Skip to comments.On Fifteen Years a Catholic ("How can you join a church that tells you how to think?")
Posted on 04/22/2012 11:23:32 AM PDT by NYer
The question, uttered with equal parts puzzlement and anger, surprised me. In hindsight, it should have been about as surprising as an afternoon drizzle here in Eugene, Oregon, in early spring. The questionalmost an accusation, reallywas made one early spring day over fifteen years ago. It was said in the middle of an intense discussion about the reasons why my wife and I, both graduates of Evangelical Bible colleges, had decided to become Catholic.
I’m happy to note, all these years later, that I have a good and healthy relationship with the man who made the remark. We both uttered strong words that day, but time and some further conversationsmore calm and measured in naturehave brought peace, if not perfect understanding.
I’ve sometimes joked, in recounting the full story to close friends, that I came up with the perfect retort several hours later: “At least I’m entering a Church that knows what the word ‘think’ means!” It would have been a low blow, but it touches on two issues that continue to resonate with me, now fifteen years a Catholic, nearly every day in some way or another.
The Mindless Scandal
The first is the intellectual life. The Fundamentalism of my youth was, in sum, anti-intellectual; it looked with caution, even fearful disdain, on certain aspects of modern science, technology, and academic study. But it wasn’t because we were Luddites or held a principled position against electricity, computers, or space exploration. The concern was essentially spiritual in nature; the guiding concern was that televisions, radios, “boom boxes” (remember?), and movies were potential tools for conveying messagesoften subliminal in naturecontrary to a godly, Christian life. The general instinct was, in fact, actually sound. Only the creators of “Jersey Shore” can deny the power and influence of popular culture, and then only with a smirk. But the permeating fear was rarely controlled, critiqued, and concentrated through rigorous thought and study. It was reactionary and highly subjective, and so it became a sort of rogue agent, undermining the most innocent activities: reading the Chronicles of Narnia, listening to any “non-Christian” music, or studying art or literature not including any overt references to “Jesus” and “the Gospel”.
My time in Bible college proved helpful in many ways, as several of my professors were certainly not fearful of going outside the box, evengasp!assigning books by Flannery O’Connor and Gerard Manley Hopkins (there was also some reading of Augustine, but in an extremely abridged form). But for every question answered, others sprung up like dandelions, multiplying with maddening surety. When I read Mark Noll’s controversial bestseller, The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind (Eerdmans, 1994), I was confirmed in many of the intuitions and thoughts I had mulled and culled over the years. Noll opened his book with this withering shot of lightning: “The scandal of the evangelical mind is that there is not much of an evangelical mind.” Readers can disagree on the level of hyperbole used; Noll, a dedicated Evangelical scholar, seemed dead serious in his assertion. “For a Christian”, he wrote, “the most important consideration is not pragmatic results, or even the weight of history, but the truth.” These and other statements rang true. I had become convinced, at a relatively early age, that if something is true and good, it must be of God.
The Need for Authority
Of course, how did I know what was “true and good”? Enter the second issue: authority. I won’t regale readers about the details of my struggle with sola scriptura. (Readers can catch a few of them in my 1998 account our journey into the Church.) Instead, I’ll skip to something I wrote in February 1996, from a list of “several points of consideration” I put down regarding the claims of the Catholic Church. “I have become increasingly convinced”, I wrote, “that the idea of sola scriptura is in the end untenable … Again, this does not render judgment on the inspiration or infallibility of Scripture, it just moves the question to a different arenathat of authority.”
Nearly every non-Catholic adult who chooses to become Catholic will admit, or least should admit, the centrality of the matter of authority. As a Fundamentalist, I had been fed the standard, Jack Chick-ean version of Catholic authority: bloody, despotic, dishonest, power-driven, and so forth. The hike from there to looking squarely and honestly at authority in the Catholic Church was lengthy, but one key mile post was studying St. Paul’s description in his first letter to Timothy of “the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth” (1 Tim 3:15). A passage by Abp. Fulton Sheen, written in the 1940s, sums up the matter quite well:
There is nothing more misunderstood by the modern mind than the authority of the Church. Just as soon as one mentions the authority of the Vicar of Christ there are visions of slavery, intellectual servitude, mental chains, tyrannical obedience, and blind service on the part of those who, it is said, are forbidden to think for themselves. That is positively untrue. Why has the world been so reluctant to accept the authority of the Father’s house? Why has it so often identified the Catholic Church with intellectual slavery? The answer is, because the world has forgotten the meaning of liberty.
One Surprise: The Bad
We entered the Catholic Church on March 29, 1997, Easter Vigil at Saint Paul Catholic Church in Eugene, Oregon. It was a joyful night and I can say with complete honesty I have never regretted becoming Catholic. But I have been surprised a few times as a Catholic. Two surprises stand out; they also, in a way related to the two points above, stand together.
As an Evangelical, I was very familiar with “church splits”. I endured my first as a four-year old (our family and several others left the local Christian and Missionary Alliance assembly) and my wife and I stopped attending our last Evangelical church while it was in the middle of a dramatic split. I soon learned, as a new Catholic, that “splits” aren’t really part of being Catholic. I also learned that disgruntled Catholics, especially those upset about Church teaching on sexuality, authority, and the priesthood, don’t always leave the Church; on the contrary, they often simply try to take over the Church. And by “Church”, I mean both the local parish and the Church as a whole. My first big surprise, then, was finding out that while I (and many other former Protestants) had spent months and years working through Church doctrine and moral teaching, we were entering a Church apparently dominated and largely run, at least in practical terms, by Catholics complaining incessantly and obnoxiously about Church doctrine and moral teaching.
Moving toward and then into the Church, I wasn’t unaware of such problems. But the sheer scope of the situation was confounding. It helped that I had a relatively low view of the human state; I didn’t expect pews full of Catechism-quoting saints. But I had hopes that most of them knew about the Catechism and had some desire to live holy lives. And so the farmer boy arrived in the city.
It’s not surprising that Catholics sin. It is surprising how some Catholic insist certain sins are not only sins in name only but are actually virtues in disguise! It’s not shocking that many Catholics misunderstand the nature and mission of the Church. It is shocking how some Catholics deliberately distort and misrepresent the nature and mission of the mystical Body of Christ. It is not scandalous, per se, that many Catholics don’t have a close relationship with Jesus Christ. But it is scandalous when Catholics insist they don’t need Christ or his Church in order to be Catholic.
A case in point is the recent statement released by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) about the status of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR). The CDF noted its serious concerns with long established patterns of “corporate dissent” indicating LCWR leaders often “take a position not in agreement with the Church’s teaching on human sexuality.” In fact, from its founding in the early 1970s, the Conference has thumbed its corporate nose at a host of Church teachings, including papal authority, the male priesthood, sexuality and contraception, the uniqueness of Christ, and so forth. It is the height (or depth) of irony that the LCWR site has this quote from Margaret Brennan, IHM, President from 1972 to 1973: “One danger for us is that we may become legitimators of society's commonly held values.” It ceased being a danger long ago, perhaps even before the quote was uttered. The CDF also highlighted the deep influence of radical feminist theology within the LCWR, and the undermining of the fundamental and “revealed doctrines of the Holy Trinity, the divinity of Christ, and the inspiration of Sacred Scripture.” Details!
To judge by the mainstream news, the Vatican has been forcibly removing old nuns from convents and shuttling them to live beneath bridges and overpasses in southern Utah. One headline declared, “Vatican targets US nuns' reps”; another darkly stated, “Vatican condemns American nuns for liberal stances”. None of this surprising, of course, as the secular media is fixated on sensationalism, conflict, and opposition to traditional Christian teachings. You won’t see a headline stating, “Vatican offered LCWR a chance to save itself from self-inflicted death.” It would not fit the narrative, even if it fits the facts: the average age of LCWR women religious is at least twice that of those women religious in the CMSWR (Council of Major Superiors of Women Religious). Instead there are delicious sound bites, such as when Sister Simone Campbell, head of the lefty Network (named directly by the CDF), tells NPR it’s all about out-of-touch men in the Vatican who “are not used to strong women” and then blithelyarrogantly, reallysays:
Women get it first and then try to explain it to the guys who - I mean, as the women did to the Apostles. So, we will try to explain it to the guys. We'll keep up our roles from the Scriptures.
Because every good Scripture scholar know that what Mary Magdalene and the other women did, to their eternal credit, was publicly thumb their noses at the Apostles' teachings and actions!
What the media also won’t say (again, understandably) is the situation with the LCWR is about a crisis of faith that has been festering and spreading for decades as an affront to genuine Church authority. One result of this crisis of faith is, I think, a laity weary, numb, angry, or simply confused. How to make sense of it? Stepping back as much as possible, one can situate it somewhere in the stream of parasitical, self-loathing, and self-righteous pseudo-religiosity that may be best defined as “modern, pantheistic-secularist liberalism”. Its heaven is earth; its authority is self (wrongly identified as “conscience”); its goals are horizontal (“social justice”); its rhetoric is both morally charged and completely bankrupt. “When you set out to reform a people, a group, who have done nothing wrong,” opined the endlessly opining Joan Chittister about the CDF statement, “you have to have an intention, a motivation that is not only not morally based, but actually immoral.” This is the same woman who praised and eulogized the radical, lesbian, Church-hating Mary Daly, saying Daly’s work “was an icon to women”. She fails completely, by any decent standard, to comprehend the meaning of “immoral”.
But this, I’ve learned, is the way of heresy within the Church, going back to the very beginning (think, for example, of Paul’s fight for the Galatians): to abuse trust and power, to misuse language, to undermine genuine authority, to dismiss essential truths, to claim the morally superior ground, to be a victim but never a martyr, and to distract and deflect at all costs.
The Second Surprise: The Good
This past Thursday marked the election of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger to the Chair of Peter, despite the assurances of the usual suspects with unusually suspect intuition. This was a moment of great joy for me; Cardinal Ratzinger had long been a favorite theologian and author. His books helped me in becoming Catholic and they’ve helped me in becoming a better thinking and, hopefully, better living Catholic.
But, of course, just as the narrative about the LCWR presents disobedience as goodness, the narrative about Benedict XVI has often been as follows: an angry, narrow-minded, Nazi-sympathizing reactionary is now Pope, and he is intent on dragging the Church back to the dreaded Dark Ages. Perhaps some of this utterly banal silliness could be forgiven in the first week following the election. But since then it has reflected unlearned arrogance (a media specialty), or petulant and personal smearing (a media delight), or slovenly regurgitation of falsehoods (a media habit). Or all three (a media trinity).
I won’t bother with an apologetic. Simply read the man’s writings. And if you haven’t read the recently published collection, Fundamental Speeches From Five Decades (Ignatius Press, 2012), which contains a fabulous talk given in 1970, when then Fr. (and Professor) Joseph Ratzinger was just about my own age now, forty three or so. The talk was titled, “Why I am still in the Church”. It begins with a nuanced and thoughtful reflection on the confusion faced by many Catholics in the years after the Council, which Ratzinger described as “this remarkable Tower of Babel situation”. He noted some Catholics wish to make the Church into their own image, reflecting their desires and goals, not those of the Church herself. Behind all of the struggles over what the Church “should be”, Ratzinger said, is a “crucial” point: “the crisis of faith, which is the actual nucleus of the process”.
Then, answering the question implicit in his talk’s title, he said:
I am in the Church because, despite everything, I believe that she is at the deepest level not our but precisely “his” Church. To put it concretely: It is the Church that, despite all the human foibles of the people in her, gives us Jesus Christ, and only through her can we receive him as a living, authoritative reality that summons and endows me here and now. … This elementary acknowledgement has to be made at the start: Whatever infidelity there is or may be in the Church, however true it is that she constantly needs to be measured anew by Jesus Christ, still there is ultimately no opposition between Christ and Church. It is through the Church that he remains alive despite the distance of history, that he speaks to us today, is with us today as master and Lord, as our brother who unites us all as brethren. And because the Church, and she alone, gives us Jesus Christ, causes him to be alive and present in the world, gives birth to him again in every age in the faith and prayer of the people, she gives mankind a light, a support, and a standard without which mankind would be unimaginable. Anyone who wants to find the presence of Jesus Christ in mankind cannot find it contrary to the Church but only in her.
And therein lies the answer to the question that opened this essay, the question presented to me not long before I became Catholic. How could I join a Church that tells me how to think? How could I not join the Church founded by Jesus Christ, the household of his Father, infused with life by her soul, the Holy Spirit? How could I thinkor desire, or choose, or willto do otherwise? And how can I, given the grace to be a Catholic, not stand up for my mother, the Church? “Because she is our mother, she is also our teacher in the faith” (CCC 169). She teaches us how to think because, alone, we know not how. Or why. Or Who.
-—The queen is queen by virtue of her being married to the king not by being his mother.——
The Queen Mother is different from the Queen.
The queen is married to the king. The queen mother is the king’s mother.
When Bathsheba was married to King David, she was the queen.
When Solomon was king, Bathsheba, as his mother, was the queen mother.
When Bathsheba was queen, she bowed to David. When she was queen mother, David bowed to her, and she sat at his right hand.
As queen mother, Bathsheba enjoyed a more exalted position than she did as queen.
Since Mary is Jesus’ mother, and not His wife, she would be the Queen Mother of the King of the eternal House of David, Jesus.
Ah. Theres your problem. Please understand that the Bible uses to pray meaning to ask earnestly.
| Lamentations 1:18 "Hear, I pray you, all people, and behold my sorrow...
Micah 3:1I "He said, Hear, I pray you, O heads of Jacob, and ye princes of the house of Israel...
Genesis 50:17 So shall you say to Joseph, Forgive, I pray you now, the trespass of your brothers...
Numbers 16:26 "And he spake unto the congregation, saying, Depart, I pray you, from the tents of these wicked men...
Now you can see that, Biblically, prayer does not mean worship. It only implies adoration when it is directed to God.
There is only One God. We all know that.
Sorry dude. Just as Nitzevet was never queen having never been married to a King even though she was king Davids mother neither is Mary queen.
-—Just as Nitzevet was never queen having never been married to a King even though she was king Davids mother neither is Mary queen.-—
No, Mary is the queen MOTHER.
Not the queen.
The queen MOTHER. The MOTHER of the king.
Not the wife of the king, the MOTHER of the king.
The MOTHER of the king is called the QUEEN MOTHER.
Since Mary is the MOTHER of the King of the eternal House of David, she is the Queen MOTHER of the King of the eternal House of David.
King Solomon bowed to Bathsheba when she was Queen MOTHER, and she sat at the king’s right hand.
When Bathsheba was QUEEN, she bowed to King David.
Solomon may have been the first king of Israel to grant his mother a high place in the administration of his kingdom, which he inherited from his father David. If so, it would be fitting, since Bathsheba was the wife of the king. But according to Judaic tradition, David’s mother accompanied him to his coronation and stayed close ever after to strengthen and counsel him in the face of his enemies and in turbulent times. Anyway, God never chastised Solomon for having placed a throne for his mother next to his and starting an institution that would last for many generations in the kingdom of Judah. Having inherited the throne from his father David, Solomon had the divine right to do so as king, now that God had granted Israel’s desire to have their own king like their neighbours. Saul was anointed king in God’s name by Samuel. I don’t think God was offended by this institution.
In the Bible the name of each Queen Mother of the house of David is given in the introduction of the reign of each king of Judah: 1 Kings 14:21; 15:9-10; 22:42; 2 Kings 12:2; 14:2; 15:2; 15:33; 18:2; 21:2; 21:19; 22:1; 23:31; 23:36; 24:8; 24:18, for instance. Meanwhile, none of Solomon’s wives enjoyed the prerogatives of the Gebirah in his kingdom, the role of counselor and intercessor to the king being the chief ones. The wives - unlike Mary - had only the “job” of bearing and raising children, notably sons who would become eligible to assume the throne and succeed their father. The Queen Mother was the most important woman in the kingdom of Judah and exercised the greatest influence over her son the king. This institution was not practiced in the northern kingdom of Israel which was ruled by nine ruling houses or dynasties. But it was out of Judah that the Messiah would come to the world. It would appear that God willed and even inspired Solomon to place a throne for his mother next to his in anticipation of Mary’s Divine Maternity and universal role of Queen Mother in the kingdom of heaven
I too, find myself coming here and posting here less and less. This thread is a perfect example of why. If I were to go back two months, six months, a year, five years, a decade, I would find the same objections, the same flawed exegesis and the same baseless accusations about the Church and her teachings.
I do love to read things such as this by Carl Olsen, whom I consider to be a great gift to lay Catholics, but I have no desire to get into the same go round over and over.
Sometimes I find a new angle, a new thought and I am willing to explore it with the poster as long as they remain respectful, but for the most part, it has become a waste of time and energy.
If one confines one’s visit to the OP, ignoring the contrariness of the responses, there is much to edify and elevate one’s faith.
Nonsense. The makers of Royal Crown Cola want people to think that their product is a tasty beverage.
More nonsense. RCC Consultants want people to think that their expertise in telecommunications consulting and engineering is the best in the business.
Everybody knows that Rappahannock Community College wants folks to gain expertise in Nursing, Business Management, Emergency Medicine and Electronics Technology.
Riverside City College has the best marching tigers in the area.
Exactly so. It was common in kingdoms not only of the Middle East, but in Europe as well. Look at the honour given to Queen Elizabeth's mother, for instance. She was always treated with the utmost respect, as much as or more than Queen Elizabeth and far more than Jug Ear Charlie.
And let us never forget the stellar record of the Retail Council of Canada and their tireless work to bring down consumer prices and make life more affordable for everyone.
David and Solomon were not appointed by God? Really?
>> “What a bizarre repudiation of the Communion of Saints” <<
Not a part of Christianity. Our communication is with the Father.
You refer to occultic spirituality, seances, and such. All forbidden.
>> “but I could easily be wrong.” <<
As of course you always are; what’s new?
>> Please understand that the Bible uses to pray meaning to ask earnestly. <<
But we are not permitted to even attempt to ask anything of the dead. We are to ask all things of the Father only.
“The saints sleep. Paul made that very clear.”
” When we die, we sleep until the rapture (first resurrection).”
Nope. When we die, we are judged. We’re not asleep.
“Anyone that you pray to you worship.”
Nope. Learn English. To pray means to ask.
“Christ gave no one the power to conjur up the dead.”
We don’t “conjure up” anyone.
“Christs office is redeemer and priest, and he shares those with no one. (you can be glad of that, imagine hanging on the cross!)”
False. Christ’s three principle offices are of priest, prophet and king. He shares all three with us through baptism. Since this is orthodox theology I would not expect you to know it. Even many Protestants know this, Christopher A. Hutchinson writes about it in a little online article called, “The Gospel Displayed in the Office of Deacon” and he’s apparently PCA.
“The word is Christian, not anti-catholic. Catholics are anti-christian, or just plain numb.”
So, then PCA members are anti-Christian too? See how quickly your bad theories apparently made up out of thin air collapse?
“Again, the saints sleep;”
Nope. Jesus says they are alive with God. Jesus is right. You’re not.
“they are not consious until they are changed, as Paul stated in his epistle to the Thessalonians.”
That’s not what he says. Even Protestants generally don’t hold your view: http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/22/22-4/22-4-pp345-349_JETS.pdf
“No, the wife of a king is the queen. The only time his mother is also queen is if his father was king before him.”
She’s still a queen.
“The only reference to the queen of heaven in scripture is pagan. The only women who were designated queen in scripture were if their husband was king.”
So, what do you call a woman who is overshadowed by the Holy Spirit?
“God the Father calls Israel His wife and Jesus bride is the church. The idea of the queen of heaven concept is a human construct of pagans and Catholics.”
Nope. You have failed - as always - to even remotely make a case for that. You’ll continue to fail too. Same old, same old.
>> “Nope. When we die, we are judged. Were not asleep.” <<
 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.
I guess Jesus forgot to check with you; shame, huh?
Still no queen of heave other than pagan.
That is not what I said and you know it .
And here is the answer God gave Samuel when the children of Israel asked for a king to rule over them like the rest of the nations.
1Sa 8:4 Then all the elders of Israel gathered themselves together, and came to Samuel unto Ramah,
1Sa 8:5 And said unto him, Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways: now make us a king to judge us like all the nations.
1Sa 8:6 But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the LORD.
1Sa 8:7 And the LORD said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.
1Sa 8:8 According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt even unto this day, wherewith they have forsaken me, and served other gods, so do they also unto thee.
1Sa 8:9 Now therefore hearken unto their voice: howbeit yet protest solemnly unto them, and shew them the manner of the king that shall reign over them.
1Sa 8:10 And Samuel told all the words of the LORD unto the people that asked of him a king.
1Sa 8:11 And he said, This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots.
1Sa 8:12 And he will appoint him captains over thousands, and captains over fifties; and will set them to ear his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots.
1Sa 8:13 And he will take your daughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks, and to be bakers.
1Sa 8:14 And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants.
1Sa 8:15 And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants.
1Sa 8:16 And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work.
1Sa 8:17 He will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants.
1Sa 8:18 And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the LORD will not hear you in that day.
1Sa 8:19 Nevertheless the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel; and they said, Nay; but we will have a king over us;
1Sa 8:20 That we also may be like all the nations; and that our king may judge us, and go out before us, and fight our battles.
1Sa 8:21 And Samuel heard all the words of the people, and he rehearsed them in the ears of the LORD.
1Sa 8:22 And the LORD said to Samuel, Hearken unto their voice, and make them a king. And Samuel said unto the men of Israel, Go ye every man unto his city.
"Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad" (John 8:56) Moses as well!
"So in Christ we who are many form one body, and each member belongs to all the others" (Romans 12:5)
God is the God of Abraham, of Isaac and of Jacob. He is he God of all who believe in Him, past, present, and future, ALL THE SAINTS. How can you possibly say they are dead? "He is not the God of the dead, but of the living; you are greatly mistaken." (Mark 12:27)
“Still no queen of heave other than pagan.”
Mary isn’t a pagan.
Their bodies are clearly dead!
We are expressly forbidden to contact the dead.
“You refer to occultic spirituality, seances, and such.”
No I don’t. You are trying to read my mind. I referred to a very establish part of the basic Christian Creed, the Communion of Saint. THAT is what I referred to. You attempt to play mind reader is against the rules. But you knew that, right?
“Their bodies are clearly dead!”
Their immortal soul is not dead, and if they died in a State of Grace and are in Heaven, they are part of the Christian Community of Saints that you appear to deny exists.
-—. Saul was anointed king in Gods name by Samuel. I dont think God was offended by this institution.
8-) Read my post again.”This institution” is referring to Solomon’s exaltation of the Gebirah, or Queen Mother.
—— Exactly so. It was common in kingdoms not only of the Middle East, but in Europe as well. Look at the honour given to Queen Elizabeth’s mother, for instance. She was always treated with the utmost respect, as much as or more than Queen Elizabeth and far more than Jug Ear Charlie.——
And she isnt the queen of heaven either. The queen of heaven concept is a pagan concept never once sanctioned by any teaching of scripture.
I don't know you very well, so I don't have a clear idea of what we consider common ground, and what we don't. Help me out here.
Do you believe in the Trinity? In the Communion of Saints? Do you believe we are members of the Body of Christ?
That'll help me understand where you're coming from.
>> “You think Catholics communicare with dead bodies??” <<
Communicating with the dead, necromancy, is forbidden. Its a serious sin, and a habit that leads straight to the lake of fire. The spirits of the dead are not available for communication, and all attempts are answered by the fallen ones.
“And she isnt the queen of heaven either.”
Actually she is the queen of heaven.
“The queen of heaven concept is a pagan concept never once sanctioned by any teaching of scripture.”
False. Mary as queen of heaven is not remotely of pagan origin. Also, it is in Rev. 12, and it doesn’t need explicit mention in scripture anyway since the Bible was never intended by God to hold all truths.
and of course you could show where the apostles taught that or at least instituting the office of queen of heaven.
>>Also, it is in Rev. 12<<
So youre saying that the woman in Revelation 12 is Mary? If it is you would also admit that Mary returns to earth to be tormented once again as it says of the woman in Revelation 12:
13 And when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth, he persecuted the woman which brought forth the man child.
14 And to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent.
15 And the serpent cast out of his mouth water as a flood after the woman, that he might cause her to be carried away of the flood.
16 And the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed up the flood which the dragon cast out of his mouth.
-—So what ? He also bowed downed and build high places (temples) to the gods his wives worshiped-—
Because a president is sinful, does that mean his office is invalid or void? Was Solomon’s office void? The queen’s? The queen mother’s?
These passages simply point out the historical fact that the office of the queen mother, or “Gebirah,” was more exalted than that of the queen.
-—You do know that Solomon is not in Jesus lineage don’t you? His kingdom was taken away from him and he died in apostasy worshiping devils.——
Was not Solomon the king of the House of David, as is Jesus?
“To the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: These are the words of him who is holy and true, who holds the key of David. What he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.” -—Rev 3:7
If Jesus is the King of the eternal House of David (He holds the key of David (see also Isaiah 22)), then His mother, Mary, is His Queen Mother, the queen of the eternal House of David, or the Queen of Heaven.
“A great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head. 2 She was pregnant and cried out in pain as she was about to give birth. 3 Then another sign appeared in heaven: an enormous red dragon with seven heads and ten horns and seven crowns on its heads. 4 Its tail swept a third of the stars out of the sky and flung them to the earth. The dragon stood in front of the woman who was about to give birth, so that it might devour her child the moment he was born. 5 She gave birth to a son, a male child, who will rule all the nations with an iron scepter. -—Rev 12
-—You also said this .... which is what I quoted and answered before.
Saul was anointed king in Gods name by Samuel. I dont think God was offended by this institution.
YES HE WAS OFFENDED THAT THEY REJECTED HIM.-—
Yes. Nevertheless, God granted their request, which fell within His providential plan.
“When you enter the land the LORD your God is giving you and have taken possession of it and settled in it, and you say, Let us set a king over us like all the nations around us, 15 be sure to appoint over you a king the LORD your God chooses. He must be from among your fellow Israelites. Do not place a foreigner over you, one who is not an Israelite.”-—Deut 17:14-15
God would not be offended by the office of the queen mother, or “Gebirah,” any more than He was offended by their request for an earthly king, which He granted, despite their earthly motivation.
More on the “Kingdom of David” and “The Kingdom of God.”
You admit it grieves HIM yet you keep saying it is ok because someone else did it .
That’s the same kind of reasoning that got Adam kicked out of the garden .
-—You admit it grieves HIM yet you keep saying it is ok because someone else did it .——
I must have missed that.
There is nothing intrinsically evil to a kingdom as a form of government. The Israelites erred in establishing their kingdom because of their motivation —to be like the other nations.
Nevertheless, the Davidic kingdom was part of God’s providential plan: the kingdom of God spoken of in the New Testament is synonymous with the eternal Davidic Kingdom, of which Jesus is the Head.
Rejection of the Davidic kingdom is a rejection of the Kingdom of God.
Intercessory prayer to the saints does neither of these things: it does not conjure up spirits, and it does not attempt or pretend prophecy/divination. It's not necromancy,and if anyone were to try to use Christian prayer as a form of necromancy, that would be a sin.
Are you a member of a church that teaches that the faithful departed are cut off from the Body of Christ and have no more interest in us or are in no position to pray for us? I would like to understand more of where this view comes from, since I can't seem to find a Christian source. Can you suggest a website that links to your church's teachings?
Second, why don';t you respond to what I asked? Do you believe in the Trinity? In the Communion of Saints? Do you believe we are members of the Body of Christ?
“and of course you could show where the apostles taught that or at least instituting the office of queen of heaven.”
Can you show me where the Apostles taught that the gospel of Matthew was written by Matthew or that it is inspired? No, you can’t. Not all truths are in the Bible.
“So youre saying that the woman in Revelation 12 is Mary?”
Yes, and Israel and the Church. All three, and differing according to the verses. I already said this.
I doubt CynicalBear could answer your questions.
“What was Collyridianism ?”
A heretical movement in Arabia in the 5th century which worshiped the Virgin Mary as god.
“What exactly did the Collyridians do that they were considered heretics ?”
They worshiped Mary as god. Thus, they were excommunicated - and that would happen to anyone who did that today as well.
Well, maybe we should break it down. Lets take the prayer of Prayer of Pope Pius XII. [http://catholicism.about.com/od/tothevirginmary/qt/Honor_Immacula.htm]
Ill use just the bolded excerpts from the prayer.
we cast ourselves into your arms
1 Peter 5:7 Casting all your care upon him; for he careth for you. (When did we need to replace God with Mary?)
confident of finding in your most loving heart appeasement of our ardent desires, and a safe harbor from the tempests which beset us on every side.
Hebrews 4:15-16 For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin. Let us therefore come boldly to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need. (once again Catholics replacing Christ with Mary)
O crystal fountain of faith
Romans 12:3 according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith. or "a measure of faith." (but Mary is the fountain of faith for Catholics)
Lily of all holiness
1 Samuel 2:2 There is none holy as the LORD: for there is none beside thee: neither is there any rock like our God. (for Catholics however, all holiness is given to Mary)
Conqueress of evil and death
Hosea 13:14 I will ransom them from the power of the grave; I will redeem them from death: O death, I will be thy plagues; O grave, I will be thy destruction: repentance shall be hid from mine eyes. (but Catholics claim it was Mary who conquered death)
Convert the wicked
John 16:7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. 8 And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: 9 Of sin, because they believe not on me; (Catholics have even replaced the Holy Spirit with Mary)
Statement by catholic Bishop Liqouri .......We often more quickly obtain what we ask by calling on the name of Mary than by invoking that of Jesus..... She...is our Salvation, our Life, our Hope, our Counsel, our Refuge, our Help
Mary is their salvation? If thats not worship and blasphemy I dont know what is.
Need I go on? Catholics have replaced virtually every attribute and working of God and given that to Mary in their worship.
“Intercessory prayer to the saints” is truly necromancy.
We are not permitted to pray to dead saints. We have no real way of even knowing whether the dead are truly ‘saints,’ that is for YHWH and his angels to know.
All of our needs are fulfilled through prayer to the Father.
Repetition is not argument, and a statement reiterated does not contribute additional insight or evidence. This is unhelpful. Good bye.
Repitition of what we are instructed in the Bible by Jesus Christ contributes all there is to contribute in insight and evidence.
Have an incitfull and edified day!
“”If we are to take Strong’s Concordance we have to first admit that it is not infallible and that it is based upon the King James translation which itself is flawed.””
You hit the nail on the head on this because it has lead unimaginable modernist Christian thought and teaching because of Strongs Concordance error and the KJV
Here is just 1 good source on this, there are many
I attribute that more to the practice of self interpretation than to anything else. I can't understand how those who profess to be so Bible literate, who argue over Koine Greek punctuation and conjugation, can ignore the simple portions that they don't like.
"This man had gone to Jerusalem to worship, and on his way home was sitting in his chariot reading the Book of Isaiah the prophet. 29 The Spirit told Philip, Go to that chariot and stay near it.
"Then Philip ran up to the chariot and heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet. Do you understand what you are reading? Philip asked."
How can I, he said, unless someone explains it to me? So he invited Philip to come up and sit with him."
- Acts 8:26-31
I agree with you,a flawed Bible does not affect a well educated Catholic/Orthodox who know their faith well because we understand the correct interpretations and meanings of Scripture and can trace these teachings back to the writings of the Church Fathers consensus and final dogma at some point on many important teachings