Questions For A Catholic

[Anastacia]

[/size][/font]TexUs, when you say, "I am a US citizen because I was born in the US" you are referring only of yourself. There are many people who are US citizens who are NOT born in the US. Some of them became US citizens through naturalization while others became US citizens through their parents' citizenship.



In this context, Mary was called "blessed" because she was made the vessel to carry the Christ child in her womb. Did you not know that that was the reason why the Angel Gabriel called her "blessed among women" (Luke 1:28-30). The angel called her "blessed among women" because she was chosen to be the only one among all the women to carry Christ in her womb. St. Elizabeth also called Mary "blessed among women." (Luke 1:42). And why did you leave out the party that says "All generations...?" All generations will call her blessed is a prophecy and a prophecy that is fulfilled in us and through us because we have always called her the blessed mother.

Mary is blessed among women. Of course she is, she gave birth to Jesus. But Catholics exalt her to the same as Jesus.

Jesus did not come to earth to.....get married.

Jesus did not come to earth to.....have children.

And Jesus did not come to earth to be Mary's son.

Jesus came to earth to save us.

And when Jesus was going to die, he told John "Here is your mother." And Jesus told Mary "Woman, here is your son."


John 19:25 Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother, his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. [sup]26[/sup] When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to her, “Woman, here is your son,” [sup]27[/sup] and to the disciple, “Here is your mother.” From that time on, this disciple took her into his home.

 

[marksman]

Marksman, the fact that you posted 4 posts under this thread in only one day shows your burning anger and hatred.. I will pray for you. God bless.

You could not be so wrong!!!!!

They came about because I was in the mood to have a bit of fun as I am holed up in bed because I am recovering from three operations to remove cancers. Time in hospital and time in bed is about two months so I have to do something to relieve the monotony.

Sorry to know that your spiritual antenna is not working.

 

[marksman]

Ok so there are only 3 questions in this entire post, which is full of critical remarks that suggest Selene and I are less educated than you about or own churches' doctrine and because we interpret scripture differently than you we must be lying.

Actually there is 10, so I guess your maths is not very good either.

So let me deal with the only question that isn't completely degrading. I do not know why ALL Catholics you have met say that the Pope is the head of the Church. The catholic church teaches that Jesus is the head of the church. The good news is that you now know 2 Catholics that say Jesus is the Head of the Church.

Why is that good news. You have shown that you say a lot of things, but in actual fact, you contradict what you say.

I am assuming that the next questions are simply 2 rude examples of a rhetorical question.

And I am assuming that you don't like it when you are called to account.

The above list is the Decalogue, the Ten Commandments Moses brought down from Mount Sinai after the children of Israel escaped from Egypt. Believed to have been written by the very finger of God on tablets of stone, they summarized the law that would define Israel and make her a unique nation of people

Then why did you change them and miss out one of them?. No one gave the rcc permission to do so

The commandments are not the whole law. That constitutes pages and pages of oral tradition and experience. But they summarize what God expects in human, ethical behavior-a kind of minimum daily requirement in righteousness.

Selene told us how biblically literate you are so if that is the case, why don't you know the difference between the 10 commnadments and the 612 ordinances?

The Decalogue is considered the most accurate version of the 10 commandments. This is not an issue for most Protestants, but there are a minority that seem to revel in criticizing the RCC, who claim that Catholics removed the graven image portion - I say take it up with Moses. He is the one who brought down the above version of the commandments on two plates of stone.

Why? Was Moses a catholic?

As for Augustine - I have no idea.

Then why was he brought up to defend the indefensible?. I think half the time you pluck things out of the air to sound like you know what you are talking about.

If Anastacia and Marksman had read the ENTIRE article I provided, it is mentioned that the "graven images" is in the Catholic long version of the Ten Commandments and it even cited the Section, Chapter, and Part of where one can find it in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

And if selene and aspen would only realise that they are talking rot, we might enter into some intelloigent dialogue. The rccc has shot itself in the foot, leaving out one commandment in the shorter version but not the long one. You are not going to tell me that learning one more line in the short version is going to make it impossible to learn are you?

What is very obvious is that if the short version is the one that everyone learns, they are going to learn the one with the graven images removed and hey presto!, graven images are OK.

And you selene said there more than 10 commandments. Now you are saying there is no more than ten. Sounds like you are confused and making things up as you go along.

Basically the saints are the people who have made through to the Church triumphant and they are in ehaven now, so they are pat of the first ressurrection and the second death has no power over them. Many of these saints are recognised as such by Sacramental Christians because through miracles like healing or not rotting away they show that they are among the saints. As Saints they can help us here on earth and their remains are the means by which God works through them. If you read hagiographies and I have read a few; including St Cuthbert, St Wilfred and St Kenelm, then you see that these are all people who God has chosen and God works through them. After they die God continues to work through them.

Oh dear oh dear. More rcc speculation to suit their take on things. No christian is in heaven.

1Th 4:13 And I do not wish you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning those who have fallen asleep, that ye may not sorrow, as also the rest who have not hope,
1Th 4:14 for if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, so also God those asleep through Jesus he will bring with him,
1Th 4:15 for this to you we say in the word of the Lord, that we who are living--who do remain over to the presence of the Lord--may not precede those asleep,
1Th 4:16 because the Lord himself, in a shout, in the voice of a chief-messenger, and in the trump of God, shall come down from heaven, and the dead in Christ shall rise first,
1Th 4:17 then we who are living, who are remaining over, together with them shall be caught away in clouds to meet the Lord in air, and so always with the Lord we shall be;
1Th 4:18 so, then, comfort ye one another in these words.

If the dead in Christ are going to rise first, they can't be in heaven.

The veneration of relics is seen explicitly as early as the account of Polycarp’s martyrdom written by the Smyrnaeans in A.D. 156.

But where is it in scripture? What you are saying is that what the Smyrmaeans wrote has more authority than the word of God.

Similar are the cases of the woman cured of a hemorrhage by touching the hem of Christ’s cloak (Matt. 9:20-22) and the sick who were healed when Peter’s shadow passed over them (Acts 5:14-16). "And God did extraordinary miracles by the hands of Paul, so that handkerchiefs or aprons were carried away from his body to the sick, and diseases left them and the evil spirits came out of them" (Acts 19:11-12).

Relics!!!! what else are you going to add to the fairy story? I haven't had such a good laugh in such a long time.

(Matthew 7:3-5) ““Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.”

Do you put this into practice thankful?

 

[deprofundis]

I think that the purpose of this thread, originally, was to ask questions and have Aspen or Selene answer according to their beliefs. I've seen a lot of questions endlessly repeated while Aspen and Selene repeat the answers they have already given, or their own interpretations of Catholicism and the scripture. I don't believe the point of this thread was for personal attacks (from either side) or for arguments against a viewpoint. Aspen and Selene have explained numerous times why they believe what they do, others have constantly repeated that they do not believe the same and why. Other than that, I just see a lot of words are being twisted or put into the mouths of others who did not speak them. The point here isn't to say that either side is right or wrong, it's to understand what others believe and why. You (on whichever side) may disagree with them, but these arguments are descending into rudeness and ad-hominem attacks, and I don't think that's desirable for anyone. It's easy to get heated discussing your Faith, since it's something that's very important to you and everyone is certain their interpretation is right, but speaking rudely to others, calling them names, and ignoring their explanations in order to advance your own views (again, from whichever side you argue) doesn't really do anybody any good. I tried to ask a question about Catholicism a while ago, but I don't think either Selene or Aspen even saw it in the deluge of other posts. Perhaps they did, and I simply didn't ever see their answer for the same reason. I feel like these arguments are starting to interfere with the purpose of this thread, and promote division and anger, rather than understanding, amongst us. I'm not advocating any side or belief, here, I just think it would better if we could just calm down and go back to finding out information of others and learning about their perspective, instead of attacking and demonizing it; I'd like to see this thread go back to being about answering questions and receiving peoples' personal answers, rather than people trashing each-others' feelings and beliefs.

EDIT: After doing a search, I found out that there were couple answers that simply got buried in the pages of arguments posted here in-between the last few times I checked the thread. I'd like to thank Aspen and Anastacia for your answers on the subject. Bringing up Dante was a great way to address it, too, he really does paint a vivid picture. I agree with both of you, not only is hard to know all the circumstances or our place to judge them, but I also think that our merciful Lord provides a path for their salvation, as with any other sinner. Thanks for the answers!

 

[marksman]

Really good answer, Selene. I guess to appreciate your response one has to have some respect and value for the Early Church Tradition.

It seems to me that your antagonisers have none. They set their stall up sometime approx 1500 years after Christ died, and take it from there, perhaps...

I dont pretend to understand why everything prior to that date is questioned, challenged, criticised or dismissed at Catholic nonsense.

It is certainly given no respect as being other peoples valued opinions, or practises with precendents, which you articulated well.

The difference between the rc here and us non rc is that we in most cases stick with what the bible says, not what holy Joe thinks. We don't make up fairy stories to try and give us some credibility and the church in the NT did not create a monster organisation to advance the rich and powerful like the rcc did. But then, if you are a prisoner of a man made system that does not want you to think for yourself, it is going to be very hard to see the light and acknowledge the truth that sets you free

If it seems that I was judging anyone, I am sorry. What I was thinking was how nit picking the questions about the Church were becoming. Then I wondered just how much scrutiny could the churches of those who are picking at the Catholic Church, take? I doubt any Christian Church can stand up to scripture.

I doubt it too but that doesn't alter the fact that just because you are not perfect, you go crawl into a cave and try and avoid life. I have one thing to commend the rcc for and that is their unfailing support for the unborn. They deserve a medal for that and I am disgusted that too many protestant churches seem to think that abortion doesn't exist.

Since you are trying to scold me for discussing, debating and arguing doctrines....what in the world are you doing on this site??? What's the matter? You not getting much attention in your threads where you call people condemned if they have even sinned one time after being saved???

Precisely Anastacia, precisely.

 

[marksman]

It's called history. Catholicism became corrupt, or have the Catholics tried to erase and ignore these pages of history?

Yeah, who would want to be identified with an organisation where the head honcho had people murdered and sired children with women who were not his wife? Not a good look is it. If it happened in the protestant church, they would be stood down immediately, so I guess ethics and morals and following scripture i.e. thou shalt not murder is not high on their agenda.

Perhaps selene and aspen could enlighten us as to what doctrine these sort of things come under?

 

[deprofundis]

There were specific ground rules set up for this thread in its first post, many (even most) of which are not being followed. Even the subtitle "be nice" is being largely ignored.

 

[Anastacia]

They came about because I was in the mood to have a bit of fun as I am holed up in bed because I am recovering from three operations to remove cancers. Time in hospital and time in bed is about two months so I have to do something to relieve the monotony.

Sorry to hear that you have been going through so much. I hope for you a speedy recovery, and that you will be enjoying good health soon.


I want to take this time to say that I've been very much enjoying your comments and replies in this thread.

 

[Templar81]

There is a big difference between veneration and worship.

We worship God and we serve him as do the saints. They don't want to be worshipped because theya re not God or Gods and the Catholic chruch does not pretend they are but the saints do have the ear of God better than we do they are closer to God than we are.

In Revelations an angel appeared in front of Johna nd he bowd down and worshipped it and the angel told him not to becuase he also was a servant. Saints are the same, they are fellow servants like us but they do deserve our respect. Bowing doesn't mean you worship someone. When I used to do Aikido we had to bow to a painting of Morei Ueshiba becuase we acknowlegded and respected him and int he orient people bow to oneanother all the time and it doesn't mean they worship one another. If I met Queen Elizabeth I would bow because that is the custom and that is what you do. Bowing is about reaspect and recognition and shouldn't be taken out of context to mean worship.

As for digging up bones. They ahve to be examined properly before they can be canonised so this is a matter of neccessity. Also, these bones which are the saint's remains on earth are the means by which the miracles are channelled. This is becaue the saints are in heaven now, as they are part of the first ressurrection but as heaven and earth are not yet made anew and the old world has not passed away, the saints are still connected with their bones because a person's remains never stop being a part of them even when they die. To think that they are completely seperate is to be a dualist Cathar heretic becaue they just see the body as a oprison of flesh that holds the soul in an evil realm. St Paul tells us that the body is a Temple to the Holy spirit and that is why Christians should be buried because they need their bodies for the last judgement.

I know a lot of saints bodies have gone rotten but not all of them. Not rotting is just one sign of holiness, there are others just as not being able to speak in tongues does not mean you are in any way deficient as a Christian because there are other gifts of teh spirit. A famous saint that didn't rot was St Cuthbert who was a great missionary and Bishop of Lindisfarne in the 7th century. When they transfered his body from the churchyard to the inside of the chruch they found that he hadn't rotted, in fact they said rigormortis hadn't even set in (he hadn't gone stiff) and he still had colour in his face. In the 19th century when some work was being done on Durham Cathedral his body had to be moved becuase of some wrk that was going on the tomb was opened and he was found to be seriosuly dried up but not rotten In 1200 years after death this body din not rot and in a damp climate as well.


Why doesn't the RCC stop venerating relics because now they can pick up a Bible and see that there is nothing to say about it?
Becaue there is more to CHristianity than what is between the pages of the Bible. The Holy spirit didn't stop working when the Bible was put together which we can see from the writings of Church fathers and the catechism. Another thing you have to know aobut the Catholic church is that it does not change for anyone. There is a shortage of priests and the issue of allowing them to marry because a life of celibacy could put a lot of young men off joining the priesthood. The chruch doesn;'t change its stand on it because it doesn't change. Having women priests would help too but Benedict won't entertain the idea, why? Because the RCC does not change.

So what I'm saying is that in a world where everything is changing, the Catholic church sticks to its guns even to its own detriment because what it offers is cosntancy and stability in an increasingly unstable and unpredictable world.

 

[Anastacia]

There is a big difference between veneration and worship.

We worship God and we serve him as do the saints. They don't want to be worshipped because theya re not God or Gods and the Catholic chruch does not pretend they are but the saints do have the ear of God better than we do they are closer to God than we are.

In Revelations an angel appeared in front of Johna nd he bowd down and worshipped it and the angel told him not to becuase he also was a servant. Saints are the same, they are fellow servants like us but they do deserve our respect. Bowing doesn't mean you worship someone. When I used to do Aikido we had to bow to a painting of Morei Ueshiba becuase we acknowlegded and respected him and int he orient people bow to oneanother all the time and it doesn't mean they worship one another. If I met Queen Elizabeth I would bow because that is the custom and that is what you do. Bowing is about reaspect and recognition and shouldn't be taken out of context to mean worship.

As for digging up bones. They ahve to be examined properly before they can be canonised so this is a matter of neccessity. Also, these bones which are the saint's remains on earth are the means by which the miracles are channelled. This is becaue the saints are in heaven now, as they are part of the first ressurrection but as heaven and earth are not yet made anew and the old world has not passed away, the saints are still connected with their bones because a person's remains never stop being a part of them even when they die. To think that they are completely seperate is to be a dualist Cathar heretic becaue they just see the body as a oprison of flesh that holds the soul in an evil realm. St Paul tells us that the body is a Temple to the Holy spirit and that is why Christians should be buried because they need their bodies for the last judgement.

I know a lot of saints bodies have gone rotten but not all of them. Not rotting is just one sign of holiness, there are others just as not being able to speak in tongues does not mean you are in any way deficient as a Christian because there are other gifts of teh spirit. A famous saint that didn't rot was St Cuthbert who was a great missionary and Bishop of Lindisfarne in the 7th century. When they transfered his body from the churchyard to the inside of the chruch they found that he hadn't rotted, in fact they said rigormortis hadn't even set in (he hadn't gone stiff) and he still had colour in his face. In the 19th century when some work was being done on Durham Cathedral his body had to be moved becuase of some wrk that was going on the tomb was opened and he was found to be seriosuly dried up but not rotten In 1200 years after death this body din not rot and in a damp climate as well.


Why doesn't the RCC stop venerating relics because now they can pick up a Bible and see that there is nothing to say about it?
Becaue there is more to CHristianity than what is between the pages of the Bible. The Holy spirit didn't stop working when the Bible was put together which we can see from the writings of Church fathers and the catechism. Another thing you have to know aobut the Catholic church is that it does not change for anyone. There is a shortage of priests and the issue of allowing them to marry because a life of celibacy could put a lot of young men off joining the priesthood. The chruch doesn;'t change its stand on it because it doesn't change. Having women priests would help too but Benedict won't entertain the idea, why? Because the RCC does not change.

So what I'm saying is that in a world where everything is changing, the Catholic church sticks to its guns even to its own detriment because what it offers is cosntancy and stability in an increasingly unstable and unpredictable world.

Templar81, Did you look at the pictures of the dead saints decayed bodies displayed for veneration? And you don't naturally see that it is wrong? Also, would you mind explaining in careful detail the difference between when John fell at the angel's feet to worship him---to when someone falls at the pope's feet and kisses them? And would you please describe in detail the difference between Cornelius falling at Peter's feet in reverence---to when people fall at the pope's feet, and even kiss the pope's feet?

Revelation 19:10 At this I fell at his feet to worship him.


You are wrong about the Catholic church never changing....it is correct that once they have a false doctrine they keep it, but they have added falseness through out the centuries. The veneration of saints and statues became dogma at a time, then at another time the forbidding of priests to marry, and so on.

Would the Catholic's here mind reading a powerful testimony about a former Roman Catholic priest?


http://www.bereanbea...ard_Bennett.pdf


If anyone does read this article, would you all mind coming back on to tell what you thought of it?

 

[TexUs]

TexUs, when you say, "I am a US citizen because I was born in the US" you are referring only of yourself.

[/size][/font]
Fine. Reword it.


"You will call me a US citizen because I was born in the US". My point still stands and you know it. To avoid the truth looking you in the face you resort to bickering about how I worded my question?


The point is that the condition, being born in the US (IE, All that Christ has done for me) defines the prior statement that I am a US Citizen (IE, blessed). This is the same thing that Mary is saying...


I am THIS1 because of THIS2.
If you meet the conditions of THIS2, then THIS1 holds true.
I am blessed because of Christ. This applies to all people! This is not as hard to understand as you are making it, and it seems to be you are making it more difficult on purpose because you can't admit this is poor evidence for elevation of Mary.

In this context, Mary was called "blessed" because she was made the vessel to carry the Christ child in her womb.

The Bible does not say that here. Where in your passage does it say this?
It does say she's blessed because:
1) He's done great things for her.
2) He extends mercy to those who fear him
3) He has performed mighty deeds
4) He has scattered those who are proud
5) He has brought down rulers
6) He has lifted the humble
7) He has filled the hungry
8) He has sent the rich away
9) He has helped Israel


Once more, you ADD TO THE BIBLE THAT WHICH IS NOT THERE.
In what way, shape, or form, is this possibly acceptable? I plead with you to take heed of marksman's words. Making up scripture that isn't there in order to further an agenda is not a wise way to do any good to the Catholic faith.

Did you not know that that was the reason why the Angel Gabriel called her "blessed among women" (Luke 1:28-30).

Actually it says that nowhere in that text. But Elizabeth, as you point out, does say it in v42.
Once more, reading context would tell you exactly WHY she was blessed among women. It even asks the question in the next statement, and gives the answer: blessed are those that believe the Lord will fulfill his promises (once more, a condition that can be met by more people than Mary), and then she goes into Mary's Song which we've addressed: provides even MORE reasons why she was blessed.
"Mother of Jesus" is found nowhere among them.

And why did you leave out the part that says "All generations...?"

Do you not consider all generations blessed by Christ? I do. For your argument to have merit you'd have to maintain that everyone in the body of Christ IS NOT BLESSED, is this what you believe?
Once more, this applies to anyone. ANYONE in the body of Christ could have made these statements and it hold true. What if Joe Average sang this song? Would it not be equally true?


Here's an additional thought. If being called "blessed" in the Bible somehow gives Catholics the right to elevate these people above everyone else, why don't you pray to the meek? The poor in spirit? Those in mourning? Those who hunger for righteousness? The merciful? The pure in heart? The peacemakers? Those persecuted? Blessed are those insulted?
I dunno about you, but "those insulted" pretty well includes everyone everywhere.
Do you pray to any of these people? If your theology and doctrine were uniform you certainly would. So why, once more, do you pick Mary out?


Of course, this whole "blessed" argument can go away if you're able to admit that Luke 1 is terrible evidence for the elevation of Mary. I would then ask you for your next set of proof (not one already debunked) for the elevation of Mary? And if you cannot provide any additional proofs, my question is then, just as in the Pope, without proof: why do you do it?












I am still waiting on intelligent responses to David's passage on the angels. I'm also waiting on my question of why, when it's proven nowhere in the Bible or History, you can establish the office of the pope. I'm also waiting for your response in regards to blindly following church leaders. I am also waiting for your response in regards to why the First Century church is in any way authoritative.


Please note, that you and aspen's answers in certain areas have been informative enough for me to be OK with. IE, the bowing issue. You'll notice I haven't discussed that one for quite some time, as I do believe that bowing in itself doesn't always equate to worship, we see this in the Bible. It comes down to a heart condition, are you worshiping the person or just paying respect? That's a debatable issue because the only answer exists in the person's heart. God knows the hearts, I don't.
So don't think I'm a stick in the mud, but I just want to know how Catholics deal with certain issues and evidence that stands in their way. You've done that with bowing, in my opinion. You haven't done that with the issues I'm still pressing you for.


Heck, I'd even take "I know this isn't in the Bible anywhere, but it's what I believe" as an answer for many topics, given the Bible doesn't contradict what you believe. For example, if you want to call Mary especially blessed, I'd be cool with that. The Bible doesn't speak against it. However, bowing and praying to her are other issues, in my opinion. My main point is please don't try to distort the Word in order to prove a position that's not there.

 

[mcorba]

Anastacia,

Did you argue as vociferously in Favour of Catholicism when you practised it?

How would you have felt then, if every aspect of your beliefs were confronted and dissected in the manner that others have had to bear (very patiently I feel) on this thread?

M



We really need a bit more Christian empathy around here, folks.

 

[truthquest]

The Catholic Church teaches that we have the fullness of the gospel, but we recognize the Protestant churches baptism and we believe they teach enough of the truth to be Christian. It is difficult because this idea often makes people outside the church mad - the weird thing about it is that often the people who get the most upset do not believe the Catholic Church is Christian at all.
I just pray for unity - I think the shattered church is not pleasing to God and requires everyone to put their egos aside and work things out.

I may be wrong but to say that only the Catholic church teaches the fullness of the gospel could be interpreted to mean that it claims to be the only true church. And the statement that Protestant churches teach enough of the truth to be Christian sounds very condescending. This isn't a Catholic vs Protestant issue for me. I am not a Protestant by your definition. Yes we do need unity. But we aren't going to have it when one church claims to be superior over another one. For me, all who seek to do the will of our Father in heaven are my brothers and sisters, no matter what church or denomination they are part of. This is how I know unity and love and it brings true peace to me.

 

[Selene]

You could not be so wrong!!!!!

They came about because I was in the mood to have a bit of fun as I am holed up in bed because I am recovering from three operations to remove cancers. Time in hospital and time in bed is about two months so I have to do something to relieve the monotony.

Sorry to know that your spiritual antenna is not working.

Hello Marksman,

I ended my post with "I will pray for you, and God bless." And this is your response? Is this what your church has taught you about loving your neighbor? You are having a bit of fun? So, calling people rude names is fun to you? Whatever happened to "love your neighbor?" :blink:

And if selene and aspen would only realise that they are talking rot, we might enter into some intelloigent dialogue. The rccc has shot itself in the foot, leaving out one commandment in the shorter version but not the long one. You are not going to tell me that learning one more line in the short version is going to make it impossible to learn are you?

This is what you call "fun"? Shame....shame....shame. :blink:

The Bible does not say that here. Where in your passage does it say this?
It does say she's blessed because:
1) He's done great things for her.
2) He extends mercy to those who fear him
3) He has performed mighty deeds
4) He has scattered those who are proud
5) He has brought down rulers
6) He has lifted the humble
7) He has filled the hungry
8) He has sent the rich away
9) He has helped Israel

You got all the verses there except the one important one that you did not fulfill.

Luke 1:48 For He has been mindful of the humble state of His servant. From now on all generations will call me blessed

When it says "all generations," it is referring to whom? In the context of this passage, only one person was blessed and will be called blessed for all generations.

There is a big difference between veneration and worship.

We worship God and we serve him as do the saints. They don't want to be worshipped because theya re not God or Gods and the Catholic chruch does not pretend they are but the saints do have the ear of God better than we do they are closer to God than we are.

In Revelations an angel appeared in front of Johna nd he bowd down and worshipped it and the angel told him not to becuase he also was a servant. Saints are the same, they are fellow servants like us but they do deserve our respect. Bowing doesn't mean you worship someone. When I used to do Aikido we had to bow to a painting of Morei Ueshiba becuase we acknowlegded and respected him and int he orient people bow to oneanother all the time and it doesn't mean they worship one another. If I met Queen Elizabeth I would bow because that is the custom and that is what you do. Bowing is about reaspect and recognition and shouldn't be taken out of context to mean worship.

As for digging up bones. They ahve to be examined properly before they can be canonised so this is a matter of neccessity. Also, these bones which are the saint's remains on earth are the means by which the miracles are channelled. This is becaue the saints are in heaven now, as they are part of the first ressurrection but as heaven and earth are not yet made anew and the old world has not passed away, the saints are still connected with their bones because a person's remains never stop being a part of them even when they die. To think that they are completely seperate is to be a dualist Cathar heretic becaue they just see the body as a oprison of flesh that holds the soul in an evil realm. St Paul tells us that the body is a Temple to the Holy spirit and that is why Christians should be buried because they need their bodies for the last judgement.

I know a lot of saints bodies have gone rotten but not all of them. Not rotting is just one sign of holiness, there are others just as not being able to speak in tongues does not mean you are in any way deficient as a Christian because there are other gifts of teh spirit. A famous saint that didn't rot was St Cuthbert who was a great missionary and Bishop of Lindisfarne in the 7th century. When they transfered his body from the churchyard to the inside of the chruch they found that he hadn't rotted, in fact they said rigormortis hadn't even set in (he hadn't gone stiff) and he still had colour in his face. In the 19th century when some work was being done on Durham Cathedral his body had to be moved becuase of some wrk that was going on the tomb was opened and he was found to be seriosuly dried up but not rotten In 1200 years after death this body din not rot and in a damp climate as well.


Why doesn't the RCC stop venerating relics because now they can pick up a Bible and see that there is nothing to say about it?
Becaue there is more to CHristianity than what is between the pages of the Bible. The Holy spirit didn't stop working when the Bible was put together which we can see from the writings of Church fathers and the catechism. Another thing you have to know aobut the Catholic church is that it does not change for anyone. There is a shortage of priests and the issue of allowing them to marry because a life of celibacy could put a lot of young men off joining the priesthood. The chruch doesn;'t change its stand on it because it doesn't change. Having women priests would help too but Benedict won't entertain the idea, why? Because the RCC does not change.

So what I'm saying is that in a world where everything is changing, the Catholic church sticks to its guns even to its own detriment because what it offers is cosntancy and stability in an increasingly unstable and unpredictable world.

Hi Templar,

You are correct. The Catholic Church has not changed for 2000 years. The dogmas that were passed were already a doctrine that all Catholics believed in already since the first century. That is why there never was any protest. The dogma only confirmed.

In Christ,
Selene

 

[Anastacia]

Anastacia,

Did you argue as vociferously in Favour of Catholicism when you practised it?

How would you have felt then, if every aspect of your beliefs were confronted and dissected in the manner that others have had to bear (very patiently I feel) on this thread?

M



We really need a bit more Christian empathy around here, folks.

Stop trying to find an offensive word to use to me.

When I was a Catholic, I didn't have the Truth. But I do remember saying the "no, we don't worship Mary" comment that I hear all the time.

Christian empathy? Or do you mean empathy for false doctrine?....that's a deadly thought, more serious than you know. Trying to help others to the Truth is wrong to you?

Stop judging people falsely. You don't want God's Truth, so of course you can't make any kind of righteous judgement about me.

If you don't like apologists, nor people who stand strong for their beliefs, then why do you even come to a debate and apologetics group?

You are correct. The Catholic Church has not changed for 2000 years. The dogmas that were passed were already a doctrine that all Catholics believed in already since the first century. That is why there never was any protest. The dogma only confirmed.

In Christ,
Selene

I've wondered about this....wondered if the Catholic religion started out correct but then became apostate, or, if they were false from the beginning. Sound like from what you say here they were false from the beginning.

 

[deprofundis]

I may be wrong but to say that only the Catholic church teaches the fullness of the gospel could be interpreted to mean that it claims to be the only true church. And the statement that Protestant churches teach enough of the truth to be Christian sounds very condescending. This isn't a Catholic vs Protestant issue for me. I am not a Protestant by your definition. Yes we do need unity. But we aren't going to have it when one church claims to be superior over another one. For me, all who seek to do the will of our Father in heaven are my brothers and sisters, no matter what church or denomination they are part of. This is how I know unity and love and it brings true peace to me.

After a fashion, though, each church makes this assumption; everyone assumes their own interpretation at least to to some degree to be the correct one (otherwise, why would they believe it?), or at least the "best" reflection of the truth. It may sound condescending when it's actually articulated, but the viewpoint that "these people with whom I don't agree are close enough/agree on the essentials," is virtually the only way a unity can be structured in a heterogeneous group. If you think about, when you say that "all who seek to do with will of our Father in Heaven are my brothers and sisters," you're saying something fairly similar; those whose beliefs with which I do not agree entirely/exactly still follow enough of the same belief to be considered my brothers and sisters.
All-in-all, though, I agree with you. There are a lot of Christians whose take on our Faith differs from my own, but I still see them as my brothers and sisters in Christ, rather than as "heretics," which is what's become so saddening about this thread. I understand that it's a forum for debate and discussion, but I don't see why that needs to turn into accusations and hurtful words border on abuse.

 

[Anastacia]

I may be wrong but to say that only the Catholic church teaches the fullness of the gospel could be interpreted to mean that it claims to be the only true church. And the statement that Protestant churches teach enough of the truth to be Christian sounds very condescending. This isn't a Catholic vs Protestant issue for me. I am not a Protestant by your definition. Yes we do need unity. But we aren't going to have it when one church claims to be superior over another one. For me, all who seek to do the will of our Father in heaven are my brothers and sisters, no matter what church or denomination they are part of. This is how I know unity and love and it brings true peace to me.

People who speak up about the Truth and try to convince others are more actively trying to be united in Christ.

 

[mcorba]

Quote: Anastacia,

Did you argue as vociferously in Favour of Catholicism when you practised it?


- Hey you didnt answer the question, is that because the answer was a resounding Yes?


I m not trying to find ways to be offensive, all I am trying to point out herenis that we often change or shift our views
through life, and this means we have to sometimes question what our own Truth is, at different stages.

No one here doubts the Truth that Christ is our saviour and there is much else we agree on.

So I wonder what the value of some of the dense, entangled arguments have been, really.

We have differing variations of our own Truths, and yours and mine may never agree.
Does that mean that by my not subscribing to your exact beliefs, that I am not a Christian, in your eyes?

 

[Selene]

I've wondered about this....wondered if the Catholic religion started out correct but then became apostate, or, if they were false from the beginning. Sound like from what you say here they were false from the beginning.

That is your opinion, but so far, you have not proven anything. I already told you that in the first century, the Christians gathered up the bones of Polycarp and wrote that his bones were more precious than precious stones and gold. Where is your evidence that they did not do this. Below is my evidence from this weblink. So, instead of making false accusation....show me what evidence you have to show that this ancient letter was NOT written in the first century or not written at all.

http://carm.org/apologetics/lost-books/letter-smyrnaeans-or-martyrdom-polycarp

 

[Templar81]

Kissing feet is a sign of respect, obediance and love as well as penitance. It doesn't mean you worship the person who's feet you kiss. It is beautifull gesture, what is wrong with it? Peter was the Pricne of the Apostales and it makes sense he should be shown the proper respect and the Pope is the successor of Peter so once again it makes sense that he should be shown the proper respect. It is a custom, like bowing in the Orient. People in hot countries who wear sandles have very dusty feet and washing them is a beautiful act of humility as well what I mentioned above.

About saints, so what if they are rotten and smell a bit, they are still saints. Their bodis arn't desicrated they are treated with honour and the utmost respect. God has chosen to use these people in both life and death as his vessals as a means of working miracles and to further bring about his kingdom. Wether a saint rots or not is entirely immaterial. Some staints like Cuthbert never rot, they just dry out a bit like mummies or bog bodies but other rot like anyone else and some take a lot longer to rot. You know when they exumed St Cuthbert about a century and ahalf ago he still ahd his eyes, they were shrivelled but still there. If you don't bliebe this man was holy then read about him in the Ecclesiastical Hsitory of the English people by Bede or the Vita Cancti Cuthberti or Bede's Metrica Vita Cancti Cuthberti.