Mary?
- Thread starter Musicmaster
- Start date
-
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.
Thank you for sharing your testimony. I thank the Lord for all who depart from any and all self-proclaimed authority for teaching what was never established nor inspired by the Lord to be written down by His apostles in the first century.
What's interesting is that, if what the RCC teaches their people were true, then it's absolutely suspicious that the body of teaching they embrace, and yet not spoken of in the apostolic writings we have in the Bible, are completely absent within the apostle's writings to us. It is therefore with a clear conscience that I can reject them.
The doctrine of purgatory, if it were something the apostles believed and taught, and yet never recorded anywhere in their writings, it was not declared an official belief until about 593 AD. Gregory I is the first man to have been called a "pope". Before him, they only knew themselves as "bishops." That too is an interesting fact from history that is contrary to modern teaching within the RCC ranks.
Here's a timeline of their officially declared doctrines I have been able to find:
How did the apostles miss all those things so badly if they are from the real God of our salvation?
What are the thoughts of everyone here?
MM
What's interesting is that, if what the RCC teaches their people were true, then it's absolutely suspicious that the body of teaching they embrace, and yet not spoken of in the apostolic writings we have in the Bible, are completely absent within the apostle's writings to us. It is therefore with a clear conscience that I can reject them.
The doctrine of purgatory, if it were something the apostles believed and taught, and yet never recorded anywhere in their writings, it was not declared an official belief until about 593 AD. Gregory I is the first man to have been called a "pope". Before him, they only knew themselves as "bishops." That too is an interesting fact from history that is contrary to modern teaching within the RCC ranks.
Here's a timeline of their officially declared doctrines I have been able to find:
- Prayers for the dead – 300 AD
- Making the sign of the cross – 300 AD
- Veneration of angels & dead saints – 375 A.D.
- Use of images in worship – 375 A D.
- The Mass as a daily celebration – 394 AD
- Beginning of the exaltation of Mary; the term, "Mother of God" applied at Council of Ephesus – 431 AD.
- Extreme Unction (Last Rites) – 526 AD
- Doctrine of Purgatory (Gregory I) – 593 AD
- Prayers to Mary & dead saints – 600 AD
- Worship of cross, images & relics – 786 AD
- Canonization of dead saints – 995 AD
- Celibacy of priesthood – 1079 AD
- The Rosary – 1090 AD
- Indulgences – 1190 AD
- Transubstantiation (Innocent III) – 1215 AD
- Auricular Confession of sins to a priest – 1215 AD
- Adoration of the wafer (Host) – 1220 AD
- Cup forbidden to the people at communion – 1414 AD
- Purgatory proclaimed as a dogma – 1439 AD
- The doctrine of the Seven Sacraments confirmed – 1439 AD
- Tradition declared of equal authority with Bible by Council of Trent – 1545 AD
- Apocryphal books added to the Bible - 1546
- Mary declared to have been the product of immaculate conception - 1854
- Bodily assumption of Mary declared official doctrine - 1950
How did the apostles miss all those things so badly if they are from the real God of our salvation?
What are the thoughts of everyone here?
MM
-
1
- Show all
>What's interesting is that their teaching about their Mary didn't become an established, officially declared belief in their religion until >the 19th century
I know that's true of I think the immaculate conception, or was it the bodily ascension - edit i see someone's done the homework! She's still not officially co-redeemer yet i don't think Francis will do it any way but i think they are going to. On the other hand some things go back a lot further before the 19th century. Its Mary plays similar role to Holy Spirit i think when catholic see Holy Spirit in protestant world being celebrated they go off an add something new to Mary but after co-redeemer i think theres not anything else they can add!
I know that's true of I think the immaculate conception, or was it the bodily ascension - edit i see someone's done the homework! She's still not officially co-redeemer yet i don't think Francis will do it any way but i think they are going to. On the other hand some things go back a lot further before the 19th century. Its Mary plays similar role to Holy Spirit i think when catholic see Holy Spirit in protestant world being celebrated they go off an add something new to Mary but after co-redeemer i think theres not anything else they can add!
Jaumel, if Mary isn't the mother of God then Jesus isn't God. Jesus is beholding to His mother as Scriptures testify. She is recognized for who she is to battle against the heresies that divide Jesus into parts. Part human or part divine. Or just human or just divine. Jesus is both as one person. Jesus is God and He is the fruit of a human mother's womb like you and I.
-
1
- Show all
Oh, but the many, many ecumenical conferences and crusades going on all across this nation do indeed record the American bishops and cardinals laying claim to every person believing in deity/deities as being a part of one religion they label as "christian." Every RCC member I have ever met say they are "Christians," that they are the historic "Christian religion."
That's the difference, see? That one pesky little identifier of "religion." That has been a central tool in the hands of Satan for centuries. Anyone can be religious, and can be a part of one or more religions at the same time. The American leaders of the roman catholic religion are pushing hard for all religions to join hands in fellowship, even inviting Indian witch doctors from Oklahoma to join in with them, and accepting them as fellow travelers on one of many of the (Oprah Winfrey) roads they think lead to the real God, but do not.
The idea that they can take children's chalk, draw distinct lanes on that broad path they are on that leads to destruction, under the assumption they are creating different paths to the Oprah-Winfrey-god, are only fooling themselves and each other.
Has anyone else seen or heard of these events orchestrated by RCC leadership?
MM
That's the difference, see? That one pesky little identifier of "religion." That has been a central tool in the hands of Satan for centuries. Anyone can be religious, and can be a part of one or more religions at the same time. The American leaders of the roman catholic religion are pushing hard for all religions to join hands in fellowship, even inviting Indian witch doctors from Oklahoma to join in with them, and accepting them as fellow travelers on one of many of the (Oprah Winfrey) roads they think lead to the real God, but do not.
The idea that they can take children's chalk, draw distinct lanes on that broad path they are on that leads to destruction, under the assumption they are creating different paths to the Oprah-Winfrey-god, are only fooling themselves and each other.
Has anyone else seen or heard of these events orchestrated by RCC leadership?
MM
God has no mother. Mary gave birth to the physical vessel that the fullness of Deity filled. "Mother of God" is of pagan origin, not something the apostles attributes to Mary in any of their writings.
GM produced/manufactured the car I fill with myself to drive to work and shopping. That doesn't mean that GM is my maker, my parent, or anything else apart from having been the manufacturing entity of the car I drive.
MM
GM produced/manufactured the car I fill with myself to drive to work and shopping. That doesn't mean that GM is my maker, my parent, or anything else apart from having been the manufacturing entity of the car I drive.
MM
-
1
- Show all
I understand your beliefs from what the RCC has taught you. What they teach, versus the historic realities, well, they are not one and the same. It matters not at all to me what anyone calls themselves, stealing the name or otherwise. What matters is truth in all things. I am not saved by calling myself Christian, nor am I saved by pointing at teachings not contained in the Bible, as penned by the apostles themselves. One must blindly accept the vatican as a source for truth when one has no other authoritative source that is cannonized and has established evidence for authenticity.
Perhaps you can explain to us why doctrines not declared as official doctrine until centuries after the passing of the last apostle should be trusted? Good grief, the RCC Mary being bodily assumed into their heaven wasn't officially decreed as an official doctrine of the RCC until 1950! That's almost 20 centuries after the the alleged event. Why do you accept that?
MM
Perhaps you can explain to us why doctrines not declared as official doctrine until centuries after the passing of the last apostle should be trusted? Good grief, the RCC Mary being bodily assumed into their heaven wasn't officially decreed as an official doctrine of the RCC until 1950! That's almost 20 centuries after the the alleged event. Why do you accept that?
MM
Then why does scriptures say this:
[Col. 2:9] For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
To assume there is no distinction between the physical body and the Deity that dwelt within that body, why do the writers of scripture make that distinction? Perhaps if you could explain that inconsistency between what you were taught and what scripture actually says, then maybe we can better understand your objection.
MM
[Col. 2:9] For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
To assume there is no distinction between the physical body and the Deity that dwelt within that body, why do the writers of scripture make that distinction? Perhaps if you could explain that inconsistency between what you were taught and what scripture actually says, then maybe we can better understand your objection.
MM
you don't understand my beliefs I guarantee. I wasn't taught by the Catholic Church. I was lead by the truths I found in the bible. I had never heard what the Holy Spirit was teaching me. Thought I was supposed to start 'another' Church, which was very repugnant to me. I thank God it was already being taught. I found it when reading the sermons of St. Pope John Paul II.
Hmm. Let's see what the catachism actually says:
1368 The Eucharist is also the sacrifice of the Church. The Church which is the Body of Christ participates in the offering of her Head. With him, she herself is offered whole and entire. She unites herself to his intercession with the Father for all men. In the Eucharist the sacrifice of Christ becomes also the sacrifice of the members of his Body. The lives of the faithful, their praise, sufferings, prayer, and work, are united with those of Christ and with his total offering, and so acquire a new value. Christ's sacrifice present on the altar makes it possible for all generations of Christians to be united with his offering.
Now, I don't see how you or anyone else can transubstantiate the clear meaning of the above statement into something else that it's not saying. If you have your own private interpretation of what is said in the above quote of the actual catechism of the RCC taught to their followers, it would be interesting to see it.
MM
1368 The Eucharist is also the sacrifice of the Church. The Church which is the Body of Christ participates in the offering of her Head. With him, she herself is offered whole and entire. She unites herself to his intercession with the Father for all men. In the Eucharist the sacrifice of Christ becomes also the sacrifice of the members of his Body. The lives of the faithful, their praise, sufferings, prayer, and work, are united with those of Christ and with his total offering, and so acquire a new value. Christ's sacrifice present on the altar makes it possible for all generations of Christians to be united with his offering.
Now, I don't see how you or anyone else can transubstantiate the clear meaning of the above statement into something else that it's not saying. If you have your own private interpretation of what is said in the above quote of the actual catechism of the RCC taught to their followers, it would be interesting to see it.
MM
Our Savior shares His death with us which unites our sacrifice with His. Our suffering participates in His and participates in His redemption as well. Jesus can make our suffering redemptive just as Paul taught. I have experienced this and it is why I love the Scriptures. Sound like what you read about Catholic teaching?
This is true; there are only two ex cathedra dogmas of the RCC (ex cathedra is the highest level of the magisterium), and they both concern Mary: her so-called immaculate conception (declared by Pope Pius IX in 1854 and grandfathered in after the First Vatican Council’s declaration of papal infallibility in 1870), and her bodily assumption into heaven (declared by Pope Pius XII in 1950). These are mandated for the Catholic to believe, meaning, if they do not, they cannot rightfully claim to be Catholic at all according to the papacy, and they are therefore not saved. You might think that if there were any such officially mandated dogmas that they would concern Christ, but no - this is just another example of how the RCC has elevated Mary above Jesus. Some will even tell you that you have to go through Mary to get to Jesus! It amounts to blasphemy.
-
1
- Show all
>Perhaps you can explain to us why doctrines not declared as official doctrine until centuries after the passing of the last apostle should >be trusted? Good grief, the RCC Mary being bodily assumed into their heaven wasn't officially decreed as an official doctrine of the RCC >until 1950! That's almost 20 centuries after the the alleged event. Why do you accept that?
But these official doctrines are presented as confirming what was always believed not as new doctrines, and if anyone didn't believe it then they should of i guess
A bit like the council of Nicea which no-one objects to and that was 3 centuries after i'm not saying i'm a big fan of these conclaves or really buy it - it's meant to define what before might not have been set in stone
The role of Mary is also popular due to the belief that "if Jesus won't let you in the front door Mary will let you in round the back"
blasphemy? save that for occasion really deserving it not helpful, better to say misguided devotion if you don't like it
But these official doctrines are presented as confirming what was always believed not as new doctrines, and if anyone didn't believe it then they should of i guess
A bit like the council of Nicea which no-one objects to and that was 3 centuries after i'm not saying i'm a big fan of these conclaves or really buy it - it's meant to define what before might not have been set in stone
The role of Mary is also popular due to the belief that "if Jesus won't let you in the front door Mary will let you in round the back"
blasphemy? save that for occasion really deserving it not helpful, better to say misguided devotion if you don't like it
I hope you don't mind me pointing out that the wording of that catechism does not say that what is on that altar is only a "uniting" with something that happened in the past. You're adding meaning to what is actually stated, which is something my friends try to do in order to try and side-step the difficulty behind the understanding of a re-sacrifice on a daily basis.
1368 The Eucharist is also the sacrifice of the Church. The Church which is the Body of Christ participates in the offering of her Head. With him, she herself is offered whole and entire. She unites herself to his intercession with the Father for all men. In the Eucharist the sacrifice of Christ becomes also the sacrifice of the members of his Body. The lives of the faithful, their praise, sufferings, prayer, and work, are united with those of Christ and with his total offering, and so acquire a new value. Christ's sacrifice present on the altar makes it possible for all generations of Christians to be united with his offering.
Please explain to us all how "she" can be offered along with your Jesus if that is not an actual sacrifice going on at the present time of each and every time it is exercised on a daily basis. I'm sorry, but your words don't align with what that catechism says in the clarity of its language. Adding words in that are not there, taking away words that are, clearly is not an honest handling of what that statement says to the reasonable, unbiased thinking of the average, intelligent reader. Was the writer of that catechism remiss in what is written, and thus inadvertently misleading everyone by misstatement? When it says "Christ's sacrifice present on the altar" has an unmistakable meaning, and we must believe that the writer of that catechism, and all the other indicators in that catechism, said exactly what he meant. BY what authority do roman catholics add to it, or take away from it, the clarity of what anyone can read as to what it clearly states?
MM
1368 The Eucharist is also the sacrifice of the Church. The Church which is the Body of Christ participates in the offering of her Head. With him, she herself is offered whole and entire. She unites herself to his intercession with the Father for all men. In the Eucharist the sacrifice of Christ becomes also the sacrifice of the members of his Body. The lives of the faithful, their praise, sufferings, prayer, and work, are united with those of Christ and with his total offering, and so acquire a new value. Christ's sacrifice present on the altar makes it possible for all generations of Christians to be united with his offering.
Please explain to us all how "she" can be offered along with your Jesus if that is not an actual sacrifice going on at the present time of each and every time it is exercised on a daily basis. I'm sorry, but your words don't align with what that catechism says in the clarity of its language. Adding words in that are not there, taking away words that are, clearly is not an honest handling of what that statement says to the reasonable, unbiased thinking of the average, intelligent reader. Was the writer of that catechism remiss in what is written, and thus inadvertently misleading everyone by misstatement? When it says "Christ's sacrifice present on the altar" has an unmistakable meaning, and we must believe that the writer of that catechism, and all the other indicators in that catechism, said exactly what he meant. BY what authority do roman catholics add to it, or take away from it, the clarity of what anyone can read as to what it clearly states?
MM
Given the logic you presented above, that's an argument from silence, because nowhere did any one of the apostles state such a belief about Mary. John, the last of the apostles to have lived up to the 90 AD era, said nothing about any of those things about Mary, and he certainly had every opportunity to do so if it were central to their understanding, given the vast importance the RCC places upon it today, and since 1950.
MM
MM