-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Ephesians 2:8-9
[SUP]8 [/SUP] For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God,
[SUP]9 [/SUP] not a result of works, so that no one may boast.
Lets us fordman and epostle read what God says about receiving Salvation.
1. " For by grace you have been saved through faith."
Its by the Grace of God and our Faith in God that we receive Salvation. Where in this verse is the word Baptism fordman and epostle? Where in this verse does God say we are saved by Baptism?
2. "And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God,"
Salvation is NOT by Works, its a free gift from God. Being Baptized to receive Salvation is Works fordman and epostle.
Catholicism teaches we have to Work for our Salvation by being Baptized first. John the Baptist proclaim Repent! and then be Baptized! Never did John the Baptist ever say be Baptized first then repent. The Catholic Church has put then in the opposite order.
Jesus did want us to be Baptized BUT we do not receive Salvation by being Baptized!
The Catholics like fordman and epostle have walked away from the Truth from God to follow the teachings of the World.
Face it fordman and epostle, both of you are in danger of not being allowed to Inherit the Kingdom of God.
[SUP]8 [/SUP] For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God,
[SUP]9 [/SUP] not a result of works, so that no one may boast.
Lets us fordman and epostle read what God says about receiving Salvation.
1. " For by grace you have been saved through faith."
Its by the Grace of God and our Faith in God that we receive Salvation. Where in this verse is the word Baptism fordman and epostle? Where in this verse does God say we are saved by Baptism?
2. "And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God,"
Salvation is NOT by Works, its a free gift from God. Being Baptized to receive Salvation is Works fordman and epostle.
Catholicism teaches we have to Work for our Salvation by being Baptized first. John the Baptist proclaim Repent! and then be Baptized! Never did John the Baptist ever say be Baptized first then repent. The Catholic Church has put then in the opposite order.
Jesus did want us to be Baptized BUT we do not receive Salvation by being Baptized!
The Catholics like fordman and epostle have walked away from the Truth from God to follow the teachings of the World.
Face it fordman and epostle, both of you are in danger of not being allowed to Inherit the Kingdom of God.
Show us fordman where in the Scriptures did Jesus ever say Mary is the mother of all men?
This is another example of how the Catholics love to corrupt the Scriptures from God to elevate Mary up to Godhood.
It does not matter what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says. What matters is what God says fordman. You have your prioritizes all wrong fordman. Its what God says in the Scriptures that has all Authority on the Truth. Not what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says.
For we do know the Catechism of the Catholic Church is from evil men and not from God.
How can you believe in that which is NOT from God? How can you reject the Truth from God for the Catechism of the Catholic Church?
This fordman is why God has refused to allow you to see the Truth in the Scriptures.
John 12:40
[SUP]40 [/SUP] “He has blinded their eyes and hardened their heart, lest they see with their eyes, and understand with their heart, and turn, and I would heal them.”
This is another example of how the Catholics love to corrupt the Scriptures from God to elevate Mary up to Godhood.
It does not matter what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says. What matters is what God says fordman. You have your prioritizes all wrong fordman. Its what God says in the Scriptures that has all Authority on the Truth. Not what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says.
For we do know the Catechism of the Catholic Church is from evil men and not from God.
How can you believe in that which is NOT from God? How can you reject the Truth from God for the Catechism of the Catholic Church?
This fordman is why God has refused to allow you to see the Truth in the Scriptures.
John 12:40
[SUP]40 [/SUP] “He has blinded their eyes and hardened their heart, lest they see with their eyes, and understand with their heart, and turn, and I would heal them.”
No argument from me. All denominations are filled with souls that need Jesus Christ including all the independent bible churches around the world.
It is not the responsibility of the organization to do the work of soul winning but it is their responsibility to disciple believers to take on the individual responsibility to be witnesses for the Lord. Teaching that salvation is by grace through faith in what the bible says about Jesus and the efficacy of His blood to atone for our sin.
Jesus said that we as believers would be witnesses to His saving grace and that we should take that to the world that through our witness they would see Jesus and be converted and have their sins forgiven.
Salvation is not about liturgy or ceremony or religious rites. Salvation is about grace and the great price God paid on our behalf to ransom us from the dead.
I support baptism after salvation and I support church membership for those who have been saved. I do not make either a requirement for salvation nor do I see membership numbers as an indicator of success in Gods eyes.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
It is not the responsibility of the organization to do the work of soul winning but it is their responsibility to disciple believers to take on the individual responsibility to be witnesses for the Lord. Teaching that salvation is by grace through faith in what the bible says about Jesus and the efficacy of His blood to atone for our sin.
Jesus said that we as believers would be witnesses to His saving grace and that we should take that to the world that through our witness they would see Jesus and be converted and have their sins forgiven.
Salvation is not about liturgy or ceremony or religious rites. Salvation is about grace and the great price God paid on our behalf to ransom us from the dead.
I support baptism after salvation and I support church membership for those who have been saved. I do not make either a requirement for salvation nor do I see membership numbers as an indicator of success in Gods eyes.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
You must be in some kind of cult that denies life after death. God is a God of the living, not the dead.
No one claims that Mary came down from heaven, that's a stupid assumption, which proves your profound ignorance and abuse of scripture. Because no one came from and ascended into heaven the way Jesus did. John 6:35,41,48,51 - Jesus says four times "I AM the bread from heaven." It is He, Himself, the eternal bread from heaven. But your Docetic heresy has reduced His Bread to a symbol.
Nonsense. You can't find any scholarly source, such as an encyclopedia or history book, to support this ridiculous charge. It's fundie propaganda and nothing more. Do you reject the Council of Ephesus of 451 AD which defended the Incarnation against heresy? Do you accept the heresies of Nestorius? You see, you don't know who that is, because your steady diet of anti-Catholic bigotry won't allow you to learn or think for yourself. Now you are sounding like a Catholic. If Catholicism is wrong, so are you, since 90% of your doctrines are borrowed from the Catholic Church.
It's been posted several times. If you are not interested in finding out what the doctrine really means, (because you haven't got a clue) then you are in no position to be making infallible declarations on the subject.
Scripture Catholic - SAINTS AND INTERCESSORY PRAYER
The Communion of Saints: Dead or Alive in Christ? by David Lamb
The Communion of Saints: Biblical Overview
Witnesses of Hebrews 12:1
Dialogue on Objections to the Communion of Saints
Reflections on the Communion of Saints
Dialogue on Objections to the Communion of Saints
Any one of those is a good place to start.
Do you think the Catholic Church ever accepted the evils of Nicholataus? Where is your proof?
"...We also mentioned the blasphemous immorality of Carpocrates. But when we spoke about the saying of Nicolaus we omitted to say this. Nicolaus, they say, had a lovely wife. When after the Saviour's ascension he was accused before the apostles of jealousy, he brought his wife into the concourse and allowed anyone who so desired to marry her. For, they say, this action was appropriate to the saying: "One must abuse the flesh." Those who share his heresy follow both his action and his words simply and without qualification by indulging in the gravest enormity..."
Clement of Alexandria
This makes no sense. Priests serve, they do not hold power. That is an anti-Catholic myth. You probably deny the Church had anything to do with the final compilation of the Holy Books of the bible in 397 AD because to admit it means you would have to change your big boogie man theory.
You have no scholarly documentation to support this lie. The Bible was translated into Latin in the 4th century because anyone who could read knew Latin. It was a universal language and still is. St. Jerome chose Latin so MORE people could read it, not everyone could read the original Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic manuscripts. Doctors will often write prescriptions in LATIN so any pharmacist anywhere in the world can read it. Look in a botony or zoology book, the names are all in Latin. It's a universal language. Your anti-Catholic paranoia is based on ignorance.
Luther'sProtestant Bible came out 1520 and before his Bible the CatholicBible had been translated into Spanish, Italian, Danish, French,Norwegian, Polish, Bohemian, Hungarian and English, there was exactly104 editions in Latin; 38 editions in German language, 25 editions inItalian language, 18 in French. In all 626 editions of the Bible with198 in the language of the laity, had been edited before the firstProtestant Bible was sent forth into the world.
Where do you get this insanity?
Is Catholicism Pagan? | Catholic Answers
Other mediators does not mean equal mediators. If you, a subordinate mediator, prays for someone who needs it, does that make Jesus's death on the cross unnecessary? The principle is the same, the family of God on earth is one with the family of God in heaven. If you choose to live in a broken home, that's up to you.
That's a brainless insult. Make an intelligent inquirery and do some reading on the subject beforehand. I don't relish in making anyone look stupid, so if you want to have a discussion with me, read the above links first. If you continue in this amoral, sinful persecution of Catholics, you will go on my ignore list.
Debating with proud ignorant anti-Catholics is like playing chess with a pigeon. They poop on the board and strut around like they won. Don't be like the crowd in my ignorasium.
No one claims that Mary came down from heaven, that's a stupid assumption, which proves your profound ignorance and abuse of scripture. Because no one came from and ascended into heaven the way Jesus did. John 6:35,41,48,51 - Jesus says four times "I AM the bread from heaven." It is He, Himself, the eternal bread from heaven. But your Docetic heresy has reduced His Bread to a symbol.
Nonsense. You can't find any scholarly source, such as an encyclopedia or history book, to support this ridiculous charge. It's fundie propaganda and nothing more. Do you reject the Council of Ephesus of 451 AD which defended the Incarnation against heresy? Do you accept the heresies of Nestorius? You see, you don't know who that is, because your steady diet of anti-Catholic bigotry won't allow you to learn or think for yourself. Now you are sounding like a Catholic. If Catholicism is wrong, so are you, since 90% of your doctrines are borrowed from the Catholic Church.
It's been posted several times. If you are not interested in finding out what the doctrine really means, (because you haven't got a clue) then you are in no position to be making infallible declarations on the subject.
Scripture Catholic - SAINTS AND INTERCESSORY PRAYER
The Communion of Saints: Dead or Alive in Christ? by David Lamb
The Communion of Saints: Biblical Overview
Witnesses of Hebrews 12:1
Dialogue on Objections to the Communion of Saints
Reflections on the Communion of Saints
Dialogue on Objections to the Communion of Saints
Any one of those is a good place to start.
Do you think the Catholic Church ever accepted the evils of Nicholataus? Where is your proof?
"...We also mentioned the blasphemous immorality of Carpocrates. But when we spoke about the saying of Nicolaus we omitted to say this. Nicolaus, they say, had a lovely wife. When after the Saviour's ascension he was accused before the apostles of jealousy, he brought his wife into the concourse and allowed anyone who so desired to marry her. For, they say, this action was appropriate to the saying: "One must abuse the flesh." Those who share his heresy follow both his action and his words simply and without qualification by indulging in the gravest enormity..."
Clement of Alexandria
This makes no sense. Priests serve, they do not hold power. That is an anti-Catholic myth. You probably deny the Church had anything to do with the final compilation of the Holy Books of the bible in 397 AD because to admit it means you would have to change your big boogie man theory.
You have no scholarly documentation to support this lie. The Bible was translated into Latin in the 4th century because anyone who could read knew Latin. It was a universal language and still is. St. Jerome chose Latin so MORE people could read it, not everyone could read the original Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic manuscripts. Doctors will often write prescriptions in LATIN so any pharmacist anywhere in the world can read it. Look in a botony or zoology book, the names are all in Latin. It's a universal language. Your anti-Catholic paranoia is based on ignorance.
Luther'sProtestant Bible came out 1520 and before his Bible the CatholicBible had been translated into Spanish, Italian, Danish, French,Norwegian, Polish, Bohemian, Hungarian and English, there was exactly104 editions in Latin; 38 editions in German language, 25 editions inItalian language, 18 in French. In all 626 editions of the Bible with198 in the language of the laity, had been edited before the firstProtestant Bible was sent forth into the world.
Where do you get this insanity?
Is Catholicism Pagan? | Catholic Answers
- Every single day the Catholic Church feeds, houses, and clothes more people, takes care of more sick people, visits more prisoners, and educates more people than any other institution on the face of the earth could ever hope to.
Other mediators does not mean equal mediators. If you, a subordinate mediator, prays for someone who needs it, does that make Jesus's death on the cross unnecessary? The principle is the same, the family of God on earth is one with the family of God in heaven. If you choose to live in a broken home, that's up to you.
That's a brainless insult. Make an intelligent inquirery and do some reading on the subject beforehand. I don't relish in making anyone look stupid, so if you want to have a discussion with me, read the above links first. If you continue in this amoral, sinful persecution of Catholics, you will go on my ignore list.
Debating with proud ignorant anti-Catholics is like playing chess with a pigeon. They poop on the board and strut around like they won. Don't be like the crowd in my ignorasium.
First off you have to remember at the time of Pope John Paul II visit, (Now St.John Paul) Iraq had been guilty of real violations of human rights. However, this Islamic state was the most tolerant of Christians than any of its Islamic neighbors. Many Catholics held positions in government, commerce, education, etc. At that time, Christians represented 5% of the 20 million people in Iraq. The Popes visit confirmed the faith of Christian believers while showing forth a genuine love for all in this mostly Muslim nation.
Secondly, the Koran was a gift to him from the delegation. Islamic peoples are not casual in the giving of gifts. It represents the giver. They knew perfectly well that the Pope was a Catholic Christian, but they gave to him that which was regarded as most important in their life, their own holy book. Thus, at the end of the audience, the Pope showed his deep appreciation to this intimate self-donation, by kissing the Koran as a sign of respect. This gesture to the Koran is not dissimilar from his kissing the soil of nations he visited. It is a sign of human respect, but not a profession of faith or an imprimatur upon the Koran. The book was a visible symbol of a people and the Pope showed them welcome. The Pope appreciated the suffering of the Iraqi people, particularly the women and children. It showed he did not look down upon them but had a genuine respect for them within the brotherhood of man.
This is your right to believe, but doesn't make it true.
Probably not. However, this is where we differ. Unlike you, we Catholics as Christians hate sin, not sinners. We might show human respect to something like the Koran or the Book of Mormon, particularly given thier antiquity and meaning to so many; however, this is all we Catholics as Christian can do. It is not our book. We neither acknowledge them as inspired nor as inerrant. We do not claim them as God’s Word. Indeed, they conflict in many places with what God has genuinely revealed to us as his truth.
I can't answer that, and won't even try (and neither should you) since only God knows the depths of thier/our hearts, soul's and thoughts. And in the end only He will be each one's judge and makes that final decision. One thing I will say though, God can change an individuals mind, and he can do it in the blinking of a eye. I just pray they do.
Ha...ha.. Dream on Pal, unlike you, I have a life outside this forum.
Now that I've answerd your shotgun form of questions, (pretty sure you'll disagree with most of what I posted, but thats okay) how about you answering some of mine? Being you are a self proclaimed believer if the Sola Scriptura doctrine, I got a few questions for you. Could you show me......
1. Where the "The Sinners Prayer" is located in Scripture?
2. Where "
Infant Dedications" (in lieu of Infant Baptism) is located in Scripture?
3. Where Denying infants Baptism is located in Scripture?
4. Where the objection to"dancing and alcohol" is located in Scripture?
5. Where the Protestant practice of the "The Altar Call"is located in Scriprure? (do you even have an altar in your church?)
6. Where the serving of "grape juice" for communion rather than wine is located in Scripture?
7. Where it say's in the Bible that "Scripture interprets Scripture?"
I'll stop at these seven to let you catch up, but have many more Protestant/non-Catholic traditions (small t) I'd like you to show where they are located in Scripture, Okay?
Pax Christi
[h=1]Mary: Mother of God[/h][HR][/HR]
Fundamentalists are sometimes horrified when the Virgin Mary is referred to as the Mother of God. However, their reaction often rests upon a misapprehension of not only what this particular title of Mary signifies but also who Jesus was, and what their own theological forebears, the Protestant Reformers, had to say regarding this doctrine.
A woman is a man’s mother either if she carried him in her womb or if she was the woman contributing half of his genetic matter or both. Mary was the mother of Jesus in both of these senses; because she not only carried Jesus in her womb but also supplied all of the genetic matter for his human body, since it was through her—not Joseph—that Jesus "was descended from David according to the flesh" (Rom. 1:3).
Since Mary is Jesus’ mother, it must be concluded that she is also the Mother of God: If Mary is the mother of Jesus, and if Jesus is God, then Mary is the Mother of God. There is no way out of this logical syllogism, the valid form of which has been recognized by classical logicians since before the time of Christ.
Although Mary is the Mother of God, she is not his mother in the sense that she is older than God or the source of her Son’s divinity, for she is neither. Rather, we say that she is the Mother of God in the sense that she carried in her womb a divine person—Jesus Christ, God "in the flesh" (2 John 7, cf. John 1:14)—and in the sense that she contributed the genetic matter to the human form God took in Jesus Christ.
To avoid this conclusion, Fundamentalists often assert that Mary did not carry God in her womb, but only carried Christ’s human nature. This assertion reinvents a heresy from the fifth century known as Nestorianism, which runs aground on the fact that a mother does not merely carry the human nature of her child in her womb. Rather, she carries the person of her child. Women do not give birth to human natures; they give birth to persons. Mary thus carried and gave birth to the person of Jesus Christ, and the person she gave birth to was God.
The Nestorian claim that Mary did not give birth to the unified person of Jesus Christ attempts to separate Christ’s human nature from his divine nature, creating two separate and distinctpersons—one divine and one human—united in a loose affiliation. It is therefore a Christological heresy, which even the Protestant Reformers recognized. Both Martin Luther and John Calvin insisted on Mary’s divine maternity. In fact, it even appears that Nestorius himself may not have believed the heresy named after him. Further, the "Nestorian" church has now signed a joint declaration on Christology with the Catholic Church and recognizes Mary’s divine maternity, just as other Christians do.
Since denying that Mary is God’s mother implies doubt about Jesus’ divinity, it is clear why Christians (until recent times) have been unanimous in proclaiming Mary as Mother of God.
The Church Fathers, of course, agreed, and the following passages witness to their lively recognition of the sacred truth and great gift of divine maternity that was bestowed upon Mary, the humble handmaid of the Lord.
Irenaeus
"The Virgin Mary, being obedient to his word, received from an angel the glad tidings that she would bear God" (Against Heresies, 5:19:1 [A.D. 189]).
Hippolytus
"[T]o all generations they [the prophets] have pictured forth the grandest subjects for contemplation and for action. Thus, too, they preached of the advent of God in the flesh to the world, his advent by the spotless and God-bearing (theotokos) Mary in the way of birth and growth, and the manner of his life and conversation with men, and his manifestation by baptism, and the new birth that was to be to all men, and the regeneration by the laver [of baptism]" (Discourse on the End of the World 1 [A.D. 217]).
Catholicanswers.com
Pax Christi
I just found another question:
Why did the practice (prayers to the saints) develop in the first place among Christians of the first generation, or (in a more skeptical view) in the second generation, right around John’s death? Is this yet another instance of the “train” of the early Church de-railing before it even got up any speed into the journey through Church history, over the rails of God’s Providence (forgive the clumsy analogy!)? Why, if this practice is wrong and un-apostolic, do we find no protest among the early Christians and Fathers against it?
Why did the practice (prayers to the saints) develop in the first place among Christians of the first generation, or (in a more skeptical view) in the second generation, right around John’s death? Is this yet another instance of the “train” of the early Church de-railing before it even got up any speed into the journey through Church history, over the rails of God’s Providence (forgive the clumsy analogy!)? Why, if this practice is wrong and un-apostolic, do we find no protest among the early Christians and Fathers against it?
Mary was the mother of the body that Jesus used to walk on the Earth.
God has no mother! God is Eternal with no beginning or end.
Therefore Mary cannot be the mother of God like the Catholics teach. Then again the Catholics also teach Mary was without sin which is another false doctrine of the Catholic Church.
The whole issue here fordman is we True Christians follow God and His Truths in the Scriptures. You Catholics on the other hand want to "play" at being a Christian following the teachings of evil men. The problem is you put the teachings of evil men equal to and above the teachings of the Holy Spirit.
Example: Catholicism teaches Mary was without sin. That Mary never sinned.
God teaches:
Romans 3:10
[SUP]10 [/SUP] as it is written: “None is righteous, no, not one;
Romans 3:23
[SUP]23 [/SUP] for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
Romans 5:12
[SUP]12 [/SUP] Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—
Clearly you fordman reject what God says where ALL have sinned to accept where Satan says Mary was without sin.
Another example is Catholicism teaches Mary is our Mediator.
1 Timothy 2:5
[SUP]5 [/SUP] For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,
Clearly fordman God says there is only ONE mediator and He is Jesus Christ.
Can you see what you are doing fordman? You are actually calling God a liar by teaching Mary was without sin and that Mary is a mediator.
How can you even believe you will enter into the Kingdom of God when you are calling God a liar?
God has no mother! God is Eternal with no beginning or end.
Therefore Mary cannot be the mother of God like the Catholics teach. Then again the Catholics also teach Mary was without sin which is another false doctrine of the Catholic Church.
The whole issue here fordman is we True Christians follow God and His Truths in the Scriptures. You Catholics on the other hand want to "play" at being a Christian following the teachings of evil men. The problem is you put the teachings of evil men equal to and above the teachings of the Holy Spirit.
Example: Catholicism teaches Mary was without sin. That Mary never sinned.
God teaches:
Romans 3:10
[SUP]10 [/SUP] as it is written: “None is righteous, no, not one;
Romans 3:23
[SUP]23 [/SUP] for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
Romans 5:12
[SUP]12 [/SUP] Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—
Clearly you fordman reject what God says where ALL have sinned to accept where Satan says Mary was without sin.
Another example is Catholicism teaches Mary is our Mediator.
1 Timothy 2:5
[SUP]5 [/SUP] For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,
Clearly fordman God says there is only ONE mediator and He is Jesus Christ.
Can you see what you are doing fordman? You are actually calling God a liar by teaching Mary was without sin and that Mary is a mediator.
How can you even believe you will enter into the Kingdom of God when you are calling God a liar?
Well KenAllen, then you are calling your Protestant Reformers liers!
Martin Luther: ----"She is rightly called not only the mother of the man, but also the Mother of God ... It is certain that Mary is the Mother of the real and true God"
John Calvin:
---Elizabeth called Mary Mother of the Lord, because the unity of the person in the two natures of Christ was such that she could have said that the mortal man engendered in the womb of Mary was at the same time the eternal God"
"To this day we cannot enjoy the blessing brought to us in Christ without thinking at the same time of that which God gave as adornment and honour to Mary, in willing her to be the mother of his only-begotten Son."
Ulrich Zwingli: ----It was given to her what belongs to no creature, that in the flesh she should bring forth the Son of God"
"It was fitting that such a holy Son should have a holy Mother"
"The more the honor and love of Christ increases among men, so much the esteem and honor given to Mary should grow"
Can't help but wonder KenAllen, if you believe these fathers of the Reformation got this wrong, when did the Protestant/ non-Catholic sect you belong began to disagree with them? (actual dates)
It also make me wonder K.A., if you (and the thousands of other differnt Protestant/non-Catholic sects) have no qualms disagreeing with them on this subject, what other doctrines do you beleive they are at error?
Thousands of differnt Protestant/non-Catholic sects = thousands of differnt interpretations of Scripture = disunity and confusion!
Protestantism, built on shifting sands..... Catholicism, built on Solid Rock!
Pax Christi
Martin Luther: ----"She is rightly called not only the mother of the man, but also the Mother of God ... It is certain that Mary is the Mother of the real and true God"
John Calvin:
---Elizabeth called Mary Mother of the Lord, because the unity of the person in the two natures of Christ was such that she could have said that the mortal man engendered in the womb of Mary was at the same time the eternal God"
"To this day we cannot enjoy the blessing brought to us in Christ without thinking at the same time of that which God gave as adornment and honour to Mary, in willing her to be the mother of his only-begotten Son."
Ulrich Zwingli: ----It was given to her what belongs to no creature, that in the flesh she should bring forth the Son of God"
"It was fitting that such a holy Son should have a holy Mother"
"The more the honor and love of Christ increases among men, so much the esteem and honor given to Mary should grow"
Can't help but wonder KenAllen, if you believe these fathers of the Reformation got this wrong, when did the Protestant/ non-Catholic sect you belong began to disagree with them? (actual dates)
It also make me wonder K.A., if you (and the thousands of other differnt Protestant/non-Catholic sects) have no qualms disagreeing with them on this subject, what other doctrines do you beleive they are at error?
Thousands of differnt Protestant/non-Catholic sects = thousands of differnt interpretations of Scripture = disunity and confusion!
Protestantism, built on shifting sands..... Catholicism, built on Solid Rock!
Pax Christi