Proof That Catholics Worship Mary

[Eli1]

But not for pope Francis. He is not afraid to say this: Every religion is a way to arrive at God’. ...Notwithstanding any comments to the contrary, the Catholic Church has consistently and clearly taught that it is the only true Church, the Body of Christ..."

The Pope is a bit of a politician, or he is a lot like a politician.
But the thing is, just like Posthuman said, when i am in a Catholic church from time to time or when i talk to a Catholic in person, we don't really talk about the Pope.
It's important to see others like human beings first, created in the image of God and then use discernment just like with any other group.
Every group has the good, the bad and the ugly.

 

[Edify]

Oh, so you don't support Trump then, because a thousand sins are worse than a an hundred? Lol

But the scripture says one sin makes you just as guilty of breaking the entire law as a thousand.



we have to show mercy - there's no way around mercy. it's required, because no one is without sin and error.
we should not be selective about mercy, showing favoritism, but give it to all.




ah that part. "on purpose"
that's questionable when we talk about whether all RCC attendees are fully aware of the nefarious history and the details of dogmatic error in that church. do they all fully know all these things? heck at least half of protestant churches don't know ver basic things about the scripture.
so how much is really on purpose?

but i should remind you of Lot, who Peter says is righteous, and who stayed in Sodom on purpose, and even hesitated when angels commanded him to leave.
righteous Lot had a reason - the decision to leave wasn't easy, even when he knew it was about to be destroyed.

Lot didn't want to leave because everything he owned was there.
When the angels got them by the hand & FORCED them out, what do you think they left with? What they could quickly grab.
Their riches were left behind, & their cattle & servants burned.
I was surprised his daughters had anything to make him drunk in the first place.

I'm done here, for my responsibility was not to force-feed the people.

 

[posthuman]

Lot didn't want to leave because everything he owned was there

where is that written?
Peter says Lot is righteous.

Lot's earthly wealth was based in many flocks and herds - these would not have been in the city.

the truth is that Lot had 2 sons, 2 sons-in-law and 2 married daughters in the city that were not with him. this is why Abraham stopped with the number ten, and why Lot's wife turned back. parents will throw their own lives away running into a burning building to save their children.

the idea she was essentially committing suicide over her bridge club membership and favorite furniture is nonsense, and found nowhere in the text. it's a contrived object lesson imagined by people crafting tithing sermons.

 

[posthuman]

Why, brother? I’d rather read and study the Bible alone rather than attending a RCC.

for the love of others

 

[Magenta]

But not for pope Francis. He is not afraid to say this: Every religion is a way to arrive at God’. ...Notwithstanding any comments to the contrary, the Catholic Church has consistently and clearly taught that it is the only true Church, the Body of Christ..."

He also said we are all God's children... which is not what the Bible teaches at all.

 

[loveme1]

A Protestant is someone who rejects old tradition, while being in a new tradition.

Are you a member of the catholic church?

 

[Cameron143]

Many times it is the level of spiritual maturity that determines whether or not one should do a thing or not. Worshipping and where is merely another such example of this. To the one who can worship anywhere, worship anywhere. To the one this would be troubling, let him refrain.
Whether therefore one eats or drinks...or worships...do so to the glory of God, or refrain to the glory of God.
Personally, I could worship in the pit of hell with the devil spitting on me while I'm hung upside down. But I've always been a fan of extremes.

 

[loveme1]

The catholic traditions have been protested for many moons.. the people often seem unable to let go of traditions.

I don’t believe the behaviour is acceptable to GOD whom reiterated, over and over His preference on how we are to worship Him. In spirit and Truth is His preference.

We are not ignorant that the queen of heaven worship preceded Our Lord’s Birth.

The Bible teaches us:


Jeremiah 7:18


The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead their dough to make cakes to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto other gods, that they may provoke Me to anger.


Now, we are all here abiding.. trying to be Faithful.. but the catholic church is full of things that displease Heavenly Father. The Bible is full of examples throughout.

There is no universal all roads lead to Heaven. The world will try to unite man and his traditions.

The way to the Father is through Faith in His Son. Mediator, High Priest. The Lord’s prayer is our daily prayer.

We ask in His Name for our prayers to be answered. We can confess our sins and seek forgiveness from within. Our heart is circumcised and GOD can see us from within.

GOD is victorious and all that is.. will not always be.

 

[Edify]

I could worship in the pit of hell with the devil spitting on me while I'm hung upside down. But I've always been a fan of extremes.

Watch out... there's a big man on campus.

 

[Edify]

Precisely for that reason, because they are innocent and spiritually immature and do not perceive the bad feelings that must be there. They are also accustomed to that and they don't see it as something completely bad because they grew up going to those churches since they were children.

Those that are accustomed to sin are sinners by association. the blind has led them into the ditch.

 

[Cameron143]

Watch out... there's a big man on campus.

It's called hyperbole. I hope that wasn't the only part you read.

 

[Eli1]

Are you a member of the catholic church?

I was actually raised with the teachings of the Orthodox church since i was 15 years old. Since that time, i have been to many Catholic and Protestant churches.

 

[Magenta]

Many times it is the level of spiritual maturity that determines whether or not one should do a thing or not. Worshipping and where is merely another such example of this. To the one who can worship anywhere, worship anywhere. To the one this would be troubling, let him refrain.
Whether therefore one eats or drinks...or worships...do so to the glory of God, or refrain to the glory of God.
Personally, I could worship in the pit of hell with the devil spitting on me while I'm hung upside down. But I've always been a fan of extremes.

1 Timothy 4:4-5 plus 1 Corinthians 10:31b

 

[John146]

for the love of others

So you went there to evangelize? Other than that, there’s no purpose.

 

[KephaAlHabayith]

Actually, that's question is easy to explain.

Can you forgive sins?? No, right??

Who can forgive sins?

What are the requirements to be forgiven of our sins?
Isn't it believing and accepting Jesus as our personal savior??

So, that verse is easy to understand. To begin with, since the Gospel of John does not describe the ascension of Jesus anywhere, it is understood that this verse synthesizes the scene of the ascension of Jesus that is described very well in the gospels of Luke 24:50-53, Mark 16:14- 19 and the book of Acts 1:4-9.
The reception of the Holy Spirit is also synthesized in that verse. If you read Acts 2:1-13 you will realize that the reception of the holy spirit was 40 days after the acencion and not the same day as it appears in the gospel of John.

With that in mind, Mark 16:15-16 says: And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth shall not be damned.

In conclusion, if Jesus gives you the great commission to preach the gospel to every creature and those who believe, their sins will be remitted and those who do not believe will not. That is all that the gospel of John is synthesizing in a few verses. Not that anyone has the power to forgive sins apart from God.

But since Catholics grab any excuse to distort the word of God and say that they are right without doing a logical analysis, they base themselves on that verse to say that the disciples had the power to forgive sins when what it indicates is that Through the preaching of the message of salvation, those who believe will have their sins forgiven and those who did not, well not.

Unfortunately, you're mistaken as this is very short after Jesus' Resurrection and quite a bit of time prior to His Ascension into Heaven. I never said I have the authority to forgive sins but the Apostles were granted that authority, who in turn appointed other equipped men like Matthias, Timothy, and Titus. They, in turn, likewise appointed other qualified men to do the same (Tit. 1:5; 1 Tim 3:1-7).

You try to spiritualize this text by saying that through the preaching of the Gospel, those who believe will have their sins forgiven. Where does it say that anywhere in that passage? What is more, simply believing in Christ is not sufficient, one must repent, which is why St. Paul has a two-pronged explanation of conversion in Romans 4:3-8. In that passage he cites Abraham's belief, as well as David's repentance from his sins of murder and adultery (Ps. 32).

Lastly, James 5:16 speaks about confessing our sins to one another, and in that very context are mentioned the Presbyters of the Church who also anoint with oil those who are ill (Anointing of the Sick). There is absolutely nothing distorted whatever in these passages. I find that in order for you to avoid the inevitable conclusion of certain people being given the authority to take away sins on Jesus' behalf, you have to spiritualize the passages to a ridiculous level, instead of allowing the Scriptures to speak for themselves.

 

[Nehemiah6]

I never said I have the authority to forgive sins but the Apostles were granted that authority, who in turn appointed other equipped men like Matthias, Timothy, and Titus. They, in turn, likewise appointed other qualified men to do the same (Tit. 1:5; 1 Tim 3:1-7).

That is completely false.

1. Apostolic authority was limited to the twelve apostles. No one after that. And when Jesus spoke about them forgiving sins, it was in a very specific context. They had the authority to address sins within the churches (as shown by Paul), but the "forgiveness" they offered was not the same as what God does. Since only God can forgive sins, they asked other Christians to forgive the person who had sinned and restore him to fellowship.

2. As to confessing sins to the elders (presbyters), the word in James as found in the Received Text is "faults". And that is a different Greek word than that which says "sins". the modern versions corrupted that passage to accommodate the Catholic church.

3. By no stretch of the imagination can a Catholic priest have the authority to grant "absolution" -- the forgiveness of sins. First of all the entire Catholic concept fo the priesthood is false. Secondly, the RCC gives its priest powers and authority which not even the apostles had. Thirdly the whole concept of a human priest offering an "actual" sacrifice at the Mass is blasphemous. The OT priests sacrificed actual animals and shed their blood. The Catholic priest is supposed to imagine that a bloodless wafer represents Christ. And that too in the face of the fact that Christ offered ONE sacrifice for sins forever.

 

[Magenta]

You try to spiritualize this text by saying that through the preaching of the Gospel, those who
believe will have their sins forgiven. Where does it say that anywhere in that passage?

Acts 10:43~ All the prophets testify about Him that everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins through His name.

 

[Nicolas]

Unfortunately, you're mistaken as this is very short after Jesus' Resurrection and quite a bit of time prior to His Ascension into Heaven. I never said I have the authority to forgive sins but the Apostles were granted that authority, who in turn appointed other equipped men like Matthias, Timothy, and Titus. They, in turn, likewise appointed other qualified men to do the same (Tit. 1:5; 1 Tim 3:1-7).

You try to spiritualize this text by saying that through the preaching of the Gospel, those who believe will have their sins forgiven. Where does it say that anywhere in that passage? What is more, simply believing in Christ is not sufficient, one must repent, which is why St. Paul has a two-pronged explanation of conversion in Romans 4:3-8. In that passage he cites Abraham's belief, as well as David's repentance from his sins of murder and adultery (Ps. 32).

Lastly, James 5:16 speaks about confessing our sins to one another, and in that very context are mentioned the Presbyters of the Church who also anoint with oil those who are ill (Anointing of the Sick). There is absolutely nothing distorted whatever in these passages. I find that in order for you to avoid the inevitable conclusion of certain people being given the authority to take away sins on Jesus' behalf, you have to spiritualize the passages to a ridiculous level, instead of allowing the Scriptures to speak for themselves.

It sounds like you have a little comprehension problem. I explained clearly to you that this text summarizes the resurrection, ascension and reception of the holy spirit and I gave you several verses from other books where you could corroborate it, but since you have no interest in it other than just having the truth, you came here with some verses that nothing say about the forgiveness of sins by no one other than God.
Keep living in your delusion. I'm not the one who loses. I know very well to whom I must confess my sins and who is the only one who can forgive me. If you want to believe that an old man locked in a cubicle can forgive your sins, that is your business.

 

[KephaAlHabayith]

It sounds like you have a little comprehension problem. I explained clearly to you that this text summarizes the resurrection, ascension and reception of the holy spirit and I gave you several verses from other books where you could corroborate it, but since you have no interest in it other than just having the truth, you came here with some verses that nothing say about the forgiveness of sins by no one other than God.
Keep living in your delusion. I'm not the one who loses. I know very well to whom I must confess my sins and who is the only one who can forgive me. If you want to believe that an old man locked in a cubicle can forgive your sins, that is your business.

What precisely do you not understand by the phrase, "If you forgive ('ἀφίημι') anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you withhold forgiveness from anyone, it is withheld” (Jn. 20:23)?

What is more, I understood what you said perfectly and even addressed what you said. Let me reiterate, this was BEFORE the Ascension and descent of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. How can this passage be summarizing things that haven't even happened up to that point yet? If you want to say that His breathing of the Spirit upon them is some sort of foreshadowing of what would transpire in the upper room, then fine but it isn't strictly addressing that issue really at all, so I once again call into question your interpretation and challenge you to provide evidence because you keep using the word "synthesizes," but there's nothing in the context to support that perspective. There is nothing to even suggest that a synthesis of the Resurrection, and then the subsequent Ascension and Descent of the Spirit at Pentecost is even in view here. All He is doing is commissioning His Disciples and handing authority over to them.

 

[KephaAlHabayith]

That is completely false.

1. Apostolic authority was limited to the twelve apostles. No one after that. And when Jesus spoke about them forgiving sins, it was in a very specific context. They had the authority to address sins within the churches (as shown by Paul), but the "forgiveness" they offered was not the same as what God does. Since only God can forgive sins, they asked other Christians to forgive the person who had sinned and restore him to fellowship.

2. As to confessing sins to the elders (presbyters), the word in James as found in the Received Text is "faults". And that is a different Greek word than that which says "sins". the modern versions corrupted that passage to accommodate the Catholic church.

3. By no stretch of the imagination can a Catholic priest have the authority to grant "absolution" -- the forgiveness of sins. First of all the entire Catholic concept fo the priesthood is false. Secondly, the RCC gives its priest powers and authority which not even the apostles had. Thirdly the whole concept of a human priest offering an "actual" sacrifice at the Mass is blasphemous. The OT priests sacrificed actual animals and shed their blood. The Catholic priest is supposed to imagine that a bloodless wafer represents Christ. And that too in the face of the fact that Christ offered ONE sacrifice for sins forever.

1.) So you say, and yet Matthias is chosen to succeed Judas in Acts 1: "For it is written in the Book of Psalms, 'May his camp become desolate, and let there be no one to dwell in it’; and ‘Let another take his office’" (v. 20). What is more, we need to look at the earliest Christian praxis on this matter: “Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry” (Letter to the Corinthians 42:4–5, 44:1–3 [A.D. 80]).

What is more, you say they merely had the authority to "address sins within the churches." What on earth does that even mean? In a sense I could agree with that I suppose because the way they addressed those sins was by denouncing them and forgiving them as stated in Jn. 20:23 & Mat. 18:18. God is the one who takes sins away, the Apostles cannot do that but they can forgive them on behalf of God or let them remain if the person is not truly repentant (Jn. 20:23).

2.) This point was utterly amazing to me because the Greek word that is used is "ἁμαρτία." That is the Greek term for "sin." So, you're simply incorrect about that, but I would also argue that the word, "fault," is a synonym for "sin."

3.) It's not false. Actually, if you look into the etymology of the word, "priest," you will realize that it is derived from the Greek word, "presbyteros." Again, looking at Scripture, e.g., James 5 which says to call the priests to heal the sick and to forgive sins, but also, the earliest Christian praxis, St. Ignatius of Antioch writes: “Now, therefore, it has been my privilege to see you in the person of your God-inspired bishop, Damas; and in the persons of your worthy presbyters, Bassus and Apollonius; and my fellow-servant, the deacon, Zotion. What a delight is his company! For he is subject to the bishop as to the grace of God, and to the presbytery as to the law of Jesus Christ” (Letter to the Magnesians 2 [A.D. 110]). We see the three-fold office of the clergy made present here in the late 1st to early 2nd Centuries. I mean, even the names of these priests are given (Bassus & Apollonius)!

Secondly, the Apostles had more authority than the priests of today do. So, I'm not sure where you're getting that from since the Deposit of Faith came from them.

Thirdly, you hit the nail on the head by stating that Jesus' sacrifice is forever. This eternal sacrifice is such a powerful sacrifice that it can be re-presented daily upon the altar in churches everywhere. Jesus is not dying again, nor is He suffering again, and so, this in no way contradicts Hebrews 9 but rather complements it perfectly. What is more, the fact that St. Paul uses the language of sacrifice when discussing the sacrilege taking place in 1 Cor. 10. Notice the context of sacrifice in 1 Cor. 10:16-21 and the interchangeable use of the terms "altar" and "table?"

Lastly, we are saying that the consecrated bread and wine is in fact the Body & Blood of Christ. If it's merely a symbolic gesture, then why are people becoming sick, infirm, and even dying from not drinking and eating of the Eucharist properly in 1 Cor. 11:27-32?