Christian Forums

Quote from: CSloan on Thu Aug 16, 2007 - 20:17:46

Quote from: Volkmar on Thu Aug 16, 2007 - 18:56:44

Quote from: CSloan on Thu Aug 16, 2007 - 15:18:32
Great information Volkmar.

Unfortunately everyplace it says Christians should be Catholics.

Actually, within the larger context of that chapter (and the book) it should probably say, "Baptist, CofC, Reformed, Episcopal, Methodist, ICC, etc.".

V

I really doubt it if it dates the origins of these practices before the 3^rd century.

Right about the rise of the Papacy.

Just one example of a Protestant tradition that had origins before the 3rd. century:

QuoteIn the late second century there was a shift in how the Lord's Supper was viewed. The Supper had devolved from a full meal to a stylized ceremony called "Holy Communion."

Many other available.  Catholics aren't the only folks in town who have some "tradition" problems.


V

Quote from: Volkmar on Fri Aug 17, 2007 - 13:54:06

Quote from: CSloan on Thu Aug 16, 2007 - 20:17:46

Quote from: Volkmar on Thu Aug 16, 2007 - 18:56:44

Quote from: CSloan on Thu Aug 16, 2007 - 15:18:32
Great information Volkmar.

Unfortunately everyplace it says Christians should be Catholics.

Actually, within the larger context of that chapter (and the book) it should probably say, "Baptist, CofC, Reformed, Episcopal, Methodist, ICC, etc.".

V

I really doubt it if it dates the origins of these practices before the 3^rd century.

Right about the rise of the Papacy.

Just one example of a Protestant tradition that had origins before the 3rd. century:

QuoteIn the late second century there was a shift in how the Lord's Supper was viewed. The Supper had devolved from a full meal to a stylized ceremony called "Holy Communion."

Many other available.  Catholics aren't the only folks in town who have some "tradition" problems.


V

Your just talking about the catholics who changed the supper into a ritual, that has nothing to do with the protestants which didn't start emerging till about the 1500^s.

Its silly to suggest protestants somehow pre-existed the movement they protested against.

Quote from: CSloan on Fri Aug 17, 2007 - 14:07:14

Quote from: Volkmar on Fri Aug 17, 2007 - 13:54:06

Quote from: CSloan on Thu Aug 16, 2007 - 20:17:46

Quote from: Volkmar on Thu Aug 16, 2007 - 18:56:44

Quote from: CSloan on Thu Aug 16, 2007 - 15:18:32
Great information Volkmar.

Unfortunately everyplace it says Christians should be Catholics.

Actually, within the larger context of that chapter (and the book) it should probably say, "Baptist, CofC, Reformed, Episcopal, Methodist, ICC, etc.".

V

I really doubt it if it dates the origins of these practices before the 3^rd century.

Right about the rise of the Papacy.

Just one example of a Protestant tradition that had origins before the 3rd. century:

QuoteIn the late second century there was a shift in how the Lord's Supper was viewed. The Supper had devolved from a full meal to a stylized ceremony called "Holy Communion."

Many other available.  Catholics aren't the only folks in town who have some "tradition" problems.


V

Your just talking about the catholics who changed the supper into a ritual, that has nothing to do with the protestants which didn't start emerging till about the 1500^s.

Its silly to suggest protestants somehow pre-existed the movement they protested against.

"Christians" pre-existed the RCC institution.

RC would not exist as we know it except for the patronage of Emperior Constantine.

The sad fact is that the Reformers of the 16th century did not go far enough in reforming.  Much of RC form was fostered into the Reformation...liturgy (with minor changes), buildings and furniture (the Reformers replaced the RC alter with either/or a communion table or a pulpit--re-arranged the furniture), the homily was kept, hierarchial structure of leadership was maintained (the Pastor replaced the Priest; Bishops and Prelates still exist in many Protestant denominational structures), sacradotal ceremony and attire is often the rule, etc.

QuoteAs a modern church-going Christian, you observe the same perfunctory order of worship every time you go to church. It matters not what stripe of Protestantism to which you belong—be   it   Baptist,   Methodist,   Reformed,   Presbyterian, Evangelical Free, Church of Christ, Disciples of Christ, CMA, Pentecostal, Charismatic, or non-denominational—your Sunday morning service is virtually identical to that of all other Protestant churches.1 Even among the so-called "cutting-edge" denominations (like the Vineyard and Calvary Chapel), the variations are minor. Granted, some churches use contemporary choruses while others use hymns. In some churches, congregants raise their hands. In others, their hands never get above their hips. Some churches observe the Lord's Supper weekly. Others observe it quarterly. In some churches, the liturgy (order of worship) is written out in a bulletin.2 In others, the liturgy is unwritten, yet it is just as mechanical and predictable as if it were set to print.

Despite these slight variations, the order of worship is essentially the same in all Protestant churches across the board.


The Sunday Morning Order of Worship


Peel away the superficial alterations that make each church service distinct and you will find the same prescribed liturgy. This is what it looks like:

The Greeting. (As you enter the building, you are greeted by an usher or an appointed greeter—who should be smiling! You are then handed a bulletin or announcement page. Note: if you are part of the Vineyard denomination, you may drink coffee and eat donuts as you are seated.)
Prayer or Scripture Reading. (Usually given by the pastor or song leader.)

The Song Service. (The congregation is led to sing by a professional song leader, choir, or worship team. If you are part of a charismatic-styled church, this will typically last 30 to 45 minutes. Otherwise it will be shorter.)

The Announcements. (Usually given by the pastor or some other church leader.)
The Offering. (Sometimes called "the offertory," it is usually accompanied by special music by the choir, worship team, or a soloist.)

The Sermon. (Typically a 30 to 45-minute oration delivered by
the pastor.)3

One or more of the Following Post-Sermon Activities: An after-the-sermon-pastoral prayer, An altar call,  More singing led by the choir or worship team, The Lord's Supper, Prayer for the sick or afflicted.

Closing Announcements (Usually given by the pastor or a lucky "lay-person" who gets to speak.)

The Benediction. (This is the blessing or song that ends the service.)

With some minor rearrangements, this is the unbroken liturgy that 345 million Protestants across the globe observe religiously week after week.4 And for the last 500 years, no one has seemed to question it.

Look again at the order of worship. Notice that it contains a three-fold structure: 1) singing, 2) the sermon, and 3) closing prayer or song. This order of worship is viewed as sacrosanct in the eyes of most modern Christians. But why? It is simply due to the titanic power of tradition.

We inherited this liturgy through a consistent yet evolving tradition. And that tradition has set the Sunday morning order of worship in concrete for five centuries . . . never to be moved!
Where Did the Protestant Order of Worship Come From?

Pastors who routinely tell their congregations that "we do everything by the Book" and still perform this ironclad liturgy are simply not correct. (I concede that the lack of truthfulness is due to ignorance rather than overt deception.)

You can scour your Bible from beginning to end, and you will never find anything that resembles it. This is because the first-century Christians knew no such thing. In fact, the Protestant order of worship has about as much Biblical support as does the Roman Catholic Mass!6 Neither of them have any points of contact with the NT. 

In Rethinking the Wineskin, I describe the meetings of the early church. These meetings were marked by every-member functioning, spontaneity, freedom, vibrancy, and open participation.7 It was a fluid gathering, not a static ritual. And it was unpredictable, unlike the modern church service.     
   
Further, the first-century church meeting was not patterned after the Jewish synagogue services as some recent authors have suggested.8 Instead, it was totally unique to the culture.
So where did the Protestant order of worship come from? It has its basic roots in the Catholic Mass.9 Significantly, the Mass did not originate with the NT. It rather grew out of ancient Judaism and paganism.10 According to famed historian Will Durant, the Catholic Mass was "based partly on the Judaic Temple service, partly on Greek mystery rituals of purification, vicarious sacrifice, and participation . . . "

Gregory the Great (540-604) is the man responsible for shaping the medieval Mass.12 Gregory was an incredibly superstitious man whose thinking was influenced by magical paganistic concepts. He embodied the medieval mind, which was a cross between heathenism, magic, and Christianity. It is no accident that Durant calls Gregory "the first completely medieval man. " 13
The medieval Mass reflected the mind of its father, Gregory. It was a blending of pagan and Judaistic ritual sprinkled with Catholic theology and Christian vocabulary.14 Durant points out that the Mass was deeply steeped in pagan magical thinking as well as Greek drama.15 He writes, "The Greek mind, dying, came to a transmigrated life in the theology and liturgy of the church; the Greek language, having reigned for centuries over philosophy, became the vehicle of Christian literature and ritual; the Greek mysteries passed dovm into the impressive mystery of the Mass. "16

In effect, the Catholic Mass that developed out of the fourth through sixth centuries was essentially pagan. The Christians stole from the pagans the vestments of the pagan priests, the use of incense and holy water in purification rites, the burning of candles in worship, the architecture of the Roman basilica for their church buildings, the law of Rome as the basis of "canon law," the title Pontifex Maximus for the head bishop, and the pagan rituals for the Catholic Mass.17

As various Protestant denominations were born, they all helped reshape the Catholic liturgy by contributing a unique element to It.18

     It is a complex and enormously vast journey to chronicle. To treat it thoroughly would require a massive volume.19 In this chapter, we will survey the basic story.

After Gregory established the Mass in the sixth century, it was etched in stone, varying little for over a thousand years.20 But the liturgical deadlock underwent its first revision when Martin Luther (1483-1546) entered the scene.


Luther's Contribution

In 1520, Luther launched a violent campaign against the Roman Catholic Mass.21 The high point of the Catholic Mass has always been the Eucharist,22 also known as "Communion" or "the Lord's Supper." Everything centers on and leads up to that magical moment when the priest breaks the bread and gives it to the people. To the medieval Catholic mind, the offering of the Eucharist was the re-sacrificing of Jesus Christ. As far back as Gregory the Great (540-604), the Catholic church taught that Jesus Christ is sacrificed anew through the Mass.23

Luther railed (often uncouthly) against the mitres and staffs of the Papists and their teaching on the Eucharist. The cardinal error of the Mass, said Luther, was that it was a human "work" based on a false understanding of Christ's sacrifice.24 So in 1523, Luther set forth his own revisions to the Catholic Mass.25 These revisions are the foundation for all Protestant worship.26 The heart of them is this: Luther made preaching, rather than the Eucharist, the center of the gathering.27

Accordingly, in the modern Protestant worship service it is the pulpit, rather than the altar-table, that is the central element.28 (The altar-table is where the Eucharist is placed in Catholic churches.) Luther gets the credit for making the sermon the climax of the Protestant service.29 Read his words: "A Christian congregation should never gather together without the preaching of God's Word und prayer, no matter how briefly"30. . ."the preaching and teaching of God's Word is the most important part of Divine service. "31

Luther's belief in the centrality of preaching as the mark of the worship service has stuck till this day. Yet it has no Biblical precedent whatsoever.32 As one historian put it, "The pulpit is the throne of the Protestant pastor. "33 It is for this reason that ordained Protestant ministers are routinely called "preachers."34

But bracketing these changes, Luther's liturgy varied little from the Catholic Mass.35 Luther merely tried to save what he thought were the "Christian" elements in the old Catholic order.36 Consequently, if you compare Luther's order of worship with Gregory's liturgy, it is virtually the same!37 Luther mainly reinterpreted many of the Mass' rituals. But he kept the ceremony, believing it was proper.38

For instance, Luther retained the act that marked the high moment of the Catholic Mass: When the priest elevated the bread and cup and consecrated them. He merely reinterpreted the meaning of this act.39 The practice of consecrating the bread and cup by elevating them began in the 13th century. It is a practice mostly built on superstition.40 Yet it is still observed by many pastors today.

In like manner, Luther did drastic surgery to the Eucharistic prayer, only retaining the "words of institution."41 The words of institution are the words of 1 Corinthians 11:23ff— "That the Lord Jesus on the night He was betrayed took bread... and said, 'Take and eat, this is my Body'. . ." Till this day, Protestant pastors religiously recite this text before administering communion.
In the end, Luther's liturgy was nothing more than a truncated version of the Catholic Mass!42 And it was riddled with the same glaring problems: The congregants were still passive-spectators (except that they could now sing), and the entire liturgy was still directed by an ordained clergyman (the pastor had replaced the priest.)

In Luther's own words, "It is not now nor ever has been our intention to abolish the liturgical service of God completely, but rather to purify the one that is now in use from the wretched accretions which corrupt it... "43 Tragically, Luther did not realize that new wine cannot be repackaged into old wineskins.44 At no time did Luther (or any of the other mainstream Reformers) demonstrate a desire to return to the practices of the first-century church. These men set out merely to reform the theology of the Catholic church.

In sum, the major enduring changes that Luther made to the Catholic Mass were as follows: 1) He performed the Mass in the language of the people, 2) He gave the sermon a central place in i he gathering, 3) He introduced congregational singing,45 4) He abolished the idea that the Mass was a sacrifice of Christ, and 5) I le allowed the congregation to partake of the bread and cup (rather than just the priest as was the Catholic practice). Other than these differences, Luther kept the same order of worship as found in the Catholic Mass!

Still worse, although Luther talked much about the "priesthood of all believers," he never abandoned the practice of an ordained clergy.46 In fact, so strong was his belief in an ordained clergy that he wrote, "The public ministry of the Word ought to be established by holy ordination as the highest and greatest of the functions of the church. "47 Under Luther's influence, the Protestant pastor simply replaced the Catholic priest. And for the most part, there was little practical difference in the way these two offices functioned.48 This is still the case today as we shall later see.49

What follows is Luther's order of worship.50 The general outline should look very familiar to you—for it is the taproot of your Sunday morning church service.51

Singing Prayer The Sermon
Admonition to the people The Lord's Supper Singing52
Post-communion prayer The Benediction


Zwingli's Contribution

(cont.)

V

Quote from: Big Mike Lewis on Fri Aug 17, 2007 - 10:52:13
Amen!

I checked out the Chick tracts.  Utter garbage.  Filth.  Trash.  You cannot justify bad behavior with other bad behavior.  Catholics have their problems just as the rest of Christendom does.  The good news is that Jesus shed his blood to save us anyway.  Some of that stuff was just made up...the Eucharist connected to sun god worship?  In the words of John Stossel, "give me a break".

Up until now, I hadn't realized how similar Chick is to one of our regular posters here.  Hmmm....

Catholics do not see asking Mary to pray for us, even with a visual aid in front of us (a picture or a statue) as worship. Therefore, there is nothing to "straighten out" in this instance, because there is no statue-worship or idolatry going on.


Visual aid?? ... I was sure Jesus said, Blessed are those who do not see me and believe...

At what point does true faith need a visual aid? 

"Walk by faith not by sight"... does this ring a bell?

I know this much, and so does any Jew...  If they have learned anything in 6000 years... it is that "Thou shall have NO graven images"...  Now what about that is so hard to understand?

I'm sorry, but if you read old testament and study the Holiness of God.  The building of the tabernacle, and the mercy seat... His presence in the Holy of Holies.  Then you would see and understand that you really have "idolatry" going on. Truely. 

You can deny it, mask it, rename it, or even ignore it... but the word says all of that attention you give to the saints and Mary or anyone in prayer and on your knees with visual aids, BELONGS to HIM. And Him alone. 

Here are just a few things you might want to consider when adressing places of Honor to anyone other then the LORD God Almighty.

Elohim: Creator, Genesis 1:1
El Elyon: Most High, Genesis 14:20
El Roi: The God who sees all, II Thessalonians 1:5-10
El Shaddai: All suffient One, Genesis 17:1
Adnoai: The Lord, Genesis 15:1-2
Jehovah: the Self Existant One, Exodus 3:13-15
Jehovah Jireh: The LORD will provide, Genesis 22:1-19
Jehovah Rapha: The Lord that heals, Exodus 15:22-27
Jehovah-Mekoddishkem- The Lord Sanctifies you, Exodus 31:12
Jehovah-Shalom: The Lord is Peace, Judges 6:22-24
Jehovah-Sabaoth: The Lord of Hosts, Isaiah
Jehovah-Raah: The Lord My Sheperd, Psalm 23

Quote from: Big Mike Lewis on Fri Aug 17, 2007 - 10:52:13
Amen!

I checked out the Chick tracts.  Utter garbage.  Filth.  Trash.  You cannot justify bad behavior with other bad behavior.  Catholics have their problems just as the rest of Christendom does.  The good news is that Jesus shed his blood to save us anyway.  Some of that stuff was just made up...the Eucharist connected to sun god worship?  In the words of John Stossel, "give me a break".

But did they call the Papacy the Antichrist?

If not, they are A-OK.

[I would have checked it all myself, but my shovel gave out...]

Quote from: kensington on Fri Aug 17, 2007 - 23:12:14
Catholics do not see asking Mary to pray for us, even with a visual aid in front of us (a picture or a statue) as worship. Therefore, there is nothing to "straighten out" in this instance, because there is no statue-worship or idolatry going on.


Visual aid?? ... I was sure Jesus said, Blessed are those who do not see me and believe...

At what point does true faith need a visual aid? 

"Walk by faith not by sight"... does this ring a bell?

I know this much, and so does any Jew...  If they have learned anything in 6000 years... it is that "Thou shall have NO graven images"...  Now what about that is so hard to understand?

I'm sorry, but if you read old testament and study the Holiness of God.  The building of the tabernacle, and the mercy seat... His presence in the Holy of Holies.  Then you would see and understand that you really have "idolatry" going on. Truely. 

You can deny it, mask it, rename it, or even ignore it... but the word says all of that attention you give to the saints and Mary or anyone in prayer and on your knees with visual aids, BELONGS to HIM. And Him alone. 

Here are just a few things you might want to consider when adressing places of Honor to anyone other then the LORD God Almighty.

Elohim: Creator, Genesis 1:1
El Elyon: Most High, Genesis 14:20
El Roi: The God who sees all, II Thessalonians 1:5-10
El Shaddai: All suffient One, Genesis 17:1
Adnoai: The Lord, Genesis 15:1-2
Jehovah: the Self Existant One, Exodus 3:13-15
Jehovah Jireh: The LORD will provide, Genesis 22:1-19
Jehovah Rapha: The Lord that heals, Exodus 15:22-27
Jehovah-Mekoddishkem- The Lord Sanctifies you, Exodus 31:12
Jehovah-Shalom: The Lord is Peace, Judges 6:22-24
Jehovah-Sabaoth: The Lord of Hosts, Isaiah
Jehovah-Raah: The Lord My Sheperd, Psalm 23

Kensington, your ignorance of Catholic theology and doctrine amazes me.  I provide the following link that basically shoots down every argument you could possibly make.  Go and educate yourself.  And I agree with Mllevaleur.  Nothing I can say will change your mind.  But at least I can point you in the right direction.

http://www.catholic.com/library/Do_Catholics_Worship_Statues.asp

Now make sure you read it carefully.  If you need any help understanding any of it, just let me know.  The writer does cite Scriptural verses to support his argument...so make sure you have your Bible handy.

Quote from: Volkmar on Fri Aug 17, 2007 - 18:19:22The sad fact is that the Reformers of the 16th century did not go far enough in reforming. 

How far is far enough?  And, what if there is disagreement on how far is far enough?  Do we then entrust a few to decide that for us?  Or, do we continue to break away from each other when we decide that we can reform it just a little bit better than everyone else?

Is there a point when we've reach the ideal Christianity that cannot be reformed any further?  And, who gets to decide that?

Those are questions not easily answered in my mind.


By the way, in my opinion, every time we attempt to reform and break away from an "institution," we've only created a new "institution," whether we choose to see it that way or not.  But, maybe that's my cynicism talking.

Quote from: broach972 on Sat Aug 18, 2007 - 07:52:10

Quote from: kensington on Fri Aug 17, 2007 - 23:12:14
Catholics do not see asking Mary to pray for us, even with a visual aid in front of us (a picture or a statue) as worship. Therefore, there is nothing to "straighten out" in this instance, because there is no statue-worship or idolatry going on.


Visual aid?? ... I was sure Jesus said, Blessed are those who do not see me and believe...

At what point does true faith need a visual aid? 

"Walk by faith not by sight"... does this ring a bell?

I know this much, and so does any Jew...  If they have learned anything in 6000 years... it is that "Thou shall have NO graven images"...  Now what about that is so hard to understand?

I'm sorry, but if you read old testament and study the Holiness of God.  The building of the tabernacle, and the mercy seat... His presence in the Holy of Holies.  Then you would see and understand that you really have "idolatry" going on. Truely. 

You can deny it, mask it, rename it, or even ignore it... but the word says all of that attention you give to the saints and Mary or anyone in prayer and on your knees with visual aids, BELONGS to HIM. And Him alone. 

Here are just a few things you might want to consider when adressing places of Honor to anyone other then the LORD God Almighty.

Elohim: Creator, Genesis 1:1
El Elyon: Most High, Genesis 14:20
El Roi: The God who sees all, II Thessalonians 1:5-10
El Shaddai: All suffient One, Genesis 17:1
Adnoai: The Lord, Genesis 15:1-2
Jehovah: the Self Existant One, Exodus 3:13-15
Jehovah Jireh: The LORD will provide, Genesis 22:1-19
Jehovah Rapha: The Lord that heals, Exodus 15:22-27
Jehovah-Mekoddishkem- The Lord Sanctifies you, Exodus 31:12
Jehovah-Shalom: The Lord is Peace, Judges 6:22-24
Jehovah-Sabaoth: The Lord of Hosts, Isaiah
Jehovah-Raah: The Lord My Sheperd, Psalm 23

Kensington, your ignorance of Catholic theology and doctrine amazes me.  I provide the following link that basically shoots down every argument you could possibly make.  Go and educate yourself.  And I agree with Mllevaleur.  Nothing I can say will change your mind.  But at least I can point you in the right direction.

http://www.catholic.com/library/Do_Catholics_Worship_Statues.asp

Now make sure you read it carefully.  If you need any help understanding any of it, just let me know.  The writer does cite Scriptural verses to support his argument...so make sure you have your Bible handy.

What amazes me is your willfull and deliberate disobedience to the revealed will of God.

I'm not surprised to see you agree with Mllevaleur, since she is a statue worshiping catholic.

If your going to provide a site to defend catholic idolatry and statue worship, I suggest to do so from a non-catholic perspective. Remember my observation from the Old Testament, idolaters never consider what they do as idolatry. So the defense of "visual aide", "veneration", or "homage" or playing Scripture twister doesn't change the fact you willfully violate the Word of God.

Exodus 20:4
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness [of any thing] that [is] in heaven above, or that [is] in the earth beneath, or that [is] in the water under the earth:

Exodus 20:5  
Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God [am] a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth [generation] of them that hate me;

Quote from: Volkmar on Fri Aug 17, 2007 - 18:19:22The sad fact is that the Reformers of the 16th century did not go far enough in reforming. 

We are in perfect agreement here, but this neither justifies nor nullifies the false practices of the catholic sect.

Indeed the modern church has many commonalities, just as many cults share similarities with genuine New Testament Christianity. This neither make them less a cult, or Christians into cult members.

Quote from: kensington on Fri Aug 17, 2007 - 01:42:50
  I mean how is it they don't know that half their religion is practicing idolatry, 

I think it's because many just don't want to accept the truth. They don't want the truth because they don't want to change from what they are doing.

I just got done reading a chick tract about a catholic man who served in the church, he dies and when he meets the Lord, he finds out he's not going to heaven since his name is "NOT" written in the Lamb's Book Of Life. You can read it at:  http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0082/0082_01.asp

Quote from: DCR on Sat Aug 18, 2007 - 09:14:59

Quote from: Volkmar on Fri Aug 17, 2007 - 18:19:22The sad fact is that the Reformers of the 16th century did not go far enough in reforming. 

How far is far enough?  And, what if there is disagreement on how far is far enough?  Do we then entrust a few to decide that for us?  Or, do we continue to break away from each other when we decide that we can reform it just a little bit better than everyone else?

Is there a point when we've reach the ideal Christianity that cannot be reformed any further?  And, who gets to decide that?

Those are questions not easily answered in my mind.


By the way, in my opinion, every time we attempt to reform and break away from an "institution," we've only created a new "institution," whether we choose to see it that way or not.  But, maybe that's my cynicism talking.

DCR,

Your cynicism is well founded. 

Be that as it may, I'm of the opinion that if a few "minor" structural changes were made a lot of other good things would then begin to fall into place.

1.  Take out of the equation paid professional Christians.

2.  Remove the tax exempt, non-profit status of "Christian Church" clubs. 

These two areas drive much of what is understood as "church", especially in the USA. (Doing #2 will probably go a long way in effecting #1.)  After the shake-out it will be apparent who are Christians and what is actually of importance to them.


V

Quote from: James Rondon on Fri Aug 17, 2007 - 01:27:58
By the way, regardless of the direction that this thread has taken, "Chick Tracts" deal with more than just Catholicism.

Absolutely!His tracts have excelent stories on evangelism.

Now make sure you read it carefully.  If you need any help understanding any of it, just let me know.  The writer does cite Scriptural verses to support his argument...so make sure you have your Bible handy.


Ummm ... BITE ME... Catholic. 

I just want to say, I appreciated the Blood bought church of the Living God. The Bride of the Lamb. Those saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ and what He did on calvary for us 2000 years ago when He died beaten and naked in the rain for our sin, and then was buried and rose again, to ascend to Heaven and to be seated on the throne at the right hand of the Father where He intercedes for you and me. Those who walk by faith and not sight. Who await the moment of His coming with expectency and desire to be with Him.

I don't cotton someone speaking to me like I am an illiterate, or a dolt as did Broach above. But, I guess you can see that by my response to him.

What I am is a woman of worth, and value and someone Jesus loved enough to die for.
I am a sojourner in Christ. Redeemed. And walking victorious in life now, with Him leading me!

I just want to share a little bit of why I know that I can walk by faith and not sight... no visual aid needed. Someone prayed for me. Someone who was blind, she sat by the window every day waiting for Jesus to return and split the eastern sky to take her home. She spoke of things to come as though she could see, and she knew my footsteps from far way, and was always glad to see me. She prayed for me.  She told me so.

When I was 22... Not yet saved. I was minding my own business, in a bar. I had a very cute man eye me and smile, and then tell me what "thing" I could do for him.

I made the sad mistake of telling him "Go to ****"

I had no idea that he was a recently released from prison, bad mammy jammer biker dude who would beat me and drag me around by my hair until, I HAD NONE LEFT ON MY HEAD TO DRAG ME BY. I had no hair, I still have cowlicks where it grew back oddly.

He was high and thought I had cursed him to Hell for eternity, that I was a witch for saying that to him.

He kicked me through a door, and stomped me until I could not tell you my name or where I was. What stopped him was that people saw it and it took four full grown adults to pull him off of me. I weighed 126 pounds. Had I been alone, I would not have lived. Nothing would have stopped him. He would have beaten me to death.

I could hear women crying, and I could hear BIG men saying.. "Oh my God, someone help her" I fought with all of my heart, but I could not get him off of me.  I said... "Jesus"... That is all I know. Or knew... "Jesus"

I had a nervous breakdown. And I was flown back to my mother from the hospital. People think I do not smile in pictures, I appear to smirk. I cannot smile, the left side of my face is paralyzed.

Yeah, he went back to prison.

Two years later... while minding my own business in the night... He kicked in my door, raped me and told me I was going to die. The LORD had other ideas, it just so happens that someone came by at that moment to interupt. The LORD delivered me.  It was Jesus. 

As God is my witness, this all happened to me.

Now, when it comes to all of this and what will be... I can only imagine... And I dont need any "Visual aids".  I can wait for my deliverer to show me Himself what it is granny prayed for me those years as she sat by the window, looking to the Eastern sky, waiting. 

You can have your religions, Just give me Jesus. You can have statues, but I'll take the LORD of LORDS.  God Bless.

kensington,
I praise God for your deliverance. 
Thank you for sharing.

Quote from: kensington on Sun Aug 19, 2007 - 02:31:49
Now make sure you read it carefully.  If you need any help understanding any of it, just let me know.  The writer does cite Scriptural verses to support his argument...so make sure you have your Bible handy.


Ummm ... BITE ME... Catholic. 

Kensington and Broach, please be civil with each other.  Talking down to others and witty retorts aren't needed.

Just wondering, does this rule not apply to the Catholic faith?

Quote1.3 You will only post negative statements about another individual's belief or religious organization (including non-Christian religions) with objective evidence provided. Members are allowed to say "The doctrines X church is false because of Y scriptures and Z other relevant evidence

i agree mllevaleur, let's keep the discussion on matters of theology and beliefs.

and in that line of thought, could you show me, how what is said in the following excerpts from the catholic catechism, is not placing undue exaltation upon mary.

those of the catholic faith here and elsewhere repeatedly state,"we do not 'worship' mary in the same manner as christ".

yet the catechism proclaims her "sinless, the advocate, and the new eve"----sounds like you are placing equal value on mary as we do jesus(he is sinless, our advocate, and the new adam)


"Finally the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things, so that she might be the more fully conformed to her Son, the Lord of lords and conqueror of sin and death."508 The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin is a singular participation in her Son's Resurrection and an anticipation of the resurrection of other Christians:


In giving birth you kept your virginity; in your Dormition you did not leave the world, O Mother of God, but were joined to the source of Life. You conceived the living God and, by your prayers, will deliver our souls from death.509

969
"This motherhood of Mary in the order of grace continues uninterruptedly from the consent which she loyally gave at the Annunciation and which she sustained without wavering beneath the cross, until the eternal fulfilment of all the elect. Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation. . . . Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix."512

975
"We believe that the Holy Mother of God, the new Eve, Mother of the Church, continues in heaven to exercise her maternal role on behalf of the members of Christ" (Paul VI, CPG § 15).

"Finally the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things, so that she might be the more fully conformed to her Son, the Lord of lords and conqueror of sin and death."508 The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin is a singular participation in her Son's Resurrection and an anticipation of the resurrection of other Christians:


This is false by the WORD of God.  Jesus is the ONLY one... The HOLY ONE, who was born, lived, and died sinless and without the stain of original sin. Who rose from the dead, and ascended to Heaven and is the only one seated at the right hand of the Father.

By the word of God, when someone was taken up to heaven, it seems pertinent to mention that THE WORD SAYS SO...  Enoch, Elijah... Jesus.  If Mary had acsended to Heaven, God would have said so.  She did not.

I agree that Mary spoke we would call her blessed. And we do. She was blessed to answer the invitation of God to carry The Son of God to become the redeption of this world. But, she is not part of the redemption.  She cannot keep souls from death or deliver them. She does not give the blessing of children to married couples.

I don't believe that you should base a whole doctrine of prayers and worship due to one verse in scripture "They will call me blessed" that she said. 

The rest of the WHOLE bible speaks to Jesus being the one who does all of the things that this religion believes Mary does for them. 

While I am sure that those who believe this doctrine of Mary, sincerely believe it. They are sincerely WRONG, by the word of God. Jesus is the HOLY ONE.  The only Holy one born to die for us.  Everyone else, has the hope of His redemption.  Including Mary. He was her Savior too. She needed a Savior, as did the rest of the world. And she knew it when she spoke those words, now called the "song of Mary". 

There is ONE mediator between man and God. (Hebrews) Christ Jesus.

Why would you go to the created to do what you can go directly to the creator for?  That makes no sense at all. 

Its false dotrine that teaches anything that is the OPPOSITE to the WORD of GOD.  This praying to anyone other than the "One mediator" Christ Jesus, is oppiste the word. As is asking anyone else (in prayer) to pray for you. Or to ask them to ask Jesus to pray.

God gave much attention to teaching us that Jesus is the one seated at the right hand of the father, interceding for us as the ONE mediator between God and man...  using one verse speaking to Mary being blessed just doesn't change that. At all.

Quote from: saved on Sun Aug 19, 2007 - 14:26:58
i agree mllevaleur, let's keep the discussion on matters of theology and beliefs.

and in that line of thought, could you show me, how what is said in the following excerpts from the catholic catechism, is not placing undue exaltation upon mary.

those of the catholic faith here and elsewhere repeatedly state,"we do not 'worship' mary in the same manner as christ".

yet the catechism proclaims her "sinless, the advocate, and the new eve"----sounds like you are placing equal value on mary as we do jesus(he is sinless, our advocate, and the new adam)


"Finally the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things, so that she might be the more fully conformed to her Son, the Lord of lords and conqueror of sin and death."508 The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin is a singular participation in her Son's Resurrection and an anticipation of the resurrection of other Christians:


In giving birth you kept your virginity; in your Dormition you did not leave the world, O Mother of God, but were joined to the source of Life. You conceived the living God and, by your prayers, will deliver our souls from death.509

969
"This motherhood of Mary in the order of grace continues uninterruptedly from the consent which she loyally gave at the Annunciation and which she sustained without wavering beneath the cross, until the eternal fulfilment of all the elect. Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation. . . . Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix."512

975
"We believe that the Holy Mother of God, the new Eve, Mother of the Church, continues in heaven to exercise her maternal role on behalf of the members of Christ" (Paul VI, CPG § 15).

After seeing the treatment of people who have already tried to explain such things, I'm hesitant to get into it in this setting, as I fear people don't want to hear what I have to say to understand, but rather to skim and poke holes.

I will say, in response to all of the above, if you'll notice, the language used implies that she is not these things by virtue of her own power, but because of God. It says she was preserved...someone had to preserve her then, she didn't do it herself. We believe that someone is God. We don't believe she was free from sin because she just happened to be something special, we believe GOD preserved her from sin as a gift to His son, as a spotless vessel for Him to come through, as the New Ark. When we honor Mary, we honor and praise God's handiwork. In acknowledging His creation, we honor Him as Creator. (Just as admiring a painting gives honor and glory to the artist.)

Jesus, on the other hand, is free from sin by his own power, not by anyone else's hand. Mary needed a savior just as much as everyone else, Jesus didn't, as he IS the savior.

Mary is the New Eve because we believe she was created as Eve was (w/out original sin) but this time, instead of turning her back on God like Eve, she says "Be it done to me according to thy word." Jesus is the New Adam because He did the same, said yes to God's will instead of no, but this analogy has to do with their respective responses to God, it isn't intended as an analogy to show that Mary and Jesus are on equal ground.

Advocate, etc, are all subordinate roles to Christ, just as we are all intercessors for each other as Christians, but none of us could intercede for anybody else were it not for Christ to begin with, we have a subordinate role. All good things that we do for each other are due to Christ, all good comes from God, we are merely the instruments through which His Goodness works...Mary is the same, an instrument of God, except we believe she is an example of the most perfect instrument that never went against God's will and always allowed herself to be carried by His Will. God is on top, Mary is way beneath God (as she is creature, not creator), and we believe we are beneath her as she is most perfect of all creatures who allowed herself to be always carried by God's will (when we often fight God's will in our lives), but that does not mean we believe she is equal to the Creator.  She was an instrument, as we all are, but she was the instrument as we are meant to be...conformed to the Will of God.

Do Catholics honor Mary and give her a higher status than most Protestants? Yes. The problem is, since most non-Catholics don't have a middle ground, they think that since we must acknowledge someone as more holy than us, we must be putting them on God's level and worshipping them as we worship God. That isn't true at all, we do put them in a higher status than us, although it is a lesser status than God. It is a middle ground between everyday people and God. When we honor saints, we honor God's handiwork, His masterpieces, His creations, all good that they did is because of God's grace, period. The fact that non-Catholics don't have that kind of middle ground themselves doesn't mean we don't, and if someone refuses to acknowledge that it's possible to raise someone up as a holy example without raising someone to God's level, well there's not much I can say to them except, that's the reality whether you accept it or not.

Now, that's about all I have to say in this setting, as I fear more ugliness if I engage too much. I'm always happy to answer questions from people who really care to see where I'm coming from, who ask questions to understand, not simply to attack or poke holes or trap, whether through PMs or email or on my own board. In the meantime, pretty much every answer to questions about Mary can be found here. Someone earlier said they wouldn't read them because it is a Catholic source...which rather confused me, as I'm not sure how else you're supposed to understand the Catholic POV if you're not willing to read a Catholic source. I mean, I wouldn't go to a muslim website to learn about Christianity...but there it is anyway for anyone who is really interested in understanding, not just attacking.

Pax

I don't think you answered the question about Mary being absent of original sin (according to the catechism) that the man asked. 

But, the deflection was good.

Quote from: kensington on Sun Aug 19, 2007 - 20:20:39
I don't think you answered the question about Mary being absent of original sin (according to the catechism) that the man asked. 

But, the deflection was good.

You need to read more carefully.

QuoteIt says she was preserved...someone had to preserve her then, she didn't do it herself. We believe that someone is God. We don't believe she was free from sin because she just happened to be something special, we believe GOD preserved her from sin as a gift to His son, as a spotless vessel for Him to come through, as the New Ark.

While you may not agree with her, she did explain her belief about Mary.

Quote from: kensington on Sun Aug 19, 2007 - 20:20:39
I don't think you answered the question about Mary being absent of original sin (according to the catechism) that the man asked. 

But, the deflection was good.

Actually, she did address that issue.  Kensington, you only want to see what you want to see.  Again, I urge you to research the topics before diving into them.  Catholic dotrines can be extremely complex and intellectually challenging.  I am not saying this to be "talking down to you."  There are many that leave me scratching my head.

Quote from: mllevaleur on Sun Aug 19, 2007 - 16:55:05
I will say, in response to all of the above, if you'll notice, the language used implies that she is not these things by virtue of her own power, but because of God. It says she was preserved...someone had to preserve her then, she didn't do it herself. We believe that someone is God. We don't believe she was free from sin because she just happened to be something special, we believe GOD preserved her from sin as a gift to His son, as a spotless vessel for Him to come through, as the New Ark. When we honor Mary, we honor and praise God's handiwork. In acknowledging His creation, we honor Him as Creator. (Just as admiring a painting gives honor and glory to the artist.)

One must realize the Marian doctrines were never about Mary.  They were not designed to make Mary divine.  They were primarily formulated to protect and preserve the divinity of Christ.  If Mary was stained by original sin, then we have a big problem.  Every human being is stained with original sin.  We are born into sin has human beings...period.  We don't become sinful at a later age.  There is no "sin switch."  We are sinful at the moment of our conception.  If Mary was in fact stained with sin, then Jesus should have been as well.  Remember, Jesus is both divine and human.  One cannot ignore either quality.  How can the divine be born of a sinful creature?

Mllevaleur made a very solid argument.  Mary was not sinless by her own nature.  It was a gift from God, knowing that she would eventually be the mother of Jesus.  Mary did need a saviour...her case was quite unique though.  Mary did not ascend into heaven at the end of her life.  The Assumption is not the same as Ascension.  One cannot make the argument that such an act did not take place.  Many say that Scripture does not mention this and it therefore goes against the Word of God...neither does Scripture mention the Trinity or even the rapture.

I do believe that Jesus loved his momma.  Considering the role she played, I would think that God would certainly treat her situation as unique.  Do you think that Jesus or the Father would have allowed Mary to rot in the ground.  Think about it from a practical viewpoint.  She wasn't just a vessel...this sounds so impersonal.  Do you honestly think that God or Jesus saw her as just merely a vessel?  She gave birth to the Saviour of the world!  The Saviour of the world!

Quote from: kensington on Sun Aug 19, 2007 - 16:00:20
There is ONE mediator between man and God. (Hebrews) Christ Jesus.

Absolutely.  No argument here.  The Catholic Church does not teach anything contrary to this.

Quote from: kensington on Sun Aug 19, 2007 - 16:00:20
Why would you go to the created to do what you can go directly to the creator for?  That makes no sense at all.

It makes perfect sense.  Are we not one big Christian family?  Are we not suppose to pray for each other?  What is wrong with asking someone to pray for me in time of need?  Christians do it all the time.

We are even to ask those in Heaven to pray and intercede for us. The Bible directs us to invoke those in heaven and ask them to pray with us.

Thus, in Psalm 103 we pray, "Bless the Lord, O you his angels, you mighty ones who do his word, hearkening to the voice of his word! Bless the Lord, all his hosts, his ministers that do his will!" (Ps. 103:20–21).  And in the opening verses of Psalms 148 we pray, "Praise the Lord! Praise the Lord from the heavens, praise him in the heights! Praise him, all his angels, praise him, all his host!"

Not only do those in heaven pray with us, they also pray for us.  In the book of Revelation, John sees that "the twenty-four elders [the leaders of the people of God in heaven] fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and with golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints" (Rev. 5:8).  Thus the saints in heaven offer to God the prayers of the saints on earth.

Angels do the same thing: "[An] angel came and stood at the altar [in heaven] with a golden censer; and he was given much incense to mingle with the prayers of all the saints upon the golden altar before the throne; and the smoke of the incense rose with the prayers of the saints from the hand of the angel before God" (Rev. 8:3–4).

Jesus himself warned us not to offend small children, because their guardian angels have guaranteed intercessory access to the Father: "See that you do not despise one of these little ones; for I tell you that in heaven their angels always see the face of my Father who is in heaven" (Matt. 18:10).

Because he is the only God-man and the Mediator of the New Covenant, Jesus is the only mediator between man and God (1 Tim. 2:5), but this in no way means we cannot or should not ask our fellow Christians to pray with us and for us (1 Tim. 2:1–4). In particular, we should ask the intercession of those Christians in heaven, who have already had their sanctification completed, for "[t]he prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects" (Jas. 5:16).

Quote from: kensington on Sun Aug 19, 2007 - 16:00:20
Its false dotrine that teaches anything that is the OPPOSITE to the WORD of GOD.  This praying to anyone other than the "One mediator" Christ Jesus, is oppiste the word. As is asking anyone else (in prayer) to pray for you. Or to ask them to ask Jesus to pray.

Scripture does not support this...period!

Quote from: kensington on Sun Aug 19, 2007 - 16:00:20
God gave much attention to teaching us that Jesus is the one seated at the right hand of the father, interceding for us as the ONE mediator between God and man...  using one verse speaking to Mary being blessed just doesn't change that. At all.

Mary is subordinate to the Father and the Son.  She is neither divine or God-like.  The Church does not teach that she is.  However, this does not mean that she or any other saint cannot intercede on our behalf.  No doubt that Jesus is seated at the right hand of the Father....read the Gloria in Excelsis Deo.  We recite the Gloria every Sunday at Mass.

Glory to God in the Highest
And peace to His people on earth.
Lord God, heavenly King, Almighty God and Father;
We worship you, we give you thanks,
We praise you for your glory.
Lord Jesus Christ, Only Son of the Father.
Lord God, Lamb of God
You take away the sin of the world, have mercy on us;
You are seated at the right hand of the Father, receive our prayer.
For You alone are the Holy One,
You alone are the Lord,
You alone are the Most High Jesus Christ,
With the Holy Spirit in the Glory of God the Father. Amen.

I think we Catholics understand just how important Jesus is....  ;)

Quote from: broach972 on Sun Aug 19, 2007 - 22:33:12Mllevaleur made a very solid argument.  Mary was not sinless by her own nature.  It was a gift from God, knowing that she would eventually be the mother of Jesus.  Mary did need a saviour...her case was quite unique though.  Mary did not ascend into heaven at the end of her life.  The Assumption is not the same as Ascension.  One cannot make the argument that such an act did not take place.  Many say that Scripture does not mention this and it therefore goes against the Word of God...neither does Scripture mention the Trinity or even the rapture.

Are you kidding, you consider this a solid argument? Jesus couldn't be born to a sinner, because he would have had "original sin" [another false doctrine]? Jesus was made in the likeness of sinfull flesh. (Romans 8:3) Yet without sin. (Hebrews 4:15) Wheres the problem?

You make your own problems with your false doctrines. Because your false doctrine contradicts Scripture it creates more problems, so you create more false doctrines. This keeps going until you need to start writing compendiums of catholicity with funny names to keep them all straight.

The Assumption, thats a great topic. I love what you catholics call it, because thats exactly what it is, "the great assumption". Nowhere in Scripture, so we just assume it happened.

The Trinity and the Rapture, those are topic unto themselves.

Csloan,

While they argue that the bible doesn't use the "terms" rapture and trinity.. those events or facts of exixtance are presented in scripture.

But, the assumption of Mary they speak of, is not to be found... 

The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are all spoken of in there. As is the "in a twinkling of an eye" event.

And yet, I find no such verse or passage to say where Mary went.  Or where she is, or what she is doing.  They made this doctrine up.  That is plain.

Actually, they made up the part about her being "Born sinless" to.  No one is without "original sin" except Jesus.  And I thought that the question was about the Catechism teaching it, and the basis of that teaching... Not just what they believe. Where is the Scriptural context to or FACTS to back that "catechism teaching up?

The question was not answered.  She said, "we believe" ... no factual biblical basis whatsoever. Sorry.. it's not there, because, "Its not there".  The bible doesn't say it, or imply it, or even elude to it happening.

And yet, it does elude in topics to the Rapture and the trinity as we know them.

And... The BIBLE is very clear where Jesus is, and what he is doing. HE is seated at the right hand of the Father, interceding for us.  And he is the ONLY mediator between God and man.

EVERYONE else is where everyone else is, WAITING for the "twinkling of an eye" and getting there when He says... "Come up". 

Revelation says the Angels are the ones holding the prayers and offering them up to the throne of God, where Jesus is seated at the right hand. The prayers that went straight up from living people to Heaven. Not to person, to person to person to person... to Jesus.

Rev.5
[8] And when he had taken the book, the four beasts and four and twenty elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints.
Rev.8
[3] And another angel came and stood at the altar, having a golden censer; and there was given unto him much incense, that he should offer it with the prayers of all saints upon the golden altar which was before the throne.
[4] And the smoke of the incense, which came with the prayers of the saints, ascended up before God out of the angel's hand.

These passages makes it pretty clear that Mary is not involved in the "offering of prayers" to the throne of God.

The bible speaks to us being Kings, saints and priests. We have the one mediator we need, He is seated right there, and when our prayers go up, they are offfered through the blood of christ.

This passage says all saints, not just a chosen few, but all of us, can pray right to Jesus and those prayers will go to the throne of God.

Quote from: CSloan on Mon Aug 20, 2007 - 00:44:26

Quote from: broach972 on Sun Aug 19, 2007 - 22:33:12Mllevaleur made a very solid argument.  Mary was not sinless by her own nature.  It was a gift from God, knowing that she would eventually be the mother of Jesus.  Mary did need a saviour...her case was quite unique though.  Mary did not ascend into heaven at the end of her life.  The Assumption is not the same as Ascension.  One cannot make the argument that such an act did not take place.  Many say that Scripture does not mention this and it therefore goes against the Word of God...neither does Scripture mention the Trinity or even the rapture.

Are you kidding, you consider this a solid argument? Jesus couldn't be born to a sinner, because he would have had "original sin" [another false doctrine]? Jesus was made in the likeness of sinfull flesh. (Romans 8:3) Yet without sin. (Hebrews 4:15) Wheres the problem?

You make your own problems with your false doctrines. Because your false doctrine contradicts Scripture it creates more problems, so you create more false doctrines. This keeps going until you need to start writing compendiums of catholicity with funny names to keep them all straight.

I do need to make one thing clear. The Church does not teach that Mary HAD to be sinless in order for Christ to be born sinless...after all, if God could simply keep Mary from having sin when she was born of someone with original sin, He could have done the same for Jesus.

What the Church teaches is that it was fitting for Mary to be sinless, to be made a pure and spotless vessel, holy and untouched by sin and impurity, just as the Ark of the Covenant was to remain untouched, as a way to honor Christ. For this you have to realize the importance of the Ark of the Covenant, its pureness, its holiness, the fact that no one could touch it, it held within it the most sacred and holy Word of the Lord. Mary, in comparison, held within her even more holy, the Word made Flesh, God incarnate Himself.

See the comparison here (The Mary stuff is from Luke 1, and the Ark stuff is from 2 Samuel 6):

QuoteMARY: During those days Mary set out and traveled to the hill country in haste to a town of Judah
ARK: Then David and all the people who were with him set out for Baala of Judah to bring up from there the ark of God, which bears the name of the LORD of hosts enthroned above the cherubim.

MARY: When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the infant leaped in her womb
ARK: As the ark of the LORD was entering the City of David, Saul's daughter Michal looked down through the window and saw King David leaping and dancing before the LORD

MARY: And how does this happen to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?
ARK: David feared the LORD that day and said, "How can the ark of the LORD come to me?"

MARY: Mary remained with her about three months and then returned to her home.
ARK: The ark of the LORD remained in the house of Obed-edom the Gittite for three months

We see a great parallel between the two (implicit here, but explicit in Tradition, which complements the scriptures.) It was of utmost importance that the Ark was untouched by men, kept pure and completely holy. Thus, we believe the same for Mary.

Also, the phrase "full of grace" from the angel in Luke is, for us, an implicit sign that she was holy, because to be holy means to be filled with God's grace.

Remember that Catholics don't extrapolate verses from scripture and build their teachings on them, we believe God gave us His Word both Orally and in Scripture. Some teachings that have been handed down orally (and kept free from error by the power of the Holy Spirit) are not explicit in scripture, but they are implicit, and they never contradict scripture. We do not hold to sola scriptura, so saying "That's not in the Bible!" doesn't mean much, as we do not claim everything we teach is explicitly in scripture. We do claim it doesn't contradict scripture.

QuoteThe Assumption, thats a great topic. I love what you catholics call it, because thats exactly what it is, "the great assumption". Nowhere in Scripture, so we just assume it happened.

You might enjoy this article, entitled Assumptions About Mary.

Quote from: kensington on Mon Aug 20, 2007 - 02:10:20
  And I thought that the question was about the Catechism teaching it, and the basis of that teaching... Not just what they believe. Where is the Scriptural context to or FACTS to back that "catechism teaching up?

Actually, if you'll go back and reread, the argument was that the sinless bit implied that Mary was equal to Christ. My explanation was aimed at showing that we do not view Mary as equal to Christ.

On the whole, though, I hope you understand I'm not trying to convince anyone I'm right. I'm simply trying to explain my beliefs...I'm aiming for clarity, not agreement.

QuoteRevelation says the Angels are the ones holding the prayers and offering them up to the throne of God, where Jesus is seated at the right hand. The prayers that went straight up from living people to Heaven. Not to person, to person to person to person... to Jesus.

Actually, it says elders are also offering incense/prayers...this, to Catholics, most often means priests, or some kind of leaders of the people. They're human. 

QuoteThese passages makes it pretty clear that Mary is not involved in the "offering of prayers" to the throne of God.

I see nothing contrary to it. Revelation doesn't claim to spell out every last thing that happens in Heaven, and we do see elders offering the prayers of saints to Christ. Wasn't your argument that no people whatsoever did that?

QuoteThis passage says all saints, not just a chosen few, but all of us, can pray right to Jesus and those prayers will go to the throne of God.

Of course it's all saints. The passage merely shows the saints in heaven offering to God the prayers of the saints on earth. And of course all of us can, and should, all pray to Jesus. But the Bible itself says we should pray for each other as well, we shouldn't just walk around only praying for ourselves. It's a false dichotomy to imply that this is an either/or situation...we pray to Jesus, AND we pray for each other, it's not one or the other.

For more info, this article on Praying to Saints does a good job of answering most of your objections. You don't have to agree with it, but I hope it helps you at least understand our view.

What I'm trying to show is that we're not walking around deliberately ignoring and/or distorting scripture, we believe all scripture is inerrant. The thing is, for each passage you bring up, we likely just have a different understanding than you do, and one that fits with our theology. That doesn't mean you have to agree with it, but I hope it does show that we do take scripture very seriously. The fact that we may have a different understanding of it doesn't mean we're any less sincere or honest than anyone else. 

Ok mllevaleur,

I understand the important of the Ark, but it has no relation to Mary whatsoever. The only place Mary is ever referred to as the Ark is in catholic doctrines, which hold no authority to anyone but catholics and would-be catholics.

But I would like you to answer me this question.

Quote from: broach972 on Sun Aug 19, 2007 - 22:33:12If Mary was in fact stained with sin, then Jesus should have been as well.  Remember, Jesus is both divine and human.  One cannot ignore either quality.  How can the divine be born of a sinful creature?

If Mary couldn't be stained with original sin, because Jesus would have been stained with original sin; then wouldn't her parents have to be perserved from original sin too?

What about the entire line of David, all the way back to Adam?

If not, why not?

Lev 5:7 But if he be not able to bring two turtledoves, or two young pigeons, then he that sinned shall bring for his offering the tenth part of an ephah of fine flour for a sin offering; he shall put no oil upon it, neither shall he put [any] frankincense thereon: for it [is] a sin offering. 

Lev 14:22 And two turtledoves, or two young pigeons, such as he is able to get; and the one shall be a sin offering, and the other a burnt offering.   

Luk 2:24 And to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord, A pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons. 

when i read luke's account of mary and joseph bringing jesus to the temple for dedication, it tells us they brought turtledoves and pigeons.

by law this was for their sins.

this implies mary was a sinner and knew this.