Refuting Catholics...Scripture or Chick tracts?

Thanks.

 

For No 2.
The Problem is that you deny the fact and reality that all the Roman Catholic churches are doing. I have never seen any Roman Catholic church which is condemning the prayer to Mary. There are plenty of Prayer books published by Catholics. You must notice that they are encouraging their people to pray to the Holy Mother of God.

You are denying the real facts. Check with your neighbor Catholics. You don't know about Catholic at all. This is why I think the people who support Catholic are not trustworthy at all.

 

I was raised a Catholic and have two uncles who are priests in that Church, so I am aware of what the Catholic Church teaches on this subject.

The Catholic Church does not teach that Catholics should offer prayers to Mary.

 

Eliyahu, you are correct in the fact that Mary is treated as a goddess by the RCC laity under the direction of the priesthood and the various orders of nuns.

As a child and as part of my grade-school education, I was taught under the auspices of the RCC.

I was taught to pray directly to Mary as if she had the deity attributes of all-hearing, omni-presence, ever/always-present. The double-speak of the Catholic theologians concerning latria vs. hyper-dulia was never mentioned.

They present a crafted, smooth and compelling apologetic to the world but teach by practice something else to the laity.

The fifth marian dogma (Mary as coremptrix, mediatrix and advocate) has been accepted and taught to the laity as a matter of practice for decades.

http://www.ourladyswarriors.org/abtmary.htm

Here is an example of a prayer to her which clearly proves the point of her mediatorship and advocacy (per the RCC).

http://www.ourladyswarriors.org/prayer/hailholy.htm

HankD

[ February 03, 2006, 12:10 PM: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

Matthew Black said,"The Catholic Church does not teach that Catholics should offer prayers to Mary".

I, too was brainwashed by the holy see. After about 45 years of being away from the catechism and prayers, I still remember the prayers.

I am having difficulty harmonizing Matthew's statement with the prayer called "Hail Mary", which is repeated ad infinitum in sets of 5, as I recall, on that set of prayer beads called the rosary.

I still remember every word: Hail, Mary,full of grace; The Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb: Jesus. Holy, Mary, Mother of God, PRAY for us sinners now, and at the hour of our deaths. Amen.

Praying the rosary is praying mostly to Mary. As I recall we would repeat the Hail Mary as payment for having committed sins which we had just confessed to the priest.

That Mary gets adoration should be obvious--even to the cursory observer.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

One can only pray to God. That is what the Catholic Church teaches too. One may petition her under Catholic doctrine, but only in the same way that I might petition you to pray for me if eg: I was unwell.

 

What really amazes me is the stronghold the RCC has on their members. This thread is the perfect example. You have direct quotes and sources from their own sites, pope and doctrine you STILL get this...

Man, wake up people! The church and it's "tradition" do not outweigh God's Word!

 

Hmm...where to begin.

Convictions about food and Jewish feast days, again, are far cry from differing scriptural interpretations leading to false teachings about God, Christ, and salvation. Listen to the Apostle Peter:
"...Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which those who are untaught and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of Scriptures." (2 Peter 3:15, 16)

Peter suggests that the Scriptures are capable of being twisted to the DESTRUCTION of individuals, but you suggest we should let folks just have there own contradictory convictions about Scriptural interpretations and it's all somehow hunky-dory. Sad.

Paul told Timothy: "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine..." (2 Tim 4:3). Notice Paul didn't add: "But that's okay, Timothy, since everybody has their own differing convictions and they just need to be convinced in their own minds. After all, one man's sound doctrine is another one's unsound doctrine. Who am I to judge?"

(Also notice that Paul didn't differentiate between "foundational" and "non-foundational" doctrines...)

And which are the "non-foundational" issues? Different groups come up with different answers. Where in the Bible does it specifically make this distinction? One group's "foundational" issue is another group's "non-foundational" issue. How does one determine which is the case without begging the question?

Problem is, the lists of which groups are actually a "cult" vary. You obviously think the RCC is a cult. Other sola Scripturists would disagree. Many consider Oneness Pentecostals a cult; others (including the Oneness Pentecostals themselves--who are "sola Scripturists") do not. Some consider Seventh Day adventists a cult; others (including the SDAs themselves--who are "sola Scripturists") don't. Mormons are considered by many to be a cult, but they consider themselves to just be "Christian".

Which begs the question about how exactly one is "born again"? Some "sola Scripturists" believe Baptism is necessary for regeneration ("born of water and the spirit"); others do not. They both can't be right...who decides? Is it Mike (with his private interpretation) who is the final arbiter on which position is correct?

This "us" is collective; it's the Church. The Holy Spirit does not reveal contradictory "truths" to individual believers. If you believe that you might as well join the Ba'hai faith.

Yet many of these who claim spiritual discernment disagree on what exactly are the "things of God".

The church...all born again people on earth, NOT any particular organisation...</font>[/QUOTE]Yet the Church is the visible, organized bodyfounded on the Apostles with Christ being the Chief cornerstone. There's one Truth and one Faith, not conflicting "truths" and conflicting "faiths".

Oh really? On foundational issues?</font>[/QUOTE]Yes, really--on the foundational issue of the character of GOD. One's god geniunely loves everyone and genuinely wants to save everyone and creates people with the ability to respond to his grace either in the negative or the affirmative. The other's "god" makes it impossible for fallen creatures to ever repent unless he monergistically causes them (a select few) to do so. The two cannot be both true about the same god.

You're begging the question. True they're bring folks into schismatic fellowships with their gospels (since it's debatible whether they are preaching the same "good news"). Whether they are bringing people into the historic Church--the Body of Christ is what is being debated.

Muslims and Mormons and other cultists claim to be blessed and enlightened by their respective teachers...so what's your point? Subjective "blessings" are no proof in and of themselves of objective TRUTH.

If there is indeed a "Harvest" it's by the mercy of God and inspite of kum-bah-ya relativism and heretical views about Him preached by one camp or the other. There's still no excuse for contradictory teachings about God, Christ, and/or salvation.

(Gnostics and other heretics both believed they were getting people "saved", as they saw it, as well.) Again, if folks are getting "saved" in schismatic fellowships (and I'll be happy to concede that there's a good chance of that being the case ), it's by the mercy of God and that there is some gospel truth remaining in those fellowhips. It's still no excuse for condoning relativism and not preaching the fullness of the the Christian faith according to the entire Scriptures (not just one sects favorite proof texts) interpreted in light of Apostolic Tradition handed down in the Church.

And both are free to their convictions. According to God that is. </font>[/QUOTE]Garbage. I guess anyone is free to have any conviction about "god" that they want, including Unitarians, Mormons, Hindus, and Buddhists, but that doesn't change the fact that mutually contradictory views about God cannot both(or all) be true. If the Arminian belief about God's omnibenevolence in genuinely offering salvation to everyone is correct, then the Calvinist belief about "god" is false.

False. Only in some respects. There is wonderful truth to be found in both groups. And there are some who have come to convictions that allow them to blend the 2 together into a composite view.

(Gee...I wonder why you left them out? Maybe because it blows apart your ridiculous charicature?) </font>[/QUOTE]Because the "composite view", while haphazardly mixing and matching the "points" of Calvinism or Arminianism, still either subsribes to one view point of God's omnibenevolence (mentioned above) or the other. Neither can be right simultaneously. My point still stands, your accusations of "ridiculous charicature" notwithstanding.

There is one God, who is so far above us in every respect that its beyond comprehension. None of us have perfect hearing or perfect sight.</font>[/QUOTE]This one God, however, wants to be worshipped in Spirit and in TRUTH. Two mutually contradictory viewpoints about God cannot both be TRUE.

Praise God \o/ we have the privilege and responsibility hold the traditions whether delivered orally or written and that we have the Holy Spirit collectly guiding us in the Church to the same TRUTH.

And Mormons have God in their midst too right? Afterall, they are the "Church of JESUS CHRIST of Latter-day Saints". There are many who proclaim that they are gathering in the name of Jesus Christ, yet who have false concepts about Him, God, and salvation. We shouldn't delude ourselves that such groups actually have Christ in their midst if they aren't worshipping Him in Spirit and in TRUTH.

No...that is not included. That is falsehood. Its a lie. </font>[/QUOTE]Sorry...but it is indeed true. Scriptures are quite clear that Christ has invested the visible body He established beginning with the Apostles authority to bind and loose. True Christians are enjoined to submit to this God ordained authority. Likewise, Paul under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit commanded believers to keep the traditions delivered to them whether orally or written (2 Thess 2:15)

But according to the Scriptures, the Church (which was and still is visible and organized) founded on the Apostles is the "truth dispenser" as she is the repository of Truth, indeed, the "pillar and ground of truth" (1 Timothy 3:15).

Actually, we're more susceptible to cults when we ignore the "rule of faith" bequeathed from the apostles in the Church.

(By the way, a "quote box" is to be just that. A quote. You removed my inclusion of the Catholic church in that. I put it back. Please do not alter what I said when you QUOTE me in a quote box.)</font>[/QUOTE]I removed the Catholic Church because it's not historically accurate to include them along with the other groups mentioned. Despite my disagreements with Rome on some things, she still has apostolic roots and has maintained most of the Apostolic Tradition without subtraction. But point taken--in the future I'll leave them in the quote box...I'll just put an (*) by them.

Because all of those groups/leaders all employ the same tactic. Subplanting themselves into Gods place as the one who interprets truth for the believer. </font>[/QUOTE]The difference is with the Apostolic Church, Christ has promised that the Holy Spirit would guide them into all truth. All those other groups you keep lumping in with the Catholics are not apostolic churches.

I dont grade on the curve. All of these groups fail.</font>[/QUOTE]You may not "grade on a curve", but obviously groups vary in their degree of error depending on how far they depart from the fullness of the Apostolic faith--whether it's Baptists, Presbyterians, Anglicans, Methodists, Campbellites, SDAs, Oneness Pentecostals, Unitarians, Mormons, JWS, etc.....

Wrong--as pointed out repeatedly, the Church, established by the Apostles in the Power of the Spirit under the Authority of Christ, is both visible and organized. The fact that there exists some dead branches inside of her (which unfortunately will be ultimately cast out and burned) doesn't change this fact.

Not when you say that tradition trumps it...in spite of Christ scathing rebuke to anyone who heeds tradition of Gods scriptures. </font>[/QUOTE]First, Apostolic Tradition doesn't "trump" Scriptures as Scriptures are certainly the central and normative core of Apostolic Tradition. Scripture and Apostolic Tradition are inseparable...or are meant to be at least. When folks do attempt to wrest Scripture from its apostolic ecclessial context, they are susceptible to creating or succumbing to all sorts of false teachings. They are the ones in danger of wresting and twisting Scripture to their own destruction as Peter warned.

Second, Christ condemned the tradition of the Pharisees since it did not derive from God but from men only. Apostolic Tradition--in the oral and written teachings of the Apostles--derive ultimately from Christ Himself through the Apostles and maintained in the Church.

Oh great. I was hoping that one wouldnt be regurgitated.</font>[/QUOTE]"Regurgitated" or not, it's true. The Apostles were part (indeed, the foundation) of the Church, were they not?

Sure there was. The catholic (meaning "according to the whole") Church was there from the beginning. It was established by the Apostles.

My my my my my.</font>[/QUOTE]You may pooh-pooh the facts but it doesn't change the veracity of them.

[ February 03, 2006, 03:00 PM: Message edited by: Doubting Thomas ]

 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

It seems that you don't know about RC, maybe even your brethren either.

Look at this Rosario Prayer:


The Closing Prayer


We’ve covered the opening prayers of the rosary. In fact, we’ve covered all the prayers of the rosary except the very last one, which is usually the Hail Queen (Salve Regina), sometimes called the Hail Holy Queen. It’s the most commonly recited prayer in praise of Mary , after the Hail Mary itself, and was composed at the end of the eleventh century. It generally reads like this (there are several variants):

" Hail holy Queen, Mother of mercy, our life, our sweetness, and our hope ! To thee do we cry, poor banished children of Eve. To thee do we send up our sighs, mourning and weeping in this vale of tears . Turn, then, most gracious advocate, thine eyes of mercy toward us, and after this our exile show unto us the blessed fruit of thy womb, Jesus. O clement, O loving, O sweet Virgin Mary."

So those are the prayers of the rosary. Between the introductory prayers and the concluding prayer is the meat of the rosary: the decades. Each decade—there are fifteen in a full rosary (which takes about forty-five minutes to say)—is composed of ten Hail Marys. Each decade is bracketed between an Our Father and a Glory Be, so each decade actually has twelve prayers.


Can RC not pray directly to Jesus or to God ?

 

Strictly speaking, we're told to pray to God the Father (in Jesus' name). Yet many Christians pray to Jesus and/or the Holy Spirit without giving it a second thought. We'll tell a Catholic they shouldn't ask St Elsewhere to pray for them, and then we turn around and pray in a manner not instituted in scripture.

I'm not taking sides here on the issue, just making an objective observation.

 

As a former Roman Catholic myself, who has seriously struggled in his breakaway from the Roman Catholic Institution, I shouldn't even bother with this argument, since it does rile up some old bitterness and feelings. In fact, I think that D28Guy is feeling the same things that I once felt before I let them go. Perhaps he left Roman Catholicism just recently. I hope he finds peace with this bitterness.

Listen, everyone --- the argument for or against the Roman Catholic Institution is a futile one. It will go back and forth with no one giving an inch, let alone a mile. For every scriptural argument against the Institution, there is one for it. And vice versa. So please, don't go there.

Sharing the faith isn't about slinging KJV verses or passing out Chick Tracts. All one needs to do is preach the simplicity of the gospel. Nothing more, nothing less. This alone will speak volumes to the Roman Catholic. This is what attracted me to Christianity in the first place.

As well, and this is VERY important, you have to live the example of a Christian in the presence of a Roman Catholic. You will NEVER lead one to Christ if you are full of negativity or bitterness to them or to their institution. If you want to share your faith, then live with the true joy that comes from it. Otherwise, you are going to turn everyone off, for who wants to be an angry, bitter Christian?

 

We need to stop repeating one things. Catholics do not worship anyone other than God. We can debate the incorrectness of praying to others besides God, and those debates are worthy. But we cannot, with any accuracy, say that Catholics worship any other God besides the Almighty God.

 

It may be many things, but it's not goddess worship. Catholics don't believe Mary to be a deity, nor do they believe there is any deity but the Almighty God.

 

Johnv,

You are correct. Catholics do not worship Mary as a goddess, though the devotion to her can seem exaggerated to the non-Catholic to the point where it does appear to be worship.

I can only hope that D28Guy (whom I am glad to see that he left the church 20 years, yet still seems bitter, IMO) doesn't go the Hislop Babylon route to prove his point.

It is too easy to accuse Roman Catholics of things they do not do, let alone the things they do!