Asaiah wrote: » Hi all, I have one major issue with the Catholic church and that is devotion to Mary. Now as a Christian I love and respect Mary, she is the most honoured woman in history as she was chosen to carry the messiah, the son of God. The word of God made flesh Jesus Christ. However it seems excessive in modern Catholicism. Where Mary has taken a central role and people pray directly to her. I've seen crosses featuring the trinity plus Mary. I've heard her called the queen of heaven. As a bible reader from a young age I've seen no evidence for Mary being queen of heaven. Jesus said that he is the only mediator between man and the Father. Is devotion and prayer to Mary an essential part of Catholicism? Is Mary the queen of heaven and/or the co-redemptrix? Christains of all flavours, What are your thoughts on the Mary?
1 Timothy 2:5-6 ESV wrote: For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time.
georgieporgy wrote: » "All generations will call me blessed " Any New Testament experts willing to explain that away?
solodeogloria wrote: » Good morning! To pin my colours to the mast I'm an evangelical Protestant. Borderline Mary worship is unbiblical. I was in the Vatican Museum last month. Many things were inspiring and praiseworthy. However there was one room in dedicated to a unbiblical doctrine. The Immaculate Conception. Codified into Catholicism in the 19th century. Mary was a godly woman who submitted to God. She wasn't a demi-god. She isn't the "queen of heaven". Nowhere in the Bible is she conferred with this status. Last year I was at a wedding of two really good friends of mine. They are devout Roman Catholics. The groom was a key reason why I believe in Jesus today. Much of the service was lovely. At the end however, they prayed at a statue of Mary to the "queen of heaven". I found it ghastly. It is pagan folk religion. The gospel doesn't encourage praying to saints. We are all saints. They are no better than us. Even Mary sinned. That statue and that prayer is precisely why the Reformation was required then and it is why it is required now. Putting Papal teaching over the Bible is the problem. God's word is better. God's word is true. Why add to it in such futile ways? It brings out the Reformer in me and makes me give thanks for those who risked their lives for the Reformation. The Roman Catholic Church has obviously added to apostolic Christianity. How do I know that? Simple. Why isn't it in the New Testament? We have free access to God through Jesus' saving death on the cross. We can pray to Him directly. We don't need purgatory. Jesus' death was enough. Purgatory doesn't have any Biblical basis anyway. There is no mediator between man and God other than the Lord Jesus Christ: This post is intentionally provocative. We need to talk about this properly though. Hopefully we can do that in gracious way that honours Jesus. Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ, solodeogloria
hinault wrote: » This post contains a number of untruths. I've only bothered to bold one of the untruths told in this thread. The "advice" given in the quoted post if followed puts the followers eternal fate in very very grave jeopardy.
homer911 wrote: » You are making yourself look very foolish hinault. Even Mary acknowledged she needed a Saviour. You don't need a Saviour if you are sinless. Sometimes you need to challenge that Catholic Catechism based on what the Bible says
hinault wrote: » Mary was conceived without sin. The Bible states that Mary is "full of grace". What grace? Sanctifying grace.
Mary gave birth to God Incarnate Jesus Christ. Would He who is without sin be borne by someone who was touched with even a trace of sin?
It is literally inconceivable that God would select a sinful human woman to conceive and give birth to He who redeems the world.
Nick Park wrote: » The Bible also describes Stephen as "full of grace and power". So that would make Stephen sinless too?
Nick Park wrote: » The problem with this reasoning is that you must then apply it Mary as well. Would she who is without sin (Mary) be borne by someone who was touched with even a trace of sin? So that would make Mary's mother (and father as well, since there was only one virgin birth) sinless as well. But then, of course, for Mary's parents to be sinless, both sets of grandparents would need to be sinless as well.
Nick Park wrote: » We can take this 'logic' to its absurd conclusion with hundreds of sinless people stretching back through generations. Or we can accept the obvious fact that an omnipotent God is well capable of ensuring that the sinless Saviour came from the womb of a woman who, just like the rest of us, was a sinner.
Nick Park wrote: » It would certainly be inconceivable if God had ordered His salvation plan according to our feeble ideas of how things should be. Thankfully He didn't. He did something that we would think of as completely inconceivable - He let the sinless Son of God carry all our moral filthiness to the Cross and die a shameful death. Once we grasp the enormity of that, then we should submit ourselves to God's revealed Word rather than to our notions of what is conceivable or not.
Matt Markinson wrote: » The reason you're not getting many replies from Catholics is because for one reason or another 1) not many Catholics use this forum anymore, 2) the issue seems to have already been done to death on other older threads, 3) it would literally be a full time job on this site answering and re-answering the same constantly repeated false claims and misrepresentations about Catholicism, over and over again. 4) all of the above is boring and repetitive. I'm all for disagreeing with and questioning the doctrines of the Catholic Church, but there so many misrepresentations, red herrings, straw men and fallacies here regarding actual Catholic teaching, it's hard to know where to start or even if to bother. I don't know if it's by design or accident people are taught/spread so much misinformation about Catholicism. I would first suggest for anyone genuinely interested in discussing the truth of what the Catholic Church actually teaches, and does not teach and rather than constantly repeating or listening to inaccurate slanders (perhaps not intentionally/knowingly) that are aimed at dividing Christians, you go to the actual source. This has the potential to be a very long topic, I'm off line and only on intermittently at best for the next few days. So very briefly (and remember it's brief and off the cuff, I've tried to be accurate but for 100% accuracy go to the correct source (i.e. not me, the actual documents [make sure they correctly quoted in their correct context] of the Church) rather than nitpick this post for some minor unintentional error) So trying to take them roughly in the order they were made : ( and if I've missed anything, again it's not intentional) Is devotion and prayer to Mary an essential part of Catholicism? No, not essential at all. No rosary is required if you don't want to. No devotion to Mary is required, no prayer to Mary is required, and no Catholic is required to believe in the apparitions of Mary at Lourdes, Knock, Fatima. (Because these are private revelations, and the Church is clear the last public revelation to Christians was by the last of the apostles). All these practices are optional and open to Catholics, but not required or compulsory. - Is Mary the queen of heaven ? It depends on what sense you're talking about. Like Queen Elizabeth II or Queen Victoria ? No. In an honorary title / non literal sense like the Queen mother ? - Yes, if you wish The title is inspired by the verse Rev 12:1-2 - and/or the co-redemptrix? Firstly co-redemptrix is not either a dogma or a doctrine of Catholicism. It's speculative theology. Most contrary to the way the term is being attempted to be used here, it is NOT used to mean she is in any way equal with Christ. It refers to her co-operation in the incarnation, and her consent, the opposite to eve's lack of trust in God. - Do Catholics pray to Mary ? Yes, some do and to many other saints in heaven as well. But it is not in worship. The meaning of the word to pray is not worship, it is to ask, e.g. "pray tell". The words of the actual prayer make the distinction. Asking someone else, including a saint, to also pray for you is not worship. Prayer to the saints is a whole other thread. -Statues Look up the word graven the next time you use it. Graven is an idol that is considered to be a God a worshiped as a God, like the Golden Calf. It is not an inanimate lump of plaster. There are statues and picture of Christ all over Catholic Churches, they are not Christ, a statue of Mary is Mary, nor does anyone worship Mary or statues or pictures, so once knowing that, continuing to spread the falsehood about other Chrstians, is in fact not very Christian. Using a picture or statue as an area where you focus for prayer, does not mean that you think that image is in fact God. "Last year I was at a wedding of two really good friends of mine. They are devout Roman Catholics. The groom was a key reason why I believe in Jesus today. Much of the service was lovely. At the end however, they prayed at a statue of Mary to the "queen of heaven". I found it ghastly. It is pagan folk religion. The gospel doesn't encourage praying to saints. We are all saints. They are no better than us. Even Mary sinned. " Perhaps if they really are good friends of yours, you should sit down face to face with them one to one, and genuinely ask them to explain to you what they were actually doing, and what the Church actually teaches, rather than having a complete misconception of what they are doing, and then making such allegations about them behind their back on a public forum ? Because if the groom was key in giving you belief in Christ as you claim, I would be pretty sure he will have a correct understanding of what the Church actually teaches, rather than you listening to an internet forum. As for saints, you are partly correct, Catholicism teaches everyone in heaven is a saint, regardless if they have been officially given the title by the Church or not. I believe you are an Anglican. Well Marian devotions such as the Rosary, Angelus, and Regina Coeli are all associated and practiced within the Anglo-Catholic and High Church movements within Anglicanism. A Protestant, "reformation" Church. The immaculate conception is a another very lengthy subject, but suffice to say, the ark of Christ (Mary) was not going to have the stain of sin or original sin, that would be a complete impossibility for the new Eve, because sin and God(Christ), cannot intermix, Christ also becoming fully human. Solo, sit down and ask your friend about this doctrine, because I believe you might be genuinely interested in the answer, unlike some. It took me quite a while to write the above ( I can understand now why most Catholics don't bother here, it really would lead to a full time job), and as I will only be online intermittently, I wont be responding for at least a few days, and I definitely won't be responding to any repeated misrepresentation of Catholic teaching or any misrepresentation of what I posted.
solodeogloria wrote: » Good evening! Thank you for your post. I thank you because I sense that this is an earnest, honest effort to engage. I appreciate that a lot. As for it being a full time job, we've all answered questions on varying topics. I've been more than happy to discuss and explain the hope that I have in Jesus. However - I think it's unfair to state that I've not discussed about Catholicism with my friend. We have discussed and disagreed. However it is good to use examples of things that raise the issue to us particularly. I think it is fair to explain that that was a springboard to my feeling that the Reformation needs to continue and it's work isn't done. As for Anglo-Catholicism admittedly I'm very low church and not the greatest fan of it in the world. Just claiming that it happens within Anglicanism doesn't mean that it is right. Moreover it wasn't a feature really until the 19th century. The short answer is I'm more on the Reformed side of the church. Why is answering questions such an ordeal? Surely we should share with one another? Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ, solodeogloria
Matt Markinson wrote: » As for the Anglican Anglo-Catholicism practices I do know that knowingly making the same false allegations and misrepresentations against it would not be tolerated in Anglicanism and soon seen and put to bed for what they are, yet some think, for whatever agenda, it's ok to do it with Catholicism. (not accusing you btw)
hinault wrote: » This example illustrates the utter waste of time exchanging views with non-Catholics here.
solodeogloria wrote: » Good morning! I would actively criticise any of those things in any church I saw them in. I'm very critical of lots of things in my own denomination. I don't think these allegations are false though. Particularly those about the Immaculate Conception and praying to saints and purgatory being unbiblical. I recognise that my original point was strongly stated but it was strongly stated to get discussion going. Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ, solodeogloria
Matt Markinson wrote: » You could start off by educating yourself about what Anglican Anglo-Catholicism actually teaches about Mariology and why.
solodeogloria wrote: » Good morning! I'm aware of the differing theological positions in my denomination. I'm not obliged to agree with it.
solodeogloria wrote: » There is no official dogma of the CofE on churchmanship. The 39 Articles of Religion is the closest we get. Even still the teachings of the CofE do not supersede the Bible. The Articles themselves secure a sola scriptura position. No man should be able to profess man made teaching as infallible doctrine.
solodeogloria wrote: » It is simply honest to say that I find praying to saints or to Mary ghastly and out of place Biblically speaking.
solodeogloria wrote: » If we can't have an honest conversation about this here where can we have it?
solodeogloria wrote: » I expect professing Catholics to be able to present their position themselves. You should know what your church holds to. I present my understanding from the Bible and that must be the playing ground in terms of what is apostolic.
hinault wrote: » I won't be exchanging further views with you on this topic.
Matt Markinson wrote: » I also reccomend reading what former Presbyterian and baptist minsters, have to say about Mary, what they thought the Catholic church taught and what it actually does, and how they overcame their own objections. I've pointed people genuinely interested in the truth in the right direction. Until anyone has researched to at least that level, it's a waste of my time and there's discussing it further.
hinault wrote: » An excellent point. I can recommend to the non-Catholics here to read Scott Hahn's book "Rome Sweet Home" Hahn was a convinced presbyterian. Hahn was a scholar, minister and preacher. Hahn tells how the majority of the sermons given in his church when he was growing up were not extolling the "virtues" of prebyterianism, but were in fact all about criticising the Catholic Church. In that culture his convinced presbyterianism was in large measure anti-Catholic. Because of his scholarly pursuits and his intellectual curiosity, he accepted the offer of books cleared from a Catholic parochial house in his locality. The textbooks were ancient and had been used in the formation of priests. Hahn began reading the books in his spare time and it struck him that the narrative about the Catholic Church that he had been brought up and lectured about, was at the very least inaccurate when compared to the texts that he was reading. At practically every point what he had been led to believe was challenged by what these text books saying. Hahn's intellectual interest was spiked this led him to investigate more and more what Catholicism was about. He engaged in cross analysis - he took the textbooks and cross referenced them to the Bible. He took papal encyclicals and cross referenced them to the Bible. Hahn began to realise that everything written in the textbooks and the encyclical could be predicated upon what the Bible said. He then began asking questions of his fellow presbyterian ministers and he quickly realised that their answers were not as well justified by Scripture as the answers supplied in the encyclicals and Catholic textbooks. This was very painful to Hahn because the presbyterians he was asking questions of had been colleagues, teachers and scholars - friends! Hahn was concerned that as he moved more toward the Catholic faith that many of friends would turn their backs on him because he had begun to doubt presbyterianism and had begun to embrace Catholicism. Hahn says in his book that the Mass and Mary were two of the most difficult topics for him, a convicted presbyterian scholar, to accept and understand. I'd strongly recommend that several people here read Hahn's book.
Leroy42 wrote: » So in short, you think that he did a good thing by questioning the faith preached to him, by opening up to other interpretations he was led down a different path. Yet you seem to think that questions from others is a waste of time! you still haven't answered the question raised by your statement that Mary was without sin, as otherwise Jesus, being God and so without sin, couldn't have been borne to her and the logical following from that that her parents, and their parents, and their parents etc etc would then also need to be sinless. And why would Mary not get the original sin like every other person in the world?
