Question for Protestants

24,287 Views | 531 Replies | Last: 29 days ago by dermdoc
dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
10andBOUNCE said:

dermdoc said:

10andBOUNCE said:

dermdoc said:

10andBOUNCE said:

PabloSerna said:

You should realize that the RCC believes that many practicing Jews, Muslims, and people of good will are counted among the people in heaven.

Said no verse ever
Romans 11:26

All Israel shall be saved

And this is also stated in Isaiah 45:17
Isaiah 59:20
Jeremiah 31:1
Jeremiah 31:37
Joel 2:32

God does not forget His chosen people.


A practicing Muslim or Jew is not part of God's chosen people.
Was Joseph of Arimethea a practicing Jew?

Were the apostles practicing Jews?

Was Christ a practicing Jew?

The veil was torn while Christ was on the cross
To me, that signifies that Christ's sacrifice opened our access to God.

Not sure what that has to do with "All Israel shall be saved" except it means every person has the ability through Christ's sacrifice to be right with God.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
The Banned
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Catag94 said:

Call Mary "Holy" if you like. My question is this: What does this do to further God's kingdom and what part does it play in serving the one true God?

It seems to me that Jesus is where our focus should be.
The Marion doctrines of the RCC distract more from the gospel and our one true intercessor, that is Jesus Christ, than they do to further God's glory or kingdom in my view.


As a Catholic, I get this. I don't have any particularly strong devotions to Mary or any saints. I've listened to Catholics who do and for them, that relation to that particular saints life and mission help them relate to Jesus more. I've listened to people who genuinely struggle with spontaneous prayer to God. It's a struggle for them, so going to a saint and asking them for prayers is a way to connect to God.
Catag94
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

Catag94 said:

Call Mary "Holy" if you like. My question is this: What does this do to further God's kingdom and what part does it play in serving the one true God?

It seems to me that Jesus is where our focus should be.
The Marion doctrines of the RCC distract more from the gospel and our one true intercessor, that is Jesus Christ, than they do to further God's glory or kingdom in my view.


Everything the Church teaches and practices when it comes to Mary points to, flows from and is intended to glorify her son.


But are the Marion doctrine necessary for that purpose? And did Jesus Himself teach the same?
PabloSerna
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Zobel said:




Quote:

Heretic, anathema, and excommunication are defined in our Canon Law which is applicable ONLY to the professed, baptize faithful of the Roman Catholic Church.

Quote:

You are, by professing your faith EO, in schism with the Catholic Church. That is all.

Quote:

Schism is a form of excommunication. They separated themselves when they professed the heresy of Arianism.


So I'm excommunicated, in schism, because of the heresy of not accepting papal supremacy…. Right?


I stand corrected. EO is not in schism since the joint 1965 declaration. Thanks for pointing that out.

+++

Here is the full document, worth reading:

Following is the text of the joint Catholic-Orthodox declaration, approved by Pope Paul VI and Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras I of Constantinople, read simultaneously (Dec. 7) at a public meeting of the ecumenical council in Rome and at a special ceremony in Istanbul. The declaration concerns the Catholic-Orthodox exchange of excommunications in 1054.

1. Grateful to God, who mercifully favored them with a fraternal meeting at those holy places where the mystery of salvation was accomplished through the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and where the Church was born through the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras I have not lost sight of the determination each then felt to omit nothing thereafter which charity might inspire and which could facilitate the development of the fraternal relations thus taken up between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church of Constantinople. They are persuaded that in acting this way, they are responding to the call of that divine grace which today is leading the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, as well as all Christians, to overcome their differences in order to be again "one" as the Lord Jesus asked of His Father for them.

2. Among the obstacles along the road of the development of these fraternal relations of confidence and esteem, there is the memory of the decisions, actions and painful incidents which in 1054 resulted in the sentence of excommunication leveled against the Patriarch Michael Cerularius and two other persons by the legate of the Roman See under the leadership of Cardinal Humbertus, legates who then became the object of a similar sentence pronounced by the patriarch and the Synod of Constantinople.

3. One cannot pretend that these events were not what they were during this very troubled period of history. Today, however, they have been judged more fairly and serenely. Thus it is important to recognize the excesses which accompanied them and later led to consequences which, insofar as we can judge, went much further than their authors had intended and foreseen. They had directed their censures against the persons concerned and not the Churches. These censures were not intended to break ecclesiastical communion between the Sees of Rome and Constantinople.

4. Since they are certain that they express the common desire for justice and the unanimous sentiment of charity which moves the faithful, and since they recall the command of the Lord: "If you are offering your gift at the altar, and there remember that your brethren has something against you, leave your gift before the altar and go first be reconciled to your brother" (Matt. 5:23-24), Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras I with his synod, in common agreement, declare that:

A. They regret the offensive words, the reproaches without foundation, and the reprehensible gestures which, on both sides, have marked or accompanied the sad events of this period.

B. They likewise regret and remove both from memory and from the midst of the Church the sentences of excommunication which followed these events, the memory of which has influenced actions up to our day and has hindered closer relations in charity; and they commit these excommunications to oblivion.

C. Finally, they deplore the preceding and later vexing events which, under the influence of various factorsamong which, lack of understanding and mutual trusteventually led to the effective rupture of ecclesiastical communion.

5. Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras I with his synod realize that this gesture of justice and mutual pardon is not sufficient to end both old and more recent differences between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church.

Through the action of the Holy Spirit those differences will be overcome through cleansing of hearts, through regret for historical wrongs, and through an efficacious determination to arrive at a common understanding and expression of the faith of the Apostles and its demands.

They hope, nevertheless, that this act will be pleasing to God, who is prompt to pardon us when we pardon each other. They hope that the whole Christian world, especially the entire Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church will appreciate this gesture as an expression of a sincere desire shared in common for reconciliation, and as an invitation to follow out in a spirit of trust, esteem and mutual charity the dialogue which, with Gods help, will lead to living together again, for the greater good of souls and the coming of the kingdom of God, in that full communion of faith, fraternal accord and sacramental life which existed among them during the first thousand years of the life of the Church.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
near as I can tell that is only for the excommunications of 1054. It doesn't end the schism.
Quo Vadis?
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Zobel said:

near as I can tell that is only for the excommunications of 1054. It doesn't end the schism.


There would be no need to lift excommunications for people who have already died. Excommunications are rehabilitative in nature, not punitive, so they expire at death
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I'm with you, they're saying those personal excommunications were bad. But we're not in communion and are still in schism.

I feel like there's an effort here to soften the reality of it. We're not in communion, we are in schism, which is a form of excommunication. The reason for that is each side understands the other to hold to various heresies. Is that correct or incorrect?
Quo Vadis?
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Zobel said:

I'm with you, they're saying those personal excommunications were bad. But we're not in communion and are still in schism.

I feel like there's an effort here to soften the reality of it. We're not in communion, we are in schism, which is a form of excommunication. The reason for that is each side understands the other to hold to various heresies. Is that correct or incorrect?


I say no. I don't think our disagreements rise to the level of heresy. I think there have been times that the Catholic Church overstated the authority of the Pope, and I think the Orthodox Church is just as guilty in choosing the statement of the church fathers who take more of a "primacy of Rome is honorary only" stance and ignoring all those that show it to be an actual definite primacy.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The heresy I'm talking about is the filioque. Yes yes, I know there are people who say it's just a linguistic issue but there are also saints of the Eastern church who flatly reject it (St Photios, St Mark of Ephesus, etc). We have formal synodical documents rejecting it. I don't see how we back off of that.

And again… I dunno how you back off the four anathemas related to the pope above. Those haven't be rescinded as dogmatic statements even if the anathema itself has.
FTACo88-FDT24dad
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Catag94 said:

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

Catag94 said:

Call Mary "Holy" if you like. My question is this: What does this do to further God's kingdom and what part does it play in serving the one true God?

It seems to me that Jesus is where our focus should be.
The Marion doctrines of the RCC distract more from the gospel and our one true intercessor, that is Jesus Christ, than they do to further God's glory or kingdom in my view.


Everything the Church teaches and practices when it comes to Mary points to, flows from and is intended to glorify her son.


But are the Marion doctrine necessary for that purpose? And did Jesus Himself teach the same?


Necessary? That's a good question. The marian dogmas are arguably necessary since they must be believed by all Catholics. But are they necessary for our salvation? I don't know the answer to that question with any certainty. I think the answer is more complex than a simple yes or no.

Questions for you:

Where in the Bible does Jesus teach that women should be allowed to participate in communion?

Where does Scripture teach that Scripture alone is our ultimate authority in matters of faith and morals?
FTACo88-FDT24dad
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Zobel said:

The heresy I'm talking about is the filioque. Yes yes, I know there are people who say it's just a linguistic issue but there are also saints of the Eastern church who flatly reject it (St Photios, St Mark of Ephesus, etc). We have formal synodical documents rejecting it. I don't see how we back off of that.

And again… I dunno how you back off the four anathemas related to the pope above. Those haven't be rescinded as dogmatic statements even if the anathema itself has.


Zobel, I'm not interested in a fruitless debate about the filoque, but I am curious about the ecclisiology of the Orthodox answer to the question insofar as what seems to be a lack of a singular authority who can speak for the "Orthodox" on the question of the filioque. For the sake of argument, if there's one patriarch who decides the apparent gap between Rome and the east can be bridged then is that not sufficient grounds for being able to overcome that issue, putting aside the overarching question of the Bishop of Rome's jurisdiction?

Please understand I am not trying to start a fight. Genuinely interested in understanding how you see this situation.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I don't think so. I mean any bishop does what he does, but we accept the ecumenical councils. I think it would take an ecumenical council - between Rome and the East.

But yeah if some Patriarch says, and the bishops follow then that church would be in communion with Rome.
FTACo88-FDT24dad
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Zobel said:

I don't think so. I mean any bishop does what he does, but we accept the ecumenical councils. I think it would take an ecumenical council - between Rome and the East.

But yeah if some Patriarch says, and the bishops follow then that church would be in communion with Rome.


Thanks!
Yukon Cornelius
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Curious if any of y'all have read some Sir Isaac Newton's writings?
Catag94
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

Catag94 said:

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

Catag94 said:

Call Mary "Holy" if you like. My question is this: What does this do to further God's kingdom and what part does it play in serving the one true God?

It seems to me that Jesus is where our focus should be.
The Marion doctrines of the RCC distract more from the gospel and our one true intercessor, that is Jesus Christ, than they do to further God's glory or kingdom in my view.


Everything the Church teaches and practices when it comes to Mary points to, flows from and is intended to glorify her son.


But are the Marion doctrine necessary for that purpose? And did Jesus Himself teach the same?


Necessary? That's a good question. The marian dogmas are arguably necessary since they must be believed by all Catholics. But are they necessary for our salvation? I don't know the answer to that question with any certainty. I think the answer is more complex than a simple yes or no.

Questions for you:

Where in the Bible does Jesus teach that women should be allowed to participate in communion?

Where does Scripture teach that Scripture alone is our ultimate authority in matters of faith and morals?




The Bible doesn't teach this specifically, but Jesus taught to love your god with all your heart, soul, mind and strength and to neighbor as yourself. He didn't limit that to men. He obviously taught women too. He also offered himself as a Holy sacrifice for all (not just men). So, to withhold holy communion from women would seem to be a violation of his teachings.

Further, Jesus gave all that was necessary to establish His church to his disciples. Despite their earthly inability to grasp much of His teachings while He was with them far too often, He sent the Holy Spirit to them at which time they had all they needed. What they did not have was thwarted Marian Doctrines that the RCC established officially some 18 centuries later. Certainly, Jesus and Gospels and the epistles of His disciples make clear what is required for Salvation and these doctrines are not mentioned. And, I believe we are expected to do the will of God in our lives. So earlier, I wasn't talking as much about salvation as I was doing God's will to further His kingdom and Glorify Him. I'm not even sure where the Marian Doctrines contribute to this. I'm not trying to be argumentative, but in my experience, the Marian Doctrines seem to direct the focus of many Catholics far too much (IMHO) on Mary and the result is not a closer relationship with Jesus. (I think you may know this, but I attend Catholic Mass weekly and have for 10 years as my wife is Catholic).

Again, for those who wish to see Mary this way and or believe in the Marian doctrines (required of the Roman Catholic faith) I don't take issue. I just think is peripheral to Gods covenant with and plan of salvation for His people.
Quo Vadis?
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Zobel said:

The heresy I'm talking about is the filioque. Yes yes, I know there are people who say it's just a linguistic issue but there are also saints of the Eastern church who flatly reject it (St Photios, St Mark of Ephesus, etc). We have formal synodical documents rejecting it. I don't see how we back off of that.

And again… I dunno how you back off the four anathemas related to the pope above. Those haven't be rescinded as dogmatic statements even if the anathema itself has.


The Filioque is a "you" issue not an "us", the eastern churches in communion with us that make up the "eastern Catholic Churches" don't use the Filioque and we have no problem with it.


FTACo88-FDT24dad
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Catag94 said:

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

Catag94 said:

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

Catag94 said:

Call Mary "Holy" if you like. My question is this: What does this do to further God's kingdom and what part does it play in serving the one true God?

It seems to me that Jesus is where our focus should be.
The Marion doctrines of the RCC distract more from the gospel and our one true intercessor, that is Jesus Christ, than they do to further God's glory or kingdom in my view.


Everything the Church teaches and practices when it comes to Mary points to, flows from and is intended to glorify her son.


But are the Marion doctrine necessary for that purpose? And did Jesus Himself teach the same?


Necessary? That's a good question. The marian dogmas are arguably necessary since they must be believed by all Catholics. But are they necessary for our salvation? I don't know the answer to that question with any certainty. I think the answer is more complex than a simple yes or no.

Questions for you:

Where in the Bible does Jesus teach that women should be allowed to participate in communion?

Where does Scripture teach that Scripture alone is our ultimate authority in matters of faith and morals?




The Bible doesn't teach this specifically, but Jesus taught to love your god with all your heart, soul, mind and strength and to neighbor as yourself. He didn't limit that to men. He obviously taught women too. He also offered himself as a Holy sacrifice for all (not just men). So, to withhold holy communion from women would seem to be a violation of his teachings.

Further, Jesus gave all that was necessary to establish His church to his disciples. Despite their earthly inability to grasp much of His teachings while He was with them far too often, He sent the Holy Spirit to them at which time they had all they needed. What they did not have was thwarted Marian Doctrines that the RCC established officially some 18 centuries later. Certainly, Jesus and Gospels and the epistles of His disciples make clear what is required for Salvation and these doctrines are not mentioned. And, I believe we are expected to do the will of God in our lives. So earlier, I wasn't talking as much about salvation as I was doing God's will to further His kingdom and Glorify Him. I'm not even sure where the Marian Doctrines contribute to this. I'm not trying to be argumentative, but in my experience, the Marian Doctrines seem to direct the focus of many Catholics far too much (IMHO) on Mary and the result is not a closer relationship with Jesus. (I think you may know this, but I attend Catholic Mass weekly and have for 10 years as my wife is Catholic).

Again, for those who wish to see Mary this way and or believe in the Marian doctrines (required of the Roman Catholic faith) I don't take issue. I just think is peripheral to Gods covenant with and plan of salvation for His people.


Fair. I'm just pointing out that there can be good faith disagreements about interpretation. So ultimately, we need a divinely protected interpretative authority.
Catag94
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I'd call that baptism of the Holy Spirit.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I know. There are issues on both sides.
The Banned
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Catag94 said:

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

Catag94 said:

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

Catag94 said:

Call Mary "Holy" if you like. My question is this: What does this do to further God's kingdom and what part does it play in serving the one true God?

It seems to me that Jesus is where our focus should be.
The Marion doctrines of the RCC distract more from the gospel and our one true intercessor, that is Jesus Christ, than they do to further God's glory or kingdom in my view.


Everything the Church teaches and practices when it comes to Mary points to, flows from and is intended to glorify her son.


But are the Marion doctrine necessary for that purpose? And did Jesus Himself teach the same?


Necessary? That's a good question. The marian dogmas are arguably necessary since they must be believed by all Catholics. But are they necessary for our salvation? I don't know the answer to that question with any certainty. I think the answer is more complex than a simple yes or no.

Questions for you:

Where in the Bible does Jesus teach that women should be allowed to participate in communion?

Where does Scripture teach that Scripture alone is our ultimate authority in matters of faith and morals?




The Bible doesn't teach this specifically, but Jesus taught to love your god with all your heart, soul, mind and strength and to neighbor as yourself. He didn't limit that to men. He obviously taught women too. He also offered himself as a Holy sacrifice for all (not just men). So, to withhold holy communion from women would seem to be a violation of his teachings.

Further, Jesus gave all that was necessary to establish His church to his disciples. Despite their earthly inability to grasp much of His teachings while He was with them far too often, He sent the Holy Spirit to them at which time they had all they needed. What they did not have was thwarted Marian Doctrines that the RCC established officially some 18 centuries later. Certainly, Jesus and Gospels and the epistles of His disciples make clear what is required for Salvation and these doctrines are not mentioned. And, I believe we are expected to do the will of God in our lives. So earlier, I wasn't talking as much about salvation as I was doing God's will to further His kingdom and Glorify Him. I'm not even sure where the Marian Doctrines contribute to this. I'm not trying to be argumentative, but in my experience, the Marian Doctrines seem to direct the focus of many Catholics far too much (IMHO) on Mary and the result is not a closer relationship with Jesus. (I think you may know this, but I attend Catholic Mass weekly and have for 10 years as my wife is Catholic).

Again, for those who wish to see Mary this way and or believe in the Marian doctrines (required of the Roman Catholic faith) I don't take issue. I just think is peripheral to Gods covenant with and plan of salvation for His people.


I would say in the life of the average Catholic, Marian conversations come up rarely. I know some who are truly devoted to the rosary, but one can live a fully Catholic life and not spend a ton of time thinking about it. I would say 95% of my time talking about Mary is with Protestants. It's a much bigger deal to the average Protestant than to the average Catholic.

Maybe I'm in the minority. Are there many Catholics that spend more of their time praying to Mary and the saints than to Jesus or the Father directly?
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Completely agree. The only reason this is an issue is because protestantism is defined by being not-Catholic, so this is an aspect of identity for them.
AgLiving06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
If Protestantism is defined by "not-Roman Catholic" than the EO are defined as "not the west."

The problem and the reason things like the Marian dogma's is that Protestants tend to take their doctrine serious.

When Rome claims something a dogma is an infallible truth what divinely revealed, we take that claim serious.

If there is ever to be unity, either Rome has to drop that claim or Protestants and the EO have to affirm it.

It's not some trivial issue that we can or should just brush over and if it is, then lets not call it dogma.

Quo Vadis?
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AgLiving06 said:

If Protestantism is defined by "not-Roman Catholic" than the EO are defined as "not the west."

The problem and the reason things like the Marian dogma's is that Protestants tend to take their doctrine serious.

When Rome claims something a dogma is an infallible truth what divinely revealed, we take that claim serious.

If there is ever to be unity, either Rome has to drop that claim or Protestants and the EO have to affirm it.

It's not some trivial issue that we can or should just brush over and if it is, then lets not call it dogma.




In my view the EO and Protestant similarities stop after "both had legitimate grievances". The EO managed a split, but didn't feel the need to warp revealed truth and further splinter into thousands of different denominations.

So much of the Protestant reformation looks, at least from the outside, like mangling church teaching solely for the purpose of "not looking Catholic". The Protestants weren't content to split and continue worshipping as they had less simony and other grievances; no, they had to completely shatter and raise a cacophony of wildly aberrant beliefs: Christ has actually already come back to earth, no one has anything to do with their own salvation, Mary wasn't a virgin, the Eucharist is merely a symbol, there's no need for confession through a priest, women can be bishops, etc etc"

All of these beliefs pulled out of thin air, all based (like all heresies) on a mangled personal interpretation of scripture.

I'm sure most Protestants are great people and love Christ, he is very easy to love and it is put in our heart to seek him, but man; their theology is absolutely whack, I see nothing redeeming in its practice.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

If Protestantism is defined by "not-Roman Catholic" than the EO are defined as "not the west."
sorry bud but we existed before Latin Christianity. The East is not defined by derivation or negation of Roman teaching.
AgLiving06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Zobel said:

Quote:

If Protestantism is defined by "not-Roman Catholic" than the EO are defined as "not the west."
sorry bud but we existed before Latin Christianity. The East is not defined by derivation or negation of Roman teaching.

Western Church predates the modern Roman Catholic Church.

PabloSerna
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I think you know this, but want to spin it a different way:

"The Pentarchy consisted of the five ancient patriarchates of the undivided Church of the first millennium of her history, including the Churches of Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem."

ETA: one of the titles of the Bishop of Rome is Patriarch of Rome.
PabloSerna
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
FYI- The Church in Rome is the same since its founding by St. Peter and St. Paul.
Catag94
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The Banned said:

Catag94 said:

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

Catag94 said:

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

Catag94 said:

Call Mary "Holy" if you like. My question is this: What does this do to further God's kingdom and what part does it play in serving the one true God?

It seems to me that Jesus is where our focus should be.
The Marion doctrines of the RCC distract more from the gospel and our one true intercessor, that is Jesus Christ, than they do to further God's glory or kingdom in my view.


Everything the Church teaches and practices when it comes to Mary points to, flows from and is intended to glorify her son.


But are the Marion doctrine necessary for that purpose? And did Jesus Himself teach the same?


Necessary? That's a good question. The marian dogmas are arguably necessary since they must be believed by all Catholics. But are they necessary for our salvation? I don't know the answer to that question with any certainty. I think the answer is more complex than a simple yes or no.

Questions for you:

Where in the Bible does Jesus teach that women should be allowed to participate in communion?

Where does Scripture teach that Scripture alone is our ultimate authority in matters of faith and morals?




The Bible doesn't teach this specifically, but Jesus taught to love your god with all your heart, soul, mind and strength and to neighbor as yourself. He didn't limit that to men. He obviously taught women too. He also offered himself as a Holy sacrifice for all (not just men). So, to withhold holy communion from women would seem to be a violation of his teachings.

Further, Jesus gave all that was necessary to establish His church to his disciples. Despite their earthly inability to grasp much of His teachings while He was with them far too often, He sent the Holy Spirit to them at which time they had all they needed. What they did not have was thwarted Marian Doctrines that the RCC established officially some 18 centuries later. Certainly, Jesus and Gospels and the epistles of His disciples make clear what is required for Salvation and these doctrines are not mentioned. And, I believe we are expected to do the will of God in our lives. So earlier, I wasn't talking as much about salvation as I was doing God's will to further His kingdom and Glorify Him. I'm not even sure where the Marian Doctrines contribute to this. I'm not trying to be argumentative, but in my experience, the Marian Doctrines seem to direct the focus of many Catholics far too much (IMHO) on Mary and the result is not a closer relationship with Jesus. (I think you may know this, but I attend Catholic Mass weekly and have for 10 years as my wife is Catholic).

Again, for those who wish to see Mary this way and or believe in the Marian doctrines (required of the Roman Catholic faith) I don't take issue. I just think is peripheral to Gods covenant with and plan of salvation for His people.


I would say in the life of the average Catholic, Marian conversations come up rarely. I know some who are truly devoted to the rosary, but one can live a fully Catholic life and not spend a ton of time thinking about it. I would say 95% of my time talking about Mary is with Protestants. It's a much bigger deal to the average Protestant than to the average Catholic.

Maybe I'm in the minority. Are there many Catholics that spend more of their time praying to Mary and the saints than to Jesus or the Father directly?



I tend to agree with you that, at least from my experience, most Catholics aren't having conversations about Mary/Marian Dogmas. However, also in my experience, it's because they sort of take them for granted because they have never contemplated these things other than how they were taught them I suspect. Nonetheless, Mary and prayers honor at least envoking Mary are quite common in normal faith life of Catholics.
Anyway, we are discussing it because the OP asked.

As far as theology, I'd suggest that there's a better chance man has muddied waters of Jesus' teaching to establish the church than there is otherwise. I say with respect to the early church, the RCC and EO, as well as all Protestants. I think the months and years follow Jesus ascension
Into Heaven, God, through the Holy Spirit, filled disciples and apostles was beginning and growing the church. I believe Jesus had taught His disciples all that was needed for his church and therefore. No evolution or doctrine nor addition of dogmas was ever needed. The more we can do God's work as the disciples did the better!
If I'm not mistaken, I'm pretty sure the Orthodox believe the same (that no new Dogma or Doctrine should be created) and they also believe they more closely resemble the early church than the RCC does.

As stated, my lovely wife is Catholic and I attend Mass with her weekly. There is so much I admire and respect and love about the Catholic Church. However, these Marian Dogmas are and hard stop for me so perhaps I'm more aligned with the EO.
I would suggest that I'm probably more closely aligned with them than I am Protestant at this point.

Great discussion, all.
Catag94
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
PabloSerna said:

FYI- The Church in Rome is the same since its founding by St. Peter and St. Paul.


Except those added Dogmas. I think the EO would argue they are more the same than the RCC.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

No evolution or doctrine nor addition of dogmas was ever needed.


I think I understand what you're saying and I think I agree, but it needs to be clarified. The faith exists, there was only one deposit. So dogma as such, is one static thing. But, dogmatic statements or doctrinal definitions arise in time to precisely express dogma as a defense of the faith against heresy. So we do, unfortunately, need these new doctrines and they do evolve, but like a tree from a seed as one saint says, and only reactively to define the ineffable against heresy.
AgLiving06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
PabloSerna said:

FYI- The Church in Rome is the same since its founding by St. Peter and St. Paul.

I know like Rome likes to tell itself this, but it's simply just not true.
Catag94
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
New question on the subject:

If you have: 1) been "Sealed with the Holy Spirit" (2 Cor 1:22), 2) the law of God written on your heart (HEB 10:16 etc), and 3) receive the Body of Christ in Holy communion, would you be considered Holy in the same why you think of Mary as Holy? Are you not also an arc? Why or why not?
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
No, not in the same way. Those saints in heaven are - as the scripture teaches - the spirits of the righteous made perfect, complete (achieved their end, their telos). We are not perfected yet.
Catag94
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I completely agree with that. But, was Mary seen as the holy Ark before she left this earth, even if in retrospect?
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Yes, she was holy as the Ark… set aside for a purpose, that's what holy means.

Was she perfected, at her end / telos? No… I don't think so. Like St Paul says what we will be has not been revealed. But that doesn't make her not holy.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.