It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

I Suddenly Understood Something About Mary

page: 2
18
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 22 2013 @ 04:39 PM
link   
Sounds like you might want to convert to Catholicism?

In my opinion many of the other bit players (prophets, disciples and relatives) are purposely down played in most non-catholic traditions because of idol worship. Some see the statues, paintings etc as a form of idolatry and therefore do not shun Mother Mary but do not put extreme emphasis on her.

In this case when Mary is hailed to near the point of deification, she becomes just another stand in for Venus/Ishtar/Semiramus/Isis/Diana or Lady Liberty for that matter and then form of Goddess worship.

I have come to some conclusions that there is a a lot of Goddess worship without many of the followers being unaware of what they are actually doing, this does not make them bad people only misinformed or ignorant of their own beliefs. There are even so-called "Christian" sects who believe in a Heavenly Mother and who am I to say there isn't...
Now this is all fine and dandy, but sort of misses the point of being a Christian.
edit on 22-11-2013 by abeverage because: of Inanna...I am betting!




posted on Nov, 22 2013 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by abeverage
 


No, I am not converting, but then again, as we are all on the same foundation, then we are kind of like Catholic and Protestant together.

I'm a Christian Mystic, I have the ability and the right to determine what I should accept or reject when it comes to doctrinal tenets and creeds. If I take something blindly, then how do it's right?

So my understanding of Mary, though limited and primitive, is that her purpose was greater than just simply a mother. God took an ordinary girl and made an extraordinary woman out of her. And He did it in the most mundane way possible.



posted on Nov, 22 2013 @ 08:31 PM
link   

WarminIndy
reply to post by abeverage
 


No, I am not converting, but then again, as we are all on the same foundation, then we are kind of like Catholic and Protestant together.

I'm a Christian Mystic, I have the ability and the right to determine what I should accept or reject when it comes to doctrinal tenets and creeds. If I take something blindly, then how do it's right?

So my understanding of Mary, though limited and primitive, is that her purpose was greater than just simply a mother. God took an ordinary girl and made an extraordinary woman out of her. And He did it in the most mundane way possible.



There is no doubt Mother Mary should be venerated and many christians do! She should not however be worshiped and I think some actions do border that and as such is not Christian.



posted on Nov, 23 2013 @ 04:26 AM
link   

DISRAELI
reply to post by WarminIndy
 

The problem, as so often, is that people feel the need to rush into one extreme in order to reject the opposite extreme.
The Protestant belief is that Roman Catholics have carried the honour to excess by giving her honour concerning things which are not true.
And therefore feel the need to disregard her altogether.
While Roman Catholics believe that Protestants are treating her with dishonour, and so they're unwilling to rein in anything that has been claimed on her behalf.
Nobody is interested in the middle ground, which would be that she should be entitled to a certain degree of honour, but that there is such a thing as the wrong kind of honour.



The Marian Dogmas are true, the reason they are dogmas. Please explain your protest of what the
Church declares about Mary...is not true?

DISRAELI,

Discover Mary, don't follow the anti-Marian people. The Blessed Trinity has given Mary all graces to
dispense meaning she is a great help to get to Heaven. Turn to her in prayer, she can help you especially
spiritually. It is like she covers you with her mantle.


Love, your Catholic friend,

colbe



posted on Nov, 23 2013 @ 04:29 AM
link   
reply to post by colbe
 

For a start, there are a number of doctrines which the Roman Catholic Church "defined" in modern times, acting independently of the rest of the church.
That is to say, they were acting schismatically.
I doubt the truth of those doctrines.



posted on Nov, 23 2013 @ 04:37 AM
link   

WarminIndy
As you all know, I am not Catholic and didn't grow up hearing about Marian traditions. So I am going to be a little undertooled in this area. So don't think I am saying anything negative about her, I would never do that. But last night I was watching a show about a priest describing several exorcisms he had seen. I know the Church has rules for these things and always investigate if it really is a possession or some other thing. They do investigate to rule out psychological or epileptic conditions that may really be the cause. But that's not what this thread is about fully, it is about what I saw in this episode that led me to what I understand.

I saw as the priest was telling the person to repeat the "Hail Mary" and it was cursing at that. Then I remembered that in the Bible, it talks about the woman clothed with the sun and the moon under her feet and that she went into the wilderness to give birth, and the dragon was very angry with her and wanted to kill the child. After seeing this possessed person curse Mary, I wondered why.

I also wondered why Holy Water burns. I don't understand that myself either, but apparently there must be something to it. I just don't know about that one.

But when I sat back and thought "She IS the mother of our Lord" then it only makes sense that those dark forces would not be happy that she gave birth to Jesus. I can see how this would be a war and she would be targetted. But the Catholic church seems to be the only one remembering her. So I think it is a shame this has happened to her. I think the most beautiful prayer is the Magnificat. So I want my Protestant brothers and sisters to read this and tell my why, if it is in your Bible, why don't we honor her as well?


My soul magnifies the Lord And my spirit rejoices in God my Savior; Because He has regarded the lowliness of His handmaid; For behold, henceforth all generations shall call me blessed; Because He who is mighty has done great things for me, and holy is His name; And His mercy is from generation to generation on those who fear Him. He has shown might with His arm, He has scattered the proud in the conceit of their heart. He has put down the mighty from their thrones, and has exalted the lowly. He has filled the hungry with good things, and the rich He has sent away empty. He has given help to Israel, his servant, mindful of His mercy Even as he spoke to our fathers, to Abraham and to his posterity forever.


I know people will come on this thread and say she never existed, she isn't to be worshiped, you can't pray to her and all that...but even if we look at what the Bible says about her, where is the honor she is actually due? Why don't my Protestant brothers and sisters not call her blessed, even though our Bible says we should?

Let me point here to some things so important, first of all, she trusted God above all else and recognized God first. That's the humility she shows. And this verse she quotes is from Isaiah and we can see in this, how she taught Jesus. Let's not have a fight over whether she was a virgin or not, whether she had more children or not, that isn't important at this moment. What is important is whether or not we do honor her as the mother our our Lord. No, Protestants have made her a byword.

I am Protestant, so I can say this. I think it is a shame that we haven't called her blessed and don't really know much about her beyond the nativity story. Who cares her age? Does that matter in the big picture?

No, she is not salvation, but she was the means by which our salvation came into this world. I understand that now, and if I can recognize her, then maybe others will too. I would love to believe that when she died and went to heaven, her son hugged her again and said He loves her. Let's not diminish that relationship, thinking that He would be sooooo god-like that He could not hug His own mother. Let's make her human once again and see her for what she was, a good mother, chosen to bring salvation into this world. She taught Him in this earthly life to have compassion and mercy. Shouldn't she even be honored that little bit, even for that?


Oh my gosh!

I absolutely love your thread, your words above. It is especially neat you're referencing Revelation
Chapter 12. Some of the reason Satan so hates Mary is he was given knowledge of her special place
in God's redemptive plan at the time of his rebellion.

She is the New Eve. Our Lord is the New Adam.

Both Our Lord and His mother gave their fiat the the Father's plan.

You make the Blessed Mother smile Warminindy.



love,

colbe

p.s. I can share why there isn't a lot of reference to Our Lord's mother in the Gospel even though
she was at every event of Jesus' life spoken of in Scripture less two I can think of...

Mary made it known to the writers of the Gospel, the Gospel would be, should be about her Son. Her great
humility. Revelation about who Mary is would come later.



posted on Nov, 23 2013 @ 04:40 AM
link   

DISRAELI
reply to post by colbe
 

For a start, there are a number of doctrines which the Roman Catholic Church "defined" in modern times, acting independently of the rest of the church.
That is to say, they were acting schismatically.
I doubt the truth of those doctrines.



You believe what the Church teaches or you don't, all of it. The teachings of the Church are Christ's teachings. I was speaking of the the Truths about Mary, which of the Marian dogmas do you have difficulty
believing?

I care, I want you to become Catholic, so does God. He is working on you.


love,

colbe



posted on Nov, 23 2013 @ 05:03 AM
link   
DISRAELI and everyone,

The Third Marian Dogma - Immaculate Conception (December 8, 1854)

I share this often cause it is so neat. Mary is special, an exception and non-Catholic Christians do accept some of God's exceptions. As mother to Our Lord, Mary was immaculately conceived, no Original Sin as all of us were born with, no sin at all. It makes sense why God would do this, Mary would carry God inside her.

Taylor Marshall who use to be Protestant gives three Scriptural proofs of the Immaculate Conception.
I am listing one, I really like it.

I feel bad that King James, not a holy fella, his translators so changed Genesis 3:15.

Here it is, notice the word and recall the meaning of emnity.

+ + +



Argument #2
Mary as New Eve Having Enmity with Satan

Gen 3:15 “And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her Seed; He shall crush your head, and you shall strike at His heel.”

In this verse God addresses Satan. The Seed here is Christ. The Woman is His Mother, that is, Mary. Thus Satan has perfect enmity with Christ and with His Mother. The Catholic Church has interpreted this as indicating the sinlessness of Christ and Mary. If either actually committed sin, then they would not be at enmity with Satan but actually a cooperator with Satan at times.

taylormarshall.com...



posted on Nov, 23 2013 @ 05:04 AM
link   
reply to post by colbe
 

I do believe all the doctrines which the Church teaches.
That does not commit me to believing everything taught by the fragment of the Church which calls itself "the Roman Catholic Church".
I limit myself to what was taught by the WHOLE church
I have already told you which Marian doctrines I find problematic; the ones which the Roman Catholic Church "defined" in modern times, acting independently of the rest of the church.
The Council of Ephesus was the whole church, acting for the whole church.
The Pope, acting on his own, is not.



posted on Nov, 23 2013 @ 05:21 AM
link   

DISRAELI
reply to post by colbe
 

I do believe all the doctrines which the Church teaches.
That does not commit me to believing everything taught by the fragment of the Church which calls itself "the Roman Catholic Church".
I limit myself to what was taught by the WHOLE church
I have already told you which Marian doctrines I find problematic; the ones which the Roman Catholic Church "defined" in modern times, acting independently of the rest of the church.
The Council of Ephesus was the whole church, acting for the whole church.
The Pope, acting on his own, is not.



You are such a protester repeatedly saying the Church is whatever you wish it to be and to believe when
history does not show this at all. There was a beginning, there is a Sacramental system (7), a hierarchy.
You deny the Eucharist, the pinnacle of the faith and one day soon when God shows you personally,
I predict you will become Roman Catholic.

The Church Councils were/are Roman Catholic.

Your "lessons" include Roman Catholic references why you constantly reject the Church. That makes
no sense. Again, you can't run from the faith, your posts all include references while you reject it!

I shared the 3rd Marian Dogma and Scriptural proof, what is your problem with it or maybe you accept it. I hope and pray.



posted on Nov, 23 2013 @ 05:31 AM
link   

colbe
The Church Councils were/are Roman Catholic.

The early Councils were Catholic. They were never "Roman Catholic" which is a later term belonging to your particular fragment of the church.
NONE of the Councils meeting in or near Rome (Lateran, Trent, Vatican) were genuinely Catholic because none of them embraced the entire church


I shared the 3rd Marian Dogma and Scriptural proof, what is your problem with it or maybe you accept it.

Was this dogma defined by the entire church, or was it defined in the modern era by your fragment of the church?
That will give you the answer to your question.



posted on Nov, 23 2013 @ 05:37 AM
link   

DISRAELI
reply to post by colbe
 

I do believe all the doctrines which the Church teaches.
That does not commit me to believing everything taught by the fragment of the Church which calls itself "the Roman Catholic Church".
I limit myself to what was taught by the WHOLE church
I have already told you which Marian doctrines I find problematic; the ones which the Roman Catholic Church "defined" in modern times, acting independently of the rest of the church.
The Council of Ephesus was the whole church, acting for the whole church.
The Pope, acting on his own, is not.



All of the Councils before the Orthodox broke from Rome look to Rome, the Holy Father as their
authority. You spin your own history because you reject the faith.

ncils

NEW ADVENT CD-ROM

The full contents of this website are available on CD-ROM. Includes the Catholic Encyclopedia, Church Fathers, Summa, Bible and more...
SALE: 20% off if you buy now...
FREE Shipping Worldwide...

Click here...
The 21 Ecumenical Councils

I. FIRST COUNCIL OF NICAEA
Year: 325
Summary: The Council of Nicaea lasted two months and twelve days. Three hundred and eighteen bishops were present. Hosius, Bishop of Cordova, assisted as legate of Pope Sylvester. The Emperor Constantine was also present. To this council we owe the Nicene Creed, defining against Arius the true Divinity of the Son of God (homoousios), and the fixing of the date for keeping Easter (against the Quartodecimans).
Further Reading: www.newadvent.org/cathen/11044a.htm

II. FIRST COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE
Year: 381
Summary: The First General Council of Constantinople, under Pope Damasus and the Emperor Theodosius I, was attended by 150 bishops. It was directed against the followers of Macedonius, who impugned the Divinity of the Holy Ghost. To the above-mentioned Nicene Creed it added the clauses referring to the Holy Ghost (qui simul adoratur) and all that follows to the end.
Further Reading: www.newadvent.org/cathen/04308a.htm

III. COUNCIL OF EPHESUS
Year: 431
Summary: The Council of Ephesus, of more than 200 bishops, presided over by St. Cyril of Alexandria representing Pope Celestine I, defined the true personal unity of Christ, declared Mary the Mother of God (theotokos) against Nestorius, Bishop of Constantinople, and renewed the condemnation of Pelagius.
Further Reading: www.newadvent.org/cathen/05491a.htm

IV. COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON
Year: 451
Summary: The Council of Chalcedon -- 150 bishops under Pope Leo the Great and the Emperor Marcian -- defined the two natures (Divine and human) in Christ against Eutyches, who was excommunicated.
Further Reading: www.newadvent.org/cathen/03555a.htm

V. SECOND COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE
Year: 553
Summary: The Second General Council of Constantinople, of 165 bishops under Pope Vigilius and Emperor Justinian I, condemned the errors of Origen and certain writings (The Three Chapters) of Theodoret, of Theodore, Bishop of Mopsuestia and of Ibas, Bishop of Edessa; it further confirmed the first four general councils, especially that of Chalcedon whose authority was contested by some heretics.
Further Reading: www.newadvent.org/cathen/04308b.htm

VI. THIRD COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE
Years: 680-681
Summary: The Third General Council of Constantinople, under Pope Agatho and the Emperor Constantine Pogonatus, was attended by the Patriarchs of Constantinople and of Antioch, 174 bishops, and the emperor. It put an end to Monothelitism by defining two wills in Christ, the Divine and the human, as two distinct principles of operation. It anathematized Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul, Macarius, and all their followers.
Further Reading: www.newadvent.org/cathen/04310a.htm

VII. SECOND COUNCIL OF NICAEA
Year: 787
Summary: The Second Council of Nicaea was convoked by Emperor Constantine VI and his mother Irene, under Pope Adrian I, and was presided over by the legates of Pope Adrian; it regulated the veneration of holy images. Between 300 and 367 bishops assisted.
Further Reading: www.newadvent.org/cathen/11045a.htm

VIII. FOURTH COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE
Year: 869
Summary: The Fourth General Council of Constantinople, under Pope Adrian II and Emperor Basil numbering 102 bishops, 3 papal legates, and 4 patriarchs, consigned to the flames the Acts of an irregular council (conciliabulum) brought together by Photius against Pope Nicholas and Ignatius the legitimate Patriarch of Constantinople; it condemned Photius who had unlawfully seized the patriarchal dignity. The Photian Schism, however, triumphed in the Greek Church, and no other general council took place in the East.
Further Reading: www.newadvent.org/cathen/04310b.htm

IX. FIRST LATERAN COUNCIL
Year: 1123
Summary: The First Lateran Council, the first held at Rome, met under Pope Callistus II. About 900 bishops and abbots assisted. It abolished the right claimed by lay princes, of investiture with ring and crosier to ecclesiastical benefices and dealt with church discipline and the recovery of the Holy Land from the infidels.
Further Reading: www.newadvent.org/cathen/09016b.htm

X. SECOND LATERAN COUNCIL
Year: 1139
Summary: The Second Lateran Council was held at Rome under Pope Innocent II, with an attendance of about 1000 prelates and the Emperor Conrad. Its object was to put an end to the errors of Arnold of Brescia.
Further Reading: www.newadvent.org/cathen/09017a.htm

XI. THIRD LATERAN COUNCIL
Year: 1179
Summary: The Third Lateran Council took place under Pope Alexander III, Frederick I being emperor. There were 302 bishops present. It condemned the Albigenses and Waldenses and issued numerous decrees for the reformation of morals.
Further Reading: www.newadvent.org/cathen/09017b.htm

XII. FOURTH LATERAN COUNCIL
Year: 1215
Summary: The Fourth Lateran Council was held under Innocent III. There were present the Patriarchs of Constantinople and Jerusalem, 71 archbishops, 412 bishops, and 800 abbots the Primate of the Maronites, and St. Dominic. It issued an enlarged creed (symbol) against the Albigenses (Firmiter credimus), condemned the Trinitarian errors of Abbot Joachim, and published 70 important reformatory decrees. This is the most important council of the Middle Ages, and it marks the culminating point of ecclesiastical life and papal power.
Further Reading: www.newadvent.org/cathen/09018a.htm

XIII. FIRST COUNCIL OF LYONS
Year: 1245
Summary: The First General Council of Lyons was presided over by Innocent IV; the Patriarchs of Constantinople, Antioch, and Aquileia (Venice), 140 bishops, Baldwin II, Emperor of the East, and St. Louis, King of France, assisted. It excommunicated and deposed Emperor Frederick II and directed a new crusade, under the command of St. Louis, against the Saracens and Mongols.
Further Reading: www.newadvent.org/cathen/09476b.htm

XIV. SECOND COUNCIL OF LYONS
Year: 1274
Summary: The Second General Council of Lyons was held by Pope Gregory X, the Patriarchs of Antioch and Constantinople, 15 cardinals, 500 bishops, and more than 1000 other dignitaries. It effected a temporary reunion of the Greek Church with Rome. The word filioque was added to the symbol of Constantinople and means were sought for recovering Palestine from the Turks. It also laid down the rules for papal elections.
Further Reading: www.newadvent.org/cathen/09476c.htm

XV. COUNCIL OF VIENNE
Years: 1311-1313
Summary: The Council of Vienne was held in that town in France by order of Clement V, the first of the Avignon popes. The Patriarchs of Antioch and Alexandria, 300 bishops (114 according to some authorities), and 3 kings -- Philip IV of France, Edward II of England, and James II of Aragon -- were present. The synod dealt with the crimes and errors imputed to the Knights Templars, the Fraticelli, the Beghards, and the Beguines, with projects of a new crusade, the reformation of the clergy, and the teaching of Oriental languages in the universities.
Further Reading: www.newadvent.org/cathen/15423a.htm

XVI. COUNCIL OF CONSTANCE
Years: 1414-1418
The Council of Constance was held during the great Schism of the West, with the object of ending the divisions in the Church. It became legitimate only when Gregory XI had formally convoked it. Owing to this circumstance it succeeded in putting an end to the schism by the election of Pope Martin V, which the Council of Pisa (1403) had failed to accomplish on account of its illegality. The rightful pope confirmed the former decrees of the synod against Wyclif and Hus. This council is thus ecumenical only in its last sessions (42-45 inclusive) and with respect to the decrees of earlier sessions approved by Martin V.
Further Reading: www.newadvent.org/cathen/04288a.htm

XVII. COUNCIL OF BASLE/FERRARA/FLORENCE
Years: 1431-1439
Summary: The Council of Basle met first in that town, Eugene IV being pope, and Sigismund Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire. Its object was the religious pacification of Bohemia. Quarrels with the pope having arisen, the council was transferred first to Ferrara (1438), then to Florence (1439), where a short-lived union with the Greek Church was effected, the Greeks accepting the council's definition of controverted points. The Council of Basle is only ecumenical till the end of the twenty-fifth session, and of its decrees Eugene IV approved only such as dealt with the extirpation of heresy, the peace of Christendom, and the reform of the Church, and which at the same time did not derogate from the rights of the Holy See.
Further Reading: www.newadvent.org/cathen/06111a.htm

XVIII. FIFTH LATERAN COUNCIL
Years: 1512-1517
Summary: The Fifth Lateran Council sat from 1512 to 1517 under Popes Julius II and Leo X, the emperor being Maximilian I. Fifteen cardinals and about eighty archbishops and bishops took part in it. Its decrees are chiefly disciplinary. A new crusade against the Turks was also planned, but came to naught, owing to the religious upheaval in Germany caused by Luther.
Further Reading: www.newadvent.org/cathen/09018b.htm

XIX. COUNCIL OF TRENT
Years: 1545-1563
Summary: The Council of Trent lasted eighteen years (1545-1563) under five popes: Paul III, Julius III, Marcellus II, Paul IV and Pius IV, and under the Emperors Charles V and Ferdinand. There were present 5 cardinal legates of the Holy See, 3 patriarchs, 33 archbishops, 235 bishops, 7 abbots, 7 generals of monastic orders, and 160 doctors of divinity. It was convoked to examine and condemn the errors promulgated by Luther and other Reformers, and to reform the discipline of the Church. Of all councils it lasted longest, issued the largest number of dogmatic and reformatory decrees, and produced the most beneficial results.
Further Reading: www.newadvent.org/cathen/15030c.htm

XX. FIRST VATICAN COUNCIL
Years: 1869-1870
Summary: The Vatican Council was summoned by Pius IX. It met 8 December, 1869, and lasted till 18 July, 1870, when it was adjourned; it is still (1908) unfinished. There were present 6 archbishop-princes, 49 cardinals, 11 patriarchs, 680 archbishops and bishops, 28 abbots, 29 generals of orders, in all 803. Besides important canons relating to the Faith and the constitution of the Church, the council decreed the infallibility of the pope when speaking ex cathedra, i.e. when as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church.
Further Reading: www.newadvent.org/cathen/15303a.htm

XXI. SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL
Years: 1962-1965



posted on Nov, 23 2013 @ 05:43 AM
link   

DISRAELI

colbe
The Church Councils were/are Roman Catholic.

The early Councils were Catholic. They were never "Roman Catholic" which is a later term belonging to your particular fragment of the church.
NONE of the Councils meeting in or near Rome (Lateran, Trent, Vatican) were genuinely Catholic because none of them embraced the entire church


I shared the 3rd Marian Dogma and Scriptural proof, what is your problem with it or maybe you accept it.

Was this dogma defined by the entire church, or was it defined in the modern era by your fragment of the church?
That will give you the answer to your question.


Even a secular dictionary shows the same, you're the one in error. The Pope led all the Councils, his
authority was looked to by the East before the broke away. And where does your Protestantism fit it,
yes, centuries later, breaking away from the faith in the sixteenth century.

Noun 1. Council of Ephesus - the third ecumenical council in 431 which declared Mary as mother of God and condemned Pelagius
Ephesus
ecumenical council - (early Christian church) one of seven gatherings of bishops from around the known world under the presidency of the Pope to regulate matters of faith and morals and discipline; "the first seven councils through 787 are considered to be ecumenical councils by both the Roman Catholic church and the Eastern Orthodox church but the next fourteen councils are considered ecumenical only by the Roman Catholic church"



posted on Nov, 23 2013 @ 05:43 AM
link   
reply to post by colbe
 

Never, at any time in history, did the entire church accept the authority of the Pope, not even before the Pope broke away from the Orthodox and the rest of the church.
But I can't go into more detail on that question without wandering away from the topic of the thread.
I accept what the entire church said about Mary.
I will not accept the dictates of one self-important fragment of the church.



posted on Nov, 23 2013 @ 05:44 AM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 



Really?

Then why did the priest Simeon not say He was just another ordinary kind of Israelite baby?


My point was simple. Jesus was dedicated to God in the temple, according to the law ... like all other ordinary Israelite boys.

Or should I rephrase it as "Jesus was super special, but was still dedicated to God according to the law" i.e - as was done with ordinary Israelite firstborns.

Its not quite the same as saying "Jesus was just an ordinary boy". Jesus despite being extraordinary, was dedicated to God. Despite the extraordinary circumstances surrounding Jesus, Mary did what any other mother with a firstborn son would have done.



posted on Nov, 23 2013 @ 05:51 AM
link   

DISRAELI
reply to post by colbe
 

Never, at any time in history, did the entire church accept the authority of the Pope, not even before the Pope broke away from the Orthodox and the rest of the church.
But I can't go into more detail on that question without wandering away from the topic of the thread.
I accept what the entire church said about Mary.
I will not accept the dictates of one self-important fragment of the church.


Telling, always your vague "church" reference. Christ named Peter and there is an unbroken line of Popes
to this day. The Orthodox broke away in revolt against the Pope. Imagine, to spend your life trying to
sell a false history of the faith. You spend your days denying the authority of the faith, Roman Catholicism
while you include Roman Catholic names and councils, holy Roman Catholic saints in your daily posts. Makes no sense at all. Why do you reject the Eucharist and quote Ignatius who used the term Eucharist for the first time?

See, just another example. Back to your former post, answer my question.

Now share with everyone what the Roman Catholic Church has declared about Mary that is false?



posted on Nov, 23 2013 @ 05:59 AM
link   

colbe
Now share with everyone what the Roman Catholic Church has declared about Mary that is false?


I have already answered this question.
Everything that they have "defined" in modern times, acting independently from the rest of the church and therefore acting schismatically.



posted on Nov, 23 2013 @ 06:08 AM
link   

DISRAELI
reply to post by colbe
 

I do believe all the doctrines which the Church teaches.
That does not commit me to believing everything taught by the fragment of the Church which calls itself "the Roman Catholic Church".
I limit myself to what was taught by the WHOLE church
I have already told you which Marian doctrines I find problematic; the ones which the Roman Catholic Church "defined" in modern times, acting independently of the rest of the church.
The Council of Ephesus was the whole church, acting for the whole church.
The Pope, acting on his own, is not.



The above is not true. DISRAELI is a little bit Orthodox and a lot Protestant but always rejecting the
faith Jesus established, singular,


Even a secular dictionary state history correctly, you're the one in error DISRAELI. The Pope led all the Councils, his authority was looked to by the East before the broke away. And where does your Protestantism fit it, yes, centuries later, breaking away from the faith in the sixteenth century.

Noun 1. COUNCIL OF EPHESUS - the third ecumenical council in 431 which declared Mary as mother of God and condemned Pelagius
Ephesus
ecumenical council - (early Christian church) one of seven gatherings of bishops from around the known world under the presidency of the Pope to regulate matters of faith and morals and discipline; "the first seven councils through 787 are considered to be ecumenical councils by both the Roman Catholic church and the Eastern Orthodox church but the next fourteen councils are considered ecumenical only by the Roman Catholic church" Roman Catholicism.

AND why only the "first seven councils" included the Eastern, they hadn't broken away yet!!!



posted on Nov, 23 2013 @ 06:12 AM
link   

DISRAELI

colbe
Now share with everyone what the Roman Catholic Church has declared about Mary that is false?


I have already answered this question.
Everything that they have "defined" in modern times, acting independently from the rest of the church and therefore acting schismatically.


Who is "they?" You won't say it, the Holy Father. God's chosen authority on earth. The Church has always
been Roman Catholic, the faith. The 4 Marian Dogmas are all Roman Catholic. The Orthodox broke away, choosing to defy the Pope just like you.

Be Protestant or Orthodox, be one for Heaven's sake. Goofy mix up to sell a different false history.
Tell everyone why God would create Mary with sin, now that's Protestant.



posted on Nov, 23 2013 @ 06:21 AM
link   

colbe
Who is "they?" You won't say it, the Holy Father.

I was just answering the question as it was asked.
You asked me "What has the Roman Catholic church declared...?"
So "They" in my response was obviously "the Roman Catholic church".
I even quoted your question so that the relation between question and answer would be more obvious.
You're making something out of nothing here.



edit on 23-11-2013 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join