Raise your hand if youre a Helvidian heretic?
Imagine willfully not trying tohonor Mary as much as our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ
101,304 Views |
1646 Replies |
Last: 8 min ago by Doc Holliday
Doc Holliday said:
You guys need to be careful importing concepts into your positions. These topics are very complex and their implications stretch farther than you realize.
Be very careful with the move that says "if it's not explicitly in Scripture, it's not true." It sounds like a principled defense of biblical authority, but follow it to its logical conclusion and see where it actually takes you. It can get ugly real quick:
The word "Trinity" appears nowhere in Scripture. Not once. The formulation "one substance, three persons" is not a Bible verse: it's the language of Nicaea, hammered out in 325 AD by a council of bishops reasoning carefully from Scripture and apostolic tradition. If your filter is "explicitly stated in Scripture or it's out," you've just handed the Jehovah's Witnesses and Oneness Pentecostals a weapon they will happily use against you. They make exactly that argument.
The honest standard isn't "is it explicit" but rather "is it contradicted by Scripture." Those are not the same question, and collapsing them doesn't make you more biblical.
I saw the quote. Have to chuckle immensely where he says sic NOWHERE IN SCRIPTURE DOES THIS APPEAR to your citation of several places explicitly in scripture where they appear.
Ive seen many people be blind and yet not see. Happens in this thread a lot.
LIB,MR BEARS said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:LIB,MR BEARS said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:LIB,MR BEARS said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:LIB,MR BEARS said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:LIB,MR BEARS said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:LIB,MR BEARS said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:LIB,MR BEARS said:LIB,MR BEARS said:
Please explainDear Blessed Mother, Please comfort this girl pic.twitter.com/Rfq80LSiEH
— sparkles (@sparklesdollyku) March 26, 2026
Is it dishonest that none of our Catholic friends have replied to my request to explain this?
It's as though this post is a homeless guy at an intersection and everyone's afraid to make eye contact…. except a couple guys shouting "hey, you're homeless".
So, catholic posters, Im tapping on your windshield. I know you see me. Please respond with an explanation.
It's not a homeless guy at an intersection. It's somebody pouring cyanide into people's drinks at a restaurant, and even labeling the cups "POISON" - yet there are still people picking them up and drinking. And there are only a few of us willing to yell "Hey, don't drink that, that's poison!"
And then there are a few here saying "well, somewhere else there is poison being poured into other people's drinks too" as if it's even pertinent to the danger at hand.
That's the way you see it.
I'm trying to have a dialogue you're, by your own admission are yelling at people.
Yes, yelling is often required to those who's hearing is dulled.
You have the "dialogue" you want. I just don't see the utility or even the relevance of your "whataboutism" regarding protestant follies here and there that have nothing to do with me or others, in a thread about Marian "veneration", i.e. idolatry.
I've stated that I think we all have somethings wrong. But, there are some VERY clear things in scripture. To borrow from Alistair Begg, "the plain things are the main things and, the main things are the plain things."
I believe those clear things should be dogma and we should be dogmatic on them. On things that are somewhat vague I don't want to be dogmatic on them and I certainly don't want to hold someone to my dogma.
I'm a Protestant who has been married to a Catholic for nearly 40 years. There is a reason that I've not converted to Catholicism.
If you think dialogue is "whataboutism", I'm sorry.
I can only ask you a question.
After speaking (yelling) what you see as the truth, do you believe anyone will be converted by more yelling?
Plant and water all you can. But, keep in mind, it is God that gives the increase. I don't think more yelling is going to move Him any faster.
What is not a "main thing" about what I'm adressing? If you don't see the Roman Catholic church's authority having a hold over their people into believing a false gospel as well as towards heresy and idolatry as a "main thing" that has eternal consequences, then that leaves me to wonder.
I'm really not understanding the point of your "dialogue" - since there are crazy, unbiblical protestant churches out there..... DON'T call out the errors of the Roman Catholic church... in a thread about that topic?? Because that would be "yelling", right?
And remember, I WAS THE ONE simply asking a question. But somehow, when I do it, it's unproductive "yelling", but when you do it, it's "dialogue". Your perception here is unbalanced an unimpartial, and now I know why - you're married to a Catholic, so you're treating it with kid gloves as you're accustomed to, no doubt, in family gatherings. You might even be offended for their sake by what I'm saying. Understandable, but your bias and whataboutism isn't really doing anything to move the needle here. How does showing crazy protestants jumping on the pulpit show Roman Catholics their errors and get them to repent?
I'm not really here to convert people. If it somehow happens, then to God be all the glory. All I'm aiming to do, is to biblically, factually, historically, and logically argue for the truth, and to show others that they're position is NOT defendable in like manner. What they do with that is up to them. And yes, I think I've been successful at that. If you disagree, you are more than welcome to argue against anything I've said.
You can try your "kid glove" approach if that's what you think is best. But I think that people with deeply rooted beliefs like Roman Catholics must have their beliefs uprooted before any seed planted and watered will be able to grow.
I didn't say whether or not your point is a main thing or not. I stated my position and asked you to consider whether your yelling is beneficial.
You come across as someone that would rather win an argument than win a soul.
I'm a nobody with little education. It's just my opinion. Take it for what it's worth.
I don't want to win arguments. I want the truth to win. What I've learned is that the more effective you are at doing that, those who you are arguing against ALWAYS go to ad hominem instead of arguing against the substance, trying to make it about their perceived personal failings of mine like you just did, in order to "soften the blow" for the sake of their psyche. Understandable, but it's just a defense mechanism, and again, it doesn't change any of the truth.
Thanks for offering your opinion. I'm sorry, I can't take it too serously, because you continue to call what I'm doing "yelling" when I literally did the same thing you did by asking a question. I understand your family situation predisposes you towards a certain bias, lack of objectivity, and sensitivity concerning the topic, which leads you to view my comments with distaste. But what you can't argue, is that what I'm saying is NOT true. And that's all I'm really aiming for. If you disagree, then feel free to argue against anything I've said.
I've not argued against what you've said but how you've said it. Water is great and needed for life. Receiving it through a fire hose…not so much.
I think in a dialogue the same points can be made and arguments built that incorporate the other persons own thoughts so they have a better understanding of the point being made.
And the same criticism can be made against you, when you reduced what I've been saying to mere "yelling" to a homeless person, "Hey, you're homeless!" Again, if you're so much better at this, why is your family still Roman Catholic?
And where exactly do you think my "tone" went astray? Point to it exactly. And where is your criticism of those who called me "Pharisee", "abusive", "cruel", "unChristian", and a "brick wall" for simply asking a question? No comment about their "tone". Kinda one sided here, aren't you?
And how is my asking a question not the same kind of "dialogue" that you say your question is sparking? I'm guessing that what you're really reacting to is the fact that the harsh, direct truth that's being said here directly affects those close to you, and you can't help but be defensive for their sake.
I'd be foolish to say that my faith and my approach to sharing my faith has nothing to do with my family, my work environment, my church, my background and more. I think you'd also be foolish to say the same thing about your approach to sharing your faith.
You do you , I'll do me. We're both working to the same goal, bringing others to Christ
By the way - what is your answer to my question? Are those messages from the marian apparitions from God, or no?
I've not bothered to read the details of it.
I gave you the message. You're dodging. Why am I not surprised.
Doc Holliday said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Doc Holliday said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Doc Holliday said:Fre3dombear said:Doc Holliday said:
In Acts they took cloths from Paul's body to drive out devils and healed people.
The bones of Elijah raised the dead.
These relics were deified by the uncreated energies of God.
When the Son of God assumed human nature in the incarnation, he deified that nature with his uncreated energy. That same uncreated energy is what deifies the saints. Paul says its the power of God that worketh in me. Because Christ became human, matter is affirmed as good. Veneration passes through the image to the prototype (the saint).
We don't worship the bone or the cloth as a god (latria), but we honor the prototype (the person/God) that the object reflects (dulia).
A person is not a soul temporarily inhabiting a body but a psychosomatic unity. The body that prayed, fasted, received the Eucharist, and was indwelt by the Spirit is genuinely that person's body. That's why the bone of Elisha isn't just a tool God happened to use…it's the body of a man whose whole person was being deified. Icon/relic veneration isn't arbitrary materialism. It follows necessarily from Incarnation theology.
They ignore all this as all they care about in their faith is John 3:16. Why even be baptized? It's not in John 3:16. Oh and thief on the cross.
The way is easy and the yolk is very very light almost non existent as a Protestant Christian. I get the appeal these last few hundred years. Oh and women preachers.
The protestant objection to icon veneration and saint intercession basically assumes a kind of divine jealousy: that God must act alone or the act becomes idolatrous. But Scripture tells a different story entirely.
Psalm 82 depicts God presiding over a divine council, pronouncing judgment among the "gods" (elohim). Job 1-2 shows the sons of God presenting themselves before Him. Isaiah 6 has seraphim mediating the theophany. 1 Kings 22 shows God asking the heavenly host how to accomplish His purposes.
Ex. Amos prays twice, and twice God "relents"
There's obviously a pattern and we're included. God condescends to include others in His governance not because He needs them, but because He wills to share His life and authority.
The "great cloud of witnesses" in Hebrews 12:1 flows directly out of the Hebrews 11 roll call of the faithful. It's not like they're memorialized dead… they are witnesses, present and attentive.
And we can look to revelations to show it doesn't stop at the dead too. Revelation 5:8 shows the elders offering bowls of incense which are explicitly identified as "the prayers of the saints." Revelation 8:3-4 shows an angel at the altar offering the prayers of the saints before God.
The Protestant worry is that saints usurp Christ's unique mediation (1 Tim. 2:5). But the Orthodox response is that saints mediate in Christ, just as a pastor praying for his congregation mediates in Christ without competing with Him.
You're trying so hard to justify something that is nowhere in Scripture and was universally denounced by the early church. You're building a belief system completely off of non sequiturs.
Can you name a single ante-Nicene father who condemned prayer to the saints as a category? Because I can name several who practiced it.
The burden is on you to explain why a principle Scripture establishes for the living, intercessory prayer, suddenly terminates at death, when Scripture never says it does and the early church never taught that it did.
Citation of ante-Nicene father teaching praying to saints?
Praying to the saints and icon veneration are NOWHERE in Scripture. For heaven's sake, you aren't given ANY indication that departed Christians have the ability to receive prayers anywhere in Scripture. You're concluding this with faulty reasoning, i.e. non sequiturs.
Origen, On Prayer, 11.2 he explicitly states that the departed saints pray on behalf of the living. This is Origen. 185-253 AD. Ante-Nicene.
Cyprian, Epistle 60 asks a martyr about to die to pray for the brethren from the other side. He anticipates the martyr doing so from heaven.
The inscription "Petrus et Paulus, intercedite pro Victore" ("Peter and Paul, intercede for Victor") is from a Roman catacomb dated to the 3rd century.
I've already showed you examples: Scripture teaches that intercessory prayer by humans participates in divine action (Amos 7 God relents twice at a man's prayer). Scripture presents the departed saints as alive, conscious, and present (Luke 20:38 "He is not the God of the dead but of the living"; the transfiguration, Moses and Elijah present and conversing).
Your argument requires an additional premise that death terminates intercessory capacity, and that premise is nowhere in Scripture. You're not defending sola scriptura. You're defending an inference you've added to Scripture and then demanding we prove our inference while yours gets a free pass.
None of those examples from those church fathers talks about praying to the saints in heaven. And I certainly would not build my theology off of an anonymous inscription.
Your examples from Scripture do NOT show that departed saints in heaven can receive our prayers. Again, you're making a pure non sequitur. You're conflating "intercession" and "intercessory capacity" by the saints (saints praying FOR us) with the departed saints having the ability to receive prayers from the living (us praying TO the saints). Do you see your mistake?
Doc Holliday said:
You guys need to be careful importing concepts into your positions. These topics are very complex and their implications stretch farther than you realize.
Be very careful with the move that says "if it's not explicitly in Scripture, it's not true." It sounds like a principled defense of biblical authority, but follow it to its logical conclusion and see where it actually takes you. It can get ugly real quick:
The word "Trinity" appears nowhere in Scripture. Not once. The formulation "one substance, three persons" is not a Bible verse: it's the language of Nicaea, hammered out in 325 AD by a council of bishops reasoning carefully from Scripture and apostolic tradition. If your filter is "explicitly stated in Scripture or it's out," you've just handed the Jehovah's Witnesses and Oneness Pentecostals a weapon they will happily use against you. They make exactly that argument.
The honest standard isn't "is it explicit" but rather "is it contradicted by Scripture." Those are not the same question, and collapsing them doesn't make you more biblical.
The word "Trinity" may not appear in Scripture, but the concept does.
This is a bad example to use to justify icon veneration and praying to saints. Neither the word nor the concept of icon veneration or praying to saints appears in Scripture. "Importing" these concepts into Scripture is precisely what you're doing.
Fre3dombear said:Doc Holliday said:
You guys need to be careful importing concepts into your positions. These topics are very complex and their implications stretch farther than you realize.
Be very careful with the move that says "if it's not explicitly in Scripture, it's not true." It sounds like a principled defense of biblical authority, but follow it to its logical conclusion and see where it actually takes you. It can get ugly real quick:
The word "Trinity" appears nowhere in Scripture. Not once. The formulation "one substance, three persons" is not a Bible verse: it's the language of Nicaea, hammered out in 325 AD by a council of bishops reasoning carefully from Scripture and apostolic tradition. If your filter is "explicitly stated in Scripture or it's out," you've just handed the Jehovah's Witnesses and Oneness Pentecostals a weapon they will happily use against you. They make exactly that argument.
The honest standard isn't "is it explicit" but rather "is it contradicted by Scripture." Those are not the same question, and collapsing them doesn't make you more biblical.
I saw the quote. Have to chuckle immensely where he says sic NOWHERE IN SCRIPTURE DOES THIS APPEAR to your citation of several places explicitly in scripture where they appear.
Ive seen many people be blind and yet not see. Happens in this thread a lot.
I noticed that you guys continually make claims, but never actually back them up.
Go ahead. Tell us where in Scripture icon veneration and praying to the saints in heaven appear.
Doc Holliday said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Doc Holliday said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Doc Holliday said:Fre3dombear said:Doc Holliday said:
In Acts they took cloths from Paul's body to drive out devils and healed people.
The bones of Elijah raised the dead.
These relics were deified by the uncreated energies of God.
When the Son of God assumed human nature in the incarnation, he deified that nature with his uncreated energy. That same uncreated energy is what deifies the saints. Paul says its the power of God that worketh in me. Because Christ became human, matter is affirmed as good. Veneration passes through the image to the prototype (the saint).
We don't worship the bone or the cloth as a god (latria), but we honor the prototype (the person/God) that the object reflects (dulia).
A person is not a soul temporarily inhabiting a body but a psychosomatic unity. The body that prayed, fasted, received the Eucharist, and was indwelt by the Spirit is genuinely that person's body. That's why the bone of Elisha isn't just a tool God happened to use…it's the body of a man whose whole person was being deified. Icon/relic veneration isn't arbitrary materialism. It follows necessarily from Incarnation theology.
They ignore all this as all they care about in their faith is John 3:16. Why even be baptized? It's not in John 3:16. Oh and thief on the cross.
The way is easy and the yolk is very very light almost non existent as a Protestant Christian. I get the appeal these last few hundred years. Oh and women preachers.
The protestant objection to icon veneration and saint intercession basically assumes a kind of divine jealousy: that God must act alone or the act becomes idolatrous. But Scripture tells a different story entirely.
Psalm 82 depicts God presiding over a divine council, pronouncing judgment among the "gods" (elohim). Job 1-2 shows the sons of God presenting themselves before Him. Isaiah 6 has seraphim mediating the theophany. 1 Kings 22 shows God asking the heavenly host how to accomplish His purposes.
Ex. Amos prays twice, and twice God "relents"
There's obviously a pattern and we're included. God condescends to include others in His governance not because He needs them, but because He wills to share His life and authority.
The "great cloud of witnesses" in Hebrews 12:1 flows directly out of the Hebrews 11 roll call of the faithful. It's not like they're memorialized dead… they are witnesses, present and attentive.
And we can look to revelations to show it doesn't stop at the dead too. Revelation 5:8 shows the elders offering bowls of incense which are explicitly identified as "the prayers of the saints." Revelation 8:3-4 shows an angel at the altar offering the prayers of the saints before God.
The Protestant worry is that saints usurp Christ's unique mediation (1 Tim. 2:5). But the Orthodox response is that saints mediate in Christ, just as a pastor praying for his congregation mediates in Christ without competing with Him.
You're trying so hard to justify something that is nowhere in Scripture and was universally denounced by the early church. You're building a belief system completely off of non sequiturs.
Can you name a single ante-Nicene father who condemned prayer to the saints as a category? Because I can name several who practiced it.
The burden is on you to explain why a principle Scripture establishes for the living, intercessory prayer, suddenly terminates at death, when Scripture never says it does and the early church never taught that it did.
Citation of ante-Nicene father teaching praying to saints?
Praying to the saints and icon veneration are NOWHERE in Scripture. For heaven's sake, you aren't given ANY indication that departed Christians have the ability to receive prayers anywhere in Scripture. You're concluding this with faulty reasoning, i.e. non sequiturs.
Origen, On Prayer, 11.2 he explicitly states that the departed saints pray on behalf of the living. This is Origen. 185-253 AD. Ante-Nicene.
Cyprian, Epistle 60 asks a martyr about to die to pray for the brethren from the other side. He anticipates the martyr doing so from heaven.
The inscription "Petrus et Paulus, intercedite pro Victore" ("Peter and Paul, intercede for Victor") is from a Roman catacomb dated to the 3rd century.
I've already showed you examples: Scripture teaches that intercessory prayer by humans participates in divine action (Amos 7 God relents twice at a man's prayer). Scripture presents the departed saints as alive, conscious, and present (Luke 20:38 "He is not the God of the dead but of the living"; the transfiguration, Moses and Elijah present and conversing).
Your argument requires an additional premise that death terminates intercessory capacity, and that premise is nowhere in Scripture. You're not defending sola scriptura. You're defending an inference you've added to Scripture and then demanding we prove our inference while yours gets a free pass.
Origen's quote there is NOT saying we are to pray to the saints. He actually says the opposite - our prayers are to be to God alone:
"For every prayer, and supplication, and intercession, and thanksgiving, is to be sent up to the Supreme God through the High Priest (Jesus), who is above all the angels, the living Word and God." (Against Celsus, 5.4)
"For to invoke angels after having obtained without a knowledge of their nature greater than is possessed by men, would be contrary to reason. But, comformably to our hypothesis, let this knowledge of them, which is something wonderful and mysterious, be obtained. Then this knowledge, making known to us their nature, and the offices to which they are severally appointed, will not permit us to pray with confidence to any other than the Supreme God, who is sufficient for all things, and that through our Savior the Son of God, who is the Word, and Wisdom, and Truth, and everything else which the writings of God's prophets and the apostles of Jesus entitle Him." (Against Celsus, 5.5)
You just acknowledged that the standard isn't "the word must appear in Scripture" but rather "the concept must be derivable from Scripture."BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Doc Holliday said:
You guys need to be careful importing concepts into your positions. These topics are very complex and their implications stretch farther than you realize.
Be very careful with the move that says "if it's not explicitly in Scripture, it's not true." It sounds like a principled defense of biblical authority, but follow it to its logical conclusion and see where it actually takes you. It can get ugly real quick:
The word "Trinity" appears nowhere in Scripture. Not once. The formulation "one substance, three persons" is not a Bible verse: it's the language of Nicaea, hammered out in 325 AD by a council of bishops reasoning carefully from Scripture and apostolic tradition. If your filter is "explicitly stated in Scripture or it's out," you've just handed the Jehovah's Witnesses and Oneness Pentecostals a weapon they will happily use against you. They make exactly that argument.
The honest standard isn't "is it explicit" but rather "is it contradicted by Scripture." Those are not the same question, and collapsing them doesn't make you more biblical.
The word "Trinity" may not appear in Scripture, but the concept does.
This is a bad example to use to justify icon veneration and praying to saints. Neither the word nor the concept of icon veneration or praying to saints appears in Scripture. "Importing" these concepts into Scripture is precisely what you're doing.
I already walked through the concepts.
Show me in Scripture alone, without councils, without the Cappadocian fathers, without centuries of theological reasoning, how you arrive at the precise Nicene formulation that you yourself hold to. Show me homoousios. Show me one substance three persons. Show me the eternal generation of the Son. Show me how you distinguish the procession of the Spirit from the generation of the Son using only a Bible and no tradition.
If Nicaea's authority to define doctrine binding on all Christians came purely from Scripture, show me the verse that granted it that authority. Because if councils can define doctrine bindingly from Scripture in 325, why not 787?
On what basis did Nicaea have authority to define doctrine bindingly for all Christians? You certainly don't believe in apostolic succession.
Doc Holliday said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Doc Holliday said:
You guys need to be careful importing concepts into your positions. These topics are very complex and their implications stretch farther than you realize.
Be very careful with the move that says "if it's not explicitly in Scripture, it's not true." It sounds like a principled defense of biblical authority, but follow it to its logical conclusion and see where it actually takes you. It can get ugly real quick:
The word "Trinity" appears nowhere in Scripture. Not once. The formulation "one substance, three persons" is not a Bible verse: it's the language of Nicaea, hammered out in 325 AD by a council of bishops reasoning carefully from Scripture and apostolic tradition. If your filter is "explicitly stated in Scripture or it's out," you've just handed the Jehovah's Witnesses and Oneness Pentecostals a weapon they will happily use against you. They make exactly that argument.
The honest standard isn't "is it explicit" but rather "is it contradicted by Scripture." Those are not the same question, and collapsing them doesn't make you more biblical.
The word "Trinity" may not appear in Scripture, but the concept does.
This is a bad example to use to justify icon veneration and praying to saints. Neither the word nor the concept of icon veneration or praying to saints appears in Scripture. "Importing" these concepts into Scripture is precisely what you're doing.
You just acknowledged that the standard isn't "the word must appear in Scripture" but rather "the concept must be derivable from Scripture."
I already walked through the concepts.
Show me in Scripture alone, without councils, without the Cappadocian fathers, without centuries of theological reasoning, how you arrive at the precise Nicene formulation that you yourself hold to. Show me homoousios. Show me one substance three persons. Show me the eternal generation of the Son. Show me how you distinguish the procession of the Spirit from the generation of the Son using only a Bible and no tradition.
If Nicaea's authority to define doctrine binding on all Christians came purely from Scripture, show me the verse that granted it that authority. Because if councils can define doctrine bindingly from Scripture in 325, why not 787?
On what basis did Nicaea have authority to define doctrine bindingly for all Christians? You certainly don't believe in apostolic succession.
Yes, the concept must be derivable from Scripture. But icon veneration and praying to saints isn't, without you "importing" them through non sequiturs. There's a big difference between "derivable from Scripture" and "eisegesed into Scripture". The concept of the Trinity is certainly the former. The concepts of icon veneration and praying to saints is certainly the latter.
Never mind what the "Nicene formulation" of any pronouncement by a council of man says. Let's just go by the word of God. The concept of the Trinity (One God in three persons) is derivable by a slew of verses, such as Genesis 1:26, Genesis 3:22, Genesis 11:7, Isaiah 6:8, Isaiah 48:16, Isaiah 61:1, Matthew 3:16-17, Matthew 28:19, 2 Corinthians 13:14. From these, one can derive a rudimentary concept of God referring to Himself in the plural, and that there are three distinctly named facets of God (Father, Son, Spirit) that are treated on par with each other. The logically consistent result is the concept of the Trinity.
You can't do this for icon veneration or praying to the saints. What you have to do instead is eisegete those concepts into verses. From there being a "cloud of witnesses", it just doesn't follow that they have the ability to receive our prayers in omniscient and omnipresent fashion. The elders holding "bowls of prayers" in Revelation does not indicate that THEY were the recipient of those prayers. You are not "deriving" those concepts, you are inserting them wholesale. They do not follow logically from those verses.
The councils of man, like Nicaea, do NOT have the authority to bind all Christians to doctrine. That authority is NOT in Scripture. The Trinity is not a salvivic concept.
Do Protestant Christians have a guardian angel? Do they ever talk to them or pray to them and ask for things / guidance / help / support?
Fre3dombear said:
Do Protestant Christians have a guardian angel? Do they ever talk to them or pray to them and ask for things / guidance / help / support?
Scripture is silent on the matter of specific 'guardian angels', although there are certainly passages where the Lord has sent angels to guide, assist, instruct, and so on.
Oldbear83 said:Fre3dombear said:
Do Protestant Christians have a guardian angel? Do they ever talk to them or pray to them and ask for things / guidance / help / support?
Scripture is silent on the matter of specific 'guardian angels', although there are certainly passages where the Lord has sent angels to guide, assist, instruct, and so on.
Thanks. Not really an answer to my question
Would a Protestant Christian say the St Michael prayer? Or is heresy?
Fre3dombear said:Oldbear83 said:Fre3dombear said:
Do Protestant Christians have a guardian angel? Do they ever talk to them or pray to them and ask for things / guidance / help / support?
Scripture is silent on the matter of specific 'guardian angels', although there are certainly passages where the Lord has sent angels to guide, assist, instruct, and so on.
Thanks. Not really an answer to my question
Would a Protestant Christian say the St Michael prayer? Or is heresy?
It certainly is a valid answer. Obviously not what you wanted, judging from your snitty response, but you might want to keep in mind that Protestants vary from denomination to denomination on their doctrinal positions.
In general though, Protestants accept Christ's promise that we can pray directly to the Father, so we do so. Praying to anyone but God Himself rather misses the point.
Fre3dombear said:Oldbear83 said:Fre3dombear said:
Do Protestant Christians have a guardian angel? Do they ever talk to them or pray to them and ask for things / guidance / help / support?
Scripture is silent on the matter of specific 'guardian angels', although there are certainly passages where the Lord has sent angels to guide, assist, instruct, and so on.
Thanks. Not really an answer to my question
Would a Protestant Christian say the St Michael prayer? Or is heresy?
The only time an angel is ever described as:
Mediator
Intercessor
Reconciler
Propitiation
Redeemer
Advocate
is in the Old Testament and is a foreshadowing of Christ. Since Christ has now come and is our Mediator, Intercessor, Reconciler, Propitiation, Redeemer and Advocate, why would I take a step backwards to an angel?
If Christ is your Mediator, why would you look for another?
Fre3dombear said:
Do Protestant Christians have a guardian angel? Do they ever talk to them or pray to them and ask for things / guidance / help / support?
Christians do not pray to angels. We only pray to God the Father, Son or Holy Spirit.
Praying to anyone else is a form of idolatry. Our only source of guidance, help, support, etc is God.
One day Jesus was praying in a certain place. When he finished, one of his disciples said to him, "Lord, teach us to pray, just as John taught his disciples."
2 He said to them, "When you pray, say:
"'OurFather,
hallowed be your name,…"
He doesn't mention praying to anyone else.
LIB,MR BEARS said:
One day Jesus was praying in a certain place. When he finished, one of his disciples said to him, "Lord, teach us to pray, just as John taught his disciples."
2 He said to them, "When you pray, say:
"'OurFather,
hallowed be your name,…"
He doesn't mention praying to anyone else.
No no no
Jesus told them to pray to his sinless mommy... did you forget that? The scriptures are filled with verses talking about Mary and her important role in salvation... right?
LIB,MR BEARS said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:LIB,MR BEARS said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:LIB,MR BEARS said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:LIB,MR BEARS said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:LIB,MR BEARS said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:LIB,MR BEARS said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:LIB,MR BEARS said:LIB,MR BEARS said:
Please explainDear Blessed Mother, Please comfort this girl pic.twitter.com/Rfq80LSiEH
— sparkles (@sparklesdollyku) March 26, 2026
Is it dishonest that none of our Catholic friends have replied to my request to explain this?
It's as though this post is a homeless guy at an intersection and everyone's afraid to make eye contact…. except a couple guys shouting "hey, you're homeless".
So, catholic posters, Im tapping on your windshield. I know you see me. Please respond with an explanation.
It's not a homeless guy at an intersection. It's somebody pouring cyanide into people's drinks at a restaurant, and even labeling the cups "POISON" - yet there are still people picking them up and drinking. And there are only a few of us willing to yell "Hey, don't drink that, that's poison!"
And then there are a few here saying "well, somewhere else there is poison being poured into other people's drinks too" as if it's even pertinent to the danger at hand.
That's the way you see it.
I'm trying to have a dialogue you're, by your own admission are yelling at people.
Yes, yelling is often required to those who's hearing is dulled.
You have the "dialogue" you want. I just don't see the utility or even the relevance of your "whataboutism" regarding protestant follies here and there that have nothing to do with me or others, in a thread about Marian "veneration", i.e. idolatry.
I've stated that I think we all have somethings wrong. But, there are some VERY clear things in scripture. To borrow from Alistair Begg, "the plain things are the main things and, the main things are the plain things."
I believe those clear things should be dogma and we should be dogmatic on them. On things that are somewhat vague I don't want to be dogmatic on them and I certainly don't want to hold someone to my dogma.
I'm a Protestant who has been married to a Catholic for nearly 40 years. There is a reason that I've not converted to Catholicism.
If you think dialogue is "whataboutism", I'm sorry.
I can only ask you a question.
After speaking (yelling) what you see as the truth, do you believe anyone will be converted by more yelling?
Plant and water all you can. But, keep in mind, it is God that gives the increase. I don't think more yelling is going to move Him any faster.
What is not a "main thing" about what I'm adressing? If you don't see the Roman Catholic church's authority having a hold over their people into believing a false gospel as well as towards heresy and idolatry as a "main thing" that has eternal consequences, then that leaves me to wonder.
I'm really not understanding the point of your "dialogue" - since there are crazy, unbiblical protestant churches out there..... DON'T call out the errors of the Roman Catholic church... in a thread about that topic?? Because that would be "yelling", right?
And remember, I WAS THE ONE simply asking a question. But somehow, when I do it, it's unproductive "yelling", but when you do it, it's "dialogue". Your perception here is unbalanced an unimpartial, and now I know why - you're married to a Catholic, so you're treating it with kid gloves as you're accustomed to, no doubt, in family gatherings. You might even be offended for their sake by what I'm saying. Understandable, but your bias and whataboutism isn't really doing anything to move the needle here. How does showing crazy protestants jumping on the pulpit show Roman Catholics their errors and get them to repent?
I'm not really here to convert people. If it somehow happens, then to God be all the glory. All I'm aiming to do, is to biblically, factually, historically, and logically argue for the truth, and to show others that they're position is NOT defendable in like manner. What they do with that is up to them. And yes, I think I've been successful at that. If you disagree, you are more than welcome to argue against anything I've said.
You can try your "kid glove" approach if that's what you think is best. But I think that people with deeply rooted beliefs like Roman Catholics must have their beliefs uprooted before any seed planted and watered will be able to grow.
I didn't say whether or not your point is a main thing or not. I stated my position and asked you to consider whether your yelling is beneficial.
You come across as someone that would rather win an argument than win a soul.
I'm a nobody with little education. It's just my opinion. Take it for what it's worth.
I don't want to win arguments. I want the truth to win. What I've learned is that the more effective you are at doing that, those who you are arguing against ALWAYS go to ad hominem instead of arguing against the substance, trying to make it about their perceived personal failings of mine like you just did, in order to "soften the blow" for the sake of their psyche. Understandable, but it's just a defense mechanism, and again, it doesn't change any of the truth.
Thanks for offering your opinion. I'm sorry, I can't take it too serously, because you continue to call what I'm doing "yelling" when I literally did the same thing you did by asking a question. I understand your family situation predisposes you towards a certain bias, lack of objectivity, and sensitivity concerning the topic, which leads you to view my comments with distaste. But what you can't argue, is that what I'm saying is NOT true. And that's all I'm really aiming for. If you disagree, then feel free to argue against anything I've said.
I've not argued against what you've said but how you've said it. Water is great and needed for life. Receiving it through a fire hose…not so much.
I think in a dialogue the same points can be made and arguments built that incorporate the other persons own thoughts so they have a better understanding of the point being made.
And the same criticism can be made against you, when you reduced what I've been saying to mere "yelling" to a homeless person, "Hey, you're homeless!" Again, if you're so much better at this, why is your family still Roman Catholic?
And where exactly do you think my "tone" went astray? Point to it exactly. And where is your criticism of those who called me "Pharisee", "abusive", "cruel", "unChristian", and a "brick wall" for simply asking a question? No comment about their "tone". Kinda one sided here, aren't you?
And how is my asking a question not the same kind of "dialogue" that you say your question is sparking? I'm guessing that what you're really reacting to is the fact that the harsh, direct truth that's being said here directly affects those close to you, and you can't help but be defensive for their sake.
I'd be foolish to say that my faith and my approach to sharing my faith has nothing to do with my family, my work environment, my church, my background and more. I think you'd also be foolish to say the same thing about your approach to sharing your faith.
You do you , I'll do me. We're both working to the same goal, bringing others to Christ
I'd say that having no affect on your own family, especially one's spouse over decades, should humble someone to where maybe they feel they're not in any position to question how "beneficial" other people's dialogue is towards "winning souls".
Where did I say no affect.
Well, for one.... does your spouse still pray to Mary and the saints?
How about their view that salvation is by faith plus works? Do they believe in purgatory? Mary is sinless, perpetually pure, and ascendant into heaven just like Jesus?
Doc Holliday said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Doc Holliday said:
You guys need to be careful importing concepts into your positions. These topics are very complex and their implications stretch farther than you realize.
Be very careful with the move that says "if it's not explicitly in Scripture, it's not true." It sounds like a principled defense of biblical authority, but follow it to its logical conclusion and see where it actually takes you. It can get ugly real quick:
The word "Trinity" appears nowhere in Scripture. Not once. The formulation "one substance, three persons" is not a Bible verse: it's the language of Nicaea, hammered out in 325 AD by a council of bishops reasoning carefully from Scripture and apostolic tradition. If your filter is "explicitly stated in Scripture or it's out," you've just handed the Jehovah's Witnesses and Oneness Pentecostals a weapon they will happily use against you. They make exactly that argument.
The honest standard isn't "is it explicit" but rather "is it contradicted by Scripture." Those are not the same question, and collapsing them doesn't make you more biblical.
The word "Trinity" may not appear in Scripture, but the concept does.
This is a bad example to use to justify icon veneration and praying to saints. Neither the word nor the concept of icon veneration or praying to saints appears in Scripture. "Importing" these concepts into Scripture is precisely what you're doing.
You just acknowledged that the standard isn't "the word must appear in Scripture" but rather "the concept must be derivable from Scripture."
I already walked through the concepts.
Show me in Scripture alone, without councils, without the Cappadocian fathers, without centuries of theological reasoning, how you arrive at the precise Nicene formulation that you yourself hold to. Show me homoousios. Show me one substance three persons. Show me the eternal generation of the Son. Show me how you distinguish the procession of the Spirit from the generation of the Son using only a Bible and no tradition.
If Nicaea's authority to define doctrine binding on all Christians came purely from Scripture, show me the verse that granted it that authority. Because if councils can define doctrine bindingly from Scripture in 325, why not 787?
On what basis did Nicaea have authority to define doctrine bindingly for all Christians? You certainly don't believe in apostolic succession.
Response? Do you still believe Origen taught praying to saints? Do you still believe that any of the early church fathers taught it?
Do you agree that Scripture alone is all that is needed to come up with the Trinity? What doctrine from the Council of Nicaea do you believe does NOT come from Scripture, but Christians are bound to?
Fre3dombear said:Oldbear83 said:Fre3dombear said:
Do Protestant Christians have a guardian angel? Do they ever talk to them or pray to them and ask for things / guidance / help / support?
Scripture is silent on the matter of specific 'guardian angels', although there are certainly passages where the Lord has sent angels to guide, assist, instruct, and so on.
Thanks. Not really an answer to my question
Would a Protestant Christian say the St Michael prayer? Or is heresy?
I am quite certain that Michael, if he even heard your prayer, would say to you something similar to what the angel in Revelation said to John - "Don't do that! Only pray to God!"
Fre3dombear said:
Do Protestant Christians have a guardian angel? Do they ever talk to them or pray to them and ask for things / guidance / help / support?
Why would a Christian pray to an angel for things, when they have a direct line access to the person much, much, much higher and more powerful than they, and who rules over all the angels? And he who is attentive to everything you say to him?
Oldbear83 said:Fre3dombear said:Oldbear83 said:Fre3dombear said:
Do Protestant Christians have a guardian angel? Do they ever talk to them or pray to them and ask for things / guidance / help / support?
Scripture is silent on the matter of specific 'guardian angels', although there are certainly passages where the Lord has sent angels to guide, assist, instruct, and so on.
Thanks. Not really an answer to my question
Would a Protestant Christian say the St Michael prayer? Or is heresy?
It certainly is a valid answer. Obviously not what you wanted, judging from your snitty response, but you might want to keep in mind that Protestants vary from denomination to denomination on their doctrinal positions.
In general though, Protestants accept Christ's promise that we can pray directly to the Father, so we do so. Praying to anyone but God Himself rather misses the point.
I didnt "want" any answer. But a coherent answer and as usually you completely whiffed.
It hadnt occurred to me that many Protestant Christians werent into angels. I am always learning but theres so many permitationsw to learn.
ShooterTX said:Fre3dombear said:
Do Protestant Christians have a guardian angel? Do they ever talk to them or pray to them and ask for things / guidance / help / support?
Christians do not pray to angels. We only pray to God the Father, Son or Holy Spirit.
Praying to anyone else is a form of idolatry. Our only source of guidance, help, support, etc is God.
Now we're talking. Thats more what I was expecting to confirm from at least some Protestant Christians.
pray means solemn requestLIB,MR BEARS said:
One day Jesus was praying in a certain place. When he finished, one of his disciples said to him, "Lord, teach us to pray, just as John taught his disciples."
2 He said to them, "When you pray, say:
"'OurFather,
hallowed be your name,…"
He doesn't mention praying to anyone else.
Like when somebody would say pray tell me.. it was a solemn or earnest request to be informed(more recently used as a sarcastic retort)
So A prayer to Mary is a solemn request and if you read the prayers, alot of them are basically, "Hi Mary, Jesus is your son and he does things because you ask so please pass along a prayer for me"
I dont agree with it and I would not pray to Mary but that is my individual feelings.
4th and Inches said:pray means solemn requestLIB,MR BEARS said:
One day Jesus was praying in a certain place. When he finished, one of his disciples said to him, "Lord, teach us to pray, just as John taught his disciples."
2 He said to them, "When you pray, say:
"'OurFather,
hallowed be your name,…"
He doesn't mention praying to anyone else.
Like when somebody would say pray tell me.. it was a solemn or earnest request to be informed(more recently used as a sarcastic retort)
So A prayer to Mary is a solemn request and if you read the prayers, alot of them are basically, "Hi Mary, Jesus is your son and he does things because you ask so please pass along a prayer for me"
I dont agree with it and I would not pray to Mary but that is my individual feelings.
Yes, Mary has been described to me as a prayer partner.
My view is described in a couple of post above.
1) the curtain/veil was torn so we are no loner separated from the Holy of Holies.
2) Jesus is our Advocate. With his death and resurrection, in addition to He being our Propitiation and Redeemer, He advocates for us.
If I have a direct line to the CEO, know He is in and know He will not only take my call but wants my call, why would I go through the switchboard?
Fre3dombear said:Oldbear83 said:Fre3dombear said:Oldbear83 said:Fre3dombear said:
Do Protestant Christians have a guardian angel? Do they ever talk to them or pray to them and ask for things / guidance / help / support?
Scripture is silent on the matter of specific 'guardian angels', although there are certainly passages where the Lord has sent angels to guide, assist, instruct, and so on.
Thanks. Not really an answer to my question
Would a Protestant Christian say the St Michael prayer? Or is heresy?
It certainly is a valid answer. Obviously not what you wanted, judging from your snitty response, but you might want to keep in mind that Protestants vary from denomination to denomination on their doctrinal positions.
In general though, Protestants accept Christ's promise that we can pray directly to the Father, so we do so. Praying to anyone but God Himself rather misses the point.
I didnt "want" any answer. But a coherent answer and as usually you completely whiffed.
It hadnt occurred to me that many Protestant Christians werent into angels. I am always learning but theres so many permitationsw to learn.
Protestants do believe angels exist, of course. Scripture is full of them.
But in Scripture they serve the Lord, just as believers serve the Lord. We can pray directly to the Father, so of course that is what we do.
Regarding guardian angels, I personally believe the Lord sends angels to protect us and observe our actions. But these angels may come and go from us as the Father commands, and it is not for us to presume we are entitled to a personal angel.
Are they not all ministering spirits sent out to serve for the sake of those who are to inherit salvation?
i agree with you,LIB,MR BEARS said:4th and Inches said:pray means solemn requestLIB,MR BEARS said:
One day Jesus was praying in a certain place. When he finished, one of his disciples said to him, "Lord, teach us to pray, just as John taught his disciples."
2 He said to them, "When you pray, say:
"'OurFather,
hallowed be your name,…"
He doesn't mention praying to anyone else.
Like when somebody would say pray tell me.. it was a solemn or earnest request to be informed(more recently used as a sarcastic retort)
So A prayer to Mary is a solemn request and if you read the prayers, alot of them are basically, "Hi Mary, Jesus is your son and he does things because you ask so please pass along a prayer for me"
I dont agree with it and I would not pray to Mary but that is my individual feelings.
Yes, Mary has been described to me as a prayer partner.
My view is described in a couple of post above.
1) the curtain/veil was torn so we are no loner separated from the Holy of Holies.
2) Jesus is our Advocate. With his death and resurrection, in addition to He being our Propitiation and Redeemer, He advocates for us.
If I have a direct line to the CEO, know He is in and know He will not only take my call but wants my call, why would I go through the switchboard?
"Do not be anxious about anything, but in every situation, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God." Philippians 4:6-7
I pray direct to my Father in the name of the son Jesus Christ. By being in Christ, and He in me, I am an heir to Abraham and the promises from God(Galatians 3:29)
4th and Inches said:LIB,MR BEARS said:
One day Jesus was praying in a certain place. When he finished, one of his disciples said to him, "Lord, teach us to pray, just as John taught his disciples."
2 He said to them, "When you pray, say:
"'OurFather,
hallowed be your name,…"
He doesn't mention praying to anyone else.
pray means solemn request
Like when somebody would say pray tell me.. it was a solemn or earnest request to be informed(more recently used as a sarcastic retort)
So A prayer to Mary is a solemn request and if you read the prayers, alot of them are basically, "Hi Mary, Jesus is your son and he does things because you ask so please pass along a prayer for me"
I dont agree with it and I would not pray to Mary but that is my individual feelings.
Still, praying to Mary is ascribing to her the qualities of omniscience and omnipresence, which is giving her the quality of divinity. Nowhere in Scripture does it even come close to suggesting this, for anyone other than God/Jesus/Holy Spirit.
It clearly is an act of idolatry, whether one knows it or not. It behooves those who claim to love God to stop doing it and repent.
taking this to its logical end, yes it is idolatry.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:4th and Inches said:LIB,MR BEARS said:
One day Jesus was praying in a certain place. When he finished, one of his disciples said to him, "Lord, teach us to pray, just as John taught his disciples."
2 He said to them, "When you pray, say:
"'OurFather,
hallowed be your name,…"
He doesn't mention praying to anyone else.
pray means solemn request
Like when somebody would say pray tell me.. it was a solemn or earnest request to be informed(more recently used as a sarcastic retort)
So A prayer to Mary is a solemn request and if you read the prayers, alot of them are basically, "Hi Mary, Jesus is your son and he does things because you ask so please pass along a prayer for me"
I dont agree with it and I would not pray to Mary but that is my individual feelings.
Still, praying to Mary is ascribing to her the qualities of omniscience and omnipresence, which is giving her the quality of divinity. Nowhere in Scripture does it even come close to suggesting this, for anyone other than God/Jesus/Holy Spirit.
It clearly is an act of idolatry, whether one knows it or not. It behooves those who claim to love God to stop doing it and repent.
So is the worship of cell phones nearly every man, woman, and child does in this country.
People in this country tithe to their sins far more than they tithe to the church. Any object or activity that you focus your attention on more than God in Heaven is a false idol/false alter.
God wants your attention, anything that stands in the way of giving him attention is a false idol/false alter
In Matthew 6:24, He warns against the worship of material things. "No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money". The Greek word mammonas, translated here as "money," does not mean the money in one's pockets. It is the personification of wealth or money (especially wealth gained through greediness), the love of which, in modern terminology, is "materialism."
As I said before, I dont pray to anyone but the Father in the name of the Son.
ShooterTX said:DallasBear9902 said:Fre3dombear said:ShooterTX said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Oldbear83 said:DallasBear9902 said:Oldbear83 said:
Comparing your opinion to Jesus' teachings?
Just a tad arrogant, that.
Not making that comparison at all. Only illustrating that a failure to address an accusation is not a confession (using an example we all agree on).
Granted, both sides are acting a bit heated. Not conducive to a healthy conversation climate, that.
The level of projection here is absolutely INSANE.
Folks, not answering the question is what isn't conducive to a "healthy conversation climate".
It's very strange.
Not long ago, one of these Catholics told me that I should study the story of Fatima, because it would prove to me that the worship of Mary was legit.
Then another one talked about Guadalupe as proof that Mary worship was powerful and so on.
Now they want to ignore both stories?? Very strange.
I've studied both stories, and all it proves is that Catholics are engaged in idolatry. There is no way that the same God who said, "You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me," would then send a woman to tell His followers to pray to her, build her a bunch of churches, sing songs of praise to her... no way that Fatima and Guadalupe were sent from heaven. Those messages are in direct opposition to the direct instructions from God through the prophets, Jesus, and the apostles.
As has been stated ad nauseum, theres no worship without sacrifice. Never seen anyone sacrifice anything to Mary
Ive been to many a sunday mega church, Bible church as they call it, etc. never seen a sacrifice at any of those either. Ever.
At stations of the cross tonight we said 14 different individualized prayers directed at Jesus. I suppose we squeezed in a Hail Mary in between an Our Father and Glory Be at the end…. We must have missed the memo on the Mary worship tonight….
Honestly if the brick wall and his little side kick could at least be honest in their criticism and attacks it might be worth engagement. But the intentional misrepresentation says a lot.
Are you familiar with the rosary?
If so, please tell us how many rosary prayers are to God vs how many to Mary.
Also if you don't worship Mary, please explain why there are more Catholic Church named in honor of Mary, than in honor of God.
Also explain why every year millions of Catholics go on pianos pilgrimage to visit one of the sites of her apparition, and offer flowers, songs and prayers to her.
I'm glad you had an experience the other day without worshipping Mary.
I know the conversation has moved past this, but I was jammed up this weekend. So want to give you a good faith response.
*Rosary has been discussed ad nauseum on this thread. If you do not want to pray the rosary, do not do so. There is clearly a difference between a mandated practice and an approved one for private devotion.
*While a name is an indicator, it is not dispositive of what is happening within an institution. None of us are worshipping Judge Baylor even though he is namesake of our beloved university. I don't think the folks at University Baptist Church in Waco are worshipping a university. I don't think the folks at Antioch are worshipping a city or the era the city represents. Same thing for folks at Watermark and City Church and countless others. So, clearly, the name of a church does not establish what is being worshipped within that church. The Catholic faith is a highly ritualistic faith. Weekly Mass is the most important thing in the Church (and even within the Mass celebration of the Eucharist is the source and summit of the faith). And this is followed by the Sacraments. Mass structure is 50+10 model. 50 minutes that are highly ritualized and scripted with about 10 minutes of homily.
There are up to three times the Blessed Mother is mentioned in the Mass Script:
The Confiteor (not always used):
Quote:
I confess to almighty God
and to you, my brothers and sisters,
that I have greatly sinned,
in my thoughts and in my words,
in what I have done and in what I have failed to do,
through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault;
therefore I ask blessed Mary ever-Virgin,
all the Angels and Saints,
and you, my brothers and sisters,
to pray for me to the Lord our God.
The Nicene Creed (excerpted):
Quote:
For us men and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,
and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary,
and became man.
The Eucharistic Prayer (excerpted-- there are four different versions, I think this is the version you could find most offensive):
Quote:
In communion with those whose memory we venerate, especially the glorious ever-Virgin Mary, Mother of our God and Lord, Jesus Christ, and blessed Joseph, her Spouse, your blessed Apostles and Martyrs, Peter and Paul, Andrew,....
And occasionally the Blessed Mother will be mentioned in hymns.
That's it. You can search the script of the Mass, you won't find anything else. So please, where are you seeing worship in there?
I don't have the scripts for the various sacraments memorized, but I was at a confirmation Mass this past Saturday morning and she was not mentioned as part of the sacrament.
People go on pilgrimages to places where they believe miraculous signs sent forth by God (in whatever form He has chosen) have occurred. I presume that you believe the metaphysical miraculous works stopped with the apostles. Others disagree. Those pilgrimages are not required. People find spiritual meaning in these places. I find spiritual growth pours forth for all of my family on these pilgrimages. This year I am taking my family to Croagh Patrick and various other holy sites nearby. Next year I plan on taking my family on pilgrimage to Patmos. My wife has asked me to take each of my sons individually to do El Camino before they graduate from high school and I'll probably do that. Point being, we do lots of pilgrimages to places where various saints lived their lives or made a difference in the Christian faith.
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:DallasBear9902 said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:DallasBear9902 said:
Check the edit.
Your edit makes your post even more ridiculous. You were wrong, so why not just admit it, instead of digging your hole deeper?
And you're still avoiding the question. And it's clear why.
Your question cannot be answered because the foundation is incorrect. If you would like to correct your facts and resubmit your question, I'll try to tackle it.
My best guess is that you get Guadalupe wrong because Nahuatl was translated to Spanish and you are probably relying on English translations of the derivative translation to try to understand it.
I am fortunate enough to be a native speaker of both English and Spanish having split my childhood (and primary education) almost perfectly in half between the USA and a Latin American country (my dad was partially in the oil infrastructure business which meant years-long projects working with the Latin American state-oil companies and he spoke Spanish which meant he was the right guy to send south). When my family lived full time in Latin America I would spend all major school
holidays and summer breaks with my Anglo extended family in the USA (mostly ArkLaTex area) and when my family was living full time in the USA I would spend all major holidays and summers with extended Latin American family in Latin America precisely because my parents wanted both language skills developed. I can clam with a straight face that I would leave America to summer camp in Spanish and vice versa.
I give you that long-winded color to tell you something gets lost/added in the translation via cultural context of words that is extremely hard to pin down.
So when Guadalupe in Nahuatl translated to Spanish says: " Mucho quiero, mucho deseo que aqu me levanten mi casita sagrada, en donde lo mostrar" and then to English you hear "build a church in my honor", I understand how you are getting there, but I am telling you the Spanish does not say that. I understand how it gets translated to a point where that is what you read into the translation. But the original just doesn't say it.
There is just a lot of cultural and structural context to
The language that gets lost in the translation (and over time). So, when "levanten mi casita sagrada" gets translated to "build my sacred church" (or whatever translation you are using) and you think it means build a church to honor of Our Lady of Guadalupe, I get how you get there. But that isn't what it says (at least in Spanish). I think the better translation to English is to build a church in her name, but that doesn't quite capture it either. Which I guess should really make us wonder about what was said in the original Nahuatl.
To this day, a half dozen times a year or so I'll drop into Spanish-speaking, immigrant dominated parishes (not parishes where there is a Spanish Mass, but parishes where there is no English Mass) to attend services. You can find these Catholic Churches in East and South Dallas. I do this typically on a Sunday night after having attended English service with my family earlier in the day (alas, my wife and kids are gringos). Same exact readings (this is the Catholic Church!) and (typically) a similar homily. I don't know how to explain it, the readings and message across the languages is just … different. And it is driven by the cultural/contextual meanings of the words being used. For example, in the Spanish language, some readings could come off as straight up anti-semantic in a way that doesn't happen with the English translations. . . You can see where I am going with this.
Anyway, that's my stab at your question. I know you'll accusing me of deflecting and avoiding the question, but that's the best I can give you: your factual understanding is just off, and thus the foundation you try to set up is all wrong making it impossible to answer your question under the parameters you want it answered.
So, if I say that the apparitions' message was "build a church in HER name" (YOUR translation) and to "spread world-wide devotion to HER 'Immaculate Heart' for the forgiveness of sins"....
...and ask you: Is this message from God?
What is your answer now?
God can choose to send his messages however He pleases.
The Immaculate Heart devotion is for reparation of sin with forgiveness coming through the sacrament of confession incorporated into the devotion (i.e., confession to God with penance). As is the case with Guadalupe, you are jumbling the devotion message of Fatima.
Having said that, since day 1, the apparitions at Guadalupe and Fatima have made clear that the Blessed Mother is lighting the path to Jesus. You seem to intentionally omit that part.
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:DallasBear9902 said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:DallasBear9902 said:
Check the edit.
Your edit makes your post even more ridiculous. You were wrong, so why not just admit it, instead of digging your hole deeper?
And you're still avoiding the question. And it's clear why.
1. What is your explanation for the metaphysical events surrounding Guadalupe?
2. Why does Guadalupe lead to the immediate end of some of the most brutal practices of human (in particular child) sacrifice that have ever happened in the world? She also leads to one of the largest mass evangelization events recorded in history with countless Baptisms in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirt. Those all seem consistent with God's plan. How do you explain that one?
3. Does it not seem odd to you that we deny worshipping what *you* think is deity to us? Catholics freely admit they worship the Trinitarian God of Abraham. If we really thought of Mary as worthy of worship then a denial of worship would be an offense. So which it: are we worshipping or offending by denying we worship?
4. What denomination are you?
1. I do not believe metaphysical events occurred. The story surrounding Guadalupe is very suspect. And even if it did happen, do you not realize that Satan is capable of "signs and wonders"?
2. Does the fact that human sacrifices were ended mean that the message isn't a deception? Satan can present himself as an "angel of light". And water baptisms don't mean people are saved. It's based on what they believe. And what do they believe? Latin America is the worlds HOT SPOT for marian worship and idolatry. Was that God's plan?
3. No, it is not odd at all. Denying that you worship Mary doesn't mean that you're not. You are so deep in deception, that you're even deceiving yourselves.
4. I belong to no denomination. I am simply a Bible-believing Christian.
If you don't believe the metaphysical events occurred, then not much point to discussing this.... You are certainly within your rights there. Everything else is downstream from there, so really no point in discussing the rest.
DallasBear9902 said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:DallasBear9902 said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:DallasBear9902 said:
Check the edit.
Your edit makes your post even more ridiculous. You were wrong, so why not just admit it, instead of digging your hole deeper?
And you're still avoiding the question. And it's clear why.
Your question cannot be answered because the foundation is incorrect. If you would like to correct your facts and resubmit your question, I'll try to tackle it.
My best guess is that you get Guadalupe wrong because Nahuatl was translated to Spanish and you are probably relying on English translations of the derivative translation to try to understand it.
I am fortunate enough to be a native speaker of both English and Spanish having split my childhood (and primary education) almost perfectly in half between the USA and a Latin American country (my dad was partially in the oil infrastructure business which meant years-long projects working with the Latin American state-oil companies and he spoke Spanish which meant he was the right guy to send south). When my family lived full time in Latin America I would spend all major school
holidays and summer breaks with my Anglo extended family in the USA (mostly ArkLaTex area) and when my family was living full time in the USA I would spend all major holidays and summers with extended Latin American family in Latin America precisely because my parents wanted both language skills developed. I can clam with a straight face that I would leave America to summer camp in Spanish and vice versa.
I give you that long-winded color to tell you something gets lost/added in the translation via cultural context of words that is extremely hard to pin down.
So when Guadalupe in Nahuatl translated to Spanish says: " Mucho quiero, mucho deseo que aqu me levanten mi casita sagrada, en donde lo mostrar" and then to English you hear "build a church in my honor", I understand how you are getting there, but I am telling you the Spanish does not say that. I understand how it gets translated to a point where that is what you read into the translation. But the original just doesn't say it.
There is just a lot of cultural and structural context to
The language that gets lost in the translation (and over time). So, when "levanten mi casita sagrada" gets translated to "build my sacred church" (or whatever translation you are using) and you think it means build a church to honor of Our Lady of Guadalupe, I get how you get there. But that isn't what it says (at least in Spanish). I think the better translation to English is to build a church in her name, but that doesn't quite capture it either. Which I guess should really make us wonder about what was said in the original Nahuatl.
To this day, a half dozen times a year or so I'll drop into Spanish-speaking, immigrant dominated parishes (not parishes where there is a Spanish Mass, but parishes where there is no English Mass) to attend services. You can find these Catholic Churches in East and South Dallas. I do this typically on a Sunday night after having attended English service with my family earlier in the day (alas, my wife and kids are gringos). Same exact readings (this is the Catholic Church!) and (typically) a similar homily. I don't know how to explain it, the readings and message across the languages is just … different. And it is driven by the cultural/contextual meanings of the words being used. For example, in the Spanish language, some readings could come off as straight up anti-semantic in a way that doesn't happen with the English translations. . . You can see where I am going with this.
Anyway, that's my stab at your question. I know you'll accusing me of deflecting and avoiding the question, but that's the best I can give you: your factual understanding is just off, and thus the foundation you try to set up is all wrong making it impossible to answer your question under the parameters you want it answered.
So, if I say that the apparitions' message was "build a church in HER name" (YOUR translation) and to "spread world-wide devotion to HER 'Immaculate Heart' for the forgiveness of sins"....
...and ask you: Is this message from God?
What is your answer now?
God can choose to send his messages however He pleases.
The Immaculate Heart devotion is for reparation of sin with forgiveness coming through the sacrament of confession incorporated into the devotion (i.e., confession to God with penance). As is the case with Guadalupe, you are jumbling the devotion message of Fatima.
Having said that, since day 1, the apparitions at Guadalupe and Fatima have made clear that the Blessed Mother is lighting the path to Jesus. You seem to intentionally omit that part.
So your answer is YES, that message is from God?
I am not "jumbling" anything. The Fatima message I referenced is straight from the official Fatima website:
"Our Lady stressed the importance of praying the Rosary in each of Her apparitions, asking the children to pray the Rosary every day for peace. Another principal part of the Message of Fatima is devotion to Our Lady's Immaculate Heart, which is terribly outraged and offended by the sins of humanity, and we are lovingly urged to console Her by making reparation. She showed Her Heart, surrounded by piercing thorns (which represented the sins against Her Immaculate Heart), to the children, who understood that their sacrifices could help to console Her."
....console HER. Devotion to HER. Sins against HER.
Here's more:
".... The children were also told to pray and sacrifice themselves for sinners, in order to save them from hell. The children were briefly shown a vision of hell, after which Our Lady told them: "You have seen hell where the souls of poor sinners go. To save them, God wishes to establish in the world devotion to My Immaculate Heart. If what I say to you is done, many souls will be saved and there will be peace."
.... THEIR sacrifice, not Jesus', and devotion to HER "Immaculate Heart", not to Jesus, for the saving of souls.
"Lighting the path to Jesus", huh?
**Two questions:**
1) A repeat of the original question: you actually believe this message above is from God?
2) How are you this blind and foolish?
**One statement:**
If you truly don't see the problem in these messages and you truly beileve that it's from God, then you are not a true Christian.
DallasBear9902 said:ShooterTX said:DallasBear9902 said:Fre3dombear said:ShooterTX said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Oldbear83 said:DallasBear9902 said:Oldbear83 said:
Comparing your opinion to Jesus' teachings?
Just a tad arrogant, that.
Not making that comparison at all. Only illustrating that a failure to address an accusation is not a confession (using an example we all agree on).
Granted, both sides are acting a bit heated. Not conducive to a healthy conversation climate, that.
The level of projection here is absolutely INSANE.
Folks, not answering the question is what isn't conducive to a "healthy conversation climate".
It's very strange.
Not long ago, one of these Catholics told me that I should study the story of Fatima, because it would prove to me that the worship of Mary was legit.
Then another one talked about Guadalupe as proof that Mary worship was powerful and so on.
Now they want to ignore both stories?? Very strange.
I've studied both stories, and all it proves is that Catholics are engaged in idolatry. There is no way that the same God who said, "You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me," would then send a woman to tell His followers to pray to her, build her a bunch of churches, sing songs of praise to her... no way that Fatima and Guadalupe were sent from heaven. Those messages are in direct opposition to the direct instructions from God through the prophets, Jesus, and the apostles.
As has been stated ad nauseum, theres no worship without sacrifice. Never seen anyone sacrifice anything to Mary
Ive been to many a sunday mega church, Bible church as they call it, etc. never seen a sacrifice at any of those either. Ever.
At stations of the cross tonight we said 14 different individualized prayers directed at Jesus. I suppose we squeezed in a Hail Mary in between an Our Father and Glory Be at the end…. We must have missed the memo on the Mary worship tonight….
Honestly if the brick wall and his little side kick could at least be honest in their criticism and attacks it might be worth engagement. But the intentional misrepresentation says a lot.
Are you familiar with the rosary?
If so, please tell us how many rosary prayers are to God vs how many to Mary.
Also if you don't worship Mary, please explain why there are more Catholic Church named in honor of Mary, than in honor of God.
Also explain why every year millions of Catholics go on pianos pilgrimage to visit one of the sites of her apparition, and offer flowers, songs and prayers to her.
I'm glad you had an experience the other day without worshipping Mary.
I know the conversation has moved past this, but I was jammed up this weekend. So want to give you a good faith response.
*Rosary has been discussed ad nauseum on this thread. If you do not want to pray the rosary, do not do so. There is clearly a difference between a mandated practice and an approved one for private devotion.
*While a name is an indicator, it is not dispositive of what is happening within an institution. None of us are worshipping Judge Baylor even though he is namesake of our beloved university. I don't think the folks at University Baptist Church in Waco are worshipping a university. I don't think the folks at Antioch are worshipping a city or the era the city represents. Same thing for folks at Watermark and City Church and countless others. So, clearly, the name of a church does not establish what is being worshipped within that church. The Catholic faith is a highly ritualistic faith. Weekly Mass is the most important thing in the Church (and even within the Mass celebration of the Eucharist is the source and summit of the faith). And this is followed by the Sacraments. Mass structure is 50+10 model. 50 minutes that are highly ritualized and scripted with about 10 minutes of homily.
There are up to three times the Blessed Mother is mentioned in the Mass Script:
The Confiteor (not always used):Quote:
I confess to almighty God
and to you, my brothers and sisters,
that I have greatly sinned,
in my thoughts and in my words,
in what I have done and in what I have failed to do,
through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault;
therefore I ask blessed Mary ever-Virgin,
all the Angels and Saints,
and you, my brothers and sisters,
to pray for me to the Lord our God.
The Nicene Creed (excerpted):Quote:
For us men and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,
and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary,
and became man.
The Eucharistic Prayer (excerpted-- there are four different versions, I think this is the version you could find most offensive):Quote:
In communion with those whose memory we venerate, especially the glorious ever-Virgin Mary, Mother of our God and Lord, Jesus Christ, and blessed Joseph, her Spouse, your blessed Apostles and Martyrs, Peter and Paul, Andrew,....
And occasionally the Blessed Mother will be mentioned in hymns.
That's it. You can search the script of the Mass, you won't find anything else. So please, where are you seeing worship in there?
I don't have the scripts for the various sacraments memorized, but I was at a confirmation Mass this past Saturday morning and she was not mentioned as part of the sacrament.
People go on pilgrimages to places where they believe miraculous signs sent forth by God (in whatever form He has chosen) have occurred. I presume that you believe the metaphysical miraculous works stopped with the apostles. Others disagree. Those pilgrimages are not required. People find spiritual meaning in these places. I find spiritual growth pours forth for all of my family on these pilgrimages. This year I am taking my family to Croagh Patrick and various other holy sites nearby. Next year I plan on taking my family on pilgrimage to Patmos. My wife has asked me to take each of my sons individually to do El Camino before they graduate from high school and I'll probably do that. Point being, we do lots of pilgrimages to places where various saints lived their lives or made a difference in the Christian faith.
I appreciate your response. Thanks.
The naming of the church alone is not an act of worship, I agree with you on that topic. However when you enter one of those buildings, you almost always see a statue of Mary at the front or even at the altar of the building. You will also see many Catholics bowing to the image of Mary. You will also hear them asking her for blessings, divine grace, miracles, healing, or even thanking her for the forgiveness of sins.
I have lived among Catholics in South Texas for my whole life. I attended many weddings, funerals, and other events. I have never attended one of those events without there being prayers to Mary, asking her for blessings, forgiveness, salvation, etc.
I am glad that you don't seem to participate in these various forms of idolatry. Good for you.
I do believe that God continues to perform miracles, even today. In fact, I have witnessed healings while I was on mission trips in my life. Most of these occurred in different parts of Asia. I do not see the point in going to the site of a miracle. In talking with many Catholics who do these pilgrimages, they have expressed that they will receive extra measures of divine Grace and/or blessings if they go to these places, and especially if they pray certain prayers to Mary or a specific saint at these sites. I had one friend who spent a lot of his savings to travel to Vatican City during the Jubilee last year. He spent days doing specific prayers and giving money in certain places and in front of specific relics, to try and earn enough grace to help get his family members out of purgatory. It was a very sad story.
I hope you don't buy into the false teaching that such pilgrimages will earn forgiveness or grace, as so many believe.