Featured 10 Misconceptions of the RCC

EWF, I have always consider you a friend. even though we disagree about issues. I think I have a good grasp on your intentions and realize your experience is a major issue with Catholic belief. And I also know you are not alone. However, all I hope to do is shed some light on what is actual (genuine) Catholic thought and dispel what has been mistaken as Catholic.

If you believe that is what you are doing then certainly it is problematic. The real view of Confession follows the teaching as spelled out in James

The primary emphasis of confession is for healing and restoration. Jesus commands us to "go and sin no more" or to "be perfect as your father in heaven is perfect." The problem is this is certainly a difficult goal to attain. So when we do sin we injur ourselves and those around us. We are a community of believers always have been therefore in agreement with John Donne "no man is an island. entire of itself." when we sin we aren't only injuring ourselves but our community. As much as we like to keep to ourselves secret sin those very sins are affecting us (killing us) and our community. Therefore confessing sins has the effect of bringing into the light of day our sins for not just forgiveness but for healing of ourselves and our community. That is the idea of confession. And btw if you already confessed a sin there is no need to confess for it again because it is washed clean unless you commit the same sin again. The idea is to confess the sin to restore your relationship to God and community and to "go and sin no more." That is the actual Catholic thought behind confession.

All sin damages our relationship to God but as John says

there are sins that kill that relationship. We see John catagorizing sin. All sins need healing however there are sins that kill our relationship with God.

 

It seems to make some people here happy to bash Catholics and any other Christians with whom they disagree.

 

And your opinion is that exposing the truth is "bashing" Catholics. That is sad. The Bible commands us that we need to contend for the truth. If heresy is posted do you not think it is the obligation of every Christian to defend their faith. Do you pray to Mary, and do you feel that this is the proper place to advertise such propaganda?

 

No ONE bashes catholics, its rather that we bash away the teachings/dogmas/dotrines of the RCC< for they are NOT biblical!

 

Unfortunately you are wrong.

This is what is passed for as argument? I think not. What these statements are is an attempt to demean. Like the middle school play ground or yard tactics where one person attempts to show superiority over another by making insulting statements. Thus the term Bash is accurate. However, from my first post I expected this from a few. DHK has properly provided the example. I've supplied scriptural support and a logical approach at which a Catholic understands their faith. DHK feigns ignorance of relationship in my argument such as "are you suggesting Mary was a drug addict" when in my argument it is clear I was simply showing that salvation comes about in two ways by intervention and rehabilitiation. The comparison is clearly in regard to sin. Yet he feigns ignorance to my point which is clear thus clearly attempting to belittle my position by "bashing". So once again Bashing is an accurate descriptor. I really wish he would have provided more sustenance in his objections but unfortunately the reader is left with the same old barrage of insulting and demeaning language rather than substance.

 

Mary said: "I rejoice in God my Savior." She recognized that she needed a Savior, and there was a time in her life when she trusted Christ as Savior. She was not a Christian from infancy. That is my position. That is what I stated.
Here are the statements of yours that I refuted:

She admitted she did; you don't.

The above are your words, your suggestions.
Mary admitted she needed salvation. You are the one that suggested salvation from danger, rehabilitation, drug addiction, etc. These are the things that you put forth as suggestions that Mary could have needed to be saved from because your church does not believe that Mary needed spiritual salvation. This is really shameful on your part.

Then to twist my words and make it to look otherwise is even more shameful. Do you know how to carry on a meaningful debate without the derogatory remarks. I only answered your objections.

 

well, Apostle paul recorded that ALL have sinned, and fallen shor tof the glory of God, EXCEPT Christ jesus...

was mary part of the ALL?

Why were NONE of the Apostle EVER extending to her those things the RCC have?

Dod they miss what the Spirit had revealed to them, so he had to give that to the RCC instead?

 

Funny, I went home to a mining town in the anthracite coal country of northeastern Pennsylvania today, mainly to visit friends & relatives (I know many of will not be there next year).

I go up the road & the Catholic Church (St. Marys) looms over the homes of the townspeople in that community......my wife asks, is that the church you were baptized in.....and I nod. Its all brick on the outside & marble & stained glass on the inside with stained glass in every window & door (there is even a few with the little brass placard of the names of my family donated by my grandfather & uncle). I have not been there since my mothers funeral. They tell me that they closed up the little Polish & Irish RCC churches & now force them to go to St Mary's (built by & for Italian Roman Catholics) for its the biggest & most expensive piece of real estate the Catholics own in the area. I think, it is about time ....after all my cousins & I are all mutts (by marrying Irish, German, Slovak, Polish, Italian & Welsh) we have quite a mixed linage but thats the result of the mix of European immigrants that settled in that area of PA. So why shouldn't the RCC get with the program & blend likewise? And they are now doing just that.

I will tell you this..... many of these people are fine Christians thought we like to criticize the Catholics. Yes we dont agree on a lot of dogmatic issues but they are still believers (though I view them in error in many areas). Does that mean I will ever see eye to eye with them, probably not but they have a right to express themselves & I have the right to dialog with them & point out what I see in error in their arguments. I really hope we can do this civilly & lovingly without becoming contentious.

 

No, venerating is NOT worship. One may ONLY worship the Lord God!!

 

its worship..Period

 

This is a much better response from you than your "bashing" insulting statements of your previous post. Thank you for being more civil. Now to answer your position that you just elucidated here in this post, I will say that Catholics agree with you. Mary is need of a savior no less than the rest of humanity. God saved her. Of that there is no question. Where Catholics believe that you are off is the logical jump that in order to need saving one must be a sinner in action. This is incorrect. And as I've pointed out before salvation can be provided in two ways intervention and rehabilitiation. For all of humanity salvation typically in the form of rehabilitation. Thus we are saved out of our sins. Catholics suggest Mary is saved by intervention. I.e. saved from sin. And the reason for this is because she was chosen for the specific purpose of bringing Christ into the world. Carrying within her own body the incarnation of the God that created both her and us. That was the point I was making before and so its the point I've making again.

To make it clear. I don't have a problem with you refuting something I've said or believe. What I take issue with is the manner in which you do it. My goal is to take common misconseptions of Catholic view and present the genuine Catholic view. Whether you agree with the view I present is really not the point. But I do suggest that you believe that the view I present is the actual view I hold to. Thus when I say I do not worship Mary as a goddess. That is actually what I believe and practice. You may then say "well some of the things you would do seems to me to indicate that you do indeed treat Mary like a deity." to which I can then answer why it is I believe those actions aren't directed towards a deity, rather than you saying... "NO! YOU WORSHIP MARY AS GOD!" When clearly I believe that I do not.

It is clear you are in this trying to justify your imprudence at refuting my position rudely. I never suggested Mary was a drug addict. I was quoting a person who in speaking to drug addiction made a very obvious point about the nature of the act of "saving a person". Whether it be from drug addiction or sin. Of course my response was directed at sin in general. In that saving a person can be done in two ways by intervention (before sinning) and by rehabilitation (out of sinning). I find that your protest about the drug addiction curious. I'm not certain but in our earlier discussion over this same topic didn't suggest that Mary was one out of all the women who all could have been equally chosen and that God could have even used a prostitute? I find that sentement whether it was yours or someone elses reprehensible. I don't think God haphazardly chose on jewish girl. I believe God created and specially prepared Mary specifically for the purpose of bringing forth the Messiah. Mary wasn't chosen by the "luck of the draw" so to speak.

I'm not the one who responded to questions by belittling people by making those crass statements. You did. And like I've said I don't have a problem with you refuting a position I hold. I have a problem with how you do it. Maybe this is how you always refute people by insulting them using tactics such as pretending not to undertand a point like I made with saving people and making the ludicrous comment that I called Mary a drug addict. I didn't twist your words. I objected to them. But when you are civil I don't mind answering your questions. Let me prove my point. Annsi made comments regarding those very points which started this thread. Did I object to Annsi? Did I twist Annsi's words? Did I critize Annsi for being objectionable? No to all of these. In fact I even said Annsi's questions deserved a proper response. Annsi may come back and say "I don't agree with what you said" to me and even give me reasons for doing so. I'm ok with that. At least we had a proper debate and I provided what answers I could give. However, that is not what you have done. You engineered your refutating in such a way as to belittle me. And it is that which I find objectionable.

 

I think where the differences are is what they classify as worship. I think many people believe the act of bowing, or respect is the same as worship that is due God alone. The fact is that is clearly not the case. Japanese people bow out of respect for other people all the time. Now there are certain acts that cross over such as I can bow before God in worship but that doesn't mean I can bow curtiously greeting someone from Japan.

 

Oh come on....dont play games with this veneration/worship nonsense. I am a son of Filito (Neapolitan) Italian Catholics & my family is still the ones to carry the Blessed Mother through the streets on Catholic feast days! Yes, yes they do bow in respect.....because she is the Blessed Virgin Mother Of God. There is the Rosary that is prayed, the Hail Mary is in parody with the Our Father prayer, There is the different "Ave Maria Songs" (Schubert, Bach, Verdi), There is Our Lady of Lourdes that appeared to Bernadette Soubirous on a total of eighteen occasions, Lourdes has developed into a major place of Roman Catholic pilgrimage and of miraculous healing. How about our Lady of Guadalupe! She is the mother figure & she has a prominent place in our Christmas Story & stands there at the foot of the cross. Mary to the catholic way of thinking is the "feminine face of God" . So please dont tell me she isnt worshiped because you'd be lying.

 

Glad to see so far that the posts are fairly civil without the rancor of the past 'Catholic' threads.

I know who and what I worship. I do not worship Mary but I do honor her. You should too!

When would veneration go 'too far' and become worship:

If we offered sacrifice to Mary

If we said Mary were divine, or participated in the Holy Trinity, or was a goddess or equal to God

If we replaced God's or Jesus's name in hymns or prayers of worship with Mary's name: Glory to Mary, O Mary Beyond All Praising, I Will Choose Mary. I would like for you to cite a source for prayers that say: "[O Mary] we worship thee, we adore thee, we give thee thanks for thy great glory" or "[O Mary] thy kingdom come, thy will be done" or in any way makes her the equivalent of God as an object of worship.


If we denied that Mary's help was intercessory in nature, and that she achieved miracles and graces through her own power rather than God's.

 

If one looks at the Akathist hymn to the Theotokos in the EOC, it seems to do just that: She seems to be attributed roles and deeds that are only her Son's. Ultimately, when i seriously considered becoming Eastern Orthodox, it was hymns like this I could never get comfortable with, because it seemed to go well beyond 'honoring' Mary. And I agree Mary should be highly honored, but not in language that in any way blurs the distinction between her and her Son. Such language in the RCC would be terms attributed to Mary like "Co-Redemptrix" and "Mediatrix"--these appear go beyond her merely interceding for us with her prayers.

 

I assure you I am not. I am putting forward the actual Catholic position.

I would submit to you that they do not carry the blessed mother through the streets on Catholic feast days rather they carry an image of her reminding all of her part in the life of Christ and out of respect for her and her role.

Yes, they probably do however I think you interpret that being the Mother of God in some way means she created or originated God rather than what Mother of God actually means which is she gave birth to Jesus Christ who is her creater, Lord, and savior. That she allowed herself to be used by God to bring forth the incarnation. So yes they respect her humility and obedience to God in bringing for the incarnation. Jesus Christ who is God and who is man. Ie.. Theotokos. The title Mother of God speaks to the true nature of Christ and his divinity. You should really understand and study the origination of the title theotokos.

The Hail Mary is nothing of a "parody" of the Our Father. The structure and words would be all wrong if that were the case. No, rather its partly a quote stated by Gabriel at the annunciation of the incarnation to Mary. And its partly a statement made by Elizabeth. And its reminding of us Christ nature useing the title Theotokos. And its a request for her prayers to God on our behalf. That is all.

If you have heard the song you should know the words. No where is it indicated that Mary is God.

Yes, this happened but if you read about what happened there the vision asked the child to pray for the conversion of sinners, called christians to repentance, and to encourage a stronger devotion to Jesus. There were also healings. But when I think about this I don't see how this is any different from Moses or Elijah coming down showing themselves to the 3 Aposltes at the Mt. of Transfiguration.

Which because of this vision and the strange picture appearing on Juan Diego's Tilma caused many natives to convert to Christianity and move away from their pagan practices.

Yes this is true.

Only by people who aren't properly educated in the Catholic Faith. Mary is not a "feminine face of God" nor is she a "goddess". Mary to the Catholic way of thinking is the New Eve. The woman recapitulated by God. This is what the Catholic Church Actually teaches regarding Mary

Now pay attention as this is the teaching regarding honoring Mary not as God.

So its not I that has changed the Church's teaching but am expressing the actual teaching of the Church despite what it is your family does.

 

That's a good question Salty. Her role is different so in how we honor her is relative to her role. We also honor Peter, differently from Paul in that their roles were different. However, we do honor Paul, Luke, and Peter. and we have feast days for all of them.

 

No, not in the context of our discussion it wasn't.
It is true that there is spiritual salvation and physical salvation.
Israel was delivered physically at the Red Sea as the Egyptian Army pursued her, and the waters parted before her, and she walked through on dry land, but the same waters closed in and drowned the entire army of the Egyptians. That is physical deliverance. But we weren't speaking of that. That is a red herring.
Man has sinned (Rom.3:23). All men or mankind (including Mary) has sinned. Mary brought forth a sin offering as I demonstrated to with supporting Scripture. She was a sinner. She needed a Savior. She needed to be saved from her sin. Now you went off from that statement (which you just agreed to) and offered other physical possibilities (drug addiction, mental health, etc.) Why would you do that if it didn't apply to Mary? Did Mary need saving from any of those things? Then why even mention them? She needed spiritual salvation as Christ said:

"I am the way, the truth, and the life; no man comes unto the Father but by me." Mary had no other recourse but through Christ.

Intervention from what? She was not mentally ill as you seem to be suggesting here.

Mary was a vessel used by God for a specific purpose at a specific time. She was conceived by the Holy Spirit, not of Joseph. The sin nature is passed down through the man. Thus the importance of the conception being through the Holy Spirit. Mary did not need to be sinless. She was conceived through the Holy Spirit. Therefore Christ avoided the sin nature via conception through the Holy Spirit.
The RCC logic of the sinlessness of Mary would logically have to apply in a geneaological way to Mary's ancestors--her mother Anne, her grandmother, her great grandmother, and ad infinitum back to Eve. It is a ridiculous position to take. All have sinned and come short of the glory of God.

We can do that. Stick with the topic then. The topic was not Mary's physical salvation, but her spiritual salvation. She was not mentally ill but needed spiritual salvation; salvation from her sins. Thus the statement: "I rejoice in God my Savior."

As a former Catholic I would have responded the same way. As I study the Bible I must look at things through the eyes and lens of the Bible. According to the Bible you do worship Mary. Why? Veneration and worship are the same thing. Because you put a difference between the two words doesn't make them different. Only in your mind they are different, but not in God's mind.

Revelation 4:11 Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.
--As a former Catholic I still have some of the prayers of the RCC memorized, especially the "Hail Mary."
The RCC gives glory and honor to Mary. They also give Mary "worth" or tell her that she is worthy.
But all such glory and honor and power is to be directed to God alone. He alone is worthy to receive it. That is the teaching here. He will not share it with another; not with Mary, not with anyone. Why? He is the one who has created all things. Mary is a created being. She does not deserve the honor and glory ascribed to her. All of that honor and glory goes to God alone. It is called worship.

We were talking of spiritual things. Why even suggest it?

Mary needed to be saved from her sin; sin in general. But was it drug addiction? Why even mention it?

You are twisting my words. I said that God could have chosen any one of a number of virgins. Prostitutes aren't virgins are they. Check the prophesy in Isaiah 7:14. It doesn't specifically say "Mary." It simply says "a virgin shall conceive and bring forth a son..." There was more than one Godly virgin in Israel at that time. God, in his providence chose Mary. Why? For the same reason that God chose Israel out of all the nations of the world. He doesn't give us that reason. He simply set apart that nation as the object of his love. It was providential. The same is true with Mary. Mary was used of God in a special way, at a certain time in history for a certain purpose. God did not have to choose Mary. But he did.

Your statement betrays your worship of her. She was chosen providentially. God could have chosen another.

You introduced remarkably absurd comments, off topic, which should have never been used.

The discussion was about the salvation (spiritual salvation) --that is the exact statement "I rejoice in God my savior," and you suggest the physical salvation possibility of a drug addict. What else is one to think. It was an abhorrent suggestion by you!

You twisted my words inferring that I was the author of those words, wherein it was you that made the suggestion, not me.

 

Certainly the RCC is full of philosophers who adore philology and splitting terminolgy into atomic size bits. The BB is also full of these types who worry a word to death, I personally find this makes my head hurt, which is why I find my quote a great comfort.