The explanation of Catholic Beliefs

[John of Japan]

Actually, no. The Nestorians were considered heretics because they separated the two natures of Jesus. Their objection to "Theotokos" was a by-product of this.

I disagree. That is how they were characterized by the Catholics of the day, but where in Nestorian writings do we have evidence of this? I've not seen quotes from Nestorius to that effect in my books on church history. So basically we're trusting Nestorius' enemies for what he believed.

According to one church historian, the controversy started with Nestorius opposing the theotokos doctrine, and escalated from there. "Wishing to safeguard the true human nature of Christ against Apollinarianism, he attacked the use of the word theotokos (Mother of God), often applied to the Virgin Mary and up till then unquestioningly. God, he said, could not be born of a woman who could not bear a son older than herself, and the term implied that the human in Christ was swallowed up in the divinity" (A History of Heresy, by David Christie-Murray, 1976, p. 63).

Regardless of who's right on your point, my main point still stands that the Catholics have been Mariolators since the 5th century.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

I disagree. That is how they were characterized by the Catholics of the day, but where in Nestorian writings do we have evidence of this? I've not seen quotes from Nestorius to that effect in my books on church history. So basically we're trusting Nestorius' enemies for what he believed.

According to one church historian, the controversy started with Nestorius opposing the theotokos doctrine, and escalated from there. "Wishing to safeguard the true human nature of Christ against Apollinarianism, he attacked the use of the word theotokos (Mother of God), often applied to the Virgin Mary and up till then unquestioningly. God, he said, could not be born of a woman who could not bear a son older than herself, and the term implied that the human in Christ was swallowed up in the divinity" (A History of Heresy, by David Christie-Murray, 1976, p. 63).

Regardless of who's right on your point, my main point still stands that the Catholics have been Mariolators since the 5th century.

On that we can agree, and it started before then.

 

[HankD]

Modernly there is an unofficial official movement to elevate Mary even further.

Mary’s universal mediation has been the object of the unchanging ordinary Papal Magisterium for at least the past three centuries and therefore must be considered Catholic doctrine, definitive tenenda, not dogmatically defined, but certainly definable (57)

Mary Mediatrix of All Graces, Part II

http://www.fifthmariandogma.com/co-...n-dogma/mary-mediatrix-of-all-graces-part-ii/

See Part I as well...

http://www.fifthmariandogma.com/co-...an-dogma/mary-mediatrix-of-all-graces-part-i/

The Church of Rome has also given Mary the following titles:

Co-Redemptrix
Advocate of All Graces

http://www.frtommylane.com/fifthmariandogma.htm


What difference does it make if the Fifth Dogma is "unofficially official" since the dogma is approved and promoted by the hierarchy (including popes) and subsequently practiced by the laity (in ignorance) as some of the thread photos bear witness?


HankD

 

[MB]

Modernly there is an unofficial official movement to elevate Mary even further.



Mary Mediatrix of All Graces, Part II

http://www.fifthmariandogma.com/co-...n-dogma/mary-mediatrix-of-all-graces-part-ii/

See Part I as well...

http://www.fifthmariandogma.com/co-...an-dogma/mary-mediatrix-of-all-graces-part-i/

The Church of Rome has also given Mary the following titles:

Co-Redemptrix
Advocate of All Graces

http://www.frtommylane.com/fifthmariandogma.htm


What difference does it make if the Fifth Dogma is "unofficially official" since the dogma is approved and promoted by the hierarchy (including popes) and subsequently practiced by the laity (in ignorance) as some of the thread photos bear witness?


HankD

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

[HankD]

What does unrighteousness have to do with righteousness? Answer Nothing. A true Christian would have to be a very poor Christian not to see the very obvious evil of the RCC. How can you honestly claim there are Christians in the Catholic Church when the Holy Spirit living inside them would not stop convicting them of it until they left. There can be no such thing as a rebellious Christian, because every Christian has given up the rebellion or they simply aren't saved. Just those who claim to be Christian while they are rebellious, live this way. Is a man a Christian who still lust after sin and lives in it continuously? No. We cannot live in sin and be saved. those who live in sin were never saved in the first place. They are imposters of Christianity.
MB

For a short while I was such a Christian MB. Born of a Catholic family, I was saved in the military service yet stayed (or went back to) in the RCC.

But I also went back and forth for "counsel" to the Catholic priests questioning why the Bible (which I was constantly devouring) and Catholic doctrine were in such blatant disagreement.

After 2 years I left Rome and have never looked back.

I know without a doubt that I was saved in those two years of struggle but as you have said it was the Spirit of God and His illumination of the Scripture that showed me the way out of the Church of the Popes.

HankD

 

[JohnDBaptiste]

The first Century Church was persecuted in such a way as to drive a wedge between the New Covenant and the Jewish people. The Jewish leadership itself was infiltrated and compromised beginning as far back as Exodus 18 when Moses created the body of elders that would become the Sanhedrin that convicted the Holy One of Israel to death. Jesus referred to this generally in the parables of Matthew 13 (his State of the Kingdom Address).

In due time, the evil of driving a wedge between the Jews and their Messiah fell upon the evil Romans. And for the next couple of centuries continued persecuting and butchering the Church. By this time the division between Church and Israel spanned several generations. Then the Roman Empire began to collapse under its own weight. A second capital city had to be established to deal with the crumbling Empire.

Emperor Constantine saw in Christianity a cohesiveness his Empire sorely lacked. While it is doubtful he had a vision beyond propping up his failing Empire, he began by legalizing the outlawed Christian faith steps towards morphing his empire into a religion.

The shell of the Roman Empire later collapsed after it hatched the Roman Catholic Empire / Holy Roman Church. The capital remains in Rome. Instead of an Emperor you have a Pope. Instead of a Senate you have Cardinals. In stead of regional governors you have Bishops. Etc.

What outlasts kings and kingdoms, empires and emperors, presidents and democracies... but religion? ! People will give their faithful allegiance to a religion over their country, their family even their own life. This is where Rome found cohesiveness in its people.

Conny and his Mom set out to build a religion with a Christian label on it. Understand there are correct doctrines within RC-ism... but along with them are pagan additions and misdirections to the authority of human tradition over biblical tradition and even the bible itself. His mom went around the holy land and vicinity declaring sites where where things happened that didn't and wasn't. Placing Mt. Sinai in the wrong place for example was her doing. It was archaeologically proven to be on the other side of the gulf of Aqaba in Saudi Arabia at what is now Mt. Jabal Al lawz. The Church of the Holy Sepulcher was placed in the wrong spot. And so on.

Roman Catholicism was the abduction of Christianity from 10th Century AD to the Reformation (which did not reform far enough by the way).

 

[MB]

For a short while I was such a Christian MB. Born of a Catholic family, I was saved in the military service yet stayed (or went back to) in the RCC.

But I also went back and forth for "counsel" to the Catholic priests questioning why the Bible (which I was constantly devouring) and Catholic doctrine were in such blatant disagreement.

After 2 years I left Rome and have never looked back.

I know without a doubt that I was saved in those two years of struggle but as you have said it was the Spirit of God and His illumination of the Scripture that showed me the way out of the Church of the Popes.

HankD

Very interesting testimony Hank. Praise God His Spirit would not leave you there, He brought you out.
A men

 

[HankD]

Very interesting testimony Hank. Praise God His Spirit would not leave you there, He brought you out.
A men

My wife as well, she was a Mormon.

We were both baptized on the same day at Tremont Temple Baptist Church in Boston, Ma.

HankD

 

[Yeshua1]

I agree that MB is Basically correct in his description of Catholic Beliefs. I simply disagree that since they pray to mary, it means they don't believe Jesus died and rose again. They don't just "Claim" to believe it, they actually do. The wrong beliefs do not negate the fact that they are right about some things.

they deny the true Gospel of being saved by grace alone, thru faith alone, as they have sacramental grace+ good works system that saves no one, and also have added mary worship, dead saints interceding, purgatory etc...

They are the closest'chrsitian cult" to being real thing, but close, but no cigar!