Questions for Catholics

Let he who has ears, hear:

This commandment follows and is an extension of having "no other God." Even though Catholics and SOME Protestants number the commandments differently, we both agree that worshipping a statue is having another God, I'm sure.

Thus, unless we are bowing down out of worship, or serving the statue as if it were a god, there is no breaking of the commandment. If so, all bowing would be forbidden. But simple bowing is not forbidden, because a lot of bowing is simple reverance. I am a Catholic; any bowing of the head or otherwise is a bow of reverance, not worship. I am not a fool, and I am not an ignorer of God's law. I do not treat statues as if they were other gods, I do not worship them, and I do not serve them. I understand that they represent heavenly reality, and so my reverance is directed towards those things, of which the statues remind me.

Mary is not a mediator between God the Father and man, nor does the Church teach so. No one comes to the Father except through the Son. Mary, like any Christian brother or sister, carries our prayers to Jesus, who then takes them to the Father. This does not negate our own ability to take our prayers to Jesus; however, having this ability does not mean it is not good to have others taking our prayers as well.

My biological father is a "man..upon the earth." If we are to call no man on earth our father, we have already sinned. Catholics call priests "father" as a symbol of love, because they help guide us to God the Father, just like our biological fathers should (fathers should be the spiritual leader of the household, priests the spiritual fathers of the community).

Considering Mary was not alive when Jeremiah spoke/wrote, and he was speaking to people about violations in his own time, it's pretty obvious that he is not writing about Mary. The Israelites were pretty well known for their infedility throughout their Scripture. I do not know which religion this refers to, because I have not researched it historically, but I'm sure you could probably very easily find your answer.

The key to understanding Mary's queenship is to understand the "Queen Mother" of the Davidic Kingdom, of which Jesus was the ultimate fulfillment.

It is pricely the blood of Jesus and His ultimate sacrifice on the cross that allows us who die in His friendship, but not yet perfectly purified (because we maintain some grasp still in this sinful world) that we are perfectly purified by God's firey love. It is not a deficit in the sacricife of Jesus Christ; it is the final stage of that sacrifice's application to the individual believer.

Priests do not claim to be able to forgive sins. Priests pronounce the forgiveness of sins in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit because Jesus Christ specifically gave them this task ("Whosever sins you forgive, they are forgiven. Whosever sins you retain, they are retained.") Priests pronounce the forgiveness of God into the penitants ears and welcome them back into communion with the Body of Christ, the Church.

 

Harvest,

To show that you are of good will and that this is not just a pearl casting venture on my part could you answer something for me.

Was Paul sinning when he told the Corinthians that he was their spiritual father in 1 Cor.

1 Corinthians 4:15
For if you were to have countless tutors in Christ, yet you would not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I BECAME YOUR FATHER through the gospel.

Would someone in Corinth have been sinning in calling him their father or honoring him on father's day based on what he said above?

Was he wrong when he said that Abraham was the father of all who accept Christ? Not just a physical father but a father in faith?

Romans 4:12
and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who ALSO follow in the steps of the faith of OUR FATHER Abraham which he had while uncircumcised

If you show that you are willing to listen as well as speak I will be glad to go through the rest of your objections.
Thanks in advance for your honest answers.
Blessings

Thess

 

For the record, it is clear that you did not, as this thread's title implies, intend to ask Catholics questions. You asked questions that you had no intention of getting answers from, because you already "know" the answers. You wanted to make a public spectacle, not a sincere desire for understanding.

Read the monarchial period of the Israelites out of the Hebrew Scriptures, and see that the role of the Queen Mother was one of intercession. Couple that with the belief that those who have died on earth in the faith of Christ are alive in Heaven, as well as Paul's instance on the intercession for him from those he wrote his letters to, and it's not hard to follow. As James said, the fervant prayer of a righteous man accomplishes much. Thus, those in Heaven, who are perfectly righteous by the grace of God and standing in His presence can offer prayers that accomplish much.

So people who do call their fathers "father" are guilty of sin? If that is not your point, then you had no reason to make this, other than to dishonestly discredit my analogy. If it is acceptable to call biological fathers "Father," then my argument still stands firm.

No, the argument is not one of respect, but of pride. Any priest that, for instance, demands he be called "father," would be doing so because of pride. Thankfully, all of the priests I have met have been very humble people. Those who are not I would certainly not hesitate to not call them father. It's simply a custom picked up at one point in the Church's history (I believe out of Ireland).

According to your argument, we should not call them "Pastors" because we have one Shepard, Jesus Christ. And yet, St. Paul refers to himself as the spiritual father, and Jesus told Peter to "tend his flock" (ie, be a shepard). It's about arrogance that Jesus warned.

Let me quote Paul for you: "I am not writing this to make you ashamed, but to admonish you as my children." 1 Cor. 4:14. Hmmm, Paul never married, and unless he had illegitimate children, he is saying that he is like their father!

What a pointless arugment. You haven't shown it's a sin, and nothing done out of love can be a sin, because love is of God.

The forerunner of Catholicism? Umm, if you argue that Catholicism took on Paganistic practices, it wouldn't be Babylonian, considering that civilization was LONG gone.

You do realize that Baal was often referred to as "El," which is used as the informal name of God throughout Hebrew Scripture ("Elohim"). By your logic, the term "El" would mean we are worshipping Baal! You need to learn that these titles are general titles. This is the same sad argument that says that "Allah" is a moon god. Well, maybe there was a moon god named Allah. But "Allah" is also the generic name for God in that language.

Again, why did you ask for a response if you weren't going to listen to it?

Oh, because you know more about Catholics than they do, right? Get off your ego trip, please. Mary's Queenship (only by virtue of her Son's Kingship), her assumption, immaculate conception, intercessional role, etc have an extremely cohesive doctrinal foundation in Old Testament typology. We don't believe it "just because," as much as you'd like to think so. Believe it or not, we actually study things! OH DEAR!

You do realize that the basis for the main Catholic Church-Babylon connections has been debunked, right? There have been several thread on this, with one of the primary authors of these books (who is not a Catholic) realizing how bogus the original sources were and writing a new book to discredit his own original one? These are the type of arguments like "IHS" stands for "Isis, Horus, and Seb." Please, look that up, because its sad that drivel like that still passes for "scholarship."

Why would it say that? Let me guess...you didn't read my post? Please quote me where I said "we pay for the rest." Because until you do, you, sir, are a liar. This is a flat out lie and libelous statement against me and all Catholics present.

1 Cor. 3:10-15

 

I all fairness, just because a person isn't a
Roman Catholic, doesn't mean that person cannot
understand that belief.

Firstly, my father's family were all Catholic,
except his grandfather who had been raised a
Presbyterian.

Secondly, my father was once a very devout Roman
Catholic.

Thirdly, my father was always talking to my
grandmother about salvation when we'd go to visit.

Fourthly, I had been christened Roman Catholic
and that fact always seemed to make my grandmother
happy (works worship).

fifthly, I grew up in a Roman Catholic
neighborhood (Polish & Italian). I soon came to
see that my friends knew more about the traditions
of Mary then any of the Old Testament.

Sixthly, I know that the Immaculate Conception is
a tradition that pertains ONLY to the birth of
Mary and has NOTHING to do with the birth of
Jesus directly. Many Roman Catholics seem to
be confused on this point.

Seventhly, I have a love of Roman Catholics even
though I have a problem with their traditionalism,
ritualism, and misguided trust in dogna without
personal evaluation...

 

Harvest, those who know me on the Baptist Board know that I am no fan of the Roman Catholic Church.

But as a former Roman Catholic, who has
every reason to despise the Roman Catholic Church and its teachings, I still have to say that you, Harvest, are a troll.

Your post was not constructive at all, and will only serve to provoke negative responses and alienation from Roman Catholics. What kind of intent is that? And puh-leeze, do NOT act all innocent and say, "I was only trying to get Roman Catholics to think about how unbiblical their church is!" Baloney, dude. The positions of the Roman Catholics are well-entrenched here, and your post will do absolutely NOTHING to change their minds that their beliefs are unbiblical. Besides, don't you know that Roman Catholicism is not a Bible-only church? They also put equal weight on what they perceive to be Sacred Tradition. If you didn't know this then, then consider yourself now informed.

Regardless, Harvest, your post was completely pointless and unnecessary. Your post was not to ask an honest question, but rather alienate Roman Catholics even further. It was dishonest on your part, and a very, very poor witness on your behalf.


mozier

 

This is an impossibility. If you know our beliefs are "clearly" against Scriptures, then you would have no reason to ask us about them, because you already know! And your original questions were not "why" do you believe this; they were "explain this doctrine"-style questions. Not one of them were "Why do you believe in this doctrine?" So, please do not change your original intention in the middle of the thread, ok?

Show me the book, chapter and verse that says that the Queen of Heaven Jeremiah was referring to is applicable to the Catholic belief about Mary. Without it, it is only your assumption.

Does not one communicate in prayer? Or worship? Are not these things that we will do in the presence of God?

I speak to them and ask them to pray for me, which is what I do with the saints in Heaven.

You're defining prayer as you see fit, which makes for a big circular argument.

This is too big of a discussion for this thread of multiple questions.

Who said anything about it being spiritual? You did; I didn't see anyone else. Please do not create problems when you can't find them in the discussion already.

Actually, some translations read "conviction" instead of faith. Either way, please explain how God is love, and yet an act of love is sinful. You merely sidestepped it without addressing it.

1) You have not proven that the Babylonian religion continues on.
2) You have not proven that Catholicism is born of the Roman Empire.

What kind of nonsense response is that? You don't have to know Hebrew to understand my point. I explained myself. You sidestepped. The ball is in your court.

You obviously didn't read what I wrote, becuase that is not an argument I made.

Read above. You have made all kinds of accusations that I didn't even bring up.

God called. He wants His omniscience back.

You, sir, are just about the most judgemental person I have ever met. Life is just one big conspiracy, and you're the only one who has caught on. Congrats.

Who said anything about solely? Once again, you create an argument where there is none.

Let me guess: You have all the keys? Congrats again.

I'll look it up and post it tonight. Being as this was discussed here before, if anyone else has the author and the two books he wrote, it would be greatly appreciated.

Yes, I did say that. And this was your response:

"the blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth us from some sin then we pay for the rest in purgatory"

I said God purifies us; you said "we purify ourselves." You create an arguement where there is none, and in this case, you lied about me and used words I would never dream of saying.

Yes, and if you don't see that we agree with that statement, then you have not even cracked a Catholic Catechism to understand the difference in eternal and temporal punishment. And if you haven't checked the Catechism, then you lied about knowing a lot about Catholicism, and frankly have no right to say you KNOW what Catholics believe better than Catholics do.

Where in the Bible does it talk about when the cleansing occurs, or when it finishes? Book, chapter and verse?

Cop-out answer. The only thing you have poked a hole in is your ability to honestly dialogue with others.

Matt 5:44
"But I say to you, Love your enemies..."

From the man who can't wait for John Paul II to die (see other thread), I don't think you're very familiar with Christian love.

 

Hi GraceSaves,

I think you're thinking of Ralph Woodrow. His first book, "Babylon Mystery Religion," was based largely on Hislop. Later, however, he was shown evidence that Hislop's "history" was not reliable, so he went back and rexamined his source.

Mr. Woodrow discovered, in his words, that "Hislop's 'history' was often only mythology. Even though myths may sometimes reflect events that actually happened, an arbitrary piecing together of ancient myths can not provide a sound basis for history. Take enough tribes, enough tales, enough time, jump from one time to another, from one country to another, pick and choose similarities -- why anything could be 'proved'!" (You can read Mr. Woodrow's statement in full on the amazon.com website).

As a result of his research, he withdrew "Babylon Mystery Religion" from publication and published a new book, "The Babylon Connection?", which debunked his previous book, and Hislop's "The Two Babylons."

Personally, I don't find Mr. Woodrow's writing style to be to my taste, but he's certainly a fine example of honor among authors.

Hope this helps,

Mark H.

 

Mark,

That is exactly the example I was referring to. Thank you!

 

I pity the person who changes their religious beliefs based on your attitude, your methods, and your disinformation. Even if you were absolutely right doctrinally, your heart is from its practice on this board.

 

the Bible which says that salvation is by grace through faith NOT OF WORKS of any type

"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! By his great mercy we have been born anew to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead ... For Christ also died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit; in which he went and preached to the spirits in prison, who formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (1 Peter 1:3;3:18-21)

Scripture explicitly says that as eight people were saved through water so we are saved in baptism. Scripture explicitly says that baptism isn't merely a symbol. It says that baptism isn't simply a removal of dirt from the body. Scripture explicitly says that baptism is an appeal to God for a clear conscience through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. This is how we are born anew.

This is the constant, unchanging faith of the Church from the beginning. It has not changed and it will not change. Learn Scripture. Learn history. Erase the ignorance.

 

Hi Harvest,

I see that you disagree with Scripture.

baptism by water has never and will never save anyone.

Of course it does. I just showed you that it does. You quoted a whole bunch of other Scriptures, thus attempting to negate the Word of God with your traditions of men, but that won't work with this Bible believing Christian. The Bible tells me that baptism saves me, and that's good enough for me.

It may not be good enough for you, and you may wish to wash over this verse and jump through hoops, but that's the task of a non-Catholic who must go against what the Bible plainly teaches.