognize them as valid marriages. The hope was that the blessing would encourage them to forego that lifestyle. Many conservative Catholics will state the the document was written too vague, but that has been the theme of Francis' pontificate.

Find me another Church that will refuse to marry same-sex couples. Find me another Church that does not allows divorce. Find me another Church that 100% opposed to contraception.

Are there Catholic priests and bishops that are "blessing" these as couples? Yes, and they are WRONG and committing sin by doing so. One CANNOT bless sin. Father James Martin is one that does this. I pray for him (and all the other priest and bishops that attempt this) everyday to repent of this evil.

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

Don't have a problem with devout Christians practicing infant baptism. Will go on record as preferring that believers baptism also be performed.

---

Well good, it was practiced since the beginning of the Church.

---

Either you are not very Catholic aware or you are parroting the word games regarding "veneration not worship". It's OK, I understand that you've been taught to nuance your way through that brain twister for your whole life.

I said Catholic lay people/voters have been leading the progressive charge in America in comparison to evangelicals. As early as the first decade of this century, the RC's were way ahead of the mainline prots in approval and voting for gay marriage. Other than evangelicals, most of the prots have caught up with you all in terms of "approval". Rcs officially have not accepted gay marriage in the church, but unofficially, the fruits of the RC church is widespread acceptance and adoption.

BTW, I'm not as anti Catholic as I sound. For followers trying to be faithful to His written word (and church tradition that doesn't contradict), God will work around each of our church's imperfections. I know many devout Catholics, and many devout evangelicals who haven't bent the knee to the Progressives religion. I know many progressives that claim to be devout, but when pressed, they reveal that they worship modern secular love, not a holy God. Jesus, God and His Word are completely reshaped to fit their progressive identity.

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

Either you are not very Catholic aware or you are parroting the word games regarding "veneration not worship". It's OK, I understand that you've been taught to nuance your way through that brain twister for your whole life.

---

I am extremely orthodox in my Catholic faith. While I don't possess a Master's in Theology, I feel that I'm fairly learned in the faith and what the Church believes and teaches.

Is it possible that you've been misled your whole life about what Catholics actually believe? Please tell me exactly what you THINK that we believe.

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Veneration is:

Showing devotion and respect to Mary, the Apostles, and the martyrs, who were viewed as faithful witnesses to faith in Jesus Christ. Later, veneration was giving to those who led a life of prayer and self-denial in giving witness to Christ, whose virtues were recognized and publicly proclaimed in their canonization as saints. Such veneration is often extended to the relics or remains of the saints; indeed, to many sacred objects and images. Veneration must be clearly distinguished from adoration and worship, which are due to God alone.

Saying that veneration is worship shows one's (innocent) ignorance of what Catholics actually believe.

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

I said Catholic lay people/voters have been leading the progressive charge in America in comparison to evangelicals. As early as the first decade of this century, the RC's were way ahead of the mainline prots in approval and voting for gay marriage. Other than evangelicals, most of the prots have caught up with you all in terms of "approval". Rcs officially have not accepted gay marriage in the church, but unofficially, the fruits of the RC church is widespread acceptance and adoption.

---

This is YOUR opinion. I would like to see data from non-biased sources that stated that Catholic lay people are "leading the progressive charge". Are there some liberal Catholics that accept these practices? Yes. They do not know what the Church actually teaches or they don't care.

Almost every Catholic I know was upset with the Obergefell v. Hodges decision in '15.

What I (and what I believe most) see, is that it is the protestants that are leading the charge in same-sex marriages. Evangelical Lutheran, Episcopal, Presbyterian, United Church of Christ all allow same-sex marriage. You will NEVER see that Catholic Church doing that.

I will admit that there are Catholics that have tacit acceptance of same-sex marriage; however, I see more Protestant acceptance of the practice.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Coke and Busy, and anyone else wanting to chime in; what is veneration? Is it in the Bible? If not, is the word it is derived from in the Bible?

---

Veneration - "Mary is blessed among women"

Worship - "Mary saved humanity"

---

Ask yourself honestly, Mary's "Let it be done according to thy word", allowed the Holy Spirit to over-shadow her and Jesus, our savor, was born.

Could God have done it another way? Absolutely, but he He chose her. Her fiat allowed Jesus to be born. Without her yes, humanity would not have been saved by Jesus.

---

Mary was already chosen to give birth to Jesus, before any utterance of faith on her part. It was not contingent upon her believing it, it was going to happen regardless. This is a typical example of how Catholics reshape the narrative in order to redirect the credit and glory towards Mary instead of Jesus. This is the kind of idolatrous worship of Mary that plagues Catholicism. Claiming "Mary saved humanity" is perfectly consistent with those idolatrous prayers to Mary in The Glories of Mary. How is it any different from saying you "place your salvation in Mary's hands"??

What saved humanity was Jesus' perfect life, death, and resurrection. Mary didn't do that. Saving humanity was fully contingent upon what Jesus did, not Mary. If Jesus had failed, then Mary's fiat and giving birth to him wouldn't have mattered. It's ridiculous to credit others for "saving humanity" simply because they lay upstream from the one who did the actual redemptive work. By that reasoning, you'd have to also credit these people for "saving humanity" just the same:

• Mary's parents, because they gave birth to Mary.
• Mary's parents' parents. And their parents. And so on, and so on, all the way back to Adam.
• Judas Iscariot, Pontius Pilate, the Pharisees - if they had not betrayed, condemned, or sought to have Jesus killed, then Jesus would not have been crucified for our sins

Realitybites said:

---

Quote:

---

not to mention the single-serve, combination "communion" packets.

---

I almost hesitate to ask what a single serve combination communion packet is, but I'm going to do it anyway.

---

https://kingdom.com/kingdom-prefilled-communion-cups-with-wafers-box-of-500-red-juice.html?gad_source=1&gclid=CjwKCAjw4ri0BhAvEiwA8oo6F5Uc6dRaVT4kskoSjoSFPqI84O4WAGzUyon_G4FMNKkqo01-0vftphoC1iUQAvD_BwE

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Coke and Busy, and anyone else wanting to chime in; what is veneration? Is it in the Bible? If not, is the word it is derived from in the Bible?

---

Veneration - "Mary is blessed among women"

Worship - "Mary saved humanity"

---

Ask yourself honestly, Mary's "Let it be done according to thy word", allowed the Holy Spirit to over-shadow her and Jesus, our savor, was born.

Could God have done it another way? Absolutely, but he He chose her. Her fiat allowed Jesus to be born. Without her yes, humanity would not have been saved by Jesus.

---

Mary was already chosen to give birth to Jesus, before any utterance of faith on her part. It was not contingent upon her believing it, it was going to happen regardless. This is a typical example of how Catholics reshape the narrative in order to redirect the credit and glory towards Mary instead of Jesus. This is the kind of idolatrous worship of Mary that plagues Catholicism. Claiming "Mary saved humanity" is perfectly consistent with those idolatrous prayers to Mary in The Glories of Mary. How is it any different from saying you "place your salvation in Mary's hands"??

What saved humanity was Jesus' perfect life, death, and resurrection. Mary didn't do that. Saving humanity was fully contingent upon what Jesus did, not Mary. If Jesus had failed, then Mary's fiat and giving birth to him wouldn't have mattered. It's ridiculous to credit others for "saving humanity" simply because they lay upstream from the one who did the actual redemptive work. By that reasoning, you'd have to also credit these people for "saving humanity" just the same:

• Mary's parents, because they gave birth to Mary.

• Mary's parents' parents. And their parents. And so on, and so on, all the way back to Adam.

• Judas Iscariot, Pontius Pilate, the Pharisees - if they had not betrayed, condemned, or sought to have Jesus killed, then Jesus would not have been crucified for our sins

---

You be tripping. Everything worked out according to God's plan. Mary played an important role.

Redbrickbear said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Quote:

---

not to mention the single-serve, combination "communion" packets.

---

I almost hesitate to ask what a single serve combination communion packet is, but I'm going to do it anyway.

---

https://kingdom.com/kingdom-prefilled-communion-cups-with-wafers-box-of-500-red-juice.html?gad_source=1&gclid=CjwKCAjw4ri0BhAvEiwA8oo6F5Uc6dRaVT4kskoSjoSFPqI84O4WAGzUyon_G4FMNKkqo01-0vftphoC1iUQAvD_BwE

---

NT scripture clearly outlaws these things...

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Coke and Busy, and anyone else wanting to chime in; what is veneration? Is it in the Bible? If not, is the word it is derived from in the Bible?

---

Veneration - "Mary is blessed among women"

Worship - "Mary saved humanity"

---

Ask yourself honestly, Mary's "Let it be done according to thy word", allowed the Holy Spirit to over-shadow her and Jesus, our savor, was born.

Could God have done it another way? Absolutely, but he He chose her. Her fiat allowed Jesus to be born. Without her yes, humanity would not have been saved by Jesus.

---

Mary was already chosen to give birth to Jesus, before any utterance of faith on her part. It was not contingent upon her believing it, it was going to happen regardless. This is a typical example of how Catholics reshape the narrative in order to redirect the credit and glory towards Mary instead of Jesus. This is the kind of idolatrous worship of Mary that plagues Catholicism. Claiming "Mary saved humanity" is perfectly consistent with those idolatrous prayers to Mary in The Glories of Mary. How is it any different from saying you "place your salvation in Mary's hands"??

What saved humanity was Jesus' perfect life, death, and resurrection. Mary didn't do that. Saving humanity was fully contingent upon what Jesus did, not Mary. If Jesus had failed, then Mary's fiat and giving birth to him wouldn't have mattered. It's ridiculous to credit others for "saving humanity" simply because they lay upstream from the one who did the actual redemptive work. By that reasoning, you'd have to also credit these people for "saving humanity" just the same:

• Mary's parents, because they gave birth to Mary.

• Mary's parents' parents. And their parents. And so on, and so on, all the way back to Adam.

• Judas Iscariot, Pontius Pilate, the Pharisees - if they had not betrayed, condemned, or sought to have Jesus killed, then Jesus would not have been crucified for our sins

---

You be tripping. Everything worked out according to God's plan. Mary played an important role.

---

God has always worked through humans. There are numerous instances of him doing so throughout the bible. It doesn't mean those people deserve adoration or worship, which seems to be the point that sailed over your head.

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Coke and Busy, and anyone else wanting to chime in; what is veneration? Is it in the Bible? If not, is the word it is derived from in the Bible?

---

Veneration - "Mary is blessed among women"

Worship - "Mary saved humanity"

---

Ask yourself honestly, Mary's "Let it be done according to thy word", allowed the Holy Spirit to over-shadow her and Jesus, our savor, was born.

Could God have done it another way? Absolutely, but he He chose her. Her fiat allowed Jesus to be born. Without her yes, humanity would not have been saved by Jesus.

---

Mary was already chosen to give birth to Jesus, before any utterance of faith on her part. It was not contingent upon her believing it, it was going to happen regardless. This is a typical example of how Catholics reshape the narrative in order to redirect the credit and glory towards Mary instead of Jesus. This is the kind of idolatrous worship of Mary that plagues Catholicism. Claiming "Mary saved humanity" is perfectly consistent with those idolatrous prayers to Mary in The Glories of Mary. How is it any different from saying you "place your salvation in Mary's hands"??

What saved humanity was Jesus' perfect life, death, and resurrection. Mary didn't do that. Saving humanity was fully contingent upon what Jesus did, not Mary. If Jesus had failed, then Mary's fiat and giving birth to him wouldn't have mattered. It's ridiculous to credit others for "saving humanity" simply because they lay upstream from the one who did the actual redemptive work. By that reasoning, you'd have to also credit these people for "saving humanity" just the same:

• Mary's parents, because they gave birth to Mary.

• Mary's parents' parents. And their parents. And so on, and so on, all the way back to Adam.

• Judas Iscariot, Pontius Pilate, the Pharisees - if they had not betrayed, condemned, or sought to have Jesus killed, then Jesus would not have been crucified for our sins

---

You be tripping. Everything worked out according to God's plan. Mary played an important role.

---

All those people mentioned played an important role in God's redemptive plan of salvation through Jesus. Especially Mary, and she should be called blessed. But none of their actions in of themselves "saved humanity". Catholics are trying to make Mary the savior, or at least share equally the role of Savior with Jesus and worship her as such, which is pure heresy and idolatry. It is so sad that Catholics have blinded themselves to this fact.

First, I never said "Mary saved humanity". You have misconstrued my words to fit your narrative. I say that her "yes" saved humanity.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Mary was already chosen to give birth to Jesus, before any utterance of faith on her part. It was not contingent upon her believing it, it was going to happen regardless., or sought to have Jesus killed, then Jesus would not have been crucified for our sins.

---

Do you believe in free will? Honest question.

IF you do, then you would realize how wrong this statement is. I'd ask you think philosophically and theologically for a moment.

Yes, Mary was already chosen to be the mother of Jesus. If you believe in free will, then Mary would have had the choice to say "yes or no."

If she did not have a choice, then either God forced Himself on her or she didn't have free will.

We know God would never force Himself, so it had to be something else.

Another point to think about is the power dynamic between God and man. She could have said "yes" if she was afraid that she would be killed and go to hell for saying "no" to God. That's free will, but it could be said that God coerced Mary to say "yes".

God would not do that, obviously, because he is all good.

Quoting the Catechism 2617:

Quote:

---

In the faith of his humble handmaid, the Gift of God found the acceptance he had awaited from the beginning of time. She whom the Almighty made "full of grace" responds by offering her whole being: "Behold I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be [done] to me according to your word." "Fiat"

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

This is a typical example of how Catholics reshape the narrative in order to redirect the credit and glory towards Mary instead of Jesus. This is the kind of idolatrous worship of Mary that plagues Catholicism. Claiming "Mary saved humanity" is perfectly consistent with those idolatrous prayers to Mary in The Glories of Mary. How is it any different from saying you "place your salvation in Mary's hands"??

---

This is your opinion of what we believe. As I've stated many times, we do NOT and CANNOT worship Mary.

Why does the moon shine? It shines because of the sun. Why does Mary shine? Because of her Son.

Loving Mary doesn't take away love of Jesus. Jesus is happy when we love his mother.

There is a strong anti-Mary bias amongst Protestants. I get that. You have been conditioned to this for generations. "How can we separate/distance ourselves from Catholics?"

This bias grew over time. Luther and Zwingli had Marian devotion. Even Calvin had some Marian devotion.

Maybe the today's is problem that protestants don't love Mary enough.

She is referenced in Gen3:15, the protevangelium: "I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel."

She is the virgin in a garden that said "yes" when Eve, the virgin in the garden, said "no'.

In Luke, he links her as the Ark of the New Covenant. In John, whose Gospel is a retelling of Genesis, he establishes her as the new Eve. John also notes how she starts Jesus in public ministry at the wedding feast of Cana.

She is referred to in Revelation in Chapters 11 and 12.

Mary is at the beginning, middle, and end of the bible.

We see devotion as early as Justin Martyr in 155 and Irenaeus in 180.

The earliest Marian pray dates to 250 - Sub Tuum Praesidium

We fly to thy patronage,
O holy Mother of God;
despise not our petitions in our necessities,
but deliver us always from all dangers,
O glorious and blessed Virgin.
Amen.

Mary has been honored since the beginnings of the Church. It's only recently that protestants have started their anti-Mary bias.

Mothra said:

---

God has always worked through humans. There are numerous instances of him doing so throughout the bible. It doesn't mean those people deserve adoration or worship, which seems to be the point that sailed over your head.

---

Amen. No human deserves adoration or worship.

Catholics do NOT worship Mary or any other soul in Heaven. Please stop insisting that we do.

Coke Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

God has always worked through humans. There are numerous instances of him doing so throughout the bible. It doesn't mean those people deserve adoration or worship, which seems to be the point that sailed over your head.

---

Amen. No human deserves adoration or worship.

Catholics do NOT worship Mary or any other soul in Heaven. Please stop insisting that we do.

---

You must be confusing me with someone else. I never used the term worship, that I recall. I used the term "adoration" (or the immaculate conception of Mary, the perpetual virginity of Mary, the assumption of Mary).

Mothra said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

God has always worked through humans. There are numerous instances of him doing so throughout the bible. It doesn't mean those people deserve adoration or worship, which seems to be the point that sailed over your head.

---

Amen. No human deserves adoration or worship.

Catholics do NOT worship Mary or any other soul in Heaven. Please stop insisting that we do.

---

You must be confusing me with someone else. I never used the term worship, that I recall. I used the term "adoration" (or the immaculate conception of Mary, the perpetual virginity of Mary, the assumption of Mary).

---

Fair enough. We have a difference in language use. Catholics refer to adoration as the worship reserved for God alone.

The Catechism definition that we use is:

Quote:

---

The acknowledgement of God as God, Creator and Savior, the Lord and Master of everything that exists. Through worship and prayer, the Church and individual persons give to God the adoration which is the first act of the virtue of religion. The first commandment of the law obliges us to adore God.

---

Coke Bear said:

---

First, I never said "Mary saved humanity". You have misconstrued my words to fit your narrative. I say that her "yes" saved humanity.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Mary was already chosen to give birth to Jesus, before any utterance of faith on her part. It was not contingent upon her believing it, it was going to happen regardless., or sought to have Jesus killed, then Jesus would not have been crucified for our sins.

---

Do you believe in free will? Honest question.

IF you do, then you would realize how wrong this statement is. I'd ask you think philosophically and theologically for a moment.

Yes, Mary was already chosen to be the mother of Jesus. If you believe in free will, then Mary would have had the choice to say "yes or no."

If she did not have a choice, then either God forced Himself on her or she didn't have free will.

We know God would never force Himself, so it had to be something else.

Another point to think about is the power dynamic between God and man. She could have said "yes" if she was afraid that she would be killed and go to hell for saying "no" to God. That's free will, but it could be said that God coerced Mary to say "yes".

God would not do that, obviously, because he is all good.

Quoting the Catechism 2617:

Quote:

---

In the faith of his humble handmaid, the Gift of God found the acceptance he had awaited from the beginning of time. She whom the Almighty made "full of grace" responds by offering her whole being: "Behold I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be [done] to me according to your word." "Fiat"

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

This is a typical example of how Catholics reshape the narrative in order to redirect the credit and glory towards Mary instead of Jesus. This is the kind of idolatrous worship of Mary that plagues Catholicism. Claiming "Mary saved humanity" is perfectly consistent with those idolatrous prayers to Mary in The Glories of Mary. How is it any different from saying you "place your salvation in Mary's hands"??

---

This is your opinion of what we believe. As I've stated many times, we do NOT and CANNOT worship Mary.

Why does the moon shine? It shines because of the sun. Why does Mary shine? Because of her Son.

Loving Mary doesn't take away love of Jesus. Jesus is happy when we love his mother.

There is a strong anti-Mary bias amongst Protestants. I get that. You have been conditioned to this for generations. "How can we separate/distance ourselves from Catholics?"

This bias grew over time. Luther and Zwingli had Marian devotion. Even Calvin had some Marian devotion.

Maybe the today's is problem that protestants don't love Mary enough.

She is referenced in Gen3:15, the protevangelium: "I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel."

She is the virgin in a garden that said "yes" when Eve, the virgin in the garden, said "no'.

In Luke, he links her as the Ark of the New Covenant. In John, whose Gospel is a retelling of Genesis, he establishes her as the new Eve. John also notes how she starts Jesus in public ministry at the wedding feast of Cana.

She is referred to in Revelation in Chapters 11 and 12.

Mary is at the beginning, middle, and end of the bible.

We see devotion as early as Justin Martyr in 155 and Irenaeus in 180.

The earliest Marian pray dates to 250 - Sub Tuum Praesidium

We fly to thy patronage,
O holy Mother of God;
despise not our petitions in our necessities,
but deliver us always from all dangers,
O glorious and blessed Virgin.
Amen.

Mary has been honored since the beginnings of the Church. It's only recently that protestants have started their anti-Mary bias.

---

If Mary's "yes" saved mankind, and it was by her free will to say yes, then you're still saying she saved mankind.

And if her "yes" saved mankind, then by the same reasoning Judas Iscariot's betrayal, the Pharisees seeking to kill Jesus, and Pontius Pilate's condemnation of Jesus to death also saved mankind. It's very bad reasoning.

Mary giving birth to Jesus had nothing to do with her free will. The angel giving her the news declared it was to happen. She wasn't given a choice to reject it. She just faithfully accepted it. Read the account in Luke 1 again. Looking at it as meaning God immorally "forced himself" onto Mary is completely ridiculous.

"Loving Mary doesn't take away love of Jesus. Jesus is happy when we love his mother" - Loving Mary to the point of elevating her to the position of Jesus as Catholics do DOES take away from the love and glory that is due Jesus alone. Someone tried to give Mary love in Luke 11:27, and Jesus did not validate it, but instead he redirected it. That's not to say that Jesus isn't happy if we love Mary, but he made it clear that loving Mary is no greater than loving other believers.

"Mary is at the beginning, middle, and end of the bible." - It's almost as you're wanting to say Mary is the Alpha and the Omega. I wonder who that title belongs to, hmm.

In reading all your posts, it is clear to any honest, objective person that they are suffused with an excessive level of "adoration" for Mary that reaches the level of idolatry. Catholics try to "nuance" their way out of that exactly like TinFoilHatPreacher said by using a ridiculous "veneration vs. worship" semantic gambit. You've been conditioned to buy into it, but the objective, rational world just isn't fooled. And I'm sure Jesus isn't either. The bottom line is, this level of "adoration" is clearly against original apostolic tradition that is Scripture. You are taking way too many liberties with the text and relying on extra-biblical tradition to find your justification.

There is no "protestant anti-Mary bias". There is only bias against the heresy and idolatry that the Catholic Church has made it into, a fact that should be easily recognizable to anyone with the Holy Spirit. I'll say again, it really is very troubling how you have made yourself so blind to it.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

First, I never said "Mary saved humanity". You have misconstrued my words to fit your narrative. I say that her "yes" saved humanity.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Mary was already chosen to give birth to Jesus, before any utterance of faith on her part. It was not contingent upon her believing it, it was going to happen regardless., or sought to have Jesus killed, then Jesus would not have been crucified for our sins.

---

Do you believe in free will? Honest question.

IF you do, then you would realize how wrong this statement is. I'd ask you think philosophically and theologically for a moment.

Yes, Mary was already chosen to be the mother of Jesus. If you believe in free will, then Mary would have had the choice to say "yes or no."

If she did not have a choice, then either God forced Himself on her or she didn't have free will.

We know God would never force Himself, so it had to be something else.

Another point to think about is the power dynamic between God and man. She could have said "yes" if she was afraid that she would be killed and go to hell for saying "no" to God. That's free will, but it could be said that God coerced Mary to say "yes".

God would not do that, obviously, because he is all good.

Quoting the Catechism 2617:

Quote:

---

In the faith of his humble handmaid, the Gift of God found the acceptance he had awaited from the beginning of time. She whom the Almighty made "full of grace" responds by offering her whole being: "Behold I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be [done] to me according to your word." "Fiat"

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

This is a typical example of how Catholics reshape the narrative in order to redirect the credit and glory towards Mary instead of Jesus. This is the kind of idolatrous worship of Mary that plagues Catholicism. Claiming "Mary saved humanity" is perfectly consistent with those idolatrous prayers to Mary in The Glories of Mary. How is it any different from saying you "place your salvation in Mary's hands"??

---

This is your opinion of what we believe. As I've stated many times, we do NOT and CANNOT worship Mary.

Why does the moon shine? It shines because of the sun. Why does Mary shine? Because of her Son.

Loving Mary doesn't take away love of Jesus. Jesus is happy when we love his mother.

There is a strong anti-Mary bias amongst Protestants. I get that. You have been conditioned to this for generations. "How can we separate/distance ourselves from Catholics?"

This bias grew over time. Luther and Zwingli had Marian devotion. Even Calvin had some Marian devotion.

Maybe the today's is problem that protestants don't love Mary enough.

She is referenced in Gen3:15, the protevangelium: "I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel."

She is the virgin in a garden that said "yes" when Eve, the virgin in the garden, said "no'.

In Luke, he links her as the Ark of the New Covenant. In John, whose Gospel is a retelling of Genesis, he establishes her as the new Eve. John also notes how she starts Jesus in public ministry at the wedding feast of Cana.

She is referred to in Revelation in Chapters 11 and 12.

Mary is at the beginning, middle, and end of the bible.

We see devotion as early as Justin Martyr in 155 and Irenaeus in 180.

The earliest Marian pray dates to 250 - Sub Tuum Praesidium

We fly to thy patronage,
O holy Mother of God;
despise not our petitions in our necessities,
but deliver us always from all dangers,
O glorious and blessed Virgin.
Amen.

Mary has been honored since the beginnings of the Church. It's only recently that protestants have started their anti-Mary bias.

---

If Mary's "yes" saved mankind, and it was by her free will to say yes, then you're still saying she saved mankind.

And if her "yes" saved mankind, then by the same reasoning Judas Iscariot's betrayal, the Pharisees seeking to kill Jesus, and Pontius Pilate's condemnation of Jesus to death also saved mankind. It's very bad reasoning.

Mary giving birth to Jesus had nothing to do with her free will. The angel giving her the news declared it was to happen. She wasn't given a choice to reject it. She just faithfully accepted it. Read the account in Luke 1 again. Looking at it as meaning God immorally "forced himself" onto Mary is completely ridiculous.

"Loving Mary doesn't take away love of Jesus. Jesus is happy when we love his mother" - Loving Mary to the point of elevating her to the position of Jesus as Catholics do DOES take away from the love and glory that is due Jesus alone. Someone tried to give Mary love in Luke 11:27, and Jesus did not validate it, but instead he redirected it. That's not to say that Jesus isn't happy if we love Mary, but he made it clear that loving Mary is no greater than loving other believers.

"Mary is at the beginning, middle, and end of the bible." - It's almost as you're wanting to say Mary is the Alpha and the Omega. I wonder who that title belongs to, hmm.

In reading all your posts, it is clear to any honest, objective person that they are suffused with an excessive level of "adoration" for Mary that reaches the level of idolatry. Catholics try to "nuance" their way out of that exactly like TinFoilHatPreacher said by using a ridiculous "veneration vs. worship" semantic gambit. You've been conditioned to buy into it, but the objective, rational world just isn't fooled. And I'm sure Jesus isn't either. The bottom line is, this level of "adoration" is clearly against original apostolic tradition that is Scripture. You are taking way too many liberties with the text and relying on extra-biblical tradition to find your justification.

There is no "protestant anti-Mary bias". There is only bias against the heresy and idolatry that the Catholic Church has made it into, a fact that should be easily recognizable to anyone with the Holy Spirit. I'll say again, it really is very troubling how you have made yourself so blind to it.

---

Isaiah is going to read a bit differently now.

Coke Bear said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

Either you are not very Catholic aware or you are parroting the word games regarding "veneration not worship". It's OK, I understand that you've been taught to nuance your way through that brain twister for your whole life.

---

I am extremely orthodox in my Catholic faith. While I don't possess a Master's in Theology, I feel that I'm fairly learned in the faith and what the Church believes and teaches.

Is it possible that you've been misled your whole life about what Catholics actually believe? Please tell me exactly what you THINK that we believe.

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Veneration is:

Showing devotion and respect to Mary, the Apostles, and the martyrs, who were viewed as faithful witnesses to faith in Jesus Christ. Later, veneration was giving to those who led a life of prayer and self-denial in giving witness to Christ, whose virtues were recognized and publicly proclaimed in their canonization as saints. Such veneration is often extended to the relics or remains of the saints; indeed, to many sacred objects and images. Veneration must be clearly distinguished from adoration and worship, which are due to God alone.

Saying that veneration is worship shows one's (innocent) ignorance of what Catholics actually believe.

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

I said Catholic lay people/voters have been leading the progressive charge in America in comparison to evangelicals. As early as the first decade of this century, the RC's were way ahead of the mainline prots in approval and voting for gay marriage. Other than evangelicals, most of the prots have caught up with you all in terms of "approval". Rcs officially have not accepted gay marriage in the church, but unofficially, the fruits of the RC church is widespread acceptance and adoption.

---

This is YOUR opinion. I would like to see data from non-biased sources that stated that Catholic lay people are "leading the progressive charge". Are there some liberal Catholics that accept these practices? Yes. They do not know what the Church actually teaches or they don't care.

Almost every Catholic I know was upset with the Obergefell v. Hodges decision in '15.

What I (and what I believe most) see, is that it is the protestants that are leading the charge in same-sex marriages. Evangelical Lutheran, Episcopal, Presbyterian, United Church of Christ all allow same-sex marriage. You will NEVER see that Catholic Church doing that.

I will admit that there are Catholics that have tacit acceptance of same-sex marriage; however, I see more Protestant acceptance of the practice.

---

The 2000-2012 stats will make you sad, several legit surveys. The stats are not my opinion. Catholics are more progressive than most and helped usher in progressives via their votes. Certainly they were more readily approving of same sex marriage. As a group, Evangelicals are consistently more based in their voting.

To your point, I agree that those Prots that perform gay marriages are lost. They lead in marriages but even today, I'm not sure they lead the progressive stats since some of those churches have divided over the issues.

As I said, I don't hate on Catholics. I see the devout RCs, Eastern Orthodox, and Evangelicals (most practicing Baptists) as allies in the fight for souls vs the progressive enemies of God.

And yes, yes I know the RCs think they have a monopoly on the holy spirit, but I'm willing to accept them even in their ignorance, as long as they are trying to stay true to following God as revealed to us in scripture (and church history that compliments but doesn't contradict his word).

Regarding what you believe. I believe that you believe that RCs officially venerate Mary. Every one who accuses Catholics of worshipping Mary understands that is your company line, and that you likely believe it. But reality is that a LARGE portion of the Catholic body has elevated Mary and in fact worship her in every way that one would worship a diety. She is the golden calf to many many Catholics. You've been programmed to see or excuse every single act as veneration while everyone else sees what is clearly worship.

Fwiw most practicing Christian non Cats hold the mother of Christ in upmost esteem, respect, and love, but it ends there.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Mary giving birth to Jesus had nothing to do with her free will. The angel giving her the news declared it was to happen. She wasn't given a choice to reject it. She just faithfully accepted it. Read the account in Luke 1 again. Looking at it as meaning God immorally "forced himself" onto Mary is completely ridiculous.

---

It seems like your rejecting Mary's free will. I find that interesting. In all the protestant sources that I searched; they affirmed that Mary DID have a choice to consent. I'd suggest that you do some research with some trusted protestant scholars.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

"Loving Mary doesn't take away love of Jesus. Jesus is happy when we love his mother" - Loving Mary to the point of elevating her to the position of Jesus as Catholics do DOES take away from the love and glory that is due Jesus alone. Someone tried to give Mary love in Luke 11:27, and Jesus did not validate it, but instead he redirected it. That's not to say that Jesus isn't happy if we love Mary, but he made it clear that loving Mary is no greater than loving other believers.

---

Final time, Catholics do not elevate Mary to Jesus.

Loving her does not take away love or glory for Jesus. I love my children dearly. That does not take away my love for my wife. Love is exponential and infinite.

In Luke 11:27-28, Jesus highlights the importance of spiritual kinship over biological ties. He is not redirecting her praise.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

"Mary is at the beginning, middle, and end of the bible." - It's almost as you're wanting to say Mary is the Alpha and the Omega. I wonder who that title belongs to, hmm.

---

You know very well that I am not implying that. My point is that Mary has always been part of God's plan since the beginning. Her role is significantly more important than Judas'. It seems like you're trying to take a jab at my view. Oh, well.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

In reading all your posts, it is clear to any honest, objective person that they are suffused with an excessive level of "adoration" for Mary that reaches the level of idolatry. Catholics try to "nuance" their way out of that exactly like TinFoilHatPreacher said by using a ridiculous "veneration vs. worship" semantic gambit. You've been conditioned to buy into it, but the objective, rational world just isn't fooled. And I'm sure Jesus isn't either. The bottom line is, this level of "adoration" is clearly against original apostolic tradition that is Scripture. You are taking way too many liberties with the text and relying on extra-biblical tradition to find your justification.

---

Well, I've provided definitions and explained the differences between the two. Either I didn't explain well enough and you don't understand or you just don't care to understand.

We have reached am impasse on Mary. I've shown that she has always been honored throughout Church history. You don't see it like that. We each have our own opinions. My job is merely present information as thought by the Church. My job isn't to change your mind or anyone else's. That role belongs to the Holy Spirit.

We'll have to agree to disagree and move on.

Peace, brother. I will continue to pray for you daily.

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

The 2000-2012 stats will make you sad, several legit surveys. The stats are not my opinion. Catholics are more progressive than most and helped usher in progressives via their votes. Certainly they were more readily approving of same sex marriage. As a group, Evangelicals are consistently more based in their voting.

---

Sadly, I would like to see those polls. If that is correct, my assumptions that while Evangelicals have toed the line better than Catholics, as a group, protestants are more progressive then Catholic based on the number of Churches that have fallen. I pray that all those "progressives" will repent of their ways. Of course, I pray everyday that we can end abortion.

Having said that, these progressive Catholics do not know what the Church teaches, have been swayed by our more-and-more secularized culture, and/or just don't care what the Church teaches.

One thing is for sure … the Catholic Church will NEVER officially allow or sanction same-sex "marriages".

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

And yes, yes I know the RCs think they have a monopoly on the holy spirit, but I'm willing to accept them even in their ignorance, as long as they are trying to stay true to following God as revealed to us in scripture (and church history that compliments but doesn't contradict his word).

---

Quite frankly, that's a disrespectful statement to make. That is not taught in any Catholic teaching. We fully believe that no one has a monopoly on the HS. He is present to EVERYONE, believers and non-believers.

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

Regarding what you believe. I believe that you believe that RCs officially venerate Mary. Every one who accuses Catholics of worshipping Mary understands that is your company line, and that you likely believe it. But reality is that a LARGE portion of the Catholic body has elevated Mary and in fact worship her in every way that one would worship a diety. She is the golden calf to many many Catholics. You've been programmed to see or excuse every single act as veneration while everyone else sees what is clearly worship.

---

Frankly, I'd need to see some stats from Catholics that state that they "worship Mary as a deity." No one believes that she is a God or has God-like powers.
We merely ask for her intercession. Just like I'd ask you to pray for me. James 5:16 states that the "prayers of the righteous man availeth much." There is no one more righteous than those in heaven, especially Mary.

Some Catholics have extreme Marian devotions. They are asking her to speak to her Son on their behalf. They are still asking Jesus for their request; they are also incorporating Mary asking/help as well. Just like two or three kids would go and ask dad to buy ice cream.

It's quite possible that when you see Catholics with a Marian precession or icons of Mary, you believe that to be worship. It is not. We are simply asking her to pray for us.