To Pope or Not to Pope?

HornsWin

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Dec 13, 2013
6,532
9,180
0
I appreciate your youthful enthusiasm, but even you can see you joined a very corrupt team. Yet you agree with a man who called the Reformation evil.

Your request was for us to post verses supporting the Trinity. That’s beyond baffling.
No no no, not to post verses supporting the Trinity. I know they are there. Sola scriptura stipulates that scripture alone is all that's needed. Verses to support require man's ability to reason them out. That's the whole crux of the Catholic/Protestant divide on the issue - scripture alone versus scripture+reason.

And also no, I didn't join a corrupt team. I joined a team populated by humans who, last time I checked, were sinners and thus liable for corruption. I know that may sound like splitting hairs, but if we're going to blame institutions and the things they stand for for the actions of those who run them, then Protestants are no better off. Three words - Westboro Baptist Church. Granted, they're an outlier, but they are still Protestant. I wouldn't ever make the sincere suggestion, though, that they represent in any way, shape, or form the Protestant structure of belief. That same principle applies to secular civic engagement, too. And if we really want to avoid moral stain by associating however distantly with corrupt men and women, then we should probably avoid buying anything made in a factory, particularly factories in China, where working conditions are generously described as hellish.

Or, we can all look past our prejudices and consider that not every single choice made by a person is a reflection upon each and every professional, personal, or religious association in their lives, particularly when those choices are carried out by the slimmest of minorities (0.01% of the priesthood).
 

Shane3

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Feb 17, 2015
13,950
4,268
0
I don't want to worship a God who tells his people to peace out.
Perhaps I’m misunderstanding your point again.

John chapter 20.

Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord.

21 So Jesus said to them again, “Peace to you!
 
  • Like
Reactions: HornsWin

HornsWin

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Dec 13, 2013
6,532
9,180
0
-1-To my Protestant brothers like @Halas, I would respectfully caution against being reactionary or becoming defensive in these kinds of discussions. I disagree with a lot of what @HornsWin has to say on this thread, but he seems to be coming from a sincere and non-adversarial place. He recognizes that we are his brothers in Christ, and that's what matters most.

-2-To @HornsWin, I commend you for taking your faith seriously enough to have studied and informed yourself on some of these historical Church issues. However, taking your comments about "tradition" as a whole, I'm intrigued by your proposition that the Roman Catholic Church most closely resembles the early Church.

-3-Let's be honest, your average Catholic church and parish looks almost nothing like the realities of the Church in the 1st and 2nd Centuries. There were no fancy buildings or sanctuaries, no ornate sacraments or relics, no formal hierarchy. Instead, they were "house churches," like modern day Believers inhabit in places where Christianity is unentrenched, if not outright outlawed.

-4-Now, I recognize and acknowledge that what I just said holds true for many, if not most, Protestant churches, too. So, I'm not claiming that modern Protestants have it "right" (or that any one denomination is even capable of having it "right"). I just don't accept the argument that the Roman Catholic Church's organization is somehow more faithful to the early Church.

-5-I also don't accept the notion that confession to a priest is necessary for forgiveness of or sanctification from sin. 1 John 1 says nothing about needing an intermediary to receive God's forgiveness or to be cleansed of unrighteousness. In fact, Romans 8 tells us that the Holy Spirit intercedes for us in prayer.

-6-My biggest problem with the Roman Catholic Church is that its hierarchical structure and insistence on heavy-handed authoritarianism inherently subjects it to misappropriation by our sin nature. We repeatedly see this exemplified in the Church's history, going back as far as the Crusades and the sale of indulgences or as recently as the widespread sexual abuse and Pope Francis' moral relativism.

-7-To avoid being hypocritical, we've seen these kinds of failures in Protestant churches, too, including heresies, the evils of televangelism, materialism, and our own rash of sexual improprieties.

-8-People are sinful, and any organization that elevates people to positions of authority while insulating them from accountability is eventually doomed to stumble and fall.

-9-I don't base my faith in a Pope, a parish priest, or the clergy at my Protestant church. They are humans, like me, imperfect, like me, and therefore no closer to God than me. I nonetheless recognize that God has placed them in a position of spiritual authority to impart Scriptural wisdom and to serve the needs of our body of Believers.

Ultimately, I'm enjoying the discussion. Thank you.
So, PFD, I will take your points in order that you present them and will keep them simple for the sake of avoiding proving exactly how little I know about any of this. I know a lot, comparatively, but I still know very, very little. My numbers correspond with the numbers I put next to each of your paragraphs.

1: @Halas was being reactionary, but it's a passionable topic so who can fault him? He believes strongly what he believes, just like me. Gas, meet flame. No hard feelings.

2 and 3: These are basically one thought. Earlier in this thread, I laid out a very basic scriptural rationale, without any adjoining explanation, for the Catholic belief that tradition, i.e., the magesterium, is an integral part in one's coming to faith, and growing and developing therein, and, by extension, their salvation, since salvation does not come without genuine faith. Tradition, simple put, is the way the particular tradition has always operated. In this way, Protestants believe in tradition too, just not in Catholic tradition. What tradition doesn't explicitly and solely mean is all the pomp and presentation - the vestments, the shiny golden crosses, the soaring cathedrals. Those are developments, and they have been around long enough to be thought of as "traditional", but they are not the tradition being referred to. What is referred to by tradition is doctrine and its exercise, e.g., the Eucharist, the importance of teaching and of the hierarchy (which itself comes from scripture as it has always been taught.

Now, you said, "there was no formal hierarchy." Well, not at first, that was a development, but we see the hierarchy beginning to form even while Christ was alive in the flesh. He had Apostles, and he had disciples. After the Ascension, the Apostles appointed presbyters and deacons and so on. But it was the Apostles who headed things up. So, while the terminology developed over time, the hierarchy began developing almost immediately, which makes perfect sense because God-Christ-Holy Spirit is the God who brings order to chaos. The very first thing that happens is God brings order to the void. Everything from that point on is God bringing order to chaos. Why, then, would he leave his Church to be so atomized and individualized, particularly if Christ's high priestly prayer was for unification?

Coming back to your point, I do agree (as I just said) tradition is not all the ceremonial things. It is the foundation that the Church is built on. The rest are just stones, but those all developed as signs of reverence for the God of Creation. That is one thing that one hears even among Protestants, that they wish there was a greater sense of reverence. I never understood how someone could wear flip flops to worship. Sorry, tangent.

4: The Catholic Church's organization is more faithful if for one single reason, which is its unification and uniformity. Order and unity are the crux of the issue. It's what ties the Catholic ("Universal") Church together, just as it is what Protestants so vehemently disagree with. I've yet to read or hear a cogent Protestant defense of the disunity of Protestantism.

5: This is a more involved issue than I want to go into right now. It's a reasonable point of skepticism to hold, though.

6-8: A fair criticism, but let me ask you this: is the problem the hierarchical structure, or the people therein? Can you think of any other power structure, even ones that are less authoritarian than the Church's, in which its leaders misappropriate the power they have for corrupt and selfish ends? To suggest that this is something that is somehow unique to the Church is unfair, and if you're going to hold that as a reason not to follow the Church, then it must be held as a reason not to follow any other institution guilty of the same thing, but that is a slippery slope.

To be perfectly fair, and to minimize my bias (and I think you'll agree here) - it isn't the Church (mystical body of Christ) that is responsible for this, but the Church (governmental institution). That may sound like splitting hairs, but it is a very real distinction. The Vatican is a government, and it behaves like all governments do. That is obviously problematic for numerous reasons, but please do not conflate the actions of the government Church with the foundations and beliefs of the mystical body of Christ Church. Does that makes sense, at least philosophically?

That's about all I can say. I have a tendancy to run my mouth. I hope I didn't do that here.
 

cincomom

Member Who Talks
Nov 23, 2016
171
374
0
HornsWin said :"Sola scriptura stipulates that scripture alone is all that's needed. Verses to support require man's ability to reason them out. That's the whole crux of the Catholic/Protestant divide on the issue - scripture alone versus scripture+reason. "

Westminster Confession, Ch. 1, states: “The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequences may be deduced from Scripture...” You are continually attacking a strawman., made up of wisps of anabaptist and radical fringe theologies, not classic Protestantism.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 40A

HornsWin

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Dec 13, 2013
6,532
9,180
0
HornsWin said :"Sola scriptura stipulates that scripture alone is all that's needed. Verses to support require man's ability to reason them out. That's the whole crux of the Catholic/Protestant divide on the issue - scripture alone versus scripture+reason. "

Westminster Confession, Ch. 1, states: “The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequences may be deduced from Scripture...” You are continually attacking a strawman., made up of wisps of anabaptist and radical fringe theologies, not classic Protestantism.
It seems from what you posted that the strawman is sola scriptura itself, though I am still left to wonder how people came to faith when the scriptures were only taught, and not accessible. The only reasonable answer is that people came to faith by believing that their teachers were teaching them correctly. Unless you have a better explanation.
 

cincomom

Member Who Talks
Nov 23, 2016
171
374
0
It seems from what you posted that the strawman is sola scriptura itself, though I am still left to wonder how people came to faith when the scriptures were only taught, and not accessible. The only reasonable answer is that people came to faith by believing that their teachers were teaching them correctly. Unless you have a better explanation.
Yeah I can teach my 4 year old the Bible before they can read, but that doesn't mean it needs to stop there. Mentally disabled people can have a beautiful faith, but if God gives a person the capacity for further understanding, he expects them to study and grow. I don't understand this line of reasoning at all. Protestants listen to preachers expound the Word every week. The Bible tells us to do that. The Holy Spirit works through teachers, preachers, and our own reading. Why is this so hard?

We have some responsibility for our own growth and sanctification. We don't get to just be spoonfed every now and then. When the church forbade the Scriptures being translated into the common languages of the time, why did they do that? Same reason the old pagan mystery religions did - ignorance and secretiveness were job security.

ETA: "Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true".

That's sola scriptura. I listen to good teachers, and learn from and respect them, but I don't just take their word for it.
 
Last edited:

HornsWin

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Dec 13, 2013
6,532
9,180
0
Yeah I can teach my 4 year old the Bible before they can read, but that doesn't mean it needs to stop there. Mentally disabled people can have a beautiful faith, but if God gives a person the capacity for further understanding, he expects them to study and grow. I don't understand this line of reasoning at all. Protestants listen to preachers expound the Word every week. The Bible tells us to do that. The Holy Spirit works through teachers, preachers, and our own reading. Why is this so hard?

We have some responsibility for our own growth on sanctification. We don't get to just be spoonfed every now and then. When the church forbade the Scriptures being translated into the common languages of the time, why did they do that? Same reason the old pagan mystery religions did - ignorance and secretiveness were job security.
Try to understand. For 400 years what were considered the scriptures were scattered and confused in their authority. They had to be compiled in order for the early Church to know de facto what constituted the orthodox faith. For another 1100 years, before the printing press, the Bible was a privilege to own. The supervast majority of those who professed the faith still had no access to the scriptures to study. Their coming to faith, and any faith development that occurred came only through being taught by their priests. So, it is 2018 today, which means for roughly 75% of the history of the Christian faith, the scriptures were not available to the faithful en masse. This is a major knock against sola scriptura, since they only recently became available, relatively speaking. Sola fides is fine, but for a very long time faith came from the scriptures only by way of teaching, i.e., tradition.

What I find interesting is how to you, every single thing the Church did before October 31st, 1517 was categorically wrong and corrupt. Have you stopped to consider that perhaps the Church didn't translate the bible into common languages because prior to the printing press it had to be written out by hand? As I just pointed out, the Bible wasn't always that book that sits on your bookshelf from Sunday at noon through Sunday at 8am. For a very long time, they were few and far between. That is why for ages they were chained and bound, because they were so valuable that if one were stolen it would take a very long time and a lot of money to get another.

But no. No, history and logic have no place here. The Catholic Church is just straight corrupt. Always has been. One of my favorite quotes comes from John Henry Cardinal Newman, an Anglican Priest of the Cambridge school turned Catholic Cardinal. He once said, "To be deep into history is to cease to be Protestant." In other words, you guys ignore history - verifiable history - in order to prop up your own anti-Catholic beliefs. To acknowledge history as it actually happened would be to acknowledge that the Catholic Church is legitimate and good.
 

HornsWin

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Dec 13, 2013
6,532
9,180
0
ETA: "Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true".

That's sola scriptura. I listen to good teachers, and learn from and respect them, but I don't just take their word for it.
I believe @40A would have something to say against your using a single verse to prove your point. At least, he did when I did it. Maybe different rules apply here.

Second, they were Berean Jews. What scriptures do you think they were examining? Obviously not Acts. Probably not the Gospels, since those were not written down yet. Neither were really any of the epistles. The scriptures they were examining were the Old Testament scriptures. But they didn't come to faith in Christ just by reading the scriptures, did they? They came to faith in Christ by reading the scriptures and lining them up with what they had been taught. So again, scripture is not acting alone, but scripture (tradition)+reason. But don't take my word for it. Here is a Protestant site: https://www.gotquestions.org/who-Bereans.html - pay particular attention to the fourth point the article makes.
 

cincomom

Member Who Talks
Nov 23, 2016
171
374
0
I believe @40A would have something to say against your using a single verse to prove your point. At least, he did when I did it. Maybe different rules apply here.

Second, they were Berean Jews. What scriptures do you think they were examining? Obviously not Acts. Probably not the Gospels, since those were not written down yet. Neither were really any of the epistles. The scriptures they were examining were the Old Testament scriptures. But they didn't come to faith in Christ just by reading the scriptures, did they? They came to faith in Christ by reading the scriptures and lining them up with what they had been taught. So again, scripture is not acting alone, but scripture (tradition)+reason. But don't take my word for it. Here is a Protestant site: https://www.gotquestions.org/who-Bereans.html - pay particular attention to the fourth point the article makes.
I was not quoting one verse to build an entire case. It was an example. Look even Catholics, who get their doctrine supposedly straight from the top, have their differences and even heretics floating around. What percentage are trad, for instance? (I'd be trad if I were Catholic fwiw). Protestants have their share of sliding scale differences and heretics floating floating around, naturally. I think we've reached an impasse, as I dont think we're defining terms the same way, or something. I feel like we're having two different conversations.
I believe @40A would have something to say against your using a single verse to prove your point. At least, he did when I did it. Maybe different rules apply here.

Second, they were Berean Jews. What scriptures do you think they were examining? Obviously not Acts. Probably not the Gospels, since those were not written down yet. Neither were really any of the epistles. The scriptures they were examining were the Old Testament scriptures. But they didn't come to faith in Christ just by reading the scriptures, did they? They came to faith in Christ by reading the scriptures and lining them up with what they had been taught. So again, scripture is not acting alone, but scripture (tradition)+reason. But don't take my word for it. Here is a Protestant site: https://www.gotquestions.org/who-Bereans.html - pay particular attention to the fourth point the article makes.
 

cincomom

Member Who Talks
Nov 23, 2016
171
374
0
Just one more thing:
"What I find interesting is how to you, every single thing the Church did before October 31st, 1517 was categorically wrong andcorrupt.Have you stopped to considerthatperhaps the Church didn't translate the bible into common languages because prior to the printing press it had to be written out by hand? As I just pointedout, the Bible wasn't always that book that sits on your bookshelf from Sunday at noon through Sunday at 8am. For a very long time, they were few and far between. That is why for ages they were chained and bound, because they were so valuable that if one were stolen it would take a very long time and a lot ofmoney to get another."

1) I emphatically DON'T believe the church was categorically wrong and corrupt. It was the church, warts and all. Too bad she wouldn't allow them to be removed,and rather chose to kill, or try to, the doctor sent to help (Huss, Luther, Tyndale, whoever you like here).

2) The church not only didn't translate the Bible, they actively persecuted those who did. Are you really making the argument that "Bibles were so rare and valuable that we shouldn't allow anymore to be made"? Tyndale and others were executed over this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PFD and jamesrh

HornsWin

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Dec 13, 2013
6,532
9,180
0
Just one more thing:
"What I find interesting is how to you, every single thing the Church did before October 31st, 1517 was categorically wrong andcorrupt.Have you stopped to considerthatperhaps the Church didn't translate the bible into common languages because prior to the printing press it had to be written out by hand? As I just pointedout, the Bible wasn't always that book that sits on your bookshelf from Sunday at noon through Sunday at 8am. For a very long time, they were few and far between. That is why for ages they were chained and bound, because they were so valuable that if one were stolen it would take a very long time and a lot ofmoney to get another."

1) I emphatically DON'T believe the church was categorically wrong and corrupt. It was the church, warts and all. Too bad she wouldn't allow them to be removed,and rather chose to kill, or try to, the doctor sent to help (Huss, Luther, Tyndale, whoever you like here).

2) The church not only didn't translate the Bible, they actively persecuted those who did. Are you really making the argument that "Bibles were so rare and valuable that we shouldn't allow anymore to be made"? Tyndale and others were executed over this.
Foiled. That's exactly what I was arguing, clearly. After all I have said about the value of the Bible, it's importance and authority, yes, I was very clearly arguing that the Church should have actively suppressed any and all reproduction of the Bible. Yep, that's it.
 

HornsWin

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Dec 13, 2013
6,532
9,180
0
Just for fun, here is the Hail Mary:
"Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou amongst women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now and in the hour of our death."

And here is the abridged exchange between the Archangel Gabriel and Mary, and later between Mary and her cousin Elizabeth (mother of John the Baptist):
"The angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city in Galilee named Nazareth to a virgin betrothed to a man named Joseph, of the house of David. And the virgin's name was Mary. And he came to her and said, 'Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee!'... Do not be afraid, for you have found favor with God." ... "And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit, and she exclaimed with a loud voice, 'Blessed is the fruit of thy womb. And why is this granted to me that the mother of my Lord should come to me?'... Blessed art thou that hast believed, because those things shall be accomplished that were spoken to thee by the Lord."

And then from the Magnificat:
"For behold, from now on all generations will call me blessed."

We've been debating, among other things, the traditions of man vs. sacred traditions. Here is a tradition instituted by God, announced by the Archangel Gabriel, and laid out in scripture, which we all believe is the infallible word of God. Do we really want to call this a tradition of man? Or are some scriptures more infallible than others?
 
Last edited:

cincomom

Member Who Talks
Nov 23, 2016
171
374
0
Just for fun, here is the Hail Mary:
"Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou amongst women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now and in the hour of our death."

And here is the abridged exchange between the Archangel Gabriel and Mary, and later between Mary and her cousin Elizabeth (mother of John the Baptist):
"The angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city in Galilee named Nazareth to a virgin betrothed to a man named Joseph, of the house of David. And the virgin's name was Mary. And he came to her and said, 'Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee!'... Do not be afraid, for you have found favor with God." ... "And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit, and she exclaimed with a loud voice, 'Blessed is the fruit of thy womb. And why is this granted to me that the mother of my Lord should come to me?'... Blessed art thou that hast believed, because those things shall be accomplished that were spoken to thee by the Lord."

And then from the Magnificat:
"For behold, from now on all generations will call me blessed."

We've been debating, among other things, the traditions of man vs. sacred traditions. Here is a tradition instituted by God, announced by the Archangel Gabriel, and laid out in scripture, which we all believe is the infallible word of God. Do we really want to call this a tradition of man? Or are some scriptures more infallible than others?
she

I call her blessed, and have no doubt that the fruit of her womb was exceedingly so. I am not sure why that means she should have the title of Co-Redemptrix or Queen of Heaven. Nor do I see where it is biblical that her mother immaculately conceived her. It's never the starting point with y'all that's the problem, it's where you end up. Mary (and the church) is the new Eve who crushes the serpent's head through childbearing. Stuff like this is unwarranted: "For after being assumed into heaven, she has not put aside this saving function, but by her manifold intercession, she continues to win the gifts of eternal salvation for us. By her motherly love, she takes care of the brothers of her Son who are still in pilgrimage and in dangers and difficulties, until they be led through to the happy fatherland. For this reason, the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Auxiliatrix, Adiutrix, and Mediatrix. "
 
  • Like
Reactions: 40A

HornsWin

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Dec 13, 2013
6,532
9,180
0
Nor do I see where it is biblical that her mother immaculately conceived her.
It isn't biblical that her mother immaculately concieved her, because she didn't. This is actually the really cool part of Mariology. I wish I could draw this as a picture, but I can't so stay with me. This is Mariology 101 (remedial).

In order for God to take on human flesh, he had to be born as a human, from a human. But God is divine and perfect, so in order for him to be born without the stain of original sin he had to be born from someone who was herself without sin. This is what the angel means when he says, "Hail full of grace." From the beginning, God chose Mary to be the mother of God, and so gave her the very special grace of being born without the stain of original sin. In a sense, Jesus chose Mary to be his mother. After all, if Jesus were born of an imperfect human, he would have a component of imperfect upon him. This is why he was conceived in the (perfect) womb by God. So doing, he was fully divine and fully human - Divine from his being a part of the Trinity, and human from his being born of a woman.

Outflowing from this is a simple reality, assuming one understands and believes what I just laid out above: being set apart in such a way as Mary does not happen. It was the most special grace ever given. As such, it seems reasonable that she should be accorded special honor among the faithful.

As for the Queen of Heaven, that is actually pretty simple. She is the Theotokos, the Mother of God, not in the sense that God only exists because of her, but rather because she was the vessel by which God chose to enter physically into the world. If Christ is the King, then Mary, his mother, is the Queen Mother, and being the Queen Mother of God would be a very high honor indeed.

As for the "Co-Redemptrix" thing, that is an idea held by some Catholics - many, perhaps - but it is not the official belief of the Church and is not included in Marian doctrine. She is viewed as a mediatrix - a mediator. This is a much better explanation than I can offer: https://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/marya4.htm
 

HornsWin

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Dec 13, 2013
6,532
9,180
0
Yes, I understand the Catholic rationale behind it all. I just don't see why any of it is anything other than "believe this because we say so." RCC has gone way beyond what is even hinted at in the scriptures.
...

"Believe the scriptures. They are the inerrant word of God."

I provide scriptural support for a Catholic belief.

"Well, I just don't see why or how you believe that."

  • I'm curious what you think it means when an angel, and not just any angel but Gabriel, God's personal messenger, greets one person and says they are full of grace. Its a general rule of reading scripture that when an angel shows up, something important is happening.
  • According to scripture, what do you think grace is?
  • What does it mean when some is "full of grace"?
  • Was anyone else in scripture greeted by such a figure in such a way?
  • Is anyone else in scripture afforded such an honor as carrying the physical embodiment of the living God (hint: no, but think about the Ark of the Covenant - what it was, what it carried, what its function was for the nation of Israel).
  • If all scripture is God-breathed, then Mary's declaration that "from now on all generations will call me blessed" must mean something of particular importance. How do you interpret that particular claim?
  • Does anyone else in scripture make a similar claim to Mary's regarding being called blessed by all generations?
 

Duke Silver

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 29, 2008
49,767
43,990
0
"Unlike Protestants, who believe with increasing popularity in the idea that the Holy Spirit stopped engaging with mankind after the Apostolic era..."

Even frozen chosen very non-charismatic Christians like myself dont believe that. Where are you getting this?
You know you can quote people with the button?
 
  • Like
Reactions: HornsWin

scout3dave

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 29, 2008
8,291
2,825
0
Just for fun, here is the Hail Mary:
"Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou amongst women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now and in the hour of our death."

And here is the abridged exchange between the Archangel Gabriel and Mary, and later between Mary and her cousin Elizabeth (mother of John the Baptist):
"The angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city in Galilee named Nazareth to a virgin betrothed to a man named Joseph, of the house of David. And the virgin's name was Mary. And he came to her and said, 'Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee!'... Do not be afraid, for you have found favor with God." ... "And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit, and she exclaimed with a loud voice, 'Blessed is the fruit of thy womb. And why is this granted to me that the mother of my Lord should come to me?'... Blessed art thou that hast believed, because those things shall be accomplished that were spoken to thee by the Lord."

And then from the Magnificat:
"For behold, from now on all generations will call me blessed."

We've been debating, among other things, the traditions of man vs. sacred traditions. Here is a tradition instituted by God, announced by the Archangel Gabriel, and laid out in scripture, which we all believe is the infallible word of God. Do we really want to call this a tradition of man? Or are some scriptures more infallible than others?
Jesus taught us how to pray and it wasn’t through Mary. We celebrate Mary but she is not our intercessor, Jesus is. If you wish to pray to Mary to pray for you that is fine but it is your tradition not scripture.
 

cincomom

Member Who Talks
Nov 23, 2016
171
374
0
Yeah I've been doing this on my phone and it's being really glitchy. Keeps double posting or deleting.
 

HornsWin

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Dec 13, 2013
6,532
9,180
0
Jesus taught us how to pray and it wasn’t through Mary. We celebrate Mary but she is not our intercessor, Jesus is. If you wish to pray to Mary to pray for you that is fine but it is your tradition not scripture.
The Archangel Gabriel bring a message from Almighty God regarding Mary as "full of grace." Protestants know better, though. Maybe Gabriel got the message wrong. Maybe he meant, Hail, full of some grace, or, Hail, full of good feelings.

Or, maybe Gabriel delivered the message exactly as intended - Hail, full of grace.

Once again, if Jesus is your only intercessor, than I take you to mean that you never ask for prayer. Why would you, after all, if Jesus is your only intercessor? What could possibly be the point in asking non-intercessors for prayer? Ignore the snark, because that is an honest question. If Jesus is your only intercessor, then why should you ask others to pray for you? What will that accomplish over and above asking Christ alone?
 
Last edited:

cincomom

Member Who Talks
Nov 23, 2016
171
374
0
...

"Believe the scriptures. They are the inerrant word of God."

I provide scriptural support for a Catholic belief.

"Well, I just don't see why or how you believe that."

  • I'm curious what you think it means when an angel, and not just any angel but Gabriel, God's personal messenger, greets one person and says they are full of grace. Its a general rule of reading scripture that when an angel shows up, something important is happening.
  • According to scripture, what do you think grace is?
  • What does it mean when some is "full of grace"?
  • Was anyone else in scripture greeted by such a figure in such a way?
  • Is anyone else in scripture afforded such an honor as carrying the physical embodiment of the living God (hint: no, but think about the Ark of the Covenant - what it was, what it carried, what its function was for the nation of Israel).
  • If all scripture is God-breathed, then Mary's declaration that "from now on all generations will call me blessed" must mean something of particular importance. How do you interpret that particular claim?
  • Does anyone else in scripture make a similar claim to Mary's regarding being called blessed by all generations?
No, that is NOT what you are doing. What you are doing is finding a beautiful old oak tree (the scriptural account of Mary), deciding it isn't quite fancy enough, and adding silk flowers and other nonsense to gussy it up.

I've already repeatedly said that Mary was blessed above all women. What could possibly be more special than being told you will bear the Messiah/God in your womb?
 
  • Like
Reactions: PFD

HornsWin

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Dec 13, 2013
6,532
9,180
0
No, that is NOT what you are doing. What you are doing is finding a beautiful old oak tree (the scriptural account of Mary), deciding it isn't quite fancy enough, and adding silk flowers and other nonsense to gussy it up.

I've already repeatedly said that Mary was blessed above all women. What could possibly be more special than being told you will bear the Messiah/God in your womb?
Speaking of gussying things up, I notice that you critique my post without explaining how it is gussied up, and then proceed to avoid answering any of my questions. I've explained the way I view things, now I want to understand how and why you think differently.

Perhaps we can start with how you think I am supposed to use scripture to defend a position, or how my doing so is different than yours. My understanding has always been as follows:
  1. This is what I believe
  2. This is where that is found in scripture
But maybe I am missing a step.
 

cincomom

Member Who Talks
Nov 23, 2016
171
374
0
Speaking of gussying things up, I notice that you critique my post without explaining how it is gussied up, and then proceed to avoid answering any of my questions. I've explained the way I view things, now I want to understand how and why you think differently.

Perhaps we can start with how you think I am supposed to use scripture to defend a position, or how my doing so is different than yours. My understanding has always been as follows:
  1. This is what I believe
  2. This is where that is found in scripture
But maybe I am missing a step.
Well, I feel like you've done the same in reverse. I'm not sure there is anywhere else to go with it.
 

HornsWin

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Dec 13, 2013
6,532
9,180
0
Well, I feel like you've done the same in reverse. I'm not sure there is anywhere else to go with it.
Fine, we're doing the same things. So maybe you can answer just a few of the questions I posted a few posts ago. I've explained my position. Now I would kindly ask you to do the same. I know I am being a bit of an asshole (I have a sharp debating style - ask JG), but I do genuinely want to know what you believe, what you think, and why.
 

Duke Silver

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 29, 2008
49,767
43,990
0
At least one person has (...)

Also, yes, more than you might believe.
I have a friend who doesn’t believe he did. I’m agnostic on the idea but lean toward the fact that he did. Not many sources though.
 

HornsWin

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Dec 13, 2013
6,532
9,180
0
I have a friend who doesn’t believe he did. I’m agnostic on the idea but lean toward the fact that he did. Not many sources though.
The historicity of Christ is another topic entirely, but interestingly there are more historical documents to support him than a lot of historical figures that we take as a matter of historical fact beyond question, including quite a few of the Caesars (can't remember which exactly).

My doubts are less whether or not he existed, and more on whether he is who we believe, or whether what we believe about him is actually true. Doubt can be a healthy part of faith, but it can also destroy it entirely.
 

Duke Silver

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 29, 2008
49,767
43,990
0
there are more historical documents to support him than a lot of historical figures that we take as a matter of historical fact
Without knowing who you’re talking about I can’t say. Also, other historical figures don’t claim to be god.
 

HornsWin

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Dec 13, 2013
6,532
9,180
0
Without knowing who you’re talking about I can’t say. Also, other historical figures don’t claim to be god.
True, but with you I'm only talking about the historicity of Jesus whether or not a guy named Jesus of Nazareth, existed, not the claims to divinity that he made.

I'll see what I can dredge up to back up what I said above. Might take a while, but I know I've seen it.
 

Shane3

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Feb 17, 2015
13,950
4,268
0
And also no, I didn't join a corrupt team. I joined a team populated by humans who, last time I checked, were sinners and thus liable for corruption. I know that may sound like splitting hairs, but if we're going to blame institutions and the things they stand for for the actions of those who run them, then Protestants are no better off. Three words - Westboro Baptist Church. Granted, they're an outlier, but they are still Protestant.











I wouldn't ever make the sincere suggestion, though, that they represent in any way, shape, or form the Protestant structure of belief. That same principle applies to secular civic engagement, too. And if we really want to avoid moral stain by associating however distantly with corrupt men and women, then we should probably avoid buying anything made in a factory, particularly factories in China, where working conditions are generously described as hellish.

Or, we can all look past our prejudices and consider that not every single choice made by a person is a reflection upon each and every professional, personal, or religious association in their lives, particularly when those choices are carried out by the slimmest of minorities (0.01% of the priesthood).
Do you see what you did? You just played JG’s “but Trump” card. :)

Yes. There is corruption in some Protestant groups as well. That’s one reason why I attend and appreciate non-denominational churches.

If I claimed that US politics has been corrupted, you (and most posters here) would probably agree. The USA has only had 200+ years to get this bad. OTOH, the Catholic church has had almost 17 centuries to reach the massive bureaucracy they’re at now. Corruption is obvious even to people outside the church. You even admitted you’re not sure this current pope is a Christian. That would be similar to Americans having voted in Putin as our President.

I see you’re attracted to the claims of the Catholic church. I believe Jesus would give a strong rebuke to the outrageous behavior of some Catholic leaders, in the same way he condemned the behavior of many Jewish leaders of his time.
 

HornsWin

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Dec 13, 2013
6,532
9,180
0
Do you see what you did? You just played JG’s “but Trump” card. :)

Yes. There is corruption in some Protestant groups as well. That’s one reason why I attend and appreciate non-denominational churches.

If I claimed that US politics has been corrupted, you (and most posters here) would probably agree. The USA has only had 200+ years to get this bad. OTOH, the Catholic church has had almost 17 centuries to reach the massive bureaucracy they’re at now. Corruption is obvious even to people outside the church. You even admitted you’re not sure this current pope is a Christian. That would be similar to Americans having voted in Putin as our President.

I see you’re attracted to the claims of the Catholic church. I believe Jesus would give a strong rebuke to the outrageous behavior of some Catholic leaders, in the same way he condemned the behavior of many Jewish leaders of his time.
Correction, the Catholic Church has existed for 2000 years, since Jesus gave to Peter the keys of the kingdom.

That would not be similar at all to Americans voting in Putin as president, because Catholics as a whole have no vote in papal elections.

I believe Jesus would have strong condemnations for everyone, regardless of which religion or denomination they belong to. Condemnations for me, and for you, and for Russell Moore and for Jorge Bergoglio.

Are you suggesting that non-denom churches are free from corruption?