Posted on 05/19/2008 6:44:32 PM PDT by Manfred the Wonder Dawg
Funny....I don’t see anything in there from the Book of Acts....
Actually, I couldn’t care less what Prottys think of Our Lady. I just find it funny that you have gone into all kinds of contortions and still can’t back up your own claim.
Here are the first two paragraphs from their mission statement:
Some people may ask, “Why do you feel it necessary to point out the errors of other religious thoughts?” Some may even go so far as to accuse us of “attacking” other religions. I feel it’s important to give an answer as to why we feature an apologetics section.
The mission of Contender Ministries is to follow the words of Jude, who in verses 3 and 4 of his letter says this: “Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints. For certain men whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are godless men, who change the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ, our only Sovereign and Lord.” Satan has long played a cunning game of deceiving decent people with his lies. He started in the Garden of Eden when he told Eve that if she ate of the forbidden fruit, her “eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” He has been very busy ever since, and his lies have been very effective. Why?
http://contenderministries.org/mission.php
Among the other groups they critique are:
A Course in Miracles; Bahai; Buddhism; Catholicism; Evolution; Freemasonry; Hinduism; Humanism; Islam; Jehovah's Witnesses; Mormonism; New Age; Scientology; Unitarian Universalism; Wicca
Now, here are excerpts from the last couple of paragraphs, please pay attention, everyone:
What we do when we evangelize is to lovingly point out the garden, and show our friends the path to get there. At that point, it is up to the Holy Spirit. As an apologist, you must know where the garden is. That is, you must know the TRUTH, as presented in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. You must also see the field, and the holes, pits, ditches, and thorn snags in it. If you can see the garden, and you can see the hazards of the field, you can then lovingly direct people to the path. In other words, you must be firmly grounded in the truths of scripture – there is no substitute for daily digestion of the Word. You must also be aware of the pitfalls – the lies and traps Satan has set for people. If you can do this, you are an apologist – a contender.
We do not do this to be mean. I don’t deny that the truth can hurt at times. But it is imperative that we share the truth with all, and do so with love. Every cult and religious movement we profile has set itself apart from the truth. It is incumbent upon us therefore, to take up the sword (the Word of God) and contend for the faith – to expose the lies of Satan. There’s not much time left, and there are a lot of souls still wandering around the field. Won’t you join us? Won’t you be contenders?
While I am (sort of) reassured that they don't "do this to be mean" and that they will "share the truth with love," I have seen precious little of that in these threads about Mary.
Mary doesn't need me to defend her. So I will sit back and see how loving this discussion turns out to be. Something tells me precedent will overcome lovingkindness, here.
If all means all according to your view, then that would include Jesus, and that obviously isn't true. So you would allow for at least one exception. Same with Romans 3:10-20.
And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.
I thought we already agreed on that issue, and here you are bringing it up again! Yes, Mary was saved, but not in the way you're thinking. Through the merits of Christ, she was saved from sin preemptively.
None of the Lord’s Apostles exalted Mary; none of them applied to her such titles as sinless, immaculate, ever-virgin, Mother of God, Blessed Virgin, Holy Queen, Queen of Heaven, Our Lady, Co-Redemptress, Immaculate Virgin, etc.
Not in the Bible, no, but we don't recognize your Sola Scriptura fallacy. Those who were only one or two generations removed from them recognized the special status of Mary. On that note, I thought you were going to find something for me from Acts, not these verses.
Pyro, are you denying that the catholic church burned people for heresy???
I was refuting your specific accusation. Most of the burnings for heresies you guys like to cite were done by civil authorities, not Church ones. If you want to go down that path, there are plenty of Protestant atrocities we can bring up.
One reason for Churches to be dedicated to martyrs and saints is that many of the earliest Christian Churches were built at the sites of their tombs or the places they were martyred. Dedicated to those who gave their life for the faith.
You have Mary, we have Jesus ... you pray to Mary, we converse with Jesus ... sorry, I am not as infallible as your pope ... I can admit my mistake re: Acts ... it was indeed Luke.
Agree. I have no problem with that. But how many churches do you need named after all the saints? You go to any major city, town, ... do you find a church named specifically after Jesus?
You think that maybe you should put the pride in your pocket, stop discussing things that you are ignorant of and maybe do some reading before you comment on Christ and his Church? Your posts are peppered with lies, distortions and half-truths. Is that a way for a ‘Christian’ to conduct them self?
Sorry but it was not meant as that. I adhere to the rules here of Please: NO profanity, NO personal attacks, NO racism or violence in posts.
The problem with posting is emotion or the lack of it. You don’t know what or how I feel when I wrote the posts. I see, read and hear what the catholic church says. It is the way it’s presented that makes me ask questions and all I wanted was reasons as to why they believe as they do. Nothing else. No attacks no belittling no sarcasm. Respect, ok? Please accept my apologies if I offended in anyway.
Regards In Christ and His mother Mary,
Jane
ps - my page is normally set to religion and I normally am in News/Activism. Don’t know how the religion part got in.
You have Mary, we have Jesus ... you pray to Mary, we converse with Jesus ... sorry, I am not as infallible as your pope ... I can admit my mistake re: Acts ... it was indeed Luke.
Well, some Catholics do go to an extreme in their devotion, but anyone who would say this has a false understanding of Catholic doctrine. Mary has been referred to as "the Mother of God," since the Church councils of the 4th Century, and both the Church of Rome and the Eastern Orthodox churches who are no in communion with Rome, the great majority of professed Christians, use this title. The term, a translation of the Greek term Theotokos is used to make clear the doctrine that Jesus of Nazareth is God as well as man, that he is therefore true God and true man. Some Protestants, consciously or not , think that his divinity and his humanity can be separated. Most liberal Protestants think of him only as a man. Mostly in reaction to Catholic devotion to the Virgin, most Protestants go to the other extreme and give Mary little more honor than they give to Elizabeth, the mother of John the Baptist. A bit player in the great drama. Catholics who read the first Two Chapters of Luke, see her having a much larger role.
It wasn’t an insult and I’m sorry you took it as such. You have the Rosary, right? You pray the Rosary. I know what is said when you pray the Rosary. I know that is only one part of how you pray. What I was trying to get at from the start was I can talk to Jesus without formality. I can go up on the mountain behind my home and sit and just talk. I can feel His presence when I do. I was told here that the saints are used and Mary is used for intervention. My belief is we can talk directly to Jesus or to God through Him. Nothing else matters or is needed. And I said I admit my mistakes. I have read things that the popes have done down through catholic history and they did in fact make mistakes. I also read where the catholic church made them (dogma?) infallible when it comes to matters of the church, right? I don’t want to go off on another tangent and argue infallibility.
Again, as I wrote, I apologize if I upset you or anyone else on this thread ... and nothing was meant as an insult.
Sincerely,
Jane
I can't speak for the RM regarding the "hate site" issue, and laying emotional issues aside, an objective analysis of the content of this website in terms of it's claimed objective, with this article as Exhibit A, shows it to be very sloppy in terms of historical research and inaccurate in terms of the doctrinal content it claims to represent, i.e. correct espousal of Catholic beliefs. My God, a quick reading of just the first 6 numbered points showed major errors in each of them.
Personally, I don't have time to waste with this "bumper sticker statements" approach to exploration of doctrinal beliefs and apologetics, finding it to leave people with weak and juvenile beliefs regardless of their particular denomination (though I find it to be very popular among certain of the Protestant sects).
My advice to you - if learning the truth about what others believe for an informed discussion that can move forward is your purpose - is to avoid this site for accurate assessments of what the Catholic Church actually believes.
Of course, if your intentions are other,... then your thread is essentially worthless.
Considering the RCC presentation of their view of Mariology...
Wouldn't it make sense to discover what the Catholic Church believes from the Church Herself and her members. Just a thought. I consider that statement to be true of other denominational Churches and Ecclesial communions as well. For example, there are many different Protestant denominations which often have conflicting views amongst a host of theological issues. Usually, I have a hard time finding compendia or "catechisms" for them making it hard to keep tract of who believes what. So I have to depend on hearing it from individuals in each particular Church to know what they believe. Far be it from me to try and dictate to them what they actually believe. (I would note that the Catechism of the Catholic Church can be found online).
Since I am now a brother of Christ, I will go have a chat with His Mother and mine about all this. Her name is Mary.
I am fine with a feast day for her, maybe a Sunday in the liturgy that is devoted to her and with readings from Luke and using her as a supreme example of obedience to God, and I'm okay with calling her the "Mother of God", because she was. None of those things bother me in the least (nor would they bother most Protestants, I don't think). These are simply observances, respect, reverence.
As to prophecy; prophecy is still prophecy, in the Old Testament, and though it conveys types and shadows of Christ, and we believe that to be revealed, it's a whole lot different than Mary. There's no prophecy related to Mary apart from prophecies of the virgin birth. The only thing in Scripture that anyone can point to about Mary that might at all be related to what Catholics practice, is that one verse in Luke (which, as you have shown, Catholics point to over and over as if it conveys more meaning than it really does). From that one verse, Catholics have extrapolated doctrines to a level that borders (in my view) the ridiculous. All Elizabeth means, in that verse, is exactly what she says, she calls Mary "blessed" (she is) among women (she was). She calls Mary "the mother of my Lord" (she was). None of this means anymore than it says and Elizabeth is only acknowledging the plain truth. Mary is chosen by God and blessed among all women. She feels unworthy that the mother of her Lord should come to her. Rightly so. What does this have to do with praying to her (a form of worship - prayer is always considered a form of worship in the Old and New Testaments) or believing she was "assumed bodily into Heaven", or that she had no sin (blasphemous because the Bible says otherwise about all human beings apart from Christ), or that she is "mediatrix" or "distributor of all graces"? I'll answer my own question; it has nothing to do with it. It's made up.
We can find dozens or hundreds (depending on how conservative you want to be) of prophecies in the Old Testament pointing forward to Christ and revealing things about Messiah. Isaiah 53 is so "on the nose" that it's just spooky. But that one verse in Luke can in no way be extrapolated and expounded upon to create all the Marian doctrines. For anyone who is not Catholic and hasn't had such notions put into their head since childhood, the entire set of Marian doctrines just seems risible. And I don't say that to be mean or get a rise out of anyone, I'm simply stating the plain truth as I see it.
God The Father Permitted his only Son Jesus to be Passed Through Mary and Born as a Human... St Louis de Montfort said That Prayers Through Mary to her son his perfectly acceptable and Logical! I agree...
It wasn't any kind of conspiracy or anything deliberately malevolent. In my view, and from everything I've read, it simply was an organic process that set in, and the more focus placed on Mary, the more important she became, leading to even more focus on Mary, etc. All of this set up a cycle of increasing attention paid to Mary, eventually justifying "prayers" to Mary and all the additional doctrines that came along after.
This does not remove the fact that it isn't a true part of Christianity, it's unbiblical, it takes away from the Son, it focuses worship (prayer, in my view, and the view of many others, is a form of worship) on the creature not the creator, and it's a big, unnecessary distraction in general. There is no historical basis for it. There's definitely no scriptural basis for it.
Yet, the intensity of devotion to "the Blessed Mother" indicates that this doctrine touches some deeply-rooted aspect of our fallen humanity. Something in us desperately yearns to avoid the face of God, to hide behind some lady's skirts. And "someone" -- perhaps God's original worship leader -- desperately yearns to be the focus of the attention and adoration only due unto God. This "someone" will even disguise himself as an angel of light -- or a heavenly queen -- in order to hijack those devotional energies.
There are both psychotic and demonic elements about the cult of the virgin, as well as the historical, pagan roots you so clearly delineate.
Regardless, it is from the infallible Word of God.
All Catholic Churches are dedicated to Jesus.
If you want to count dedicated as in "named for," I hope you're counting as named for Jesus all the parishes known as "Holy Redeemer," "Sacred Heart," "Christ the King," "Holy Nativity," "Church of the Ascension," "Holy Trinity," "Holy Spirit," "Blessed Sacrament," "Most Precious Blood," "Resurrection," "Prince of Peace," etc.
Illogical. Comparable in one aspect means equivalent in all?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.