Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:ARbear13 said:
It's very ironic that I posted this specifically to emphasize the common ground that Catholics and Protestants share on the Lordship of Jesus Christ, yet we Catholics still get the "You Catholics worship Mary! You can't lie to us!"
The Vatican releases a doctrinal statement restricting the use of certain titles for Mother Mary specifically to re-emphasize Christ as the Sole Mediator and Redeemer, which Catholics have always believed, and some Protestants still accuse us of Marian idolatry.
If you expect the Catholic Church to begin minimizing the Virgin Mary's holiness and importance as a subordinate and derivative participant in Christ's mediation, you'll be waiting forever. That is never going to happen. However, if you want us to say "Jesus Christ is Lord and God, and only He is to be worshipped," we will very happily and readily do so.
Jesus of Nazareth is the Second Person of the Triune God. The Triune God is the only divinity that exists and is deserving of all love and worship. The Catholic Church greatly esteems and honors the Blessed Virgin Mary as the Mother of God and the Church's spiritual mother, but she is not divine and may not be worshipped. Any Catholic who worships Mary is doing so in direct defiance of the unchanging and explicit teaching of the Church's Magisterium, which only permits the worship of God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Is that good enough for you? I am guessing that nothing would be good enough for some of you because you are have already decided that Catholics are semi-pagan, but it should be enough.
Ask yourself this: if it's true that your church never taught that Mary has a mediator role equal to that of Jesus, then how is it that there is currently a tremendous blowback from Roman Catholics all over the world against the Vatican and the current pope over this doctrinal statement? They are viewing it as an attack on what they believe is Mary's EQUAL role with Jesus. You can claim all you want that they're just simply wrong, that your church never taught that... but they had to have gotten that idea from somewhere. It didn't just fall out of the sky.
Evidently it did, if that's really what they're saying. I've certainly never heard it before.
Then what exactly are your fellow Roman Catholics protesting?
If they are, it's a prudential debate over the use of certain language. There's no substantive disagreement underlying it.
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:ARbear13 said:
It's very ironic that I posted this specifically to emphasize the common ground that Catholics and Protestants share on the Lordship of Jesus Christ, yet we Catholics still get the "You Catholics worship Mary! You can't lie to us!"
The Vatican releases a doctrinal statement restricting the use of certain titles for Mother Mary specifically to re-emphasize Christ as the Sole Mediator and Redeemer, which Catholics have always believed, and some Protestants still accuse us of Marian idolatry.
If you expect the Catholic Church to begin minimizing the Virgin Mary's holiness and importance as a subordinate and derivative participant in Christ's mediation, you'll be waiting forever. That is never going to happen. However, if you want us to say "Jesus Christ is Lord and God, and only He is to be worshipped," we will very happily and readily do so.
Jesus of Nazareth is the Second Person of the Triune God. The Triune God is the only divinity that exists and is deserving of all love and worship. The Catholic Church greatly esteems and honors the Blessed Virgin Mary as the Mother of God and the Church's spiritual mother, but she is not divine and may not be worshipped. Any Catholic who worships Mary is doing so in direct defiance of the unchanging and explicit teaching of the Church's Magisterium, which only permits the worship of God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Is that good enough for you? I am guessing that nothing would be good enough for some of you because you are have already decided that Catholics are semi-pagan, but it should be enough.
Ask yourself this: if it's true that your church never taught that Mary has a mediator role equal to that of Jesus, then how is it that there is currently a tremendous blowback from Roman Catholics all over the world against the Vatican and the current pope over this doctrinal statement? They are viewing it as an attack on what they believe is Mary's EQUAL role with Jesus. You can claim all you want that they're just simply wrong, that your church never taught that... but they had to have gotten that idea from somewhere. It didn't just fall out of the sky.
Evidently it did, if that's really what they're saying. I've certainly never heard it before.
Then what exactly are your fellow Roman Catholics protesting?
If they are, it's a prudential debate over the use of certain language. There's no substantive disagreement underlying it.
I hardly think you can speak for all Catholics protesting, especially since you've even acknowledged that you aren't even aware that they are.
Oldbear83 said:
Scripture warns how the disciples tussled over who was greatest among them. They actually became great when they just focused on Christ and not their position.
Both Roman Catholics and Protestants still make that same stupid proud argument. We would do much better just to seek the Lord and not worry if we look important or not.
Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:ARbear13 said:
It's very ironic that I posted this specifically to emphasize the common ground that Catholics and Protestants share on the Lordship of Jesus Christ, yet we Catholics still get the "You Catholics worship Mary! You can't lie to us!"
The Vatican releases a doctrinal statement restricting the use of certain titles for Mother Mary specifically to re-emphasize Christ as the Sole Mediator and Redeemer, which Catholics have always believed, and some Protestants still accuse us of Marian idolatry.
If you expect the Catholic Church to begin minimizing the Virgin Mary's holiness and importance as a subordinate and derivative participant in Christ's mediation, you'll be waiting forever. That is never going to happen. However, if you want us to say "Jesus Christ is Lord and God, and only He is to be worshipped," we will very happily and readily do so.
Jesus of Nazareth is the Second Person of the Triune God. The Triune God is the only divinity that exists and is deserving of all love and worship. The Catholic Church greatly esteems and honors the Blessed Virgin Mary as the Mother of God and the Church's spiritual mother, but she is not divine and may not be worshipped. Any Catholic who worships Mary is doing so in direct defiance of the unchanging and explicit teaching of the Church's Magisterium, which only permits the worship of God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Is that good enough for you? I am guessing that nothing would be good enough for some of you because you are have already decided that Catholics are semi-pagan, but it should be enough.
Ask yourself this: if it's true that your church never taught that Mary has a mediator role equal to that of Jesus, then how is it that there is currently a tremendous blowback from Roman Catholics all over the world against the Vatican and the current pope over this doctrinal statement? They are viewing it as an attack on what they believe is Mary's EQUAL role with Jesus. You can claim all you want that they're just simply wrong, that your church never taught that... but they had to have gotten that idea from somewhere. It didn't just fall out of the sky.
Evidently it did, if that's really what they're saying. I've certainly never heard it before.
Then what exactly are your fellow Roman Catholics protesting?
If they are, it's a prudential debate over the use of certain language. There's no substantive disagreement underlying it.
I hardly think you can speak for all Catholics protesting, especially since you've even acknowledged that you aren't even aware that they are.
Then why did you ask me?
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:ARbear13 said:
It's very ironic that I posted this specifically to emphasize the common ground that Catholics and Protestants share on the Lordship of Jesus Christ, yet we Catholics still get the "You Catholics worship Mary! You can't lie to us!"
The Vatican releases a doctrinal statement restricting the use of certain titles for Mother Mary specifically to re-emphasize Christ as the Sole Mediator and Redeemer, which Catholics have always believed, and some Protestants still accuse us of Marian idolatry.
If you expect the Catholic Church to begin minimizing the Virgin Mary's holiness and importance as a subordinate and derivative participant in Christ's mediation, you'll be waiting forever. That is never going to happen. However, if you want us to say "Jesus Christ is Lord and God, and only He is to be worshipped," we will very happily and readily do so.
Jesus of Nazareth is the Second Person of the Triune God. The Triune God is the only divinity that exists and is deserving of all love and worship. The Catholic Church greatly esteems and honors the Blessed Virgin Mary as the Mother of God and the Church's spiritual mother, but she is not divine and may not be worshipped. Any Catholic who worships Mary is doing so in direct defiance of the unchanging and explicit teaching of the Church's Magisterium, which only permits the worship of God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Is that good enough for you? I am guessing that nothing would be good enough for some of you because you are have already decided that Catholics are semi-pagan, but it should be enough.
Ask yourself this: if it's true that your church never taught that Mary has a mediator role equal to that of Jesus, then how is it that there is currently a tremendous blowback from Roman Catholics all over the world against the Vatican and the current pope over this doctrinal statement? They are viewing it as an attack on what they believe is Mary's EQUAL role with Jesus. You can claim all you want that they're just simply wrong, that your church never taught that... but they had to have gotten that idea from somewhere. It didn't just fall out of the sky.
Evidently it did, if that's really what they're saying. I've certainly never heard it before.
Then what exactly are your fellow Roman Catholics protesting?
If they are, it's a prudential debate over the use of certain language. There's no substantive disagreement underlying it.
I hardly think you can speak for all Catholics protesting, especially since you've even acknowledged that you aren't even aware that they are.
Then why did you ask me?
Ever heard of a rhetorical question?
Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:ARbear13 said:
It's very ironic that I posted this specifically to emphasize the common ground that Catholics and Protestants share on the Lordship of Jesus Christ, yet we Catholics still get the "You Catholics worship Mary! You can't lie to us!"
The Vatican releases a doctrinal statement restricting the use of certain titles for Mother Mary specifically to re-emphasize Christ as the Sole Mediator and Redeemer, which Catholics have always believed, and some Protestants still accuse us of Marian idolatry.
If you expect the Catholic Church to begin minimizing the Virgin Mary's holiness and importance as a subordinate and derivative participant in Christ's mediation, you'll be waiting forever. That is never going to happen. However, if you want us to say "Jesus Christ is Lord and God, and only He is to be worshipped," we will very happily and readily do so.
Jesus of Nazareth is the Second Person of the Triune God. The Triune God is the only divinity that exists and is deserving of all love and worship. The Catholic Church greatly esteems and honors the Blessed Virgin Mary as the Mother of God and the Church's spiritual mother, but she is not divine and may not be worshipped. Any Catholic who worships Mary is doing so in direct defiance of the unchanging and explicit teaching of the Church's Magisterium, which only permits the worship of God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Is that good enough for you? I am guessing that nothing would be good enough for some of you because you are have already decided that Catholics are semi-pagan, but it should be enough.
Ask yourself this: if it's true that your church never taught that Mary has a mediator role equal to that of Jesus, then how is it that there is currently a tremendous blowback from Roman Catholics all over the world against the Vatican and the current pope over this doctrinal statement? They are viewing it as an attack on what they believe is Mary's EQUAL role with Jesus. You can claim all you want that they're just simply wrong, that your church never taught that... but they had to have gotten that idea from somewhere. It didn't just fall out of the sky.
Evidently it did, if that's really what they're saying. I've certainly never heard it before.
Then what exactly are your fellow Roman Catholics protesting?
If they are, it's a prudential debate over the use of certain language. There's no substantive disagreement underlying it.
I hardly think you can speak for all Catholics protesting, especially since you've even acknowledged that you aren't even aware that they are.
Then why did you ask me?
Ever heard of a rhetorical question?
That would imply that you already know the answer and can speak for my fellow Catholics. I beg to differ.
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:ARbear13 said:
It's very ironic that I posted this specifically to emphasize the common ground that Catholics and Protestants share on the Lordship of Jesus Christ, yet we Catholics still get the "You Catholics worship Mary! You can't lie to us!"
The Vatican releases a doctrinal statement restricting the use of certain titles for Mother Mary specifically to re-emphasize Christ as the Sole Mediator and Redeemer, which Catholics have always believed, and some Protestants still accuse us of Marian idolatry.
If you expect the Catholic Church to begin minimizing the Virgin Mary's holiness and importance as a subordinate and derivative participant in Christ's mediation, you'll be waiting forever. That is never going to happen. However, if you want us to say "Jesus Christ is Lord and God, and only He is to be worshipped," we will very happily and readily do so.
Jesus of Nazareth is the Second Person of the Triune God. The Triune God is the only divinity that exists and is deserving of all love and worship. The Catholic Church greatly esteems and honors the Blessed Virgin Mary as the Mother of God and the Church's spiritual mother, but she is not divine and may not be worshipped. Any Catholic who worships Mary is doing so in direct defiance of the unchanging and explicit teaching of the Church's Magisterium, which only permits the worship of God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Is that good enough for you? I am guessing that nothing would be good enough for some of you because you are have already decided that Catholics are semi-pagan, but it should be enough.
You are asking people to ignore the tsunami of evidence that belies your claim, as if a single, recent doctrinal statement from your church should be "good enough" to override all that. And we're just not seeing any honesty from you in acknowledging any of it. Rather, it's just the usual denial, excuse making, and obfuscations.
Arguing that your church only believes in Mary's "subordinate and derivative" role in mediation is highly disingenuous. CLEARLY, your church's idea of a "subordinate" role for Mary still has her as close to Jesus' as possible without going over; and your church CLEARLY teaches that Mary's mediation, though derivative to Jesus', is still NECESSARY for salvation. Not only is there absolutely NO basis in Scripture or in the early church for ANY of this, there's also none for Mary even having ANY mediator role at all to begin with. And to elevate her in such a way as to say she is necessary for salvation should be so plainly heretical and idolatrous to anyone who is a Christian, as no one with the Holy Spirit would be comfortable at all with even hinting at crediting anyone for this except Jesus alone. Your church's (as well as even your) inability/unwillingness to disavow such things as this (as well as a number of others) completely undermines the authenticity of the Vatican's recent doctrinal statement as well as your church's repeated insistence that you don't worship Mary, and that you never did.
Ask yourself this: if it's true that your church never taught that Mary has a mediator role equal to that of Jesus, then how is it that there is currently a tremendous blowback from Roman Catholics all over the world against the Vatican and the current pope over this doctrinal statement? They are viewing it as an attack on what they believe is Mary's EQUAL role with Jesus. You can claim all you want that they're just simply wrong, that your church never taught that... but they had to have gotten that idea from somewhere. It didn't just fall out of the sky.
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:ARbear13 said:
It's very ironic that I posted this specifically to emphasize the common ground that Catholics and Protestants share on the Lordship of Jesus Christ, yet we Catholics still get the "You Catholics worship Mary! You can't lie to us!"
The Vatican releases a doctrinal statement restricting the use of certain titles for Mother Mary specifically to re-emphasize Christ as the Sole Mediator and Redeemer, which Catholics have always believed, and some Protestants still accuse us of Marian idolatry.
If you expect the Catholic Church to begin minimizing the Virgin Mary's holiness and importance as a subordinate and derivative participant in Christ's mediation, you'll be waiting forever. That is never going to happen. However, if you want us to say "Jesus Christ is Lord and God, and only He is to be worshipped," we will very happily and readily do so.
Jesus of Nazareth is the Second Person of the Triune God. The Triune God is the only divinity that exists and is deserving of all love and worship. The Catholic Church greatly esteems and honors the Blessed Virgin Mary as the Mother of God and the Church's spiritual mother, but she is not divine and may not be worshipped. Any Catholic who worships Mary is doing so in direct defiance of the unchanging and explicit teaching of the Church's Magisterium, which only permits the worship of God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Is that good enough for you? I am guessing that nothing would be good enough for some of you because you are have already decided that Catholics are semi-pagan, but it should be enough.
You are asking people to ignore the tsunami of evidence that belies your claim, as if a single, recent doctrinal statement from your church should be "good enough" to override all that. And we're just not seeing any honesty from you in acknowledging any of it. Rather, it's just the usual denial, excuse making, and obfuscations.
Arguing that your church only believes in Mary's "subordinate and derivative" role in mediation is highly disingenuous. CLEARLY, your church's idea of a "subordinate" role for Mary still has her as close to Jesus' as possible without going over; and your church CLEARLY teaches that Mary's mediation, though derivative to Jesus', is still NECESSARY for salvation. Not only is there absolutely NO basis in Scripture or in the early church for ANY of this, there's also none for Mary even having ANY mediator role at all to begin with. And to elevate her in such a way as to say she is necessary for salvation should be so plainly heretical and idolatrous to anyone who is a Christian, as no one with the Holy Spirit would be comfortable at all with even hinting at crediting anyone for this except Jesus alone. Your church's (as well as even your) inability/unwillingness to disavow such things as this (as well as a number of others) completely undermines the authenticity of the Vatican's recent doctrinal statement as well as your church's repeated insistence that you don't worship Mary, and that you never did.
Ask yourself this: if it's true that your church never taught that Mary has a mediator role equal to that of Jesus, then how is it that there is currently a tremendous blowback from Roman Catholics all over the world against the Vatican and the current pope over this doctrinal statement? They are viewing it as an attack on what they believe is Mary's EQUAL role with Jesus. You can claim all you want that they're just simply wrong, that your church never taught that... but they had to have gotten that idea from somewhere. It didn't just fall out of the sky.
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:ARbear13 said:
It's very ironic that I posted this specifically to emphasize the common ground that Catholics and Protestants share on the Lordship of Jesus Christ, yet we Catholics still get the "You Catholics worship Mary! You can't lie to us!"
The Vatican releases a doctrinal statement restricting the use of certain titles for Mother Mary specifically to re-emphasize Christ as the Sole Mediator and Redeemer, which Catholics have always believed, and some Protestants still accuse us of Marian idolatry.
If you expect the Catholic Church to begin minimizing the Virgin Mary's holiness and importance as a subordinate and derivative participant in Christ's mediation, you'll be waiting forever. That is never going to happen. However, if you want us to say "Jesus Christ is Lord and God, and only He is to be worshipped," we will very happily and readily do so.
Jesus of Nazareth is the Second Person of the Triune God. The Triune God is the only divinity that exists and is deserving of all love and worship. The Catholic Church greatly esteems and honors the Blessed Virgin Mary as the Mother of God and the Church's spiritual mother, but she is not divine and may not be worshipped. Any Catholic who worships Mary is doing so in direct defiance of the unchanging and explicit teaching of the Church's Magisterium, which only permits the worship of God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Is that good enough for you? I am guessing that nothing would be good enough for some of you because you are have already decided that Catholics are semi-pagan, but it should be enough.
Ask yourself this: if it's true that your church never taught that Mary has a mediator role equal to that of Jesus, then how is it that there is currently a tremendous blowback from Roman Catholics all over the world against the Vatican and the current pope over this doctrinal statement? They are viewing it as an attack on what they believe is Mary's EQUAL role with Jesus. You can claim all you want that they're just simply wrong, that your church never taught that... but they had to have gotten that idea from somewhere. It didn't just fall out of the sky.
Evidently it did, if that's really what they're saying. I've certainly never heard it before.
Then what exactly are your fellow Roman Catholics protesting?
If they are, it's a prudential debate over the use of certain language. There's no substantive disagreement underlying it.
I hardly think you can speak for all Catholics protesting, especially since you've even acknowledged that you aren't even aware that they are.
Then why did you ask me?
Ever heard of a rhetorical question?
That would imply that you already know the answer and can speak for my fellow Catholics. I beg to differ.
It doesn't imply that at all. It's merely pointing to the fact that widespread protesting usually doesn't result from things falling out of the sky.
ShooterTX said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:ARbear13 said:
It's very ironic that I posted this specifically to emphasize the common ground that Catholics and Protestants share on the Lordship of Jesus Christ, yet we Catholics still get the "You Catholics worship Mary! You can't lie to us!"
The Vatican releases a doctrinal statement restricting the use of certain titles for Mother Mary specifically to re-emphasize Christ as the Sole Mediator and Redeemer, which Catholics have always believed, and some Protestants still accuse us of Marian idolatry.
If you expect the Catholic Church to begin minimizing the Virgin Mary's holiness and importance as a subordinate and derivative participant in Christ's mediation, you'll be waiting forever. That is never going to happen. However, if you want us to say "Jesus Christ is Lord and God, and only He is to be worshipped," we will very happily and readily do so.
Jesus of Nazareth is the Second Person of the Triune God. The Triune God is the only divinity that exists and is deserving of all love and worship. The Catholic Church greatly esteems and honors the Blessed Virgin Mary as the Mother of God and the Church's spiritual mother, but she is not divine and may not be worshipped. Any Catholic who worships Mary is doing so in direct defiance of the unchanging and explicit teaching of the Church's Magisterium, which only permits the worship of God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Is that good enough for you? I am guessing that nothing would be good enough for some of you because you are have already decided that Catholics are semi-pagan, but it should be enough.
You are asking people to ignore the tsunami of evidence that belies your claim, as if a single, recent doctrinal statement from your church should be "good enough" to override all that. And we're just not seeing any honesty from you in acknowledging any of it. Rather, it's just the usual denial, excuse making, and obfuscations.
Arguing that your church only believes in Mary's "subordinate and derivative" role in mediation is highly disingenuous. CLEARLY, your church's idea of a "subordinate" role for Mary still has her as close to Jesus' as possible without going over; and your church CLEARLY teaches that Mary's mediation, though derivative to Jesus', is still NECESSARY for salvation. Not only is there absolutely NO basis in Scripture or in the early church for ANY of this, there's also none for Mary even having ANY mediator role at all to begin with. And to elevate her in such a way as to say she is necessary for salvation should be so plainly heretical and idolatrous to anyone who is a Christian, as no one with the Holy Spirit would be comfortable at all with even hinting at crediting anyone for this except Jesus alone. Your church's (as well as even your) inability/unwillingness to disavow such things as this (as well as a number of others) completely undermines the authenticity of the Vatican's recent doctrinal statement as well as your church's repeated insistence that you don't worship Mary, and that you never did.
Ask yourself this: if it's true that your church never taught that Mary has a mediator role equal to that of Jesus, then how is it that there is currently a tremendous blowback from Roman Catholics all over the world against the Vatican and the current pope over this doctrinal statement? They are viewing it as an attack on what they believe is Mary's EQUAL role with Jesus. You can claim all you want that they're just simply wrong, that your church never taught that... but they had to have gotten that idea from somewhere. It didn't just fall out of the sky.
Just because the Romans have more churches, shrines and altars named after & dedicated to Mary than they have to Jesus.... that doesn't mean that they worship her.
"We said we don't worship Mary! Why are you upset that we sing songs of praise & worship to her?!? Just because we pray to her, sing to her, and bring gifts to her image and her altar... that doesn't mean we worship her!! Just because multiple Popes have entrusted the church into her hands.... that doesn't mean anything!!"
How can anyone believe this nonsense?
ARbear13 said:ShooterTX said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:ARbear13 said:
It's very ironic that I posted this specifically to emphasize the common ground that Catholics and Protestants share on the Lordship of Jesus Christ, yet we Catholics still get the "You Catholics worship Mary! You can't lie to us!"
The Vatican releases a doctrinal statement restricting the use of certain titles for Mother Mary specifically to re-emphasize Christ as the Sole Mediator and Redeemer, which Catholics have always believed, and some Protestants still accuse us of Marian idolatry.
If you expect the Catholic Church to begin minimizing the Virgin Mary's holiness and importance as a subordinate and derivative participant in Christ's mediation, you'll be waiting forever. That is never going to happen. However, if you want us to say "Jesus Christ is Lord and God, and only He is to be worshipped," we will very happily and readily do so.
Jesus of Nazareth is the Second Person of the Triune God. The Triune God is the only divinity that exists and is deserving of all love and worship. The Catholic Church greatly esteems and honors the Blessed Virgin Mary as the Mother of God and the Church's spiritual mother, but she is not divine and may not be worshipped. Any Catholic who worships Mary is doing so in direct defiance of the unchanging and explicit teaching of the Church's Magisterium, which only permits the worship of God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Is that good enough for you? I am guessing that nothing would be good enough for some of you because you are have already decided that Catholics are semi-pagan, but it should be enough.
You are asking people to ignore the tsunami of evidence that belies your claim, as if a single, recent doctrinal statement from your church should be "good enough" to override all that. And we're just not seeing any honesty from you in acknowledging any of it. Rather, it's just the usual denial, excuse making, and obfuscations.
Arguing that your church only believes in Mary's "subordinate and derivative" role in mediation is highly disingenuous. CLEARLY, your church's idea of a "subordinate" role for Mary still has her as close to Jesus' as possible without going over; and your church CLEARLY teaches that Mary's mediation, though derivative to Jesus', is still NECESSARY for salvation. Not only is there absolutely NO basis in Scripture or in the early church for ANY of this, there's also none for Mary even having ANY mediator role at all to begin with. And to elevate her in such a way as to say she is necessary for salvation should be so plainly heretical and idolatrous to anyone who is a Christian, as no one with the Holy Spirit would be comfortable at all with even hinting at crediting anyone for this except Jesus alone. Your church's (as well as even your) inability/unwillingness to disavow such things as this (as well as a number of others) completely undermines the authenticity of the Vatican's recent doctrinal statement as well as your church's repeated insistence that you don't worship Mary, and that you never did.
Ask yourself this: if it's true that your church never taught that Mary has a mediator role equal to that of Jesus, then how is it that there is currently a tremendous blowback from Roman Catholics all over the world against the Vatican and the current pope over this doctrinal statement? They are viewing it as an attack on what they believe is Mary's EQUAL role with Jesus. You can claim all you want that they're just simply wrong, that your church never taught that... but they had to have gotten that idea from somewhere. It didn't just fall out of the sky.
Just because the Romans have more churches, shrines and altars named after & dedicated to Mary than they have to Jesus.... that doesn't mean that they worship her.
"We said we don't worship Mary! Why are you upset that we sing songs of praise & worship to her?!? Just because we pray to her, sing to her, and bring gifts to her image and her altar... that doesn't mean we worship her!! Just because multiple Popes have entrusted the church into her hands.... that doesn't mean anything!!"
How can anyone believe this nonsense?
Prayer is not inherently worship. The word literally means "to ask." The phrase "I pray thee" used to be common in English when asking a person to do something.
Praise is not inherently worship. Praising or complimenting someone for their great qualities is a normal and kind thing to do.
Singing about someone is not inherently worship. If it is, you've committed idolatry every time you sang a song about a particular person.
Giving gifts to someone is not inherently worship, even if the gift is in appreciation for something they have done for you.
There is NO altar to Mary in any Catholic church anywhere in the world. Altars are dedicated to God alone.
Popes have entrusted the Church to Mary so that she can lead its members to love her Son as fervently as she did. Wanting the Church to love Jesus more completely is hardly a bad thing.
Intent is critically important in these circumstances. Anyone who intended to worship Mary as any form of divinity has gone well beyond the bounds of what the Catholic Church allows.
The only action that is always a form of divine worship is sacrifice. The only sacrifice the Catholic Church recognizes as necessary or permissible is the sacrifice of Jesus Christ at Calvary, of which the Mass is a re-presentation. This one sacrifice is offered exclusively to the Triune God and no one else.
ShooterTX said:ARbear13 said:ShooterTX said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:ARbear13 said:
It's very ironic that I posted this specifically to emphasize the common ground that Catholics and Protestants share on the Lordship of Jesus Christ, yet we Catholics still get the "You Catholics worship Mary! You can't lie to us!"
The Vatican releases a doctrinal statement restricting the use of certain titles for Mother Mary specifically to re-emphasize Christ as the Sole Mediator and Redeemer, which Catholics have always believed, and some Protestants still accuse us of Marian idolatry.
If you expect the Catholic Church to begin minimizing the Virgin Mary's holiness and importance as a subordinate and derivative participant in Christ's mediation, you'll be waiting forever. That is never going to happen. However, if you want us to say "Jesus Christ is Lord and God, and only He is to be worshipped," we will very happily and readily do so.
Jesus of Nazareth is the Second Person of the Triune God. The Triune God is the only divinity that exists and is deserving of all love and worship. The Catholic Church greatly esteems and honors the Blessed Virgin Mary as the Mother of God and the Church's spiritual mother, but she is not divine and may not be worshipped. Any Catholic who worships Mary is doing so in direct defiance of the unchanging and explicit teaching of the Church's Magisterium, which only permits the worship of God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Is that good enough for you? I am guessing that nothing would be good enough for some of you because you are have already decided that Catholics are semi-pagan, but it should be enough.
You are asking people to ignore the tsunami of evidence that belies your claim, as if a single, recent doctrinal statement from your church should be "good enough" to override all that. And we're just not seeing any honesty from you in acknowledging any of it. Rather, it's just the usual denial, excuse making, and obfuscations.
Arguing that your church only believes in Mary's "subordinate and derivative" role in mediation is highly disingenuous. CLEARLY, your church's idea of a "subordinate" role for Mary still has her as close to Jesus' as possible without going over; and your church CLEARLY teaches that Mary's mediation, though derivative to Jesus', is still NECESSARY for salvation. Not only is there absolutely NO basis in Scripture or in the early church for ANY of this, there's also none for Mary even having ANY mediator role at all to begin with. And to elevate her in such a way as to say she is necessary for salvation should be so plainly heretical and idolatrous to anyone who is a Christian, as no one with the Holy Spirit would be comfortable at all with even hinting at crediting anyone for this except Jesus alone. Your church's (as well as even your) inability/unwillingness to disavow such things as this (as well as a number of others) completely undermines the authenticity of the Vatican's recent doctrinal statement as well as your church's repeated insistence that you don't worship Mary, and that you never did.
Ask yourself this: if it's true that your church never taught that Mary has a mediator role equal to that of Jesus, then how is it that there is currently a tremendous blowback from Roman Catholics all over the world against the Vatican and the current pope over this doctrinal statement? They are viewing it as an attack on what they believe is Mary's EQUAL role with Jesus. You can claim all you want that they're just simply wrong, that your church never taught that... but they had to have gotten that idea from somewhere. It didn't just fall out of the sky.
Just because the Romans have more churches, shrines and altars named after & dedicated to Mary than they have to Jesus.... that doesn't mean that they worship her.
"We said we don't worship Mary! Why are you upset that we sing songs of praise & worship to her?!? Just because we pray to her, sing to her, and bring gifts to her image and her altar... that doesn't mean we worship her!! Just because multiple Popes have entrusted the church into her hands.... that doesn't mean anything!!"
How can anyone believe this nonsense?
Prayer is not inherently worship. The word literally means "to ask." The phrase "I pray thee" used to be common in English when asking a person to do something.
Praise is not inherently worship. Praising or complimenting someone for their great qualities is a normal and kind thing to do.
Singing about someone is not inherently worship. If it is, you've committed idolatry every time you sang a song about a particular person.
Giving gifts to someone is not inherently worship, even if the gift is in appreciation for something they have done for you.
There is NO altar to Mary in any Catholic church anywhere in the world. Altars are dedicated to God alone.
Popes have entrusted the Church to Mary so that she can lead its members to love her Son as fervently as she did. Wanting the Church to love Jesus more completely is hardly a bad thing.
Intent is critically important in these circumstances. Anyone who intended to worship Mary as any form of divinity has gone well beyond the bounds of what the Catholic Church allows.
The only action that is always a form of divine worship is sacrifice. The only sacrifice the Catholic Church recognizes as necessary or permissible is the sacrifice of Jesus Christ at Calvary, of which the Mass is a re-presentation. This one sacrifice is offered exclusively to the Triune God and no one else.
There are Marian chapels with altars to Mary, all over the planet.
There is a massive one in Vatican City too.
There is a pretty famous picture of Francis bowing before the image of Mary in the Marian chapel, kissing her statue and laying flowers at her feet.
But hey... there's no worship of Mary, right? Bowing before her, kissing her feet, laying flowers at her image and praying to her at the altar in her chapel.... this is just the same as asking your church buddy to pray for you, right?
If you can't see the obvious signs of worship, you need some help.
Pagans worship their gods by bowing before their image, praying to them in their temples or chapels, bringing gifts and laying them at their altars or idols, and singing songs to them. Or are you going to say that they are just "venerating" their gods?
Bearsalwayswin said:
haven't read too deep into this thread, but remember that Jesus is our only mediator and He is the only and only king!
ARbear13 said:LIB,MR BEARS said:ARbear13 said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:
We don't credit Mary with our salvation any more than we credit the mothers and fathers who prayed for us and brought us up in the faith.All this clearly belies your claim. When you start saying, writing, and teaching these things about your own mother and father as well, then maybe people will start to believe you. The most stupefying thing is you and your fellow Catholics' blatant dishonesty regarding this, and your attempts at Jedi mind-trick level gaslighting. I am really at a loss to explain it, other than to attribute it to the result of deep Satanic deception.
- "O Virgin most holy, none abounds in the knowledge of God except through thee; none, O Mother of God, attains salvation except through thee; none receives a gift from the throne of mercy except through thee." (Pope Leo XIII, Adiutricem, 9)
- "no man goeth to Christ but by His Mother" (Pope Leo 13th, Octobri Mense)
- "She has been made the ladder to paradise, the gate of heaven, the most true mediatrix between God and human beings" (St. Lawrence Justinian)
- "Sinners receive pardon by the intercession of Mary alone." (attributed to St. John Chrysostom, by St. Alphonsus Ligouri)
- "No one ever finds Christ but with and through Mary. Whoever seeks Christ apart from Mary seeks Him in vain." (St. Bonaventure)
- "All those who seek Mary's protection will be saved for all eternity." (Pope Benedict XV)
- "Mary's intercession is not only useful but necessary for salvation.... " (St. Alphonsus Ligouri, Doctor of the Roman Catholic Church)
- "Mary is the road we must travel to reach God" (Pope Francis, paraphrased)
- "God has entrusted the keys and treasures of Heaven to Mary." (St. Thomas Aquinas)
- "The foundation of all our confidence is found in the Blessed Virgin Mary. God has committed to her 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." (Pope Pius IX)
Have you considered that you might just be misunderstanding the intent of these authors and are taking quotes out of context?
Let's say you found someone badly injured on the side of the road. Without your intervention, they are clearly going to die soon. You load them into your car and take them to the hospital, where the doctor provides lifesaving medical treatment. After the person has recovered, they come up to you and thank you for saving their life.
Were they wrong to thank you in this way? Are they saying that you saved them instead of the doctor? I don't think any honest person would say that they were. The doctor's intervention is what actually saved this person's life, but you also "saved" them in a lesser, subordinate way by taking them to the hospital. This second sense is how Catholics view Mary's intercession. Mary, through her intercession, brings us wounded sinners into the presence of the Great Physician, who is the only Person with the power to heal the soul.
Also, let's say for argument's sake that you're right and that we Catholics are semi-pagans who worship Mary as some sort of secondary goddess. If so, we do an awfully poor job of it by historical pagan standards. Pagan deities expected to be publicly acknowledged as divine by their devotees, but no Catholic publications ever written have ever called Mother Mary divine. On the contrary, there are many official Church documents that explicitly reject the existence of any divinity other than the Trinity.
Also, all ancient Greco-Roman deities demanded ritual sacrifice as a key component of worship. However, the only ritual sacrifice known to Catholicism is that of Christ's sacrifice in the Mass, which is exclusively offered to the Trinitarian God according to unchangeable dogma. The only religious group that ever attempted to offer sacrifice to Mary, the aforementioned Collyridians, were excommunicated by the Catholic Church on the grounds of idolatry without any internal Church controversy, an excommunication which still stands to this day. And if there is anything we can say for sure about the character of the early Catholic Church, it's that they were NOT shy about engaging in controversy regarding religious matters.
If I were to call an ancient Greco-Roman pagan to the present day and tell them that "my religion worships someone named Mary, but she isn't divine and we never offer sacrifice to her. In fact, we will kick anyone who sacrifices to her out of our community" they would call me a madman. Ritual, intentional sacrifice was the central component of worship in Greco-Roman paganism, so the previous statement would strike them as insane and self-contradictory.
Do some poorly catechized Catholics take Marian devotion too far? Yes, and that's precisely why the recent doctrinal note was issued. Offering worship to the Virgin Mary, or to anyone other than God, is expressly forbidden in Catholicism, and it always has been.
I think we've all heard people wrongly use " judge not lest ye be judged." Read by itself, it sounds like a clear cut statement. When I hear people misuse the verse, I try to provide them context rather than let them continue down the wrong thought path.
Can you provide context to any of the statements in question so that I and others aren't misinterpreting the statement the same way the "judge not" statement gets misinterpreted.
All of these quotes are from treatises penned by famous Catholic theologians who are widely regarded in the Church as exceptionally advanced. They build their arguments and statements upon Catholic first principles (such as the absolute sovereignty of God and sufficiency of Christ's sacrifice at Calvary) that were already fully understood and accepted by the intended audience. Most of those papal quotes were from missives that were directly specifically to other Catholic bishops, so pontiffs such as Pope Leo XIII and Pope Pius IX could be certain that their audience had the theological background necessary to understand them in their proper context. The other quotes are from professional theologians, such as St. Alphonsus Liguori, who wrote them for highly educated clergy or lay audiences who wanted to understand Marian devotion at a deeper theological level. They definitely were not intended for a Protestant or lay Catholic audience that isn't well-versed in Catholic theology. Let's just say that no one is passing out Liguori's four volume Moral Theology to random visitors at Sunday Mass.
It's helpful to think of these theological treatises like math textbooks. A textbook focused on multivariable calculus is not going to begin with basic addition and subtraction; it's going to assume that you already know a great deal about mathematics before you begin reading. The Catholic Church has spilled so much ink about theology over the past few thousand years that trying to rehash these arguments on a message board is an exercise in futility. If you are actually interested in learning more about Catholic Mariology and aren't just using this as a line of attack, I would suggest starting with the Catechism or Scott Hahn's book Hail, Holy Queen. Hahn is a former Presbyterian minster turned Catholic theologian who writes about Catholic doctrine specifically for a Protestant or formerly Protestant audience.
The extent of the average parishioner's Marian devotion consists of an occasional Rosary, which is a meditation on the life of Christ from Mary's perspective, and attendance at the Masses commemorating the Marian dogmas. All four Marian dogmas are actually meant to establish a truth about Christ Himself, a point that has been emphasized and expounded upon by the priest at every one I've ever attended.
Mary is rarely mentioned at Mass outside the aforementioned feast day Masses, Christmas, and Easter. Mass is the one weekly event that Catholics are required to attend, and it is all about God and is directed to God. In fact, a normal Sunday Mass is only going to mention the Virgin Mary once, in the recitation of the Nicene or Apostles' Creed. Contrast that with the dozens of times the various Persons of the Trinity will be specifically mentioned at every Mass.
Oldbear83 said:
Strange then, that Jesus never even once tells His disciples to pray to Mary, or that they need Mary's blessing to be saved ...
ARbear13 said:Bearsalwayswin said:
haven't read too deep into this thread, but remember that Jesus is our only mediator and He is the only and only king!
I think everyone in this thread agrees wholeheartedly with this statement. I know I do.
Oldbear83 said:
Strange then, that Jesus never even once tells His disciples to pray to Mary, or that they need Mary's blessing to be saved ...
Doc Holliday said:Realitybites said:
In my opinion, the strongest case against mere symbolism comes directly from the sixth chapter of John's gospel.
"52 The Jews therefore quarreled among themselves, saying, "How can this Man give us His flesh to eat?"
53 Then Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you.
54 Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
55 For My flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed.
56 He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him.
57 As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who feeds on Me will live because of Me.
58 This is the bread which came down from heaven--not as your fathers ate the manna, and are dead. He who eats this bread will live forever."
59 These things He said in the synagogue as He taught in Capernaum.
60 Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard this, said, "This is a hard saying; who can understand it?"
61 When Jesus knew in Himself that His disciples complained about this, He said to them, "Does this offend you?"
He didn't say "guys, I'm just using an illustration." He doubled down. He knew exactly what he was telling them. They knew exactly what they were hearing. Zero confusion. Then what happened?
66 From that time many of His disciples went back and walked with Him no more.
In their human reason they simply could not accept the real presence and *walked away* from Christ. At some point, you simply have to set aside your will and reason and accept things by faith even if you don't understand why this side of heaven.
The more I examine Protestant positions, the more I become convinced that many of the core practices are actually present there… just in a thinner, less developed form. They're shallow.
They reject the idea that the Eucharist is truly the Body and Blood of Christ, yet they still take grape juice and crackers "because it has spiritual meaning." Likewise, they deny that baptism is necessary for salvation, but they still say it is an important step for the believer. In both cases, they implicitly acknowledge that these actions do something significant to the believer's spiritual life…while at the same time insisting that they're 100% symbolic and nothing else: The answer Protestants usually give is:"Because it helps the believer's faith." But that means the practice does something to the believer, it shapes, forms, strengthens, and deepens their spiritual life. That is no longer "just a symbol." That is sacramental logic.
The practices are there, but the depth and theological foundation behind them has been stripped away.
The same pattern appears with the question of venerating saints. Protestants object to honoring saints, yet they already venerate certain Christians without realizing it. Take C.S. Lewis, for example: his life and writings are frequently held up as a model of Christian wisdom and devotion. People quote him, look to him as an example, and credit him with helping them love Christ more. They do not worship him, they honor him. That is exactly what the Orthodox do with the saints.
Also marriage. Historically, the Church treated marriage as a sacrament, not something God does to unite two people, not merely a social or emotional bond. The couple is joined by God, and grace is given to help them live in faithfulness. Protestants still speak about marriage as something that strengthens, forms, and shapes the Christian. They say marriage helps sanctify a person, teach self-giving love, and deepen spiritual maturity. They deny that marriage conveys grace, but they describe it in ways that imply it does convey grace.
If a symbol is genuinely transformative, then it is functioning as a sacrament in everything but name. Protestantism often ends up preserving a simplified, less embodied version of what the Church has always done.
ARbear13 said:ShooterTX said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:ARbear13 said:
It's very ironic that I posted this specifically to emphasize the common ground that Catholics and Protestants share on the Lordship of Jesus Christ, yet we Catholics still get the "You Catholics worship Mary! You can't lie to us!"
The Vatican releases a doctrinal statement restricting the use of certain titles for Mother Mary specifically to re-emphasize Christ as the Sole Mediator and Redeemer, which Catholics have always believed, and some Protestants still accuse us of Marian idolatry.
If you expect the Catholic Church to begin minimizing the Virgin Mary's holiness and importance as a subordinate and derivative participant in Christ's mediation, you'll be waiting forever. That is never going to happen. However, if you want us to say "Jesus Christ is Lord and God, and only He is to be worshipped," we will very happily and readily do so.
Jesus of Nazareth is the Second Person of the Triune God. The Triune God is the only divinity that exists and is deserving of all love and worship. The Catholic Church greatly esteems and honors the Blessed Virgin Mary as the Mother of God and the Church's spiritual mother, but she is not divine and may not be worshipped. Any Catholic who worships Mary is doing so in direct defiance of the unchanging and explicit teaching of the Church's Magisterium, which only permits the worship of God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Is that good enough for you? I am guessing that nothing would be good enough for some of you because you are have already decided that Catholics are semi-pagan, but it should be enough.
You are asking people to ignore the tsunami of evidence that belies your claim, as if a single, recent doctrinal statement from your church should be "good enough" to override all that. And we're just not seeing any honesty from you in acknowledging any of it. Rather, it's just the usual denial, excuse making, and obfuscations.
Arguing that your church only believes in Mary's "subordinate and derivative" role in mediation is highly disingenuous. CLEARLY, your church's idea of a "subordinate" role for Mary still has her as close to Jesus' as possible without going over; and your church CLEARLY teaches that Mary's mediation, though derivative to Jesus', is still NECESSARY for salvation. Not only is there absolutely NO basis in Scripture or in the early church for ANY of this, there's also none for Mary even having ANY mediator role at all to begin with. And to elevate her in such a way as to say she is necessary for salvation should be so plainly heretical and idolatrous to anyone who is a Christian, as no one with the Holy Spirit would be comfortable at all with even hinting at crediting anyone for this except Jesus alone. Your church's (as well as even your) inability/unwillingness to disavow such things as this (as well as a number of others) completely undermines the authenticity of the Vatican's recent doctrinal statement as well as your church's repeated insistence that you don't worship Mary, and that you never did.
Ask yourself this: if it's true that your church never taught that Mary has a mediator role equal to that of Jesus, then how is it that there is currently a tremendous blowback from Roman Catholics all over the world against the Vatican and the current pope over this doctrinal statement? They are viewing it as an attack on what they believe is Mary's EQUAL role with Jesus. You can claim all you want that they're just simply wrong, that your church never taught that... but they had to have gotten that idea from somewhere. It didn't just fall out of the sky.
Just because the Romans have more churches, shrines and altars named after & dedicated to Mary than they have to Jesus.... that doesn't mean that they worship her.
"We said we don't worship Mary! Why are you upset that we sing songs of praise & worship to her?!? Just because we pray to her, sing to her, and bring gifts to her image and her altar... that doesn't mean we worship her!! Just because multiple Popes have entrusted the church into her hands.... that doesn't mean anything!!"
How can anyone believe this nonsense?
Prayer is not inherently worship. The word literally means "to ask." The phrase "I pray thee" used to be common in English when asking a person to do something.
Praise is not inherently worship. Praising or complimenting someone for their great qualities is a normal and kind thing to do.
Singing about someone is not inherently worship. If it is, you've committed idolatry every time you sang a song about a particular person.
Giving gifts to someone is not inherently worship, even if the gift is in appreciation for something they have done for you.
There is NO altar to Mary in any Catholic church anywhere in the world. Altars are dedicated to God alone.
Popes have entrusted the Church to Mary so that she can lead its members to love her Son as fervently as she did. Wanting the Church to love Jesus more completely is hardly a bad thing.
Intent is critically important in these circumstances. Anyone who intended to worship Mary as any form of divinity has gone well beyond the bounds of what the Catholic Church allows.
The only action that is always a form of divine worship is sacrifice. The only sacrifice the Catholic Church recognizes as necessary or permissible is the sacrifice of Jesus Christ at Calvary, of which the Mass is a re-presentation. This one sacrifice is offered exclusively to the Triune God and no one else.
Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:
ARBear13 gave a good answer, that Mary is the first and greatest evangelist. Her role as co-mediatrix and co-redeemer, if one chooses to use those terms, doesn't diminish Christ but points the way to him.
The idea is similar to what Paul says in Colossians 1:24 -- that he is grateful for his sufferings because they help complete what is lacking in Christ's afflictions. Of course we know that Christ's sacrifice is sufficient for our salvation. All that's lacking is evangelizing, which is what Paul refers to.
To that I would only add that Mary's role as evangelist didn't end with Christ's death and resurrection. The Church teaches that it continues until the end of time:Quote:
This maternity of Mary in the order of grace began with the consent which she gave in faith at the Annunciation and which she sustained without wavering beneath the cross, and lasts until the eternal fulfillment of all the elect. Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this salvific duty, but by her constant intercession continued to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation. By her maternal charity, she cares for the brethren of her Son, who still journey on earth surrounded by dangers and cultics, until they are led into the happiness of their true home. Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked by the Church under the titles of Advocate, Auxiliatrix, Adjutrix, and Mediatrix. This, however, is to be so understood that it neither takes away from nor adds anything to the dignity and efficaciousness of Christ the one Mediator. (Lumen Gentium 62)
ArBear didn't give a good answer. He didn't answer me at all. He completely dodged the point, just as you are doing.
"All Christians can help 'save' others in a subordinate sense through evangelism by directing people to Jesus. The Apostle Paul said as much in 1 Corinthians 9:22. The Catholic Church believes that Mother Mary is the best possible evangelist because she loved Jesus more than anyone else, so she can bring people to salvation through her evangelical witness. That is the sense in which the word 'salvation' is used in all the scenarios you quoted."
Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:
ARBear13 gave a good answer, that Mary is the first and greatest evangelist. Her role as co-mediatrix and co-redeemer, if one chooses to use those terms, doesn't diminish Christ but points the way to him.
The idea is similar to what Paul says in Colossians 1:24 -- that he is grateful for his sufferings because they help complete what is lacking in Christ's afflictions. Of course we know that Christ's sacrifice is sufficient for our salvation. All that's lacking is evangelizing, which is what Paul refers to.
To that I would only add that Mary's role as evangelist didn't end with Christ's death and resurrection. The Church teaches that it continues until the end of time:Quote:
This maternity of Mary in the order of grace began with the consent which she gave in faith at the Annunciation and which she sustained without wavering beneath the cross, and lasts until the eternal fulfillment of all the elect. Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this salvific duty, but by her constant intercession continued to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation. By her maternal charity, she cares for the brethren of her Son, who still journey on earth surrounded by dangers and cultics, until they are led into the happiness of their true home. Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked by the Church under the titles of Advocate, Auxiliatrix, Adjutrix, and Mediatrix. This, however, is to be so understood that it neither takes away from nor adds anything to the dignity and efficaciousness of Christ the one Mediator. (Lumen Gentium 62)
ArBear didn't give a good answer. He didn't answer me at all. He completely dodged the point, just as you are doing.
"All Christians can help 'save' others in a subordinate sense through evangelism by directing people to Jesus. The Apostle Paul said as much in 1 Corinthians 9:22. The Catholic Church believes that Mother Mary is the best possible evangelist because she loved Jesus more than anyone else, so she can bring people to salvation through her evangelical witness. That is the sense in which the word 'salvation' is used in all the scenarios you quoted."
There is no recorded evidence in scripture of Mary evangelizing to anyone. Now, we can probably assume it happened, but the idea that someone who no mention is made of evangelizing is somehow the "greatest' evangelist is reading something into the text that is simply not there.
ShooterTX said:Fre3dombear said:ShooterTX said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Realitybites said:
In my opinion, the strongest case against mere symbolism comes directly from the sixth chapter of John's gospel.
"52 The Jews therefore quarreled among themselves, saying, "How can this Man give us His flesh to eat?"
53 Then Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you.
54 Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
55 For My flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed.
56 He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him.
57 As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who feeds on Me will live because of Me.
58 This is the bread which came down from heaven--not as your fathers ate the manna, and are dead. He who eats this bread will live forever."
59 These things He said in the synagogue as He taught in Capernaum.
60 Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard this, said, "This is a hard saying; who can understand it?"
61 When Jesus knew in Himself that His disciples complained about this, He said to them, "Does this offend you?"
He didn't say "guys, I'm just using an illustration." He doubled down. He knew exactly what he was telling them. They knew exactly what they were hearing. Zero confusion. Then what happened?
66 From that time many of His disciples went back and walked with Him no more.
In their human reason they simply could not accept the real presence and *walked away* from Christ. At some point, you simply have to set aside your will and reason and accept things by faith even if you don't understand why this side of heaven.
You've already been shown how if Jesus did in fact instruct his disciples to drink blood, then he disobeyed the Law, thus disqualifying himself as the Messiah.
I have never heard a catholic address this issue.
Drinking blood is clearly a violation of the law, so how could Jesus have been without sin if he and his apostles drank blood at the last supper?
Really? Never? I dont believe that but if so, Ok well heres your first time. This is what Catholics understand of your question. 60 seconds to ponder
Thanks.But that is not the question.I asked, I asked, how jesus could have been without sin.If he violated the law by drinking blood, can you answer my question?
And by the way, it never said animal blood, only it clearly. Just said, do not drink blood. The old law was very clear. So once again, how do you explain that? Jesus and the apostles clearly broke the law. And yet, Jesus was without sin.
Fre3dombear said:ShooterTX said:Fre3dombear said:ShooterTX said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Realitybites said:
In my opinion, the strongest case against mere symbolism comes directly from the sixth chapter of John's gospel.
"52 The Jews therefore quarreled among themselves, saying, "How can this Man give us His flesh to eat?"
53 Then Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you.
54 Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
55 For My flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed.
56 He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him.
57 As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who feeds on Me will live because of Me.
58 This is the bread which came down from heaven--not as your fathers ate the manna, and are dead. He who eats this bread will live forever."
59 These things He said in the synagogue as He taught in Capernaum.
60 Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard this, said, "This is a hard saying; who can understand it?"
61 When Jesus knew in Himself that His disciples complained about this, He said to them, "Does this offend you?"
He didn't say "guys, I'm just using an illustration." He doubled down. He knew exactly what he was telling them. They knew exactly what they were hearing. Zero confusion. Then what happened?
66 From that time many of His disciples went back and walked with Him no more.
In their human reason they simply could not accept the real presence and *walked away* from Christ. At some point, you simply have to set aside your will and reason and accept things by faith even if you don't understand why this side of heaven.
You've already been shown how if Jesus did in fact instruct his disciples to drink blood, then he disobeyed the Law, thus disqualifying himself as the Messiah.
I have never heard a catholic address this issue.
Drinking blood is clearly a violation of the law, so how could Jesus have been without sin if he and his apostles drank blood at the last supper?
Really? Never? I dont believe that but if so, Ok well heres your first time. This is what Catholics understand of your question. 60 seconds to ponder
Thanks.But that is not the question.I asked, I asked, how jesus could have been without sin.If he violated the law by drinking blood, can you answer my question?
And by the way, it never said animal blood, only it clearly. Just said, do not drink blood. The old law was very clear. So once again, how do you explain that? Jesus and the apostles clearly broke the law. And yet, Jesus was without sin.
We can develop this more as i have time
Your question is a non sequitur based on a false premise. Namely because jesus did things in violation of mosaic law such as healing on the sabbath. Was that a sin? The jews thought so. Jesus spoke to it.
When the jews said that his words to eat (he said literally to gnaw and tear) his body and drink his blood were hard to hear, what did Jesus do? Say "thats cool, Good point. that would be breaking the mosaic laws about blood, animal blood, etc?"?
Nope. He doubled down!!! And they walked away in John 6:66
So one just has to decide who you are in that story. One who said its hard and you cant take those words and walk away or one who does what he says.
Oldbear83 said:
Certainly a most dishonest post you have left here in this thread.
Disappointing, but I suppose some will abandon God rather than their idols.
Fare well.
Oldbear83 said:
If Jesus "clearly stated" what you claim, you could simply quote the verses where He plainly said it
Instead, you throw in a bunch human interpretations, and nothing from our Lord.
Kind of the opposite of what you claim.
Oldbear83 said:
Scripture warns how the disciples tussled over who was greatest among them. They actually became great when they just focused on Christ and not their position.
Both Roman Catholics and Protestants still make that same stupid proud argument. We would do much better just to seek the Lord and not worry if we look important or not.
Oldbear83 said:
Sadly, some love Mary more than the teachings of Christ.
ARbear13 said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:ARbear13 said:
It's very ironic that I posted this specifically to emphasize the common ground that Catholics and Protestants share on the Lordship of Jesus Christ, yet we Catholics still get the "You Catholics worship Mary! You can't lie to us!"
The Vatican releases a doctrinal statement restricting the use of certain titles for Mother Mary specifically to re-emphasize Christ as the Sole Mediator and Redeemer, which Catholics have always believed, and some Protestants still accuse us of Marian idolatry.
If you expect the Catholic Church to begin minimizing the Virgin Mary's holiness and importance as a subordinate and derivative participant in Christ's mediation, you'll be waiting forever. That is never going to happen. However, if you want us to say "Jesus Christ is Lord and God, and only He is to be worshipped," we will very happily and readily do so.
Jesus of Nazareth is the Second Person of the Triune God. The Triune God is the only divinity that exists and is deserving of all love and worship. The Catholic Church greatly esteems and honors the Blessed Virgin Mary as the Mother of God and the Church's spiritual mother, but she is not divine and may not be worshipped. Any Catholic who worships Mary is doing so in direct defiance of the unchanging and explicit teaching of the Church's Magisterium, which only permits the worship of God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Is that good enough for you? I am guessing that nothing would be good enough for some of you because you are have already decided that Catholics are semi-pagan, but it should be enough.
You are asking people to ignore the tsunami of evidence that belies your claim, as if a single, recent doctrinal statement from your church should be "good enough" to override all that. And we're just not seeing any honesty from you in acknowledging any of it. Rather, it's just the usual denial, excuse making, and obfuscations.
Arguing that your church only believes in Mary's "subordinate and derivative" role in mediation is highly disingenuous. CLEARLY, your church's idea of a "subordinate" role for Mary still has her as close to Jesus' as possible without going over; and your church CLEARLY teaches that Mary's mediation, though derivative to Jesus', is still NECESSARY for salvation. Not only is there absolutely NO basis in Scripture or in the early church for ANY of this, there's also none for Mary even having ANY mediator role at all to begin with. And to elevate her in such a way as to say she is necessary for salvation should be so plainly heretical and idolatrous to anyone who is a Christian, as no one with the Holy Spirit would be comfortable at all with even hinting at crediting anyone for this except Jesus alone. Your church's (as well as even your) inability/unwillingness to disavow such things as this (as well as a number of others) completely undermines the authenticity of the Vatican's recent doctrinal statement as well as your church's repeated insistence that you don't worship Mary, and that you never did.
Ask yourself this: if it's true that your church never taught that Mary has a mediator role equal to that of Jesus, then how is it that there is currently a tremendous blowback from Roman Catholics all over the world against the Vatican and the current pope over this doctrinal statement? They are viewing it as an attack on what they believe is Mary's EQUAL role with Jesus. You can claim all you want that they're just simply wrong, that your church never taught that... but they had to have gotten that idea from somewhere. It didn't just fall out of the sky.
This link explains it better than I can. Is Mary a Mediatrix?
I think I'm finally understanding the problem here. You think that the Catholic Church makes Mother Mary equal to her Divine Son in some way. The Church has NEVER taught that Mary was Christ's equal in any respect whatsoever. That includes her role as a mediator. Every iota of power she has comes from her relationship with Jesus and her ability to intercede to Him on our behalf. To think she is competing with her Son (who is God!) in any way is to fundamentally misunderstand the Catholic conception of Mary's role in the Christian life.
This isn't a perfect analogy because Heaven is decidedly not a democracy in any fashion, but think of Mary's role as that of the First Lady in American politics. The position of First Lady has absolutely no constitutional authority whatsoever, and no one with any knowledge of the United States Constitution thinks that she does. However, everyone in the federal government knows that it is extremely beneficial to have the First Lady on their side because of the influence she has on the President, who does possess all constitutional executive authority.
Also, there is no "tremendous blowback" to Mater Populi Fidelis, the name of the recent doctrinal statement. The only protests I've seen have been online from traditionalist, theologically-minded Catholics who wanted to use those terms in the subordinate and derivate way that I mentioned previously. The Latin equivalent (tradcaths are big fans of the Latin language) of the "co-" prefix is cum and does not imply equality in the same way that "co-" can in English. I would guarantee that if you asked any of the traditionalist Catholics protesting this decision "Do you consider Mary's mediation to be equal to that of Jesus's?" they would all say "No!" I've seen several of the hardcore traditional Catholic accounts on Twitter respond in exactly this way.
Much more importantly, there has been very little pushback from the clergy on this doctrinal note. This is much unlike Amoris laetitia, which caused a clerical firestorm everywhere except liberal, secular Europe. Pope Leo XIV wants to be extremely cautious in how we use titles that ultimately apply to Christ alone, and Catholic bishops worldwide agree with that sentiment.
ShooterTX said:ARbear13 said:ShooterTX said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:ARbear13 said:
It's very ironic that I posted this specifically to emphasize the common ground that Catholics and Protestants share on the Lordship of Jesus Christ, yet we Catholics still get the "You Catholics worship Mary! You can't lie to us!"
The Vatican releases a doctrinal statement restricting the use of certain titles for Mother Mary specifically to re-emphasize Christ as the Sole Mediator and Redeemer, which Catholics have always believed, and some Protestants still accuse us of Marian idolatry.
If you expect the Catholic Church to begin minimizing the Virgin Mary's holiness and importance as a subordinate and derivative participant in Christ's mediation, you'll be waiting forever. That is never going to happen. However, if you want us to say "Jesus Christ is Lord and God, and only He is to be worshipped," we will very happily and readily do so.
Jesus of Nazareth is the Second Person of the Triune God. The Triune God is the only divinity that exists and is deserving of all love and worship. The Catholic Church greatly esteems and honors the Blessed Virgin Mary as the Mother of God and the Church's spiritual mother, but she is not divine and may not be worshipped. Any Catholic who worships Mary is doing so in direct defiance of the unchanging and explicit teaching of the Church's Magisterium, which only permits the worship of God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Is that good enough for you? I am guessing that nothing would be good enough for some of you because you are have already decided that Catholics are semi-pagan, but it should be enough.
You are asking people to ignore the tsunami of evidence that belies your claim, as if a single, recent doctrinal statement from your church should be "good enough" to override all that. And we're just not seeing any honesty from you in acknowledging any of it. Rather, it's just the usual denial, excuse making, and obfuscations.
Arguing that your church only believes in Mary's "subordinate and derivative" role in mediation is highly disingenuous. CLEARLY, your church's idea of a "subordinate" role for Mary still has her as close to Jesus' as possible without going over; and your church CLEARLY teaches that Mary's mediation, though derivative to Jesus', is still NECESSARY for salvation. Not only is there absolutely NO basis in Scripture or in the early church for ANY of this, there's also none for Mary even having ANY mediator role at all to begin with. And to elevate her in such a way as to say she is necessary for salvation should be so plainly heretical and idolatrous to anyone who is a Christian, as no one with the Holy Spirit would be comfortable at all with even hinting at crediting anyone for this except Jesus alone. Your church's (as well as even your) inability/unwillingness to disavow such things as this (as well as a number of others) completely undermines the authenticity of the Vatican's recent doctrinal statement as well as your church's repeated insistence that you don't worship Mary, and that you never did.
Ask yourself this: if it's true that your church never taught that Mary has a mediator role equal to that of Jesus, then how is it that there is currently a tremendous blowback from Roman Catholics all over the world against the Vatican and the current pope over this doctrinal statement? They are viewing it as an attack on what they believe is Mary's EQUAL role with Jesus. You can claim all you want that they're just simply wrong, that your church never taught that... but they had to have gotten that idea from somewhere. It didn't just fall out of the sky.
Just because the Romans have more churches, shrines and altars named after & dedicated to Mary than they have to Jesus.... that doesn't mean that they worship her.
"We said we don't worship Mary! Why are you upset that we sing songs of praise & worship to her?!? Just because we pray to her, sing to her, and bring gifts to her image and her altar... that doesn't mean we worship her!! Just because multiple Popes have entrusted the church into her hands.... that doesn't mean anything!!"
How can anyone believe this nonsense?
Prayer is not inherently worship. The word literally means "to ask." The phrase "I pray thee" used to be common in English when asking a person to do something.
Praise is not inherently worship. Praising or complimenting someone for their great qualities is a normal and kind thing to do.
Singing about someone is not inherently worship. If it is, you've committed idolatry every time you sang a song about a particular person.
Giving gifts to someone is not inherently worship, even if the gift is in appreciation for something they have done for you.
There is NO altar to Mary in any Catholic church anywhere in the world. Altars are dedicated to God alone.
Popes have entrusted the Church to Mary so that she can lead its members to love her Son as fervently as she did. Wanting the Church to love Jesus more completely is hardly a bad thing.
Intent is critically important in these circumstances. Anyone who intended to worship Mary as any form of divinity has gone well beyond the bounds of what the Catholic Church allows.
The only action that is always a form of divine worship is sacrifice. The only sacrifice the Catholic Church recognizes as necessary or permissible is the sacrifice of Jesus Christ at Calvary, of which the Mass is a re-presentation. This one sacrifice is offered exclusively to the Triune God and no one else.
There are Marian chapels with altars to Mary, all over the planet.
There is a massive one in Vatican City too.
There is a pretty famous picture of Francis bowing before the image of Mary in the Marian chapel, kissing her statue and laying flowers at her feet.
But hey... there's no worship of Mary, right? Bowing before her, kissing her feet, laying flowers at her image and praying to her at the altar in her chapel.... this is just the same as asking your church buddy to pray for you, right?
If you can't see the obvious signs of worship, you need some help.
Pagans worship their gods by bowing before their image, praying to them in their temples or chapels, bringing gifts and laying them at their altars or idols, and singing songs to them. Or are you going to say that they are just "venerating" their gods?
