Questions For A Catholic

aspen · Dec 7, 2010

TexUs

I don't think I'd really have an issue (and I definitely couldn't form an argument against it, at least not off my mind) if that's all your doing.
Look at the catholic.org link I posted. Catholics are doing FAR more than, "Mary, please pray for me".

Well, if you think about it - we are part of the same body as Mary and all the saints that have ever lived and will ever live. Our own earthly bodies are full of electrical currents coursing through our nervous systems - in essence, our brain is talking and receiving feedback from all parts of our bodies all the time. So if our foot needs attention it communicate with our brain it sends a signal through the nerves to the brain. If your foot is on fire, you have a reflect system that kicks in immediately to remove the foot from the source of fire. Although this analogy is not perfect, it is a good way to describe how we can communicate with the Head - Christ, in partnership with part or all the Body or immediately and directly. Some people have a special relationship with their hair or face - some have a special relationship with Mary. The point is - you guys are thinking that we are equating Mary with God, when we do not see her as "other" at all - she is part of humanity - part of us.

Do you personally not do this and you disagree with the RCC on this area or do you have some defense for it?

I came from a Protestant Church - I do not have a special relationship with Mary, but I do see her as the first Christian and as a fully justified and sanctified being. I pray with her and other saints to Christ - sometimes I pray directly to Him. Often times, my prayers are silent because I like to listen. I also love the never ending prayer in Revelation - "Holy, Holy, Holy is the Lord God Almighty, who was, who is. and is to come!!" - I find myself praying it when I am in line or traffic or elsewhere - it focuses me on being kind to others. So to answer your question - I do not think there is anything wrong with loving certain saints or Mary - it takes nothing away from love for Christ - in fact, Christ tells us that loving others is ultimately loving Him through obedience.

And you are to honor YOURS... The commandment is not "honor Mary".

In the same way as the woman who bore you is called your mother and not the mother of your body only, Mary is the mother of the whole person of Jesus Christ, who is God (cf. Colossians 2:9). The Church proclaimed this truth in the Council of Ephesus in 431 A.D.:

Therefore, because the holy virgin bore in the flesh God who was united hypostatically with the flesh, for that reason we call her mother of God, not as though the nature of the Word had the beginning of its existence from the flesh (for "the Word was in the beginning and the Word was God and the Word was with God", and he made the ages and is coeternal with the Father and craftsman of all things), but because, as we have said, he united to himself hypostatically the human and underwent a birth according to the flesh from her womb.

--Third letter of Cyril to Nestorius

Similarly, the body of believers, the Church, are Christ's body (cf. 1 Corinthians 12:27-31; Ephesians 4:1-6, 15-16; Colossians 1:18; etc.) and since Mary is the mother of Christ, she is also the mother of all us believers. And, as if these facts would not be enough, Jesus himself gave us Mary as our mother as he hung dying on the cross (cf. John 19).

Here is the problem with honoring only your own mother - hopefully, she is also part of the Body of Christ - we are called to love everyone in the Body - the community is key. It is hard to communicate just how community oriented Catholicism is compared to our American culture of individualism.

And they DID that. Paul says it was brought to every creature under heaven and to all the world.
So why the Papacy? Seems that Paul would dub it a useless function.

Actually, the Roman Empire was considered the entire world, back then - I think that is what Paul was referring to - in fact, he did spread Christianity across the entire Empire.

An educated guess on what?
Did he believe that Jesus was the Savior? I see absolutely ZERO evidence to suggest he didn't.

It is not a sin to pray to Judas - no one knows for sure if he is apart of the Body or not. Traditionally, it has been taught that people who commit suicide have given up all hope and relationships.

So you are OK with praying to dead relatives in the body of Christ?

I do not pray to dead people. Saints are a living part of the Body.

So you are OK with over emphasizing a dead relative, and praying to them?

Over-emphasizing? I think of them as part of my Body or community that stretches across time - they are not a primary focus, but they are always there

WHAT!?!?!?!
For all have sinned...
There is none righteous...

Consider a child below the age of reason. By definition he can’t sin, since sinning requires the ability to reason and the ability to intend to sin. This is indicated by Paul later in the letter to the Romans when he speaks of the time when Jacob and Esau were unborn babies as a time when they "had done nothing either good or bad" (Rom. 9:11).

How can you say that and possibly not come away with the conclusion that it's destructive heresy to the Gospel of Christ?
Bible>Catholic Tradition

I think people have over-emphasized Romans 3:23 - Paul was talking about Pride and he was talking to adults - I think he was trying to tell people that they better not think they are better than anyone else or think that they can get to Heaven on their good behavior because they all know they have sinned.

The only departure from Christian doctrine is teaching that people have any good in them at all.
Romans 6:20; “When youwere slaves to sin, you were free from the control of righteousness.”

The law brought condemnation because it brought an awareness of sin - people were culpable under the law. Adam and Eve were created without sin.

Romans 8:7; “The sinfulmind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so.Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God.”

“There is no one righteous, not even one;
there is no one who understands;
there is no one who seeks God.
All have turned away,
they have together become worthless;
there is no one who does good,
not even one.”
“Their throats are open graves;
their tongues practice deceit.”
“The poison of vipers is on their lips.”
“Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness.”
“Their feet are swift to shed blood;
ruin and misery mark their ways,
and the way of peace they do not know.”
“There is no fear of God before their eyes.”

Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin.

Certainly not from people who have reached the age of culpability and are not mentally or cognitively impaired.

Nope, they're still evil sin machines like the rest of us, lest you contradict the gospel. The difference can be found in Romans 1... an apparent understanding of one's surroundings, first of all. If you can understand and see creation, you are without excuse. If you cannot understand what's been made clear, it seems that there IS an excuse or an exemption. Somehow, God works these children and imbeciles through the blood of Christ. I know that it's through Christ alone, and I see an exemption here, so I can put two and two together. How exactly he works it, I don't know.

They have a nature tendency for evil. They were created good, but were stained with Original Sin - they are not rotten throughout. And you are right - children and impaired adults are not culpable.

I thought Christ destroyed the barrier between God and Man and gave us direct access to God.

He still mediates for us - we have a personal relationship with Him, which is akin to having a personal relationship with God's heart, but He still speaks for us.

aspen · Dec 7, 2010

Anastacia

aspen, I ask the questions knowing you can't give a biblical answer.

That is because you are using a different standard to critique the information Selene and I are providing. You are relying on the Bible Alone - Sola Scriptura to decide if what we are saying is true. Here is the problem - Catholics use the Bible and Tradition to define doctrine. Relying on Sola Scriptura is another way you do not follow the early Christian Church - it was a system invented to break ties with the authority of the church by Luther, 1500 hundred years after Christ was killed and Resurrected. So in essence you are using a relatively new system to judge an older system - the very system that your church emerged from. Of course the only thing you are going to prove using Sola Scriptura is that the Catholic Church is not Protestant - I could of told you that.

The questions I ask you are educated questions.

Questions designed to illustrate how far your tradition has moved away from Catholicism - yes, it is obvious.

The Bible has many of these kinds of educated questions. Educated questions means I already know the answer, and I just want you to think about it.

Here is where your assumptions become presumptuous - you are assuming that I have never thought about the very doctrine I believe in. This is a real shortfall in Evangelical witnessing - assuming that the poor Mormon or Catholic is mindlessly floating through life without a clue about the blasphemous doctrine they are consuming. It is an arrogant position to take and it leaves Evangelical witnesses unprepared to deal with educated people of differing faith.

Remember, you said Mary had to be sinless in order to be at birth with Jesus. You seem to of forgotten what you said. If we follow what you say about Mary being sinless---then with that reasoning---Mary's mother must of been sinless too, and so on.

Actually, if you read my post thoroughly, you would have noticed that I made it clear that the first post I wrote about Mary was closer to my own beliefs and the second closer to the Churches understanding. Mariology is not an essential doctrine of the Catholic Church, nor is it concerned with salvation. The fact is, there is plenty of room for differences of opinion on the issue. According to human reasoning Mary's mother could have been from Mars, since it was suggested earlier that Mary must have been an alien if she was sinless, thankfully we do not have to rely on human reasoning

Jesus was born in the flesh to a human mother....humans are not without any sin. Like another poster said.....if Mary was not human, than you are denying Jesus as being human.

Well, not according to Paul - as described twice previously, when he described Jacob and Esau were unborn babies as a time when they "had done nothing either good or bad" (Rom. 9:11)

aspen · Dec 7, 2010

Anastacia
Do these scriptures sound like Jesus wanted his mother to be exalted?
Matthew 12:46 While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. [sup]47[/sup] Someone told him, “Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you.” [sup]48[/sup] He replied to him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” [sup]49[/sup] Pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers. [sup]50[/sup] For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”

Jesus is making a very important point, creating an example of the importance of the Body of Christ from a comment about His family. He was taking nothing away from His mother, He was making a larger point - we are all family and part of the same Body. There is no indication that the crowd thought His message was rude, nor any disparaging comments from His family. We also have no idea about the tone of His voice or what happened next - perhaps He dropped everything to attend to His family. If He was being disrespectful to His mother and family, the crowd would have been upset and Jesus would be failing to honor His mother, which is a sin - so that is really an impossible scenario.

Luke 11:27-28 As Jesus was saying these things, a woman in the crowd called out, “Blessed is the mother who gave you birth and nursed you.” [sup]28[/sup] He replied, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it.”

Indeed! He was making the point that lineage is not a factor in entering the Kingdom of Heaven.

These scriptures should clearly show that Mary is not to be exalted in such a way the Catholics exalt her.

Sorry. You must think pretty highly of yourself if you think you can bring down the Catholic Church with a couple of verses - highly intelligent theologians on both sides of these disagreements have argued intelligently for centuries over these issues - what makes you think that you are going to "clearly show" anything?

Anastacia · Dec 7, 2010

aspen said:
My replies to aspen in blue.
Anastacia
Do these scriptures sound like Jesus wanted his mother to be exalted?
Matthew 12:46 While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. [sup]47[/sup] Someone told him, “Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you.” [sup]48[/sup] He replied to him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” [sup]49[/sup] Pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers. [sup]50[/sup] For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”

Jesus is making a very important point, creating an example of the importance of the Body of Christ from a comment about His family. He was taking nothing away from His mother, He was making a larger point - we are all family and part of the same Body. There is no indication that the crowd thought His message was rude, nor any disparaging comments from His family. We also have no idea about the tone of His voice or what happened next - perhaps He dropped everything to attend to His family. If He was being disrespectful to His mother and family, the crowd would have been upset and Jesus would be failing to honor His mother, which is a sin - so that is really an impossible scenario.
Who said the crowd thought Jesus' message was rude? Why would you even say that? I've heard other Catholics say that it seems like Jesus was rude to his mother sometimes. Catholics have a hard time seeing the message in those scriptures. You see how you continue to speak about Jesus' attitude to his family? You completely miss the message. Jesus didn't want his mother exalted and worshipped.

Luke 11:27-28 As Jesus was saying these things, a woman in the crowd called out, “Blessed is the mother who gave you birth and nursed you.” [sup]28[/sup] He replied, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it.”

Indeed! He was making the point that lineage is not a factor in entering the Kingdom of Heaven.

Again, Jesus didn't want his mother to be exalted. The Catholics exalt Mary.

These scriptures should clearly show that Mary is not to be exalted in such a way the Catholics exalt her.

Sorry. You must think pretty highly of yourself if you think you can bring down the Catholic Church with a couple of verses - highly intelligent theologians on both sides of these disagreements have argued intelligently for centuries over these issues - what makes you think that you are going to "clearly show" anything?

I have learned that when I'm falsely judged by someone, it is usually what the false accuser is guilty of. Maybe it is you who thinks pretty highly of himself? You are the one who made this thread and wanted to answer for the Catholic Church.

aspen · Dec 7, 2010

TexUs

"There is then no problem with the Church officially defining a doctrine which is not explicitly in Scripture, so long as it is not in contradiction to Scripture."

Wow. I really don't know how one can make such a statement against Scripture. Maybe one of our Catholic friends could help us out.

Love to - the statement is absolutely correct. As long as Catholic Tradition does not contradict scripture or Tradition it is considered to be valid. It takes nothing away from scripture at all. Here is the weird part - Evangelicals and other Protestants do the same thing every time they say the Apostle's Creed or rely on the cannon of scripture (the arrangement and selection of books in the Bible), neither contradict scripture, both are considered to be authoritative.

Now, brothers and sisters, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, “Do not go beyond what is written.” Then you will not be puffed up in being a follower of one of us over against the other. For who makes you different from anyone else? What do you have that you did not receive? And if you did receive it, why do you boast as though you did not?

Well, during the time that letter was being written there was no gospels, a few letters from Paul, the Didache and perhaps the Shepherd of Hermas floating around among a few churches in the far corners of the Empire, so if you were going to apply that idea to not going beyond the scriptures it would have to be limited to the OT. I think I will risk it and keep reading the NT as sacred scripture.....

aspen · Dec 7, 2010

[font="tahoma][font="Verdana"]Anastacia[/font][/font]

Who said the crowd thought Jesus' message was rude?

No one - that is the point. If the crowd though it was a rude thing to say, they would have reacted - there are lots of stories of the crowd reacting poorly to Jesus and Paul.

I've heard other Catholics say that it seems like Jesus was rude to his mother sometimes.

Is that important?

Catholics have a hard time seeing the message in those scriptures.

Yeah, that explains everything.......

You see how you continue to speak about Jesus' attitude to his family? You completely miss the message. Jesus didn't want his mother exalted and worshiped.

According to Anastacia...got it!

Again, Jesus didn't want his mother to be exalted. The Catholics exalt Mary.

Oh right! Thanks for setting me straight! Ok, lets see if I can remember....every time my interpretation doesn't match Anastacia's I am wrong.....because my Church is wrong!!! Ok got it, but I might need a reminder. Oh yeah, and also because Anastacia already knows the right answer anyway so I can know for sure that she is right....man, that sure was a lot of thinking...I am exhausted!

These scriptures should clearly show that Mary is not to be exalted in such a way the Catholics exalt her.
[font="tahoma] [/font][/color]
[color="#5D5D5D"][font="tahoma][font="Verdana"]Sorry. You must think pretty highly of yourself if you think you can bring down the Catholic Church with a couple of verses - highly intelligent theologians on both sides of these disagreements have argued intelligently for centuries over these issues - what makes you think that you are going to "clearly show" anything?

I have learned that when I'm falsely judged by someone, it is usually what the false accuser is guilty of. Maybe it is you who thinks pretty highly of himself? You are the one who made this thread and wanted to answer for the Catholic Church.[/font][/font]
[font="tahoma] [/font][/color]
[font="Verdana"]You are the one speaking about "clearly showing" me ideas that have been disagreed about by people a lot smarter thanus for centuries.......[/font]

Of course, I made it clear that I was not answering for the Catholic Church, but why quibble with the facts, right!

After talking with the admin of this site, I have decided to open up a thread for purposes of dialog between Protestants and myself. Here are some ideas associated with the purpose of this thread:

1. I am not trying to make anyone Catholic. I believe anyone who repents of their sins and believes Jesus Christ died for their sins is a Christian.

2. This is not a search engine for Catholic dogma. I will answer questions based on my understanding of Catholicism and the Bible - if you want to learn Catholic dogma you can refer to the online Catholic Catechism or a good Bible resource site for more knowledge on the scriptures.

3. I may agree with you - it does not mean that you have waged war on the Roman Catholic Church and won - it means that I agree with your assessment of scripture.

4. If you are unclear about my basic beliefs please refer to my post in the welcome section of the site.

Anastacia · Dec 7, 2010

aspen said:
You are the one speaking about "clearly showing" me ideas that have been disagreed about by people a lot smarter thanus for centuries.......

Of course, I made it clear that I was not answering for the Catholic Church, but why quibble with accuracy, right!

You wanted to answer Catholic questions. What's there to quibble about that?

You said "...people a lot smarter than us..." Where do you get that a person has to be of the wise and learned to know the Truth. You are mistaken.

Luke 10:21 At that time Jesus, full of joy through the Holy Spirit, said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this was your good pleasure.

aspen · Dec 7, 2010

bud02 said:
ISince the Immaculate Conception and Assumption are not explicit in Scripture, Fundamentalists conclude that the doctrines are false. Here, of course, we get into an entirely separate matter, the question of sola scriptura, or the Protestant "Bible only" theory. There is no room in this tract to consider that idea. Let it just be said that if the position of the Catholic Church is true, then the notion of sola scriptura is false. There is then no problem with the Church officially defining a doctrine which is not explicitly in Scripture, so long as it is not in contradiction to Scripture.

The Catholic Church was commissioned by Christ to teach all nations and to teach them infallibly—guided, as he promised, by the Holy Spirit until the end of the world (John 14:26, 16:13). The mere fact that the Church teaches that something is definitely true is a guarantee that it is true (cf. Matt. 28:18-20, Luke 10:16, 1 Tim. 3:15).

NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004

IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004

Sorry Bud - the doctrine cannot contradict the Bible or Sacred Tradition. Big difference.....

Anastacia said:
You wanted to answer Catholic questions. What's there to quibble about that?

You said "...people a lot smarter than us..." Where do you get that a person has to be of the wise and learned to know the Truth. You are mistaken.

Luke 10:21 At that time Jesus, full of joy through the Holy Spirit, said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this was your good pleasure.

I am speechless......

Anastacia · Dec 7, 2010

aspen said:
Love to - the statement is absolutely correct. As long as Catholic Tradition does not contradict scripture or Tradition it is considered to be valid. It takes nothing away from scripture at all. Here is the weird part - Evangelicals and other Protestants do the same thing every time they say the Apostle's Creed or rely on the cannon of scripture (the arrangement and selection of books in the Bible), neither contradict scripture, both are considered to be authoritative.
All Catholic Tradition contradicts scripture. Jesus even warned about using tradition. Even the creed used by the Catholics isn't biblical. Where in the Bible does it say to make a creed?

Well, during the time that letter was being written there was no gospels, a few letters from Paul, the Didache and perhaps the Shepherd of Hermas floating around among a few churches in the far corners of the Empire, so if you were going to apply that idea to not going beyond the scriptures it would have to be limited to the OT. I think I will risk it and keep reading the NT as sacred scripture.....

The letters from Paul was and is the gospel. The letters from Paul is scripture. In 1 Timothy 5:18 Paul joins a New Testament scripture (Luke 10:7) to an Old Testament scripture (Deuteronomy 25:4) and calls them both scripture. And we can see in 2 Peter 3:15-16 Peter recognizes Paul's writing as scripture.

The Catholic Church is a false church that begun with falseness, and continued over the centuries with more and more false doctrines and practices.

The Catholic Popes are not of those who built the foundation. The foundation is laid by the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. (See Ephesians 2:19)

What you call “oral tradition” is not permission for Catholic Popes to add to the Bible doctrines that aren’t from the Bible. All the things the Apostles orally taught—is confirmed in the written Word.

What Catholics call Tradition is man made doctrine which nullifies the word of God.

Mark 7:8 You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions.”

[sup]9[/sup] And he continued, “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe[sup][a][/sup] your own traditions!

[sup][/sup]

We displease God when we follow tradition or church laws or any human standard as the source of authority for the church (Matthew 15:1-14; Colossians. 2:8; Galatians 1:6-9; Proverbs 14:12; 2 John 9-11; Jeremiah 10:23).

Deuteronomy 4:2, Proverbs 30:5-6 and Revelation 22:18-19 warn against adding to or detracting from Scripture.

The New Testament is of very special times, to say the least. Salvation is given to us by God through Jesus Christ, that God testified to it by signs, wonders and various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will (Hebrew 2:1-4). The things the Catholic Popes said have not been testified to by God with signs and wonders!

aspen · Dec 7, 2010

Anastacia

All Catholic Tradition contradicts scripture. Jesus even warned about using tradition. Even the creed used by the Catholics isn't biblical. Where in the Bible does it say to make a creed?

Reciting the Apostle's Creed is just another one of those early church things that you do not follow, I guess. Most Evangelical / Protestant Churches accept and recite the Apostle's Creed - that is why I mentioned it as apart of Tradition that is accepted by Evangelicals and Protestant churches, despite their claims of only relying on the Bible.

I noticed that you skipped over the other Tradition that you do follow - the cannon of the scriptures. Here are a few more:

Sabbath on Sunday
The Doctrine of the Trinity
The Doctrine of the Incarnation
Christmas

The letters from Paul was and is the gospel. The letters from Paul is scripture. In 1 Timothy 5:18 Paul joins a New Testament scripture (Luke 10:7) to an Old Testament scripture (Deuteronomy 25:4) and calls them both scripture. And we can see in 2 Peter 3:15-16 Peter recognizes Paul's writing as scripture.

None of it was considered scripture until the 4th century - Leaders were deciding which books to use and which books to reject based on whatever church they were teaching in. And the gospels were not written until after Paul's letters - Paul was referring only to Deuteronomy not Luke. Peter is not declaring Paul's letter as scripture - he knew Paul wrote letters to churches. None of your verses are relevant to the issue of canonization.

The Catholic Church is a false church that begun with falseness, and continued over the centuries with more and more false doctrines and practices.

Your opinion is not convincing or relevant.

The Catholic Popes are not of those who built the foundation. The foundation is laid by the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. (See Ephesians 2:19)

You mean:

Ephesians 2:19: Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and strangers, but fellow citizens with God’s people and also members of his household,

I do not see the relevance

We displease God when we follow tradition or church laws or any human standard as the source of authority for the church (Matthew 15:1-14; Colossians. 2:8; Galatians 1:6-9; Proverbs 14:12; 2 John 9-11; Jeremiah 10:23).

You do not understand the meaning of Catholic Tradition.

Deuteronomy 4:2, Proverbs 30:5-6 and Revelation 22:18-19 warn against adding to or detracting from Scripture.

Deuteronomy is talking about the Pentateuch - Proverbs is talking only about Proverbs and Revelation is only referring to the book of Revelation because the NT was not assembled or even completed when those verses were written.

The New Testament is of very special times, to say the least. Salvation is given to us by God through Jesus Christ, that God testified to it by signs, wonders and various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will (Hebrew 2:1-4). The things the Catholic Popes said have not been testified to by God with signs and wonders!

How do you know this to be true? You may dismiss the signs and wonders, but you have no idea what you are claiming.
[font="tahoma] [/font]

Selene · Dec 7, 2010

To my Protestants brothers and sisters,

Peace be with you. It seems that the discussion has centered mostly on the Communion of Saints and the Immaculate Conception. Therefore, I will summarize these doctrines in the simplest way I can to dispel any confusion in our discussions.

Communion of Saints:

I think that we can all agree that those who believe and have faith in our Lord Jesus Christ will have eternal life (John 3:15-16). The question then that should be asked is did Mary and the Apostles believe and have faith in Jesus Christ? If your answer is yes, then why are some of you saying that they are dead? Do you not believe the words of Christ when He spoke about eternal life? Those who die in Christ will be made alive in Christ because their faith saved them (1 Corinthians 15:22). If you believe that faith and the grace of God saves you, then why do some of you say that Mary and the Apostles are dead? Didn't their faith save them?

We believe that Mary and the Apostles had faith in God our Father and is now in Heaven enjoying eternal life with Jesus. The mystical body of Christ include all believers who believe in God our Father and our Lord Jesus Christ and we are all one in Christ (1 Corinthians 12:27). If a person dies, does this mean that he is no longer a member of the body of Christ. According to the Bible, the answer is no. We are all made alive in Christ (1 Corinthians 15:22) and there is no division in the body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:25). Can death separate or break the bond between us and those of our brothers and sisters in Heaven. According to the Bible, the answer is no (Romans 8:38). Death cannot separate us from the love of Christ nor from our brothers and sisters who are alive in Christ. The bonds of love is so strong and powerful that not even death can separate us from our brothers and sisters in Heaven. Why? Because God is love (1 John 4:8). And God who is love keeps us (His family) together regardless of whether we are on earth or Heaven. And so we are called to love our neighbors including our enemies.

Mary and the Saints are in Heaven, and as for us on this earth, we were never of this world to begin with because we have been called out of this world despite that we live on this world. We imitate Christ our brother who lived on this world 2000 years ago, but was not of this world. We can speak to all the Angels and Saints in Heaven simply because we are not of this world just as Jesus said (John 15:19 and John 17:14).

Scripture shows that Jesus spoke to Moses and Elijah during the Transfiguration (Matthew 17:3, Luke 9:30, and Mark 9:3), and these were men who were no longer walking the earth. Jesus was not speaking to dead peope. Scripture also tells us that there are indeed people in Heaven (Hebrews 12:1 and Revelations 6:9-11). Scripture even tells us that they can see and hear us (See Luke 15:7). There will be rejoicing in Heaven if one sinner on earth repents. God allows people in Heaven to hear the repentance of one sinner so that they can rejoice. And if they can hear the repentance of one sinner, they can also hear us conversing with them and asking them to pray for us.

Immaculate Conception:

December 8th is the day we celebrate Immaculate Conception, so what timing.

What Bud posted is true. There is no scripture on the Immaculate Conception. However, this does not mean that we are going against the Bible.

1. Let me first deal with Romans 3:23. St. Paul does not mean "all" in an absolute sense, which would include every single person. In the Old Testament, David spoke of a generation of righteous. If absolutely "no one" is righteous, how can David possibly refer to "the generation of righteous" (see Psalm 112:2)?. St. Paul who wrote Romans 3:23 also wrote Romans 5:14. In Romans 5:14, St. Paul says: "But death reigned from Adam unto Moses, even over them also who have not sinned after the similitude of the transgression of Adam, who is a figure of him who was to come." St. Paul recognized that there were people from Adam to Moses who have not sinned. If absolutely "no one" is righteous and "all" have sinned, then who are those people who lived from Adam to Moses who have not sinned?

As for the original sin, there are actually three people in the Bible who were born without sin....Jesus, Adam, and Eve. Adam and Eve were born without original sin. These are hard questions I am asking our Protestant brothers because you take the Bible almost literally. By the way, for a Catholic, there is a fourth person born without original sin, and that person is Mary.

2. Secondly, I think you would also agree when I say that having a relationship with God is extremely important. By having a close relationship with God, we would know Him personally as He reveals Himself to us. This is how we know God:

God's kingdom is pure. There is no sin in Heaven, which is God's kingdom and dwelling place. It is a place that is pure, clean, beautful, holy, just, and everything good one could think of. When God went to dwell among the Israelites, He told the Israelites to build the Ark of the Covenant. The Old Testament shows that God gave very detailed and specific instructions on how to build the Ark of Covenant. The materials used for the ark is the best materials and one of fines and purest gold (Exodus 37:1). Nothing but the best material and purist and finest gold was used to build the Ark of the Covenant because in the Old Testament, this was God's dwelling place as He dwelled among the Israelites.

In the New Testament, Jesus came in the form of man and Mary was the vessel that carried Him. We know that Mary is pure and sinless because God will not dwell in an unclean and filthy vessel. This is what we know about God and what the Holy Spirit revealed to His Church. Mary was that vessel and her womb was God's dwelling place. Mary was pure from sin. She was set aside by God so that she would be that dwelling place. Nothing but the best, finest, and purist material is God's dwelling place.

The Ark of the Covenant in the Old Testament is a prefigurement of Mary. In the New Testament, Mary now becomes the new Ark of Covenant where God dwelled in her womb.

Old Testament: A cloud of glory covered the Tabernacle and Ark (Ex. 40: 34-35; Numbers 9:15).
New Testament: And the angel said to her: "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you" (Luke 1:35).

Old Testament: Ark spent 3 months in the house of Obededom the Gittite (2 Samuel 6:11).
New Testament: Mary spent 3 months in the house of Zechariah and Elizabeth (Luke 1:56).

Old Testament: King David asked, "How can the ark of the Lord come to me?" (2 Samuel 6:9).
New Testament: Elizabeth asked Mary,"why is this granted to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?: (Luke 1:43)

Old Testament: David leaped and danced before the Lord when the Ark arrived in Jerusalem (2 Samuel 6:14-16).
New Testament: John the Baptist leaped for joy in Elizabeth's womb when Mary arrived (Luke 1:44).

3. Finally, the writings of the Early Church fathers such St. Ephraim, St. Ambrose, and St. Augustine who lived from 306 - 420 A.D. wrote about Mary's sinlessness. If one is really interested in reading those writings, they can always look it up. God bless.

In Christ,
Selene

aspen · Dec 7, 2010

Anastacia

Here is a summary of claims that you have made over the last six pages, but have failed to prove. Just because you make a claim doesn't mean you have proven anything. I am most interested in the many claims you have made about what the Catholic Church teaches - it would seem that you simply pulled them out of you head because you have only referred to the Catholic Catechism once. If you are going to say it and expect us to believe you, you'll have to prove it. Here is the list of quotes:

Unsubstantiated Claims

1. “Catholics are commanded to bow to statues.” Where does it say this?

2. “All Catholics bow to statues too, beforethey sit down in the church.” How do you know this?

3. “Venerate means to worship. Go check thedictionary.” This is simply incorrect

4. “We should not bow to....nor worhip.....norhonor.....nor venerate....nor give reference to....nor respect images of whatsome think Jesus and Mary look like” Source?

5. “I have proven to you what the Catholics teach...you just don't wantto admit it” Where did you proven this?

6 “I'm not a Protestant” Well, you believe all the Protestant doctrine - so what are you if not Protestant?

7. “There is no such office as "thePope" that is a made up man doctrine” Prove it

8. “You were in afalse religion before, and now you are in a false relgion called "Catholic” Explain Calvinism / Catholicism

9. “Catholics have a false doctrine called "ApostolicSuccession." There is no such thing it is man made" Prove it

10. “You both have beenmaking excuses why you do what God hates” What does God hate? and prove He hates it

11. “The things your Popes saysgoes against the Word of God” Which Pope? What statement?

12. “You already proved you can'tunderstand spiritual things” (to Selene) This is just ignorant....

13. “And you goagainst the scriptures when you PRAY TO "saints" and Mary” What scriptures?

14. “All CatholicTradition contradicts scripture” All of them? What about the ones you believe in?

15. “The CatholicChurch is a false church that begun with falseness” How so?

aspen · Dec 7, 2010

Anastacia

Here is a list of issues you have with the Catholic Church that we have provided answers for, but you seem to ignore them and continue making the claims. The reason I am posting this is so that you will move on from this topics. Like I've said twice before, we are not here to give you satisfying answers - just Catholic truth as we see it. We are also not really interested in giving you a platform for hurling unsubstantiated claims about how evil are church is - if you are not interested in having a civil discussion you might want to find another thread or take a break or whatever. So here is the list:

Claim: “We are notto bow down to statues. Period. No matter how you try to cut it.” (pointing out that catholics bow before statues and icons)

Response: Many examples of people bowing before people and angels were provided including Abraham bowing to angels.

Claim: “The HolyBible says not to make images. I've given some scriptures on this. I can givemore.”

Response: God commanded statues of bullsand lions to be built in the Temple of Solomon. He commanded a bronze serpentto be built. That bronze serpent was an icon

Claim: “Bowing down to someone orsomething---IS worshipping.”

Resonse: Genesis 19:1;Genesis 23:7;Genesis 27:29;Genesis 33:3;Genesis 33:6;1 Kings 2:19;Luke 24:5 –all examples of bowing without worshiping.

Claim: ““Veneratemeans to worship. Go check the dictionary.”

Response: Church theologians have long adopted the terms latria for the type of worship due toGod alone, and dulia for the veneration given tosaints and icons.

Claim: “You are talking about dolls andtoy trucks. I'm talking about bowing down to an idol.”

Response: “The first commandment specifically states not to make anylikeness that is in the earth.....and yes, my friend, that WOULD include thedoll that you have for your daughter and the toy truck that you have for yourson.....that is if you take the first commandment literally. “

Claim: “The oral Tradition of theCatholics is not biblical, and it is against the Word of God”

Response: Ignores the fact that the OT was oral tradition for centuriesand the NT was the oral tradition of the early church.

Claim: “You don't know what Protestantmeans” (directed to aspen)

Response: Mydefinition of a Protestant is a person who retains the Catholic teachings ofthe closed cannon of scripture, the Trinity, and the doctrine of theIncarnation, but also believes in Sola Scriptura, sola fide, and sola gratia.So Mormons are not Protestant, but Baptists are.”

Claim: “Jesus didn't want us to have aspiritual Father over us....besides God, the Father in heaven. The CatholicPope is the Catholic's spiritual Father.”

Responses: Yet, our earthly fathers are supposed to be the head of thehousehold and our spiritual leaders in the home.”

Then in many places of the Bible, we see Jesus calling Abraham"father" (See John 8:56). We also see in the Bible that theApostles call men "father" (see Romans 4:1 and Romans 4:16). We see in the Bible that St.Paul also calls himself a "teacher" and a "father" (See 2 Timothy 1:11). Jesus is simply telling Hisdisciples to be careful that when taking these titles, one should not use themwith pride and 1 Corinthians 4:15). Therefore, since the Apostles called others and even themselves "teachers" and "fathers," then there must be a different meaning to what Jesus says in Matthew 23:8-10. If one reads further into the biblical passage, the answer is found there. It is actually found in the next verse (Matthew 23:11-12

Claim: “Catholics have a falsedoctrine called "Apostolic Succession."

Response: As for 2 Timothy 2:2, theScipture is clear that St. Paul entrusted what he learned to Timothy andinstructed Timothy to do the same to faithful men so they can also teachothers. This is the evidence for Apostolic succession.

Claim: “Catholics PRAY TO dead saints and Mary”

Response: Those who die in Christ will be made alive in Christ becausetheir faith saved them (1 Corinthians 15:22).

sniper762 · Dec 7, 2010

selene, yyou wrote: Hello Sniper,

There is nothing on Catholic teaching that gives a date as to when Adam was created. We know that Adam was created. When he was created is irrelevant to us. The important thing is knowing that God created everything in the universe.

In Christ,
Selene

first of all, my question was meant as WHAT DO "YOU" THINK, not what is in the catholic teaching. in my search for a religious affiliation, i read the bible, taking notes as i went along about events, explanations of different things by prophets of god, and advice as to how one should live their life. these topics were used as discussion topics with other religious people, as yourself.

the genealogy of christ was one of these topics, evidently worth explaining by moses, mathew, luke and the lineage from adam as told by the authors of several other books.

the genealogy of christ (father to son) all the way back to adam is explained in the bible in a way that any intelligent person can easily understand.

i cant understand how a person claiming to know christ, as you do, can not grasp this info.

with today's technological information age, matching this biblical genealogy with historical (dated) information is not hard to do.

your inability to see this simple compilation (or your fear of recognizing it, because its not catholic teaching) deters me from recognizing the validity "any" of what you have to say pertaining to other religious topics.

i suggest to you, that you read and ponder the bible, that you may understand the simplest of things such as "christ's genealogy" before you attempt more complicated topics.

Thankful 1 · Dec 7, 2010

sniper762 said:
selene, yyou wrote: Hello Sniper,

There is nothing on Catholic teaching that gives a date as to when Adam was created. We know that Adam was created. When he was created is irrelevant to us. The important thing is knowing that God created everything in the universe.

In Christ,
Selene

first of all, my question was meant as WHAT DO "YOU" THINK, not what is in the catholic teaching. in my search for a religious affiliation, i read the bible, taking notes as i went along about events, explanations of different things by prophets of god, and advice as to how one should live their life. these topics were used as discussion topics with other religious people, as yourself.

the genealogy of christ was one of these topics, evidently worth explaining by moses, mathew, luke and the lineage from adam as told by the authors of several other books.

the genealogy of christ (father to son) all the way back to adam is explained in the bible in a way that any intelligent person can easily understand.

i cant understand how a person claiming to know christ, as you do, can not grasp this info.

with today's technological information age, matching this biblical genealogy with historical (dated) information is not hard to do.

your inability to see this simple compilation (or your fear of recognizing it, because its not catholic teaching) deters me from recognizing the validity "any" of what you have to say pertaining to other religious topics.

i suggest to you, that you read and ponder the bible, that you may understand the simplest of things such as "christ's genealogy" before you attempt more complicated topics.

I know your post was not addressed to me, but I would like to share something with you, so I am budding in to your conversation.

As a suggestion I believe you would be better off, instead of you using your mind to come to know God, if you would let the Holy Spirit bring you to know God. Man can’t bring you to know God, and that includes you.

Jesus will let you know what is important for you to know, and understand.

Jesus once told me to stop trying to figure him out, and just follow him.

TexUs · Dec 7, 2010

It's hard to keep up so I'm just focusing on my existing conversation here and not the one between other members.

Selene said:
When we ask say, "Mary, please pray for me," that is no different than you going to your friend and asking him to pray for you. We can also converse with Mary the way you would converse with your friend. God is the only one we pray to. The thing is when we have a conversation with Mary, you see it as "praying." How else are we supposed to be having a conversation with someone who is in Heaven? Would you rather have us look at a wall and talk to it?

You totally ignored what I said.
I said I'd have no problem with this IF THIS IS ALL CATHOLICS WERE DOING. Look at the link. Prayer after prayer after prayer go far beyond, "Please pray for me".

Selene said:
"the prayer of a just and righteous man is more powerful and effective (See James 5:16). Is there anyone more righteous than those people living in Heaven? Certainly not those on earth.

So you really don't believe 1 Corinthians 1:30?
It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption.

You'd have to believe that there is a righteousness higher than that of Christ's, and that's heresy. So what do you say of this, Biblically?

You also blatantly ignore the context and examples James has given to us.

Is anyone among you in trouble? Let them pray. Is anyone happy? Let them sing songs of praise. Is anyone among you sick? Let them call the elders of the church to pray over them and anoint them with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise them up. If they have sinned, they will be forgiven. Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person is powerful and effective.

Who is being addressed in this letter? The twelve tribes. This wasn't written to people in heaven.
Elijah was a human being, even as we are. He prayed earnestly that it would not rain, and it did not rain on the land for three and a half years. Again he prayed, and the heavens gave rain, and the earth produced its crops.
He was a "human being" huh? He prayed for rain, huh? Isn't rain something that falls on land on earth? The heavens gave rain, huh? This is not talking about people in heaven.

So once more, you've got lots of explaining to do because your claims simply aren't supported by even the scriptures you've posted!

Selene said:
If you believe that people who believe in our Lord Jesus Christ will grant you eternal life just as He promised

He made no such promise. Prove it Biblically. Christ grants me eternal life, not "people that believe".

Selene said:
The commandment says to honor your mother and father. Isn't Mary Jesus' mother? Therefore, Christ honored His Father who is God, and He honored His mother Mary in accordance to this commandment among the Ten.

I don't disagree with any of that. In fact, that's the extent you can Biblically arrive from in that passage. Where's it tell you to honor Mary?

Selene said:
How is it a useless function. It is because of the papacy that all Catholics are united under one and the same teaching. We are not divided as our Protestant brothers and sisters who have so many different sects.

"United in heresy", forgive me for not being jealous.
That's YOUR human, erroneous, fallible interpretation for the Papacy. There's still nowhere that supports it.

Selene said:
They are not dead because Christ said that all who believe and have faith in Him will have eternal life. Do you believe in that?

Of course I believe in this, but we've covered this above so I won't beat a dead horse.
I'd still like reasoning why you don't pray to Judas. You have no basis for him being pruned from the vine because you have no basis or evidence for him ever not believing who Christ was.

aspen said:
But by a special intervention of God, undertaken at the instant she was conceived

Where's the Bible say that?

aspen said:
Romans 3:23, "all have sinned"? Have all people committed actual sins? Consider a child below the age of reason. By definition he can’t sin, since sinning requires the ability to reason and the ability to intend to sin. This is indicated by Paul later in the letter to the Romans when he speaks of the time when Jacob and Esau were unborn babies as a time when they "had done nothing either good or bad" (Rom. 9:11).

Absolutely. However, when someone first arrives at enough knowledge to discern right and wrong and what's sin and what isn't, 100% of people will chose sin. "For all have sinned".

aspen said:
So if Paul’s statement in Romans 3 includes an exception for the New Adam (Jesus), one may argue that an exception for the New Eve (Mary) can also be made.

No, you can't.
You can argue the exception for children, imbeciles, and Jesus because guess what? THE BIBLE SAYS SO.
Sinless Mary is utter nonsense supported nowhere in the Bible.

aspen said:
Our own earthly bodies are full of electrical currents coursing through our nervous systems - in essence, our brain is talking and receiving feedback from all parts of our bodies all the time. So if our foot needs attention it communicate with our brain it sends a signal through the nerves to the brain. If your foot is on fire, you have a reflect system that kicks in immediately to remove the foot from the source of fire. Although this analogy is not perfect, it is a good way to describe how we can communicate with the Head - Christ, in partnership with part or all the Body or immediately and directly.

Our foot is not the mediator between our hand and our brain. The hand communicates directly to the brain.
The body communicates directly to Christ.

aspen said:
but I do see her as the first Christian and as a fully justified and sanctified being.

Based on what? I can think of tons of people that had faith before Mary. They looked at the cross from the other side, the faith in the cross remains the same. They looked TO the Savior's work in faith it'll happen, we look BACK at what happened and have faith it did.

aspen said:
Mary is the mother of the whole person of Jesus Christ, who is God

No doubt she's the mother of the Body but you'd have to not believe in the eternal nature of God in order to believe she birthed God himself which is also strongly contrary to scripture.

aspen said:
Mary is the mother of Christ, she is also the mother of all us believers.

Prove it Biblically.

aspen said:
Jesus himself gave us Mary as our mother as he hung dying on the cross

Prove it Biblically.

aspen said:
Here is the problem with honoring only your own mother - hopefully, she is also part of the Body of Christ - we are called to love everyone in the Body

ABSOLUTELY! You're finally arriving at what I've been trying to push you to. Now that you admit that, why don't you pray to your dead relatives? They're all part of the same body so we're supposed to honor them just as much, you just admitted that.

aspen said:
Certainly not from people who have reached the age of culpability and are not mentally or cognitively impaired.

So you're willing to go on record and say Mary was retarded?

aspen said:
They were created good, but were stained with Original Sin - they are not rotten throughout.

I don't know how else you can take "the sinful mind cannot submit to God"... Clearly we can do NO good.

aspen said:
You are relying on the Bible Alone - Sola Scriptura to decide if what we are saying is true.

How is scripture not sufficient?
The Word was not perfect?

aspen said:
Well, during the time that letter was being written there was no gospels, a few letters from Paul, the Didache and perhaps the Shepherd of Hermas floating around among a few churches in the far corners of the Empire, so if you were going to apply that idea to not going beyond the scriptures it would have to be limited to the OT. I think I will risk it and keep reading the NT as sacred scripture.....

I disagree with you but let me just play with your conclusion a minute. If you believe it's limited to what was existing, and that's the conclusion you've reached, why are you in open defiance of God's word and don't hold to what you believe the text says?

sniper762 · Dec 7, 2010

thankful 1, thats exactly what i am trying to relay. prayer for understanding of what you read (if sincere) will enable one to comprehend such simple things as jesus' genealogy as well as those that may seem complicated.

it goes much further than relying on the "teachings" of man's religious denominations.

Selene · Dec 7, 2010

sniper762 said:
selene, yyou wrote: Hello Sniper,

There is nothing on Catholic teaching that gives a date as to when Adam was created. We know that Adam was created. When he was created is irrelevant to us. The important thing is knowing that God created everything in the universe.

In Christ,
Selene

first of all, my question was meant as WHAT DO "YOU" THINK, not what is in the catholic teaching. in my search for a religious affiliation, i read the bible, taking notes as i went along about events, explanations of different things by prophets of god, and advice as to how one should live their life. these topics were used as discussion topics with other religious people, as yourself.

the genealogy of christ was one of these topics, evidently worth explaining by moses, mathew, luke and the lineage from adam as told by the authors of several other books.

the genealogy of christ (father to son) all the way back to adam is explained in the bible in a way that any intelligent person can easily understand.

i cant understand how a person claiming to know christ, as you do, can not grasp this info.

with today's technological information age, matching this biblical genealogy with historical (dated) information is not hard to do.

your inability to see this simple compilation (or your fear of recognizing it, because its not catholic teaching) deters me from recognizing the validity "any" of what you have to say pertaining to other religious topics.

i suggest to you, that you read and ponder the bible, that you may understand the simplest of things such as "christ's genealogy" before you attempt more complicated topics.

Hello Sniper,

Honesty is one of the things I value. My brother, in your post, you never asked me "what I think." If you looked back on your own post, this is what it says:

From Sniper: selene, when was adam created? app. what date?

Because this was how you asked in your post, I assumed you were asking about Catholic teaching. Now, in regards to the rest of your post, you spent all that time studying Christ's geneology and trying to match historical data with that geneology? My brother, I don't need to go through that kind of study because I already know that Jesus is God. In the first place, Joseph is not Jesus' father and never has been. So, all this time that you have been reading and pondering the Bible, did you not realize that Joseph was not Jesus' father and that Jesus' true Father was God?

In Christ,
Selene

sniper762 · Dec 7, 2010

Selene said:
Hello Sniper,

Honesty is one of the things I value. My brother, in your post, you never asked me "what I think." If you looked back on your own post, this is what it says:

From Sniper: selene, when was adam created? app. what date?

Because this was how you asked in your post, I assumed you were asking about Catholic teaching. Now, in regards to the rest of your post, you spent all that time studying Christ's geneology and trying to match historical data with that geneology? My brother, I don't need to go through that kind of study because I already know that Jesus is God. In the first place, Joseph is not Jesus' father and never has been. So, all this time that you have been reading and pondering the Bible, did you not realize that Joseph was not Jesus' father and that Jesus' true Father was God?

In Christ,
Selene

selene, why dont you just admit that you dont know? you dont have to justify it.

you presented yourself as a religiously knowledgeable (catholic) person.

i just thought that you could add something to our discussion.

evidently you cant

Selene · Dec 7, 2010

sniper762 said:
selene, why dont you just admit that you dont know? you dont have to justify it.

you presented yourself as a religiously knowledgeable (catholic) person.

i just thought that you could add something to our discussion.

evidently you cant

Why don't you admit that you never said "what I think" I can add to the discussion, but evidently you already assumed that I cannot. So, the discussion with you then ends here. God bless.

Questions For A Catholic

“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few

“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few

“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few

New Member

“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few

“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few

New Member

“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few

New Member

“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few

New Member

“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few

“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

Similar threads