Cruciform
New member
Straw Man Fallacy. Essentially a lie on your part (Prov. 19:5), since you've already been corrected on this in the past.
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+
I feel sorry for people closed minded to Catholicism
- Thread starter republicanchick
- Start date
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+
Cruciform
New member
The books of the Old Testament, yes; the New Testament documents, no.
HisServant
New member
I don't think they pose Mary as a savior. But they have sure carved out an area for her that goes beyond what the original apostles taught about her. What they do teach about her is very close to what was taught about Diana (Artemis) in pre christian Rome. So from a historical point of view, as the RCC being the state religion of the Roman Empire and its desire to unify all its non-christian citizens with Christianity, it makes since that it would pick and chose various existing doctrines and weave them into its doctrines to make it more attractive.
Anyhow, I find its teachings about Mary quizzical at best, and non-essential to salvation, so I give them a bit of a pass on it.
Cruciform
New member
And how, exactly, do you claim to know this?
Of course, that assumes that you have an accurate grasp of what the Church actually teaches about Mary, when your own posted statements on this forum indicate anything but. To remedy your situation, I would recommend a careful and thorough reading of this excellent recently-published text:
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+
HisServant
New member
And how, exactly, do you claim to know this?
Of course, that assumes that you have an accurate grasp of what the Church actually teaches about Mary, when your own posted statements on this forum indicate anything but. To remedy your situation, I would recommend a careful and thorough reading of this excellent recently-published text:
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+
I've read it enough to know it was debated for centuries and was never really official doctrine for a LONG LONG time.. and that attrition through the ages finally put the magesterium in a position to make it official doctrine more than a millennium and a half after Jesus ascended.
I also feel that it could never have been made doctrine before the Great Schism because the Eastern Orthodox Churches actually have a Church that is believed to mark where Mary is buried.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomb_of_the_Virgin_Mary This would invalidate the assumption of Mary. Not to mention there are around 50 or so early church writings that talk about the death of Mary.
The further you get away from an actual event, the more it will become mystery and myth.
Cruciform
New member
You failed to actually answer the question posed in Post #64.
HisServant
New member
I actually did... sorry you are so such a Troll and stuck in a box that you cannot see the obvious.
Cruciform
New member
That's your answer? You "know" the apostles supposedly didn't teach the Marian doctrines because some of them weren't formally defined until after the apostles died? On the same basis, then, you must also reject such Christian doctrines as the Trinity and Incarnation/Diety of Jesus Christ as well, correct? :think:
I'll ask again:
"And how, exactly, do you claim to know that the apostles supposedly did not teach the Marian doctrines?"
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+
Last edited:
Post for us the texts authored by Paul or the other 11 Apostles listing the Marian traditions as part of the traditions be taught and sufficient proof will have been provided. If you cannot post a writing attributed to Paul them 6 there is no proof he, or the others, taught them.
Ball is in your court.
lifeisgood
New member
When did Peter EVER say he was infallible? NEVER.
When do the RCC say their popeS are infallible? ALWAYS.
I feel sorry for people clos...
Sorry, that's just as far as I could get. If that thing was a pencil you'd tear the paper to pieces trying for a thesis...Fell asleep so often making an attempt to get to the point I wondered if I had sudden onset narcolepsy...but no.
It's you then.
lain:
That said I like some Catholics. Some I don't. Catholicism gave me Merton and Brother Lawrence. I'm grateful for that much...but then it also gave us you. :think: So the way I see it this Pope owes me.
Sorry, that's just as far as I could get. If that thing was a pencil you'd tear the paper to pieces trying for a thesis...Fell asleep so often making an attempt to get to the point I wondered if I had sudden onset narcolepsy...but no.
It's you then.
lain:That said I like some Catholics. Some I don't. Catholicism gave me Merton and Brother Lawrence. I'm grateful for that much...but then it also gave us you. :think: So the way I see it this Pope owes me.
lifeisgood
New member
Lifeisgood name is nowhere to be found in the RCC Bible.
You know, the one that was 'fixed' by the infallible popeS so that the Bible fit RCC dogma.
I guess your infallible popeS should not have changed Gen. 3:15 to read:
Genesis 3:15Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)
15 I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.
It is ALL about Jesus:
Genesis 3:15King James Version (KJV)
15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
Have you ever read the 'Mercies of Mary'? It even has the imprimatur affixed to it. You know the seal of approval of the RCC the infallible popeS approving what is said? Meaning, the RCC infallible popeS agrees with the author of the Mercies of Mary that she is the Savior of the world.
Speaking of "great apes" your rep power is extremely low? Does
that have anything to do with your IQ being the same? Low that
is?
Well, their Popes are elected. Would they place a man in that position
if he wasn't infallible? Maybe?
republicanchick
New member
Cruciform
New member
Such Tradition does not have to have been written down by the apostles themselves in order to qualify as Sacred Tradition, as you wrongly assume. All that is required is that such authoritative teachings have come through the ordained successors of the apostles---that is, the bishops as a body---in communion with Peter's successor, the Bishop of Rome. Sorry for your confusion.
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+
Cruciform
New member
There's certainly more than one English translation of the Bible approved by the Church.
In fact, the Douay-Rheims was published before the KJV, so perhaps it's the King of England who "fixed" the text. In any case, there is no such thing as an infallible translation, so your point simply falls flat.
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+
I'm impressed. You COMPLETELY avoided answering the question I asked. Interestingly, that actually answers the question: you have no such writings. Thanks fir being honest.
glassjester
Well-known member
First question: Did Christ found a church on Earth?
Second question: If a church truly belongs to Christ, will Christ allow it to teach error?