Skip to comments.Following-Truth:5 Facts That Must Be Ignored BeforeAccusing CatholicsOf “Mary Worship”[Cath & Open]
Posted on 07/03/2012 4:52:59 PM PDT by Salvation
click here to read article
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
Click here for more guidelines to the Religion Forum.
This also goes along with Mary being without sin.
We are told in the Bible that our bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 6:19-20). Mary was the temple by which Jesus Christ entered this world. Therefore Mary had to be filled with sanctifying grace and without sin. If she had been with sin, that would mean that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, entered into this world by way of an unclean temple. This is not possible, as Jesus Christ was Divine (as well as having a human nature). If Jesus had been just a human being (and without divinity), then the belief that Mary was without sin would be wrong.
Those who do not agree with Catholic views about Mary do not, contrary to what some want everyone to think, disrespect nor dishonor the mother of Jesus Christ. Instead, we see her as a model disciple of Christ whose faith was tested and who, through the grace of God, was able to endure those trials and remain a solid witness to the truth. Her kind of faith, through the SAME grace of God, is available to us all if we would only believe, trust and surrender to the will of Almighty God.
Since this seems to not be accepted I'll put it another way:
What you have expressed contains fuzzy logic.
Sole means only.
Quaker Oats is the sole source of Cap'n Crunch but I get mine from the super market.
You are still trying to read my mind.
(If you check the Religion Moderator’s rules you would have found out that using the word “you” in a post usually makes it personal.
Perhaps a question would be better at times.
I can ask you “Why do you think my logic is fuzzy?” and it’s OK.
Quaker has allowed retail outlets to be a source of their product for consumers.
Not to belabor anything, but that would mean post #18 is personal.
For instance, "Are you a heretic?" is not making it personal. But "You are a heretic." is making it personal.
Also, "What you have expressed contains fuzzy logic." is not "making it personal" because it expresses the poster's mind instead of reading the other guy's mind.
It is equivalent to saying "I think your statement contains fuzzy logic."
I had no question to ask.
Rather, I had an observation about your statement which was not logical.
Well, I'll have to take your word for it on that one LOL.
The fallacious reasoning is in concluding that LEADERS of an organization do NOT represent that group. Judas Iscariot was a follower of Jesus Christ and an apostle in the early stages of the ministry, had he not killed himself, do you seriously believe he would have been allowed to remain an Apostle after what he had done? People who are in leadership positions within a ministry, rightfully DO present a face of that ministry. Any organization that winks at wrong doing among its clergy - as the Roman Catholic Church has done over the centuries - demonstrates a moral failure within the ranks that are SUPPOSED to be examples of holy living. Can sinners be found in any church? Yes, we have ALL sinned and fall short of the glory of God, but we are called to consider ourselves dead to sin and a man or woman of God is to be an example of victorious living and, if they continue in unrepentant gross sin, they should be expelled from the fellowship and most certainly from leadership positions.
The examples given in the link show leaders of the Catholic Church in high positions who either participated in criminal immorality or did nothing to stop it from happening within their jurisdictions. We are not talking about minor faults common to all humans but ongoing, criminal abuse of children that the majority of nonreligious people wouldn't dream of committing. That is far from the "we are all sinners" excuse so many people toss out. Is this the ONLY face of Catholicism? Of course not, but it cannot and should not be ignored and swept under the rug. It is an indication of a serious failure to be steadfast and of keeping the name of our Savior above reproach. It is a responsibility we ALL share - not just our leaders - and we are all put to open shame.
Anyone who ridicules these five quotes from the Bible in a negative way against Jesus Christ and against the Blessed Virgin Mary will have to answeer for their blasphemy. Indeed.
May I ask what is your intention for posting this?
Not only that but Samuel was pretty ticked off about being disturbed - NOT the kind of attitude expected of one who is "supposed" to be available 24/7 for "intercession". Also, Saul lost his kingdom and, eventually, his life for this disobedient act. Going to the dead was against God's command - one He NEVER rescinded.
Saul was using a witch to communicate with a spirit. This is quite different than asking someone to pray to God for you. The point remains that the dead can hear our prayers.
“How was Saul able to call Samuel through the witch of Endor?”
He didn’t. It was a “familiar spirit,” a demon posing as Saul.
Note this scripture:
1Sa_28:15 And Samuel said to Saul, Why hast thou disquieted me, to bring me up? And Saul answered, I am sore distressed; for the Philistines make war against me, and God is departed from me, and answereth me no more, neither by prophets, nor by dreams: therefore I have called thee, that thou mayest make known unto me what I shall do.
“Why hast thou disquieted me, to bring me up?” The implications are blasphemous, as if a wicked human being can call up saints who are resting in the bosom of Abraham at will.
To use this as proof of Catholic theology is.... well, actually, it makes perfect sense, as praying to the dead, who cannot possibly hear all these millions of prayers every day without being omnipresent and omniscient, is also an act of blasphemy.
“Elijah and Moses, who had died, conversed with Jesus at the Transfiguration.”