Maybe you could read and consider my post instead of just throwing out a canned and petty shot?
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Imagine willfully not trying tohonor Mary as much as our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ
176,342 Views |
2661 Replies |
Last: 33 min ago by BusyTarpDuster2017
Oldbear83 said:
Maybe you could read and consider my post instead of just throwing out a canned and petty shot?
***Sigh***
I'm happy to Move on to a next topic once we finish this first one. It is relevant to what youre trying to spin. But since you have no magisterium, I have no clue which sect of protesrantism you adhere to and as such am not sure your beliefs in who the woman in revelation possibly could be.
You could even say "i dont know"
That would be progress. Without it, nothing more to say wirh you on this one.
Wes Huff on why he is not Catholic
Evangelicals despise the Virgin Mary. This visceral hatred and contempt for the Blessed Mother of the Lord does not come from God but from satan. Have nothing to do with these demons. pic.twitter.com/GxhzGqU0ZL
— David Smuts (@DavidSmuts) May 28, 2026
F3: " ***Sigh***"
I hear you on that one. I am tired of this bickering and spite from you, and it's obvious you see something of the sort from me. For my part I apologize, and hope you will do the same, so we can at least clear the air on that point as brothers in Christ.
F3: "I'm happy to Move on to a next topic once we finish this first one."
I don't quite understand your meaning there. The topic at hand is the thread topic, whether Christians should regard Mary as equal to Christ in honor and worth. On that topic, a great deal has been said but it seems accidentally misunderstood if not ignored.
F3: "It is relevant to what youre trying to spin."
That statement shows a disappointing spite. I am not trying to "spin" anymore than you are. Such deliberate disrespect for another person's honest opinion poisons the well for improving understanding.
F3: "But since you have no magisterium, I have no clue which sect of protesrantism you adhere to and as such am not sure your beliefs in who the woman in revelation possibly could be."
OK, three responses there. First, the problem of your 'magisterium' is based on the hubris of imagining that a panel of humans are qualified to rule on God's will. The Sanhedrin was like that, you know, as was your Inquisition, and many other groups which likely started off with good intention but fell into proud error.
As for 'sect of protestantism' that smacks of spite again. In my experience, pretty much everyone who becomes a Christian has the intention of finding a relationship with Christ. Most people you will see at any Christian church goes there to praise God and find fellowship with a congregation of believers. While there are sadly a number of false churches and some leaders have taken congregations away from the Gospel, this is not the norm for the mainstream denominations, even if they differ on minutia from other denominations*.
To refer to Protestants as "sects" is to pretend they are not Christian, which is just as wrong as someone claiming a Roman Catholic is not Christian. That spite is an enemy of the Holy Spirit.
Now as to the book of Revelation, you miss several important elements:
[] No one in that book but Jesus and Angels are referred to by name. The symbolism of the book is obvious, which makes direct comparisons inappropriate.
[] With regard to Mary's role in God's plan (the focus of this thread), the primary source of confidence is Christ Himself. If Mary were someone to pray to, someone to treat as a co-intermediary, and such, we would find Christ commanding us to do so, but the Gospels are silent on that.
[] The book of Revelation makes clear that it is an account of Christ's final victory over Satan. Everyone mentioned in that book, therefore, is either a servant of one or the other.
The book of Revelation, therefore, has no value in the discussion of the thread title's claims.
F3: "You could even say "i dont know"
You could, but do not. Instead, you have become haughty and rude. Again, there is a spirit in your words, but not the Holy Spirit. This is a danger for all Christians, that in our pride we allow ourselves to be misled into hateful behavior in the wrong belief that we have the status to talk down to brothers and sisters we consider to be wrong.
F3: "That would be progress. Without it, nothing more to say wirh you on this one."
That snide statement implies you are the authority and in charge. Neither is true. It works in these forums when members treat each other as equals and with valid opinions.
* It seems a problem for Roman Catholics and Orthodox, that so many Christians choose to belong to congregations with a culture they find right for their personal beliefs, I agree that we must abandon self when we choose Christ, but there is danger of pride in any group of imagining that the beliefs you like are true even when they run counter to Christ's example and teaching. Roman Catholics and Orthodox have such false believers in their numbers just as all groups do. There is no denomination which can claim to have no errors, and whose members are all pleasing to God.
I fear Satan is hard at work trying to keep different denominations fighting each other and getting furious over non-essential things when we should be focused on common ground and cooperating to help those who have not yet found Christ.
Any Christian of good faith may trust that the Holy Spirit will lead us to better understanding. Attacks and anger are not tools to that end, and should be cast off by believers.
I hear you on that one. I am tired of this bickering and spite from you, and it's obvious you see something of the sort from me. For my part I apologize, and hope you will do the same, so we can at least clear the air on that point as brothers in Christ.
F3: "I'm happy to Move on to a next topic once we finish this first one."
I don't quite understand your meaning there. The topic at hand is the thread topic, whether Christians should regard Mary as equal to Christ in honor and worth. On that topic, a great deal has been said but it seems accidentally misunderstood if not ignored.
F3: "It is relevant to what youre trying to spin."
That statement shows a disappointing spite. I am not trying to "spin" anymore than you are. Such deliberate disrespect for another person's honest opinion poisons the well for improving understanding.
F3: "But since you have no magisterium, I have no clue which sect of protesrantism you adhere to and as such am not sure your beliefs in who the woman in revelation possibly could be."
OK, three responses there. First, the problem of your 'magisterium' is based on the hubris of imagining that a panel of humans are qualified to rule on God's will. The Sanhedrin was like that, you know, as was your Inquisition, and many other groups which likely started off with good intention but fell into proud error.
As for 'sect of protestantism' that smacks of spite again. In my experience, pretty much everyone who becomes a Christian has the intention of finding a relationship with Christ. Most people you will see at any Christian church goes there to praise God and find fellowship with a congregation of believers. While there are sadly a number of false churches and some leaders have taken congregations away from the Gospel, this is not the norm for the mainstream denominations, even if they differ on minutia from other denominations*.
To refer to Protestants as "sects" is to pretend they are not Christian, which is just as wrong as someone claiming a Roman Catholic is not Christian. That spite is an enemy of the Holy Spirit.
Now as to the book of Revelation, you miss several important elements:
[] No one in that book but Jesus and Angels are referred to by name. The symbolism of the book is obvious, which makes direct comparisons inappropriate.
[] With regard to Mary's role in God's plan (the focus of this thread), the primary source of confidence is Christ Himself. If Mary were someone to pray to, someone to treat as a co-intermediary, and such, we would find Christ commanding us to do so, but the Gospels are silent on that.
[] The book of Revelation makes clear that it is an account of Christ's final victory over Satan. Everyone mentioned in that book, therefore, is either a servant of one or the other.
The book of Revelation, therefore, has no value in the discussion of the thread title's claims.
F3: "You could even say "i dont know"
You could, but do not. Instead, you have become haughty and rude. Again, there is a spirit in your words, but not the Holy Spirit. This is a danger for all Christians, that in our pride we allow ourselves to be misled into hateful behavior in the wrong belief that we have the status to talk down to brothers and sisters we consider to be wrong.
F3: "That would be progress. Without it, nothing more to say wirh you on this one."
That snide statement implies you are the authority and in charge. Neither is true. It works in these forums when members treat each other as equals and with valid opinions.
* It seems a problem for Roman Catholics and Orthodox, that so many Christians choose to belong to congregations with a culture they find right for their personal beliefs, I agree that we must abandon self when we choose Christ, but there is danger of pride in any group of imagining that the beliefs you like are true even when they run counter to Christ's example and teaching. Roman Catholics and Orthodox have such false believers in their numbers just as all groups do. There is no denomination which can claim to have no errors, and whose members are all pleasing to God.
I fear Satan is hard at work trying to keep different denominations fighting each other and getting furious over non-essential things when we should be focused on common ground and cooperating to help those who have not yet found Christ.
Any Christian of good faith may trust that the Holy Spirit will lead us to better understanding. Attacks and anger are not tools to that end, and should be cast off by believers.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Sam Lowry said:Oldbear83 said:Fre3dombear said:Oldbear83 said:
No, let's stay focused on Jesus' words in the Gospels.
When did He ever say to pray to Mary?
Nah. Your switching topics.
Nope, staying ON topic.
First, Jesus is a primary source on Mary. The plain fact that Christ never commanded believers to pray to Mary or referred to her as a co-anything is pretty strong evidence that Marianism is wrong to any degree.
Now as to the Revelation account, you may note that Mary is not named. This is symbolism, not in any way a citation of Mary having Divine authority.
I understand this practice is very much something you wish to do and defend. So the moral character of it is something between you and the Lord. But the notion that it's acceptable, let alone proper, to promote this behavior to believers who see it as sin, is plainly wrong on its face.
It might compare praying to Mary like drinking alcohol. That is, if there is nothing wrong in doing so, it would still be wrong to push someone to such an act of they had reason to consider it wrong.
It's truly disappointing that you do not understand this.
No one believes that Mary has divine authority. Coke Bear is only trying to correct such misunderstandings.
Thanks for speaking truth about what did NOT happen at the wedding feast in Cana.
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Coke Bear said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
And again - the Roman Catholic Church has canonized and made Doctors of the church many church fathers who didn't agree with their teaching. So I have no idea why you think that wouldn't be possible for Augustine. For heaven's sake - your church made a Doctor of the Church someone who wrote a whole book on the pure idolatry and heresy of Mary, which said things like "Mary is the salvation of the universe, in her hands I rest my salvation".
It's not my fault that you still won't accept that St Alphonsus wrote his book using 18th century poetic, Italian language that sounds strange to a protestant American in the 21st century. But when one keeps looking for the Catholic boogie-man, they are bound to find him.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
^^^ Again - rational, honest, and regenerate believers with the Holy Spirit know what I'm talking about. The saddest thing is how the unregenerate who are brainwashed actually think that saying such things are okay.
Catholics aren't the brainwashed ones. We have followed the same faith for nearly 2000 years. It is some protestants that have been so poisoned by the evil one that continue to fight against what the Church truly believes. Sadly, it's many protestants that keep posting falsehoods about the Catholic Church that are the brainwashed ones.
Fortunately, the internet is reveling the Truth to protestants, LDS'ers, Muslims, and Atheists. They see that they have been falsely led astray by those that may or may not know the truth. Those that have had their eyes opened are coming back to the Church the Jesus founded the Catholic Church.
Maybe one day, the scales will fall from your eyes.
Evidently, Roman Catholics think that a husband sending love letters to another woman can get away with the "it's just poetic language, honey" excuse.
"Same faith for 2000 years" - LOL. In one ear, out the other.
It's all so, so incredible how blind people like you are. It is absolutely bewildering.
Your analogy with respect to St Alphonsus is incorrect. The Catholic Church does understand, given the meaning and purpose of his book, how "Mary is the salvation of the universe, in her hands I rest my salvation."
There is nothing in his book that denies a core tenant of the Catholic faith.
You will still need to explain how the Church can label Augustine a doctor and saint if he denied something a central as the Real Presence and affirmed sola scriptura.
PS. Please state what doctrine is in contrast with its current beliefs.
Oldbear83 said:
" We have followed the same faith for nearly 2000 years"
Meaning what?
Judaism has been around thousands of years longer than Christianity, and the Jewish leaders in Jesus' day still failed to recognize the Messiah.
Older never meant 'more true'.
Tell you what, let's look objectively at worship in the early church and see whether Catholics (& Orthodox) or protestants more closely resemble what happens today.
We can study church hierarchy, beliefs, worship structure, etc.
I'll wager a $1000 to yours that the Catholic Church is much closer than your church today.
This makes no logical sense. NO ONE was in heaven when Jesus was alive. Why would he instruct (at that point) anyone to ask for intercession?Oldbear83 said:
Nope, staying ON topic.
First, Jesus is a primary source on Mary. The plain fact that Christ never commanded believers to pray to Mary or referred to her as a co-anything is pretty strong evidence that Marianism is wrong to any degree.
Scripture is clear that we should pray for and ask for prayers.
James affirms this as well as Paul in his letters to Timothy, Ephesians, and Colossians .
Neither was Jesus.Oldbear83 said:
Now as to the Revelation account, you may note that Mary is not named. This is symbolism, not in any way a citation of Mary having Divine authority.
I would agree that encouraging someone to sin is wrong; however, if an individual has a misunderstanding as to an act is sinful or not, it would be wise to educate them as such. For instance, Jews and Muslims believe that eating pork is a sin. We Christians understand that it isn't. It would be a good practice to educate our fellow Abrahamic brothers that Jesus declared ALL foods clean.Oldbear83 said:
I understand this practice is very much something you wish to do and defend. So the moral character of it is something between you and the Lord. But the notion that it's acceptable, let alone proper, to promote this behavior to believers who see it as sin, is plainly wrong on its face.
It might compare praying to Mary like drinking alcohol. That is, if there is nothing wrong in doing so, it would still be wrong to push someone to such an act of they had reason to consider it wrong.
Similarly, explaining to a misinformed protestant the nature of intercessory prayer is a good practice.
Sam Lowry said:Oldbear83 said:Fre3dombear said:Oldbear83 said:
No, let's stay focused on Jesus' words in the Gospels.
When did He ever say to pray to Mary?
Nah. Your switching topics.
Nope, staying ON topic.
First, Jesus is a primary source on Mary. The plain fact that Christ never commanded believers to pray to Mary or referred to her as a co-anything is pretty strong evidence that Marianism is wrong to any degree.
Now as to the Revelation account, you may note that Mary is not named. This is symbolism, not in any way a citation of Mary having Divine authority.
I understand this practice is very much something you wish to do and defend. So the moral character of it is something between you and the Lord. But the notion that it's acceptable, let alone proper, to promote this behavior to believers who see it as sin, is plainly wrong on its face.
It might compare praying to Mary like drinking alcohol. That is, if there is nothing wrong in doing so, it would still be wrong to push someone to such an act of they had reason to consider it wrong.
It's truly disappointing that you do not understand this.
No one believes that Mary has divine authority. Coke Bear is only trying to correct such misunderstandings.
The Roman Catholic Church promotes the belief that Mary has divine authoritty. I've literally shown you example after example. You guys have completely shut your minds to any clear, objective evidence that goes against what you're told to believe. It's quite astonishing to behold.
Coke Bear said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Coke Bear said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
And again - the Roman Catholic Church has canonized and made Doctors of the church many church fathers who didn't agree with their teaching. So I have no idea why you think that wouldn't be possible for Augustine. For heaven's sake - your church made a Doctor of the Church someone who wrote a whole book on the pure idolatry and heresy of Mary, which said things like "Mary is the salvation of the universe, in her hands I rest my salvation".
It's not my fault that you still won't accept that St Alphonsus wrote his book using 18th century poetic, Italian language that sounds strange to a protestant American in the 21st century. But when one keeps looking for the Catholic boogie-man, they are bound to find him.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
^^^ Again - rational, honest, and regenerate believers with the Holy Spirit know what I'm talking about. The saddest thing is how the unregenerate who are brainwashed actually think that saying such things are okay.
Catholics aren't the brainwashed ones. We have followed the same faith for nearly 2000 years. It is some protestants that have been so poisoned by the evil one that continue to fight against what the Church truly believes. Sadly, it's many protestants that keep posting falsehoods about the Catholic Church that are the brainwashed ones.
Fortunately, the internet is reveling the Truth to protestants, LDS'ers, Muslims, and Atheists. They see that they have been falsely led astray by those that may or may not know the truth. Those that have had their eyes opened are coming back to the Church the Jesus founded the Catholic Church.
Maybe one day, the scales will fall from your eyes.
Evidently, Roman Catholics think that a husband sending love letters to another woman can get away with the "it's just poetic language, honey" excuse.
"Same faith for 2000 years" - LOL. In one ear, out the other.
It's all so, so incredible how blind people like you are. It is absolutely bewildering.
Your analogy with respect to St Alphonsus is incorrect. The Catholic Church does understand, given the meaning and purpose of his book, how "Mary is the salvation of the universe, in her hands I rest my salvation."
There is nothing in his book that denies a core tenant of the Catholic faith.
You will still need to explain how the Church can label Augustine a doctor and saint if he denied something a central as the Real Presence and affirmed sola scriptura.
PS. Please state what doctrine is in contrast with its current beliefs.
Do you really think you're honest enough to have this discussion? I've literally been showing example after example of the early church fathers, even sainted and Doctored ones, who did not believe what the RCC dogmatized. Augustine was just another CLEAR example that your brainwashed mind had to reject in order to maintain your tribe's beliefs. At this point, there could be an actual 900 pound gorilla in the room, and if the RCC tells you it's not there, that's what you'll believe. It really is quite astonishing, but sad.
No you have not. You presented a book written (before our country was founded) in another language in a completely different culture, which you have taken out of completely out of context.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
The Roman Catholic Church promotes the belief that Mary has divine authoritty. I've literally shown you example after example. You guys have completely shut your minds to any clear, objective evidence that goes against what you're told to believe. It's quite astonishing to behold.
St. Alphonsus consistently reiterates throughout his writings that while Mary is to be highly venerated due to her unique role in salvation history, worship is reserved for God alone.
Please cite ONE paragraph from the Catechism of the Catechism Church (link included to help you search) that states that Mary has "divine authority."
As a side note, please define "divine authority."
Again, you have not. You have taken them out of context.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Coke Bear said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Coke Bear said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
And again - the Roman Catholic Church has canonized and made Doctors of the church many church fathers who didn't agree with their teaching. So I have no idea why you think that wouldn't be possible for Augustine. For heaven's sake - your church made a Doctor of the Church someone who wrote a whole book on the pure idolatry and heresy of Mary, which said things like "Mary is the salvation of the universe, in her hands I rest my salvation".
It's not my fault that you still won't accept that St Alphonsus wrote his book using 18th century poetic, Italian language that sounds strange to a protestant American in the 21st century. But when one keeps looking for the Catholic boogie-man, they are bound to find him.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
^^^ Again - rational, honest, and regenerate believers with the Holy Spirit know what I'm talking about. The saddest thing is how the unregenerate who are brainwashed actually think that saying such things are okay.
Catholics aren't the brainwashed ones. We have followed the same faith for nearly 2000 years. It is some protestants that have been so poisoned by the evil one that continue to fight against what the Church truly believes. Sadly, it's many protestants that keep posting falsehoods about the Catholic Church that are the brainwashed ones.
Fortunately, the internet is reveling the Truth to protestants, LDS'ers, Muslims, and Atheists. They see that they have been falsely led astray by those that may or may not know the truth. Those that have had their eyes opened are coming back to the Church the Jesus founded the Catholic Church.
Maybe one day, the scales will fall from your eyes.
Evidently, Roman Catholics think that a husband sending love letters to another woman can get away with the "it's just poetic language, honey" excuse.
"Same faith for 2000 years" - LOL. In one ear, out the other.
It's all so, so incredible how blind people like you are. It is absolutely bewildering.
Your analogy with respect to St Alphonsus is incorrect. The Catholic Church does understand, given the meaning and purpose of his book, how "Mary is the salvation of the universe, in her hands I rest my salvation."
There is nothing in his book that denies a core tenant of the Catholic faith.
You will still need to explain how the Church can label Augustine a doctor and saint if he denied something a central as the Real Presence and affirmed sola scriptura.
PS. Please state what doctrine is in contrast with its current beliefs.
Do you really think you're honest enough to have this discussion? I've literally been showing example after example of the early church fathers, even sainted and Doctored ones, who did not believe what the RCC dogmatized. Augustine was just another CLEAR example that your brainwashed mind had to reject in order to maintain your tribe's beliefs. At this point, there could be an actual 900 pound gorilla in the room, and if the RCC tells you it's not there, that's what you'll believe. It really is quite astonishing, but sad.
You still haven't explained Church can label Augustine a doctor and saint if he denied something a central as the Real Presence and affirmed sola scriptura.
Coke Bear said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Coke Bear said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
And again - the Roman Catholic Church has canonized and made Doctors of the church many church fathers who didn't agree with their teaching. So I have no idea why you think that wouldn't be possible for Augustine. For heaven's sake - your church made a Doctor of the Church someone who wrote a whole book on the pure idolatry and heresy of Mary, which said things like "Mary is the salvation of the universe, in her hands I rest my salvation".
It's not my fault that you still won't accept that St Alphonsus wrote his book using 18th century poetic, Italian language that sounds strange to a protestant American in the 21st century. But when one keeps looking for the Catholic boogie-man, they are bound to find him.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
^^^ Again - rational, honest, and regenerate believers with the Holy Spirit know what I'm talking about. The saddest thing is how the unregenerate who are brainwashed actually think that saying such things are okay.
Catholics aren't the brainwashed ones. We have followed the same faith for nearly 2000 years. It is some protestants that have been so poisoned by the evil one that continue to fight against what the Church truly believes. Sadly, it's many protestants that keep posting falsehoods about the Catholic Church that are the brainwashed ones.
Fortunately, the internet is reveling the Truth to protestants, LDS'ers, Muslims, and Atheists. They see that they have been falsely led astray by those that may or may not know the truth. Those that have had their eyes opened are coming back to the Church the Jesus founded the Catholic Church.
Maybe one day, the scales will fall from your eyes.
Evidently, Roman Catholics think that a husband sending love letters to another woman can get away with the "it's just poetic language, honey" excuse.
"Same faith for 2000 years" - LOL. In one ear, out the other.
It's all so, so incredible how blind people like you are. It is absolutely bewildering.
Your analogy with respect to St Alphonsus is incorrect. The Catholic Church does understand, given the meaning and purpose of his book, how "Mary is the salvation of the universe, in her hands I rest my salvation."
There is nothing in his book that denies a core tenant of the Catholic faith.
You will still need to explain how the Church can label Augustine a doctor and saint if he denied something a central as the Real Presence and affirmed sola scriptura.
PS. Please state what doctrine is in contrast with its current beliefs.
My favorite part of this is that by 155 AD, Justin Martyr is defending the church against charges of cannibalism AND espousing the real and literal presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. 250 years later, Augustine is a Bishop and disagrees on this teaching but isn't forceful about it?
If Augustine didn't believe in the real presence then he would have known he wasn't in communion with the Church, but then we are supposed to believe he was mildly subversive to it rather than forceful in his opposition? It just doesn't track and the assertions are just against all rational understandings of who Augustine was. He literally argued that people withdrew themselves from being in communion with the church for not singing psalms during the Eucharist, but then he didn't go on a crusade to correct this supposed error. Just doesn't make any rational sense for any clear thinking observer.
I'm not sure why these guys are so committed to this.
Coke Bear said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
The Roman Catholic Church promotes the belief that Mary has divine authoritty. I've literally shown you example after example. You guys have completely shut your minds to any clear, objective evidence that goes against what you're told to believe. It's quite astonishing to behold.
No you have not. You presented a book written (before our country was founded) in another language in a completely different culture, which you have taken out of completely out of context.
St. Alphonsus consistently reiterates throughout his writings that while Mary is to be highly venerated due to her unique role in salvation history, worship is reserved for God alone.
Please cite ONE paragraph from the Catechism of the Catechism Church (link included to help you search) that states that Mary has "divine authority."
As a side note, please define "divine authority."
It doesn't have to come from the Catechisms in order for the Roman Catholic Church to be teaching it. You are so dishonest. As well as in denial of what Ligouri's book is all about.
A rational, honest person can read that book, hear statements made by popes and bishops, read the messages of apparitions that are fully condoned by the RCC, and conclude that yes, the RCC teaches the divine authority of Mary. I've given example after example of all this. You simply aren't honest enough and too brainwashed to see it.
Coke Bear said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Coke Bear said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Coke Bear said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
And again - the Roman Catholic Church has canonized and made Doctors of the church many church fathers who didn't agree with their teaching. So I have no idea why you think that wouldn't be possible for Augustine. For heaven's sake - your church made a Doctor of the Church someone who wrote a whole book on the pure idolatry and heresy of Mary, which said things like "Mary is the salvation of the universe, in her hands I rest my salvation".
It's not my fault that you still won't accept that St Alphonsus wrote his book using 18th century poetic, Italian language that sounds strange to a protestant American in the 21st century. But when one keeps looking for the Catholic boogie-man, they are bound to find him.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
^^^ Again - rational, honest, and regenerate believers with the Holy Spirit know what I'm talking about. The saddest thing is how the unregenerate who are brainwashed actually think that saying such things are okay.
Catholics aren't the brainwashed ones. We have followed the same faith for nearly 2000 years. It is some protestants that have been so poisoned by the evil one that continue to fight against what the Church truly believes. Sadly, it's many protestants that keep posting falsehoods about the Catholic Church that are the brainwashed ones.
Fortunately, the internet is reveling the Truth to protestants, LDS'ers, Muslims, and Atheists. They see that they have been falsely led astray by those that may or may not know the truth. Those that have had their eyes opened are coming back to the Church the Jesus founded the Catholic Church.
Maybe one day, the scales will fall from your eyes.
Evidently, Roman Catholics think that a husband sending love letters to another woman can get away with the "it's just poetic language, honey" excuse.
"Same faith for 2000 years" - LOL. In one ear, out the other.
It's all so, so incredible how blind people like you are. It is absolutely bewildering.
Your analogy with respect to St Alphonsus is incorrect. The Catholic Church does understand, given the meaning and purpose of his book, how "Mary is the salvation of the universe, in her hands I rest my salvation."
There is nothing in his book that denies a core tenant of the Catholic faith.
You will still need to explain how the Church can label Augustine a doctor and saint if he denied something a central as the Real Presence and affirmed sola scriptura.
PS. Please state what doctrine is in contrast with its current beliefs.
Do you really think you're honest enough to have this discussion? I've literally been showing example after example of the early church fathers, even sainted and Doctored ones, who did not believe what the RCC dogmatized. Augustine was just another CLEAR example that your brainwashed mind had to reject in order to maintain your tribe's beliefs. At this point, there could be an actual 900 pound gorilla in the room, and if the RCC tells you it's not there, that's what you'll believe. It really is quite astonishing, but sad.
Again, you have not. You have taken them out of context.
You still haven't explained Church can label Augustine a doctor and saint if he denied something a central as the Real Presence and affirmed sola scriptura.
Rational, intelligent, and honest people know the context. I gave it, fully. And they know that I'm right.
And I've been explaining over and over that your church has sainted and doctored other church fathers that don't agree with your church's teachings, even the dogmatic ones. You're just too dishonest to admit it. I'll even give an example here, so we can demonstrate this: Athanasius did not believe in the dogmatized canon of Scripture of the Roman Catholic Church.
^^^ Folks, now watch the denial and dishonesty.
Coke Bear said:Oldbear83 said:
" We have followed the same faith for nearly 2000 years"
Meaning what?
Judaism has been around thousands of years longer than Christianity, and the Jewish leaders in Jesus' day still failed to recognize the Messiah.
Older never meant 'more true'.
Tell you what, let's look objectively at worship in the early church and see whether Catholics (& Orthodox) or protestants more closely resemble what happens today.
We can study church hierarchy, beliefs, worship structure, etc.
I'll wager a $1000 to yours that the Catholic Church is much closer than your church today.
Tell you what: Faith is not a betting topic.
And as for looking, focus on what Christ said and did, and told us to do.
I can promise that no one here can pretend to match up with any of the early church Christians.
Also, so much of this petty arguing on this board is just on the level of 'Jesus likes me more', which is to say useless posturing.
Finally, I wish you and the other rhetoricians would keep in mind that Jesus chose common people for His inner circle, not the highly educated or privileged.
Consider why.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
DallasBear9902 said:Coke Bear said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Coke Bear said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
And again - the Roman Catholic Church has canonized and made Doctors of the church many church fathers who didn't agree with their teaching. So I have no idea why you think that wouldn't be possible for Augustine. For heaven's sake - your church made a Doctor of the Church someone who wrote a whole book on the pure idolatry and heresy of Mary, which said things like "Mary is the salvation of the universe, in her hands I rest my salvation".
It's not my fault that you still won't accept that St Alphonsus wrote his book using 18th century poetic, Italian language that sounds strange to a protestant American in the 21st century. But when one keeps looking for the Catholic boogie-man, they are bound to find him.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
^^^ Again - rational, honest, and regenerate believers with the Holy Spirit know what I'm talking about. The saddest thing is how the unregenerate who are brainwashed actually think that saying such things are okay.
Catholics aren't the brainwashed ones. We have followed the same faith for nearly 2000 years. It is some protestants that have been so poisoned by the evil one that continue to fight against what the Church truly believes. Sadly, it's many protestants that keep posting falsehoods about the Catholic Church that are the brainwashed ones.
Fortunately, the internet is reveling the Truth to protestants, LDS'ers, Muslims, and Atheists. They see that they have been falsely led astray by those that may or may not know the truth. Those that have had their eyes opened are coming back to the Church the Jesus founded the Catholic Church.
Maybe one day, the scales will fall from your eyes.
Evidently, Roman Catholics think that a husband sending love letters to another woman can get away with the "it's just poetic language, honey" excuse.
"Same faith for 2000 years" - LOL. In one ear, out the other.
It's all so, so incredible how blind people like you are. It is absolutely bewildering.
Your analogy with respect to St Alphonsus is incorrect. The Catholic Church does understand, given the meaning and purpose of his book, how "Mary is the salvation of the universe, in her hands I rest my salvation."
There is nothing in his book that denies a core tenant of the Catholic faith.
You will still need to explain how the Church can label Augustine a doctor and saint if he denied something a central as the Real Presence and affirmed sola scriptura.
PS. Please state what doctrine is in contrast with its current beliefs.
My favorite part of this is that by 155 AD, Justin Martyr is defending the church against charges of cannibalism AND espousing the real and literal presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. 250 years later, Augustine is a Bishop and disagrees on this teaching but isn't forceful about it?
If Augustine didn't believe in the real presence then he would have known he wasn't in communion with the Church, but then we are supposed to believe he was mildly subversive to it rather than forceful in his opposition? It just doesn't track and the assertions are just against all rational understandings of who Augustine was. He literally argued that people withdrew themselves from being in communion with the church for not singing psalms during the Eucharist, but then he didn't go on a crusade to correct this supposed error. Just doesn't make any rational sense for any clear thinking observer.
I'm not sure why these guys are so committed to this.
Augustine had no reason to be forceful about a topic like the Real Presence, about which there was a diversity of views during his time. The literal vs. figurative nature of the Real Presence continued to be debated all the way into the 11th century. It's helpful to know actual church history, not the version of history that your church wants you to believe.
Now, you do remember, that I got you and CokeBear to specifically declare the following (on record):
"The Roman Catholic view of the Real Presence is this: the Eucharist bread and wine are the actual flesh of Jesus that people were seeing, and the actual blood that Jesus was going to shed on the cross."
Augustine: "You WILL NOT eat this flesh that you see, and you WILL NOT drink the blood that will be shed on the cross."
Augustine directly contradicts what you state is the RC view of the Real Presence. Therefore, Augustine did not believe in the RC view of the Real Presence. This is just simple, straightforward logic. I just don't see how you guys can't understand that this logically and definitively proves my position. You guys are just so dishonest and incapable of objectivity at this point. The degree to which is astonishing to behold.
In fairness, you've also given "examples" of the fact that Church Doctors don't teach Church doctrine and that sola scriptura was practiced before Scripture was canonized. So I think some skepticism is warranted here.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Coke Bear said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
The Roman Catholic Church promotes the belief that Mary has divine authoritty. I've literally shown you example after example. You guys have completely shut your minds to any clear, objective evidence that goes against what you're told to believe. It's quite astonishing to behold.
No you have not. You presented a book written (before our country was founded) in another language in a completely different culture, which you have taken out of completely out of context.
St. Alphonsus consistently reiterates throughout his writings that while Mary is to be highly venerated due to her unique role in salvation history, worship is reserved for God alone.
Please cite ONE paragraph from the Catechism of the Catechism Church (link included to help you search) that states that Mary has "divine authority."
As a side note, please define "divine authority."
It doesn't have to come from the Catechisms in order for the Roman Catholic Church to be teaching it. You are so dishonest. As well as in denial of what Ligouri's book is all about.
A rational, honest person can read that book, hear statements made by popes and bishops, read the messages of apparitions that are fully condoned by the RCC, and conclude that yes, the RCC teaches the divine authority of Mary. I've given example after example of all this. You simply aren't honest enough and too brainwashed to see it.
Because there was no dogmatized canon for him to believe in. It was still legitimately debated until the Church ruled on it.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Coke Bear said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Coke Bear said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Coke Bear said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
And again - the Roman Catholic Church has canonized and made Doctors of the church many church fathers who didn't agree with their teaching. So I have no idea why you think that wouldn't be possible for Augustine. For heaven's sake - your church made a Doctor of the Church someone who wrote a whole book on the pure idolatry and heresy of Mary, which said things like "Mary is the salvation of the universe, in her hands I rest my salvation".
It's not my fault that you still won't accept that St Alphonsus wrote his book using 18th century poetic, Italian language that sounds strange to a protestant American in the 21st century. But when one keeps looking for the Catholic boogie-man, they are bound to find him.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
^^^ Again - rational, honest, and regenerate believers with the Holy Spirit know what I'm talking about. The saddest thing is how the unregenerate who are brainwashed actually think that saying such things are okay.
Catholics aren't the brainwashed ones. We have followed the same faith for nearly 2000 years. It is some protestants that have been so poisoned by the evil one that continue to fight against what the Church truly believes. Sadly, it's many protestants that keep posting falsehoods about the Catholic Church that are the brainwashed ones.
Fortunately, the internet is reveling the Truth to protestants, LDS'ers, Muslims, and Atheists. They see that they have been falsely led astray by those that may or may not know the truth. Those that have had their eyes opened are coming back to the Church the Jesus founded the Catholic Church.
Maybe one day, the scales will fall from your eyes.
Evidently, Roman Catholics think that a husband sending love letters to another woman can get away with the "it's just poetic language, honey" excuse.
"Same faith for 2000 years" - LOL. In one ear, out the other.
It's all so, so incredible how blind people like you are. It is absolutely bewildering.
Your analogy with respect to St Alphonsus is incorrect. The Catholic Church does understand, given the meaning and purpose of his book, how "Mary is the salvation of the universe, in her hands I rest my salvation."
There is nothing in his book that denies a core tenant of the Catholic faith.
You will still need to explain how the Church can label Augustine a doctor and saint if he denied something a central as the Real Presence and affirmed sola scriptura.
PS. Please state what doctrine is in contrast with its current beliefs.
Do you really think you're honest enough to have this discussion? I've literally been showing example after example of the early church fathers, even sainted and Doctored ones, who did not believe what the RCC dogmatized. Augustine was just another CLEAR example that your brainwashed mind had to reject in order to maintain your tribe's beliefs. At this point, there could be an actual 900 pound gorilla in the room, and if the RCC tells you it's not there, that's what you'll believe. It really is quite astonishing, but sad.
Again, you have not. You have taken them out of context.
You still haven't explained Church can label Augustine a doctor and saint if he denied something a central as the Real Presence and affirmed sola scriptura.
Rational, intelligent, and honest people know the context. I gave it, fully. And they know that I'm right.
And I've been explaining over and over that your church has sainted and doctored other church fathers that don't agree with your church's teachings, even the dogmatic ones. You're just too dishonest to admit it. I'll even give an example here, so we can demonstrate this: Athanasius did not believe in the dogmatized canon of Scripture of the Roman Catholic Church.
^^^ Folks, now watch the denial and dishonesty.
Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Coke Bear said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
The Roman Catholic Church promotes the belief that Mary has divine authoritty. I've literally shown you example after example. You guys have completely shut your minds to any clear, objective evidence that goes against what you're told to believe. It's quite astonishing to behold.
No you have not. You presented a book written (before our country was founded) in another language in a completely different culture, which you have taken out of completely out of context.
St. Alphonsus consistently reiterates throughout his writings that while Mary is to be highly venerated due to her unique role in salvation history, worship is reserved for God alone.
Please cite ONE paragraph from the Catechism of the Catechism Church (link included to help you search) that states that Mary has "divine authority."
As a side note, please define "divine authority."
It doesn't have to come from the Catechisms in order for the Roman Catholic Church to be teaching it. You are so dishonest. As well as in denial of what Ligouri's book is all about.
A rational, honest person can read that book, hear statements made by popes and bishops, read the messages of apparitions that are fully condoned by the RCC, and conclude that yes, the RCC teaches the divine authority of Mary. I've given example after example of all this. You simply aren't honest enough and too brainwashed to see it.
In fairness, you've also given "examples" of the fact that Church Doctors don't teach Church doctrine and that sola scriptura was practiced before Scripture was canonized. So I think some skepticism is warranted here.
The plain fact is that the Church Doctors didn't, and Christians were never without God-breathed Scripture. Scripture didn't need to be "canonized" in order to be Scripture.
Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Coke Bear said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Coke Bear said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Coke Bear said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
And again - the Roman Catholic Church has canonized and made Doctors of the church many church fathers who didn't agree with their teaching. So I have no idea why you think that wouldn't be possible for Augustine. For heaven's sake - your church made a Doctor of the Church someone who wrote a whole book on the pure idolatry and heresy of Mary, which said things like "Mary is the salvation of the universe, in her hands I rest my salvation".
It's not my fault that you still won't accept that St Alphonsus wrote his book using 18th century poetic, Italian language that sounds strange to a protestant American in the 21st century. But when one keeps looking for the Catholic boogie-man, they are bound to find him.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
^^^ Again - rational, honest, and regenerate believers with the Holy Spirit know what I'm talking about. The saddest thing is how the unregenerate who are brainwashed actually think that saying such things are okay.
Catholics aren't the brainwashed ones. We have followed the same faith for nearly 2000 years. It is some protestants that have been so poisoned by the evil one that continue to fight against what the Church truly believes. Sadly, it's many protestants that keep posting falsehoods about the Catholic Church that are the brainwashed ones.
Fortunately, the internet is reveling the Truth to protestants, LDS'ers, Muslims, and Atheists. They see that they have been falsely led astray by those that may or may not know the truth. Those that have had their eyes opened are coming back to the Church the Jesus founded the Catholic Church.
Maybe one day, the scales will fall from your eyes.
Evidently, Roman Catholics think that a husband sending love letters to another woman can get away with the "it's just poetic language, honey" excuse.
"Same faith for 2000 years" - LOL. In one ear, out the other.
It's all so, so incredible how blind people like you are. It is absolutely bewildering.
Your analogy with respect to St Alphonsus is incorrect. The Catholic Church does understand, given the meaning and purpose of his book, how "Mary is the salvation of the universe, in her hands I rest my salvation."
There is nothing in his book that denies a core tenant of the Catholic faith.
You will still need to explain how the Church can label Augustine a doctor and saint if he denied something a central as the Real Presence and affirmed sola scriptura.
PS. Please state what doctrine is in contrast with its current beliefs.
Do you really think you're honest enough to have this discussion? I've literally been showing example after example of the early church fathers, even sainted and Doctored ones, who did not believe what the RCC dogmatized. Augustine was just another CLEAR example that your brainwashed mind had to reject in order to maintain your tribe's beliefs. At this point, there could be an actual 900 pound gorilla in the room, and if the RCC tells you it's not there, that's what you'll believe. It really is quite astonishing, but sad.
Again, you have not. You have taken them out of context.
You still haven't explained Church can label Augustine a doctor and saint if he denied something a central as the Real Presence and affirmed sola scriptura.
Rational, intelligent, and honest people know the context. I gave it, fully. And they know that I'm right.
And I've been explaining over and over that your church has sainted and doctored other church fathers that don't agree with your church's teachings, even the dogmatic ones. You're just too dishonest to admit it. I'll even give an example here, so we can demonstrate this: Athanasius did not believe in the dogmatized canon of Scripture of the Roman Catholic Church.
^^^ Folks, now watch the denial and dishonesty.
Because there was no dogmatized canon for him to believe in. It was still legitimately debated until the Church ruled on it.
Cop out point. The fact remains that Athanasius' did not agree with the canon that was later dogmatized by the same church that made him a saint and a Doctor of the Church, long after his views on the canon was known.
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Coke Bear said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Coke Bear said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Coke Bear said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
And again - the Roman Catholic Church has canonized and made Doctors of the church many church fathers who didn't agree with their teaching. So I have no idea why you think that wouldn't be possible for Augustine. For heaven's sake - your church made a Doctor of the Church someone who wrote a whole book on the pure idolatry and heresy of Mary, which said things like "Mary is the salvation of the universe, in her hands I rest my salvation".
It's not my fault that you still won't accept that St Alphonsus wrote his book using 18th century poetic, Italian language that sounds strange to a protestant American in the 21st century. But when one keeps looking for the Catholic boogie-man, they are bound to find him.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
^^^ Again - rational, honest, and regenerate believers with the Holy Spirit know what I'm talking about. The saddest thing is how the unregenerate who are brainwashed actually think that saying such things are okay.
Catholics aren't the brainwashed ones. We have followed the same faith for nearly 2000 years. It is some protestants that have been so poisoned by the evil one that continue to fight against what the Church truly believes. Sadly, it's many protestants that keep posting falsehoods about the Catholic Church that are the brainwashed ones.
Fortunately, the internet is reveling the Truth to protestants, LDS'ers, Muslims, and Atheists. They see that they have been falsely led astray by those that may or may not know the truth. Those that have had their eyes opened are coming back to the Church the Jesus founded the Catholic Church.
Maybe one day, the scales will fall from your eyes.
Evidently, Roman Catholics think that a husband sending love letters to another woman can get away with the "it's just poetic language, honey" excuse.
"Same faith for 2000 years" - LOL. In one ear, out the other.
It's all so, so incredible how blind people like you are. It is absolutely bewildering.
Your analogy with respect to St Alphonsus is incorrect. The Catholic Church does understand, given the meaning and purpose of his book, how "Mary is the salvation of the universe, in her hands I rest my salvation."
There is nothing in his book that denies a core tenant of the Catholic faith.
You will still need to explain how the Church can label Augustine a doctor and saint if he denied something a central as the Real Presence and affirmed sola scriptura.
PS. Please state what doctrine is in contrast with its current beliefs.
Do you really think you're honest enough to have this discussion? I've literally been showing example after example of the early church fathers, even sainted and Doctored ones, who did not believe what the RCC dogmatized. Augustine was just another CLEAR example that your brainwashed mind had to reject in order to maintain your tribe's beliefs. At this point, there could be an actual 900 pound gorilla in the room, and if the RCC tells you it's not there, that's what you'll believe. It really is quite astonishing, but sad.
Again, you have not. You have taken them out of context.
You still haven't explained Church can label Augustine a doctor and saint if he denied something a central as the Real Presence and affirmed sola scriptura.
Rational, intelligent, and honest people know the context. I gave it, fully. And they know that I'm right.
And I've been explaining over and over that your church has sainted and doctored other church fathers that don't agree with your church's teachings, even the dogmatic ones. You're just too dishonest to admit it. I'll even give an example here, so we can demonstrate this: Athanasius did not believe in the dogmatized canon of Scripture of the Roman Catholic Church.
^^^ Folks, now watch the denial and dishonesty.
Because there was no dogmatized canon for him to believe in. It was still legitimately debated until the Church ruled on it.
Cop out point. The fact remains that Athanasius' did not agree with the canon that was later dogmatized by the same church that made him a saint and a Doctor of the Church, long after his views on the canon was known.
So what?
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Coke Bear said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
The Roman Catholic Church promotes the belief that Mary has divine authoritty. I've literally shown you example after example. You guys have completely shut your minds to any clear, objective evidence that goes against what you're told to believe. It's quite astonishing to behold.
No you have not. You presented a book written (before our country was founded) in another language in a completely different culture, which you have taken out of completely out of context.
St. Alphonsus consistently reiterates throughout his writings that while Mary is to be highly venerated due to her unique role in salvation history, worship is reserved for God alone.
Please cite ONE paragraph from the Catechism of the Catechism Church (link included to help you search) that states that Mary has "divine authority."
As a side note, please define "divine authority."
It doesn't have to come from the Catechisms in order for the Roman Catholic Church to be teaching it. You are so dishonest. As well as in denial of what Ligouri's book is all about.
A rational, honest person can read that book, hear statements made by popes and bishops, read the messages of apparitions that are fully condoned by the RCC, and conclude that yes, the RCC teaches the divine authority of Mary. I've given example after example of all this. You simply aren't honest enough and too brainwashed to see it.
In fairness, you've also given "examples" of the fact that Church Doctors don't teach Church doctrine and that sola scriptura was practiced before Scripture was canonized. So I think some skepticism is warranted here.
The plain fact is that the Church Doctors didn't, and Christians were never without God-breathed Scripture. Scripture didn't need to be "canonized" in order to be Scripture.
Augustine and Athanasius would partially disagree. Scripture could only be fully recognized and proclaimed once it was canonized.
This may sound odd, but you know what I would recommend reading if you haven't? John Henry Newman. Hear me out. His Essay is the definitive work on the development of Christian doctrine. Of course you won't agree with all of it, but it would clarify the issues if you were to read it with an open mind.
Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Coke Bear said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
The Roman Catholic Church promotes the belief that Mary has divine authoritty. I've literally shown you example after example. You guys have completely shut your minds to any clear, objective evidence that goes against what you're told to believe. It's quite astonishing to behold.
No you have not. You presented a book written (before our country was founded) in another language in a completely different culture, which you have taken out of completely out of context.
St. Alphonsus consistently reiterates throughout his writings that while Mary is to be highly venerated due to her unique role in salvation history, worship is reserved for God alone.
Please cite ONE paragraph from the Catechism of the Catechism Church (link included to help you search) that states that Mary has "divine authority."
As a side note, please define "divine authority."
It doesn't have to come from the Catechisms in order for the Roman Catholic Church to be teaching it. You are so dishonest. As well as in denial of what Ligouri's book is all about.
A rational, honest person can read that book, hear statements made by popes and bishops, read the messages of apparitions that are fully condoned by the RCC, and conclude that yes, the RCC teaches the divine authority of Mary. I've given example after example of all this. You simply aren't honest enough and too brainwashed to see it.
In fairness, you've also given "examples" of the fact that Church Doctors don't teach Church doctrine and that sola scriptura was practiced before Scripture was canonized. So I think some skepticism is warranted here.
The plain fact is that the Church Doctors didn't, and Christians were never without God-breathed Scripture. Scripture didn't need to be "canonized" in order to be Scripture.
Augustine and Athanasius would partially disagree. Scripture could only be fully recognized and proclaimed once it was canonized.
This may sound odd, but you know what I would recommend reading if you haven't? John Henry Newman. Hear me out. His Essay is the definitive work on the development of Christian doctrine. Of course you won't agree with all of it, but it would clarify the issues if you were to read it with an open mind.
I really think you need to stop speaking for the church fathers. You don't really know what they would have believed, especially in light of your slanted viewpoint towards whatever the Church tells you to think. So there's reason for skepticism there.
For Christians, Scripture was the Old Testament before there were the writings of the apostles. While the apostles were living and before their testimony was written down, their oral teaching had the authority of Jesus behind it as if it were Scripture. Augustine and Athanasius could not have disagreed that by the end of the 1st century, the majority of the New Testament was already recognized by the body of Christ as Scripture. For Athanasius, the early church did have the full Old Testament - and he did not consider the deuterocanonical books as canon Scripture. Yet he was canonized as a saint and made a Doctor of the Church. So why would it be so hard to believe the same could happen with Augustine?
Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Coke Bear said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Coke Bear said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Coke Bear said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
And again - the Roman Catholic Church has canonized and made Doctors of the church many church fathers who didn't agree with their teaching. So I have no idea why you think that wouldn't be possible for Augustine. For heaven's sake - your church made a Doctor of the Church someone who wrote a whole book on the pure idolatry and heresy of Mary, which said things like "Mary is the salvation of the universe, in her hands I rest my salvation".
It's not my fault that you still won't accept that St Alphonsus wrote his book using 18th century poetic, Italian language that sounds strange to a protestant American in the 21st century. But when one keeps looking for the Catholic boogie-man, they are bound to find him.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
^^^ Again - rational, honest, and regenerate believers with the Holy Spirit know what I'm talking about. The saddest thing is how the unregenerate who are brainwashed actually think that saying such things are okay.
Catholics aren't the brainwashed ones. We have followed the same faith for nearly 2000 years. It is some protestants that have been so poisoned by the evil one that continue to fight against what the Church truly believes. Sadly, it's many protestants that keep posting falsehoods about the Catholic Church that are the brainwashed ones.
Fortunately, the internet is reveling the Truth to protestants, LDS'ers, Muslims, and Atheists. They see that they have been falsely led astray by those that may or may not know the truth. Those that have had their eyes opened are coming back to the Church the Jesus founded the Catholic Church.
Maybe one day, the scales will fall from your eyes.
Evidently, Roman Catholics think that a husband sending love letters to another woman can get away with the "it's just poetic language, honey" excuse.
"Same faith for 2000 years" - LOL. In one ear, out the other.
It's all so, so incredible how blind people like you are. It is absolutely bewildering.
Your analogy with respect to St Alphonsus is incorrect. The Catholic Church does understand, given the meaning and purpose of his book, how "Mary is the salvation of the universe, in her hands I rest my salvation."
There is nothing in his book that denies a core tenant of the Catholic faith.
You will still need to explain how the Church can label Augustine a doctor and saint if he denied something a central as the Real Presence and affirmed sola scriptura.
PS. Please state what doctrine is in contrast with its current beliefs.
Do you really think you're honest enough to have this discussion? I've literally been showing example after example of the early church fathers, even sainted and Doctored ones, who did not believe what the RCC dogmatized. Augustine was just another CLEAR example that your brainwashed mind had to reject in order to maintain your tribe's beliefs. At this point, there could be an actual 900 pound gorilla in the room, and if the RCC tells you it's not there, that's what you'll believe. It really is quite astonishing, but sad.
Again, you have not. You have taken them out of context.
You still haven't explained Church can label Augustine a doctor and saint if he denied something a central as the Real Presence and affirmed sola scriptura.
Rational, intelligent, and honest people know the context. I gave it, fully. And they know that I'm right.
And I've been explaining over and over that your church has sainted and doctored other church fathers that don't agree with your church's teachings, even the dogmatic ones. You're just too dishonest to admit it. I'll even give an example here, so we can demonstrate this: Athanasius did not believe in the dogmatized canon of Scripture of the Roman Catholic Church.
^^^ Folks, now watch the denial and dishonesty.
Because there was no dogmatized canon for him to believe in. It was still legitimately debated until the Church ruled on it.
Cop out point. The fact remains that Athanasius' did not agree with the canon that was later dogmatized by the same church that made him a saint and a Doctor of the Church, long after his views on the canon was known.
So what?
So what? Copping out of the point is a big deal, if you want to be taken seriously.
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Coke Bear said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
The Roman Catholic Church promotes the belief that Mary has divine authoritty. I've literally shown you example after example. You guys have completely shut your minds to any clear, objective evidence that goes against what you're told to believe. It's quite astonishing to behold.
No you have not. You presented a book written (before our country was founded) in another language in a completely different culture, which you have taken out of completely out of context.
St. Alphonsus consistently reiterates throughout his writings that while Mary is to be highly venerated due to her unique role in salvation history, worship is reserved for God alone.
Please cite ONE paragraph from the Catechism of the Catechism Church (link included to help you search) that states that Mary has "divine authority."
As a side note, please define "divine authority."
It doesn't have to come from the Catechisms in order for the Roman Catholic Church to be teaching it. You are so dishonest. As well as in denial of what Ligouri's book is all about.
A rational, honest person can read that book, hear statements made by popes and bishops, read the messages of apparitions that are fully condoned by the RCC, and conclude that yes, the RCC teaches the divine authority of Mary. I've given example after example of all this. You simply aren't honest enough and too brainwashed to see it.
In fairness, you've also given "examples" of the fact that Church Doctors don't teach Church doctrine and that sola scriptura was practiced before Scripture was canonized. So I think some skepticism is warranted here.
The plain fact is that the Church Doctors didn't, and Christians were never without God-breathed Scripture. Scripture didn't need to be "canonized" in order to be Scripture.
Augustine and Athanasius would partially disagree. Scripture could only be fully recognized and proclaimed once it was canonized.
This may sound odd, but you know what I would recommend reading if you haven't? John Henry Newman. Hear me out. His Essay is the definitive work on the development of Christian doctrine. Of course you won't agree with all of it, but it would clarify the issues if you were to read it with an open mind.
I really think you need to stop speaking for the church fathers. You don't really know what they would have believed, especially in light of your slanted viewpoint towards whatever the Church tells you to think. So there's reason for skepticism there.
For Christians, Scripture was the Old Testament before there were the writings of the apostles. While the apostles were living and before their testimony was written down, their oral teaching had the authority of Jesus behind it as if it were Scripture. Augustine and Athanasius could not have disagreed that by the end of the 1st century, the majority of the New Testament was already recognized by the body of Christ as Scripture. For Athanasius, the early church did have the full Old Testament - and he did not consider the deuterocanonical books as canon Scripture. Yet he was canonized as a saint and made a Doctor of the Church. So why would it be so hard to believe the same could happen with Augustine?
Because there was no significant debate, if any, until centuries after Augustine's time. He would have been expressing an obviously heterodox view if your interpretation were correct.
Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Coke Bear said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
The Roman Catholic Church promotes the belief that Mary has divine authoritty. I've literally shown you example after example. You guys have completely shut your minds to any clear, objective evidence that goes against what you're told to believe. It's quite astonishing to behold.
No you have not. You presented a book written (before our country was founded) in another language in a completely different culture, which you have taken out of completely out of context.
St. Alphonsus consistently reiterates throughout his writings that while Mary is to be highly venerated due to her unique role in salvation history, worship is reserved for God alone.
Please cite ONE paragraph from the Catechism of the Catechism Church (link included to help you search) that states that Mary has "divine authority."
As a side note, please define "divine authority."
It doesn't have to come from the Catechisms in order for the Roman Catholic Church to be teaching it. You are so dishonest. As well as in denial of what Ligouri's book is all about.
A rational, honest person can read that book, hear statements made by popes and bishops, read the messages of apparitions that are fully condoned by the RCC, and conclude that yes, the RCC teaches the divine authority of Mary. I've given example after example of all this. You simply aren't honest enough and too brainwashed to see it.
In fairness, you've also given "examples" of the fact that Church Doctors don't teach Church doctrine and that sola scriptura was practiced before Scripture was canonized. So I think some skepticism is warranted here.
The plain fact is that the Church Doctors didn't, and Christians were never without God-breathed Scripture. Scripture didn't need to be "canonized" in order to be Scripture.
Augustine and Athanasius would partially disagree. Scripture could only be fully recognized and proclaimed once it was canonized.
This may sound odd, but you know what I would recommend reading if you haven't? John Henry Newman. Hear me out. His Essay is the definitive work on the development of Christian doctrine. Of course you won't agree with all of it, but it would clarify the issues if you were to read it with an open mind.
I really think you need to stop speaking for the church fathers. You don't really know what they would have believed, especially in light of your slanted viewpoint towards whatever the Church tells you to think. So there's reason for skepticism there.
For Christians, Scripture was the Old Testament before there were the writings of the apostles. While the apostles were living and before their testimony was written down, their oral teaching had the authority of Jesus behind it as if it were Scripture. Augustine and Athanasius could not have disagreed that by the end of the 1st century, the majority of the New Testament was already recognized by the body of Christ as Scripture. For Athanasius, the early church did have the full Old Testament - and he did not consider the deuterocanonical books as canon Scripture. Yet he was canonized as a saint and made a Doctor of the Church. So why would it be so hard to believe the same could happen with Augustine?
Because there was no significant debate, if any, until centuries after Augustine's time. He would have been expressing an obviously heterodox view if your interpretation were correct.
"obviously heterodox view" - an assertion without any basis in historical fact whatsoever.
Regardless, the point remains that if Athanasius was canonized and Doctored, there's no reason that Augustine's views, heterodox or not, would have prevented him from the same, as CokeBear claimed. Besides, as we've clearly witnessed, RC's only accept their church's version of history anyway, so who's gonna know if any of them actually held contrary views? Anyone arguing this is just "taking them out of context", right?
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Coke Bear said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
The Roman Catholic Church promotes the belief that Mary has divine authoritty. I've literally shown you example after example. You guys have completely shut your minds to any clear, objective evidence that goes against what you're told to believe. It's quite astonishing to behold.
No you have not. You presented a book written (before our country was founded) in another language in a completely different culture, which you have taken out of completely out of context.
St. Alphonsus consistently reiterates throughout his writings that while Mary is to be highly venerated due to her unique role in salvation history, worship is reserved for God alone.
Please cite ONE paragraph from the Catechism of the Catechism Church (link included to help you search) that states that Mary has "divine authority."
As a side note, please define "divine authority."
It doesn't have to come from the Catechisms in order for the Roman Catholic Church to be teaching it. You are so dishonest. As well as in denial of what Ligouri's book is all about.
A rational, honest person can read that book, hear statements made by popes and bishops, read the messages of apparitions that are fully condoned by the RCC, and conclude that yes, the RCC teaches the divine authority of Mary. I've given example after example of all this. You simply aren't honest enough and too brainwashed to see it.
In fairness, you've also given "examples" of the fact that Church Doctors don't teach Church doctrine and that sola scriptura was practiced before Scripture was canonized. So I think some skepticism is warranted here.
The plain fact is that the Church Doctors didn't, and Christians were never without God-breathed Scripture. Scripture didn't need to be "canonized" in order to be Scripture.
Augustine and Athanasius would partially disagree. Scripture could only be fully recognized and proclaimed once it was canonized.
This may sound odd, but you know what I would recommend reading if you haven't? John Henry Newman. Hear me out. His Essay is the definitive work on the development of Christian doctrine. Of course you won't agree with all of it, but it would clarify the issues if you were to read it with an open mind.
I really think you need to stop speaking for the church fathers. You don't really know what they would have believed, especially in light of your slanted viewpoint towards whatever the Church tells you to think. So there's reason for skepticism there.
For Christians, Scripture was the Old Testament before there were the writings of the apostles. While the apostles were living and before their testimony was written down, their oral teaching had the authority of Jesus behind it as if it were Scripture. Augustine and Athanasius could not have disagreed that by the end of the 1st century, the majority of the New Testament was already recognized by the body of Christ as Scripture. For Athanasius, the early church did have the full Old Testament - and he did not consider the deuterocanonical books as canon Scripture. Yet he was canonized as a saint and made a Doctor of the Church. So why would it be so hard to believe the same could happen with Augustine?
Because there was no significant debate, if any, until centuries after Augustine's time. He would have been expressing an obviously heterodox view if your interpretation were correct.
"obviously heterodox view" - an assertion without any basis in historical fact whatsoever.
Regardless, the point remains that if Athanasius was canonized and Doctored, there's no reason that Augustine's views, heterodox or not, would have prevented him from the same, as CokeBear claimed. Besides, as we've clearly witnessed, RC's only accept their church's version of history anyway, so who's gonna know if any of them actually held contrary views? Anyone arguing this is just "taking them out of context", right?
Early Christians weren't taught to believe in the Incarnation, the Resurrection, and the Book of James. The scriptural canon was established later, through painstaking factual investigation as much as anything else. Unlike the Real Presence, it was not an article of faith handed down from the very origins of the Church.
Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Coke Bear said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
The Roman Catholic Church promotes the belief that Mary has divine authoritty. I've literally shown you example after example. You guys have completely shut your minds to any clear, objective evidence that goes against what you're told to believe. It's quite astonishing to behold.
No you have not. You presented a book written (before our country was founded) in another language in a completely different culture, which you have taken out of completely out of context.
St. Alphonsus consistently reiterates throughout his writings that while Mary is to be highly venerated due to her unique role in salvation history, worship is reserved for God alone.
Please cite ONE paragraph from the Catechism of the Catechism Church (link included to help you search) that states that Mary has "divine authority."
As a side note, please define "divine authority."
It doesn't have to come from the Catechisms in order for the Roman Catholic Church to be teaching it. You are so dishonest. As well as in denial of what Ligouri's book is all about.
A rational, honest person can read that book, hear statements made by popes and bishops, read the messages of apparitions that are fully condoned by the RCC, and conclude that yes, the RCC teaches the divine authority of Mary. I've given example after example of all this. You simply aren't honest enough and too brainwashed to see it.
In fairness, you've also given "examples" of the fact that Church Doctors don't teach Church doctrine and that sola scriptura was practiced before Scripture was canonized. So I think some skepticism is warranted here.
The plain fact is that the Church Doctors didn't, and Christians were never without God-breathed Scripture. Scripture didn't need to be "canonized" in order to be Scripture.
Augustine and Athanasius would partially disagree. Scripture could only be fully recognized and proclaimed once it was canonized.
This may sound odd, but you know what I would recommend reading if you haven't? John Henry Newman. Hear me out. His Essay is the definitive work on the development of Christian doctrine. Of course you won't agree with all of it, but it would clarify the issues if you were to read it with an open mind.
I really think you need to stop speaking for the church fathers. You don't really know what they would have believed, especially in light of your slanted viewpoint towards whatever the Church tells you to think. So there's reason for skepticism there.
For Christians, Scripture was the Old Testament before there were the writings of the apostles. While the apostles were living and before their testimony was written down, their oral teaching had the authority of Jesus behind it as if it were Scripture. Augustine and Athanasius could not have disagreed that by the end of the 1st century, the majority of the New Testament was already recognized by the body of Christ as Scripture. For Athanasius, the early church did have the full Old Testament - and he did not consider the deuterocanonical books as canon Scripture. Yet he was canonized as a saint and made a Doctor of the Church. So why would it be so hard to believe the same could happen with Augustine?
Because there was no significant debate, if any, until centuries after Augustine's time. He would have been expressing an obviously heterodox view if your interpretation were correct.
"obviously heterodox view" - an assertion without any basis in historical fact whatsoever.
Regardless, the point remains that if Athanasius was canonized and Doctored, there's no reason that Augustine's views, heterodox or not, would have prevented him from the same, as CokeBear claimed. Besides, as we've clearly witnessed, RC's only accept their church's version of history anyway, so who's gonna know if any of them actually held contrary views? Anyone arguing this is just "taking them out of context", right?
Early Christians weren't taught to believe in the Incarnation, the Resurrection, and the Book of James. The scriptural canon was established later, through painstaking factual investigation as much as anything else. Unlike the Real Presence, it was not an article of faith handed down from the very origins of the Church.
Early Christians weren't taught to believe in the Resurrection, the central tenet of Christianity?
Now we're really skeptical of your take.
Given Mary was full of sin in protestant Christian beliefs, do you agree it is a greater than 0% chance Mary is in hell?
Crazy how I Pointed this out here and other much much larger boards and on YouTube etc months ago and now it's showing up in lots of places.
So for you, a YouTube video is compelling evidence overriding the absence of Scripture on a point.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
They were taught the essential tenets but not given a pre-packaged canon.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Coke Bear said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
The Roman Catholic Church promotes the belief that Mary has divine authoritty. I've literally shown you example after example. You guys have completely shut your minds to any clear, objective evidence that goes against what you're told to believe. It's quite astonishing to behold.
No you have not. You presented a book written (before our country was founded) in another language in a completely different culture, which you have taken out of completely out of context.
St. Alphonsus consistently reiterates throughout his writings that while Mary is to be highly venerated due to her unique role in salvation history, worship is reserved for God alone.
Please cite ONE paragraph from the Catechism of the Catechism Church (link included to help you search) that states that Mary has "divine authority."
As a side note, please define "divine authority."
It doesn't have to come from the Catechisms in order for the Roman Catholic Church to be teaching it. You are so dishonest. As well as in denial of what Ligouri's book is all about.
A rational, honest person can read that book, hear statements made by popes and bishops, read the messages of apparitions that are fully condoned by the RCC, and conclude that yes, the RCC teaches the divine authority of Mary. I've given example after example of all this. You simply aren't honest enough and too brainwashed to see it.
In fairness, you've also given "examples" of the fact that Church Doctors don't teach Church doctrine and that sola scriptura was practiced before Scripture was canonized. So I think some skepticism is warranted here.
The plain fact is that the Church Doctors didn't, and Christians were never without God-breathed Scripture. Scripture didn't need to be "canonized" in order to be Scripture.
Augustine and Athanasius would partially disagree. Scripture could only be fully recognized and proclaimed once it was canonized.
This may sound odd, but you know what I would recommend reading if you haven't? John Henry Newman. Hear me out. His Essay is the definitive work on the development of Christian doctrine. Of course you won't agree with all of it, but it would clarify the issues if you were to read it with an open mind.
I really think you need to stop speaking for the church fathers. You don't really know what they would have believed, especially in light of your slanted viewpoint towards whatever the Church tells you to think. So there's reason for skepticism there.
For Christians, Scripture was the Old Testament before there were the writings of the apostles. While the apostles were living and before their testimony was written down, their oral teaching had the authority of Jesus behind it as if it were Scripture. Augustine and Athanasius could not have disagreed that by the end of the 1st century, the majority of the New Testament was already recognized by the body of Christ as Scripture. For Athanasius, the early church did have the full Old Testament - and he did not consider the deuterocanonical books as canon Scripture. Yet he was canonized as a saint and made a Doctor of the Church. So why would it be so hard to believe the same could happen with Augustine?
Because there was no significant debate, if any, until centuries after Augustine's time. He would have been expressing an obviously heterodox view if your interpretation were correct.
"obviously heterodox view" - an assertion without any basis in historical fact whatsoever.
Regardless, the point remains that if Athanasius was canonized and Doctored, there's no reason that Augustine's views, heterodox or not, would have prevented him from the same, as CokeBear claimed. Besides, as we've clearly witnessed, RC's only accept their church's version of history anyway, so who's gonna know if any of them actually held contrary views? Anyone arguing this is just "taking them out of context", right?
Early Christians weren't taught to believe in the Incarnation, the Resurrection, and the Book of James. The scriptural canon was established later, through painstaking factual investigation as much as anything else. Unlike the Real Presence, it was not an article of faith handed down from the very origins of the Church.
Early Christians weren't taught to believe in the Resurrection, the central tenet of Christianity?
Now we're really skeptical of your take.
Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Coke Bear said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
The Roman Catholic Church promotes the belief that Mary has divine authoritty. I've literally shown you example after example. You guys have completely shut your minds to any clear, objective evidence that goes against what you're told to believe. It's quite astonishing to behold.
No you have not. You presented a book written (before our country was founded) in another language in a completely different culture, which you have taken out of completely out of context.
St. Alphonsus consistently reiterates throughout his writings that while Mary is to be highly venerated due to her unique role in salvation history, worship is reserved for God alone.
Please cite ONE paragraph from the Catechism of the Catechism Church (link included to help you search) that states that Mary has "divine authority."
As a side note, please define "divine authority."
It doesn't have to come from the Catechisms in order for the Roman Catholic Church to be teaching it. You are so dishonest. As well as in denial of what Ligouri's book is all about.
A rational, honest person can read that book, hear statements made by popes and bishops, read the messages of apparitions that are fully condoned by the RCC, and conclude that yes, the RCC teaches the divine authority of Mary. I've given example after example of all this. You simply aren't honest enough and too brainwashed to see it.
In fairness, you've also given "examples" of the fact that Church Doctors don't teach Church doctrine and that sola scriptura was practiced before Scripture was canonized. So I think some skepticism is warranted here.
The plain fact is that the Church Doctors didn't, and Christians were never without God-breathed Scripture. Scripture didn't need to be "canonized" in order to be Scripture.
Augustine and Athanasius would partially disagree. Scripture could only be fully recognized and proclaimed once it was canonized.
This may sound odd, but you know what I would recommend reading if you haven't? John Henry Newman. Hear me out. His Essay is the definitive work on the development of Christian doctrine. Of course you won't agree with all of it, but it would clarify the issues if you were to read it with an open mind.
I really think you need to stop speaking for the church fathers. You don't really know what they would have believed, especially in light of your slanted viewpoint towards whatever the Church tells you to think. So there's reason for skepticism there.
For Christians, Scripture was the Old Testament before there were the writings of the apostles. While the apostles were living and before their testimony was written down, their oral teaching had the authority of Jesus behind it as if it were Scripture. Augustine and Athanasius could not have disagreed that by the end of the 1st century, the majority of the New Testament was already recognized by the body of Christ as Scripture. For Athanasius, the early church did have the full Old Testament - and he did not consider the deuterocanonical books as canon Scripture. Yet he was canonized as a saint and made a Doctor of the Church. So why would it be so hard to believe the same could happen with Augustine?
Because there was no significant debate, if any, until centuries after Augustine's time. He would have been expressing an obviously heterodox view if your interpretation were correct.
"obviously heterodox view" - an assertion without any basis in historical fact whatsoever.
Regardless, the point remains that if Athanasius was canonized and Doctored, there's no reason that Augustine's views, heterodox or not, would have prevented him from the same, as CokeBear claimed. Besides, as we've clearly witnessed, RC's only accept their church's version of history anyway, so who's gonna know if any of them actually held contrary views? Anyone arguing this is just "taking them out of context", right?
Early Christians weren't taught to believe in the Incarnation, the Resurrection, and the Book of James. The scriptural canon was established later, through painstaking factual investigation as much as anything else. Unlike the Real Presence, it was not an article of faith handed down from the very origins of the Church.
Early Christians weren't taught to believe in the Resurrection, the central tenet of Christianity?
Now we're really skeptical of your take.
They were taught the essential tenets but not given a pre-packaged canon.
With regard to the Old Testament, they were. And according to Athanasius, the deuterocanonical books did not belong, a belief that the RCC later anathematized a person to Hell for - and then soon after he was declared a Doctor of the Church.