Zone1 Question for the Catholics: is This True?

[hadit]

This isn't a discussion and you aren't just talking about it.

What is a discussion if not one person stating their beliefs and another stating theirs, hopefully with supporting facts? I believe that is what is happening.

It's you criticizing the dogmatic beliefs of a faith not your own as a means to rationalize yours.

I'm stating what I see in Scripture and asking how that squares with certain beliefs that others state.

You don't recognize the traditions established by the early church. We do. We believe they work in concert with scripture. The beliefs you are arguing over were established early on in the church by Christians who were much closer to the events than we were.

To make matters worse you ignore scripture that warns against arguing over foolish disputes such as 2 Timothy 2:23, 1 Timothy 1:4 and Titus 3:9 just to name a few.

Is it your contention that beliefs about Mary are foolish disputes? If so, okay, let's not discuss it and agree that we all stand equal before the cross and that no one is going to care what name was on the church door when we stand before the throne.

If we are to avoid foolish disputes, we have to acknowledge that what we're disputing is foolish. If it is your contention that arguing over Mary is foolish, okay, we won't argue over her.

I will, however, argue these points with someone who insists that salvation is found only in the Catholic Church and that those outside it are bound for destruction. And yes, there is at least one poster on here who makes that argument. It would be nice if you joined us in denouncing such things.

 

[ding]

What is a discussion if not one person stating their beliefs and another stating theirs, hopefully with supporting facts? I believe that is what is happening.

I'm stating what I see in Scripture and asking how that squares with certain beliefs that others state.

Is it your contention that beliefs about Mary are foolish disputes? If so, okay, let's not discuss it and agree that we all stand equal before the cross and that no one is going to care what name was on the church door when we stand before the throne.

If we are to avoid foolish disputes, we have to acknowledge that what we're disputing is foolish. If it is your contention that arguing over Mary is foolish, okay, we won't argue over her.

I will, however, argue these points with someone who insists that salvation is found only in the Catholic Church and that those outside it are bound for destruction. And yes, there is at least one poster on here who makes that argument. It would be nice if you joined us in denouncing such things.

I believe you are rationalizing your actions. This isn't the first time you questioned Catholic dogma. There's a pattern here.

Yes, I believe this is a foolish dispute. I've already explained why. Our beliefs are based upon scripture and tradition which work in concert. Your beliefs are based solely upon scripture.

As for your belief that there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church that is in conflict with the Church's teaching that no one knows their fate or the fate of others. Additionally, Early Christians used the term "catholic" to describe the Church as being spread throughout the whole world and open to everyone, not limited by nation or status. When creeds mention the "holy catholic church," they're affirming this universal nature—that the true Church includes believers from all backgrounds.

All have been redeemed. It's up to each individual person to accept that gift. This is true regardless of creed.

How is that for denouncing that belief?

 

[hadit]

I believe you are rationalizing your actions. This isn't the first time you questioned Catholic dogma. There's a pattern here.

Yes, I question a lot of Catholic dogma. That's not a secret.

Yes, I believe this is a foolish dispute. I've already explained why. Our beliefs are based upon scripture and tradition which work in concert. Your beliefs are based solely upon scripture.

Yes, because the Gospel has to be relevant and meaningful in all societies throughout all time. That's why adding to Scripture doesn't sit well with me.

As for your belief that there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church that is in conflict with the Church's teaching that no one knows their fate or the fate of others.

That is not my belief. That is the belief of a Catholic on this board, who argues vehemently that salvation is found only in the Catholic Church and who posts things that supposedly come from the church to support it.

Additionally, Early Christians used the term "catholic" to describe the Church as being spread throughout the whole world and open to everyone, not limited by nation or status. When creeds mention the "holy catholic church," they're affirming this universal nature—that the true Church includes believers from all backgrounds.

All have been redeemed. It's up to each individual person to accept that gift. This is true regardless of creed.

How is that for denouncing that belief?

That's great, and I agree. I just wish all Catholics were as clear on the subject as you are.

 

[ding]

Yes, I question a lot of Catholic dogma. That's not a secret.

Yes, because the Gospel has to be relevant and meaningful in all societies throughout all time. That's why adding to Scripture doesn't sit well with me.

That is not my belief. That is the belief of a Catholic on this board, who argues vehemently that salvation is found only in the Catholic Church and who posts things that supposedly come from the church to support it.

That's great, and I agree. I just wish all Catholics were as clear on the subject as you are.

Interpreting scripture to suit one's needs doesn't sit well with me.

 

[Meriweather]

You are arguing what the Catholic Church believes and I was simply asking how it made sense that "first born" in that context meant the honored child and not literally the first of Mary's children. There are occasions in the Bible where God selects a child not born first as the "first born", but that's not in evidence here, nor is it in evidence that Joseph, the patriarch of the family, selected Jesus as HIS "first born". No, Jesus is MARY'S first born. I see nowhere else in the Bible where a young mother, not yet fully married, was allowed to designate her child as "first born" and due privileges. Don't forget, you stated that the "first born" received the double portion. Do you see in Scripture where Joseph gave Jesus the double portion? That's why I asked if the mother had authority to make her child the "first born".

The Catholic faith values early Christian knowledge and traditions. Anyone can go out and find exceptions, but that does not obliterate the other ninety-nine percent or people's understanding when Matthew said 'firstborn', especially when he noted Mary's firstborn, was a son conceived by the Holy Spirit. It was not Mary who proclaimed Jesus as firstborn, but Matthew. You are dwelling on the double portion of material possessions, and seem to dismiss (again Hebrew etymology) that the 'double portion' emphasized spiritual blessings, divine favor, and leadership. People reading/hearing Matthew's account understood this and would have been in agreement that Jesus indeed had a double portion of spiritual blessings, divine favor, and leadership.

I am not 'arguing' what the Catholic Church believes, I am stating what the early Church/early Christians understood and began teaching. The Catholic Church has faithfully passed this understanding on over the millennia, undisturbed by the King James English and the modern Western culture definition/understanding of 'first born'.

Your insistence that Mary had anything to do with the verse in Matthew is like following a red herring down a rabbit hole. You pursue that with your King James English and modern Western culture all you like. I'll stick with the Hebrew etymology and early Christian understanding of what Matthew recorded. It makes a lot more sense than the King James and a modern Western culture rendition.

When I pressed you on your disagreement, instead of stating precisely what you disagree with, you fall back into claiming I disagree with the Gospel writer.

You do disagree about Matthew's intent. This is not me being 'disingenuous' it's bluntly stating fact. If you prefer it to be phrased that you disagree with the Catholic Church, or disagree with me, think that, but you can get over how I phrase it.

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

I believe you are rationalizing your actions. This isn't the first time you questioned Catholic dogma. There's a pattern here.

Yes, I believe this is a foolish dispute. I've already explained why. Our beliefs are based upon scripture and tradition which work in concert. Your beliefs are based solely upon scripture.

As for your belief that there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church that is in conflict with the Church's teaching that no one knows their fate or the fate of others. Additionally, Early Christians used the term "catholic" to describe the Church as being spread throughout the whole world and open to everyone, not limited by nation or status. When creeds mention the "holy catholic church," they're affirming this universal nature—that the true Church includes believers from all backgrounds.

All have been redeemed. It's up to each individual person to accept that gift. This is true regardless of creed.

How is that for denouncing that belief?

.

How does Catholic belief hurt anyone who is not Catholic?

.

 

[ding]

How does Catholic belief hurt anyone who is not Catholic?

It shouldn't. I don't see why it should. Religious factions arguing dogmatic differences is best understood by starting with which faction is arguing against the other and which faction is responding to the criticism. It's easy to understand the motivation of the one being criticized. They perceive it as an attack on their beliefs. It's a little harder to understand the motivation of the one doing the criticizing. So who knows why they might see the dogmatic beliefs of others as harming them.

I've always been a fan of explaining the basis of my beliefs as opposed to explaining what I don't believe. Maybe if everyone just stated what they believe and why, instead of arguing about which was right, there would be a greater understanding and a lot less posts on a subject.

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

It shouldn't. I don't see why it should. Religious factions arguing dogmatic differences is best understood by starting with which faction is arguing against the other and which faction is responding to the criticism. It's easy to understand the motivation of the one being criticized. They perceive it as an attack on their beliefs. It's a little harder to understand the motivation of the one doing the criticizing. So who knows why they might see the dogmatic beliefs of others as harming them.

I've always been a fan of explaining the basis of my beliefs as opposed to explaining what I don't believe. Maybe if everyone just stated what they believe and why, instead of arguing about which was right, there would be a greater understanding and a lot less posts on a subject.

.

Well said.

.

 

[Meriweather]

Is it your contention that beliefs about Mary are foolish disputes?

If we are to avoid foolish disputes, we have to acknowledge that what we're disputing is foolish. If it is your contention that arguing over Mary is foolish, okay, we won't argue over her.

An interest in truth is commendable. The Gospels relate several times where the Apostles came to a wrong conclusion or misunderstood what Jesus meant. Such misunderstandings happened before Jesus' time, during Jesus' time, and certainly after Jesus' time.

The reason arguing about Mary is a foolish dispute is because the truth changes nothing about our faith or about what Jesus taught. Jesus taught The Way, and The Way doesn't include living out beliefs about Mary. Such a way of life does not exist. Mary is not a Commandment, a Beatitude, of a Teaching for us to follow, presented in parable form.

Historically and traditionally, Mary has been spoken of as the virgin mother of Christ. Since Biblical times, word/tradition has been she remained a virgin. When did it begin to be questioned? That was in the late second century, not for at least 150 years. Perpetual virginity was confirmed separately by both the Lutheran Church and the Reformed Protestant Faith of Switzerland in the 1500s. It wasn't until the 1800s that mainline Protestant Churches began rejecting the perpetual virginity of Mary. It was the Enlightenment (beginning in the 1700s) and liberal Christian theology that began questioning the perpetual virginity of Mary, which was taken up by mainline Protestant churches.

I don't know when your particular denomination began rejecting early Christian thinking on the perpetual virginity of Mary, or who/what sparked their reasoning. All I can say is that the primary source for the perpetual virginity of Mary were the early Christians, and this appears to have been without question for over 150 years. Church leaders after this (and through the 600s) confirmed this to be the case and it was accepted through the 1500s and the beginnings of the Protestant Reformation. It wasn't until the Enlightenment (1700-1800s) that some Christian Churches accepted Enlightenment/Liberal Theology thinking and began arguing Mary was not a perpetual virgin.

I've often said that primary sources and researching what original authors were saying to their original audience makes a greater impact on me than what later authors (often over a thousand years later) were saying to their current audiences. This does not make early Christians, original Church teachings, or my own belief/non-belief correct. It merely tells the story why some believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary and why some do not. It also tells when each belief began, and shows which belief date is closest to the primary source, which does matter to some, including some professional historians.

Is it possible the original Christians were wrong? Sure, it is possible. By the same token, is it possible the Enlightenment thinkers were wrong 1700s years later? Sure, that's possible, as well. The bottom line: We don't know, have no way of knowing, and therefore its just a foolish argument as it does not change any of Jesus' teaching and redemption an iota.

All it should do is present to those interested the how, why, when the two different beliefs over the perpetual virginity of Mary came about.

 

[Stryder50]

Jesus taught us to pray to our Heavenly Father and not to Mary. It is an apostate practice.

The Catholic Church also teaches to pray to the Saints.
Type of prayer and expectations are the finer points, IIRC.

 

[The Irish Ram]

AI

Yes, the Bible teaches that all believers in Jesus Christ are saints, meaning they are "holy ones" or "set apart" for God from the moment of their conversion, not based on their own merit but through Christ. The Apostle Paul uses this term, like in 1 Corinthians 1:2, to address entire churches, calling them saints sanctified in Christ, distinct from the later Catholic tradition of canonized saints, < based on their merit.

If you can pray to Saints, and the followers of Jesus are considered Saints, can you pray to the followers of Jesus too,
or only the ones the Catholic faith picks? What advantage do you gain by praying to Saint Mother Teresa, for example, instead of to God Himself through His Son?
The earthquake while Jesus was on the cross split the 4-inch thick linen curtain in the Temple that was a barrier between man and God. Christ poured His blood on that alter, forever allowing us to be in God's presence, covered by the blood of His Lamb.
Instead of praying to the created, why not go right to the Creator? That was Jesus' instruction. There is nowhere in the Bible where Christ said to pray to His mother, dead or alive.

 

[Meriweather]

If you can pray to Saints, and the followers of Jesus are considered Saints, can you pray to the followers of Jesus too,
or only the ones the Catholic faith picks? What advantage do you gain by praying to Saint Mother Teresa, for example, instead of to God Himself through His Son?
The earthquake while Jesus was on the cross split the 4-inch thick linen curtain in the Temple that was a barrier between man and God. Christ poured His blood on that alter, forever allowing us to be in God's presence, covered by the blood of His Lamb.
Instead of praying to the created, why not go right to the Creator? That was Jesus' instruction. There is nowhere in the Bible where Christ said to pray to His mother, dead or alive.

Do you not ever gather with your family and/or friends to pray together? That is praying with the followers of Christ, the body of Christ. The same is viable with those of the body of Christ who have passed on.

I've told this story before when I asked both of my deceased grandmothers to join me in prayer. I had a problem that I didn't want my mother to know of (as I was an adult and wanted to come to a solution myself). Our prayer was to God for help in directing me to this resolution. Both my grandmothers (in separate dreams) ratted me out to my mother. The dreams were so real, both of them telling my mom the same thing, that I needed her help. My mom waited a day or two, thinking of the dreams, and wondering if she would be hearing from me. When she didn't, she called me, sounding cautious. She told me about the dreams and how real they had been. She said both my grandmothers had informed her I needed her help. And, yes, my mother did hold the solution to my problem.

Would the result have been the same, had I, all on my own, offered that same prayer? I most often pray on my own, and yes, prayers have been answered, some in equally amazing ways. As I've often said, God meets us where we are. I once had a centuries deceased ancestor ask me to specifically include her in my prayers for those who had passed on. Again, where two or three are gathered had to have been taught to us for a reason.

 

[hadit]

An interest in truth is commendable. The Gospels relate several times where the Apostles came to a wrong conclusion or misunderstood what Jesus meant. Such misunderstandings happened before Jesus' time, during Jesus' time, and certainly after Jesus' time.

The reason arguing about Mary is a foolish dispute is because the truth changes nothing about our faith or about what Jesus taught. Jesus taught The Way, and The Way doesn't include living out beliefs about Mary. Such a way of life does not exist. Mary is not a Commandment, a Beatitude, of a Teaching for us to follow, presented in parable form.

Historically and traditionally, Mary has been spoken of as the virgin mother of Christ. Since Biblical times, word/tradition has been she remained a virgin. When did it begin to be questioned? That was in the late second century, not for at least 150 years. Perpetual virginity was confirmed separately by both the Lutheran Church and the Reformed Protestant Faith of Switzerland in the 1500s. It wasn't until the 1800s that mainline Protestant Churches began rejecting the perpetual virginity of Mary. It was the Enlightenment (beginning in the 1700s) and liberal Christian theology that began questioning the perpetual virginity of Mary, which was taken up by mainline Protestant churches.

I don't know when your particular denomination began rejecting early Christian thinking on the perpetual virginity of Mary, or who/what sparked their reasoning. All I can say is that the primary source for the perpetual virginity of Mary were the early Christians, and this appears to have been without question for over 150 years. Church leaders after this (and through the 600s) confirmed this to be the case and it was accepted through the 1500s and the beginnings of the Protestant Reformation. It wasn't until the Enlightenment (1700-1800s) that some Christian Churches accepted Enlightenment/Liberal Theology thinking and began arguing Mary was not a perpetual virgin.

I've often said that primary sources and researching what original authors were saying to their original audience makes a greater impact on me than what later authors (often over a thousand years later) were saying to their current audiences. This does not make early Christians, original Church teachings, or my own belief/non-belief correct. It merely tells the story why some believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary and why some do not. It also tells when each belief began, and shows which belief date is closest to the primary source, which does matter to some, including some professional historians.

Is it possible the original Christians were wrong? Sure, it is possible. By the same token, is it possible the Enlightenment thinkers were wrong 1700s years later? Sure, that's possible, as well. The bottom line: We don't know, have no way of knowing, and therefore its just a foolish argument as it does not change any of Jesus' teaching and redemption an iota.

All it should do is present to those interested the how, why, when the two different beliefs over the perpetual virginity of Mary came about.

That is very well stated, and I apologize for being overly persistent in something that ultimately is not relevant to the faith. I went too far in pressing my belief.