Why don't Protestants pray to Mary? What in their history shaped this view?greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread
Why is it that Protestants dont see Mary in the light that Catholics do? When the Protestant religion was formed, what happened that lessened their devotion to Mary?
Could someone please enlighten me on this topic. Also, do you think that Catholics elevate Mary to divine status?
-- PJ (email@example.com), June 06, 2003
The Protestant approach to Mary and to many other doctrinal beliefs of original Christianity reveals an underlying insecurity about the legitimacy of their faith. No thinking person, observing the rampant fragmentation, widespread conflict, and blatant contradictions in Protestant beliefs, could reasonably accept that such a system of opposing manmade sects could ever constitute a reliable guide to truth. Since Protestants recognize, subconsciously if not consciously, that the very nature of such an approach to Christian truth is indefensible and unsupportable on the face of it, the only semblance of legitimacy they can muster is therefore dependent upon the application of the principle of the lesser of two evils. They recognize that their modern tradition of men came into existence through an open rebellion against the original Christian Church. The only way such a rebellion could ever be justified is by demonstrating that the object of the rebellion was something truly horrific. A rebellion can be just if that which one rebels against is evil; but if the object of the rebellion is good, then the rebellion itself is evil. If the Church Christ founded - the one He promised He would be with until the end of time - the one He said the Holy Spirit would guide to all truth - the one with a divine guarantee of teaching bound in heaven - can be made to appear corrupt, heretical, apostate, satanic, etc., than some measure of justification might be claimed for the rebellion that brought the denominationalism system into existence. Protestants could then say, in effect, "even though our beliefs conflict at every turn, and therefore cannot really be true, just look at the even GREATER untruths that exist in Catholicism! Therefore we are in a better place." This argument is about as close as any Protestant can come to justifying the plague of denominations which the original Protestant rebellion spawned, in direct opposition to the will of Christ, Who stated His divine intent that all Christians would be ONE, even as He and His Father are ONE. Protestants therefore do not wage their attacks on traditional Christian truth out of spite or hatred, or even jealousy, but rather out of a desperate quest for a legitimacy which is objectively lacking in their religious tradition. The bizarre accusations they bring against God's Church - worshipping statues, making human beings equal to God, adopting pagan beliefs, etc. might possibly legitimize such a rebellion, if any of it were true. Of course, that would also make Jesus Christ a liar - but that's a separate issue. Building a shared base of anti-Catholic myths allows them to maintain a thin veil of seeming legitimacy over the underlying doctrinal chaos which prevails in their collective churches, and provides a necessary distraction from the hard truths they simply cannot bring themselves to face - that Christ founded only one Church, that He intended all men to belong to that one Church, that History clearly identifies the Catholic Church as that one Church, and that the fruit of their manmade tradition is contrary to the will of God. Of course, every year tens of thousands break through that veil, face those truths, and respond in spirit and in truth, converting to the Holy Catholic Church. But for those who have yet to receive the grace to make that transition, the only hope of clinging to the partial truth they are comfortable with is to find new and better reasons to convince themselves that the Church Jesus Christ founded for all men is evil.
-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), June 06, 2003.
I'm with you- after all, who follows links?
-- Catherine Ann (firstname.lastname@example.org), June 06, 2003.
Luther had a personal devotion to Mary, and expressed belief in the Immaculate Conception of Mary centuries before Catholics accepted the doctrine. Here is a page of quotes showing Luther's devotion to Mary. Other reformers (e.g., Calvin) had similar though less strong views. Here is a page with quotes from early reformers. It also speculates on why later Protestants abandoned the devotion. Briefly, iconoclasm and fundamentalism were important factors, maybe blowing in from the Islamic world.
Even the early Protestant leaders preached against intercessory prayers to Mary and the Saints, because of their belief that all prayers should be addressed directly to God. (We of course do not agree.) Luther for example preached that only the first part of the Hail Mary should be uttered (Hail Mary ... fruit of thy womb Jesus) and not the second intercessory part.
Another factor is that the Catholic devotion to Mary has become stronger since the reformation. Official Church support for the devotion to Mary has dramatically increased since the reformation period, not least due to the efforts of counter-reformation forces, who saw it as a powerful weapon against heresy. Prior to the reformation, devotion to Mary, although strong and widespread throughout the Christian world, was more popular religion rather than official doctrine. This counter-reformation embrace of Mary would have contributed to an anti-Marian reaction among Protestants. Also it makes the modern Catholic devotion to Mary stronger even than that among Protestant groups who still pray to Mary (some Anglicans).
-- Stephen Lynn (StephenLynn999@msn.com), June 06, 2003.
Stephen, What a wonderful strange interesting post!
So, at one time the Catholic church would ask why do Protestants pray to Mary?? neet!
From what I remember, the attitude of one of the long posts above is the current protestant attitude: one prays directly to God, not to any buracratic intermeterary. And one talks directly to the head of one's church, not to a hierarchy. Yes, I am implying that their theology and their church government style is as intermixed as the Catholic one. But maybe just co-incidence. Sean
-- Sean Cleary (email@example.com), June 06, 2003.
This is off-topic, but some of the "essays" above were taken from Jack Chick's website, a rabidly anti-Catholic source.
Just for kicks, it can be fun to read their more obvious errors. For example, one of their authors tries to explain away Matthew 16:18 by stating that when Jesus said, "You are Peter" He was speaking to Peter, and when He continued, "and on this Rock I shall build my Church," He was speaking of Himself.
The well-known truth: Jesus gave Simon this name, Peter (Petros in Greek, Cephas in Aramaic) which means "rock". In other words, Jesus was saying, "You are Rock and on this rock I will build my Church." Hard to misinterpret.
If you don't believe anyone could publish such ignorant claims, check it out for yourself.
Don't get me wrong; I'm not saying that all (or even many) Protestants believe this stuff; just that some people who (attempt to?) write authoritatively don't have a leg to stand on.
-- Catherine Ann (firstname.lastname@example.org), June 06, 2003.
Thanks, Catherine for the heads up on that Jack Chick stuff. I kinda figured that it came from somewhere like that. Boilerplate anti- Catholic retoric is ever-so-easy to spot.
Church history is replete with writings of the fathers directing prayers to saints AND Mary who are now with the Lord. Their thinking was that the saints who are closest to the Lord would certainly be MOST powerful in their prayer lives. It never occurred to them NOT to ask their deceased brothers and sisters for their prayers. That would be preposterous! But, since N.T. scripture does not really address the activities of the saints after their earthly lives, that leaves Protestants (having only sola scriptura) VERY LITTLE to go on! Hence, over the years the practice of asking for the intercession of the saints has been completely phased out by Protestants.
Here are two great links of quotations taken from the early church fathers venerating and invoking the saints AND Mary. The writings of the church fathers annilate Protestant doctrines of sola scriptura, and sola fide, but DO INDEED support purgatory, the Eucharist, salvation NOT by faith alone, and other "Catholic" doctrines, which BLEW ME AWAY as a Protestant!
http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/mary_dev.htm and http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/saints.htm
-- Gail (email@example.com), June 06, 2003.
Sean, Thanks. In the interests of objectivity, I should point out that the quote from Luther does not directly affirm the Immaculate Conception, but only commends it as a "sweet" and "pious" belief. Also, my suggestion of an Islamic influence on Protestants is simply an unkind speculation on my part (though likely more plausible than the Jack Chick comic that tells the story of that secret Catholic the prophet Mohammed :-). Muslims incidentally (as Jack Chick has probably pointed out) do have a high regard for Mary, though they certainly don't pray to her. I believe that the Quran has a chapter devoted to her.
Thinking about the second part of PJ's question: do you think that Catholics elevate Mary to divine status?, very interesting question! Certainly the Church's official position is that it is high blasphemy to do so, but it is quite possible that individual Catholics may cross the line. One perspective that seems to clearly elevate her to divine status comes from a very surprising and unexpected place---Fr. Greeley's unorthodox Catechism! Here is the relevant chapter. Greeley argues that God is neither male nor female, but our traditional view of him is as a male, and so we tend to wrongly associate him with masculine stereotypes. The Marian cult in Greeley's view is our route to the tenderly maternal feminine side of God. To quote from Greeley:
As part of the exuberant enthusiasm of the early Christians, Mary replaced the mother goddesses of the pagan world. In theory she was not a goddess, but she played a role for Christianity which was functionally similar to those which the female deities had played in antiquity: she reflected the feminine aspect of God.
This of course seems to confirm the worst suspicions of the Jack Chick tract writers. But Greeley is not exactly a pillar of orthodox Catholicism.
-- Stephen (StephenLynn999@msn.com), June 07, 2003.
PJ, I think your first question is still unanswered: What happened after the revolution that caused people to abandon the Mother of God?
I can answer the second question: no. Catholics don't elevate Mary to divine. Mary receives hyperdulia, an old word which recognizes she is the highest among the saints (having been lowest among the servants of Jesus -- she washed out the mess from his swaddling/diapers).
We Catholics believe that Mary had only one nature, a pure human nature just like the one created for Eve, and that Mary accepted obedience to God just as Eve chose to disobey. Eve was human, Mary was human. Both were created without "original sin". One listened to a fallen angel and became the bearer of evil, the other questioned a righteous and and became the bearer of God. We believe that Mary never sinned, even after Christ was born, died, rose, and ascended. We believe that by the grace of God she fulfilled the promise of human nature and did not sin, which is to say, she never turned away from God. That doesn't make her divine, but very, very blessed to be so "full of grace" (where 'grace' is the direct friendship of God). e remember how the angel addressed her: '(Hi) Mary, full of grace. The Lord is with you.' Mary, one person, one nature, human, not divine.
Catholics don't elevate Mary to divine status, but God elevated her to the highest status a human can receive, assumption, body and soul, into heaven. [remember Elijah, by the way] We believe and hope for the day we are all lifted into heaven, body and soul, to meet Our Holy Mother.
Mary: only human, assumed into heaven by the power of God.
Why do people who are not Catholic have a problem with talking to Mary? What happenned in history to stop them? Good question. I don't know. The Bible says that every age to come will call her blessed. Maybe Protestantism moving away from Mary is just a sign that the Catholic Church will continue in every age.
-- Skip Pletcher (firstname.lastname@example.org), June 07, 2003.
Here's a resource that gives some additional info on the second question.
-- Stephen (StephenLynn999@msn.com), June 07, 2003.
R, from mesa verde. I agree with most of your tenets. I consider myself a Christian Catholic Yahvist, for which yet there is no category in the Christian world.
The same question you ask of Roman Catholics, I ask of you. Since you quoted Isaiah 43, you seem to know who God is, in Hebrew: Yahweh. If Jesus is the mediator between men and God, then he is not God himself. Do you praise God ( that is , put God) above everything in this world? By that I mean, do you pray to God directly also?
Thanks, Stephen, for the link. In a thread last year, Enrique Ortiz had asked me about the difference of latria, dulia, and hipedulia, which are linized words for the Greek words latreo, doulias, hiperdoulias. Latria (latreo) is only reserved in Greek for God. Paul uses dulia (doulias, douleo ) when he says he has made himself a slave (doulos) for the message of Christ. In the Old Testament is also used for God. I have not seen yet a scriptural passage for hiperdulia.
-- Elpidio Gonzalez (email@example.com), June 07, 2003.
How can you call yourself a 'Christian Catholic Yahvist'? You are either Catholic or some Jehovahs witness from your numerous posts where you called God - 'Yahweh'
Catholics accept Jeus Christ as the SON OF GOD, born of the Virgin Mary, part of the Trinity, present on earth in Holy Comunion and that his name puts demons to flight while his precious blood washes aways sins.
Jehovahs Witnesses deny the divinty of Christ
You can't be both.
-- Andrew Swampillai (firstname.lastname@example.org), June 09, 2003.
In defence of Elpidio, the New Jerusalem Bible calls God "Yahweh" and so did the ancient Hebrews including the patriarchs, prophets and kings. The tradition of not pronouncing the name of God arose only a few centuries BC.
-- Stephen (StephenLynn999@msn.com), June 28, 2003.
I am not anti-Catholic, however I am a protestant. I do believe some of the doctrines within the RCC are false, but have no hatred for Catholics.
It doesn't matter which denomination you belong to, as long as you have repented, and accepted Christ as your personal Savior- you are Saved. Jesus is full of Grace. The church, however, makes mistakes in showing the Grace of Christ. How then can we trust the make-up of the church to be Saved? Friends, the only One we should be turning to is Jesus Christ for Salvation. Paul states the beauty and wonder of Grace perfectly - Ephesians 2:8-9 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God-- 9 not by works, so that no one can boast.
Now I would like to address a few questions.
My questions are these: Where in the infallible Bible do you find a command to pray to the virgin Mary? Where in the Scriptures does it state that you must go through the church to be Saved? The fact of the matter is folks, that the Bible doesn't make such claims.
I urge you to look at the Scriptures and be Saved by the Blood of Jesus Christ. If you haven't done so already, repent to God and ask Jesus to dwell within your heart. Yes, you may have heard this before, however this personal Faith in Christ is very real and very powerful. God Bless.
-- Cameron Fairlie (email@example.com), October 30, 2003.
"My questions are these: Where in the infallible Bible do you find a command to pray to the virgin Mary? Where in the Scriptures does it state that you must go through the church to be Saved? The fact of the matter is folks, that the Bible doesn't make such claims." Don't you believe that the Savior provided everything we need for salvation? Well, He gave us a Church. He did not give us a book. The Church was the instrument through which we received the book, several centuries later.
A: My questions are these: Where in the bible do you find a command to believe only what is in the Bible? Where in the Scriptures does it state that you need a book to be saved? The fact of the matter is folks, that the Bible doesn't make such a claim. These claims are manmade traditions dating back only a few hundred years. The Bible says the TRUTH will set is free - which is why it is essential to belong to a Church which professes the fullness of truth, not a mix of revealed truth and human traditions. The Bible makes it perfectly clear - truth is what sets us free; the CHURCH is the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim 3:15); therefore it is through the CHURCH that men are saved. That would be true even if the Church had never compiled the Bible. Don't you believe that the Savior provided everything men required to be saved? Well, Jesus Christ founded a Church. He did not write a book. When he ascended into heaven He left behind a fully functioning Church with inspired, infallible teaching; seven sacraments; a ministerial priesthood; a hierarchy of bishops with a Pope; and full authority to teach and administrate in His name. And this was all that they needed as a means to salvation. They had no Bibles; but they did have the fullness of truth which sets men free - the truth which eventually would be written down and compiled into a Bible. However it is the presence of that truth, NOT the fact of its being gathered into a book, which sets men free. Incidentally, the Bible is inerrant, but it is NOT infallible. Infallibility is a characteristic of interpretation and teaching, not a characteristic of a book. If the Bible were "infallible", it would convey the same message to everyone who reads it. However, an inerrant book in the hands of fallible interpreters is the fastest road to heresy. Which is why Christ gave us an infallible Church to interpret and teach his truth, both written and unwritten, just as it did during the 350 years of Church history when the Bible had not yet been compiled.
-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 30, 2003.
I've enjoyed this page. My wife and I are Christians and one of our daughters just became and married a Catholic. One of my concerns about the Catholic religion was that Catholics pray to Mary. Her priest assured her that wasn't true.
I searched the Internet for examples both proving and disputing the fact and printed them out for my wife.
The catholic church seems adamant that they "don't" pray to Mary. Serching the Catechism's I cam across text that leads me to believe that Mary is in fact prayed to. Below is just one of the examples.
Catechism 2679 Abbr. - Mary is the perfect Orans (pray-er), a figure of the Church. When we pray to her, we are adhering with her to the plan of the Father, who sends his Son to save all men.
If this is taken out of context I apologize. But it clearly says "pray to."
At any rate I was suprised to see all of you admitting openly that you do pray to Mary. ------------- Infallible? This post talking about the church and the bible was the only one that I found extremely inapropriate :) As someone who studies the Cathloic church from the outside I always chuckle when I see the word infallible associated with it. Here are a few links I fuond about this topic, pro & con ...
http://sxws.com/charis/apol5.htm http://www.uscatholic.org/2002/09/gya0209.htm http://www.bible.ca/cath-bible-church-interpreter.htm http://www.angelfire.com/ky/dodone/Infallibility.html http://www.chick.com/reading/books/160/160_07.asp
--------------- Please no hate mail :)As I said I'm not a Catholic. I will continue to study about this subject and I will follow some of the links provided here to try and learn more.
-- Mike (firstname.lastname@example.org), November 17, 2003.
In fact we can and should pray to the saints. "Pray" simply means "ask". Therefore when we ask them to pray for us, that is when we ask them to ask God for something on our behalf, we are in fact praying.
This use of "pray" is apparent in older translations of the Bible, where it is used in many passages having nothing to do with communication with God or the saints. For example, "And another said, I have bought five yoke of oxen, and I must go to prove them: I pray thee have me excused." (Luke 14:19) ... or ... "Paul the prisoner called me, and prayed me to bring this young man to you ..." (Acts 23:18) This was a common usage of the word "pray" in the english of the time. It no longer is. However, the basic meaning of "pray" has not changed. It still means "to make a fervent request". The term is equally valid whether we are making such a request directly to God, to a saint, or even to another human being on earth.
What we do NOT do is WORSHIP the saints. Worship is a specific form of reverence and devotion which is reserved for God alone. Adoration means the same thing. We worship or adore God alone. We worship or adore the Eucharist, because it is God. But we do not worship or adore Mary or any other saint. This confusion is the source of anti-Catholic charges to the effect that Catholics practice idolatry by worshipping the saints. Such people don't understand the vast difference between "pray" and "worship". We can certainly pray to the saints (ask them for favors), but we may not worship them. That would indeed constitute idolatry. Chuckle if you wish, but while you are doing so, note that Catholic teaching remains pure and undefiled after 2,000 years, while Protestant teaching has become totally fragmented and self-contradictory in a mere 450 years. Infallible truth cannot conflict with itself. Obviously, fallible interpretation of the truth can and does.
-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 17, 2003.
Hello to you all. I stumbled upon this site while doing continued research on Christian thought and the evolution of Marianism and wanted to leave a few thoughts with you.
The premise of this whole discussion is "why did protestants stop praying to Mary". This is false and misleading as a starting point, because Marianism was not an original teaching of Christ. We have to ask, instead, why did Catholics begin praying to her.
Contrary to the sentiments of many posters here, the doctrines of the Catholic Church have been anything but constant over the past 2000 years. What began as a loose association of humble believers has been altered more and more over time with one papacy after another adding new doctrines and dogma, one of them even adding in his own infallability, and amassing more and more wealth and power - not exactly a Christian goal. Those whom you call the "early" church fathers didn't appear until hundreds of years after Christ's death and when they were offered power from Constantine, they took the offer and began making changes to original doctrine and killing those who disagreed with them. And even then, many people chose to be persecuted by the Church in order to stand up for the truth.
And, to answer PJ's fourth question, about how the "Protestant religion" was formed: protestantism is not a religion. It's merely a term used to define the divide between Catholic dogma and all the rest of Christian thought. Many Christians broke away from the Catholic Church because it had become so horribly corrupt (selling indulgences, etc.) that it was no longer able to claim to be representing God. They rejected the papacy with all it's sins and trappings of unimaginable wealth. So, while still believing in Christ and his sacrafice and teachings, they rejected the power structure and organization of what the Church had become. They rejected the notion of "tradition" being equal to the Bible because tradition can so easily go awry and become corrupted. As to Mary, most protestants see Mary as a good and godly woman whom God blessed with the privlege of bearing His only son, as the Bible tells us. Not perfect, not necessarily eternally virginal. And they are puzzled as to why Catholics seem to think that virginity is the epitome of womanhood and why they go to such lengths to try to claim that she was not only a virgin at conception, but remained a virgin all her life, and why her sex life is important to anyone in the first place.
Jesus was asked by his followers how we should pray and he answered that with the Lord's Prayer. It's an excellent and specific guideline and it includes nothing about his mother or saints. If we can't follow something as well-spelled-out as that, how can we claim to have any understanding of more subjective matters?
I love the faith of my Catholic friends. But I encourage everyone to actually read and research the history of the Church and the evolution of modern Catholic thought so that your faith is based on truth, not necessarily on what the church has taught you because, if we're honest with ourselves, we'll admit that it has made some really impressive errors in the past and deserves a bit of scrutiny and you DO want to know that what you believe is the truth.
-- LM (email@example.com), March 09, 2004.
Every article of faith followed in the Catholic faith has God's blessing. We know this because Jesus Christ said so; He promised it to the Church. (Matt 16: 17-19, and Matt 18:17-18) He sent her the Advocate, or Holy Spirit; and told her He was with her ALL days, to the end of the world.
Protestants of good will do not gainsay the words of Jesus Christ simply on grounds of what self-interested ministers have said over a few centuries about the Catholic Church.
Christ never promised you a ''reformation'' anywhere in the scriptures. He promised you the TRUTH, in the Holy Spirit. He warned you particularly against false teachers who would attempt to supplant the Church of Peter and the apostles. And your people have not heeded the warning.
Of course there have been periods of weakness in the Catholic clergy. We're all human beings, we sin. Plenty of so-called Christians are evil; and some are corrupt. They presume to know better than the old Church of our ancestors --while leading souls to perdition. All under the pretense of Bible wisdom. Why?
Why have ''Christian'' sects like the Branch Davidians, the Jim Jones suicide sect; men like Jimmy Swaggart, etc., presumed to brush aside the Catholic faith? Just because Catholics pray to Mary? No-- They are all in open COMPETITION with the shepherd Christ named: Peter.
We must acknowledge the Pope for Jesus Christ's Vicar on earth, according to the promises. No protestant can undermine his God-given authority. He is the legitimate historical successor of Peter. God knew what He was doing; and He helps His people through good times and bad. He has personally replaced the sinners in His flock many times; from heretical preachers to schismatics to evildoers with Roman collars. It's HIS role to dispute who leaves the Catholic Church; not Martin Luther's or Henry VIII's or John Calvin's.
He did NOT give your ancestors either reasons or incentives or permission to break away. You are the sheep of His fold gone astray. I say this with very bittersweet love for all Bible Christians. They really WANT to do God's Will. But they do only the will of other men. They are following false teachers. The blind leading the blind.
-- eugene c. chavez (firstname.lastname@example.org), March 09, 2004.
The fundamental difference between Protestantism and Catholocism on the issue of prayer to the saints is that Catholics believe that the saints are ALIVE and working with Jesus TODAY. They are coherent, conscious and effective.
This has been a common belief dating all the way back to 2nd generation Christianity. The martyrs were deemed to be infinitely happier, wiser, and stronger in prayer than their earth-bound fellows. The catacombs of the early saints are replete with prayers to them sketched on the walls by their brethren.
Of course, St. Paul, St. Peter gave no emphasis to requests made to deceased saints, BECAUSE THERE WERE NONE YET! The early church fully expected to see Jesus return in their lifetimes, so this issue, naturally, was not addressed.
According to LM, the only prayer one can say is the one Christ instituted; i.e., the Lord's Prayer. But the reason LM must believe that is because LM is an adherent to the false and heretical notion of sola scriptura.
You see, LM, we have the freedom not only to ask our brothers and sisters in the Lord here on earth to pray for us, but we have many many friends in high places whose prayers we seek.
-- Gail (email@example.com), March 09, 2004.
"What began as a loose association of humble believers has been altered more and more over time with one papacy after another adding new doctrines and dogma"
A: So easy to say; so difficult to support! Care to offer an example of a doctrine that has been "added" to the Catholic faith? One that the early Church Fathers didnf't accept? On the other hand, where do you suppose all the hundreds of conflicting doctrines of denominational religion came from?? Virtually NONEW of these were known by the early Fathers - or by any Christian person before the 16th century. Example - the absurd heretical tradition of men called "sola scriptura".
"one of them even adding in his own infallability"
A: The conferring of infallibility upon the first Pope is clearly recorded in Scripture. See Matt 16:19.
"Those whom you call the "early" church fathers didn't appear until hundreds of years after Christ's death"
A: The earliest of the Church Fathers were second generation Catholic bishops like Ignatius of Antioch, who were catechized directly by the first generation bishops, the Apostles.
"and when they were offered power from Constantine, they took the offer and began making changes to original doctrine and killing those who disagreed with them."
A: Constantine had no power to offer any power to Catholic Bishops. the Bishops received their power from Christ Himself. All Constantine did was bring the power of the state into line with the will of God, by legalizing Christianity (= Catholicism). Since the Catholic Church was the sole repository of Christian truth for the first 1,000+ years of Christianity, you would have no way of knowing about any "changes" the Church made in the early years, even if such changes had been made. Again, if you want to find changes from original doctrine, explore the doctrinal chaos of Protestantism., not the constant and unified teaching of the Church Christ founded for all men.
"protestantism is not a religion. It's merely a term used to define the divide between Catholic dogma and all the rest of Christian thought."
A: That's right. Protestantism is certainly not A religion. It is a hodgepodge collection of thousands off different manmade religions having little in common with original Christianity, and little in common with one another, except for adherence to the manmade tradition of sola scriptura, and the claim made by each group that the Holy Spirit is guiding THEIR denomination, not the thousands of others, to all truth. Sad!
"Many Christians broke away from the Catholic Church because it had become so horribly corrupt (selling indulgences, etc.) that it was no longer able to claim to be representing God"
A: Some used that as an excuse, but in fact they broke away because of the personal pride and arrogance of a few men, and the inevitable fall into heresy of anyone who abandons the scriptural pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim 3:15), and tries to substitute a different foundation of truth.
"So, while still believing in Christ and his sacrafice and teachings, they rejected the power structure and organization of what the Church had become."
A: They still believe in His teachings? Even though the teachings of each denomination conflict with the teachings of the others? How is that possible? I thought His teachings were truth. Can truth contradict truth? In fact, what they each believe in is their own private interpretation of His teachings - which guarantees that none of them actually believe in His teachings at all.
"They rejected the notion of "tradition" being equal to the Bible because tradition can so easily go awry and become corrupted."
A: Nonsense. Oral Tradition is all Jesus gave us! ALL of His teaching was given to the Apostles in the form of oral Tradition. He didn't write a word. As soon as He spoke it, it was the Word of God - not when an Apostle happened to mention part of it in his personal correspondence. No Apostle had the power to invalidate any part of tfhe Word of God simply by writing down other parts. If the New Testanment had never been written - or if the Catholic Church had not decided to compile some of its writings into a book - the Church would still be teaching the fullness of God's truth from the same source it taught from originally - the Traditional teachings of its founder, Jesus Christ.
"As to Mary, most protestants see Mary as a good and godly woman whom God blessed with the privlege of bearing His only son, as the Bible tells us. Not perfect, not necessarily eternally virginal. And they are puzzled as to why Catholics seem to think that virginity is the epitome of womanhood and why they go to such lengths to try to claim that she was not only a virgin at conception, but remained a virgin all her life, and why her sex life is important to anyone in the first place."
A: It isn't an epitome. It's simply a fact. Catholics are interested in the facts - the truth, as defined by the biblical pillar and foundation of truth. Catholics are not interested in unauthorized people's subjective guesses about the truth - only in the actual objective truth as defined in scripture - that which is bound on earth by His infallible Church. That is God's definition of truth.
"Jesus was asked by his followers how we should pray and he answered that with the Lord's Prayer. It's an excellent and specific guideline and it includes nothing about his mother or saints."
A: The Bible also includes many examples of Christian people interceding for one another, and asking one another for prayers of intercession. Such intercession - to pray for others - is a duty of every Christian person. Even we earthly sinners can do it, and are expected to do it as well as we can in our weakness and sin. How much more perfectly we will be able to intercede when we stand before the throne of God Himself! And how much sense it makes to request prayers of intercession not only from other earthly sinners, but also from those who see God face to face! Of course you may have been fed the idea that the saints are "dead". But anyone who knows the Word of God knows that the saints are fully alive. (John 11:26)
"so that your faith is based on truth, not necessarily on what the church has taught you"
A: That is a contradiction in terms. The Bible makes it clear that the Church is the only reliable source of truth. If your faith is not solidly based on the pillar and foundation of truth, it is not the truth. Period. As shown by the doctrinal chaos of Protestantism - more and more divisions every day. Meanwhile the Church Christ founded continues strong and united in the fullness of truth, just as He said it would. By their fruit shall ye know them.
-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), March 10, 2004.
"You need to be born again. And that is not the "water" of baptism that Jesus is talking about in John 3. "
A: The progression is crystal clear. In John 3:3 Jesus says we must be "born again" to see the kingdom of God. In verse 4, Nicodemus, having heard Jesus use the word "born", wrongly assumes Jesus is speaking of natural birth. He expresses his confusion over the term, expecting Jesus to explain further. Therefore we might expect that the next verse will be Jesus's explanation of the term "born again", which He used in verse 3. Sure enough, in verse 5, Jesus tells Nicodemus that He is NOT speaking of natural birth when He says "born again", but rather is speaking of spiritual rebirth - birth through water and the Spirit - Baptism. Therefore, "being born of water and the Spirit" is synonymous with "being born again" is synonymous with "Baptism". This involves both an inner, invisible component (the Spirit), and an external, visible component (water). Jesus says "water AND the Spirit". He doesn't say one or the other. Therefore, being reborn of the Spirit occurs simultaneously with being reborn of water, through the Holy Sacrament of Baptism. This has been the constant understanding and teaching of the Christian Church for 2,000 years. The Apostles professed it. The earliest Fathers of the Church professed it. And every Christian person on earth professed it until a few hundred years ago. Therefore, I am really not interested in the modern, unauthoritative traditions of men which you propose in contradiction to the truth of the gospel.
As for an infant being "unable" to repent, that ignores the reality that an infant has no REASON to repent, since he/she has never sinned. The requirement to repent before being baptized applies to those to whom Jesus spoke it - adult sinners. Adult sinners seeking baptism today are still required to repent, just as they were then. The reason for this repentence was described by Jesus - to "become like little children". If adult sinners must become like little children before being baptized, then it is obvious that those who already ARE like little children have no need of repentence. And who is more like little children than little children?
Jesus said that no-one can possess the kingdom without being born again through water and the Spirit. He also said, in reference to the small children and babies gathered around Him, "the kingdom belongs to such as these". Obviously then, those who are already in possession of the kingdom must have already been born again through Baptism. It would be a contradiction for Jesus to say "the kingdom belongs to such as these, but such as these are prohibited from receiving that which makes entering the kingdom possible".
-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), March 11, 2004.
"conversion" is being "born again". Not being baptized !---
This is spoken from the biased point of view of somebody who's had the false notion she was ''born again'' as a consequence of bad Bible interpretations. That's why she'll dispute with the Holy Spirit Himself. A mere Catholic deacon can't persuade her she doesn't understand the scriptures. If she allowed it, she would be back at square One. This, of course, is admitting you have no authority. Unthinkable! Square One is baptism into the faith of the holy apostles. Not a sect; the FAITH. Is this ever possible, for a born and bred ''Bible Christian?'' --With god, it is possibble, yes. But souls must relinquish their pride in self, and confess their self-absorbed ''knowledge''-- It requires humility, a virtue in very short supply among American evangelicals and sectarian protestants. They are just too full of themselves to entertain the idea that a Church founded in antiquity would have any way of teaching them, much less correcting and SAVING them. They can READ! They are SMART! ____ THEY ARE PROUD. __ And pride goes before a fall.
-- eugene c. chavez (firstname.lastname@example.org), March 12, 2004.
There are no strings (works) no Bible readings attached, except for the
worksMISTAKES that you will make as a natural by-product of your converdelusion. The delusion that you know what you're talking about.
-- eugene c. chavez (email@example.com), March 12, 2004.
Pauline tells us that the scriptures don't speak of required works; that works are merely "a natural by-product of our conversion".
The Word of God tells us ... that a person of faith who has no works to show will not be saved. (James 2:14)
... that faith without works is exactly as good as no faith at all. (James 2:20)
... that a person cannot be justified without works. (James 2:24)
... that a person who neglects good works will go to hell! (Matt 25:45-46)
Given a choice between the gospel of Pauline or the gospel of Jesus Christ, I'll take the latter, thank-you.
-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), March 12, 2004.
"What are these "good works" that you do, that will cause you to go to heaven, and a person without them to go to hell?"
A: See Matt 25:34-36 for several examples.
And, how do you then explain Eph. 2:8-9 "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that NOT OF YOURSELVES: it is THE GIFT of God; Not of works, lest (Paul) any man should boast."
A; As the Catholic Church has consistently taught for 2,000 years, salvation is indeed a free gift of God which cannot be earned or merited. However, a gift must be accepted, and various gifts have various requirements for acceptance. The conditions for acceptence of the free gift of salvation are faith and works. Both of these requirements are frequently emphasized in scripture, leaving no doubt that they are equally essential. Having faith doesn't "earn" salvation and doing works doesn't "earn" salvation either. But the Bible states repeatedly that we won't be saved if we lack either faith or works.
"You see, TRUE faith produces good works. True faith spurs us to do good works."
A: That is correct. And, Christian works (as opposed to mere "works of the law") build faith. That's why both are necessary. They are complimentary. What we believe prompts us to act; and what we do strengthens what we believe.
"Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to HIS mercy, He saves us. We don't save ourselves by doing good works."
A: Exactly! No-one claims otherwise!
"Not every one that saith unto me , Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the WILL OF MY FATHER which is in heaven."
A: Exactly! The complete will of God is what we must strive to DO (note - "do" means actions, not doctrinal beliefs). Among the things God has said we must DO are: believe; repent; be baptized; confess our sins; eat His flesh and drink His blood; contribute to the support of His Church; evangelize; pray; study; and do works of Christian charity. Anyone who ignores one or more of these divine dictates is not doing the complete will of God as revealed through His Son.
-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), March 13, 2004.
Hey Paul...just my "newbies" 2 cents! You wrote these words in a previous post, and I quote: "Among the things God has said we must DO are: believe; repent; be baptized; confess our sins; eat His flesh and drink His blood; contribute to the support of His Church; evangelize; pray; study; and do works of Christian charity. Anyone who ignores one or more of these divine dictates is not doing the complete will of God as revealed through His Son".
"Eat His flesh and drink His blood"????.....that's sick sir. Listen to how it sounds for goodness sake!! It sounds like cannibalism, NOT A CHRISTIAN "RITE"!!
Ya know Paul (if that's even your real name) the catholic's (of which I am "EX") are a very sick and twisted religion due to their heirarchy, statue/saint worship, "man-made" traditions, etc., and I feel very sorry for the "sheep" (like you and others) that buy into this garbage based on that several thousand years of "tradition"! "Followers" of that twisted religion will be the exact, same people Jesus spoke of when He personally stated that: "Not all who say Lord, Lord, will enter into the Kingdon"!
Pauline IS correct and I'd listen to her if I were you! By the way, the topic is about prayer TO Mary - correct? Why have I heard on so many occassions and from so many catholics that you guys pray WITH Mary and NOT TO HER.....hmmmmmmm? That seems to me to be double- speak!!
How can you OR YOUR RELIGION justify praying to ANYTHING OR ANYONE that is in heaven, on the earth, OR the sea beneath the earth besides God the Father or His Son, Jesus??? Didn't you read Exodus 20: vs 3, 4 & 5?? What do YOU and YOUR RELIGION think those commandments mean?
Heaven help you all......
-- PhilipR (firstname.lastname@example.org), March 13, 2004.
You call Jesus Christ ''sick'', Sir. It is He who said ''My flesh is food indeed; and my blood is drink indeed.'' --Not me, or Paul, or the apostles or their Church. Christ said it. We believe Him; that settles it.
God does not force His people to believe. We have a choice. You have chosen not to believe. That places you outside the mercy of Jesus Christ by your choice. Jesus confronted His apostles about that choice; asking, ''Will you also leave me?''
The holy apostle Peter answered without quibbling, -- never questioning the words of Jesus after that; ''Where shall we go, Lord? Thou hast the words of everlasting life.''
Peter asked not, ''You aren't asking us to become cannibals, are you Jesus?'' The same apostle who came later on to Object, ''Lord, not I; for unclean food has never passed my lips.'' --Saw NO cause to deny Christ's holy words. ''My flesh (not His spirit) is food indeed; and my blood (not His word, or the Bible) is drink indeed''
Seeing this with a humble heart, WE believe Jesus. You have no faith in Jesus Christ. You place all your faith in the errors of men. Until you quit denying His truth, you cannot be saved, nor born again. It's your own choice.
-- eugene c. chavez (email@example.com), March 13, 2004.
If you're going to quote me, do it fairly loschavez!
I NEVER called Jesus "sick" BUT, this is what YOU stated I said: "You call Jesus Christ ''sick'', Sir. It is He who said ''My flesh is food indeed; and my blood is drink indeed.'' --Not me, or Paul, or the apostles or their Church".
THIS IS WHAT I SAID Sir: "Eat His flesh and drink His blood"????.....that's sick sir. Listen to how it sounds for goodness sake!! It sounds like cannibalism, NOT A CHRISTIAN "RITE"!!
Now, show me scripture that instructs us to eat His body "literally"! YOU CANNOT!!!!
The last supper was "symbolism" chavez NOT literal. This is the definition of "symbolism": "The investing of objects or animals with a symbolic meaning; meaning expressed by symbols; symbols collectively".
-- PhilipR (firstname.lastname@example.org), March 13, 2004.
Knock off your !!!!! and your THIS IS WHAT I SAID-- These do not impress anyone.
You said nothing that did not deny Our Lord's holy words. He says, ''Take and eat-- This is my Body, which will be given up (ON CALVARY) for you.''
My BODY does not mean ''kinda like my body,'' it means just what He stated. FLESH. Same as to His precious Blood. If He meant something symbolic, the apostles would NOT have preached otherwise, and the apostles started the Holy Catholic Church. Your own church was NOT started by them, or founded by Christ. You are misled by the obvious errors of anti-Catholic men, who did not teach you from the Holy Gospel. Your very ancestors were Catholics. They knew only the doctrines of ONE Church; the apostolic Catholic Church, founded by Jesus Christ. (Notice I do not pound the table, or ''raise'' my voice. What you have here is the plain truth.)
-- eugene c. chavez (email@example.com), March 13, 2004.
This shall be the last retort from me Mr. "loschavez!
Your "simplistic" views and way of looking at things is laughable "sir". The apostles "original" church was termed "The Way" NOT "catholic"! That's "man's" term for "universal" NOT God's! God simply uses "Alpha & Omega" for beginning and end. Nothing in those two words can be construed as "universal", but rather, omnipotent OR omnipresent....."comprende senor"?
Adios my "lost" amigo!! (wink)
-- PhilipR (firstname.lastname@example.org), March 13, 2004.
Goodbye, Phillip. You came, you saw, you ran.
-- eugene c. chavez (email@example.com), March 13, 2004.
Philip please tone down the vitriol. Eugene is absolutely right that Christ said "this is My Body" and "this is My Blood". The words caused a bit of an uproar at the time and many left Him over it. It seems that many still do.
When a catholic partakes in the Eucharist he/she steps out of time and is with Our Savior Jesus in timelessness. We partake of His Body and Blood just as the Apostles did/do. The wine and bread are transfigured like Jesus was on Mount Tabor. Would DNA or cellular tests reveal it to be made of red cells, white cells, etc? Of course not. The wine is wine BUT it has been transformed into the embodiment of Our Lord. Our souls cannot be dissected or measured yet many people other than catholics believe they exist. Why is the Sacriment of Eucharist so hard to believe. If its symbolism why bother? In my protestant service days I felt like we were raising a glass like in some BBC movie and saying "ladies and gentlemen to the King".
You are free to deny the Sacriment. God gave you free will to do so but do not ridicule catholics. I have a protestant background but at 36 I have seen the light (Bishop Robinson I thank you). You were a catholic and have chosen to leave the Church. That is your right. The Church is not for sissies. She demands obedience as God Himself does. Being told that you are a sinner can be tough. Being told what things are sinful can anger many, but it is Her job to point these things out and stand firm. Some of my friends and relatives are fallen away catholics and I must say they fall hard. Christ is not about tolerance. God is not some marshmallow who gives us a reward beyond description without expecting our obedience. If that upsets you dont curse the Church take it up with Him. Even better...make your peace with Him, I have.
People don't want to hear about Hell. They want to have sex in any way and with anyone they please. They want to destroy their unborn children. Worst of all they want God to change so that their sins are OK. As long at the Catholic Church stands unwavering in Her support of the Truth She will be hated as Christ was.
-- David F (firstname.lastname@example.org), March 13, 2004.
"Eat His flesh and drink His blood"????.....that's sick sir. Listen to how it sounds for goodness sake!! It sounds like cannibalism, NOT A CHRISTIAN "RITE"!!"
Yes it is a Christian rite. It's THE Christian rite: it's the Mystery of Faith. It has complete Scriptural origin; in fact, it's the heart of all Scripture. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was made flesh and dwelled among us.
Scriptural support predicts your denial of this doctrine, which is at the essence of the Christain Faith, which is synonymous with the Catholic Faith. John 6:
"I am the bread of life. Your fathers did eat manna in the desert: and are dead. This is the bread which cometh down from heaven: that if any man eat of it, he may not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world. The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen, I say unto you: except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me: and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna and are dead. He that eateth this bread shall live for ever. These things he said, teaching in the synagogue, in Capharnaum. Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying is hard; and who can hear it? But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at this, said to them: Doth this scandalize you? If then you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that did not believe and who he was that would betray him. And he said: Therefore did I say to you that no man can come to me, unless it be given him by my Father. After this, many of his disciples went back and walked no more with him. Then Jesus said to the twelve: Will you also go away? And Simon Peter answered him: Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life. And we have believed and have known that thou art the Christ, the Son of God."
"Followers" of that twisted religion will be the exact, same people Jesus spoke of when He personally stated that: "Not all who say Lord, Lord, will enter into the Kingdon"!
You know this? But look:
"Now, show me scripture that instructs us to eat His body "literally"! YOU CANNOT!!!!"
Scroll up, read the verse again. Read about those who walked away in disgust. Then think about this again: "Not all who say Lord, Lord, will enter into the Kingdom".
"The last supper was "symbolism" chavez NOT literal."
What you opine, the above Scripture refutes. In fact, within the passage cited, Christ's claim is challenged in the same exact manner as your challenge here in this forum, Philip.
So you say: "This is the definition of "symbolism": "The investing of objects or animals with a symbolic meaning; meaning expressed by symbols; symbols collectively"."
Just call it Naturalism instead, because that's what you are talking about. Christ was talking substance.
It would only make sense that the enemies of the Church would espouse Naturalism at the expense of The Mysterium Fidei, the Mystery of Faith. Just call it symbolism over substance.
Christ is present in the Blessed Sacrament: Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. This is Divine Mercy so long as people partake of it as a remedy. Christ offers it now in mercy and as a remedy. Later, He will come in justice, and those who haven't shared in the remedy will be those who are guilty of spilling His Blood. Rethink it all.
-- Emerald (email@example.com), March 13, 2004.
would somebody please link the forum rules so phil can see how he broke them and why his post was deleted? I'd do it, but I'm not html savvy.
-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), March 14, 2004.
Philip, paul h. is correct. We have rules here in the forum that govern behaviour. You can read all about them here:
If after you've read the rules you are still wondering why your posts (I just deleted your second one due to it's rude and insulting content) have been deleted, you can email me for further explanation.
-- Ed (firstname.lastname@example.org), March 14, 2004.
Unfortunately for you and your free lance Christian sects, Pauline:
The apostles never said we "re-present" the one, sufficient, finished sacrifice of Christ on Calvary. It isn't a representation, it is the VERY SAME eternally present sacrifice of our Saviour. --Jesus is not ''revisiting'' but MAKING PRESENT what He has sacrificed in time for our salvation.
The Israelites were given a figure of Our Saviour; a Passover sacrifice, the Lamb. It WAS a foreshadowing (representation) of what Christ made REAL. What did Moses command them to do? EAT the Passover lamb, sprinkle the lamb's BLOOD upon the people and their door lintels. We eat the True Lamb of God. He is sacrificed once for all, in Jerusalem, 33 A.D. But the OFFERING is not over. It's an eternal living sacrifice, the ''clean oblation'', in Malachi 1:11; prophesied of Christ, ''from the rising of the sun even to the going down;'' never to pass away. We partake of the Lamb in Holy Communion, and are made one with that clean oblation before the throne of the Father Almighty.
A mere SYMBOL would not be pleasing to God. He states unequivocally (Malachi, 1:10), He no longer accepts a figure as before, He will only be pleased with the DEATH of the Lamb, Our Divine lord. The Son whom He raises up from the dead never more to die.
We send up to Him in Holy Eucharist Christ's sacrifice made eternal on every holy altar for all time. It is a mystery; known only through His revelation. And He positively DOES reveal it, in His Church. We have it from the apostles, one of whom is Paul, describing the miracle of Transubstantiation in >>>>> 1 Corinth 11:27-29, >>>>''Paul speaks of the Lord's Supper, NOT A SIMPLE MEAL, in which Christians proclaim the Lord's death, "until He comes":
Not an ornate sacramentABSOLUTELY the sacrament of Christ's offering on Calvary. It's precisely this since He told us so at that Last Supper. Just as His death was no ''simple death'' His Body and Blood are not just ''a simple meal.'' The very idea proves you live in darkness, Pauline.
-- eugene c. chavez (email@example.com), March 15, 2004.
it is wise, before quoting saints, to actually read what they wrote. I would think that you would be aware that the quote you placed shows St Augustine arguing FOR the sacrament of communion and AGAINST animal sacrifices by the hebrews. Dont try to pull the proverbial wool over our eyes when it comes to OUR saints.
second, you need to develope an understanding of transubstantiation and the sacrament of communion, as your current view is deeply flawed. For starters, in the modern world we use philosophical terms like "accident" or "form" etc etc to discuss communion BECAUSE these are modern words which clearly describe the words needed for such a great mystery of the faith.
-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), March 15, 2004.
Moderator, I ask that you leave the above post and this one, I have some good points to make here to phil, and i think this shows the way we should respond in christian love to those who are spiteful...
I'm NOT in the business of trying to make "converts" (as you say). I'm NOT God!!!
Phil, if you bothered to read your bible, you would know that God commands his followers to "Go forth and make believers of all nations." why are you NOT trying to bring people to the light of God? While we're at it, if youre not here to learn, and not here to ATTEMPT to convert, exactly what use does your presence mean?
As a matter of fact, persecution was the wrong word to use "sir". I persecute NO ONE!
Really? coming into a catholic forum and harassing people with anti catholic rhetoric is not persecution? the hateful posts you make are not a form of persecution? where is your christian love? where is your openess to understanding?
But since you mentioned it, you seem to use words like that as if you "coined" them "sir"!
well, since you mentioned it, yes, persecution has been born by catholics throughout the centuries. Before that it was born by the israelites, and so on and so forth.
Yer so much more "estute" then I. Bra-vo!!!
Grammatically corrected version: "You're so much more "astute" than I. Bravo!!!"
if youre going to be sarcastically mocking, i dont mind, but at least be gramatically correct while trying to play on OUR intelligence.
There are MANY in this world (which is Satan's by the way) that believe one is saved by simply believing on Jesus. That is partly true. There IS a catch to it though. What's that "catch" you may ask? It's TOTAL OBEDIENCE to God's Law's, Ordinences AND Statutes. Read em in a KJV. They're there for anyone "with an open mind"!
i think you came to the wrong place. you see, catholics believe in a faith AND works driven life of holiness. perhaps you missed that fact. or maybe you have a closed mind and should look to learn something of a faith you obviously dont understand.
I knew I was NOT welcome here in the first place before you said anything "sir", AND, what I just said (according to your catholic rule book) is enough to get this thread deleted. Well "POOF" TO YOU TOO Mr. Puff the magic Dragon!
but see, you ARE welcome here... but you must treat us with the same respect you would treat someone while a guest in their house. you see, this is our sanctuary, not your pulpit. while you are here, behave as though a guest at our dinner table and keep your discourse polite. you arent here to tell us we are wrong, you are here to learn, and if you arent, then you might as well go, because there is nothing for you here.
Know this though "sir", MY JESUS loved sinners (as you have incinuated I am -which is true according to Romans 3:23). He would welcome me AND MY THOUGHTS about His Father and His "rules".
i dont think anyone has insinuated you to be a sinner. and you are welcome to POLITELY share your thoughts with us, so long as it is done in a respectful manner.
ie-- instead of saying "catholics are evil because they 'worship' mary," try instead saying something like "Why do catholics pay so much respect to mary? does this represent worship? where did this tradition come from?" youre much more likely to get a positive response (not to mention have your post not deleted) that way.
Continue to Mary worship all you's want.....it IS to your own demise ultimately!!(That's NOT a judgement-simply an "observation") May our Great and Holy God remove the "wool" over YOUR EYES!!
These two statements right here some up my entire point. I dont know how old you are, but your rude behavior is befitting of a five year old. Please, behave with respect and maturity while you are our guest here, or you will be dismissed from our sanctuary.
-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), March 16, 2004.
Sorry paul, but PhilipR. is banned. His comment will be removed. Please don't reply to comments of those who are prohibited from posting or you run the risk of having your post removed as well. I will allow your post to stand in this instance however. By the way, isn't this the fellow whose comments prompted you to ask me to be more lenient with posters? :)
-- Ed (firstname.lastname@example.org), March 16, 2004.
i think, Ed, that phil WAS quite out of line. what i think is the problem is that the mission of this site is not readily apparent to new posters here. If you come to a thread directly from a google search, then you really have no idea what this site is all about. Is there some way to make the mission of this site (a catholic sanctuary) more apparent to new posters?
like, i know there is a way to edit posts instead of deleting them, maybe you could replace the body of their post with a link to the forum rules, so that when they returned theyd be like "hey, i didnt post that... wonder where it goes???"
just food for thought, you can reject all of my suggestions, of course.
-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), March 16, 2004.