mary immaculate catholic church

What would the Catholic church be like without this doctrine? What if Pope Pius IX decided in favor of the faction that didn't believe in it?

Then there would have been no proclamation Ex Cathedra of the Doctrine of the Assumption nearly a century later. Thse two doctrines are the only instance in which the Holy Father, speaking Ex Cathedra (from the Chair of Peter), made infallable pronouncements in the field of faith and morals.
I don't think it would have had much effect beyond reminding all Catholics that not every pronouncement by the Pope is infallable. Papal succession is only one of the things which connect today's church with the man who walked with Jesus: Shimon Ben Jonah, also known as "Cephas" (Peter). The other connection is more important and that is the Eucharist.

2007-08-12 21:01:41 by auntfran8

Pope Benedict XVI prayed the Angelus with the faithful gathered in St Peters Square on Tuesday, the Feast of the Immaculate Conception. What ...

IMMACULATE CONCEPTION -- Mary was preserved from all stain of original sin from the first instant of her conception. ("Catechism" 490-492).

In Luke 1:46-47, Mary said: "My soul doth magnify the Lord, And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour". Mary knew that she needed a savior.

The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was first introduced by a heretic (a man whose teachings were officially declared to be contrary to Church doctrine). For centuries this doctrine was unanimously rejected by popes, Fathers and theologians of the Catholic Church. (Note 13)
ALL-HOLY -- Mary, "the All-Holy," lived a perfectly sinless life. ("Catechism" 411, 493)

Romans 3:23 says "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God". Revelation 15:4 says, "Who shall not fear thee, O Lord, and glorify thy name? For thou only art holy". Romans 3:10 says, "There is none righteous, no, not one".

Jesus is the only person who is referred to in Scripture as sinless. Hebrews 4:15 says, "For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feelings of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin." 2 Corinthians 5:21 says, "For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." 1 Peter 2:22 says, "Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth".

In contrast, Mary said that God is her Savior. (Luke 1:47) If God was her Savior, then Mary was not sinless. Sinless people do not need a Savior.
PERPETUAL VIRGINITY -- Mary was a virgin before, during and after the birth of Christ. ("Catechism" 496-511)

Matthew 1:24-25 says, "Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS." "Till" (until) means that after that point, Joseph did "know" (have sexual relations with) Mary. (See Genesis 4:1 where Adam "knew" Eve and she conceived and had a son.)

Jesus had brothers and sisters. The Bible even tells us their names. Matthew 13:54-56
CO-MEDIATOR -- Mary is the Co-Mediator to whom we can entrust all our cares and petitions. ("Catechism" 968-970, 2677)

There is only one mediator and that is Jesus. 1 Timothy 2:5-6 says, "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus: Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time." Hebrews 7:25 says,Wherefore he [Jesus] is able to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them." Ephesians 3:12 says, "In whom [Jesus} we have boldness and access with confidence by the faith of him."

If Jesus is constantly interceding for us and He is able to save us "to the uttermost," (utterly, completely) then He doesn't need Mary's help. If we can approach God with "boldness" and "confidence" because of our faith in Jesus, then we don't need Mary's help either.
Father K:
Other Scripture verses which specifically refer to Jesus’ brothers are: Matthew 12:46; John 2:12; John 7:3; Acts 1:14; and Galatians 1:19.

I was always taught that "brothers" and "sisters" were general terms that really could refer to any kind of kinsman, including cousins. This is true in the Hebrew language. However, the New Testament is written in Greek, which is an extremely precise language. It makes a clear distinction between the words used to describe family relationships. There is a Greek word which refers to people who are relatives but not of the immediate family, such as aunts, uncles, nephews, nieces and cousins. There are other Greek words which refer specifically to a person’s brother or sister within a family

Is the Bible lying about Jesus having brothers and sisters?
http://www.catholicconcerns.com/

Catholic belief is that all of us, Mary included, need a Redeemer because of our fallen nature and that no one can attain Heaven without His Blood. We are saved from our fallen nature by His grace alone through faith that worketh in charity. Mary, though, because God knew how she would use the free will He gave to her, was saved, by His grace, from having a fallen nature at the moment of her conception. She was redeemed from her mother's womb, an act planned from Genesis 3 so that she could act as the New Eve and so that Christ could be born of vessel even more pure than the Ark of the Covenant. Christ would not have been born from that which is impure! God knew of Mary's will to serve even before she was conceived. He knew she would say yes to Him, and He saved her at her first moment.

The word "brother" or "brethren" is often used in Scripture for relationships other than that of those born of the same parents.

Matthew 1:25 reads, "And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son..." But, once again, language clouds the issue. "Until" is used to mean "up to that point, and with no intimations that things changed after that point." Example, 2 Samuel 6:23 reads, "Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death." Would Protestants say she had children after the day of her death because the use of the word "unto" proves it?

Gospel According to Saint Luke
Chapter 1

46 And Mary said: My soul doth magnify the Lord. 47 And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour. 48 Because he hath regarded the humility of his handmaid; for behold from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed. 49 Because he that is mighty, hath done great things to me; and holy is his name. 50 And his mercy is from generation unto generations, to them that fear him.

"Shall call me blessed"... These words are a prediction of that honour which the church in all ages should pay to the Blessed Virgin. Let Protestants examine whether they are any way concerned in this prophecy.

Well, P I T, you go ahead and pick and choose from your Bible.
Don't forget Luther removed 7 books.............knowledge that some do not have because they have not read the words of the Bible.
Also, since you are Bible-only (sola scripta), it's amazing how little you know of different interpratations based on translating words from Hebrew, Greek and Araimic.


The idea that all revealed truth is to be found in "66 books" is not only not in Scripture, it is contradicted by Scripture (1 Corinthians 11:2, 2 Thessalonians 2:15, 2 Thessalonians 3:6, 1 Timothy 3:15, 2 Peter 1:20-21, 2 Peter 3:16). It is a concept unheard of in the Old Testament, where the authority of those who sat on the Chair of Moses (Matthew 23:2-3) existed. In addition to this, for 400 years, there was no defined canon of "Sacred Scripture" aside from the Old Testament; there was no "New Testament"; there was only Tradition and non-canonical books and letters.

And given the level of bickering back and forth about what Scripture means, do you believe that God expects each of us to be a scholar of Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, and Chaldean to understand His word and the message of salvation? No! This is why He, in His wisdom, started a Church with teaching authority through Peter, the earthly father of the New Covenant and whose successors sit on the Chair of Peter, just as Abraham was the earthly father of the Old Covenant and his successors sat on the Chair of Moses.

2007-06-26 10:10:44 by KJV Bible Believing Baptist

Price: $15.98

Hey everyone!

I was wondering if anyone was familiar on the topics of the Immaculate Heart of Mary and the Sacred Heart of Jesus from the viewpoint of the Catholic Church. I tried using Google, but it didn't work very well for me.

Any information would be greatly appreciated along with any sources. I'm really curious about them!

Thanks in advance!

DKong

Though not a dogma of the Church, there is a close relationship between devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of His Mother. Pope Pius XII said it was fitting that after our homage paid to the Sacred Heart of Jesus, Christian people should manifest similar piety and love of their grateful hearts for the most loving heart of Mary, our heavenly Mother, through whom we have received the divine life from Christ.

What does the Church mean by the Immaculate Heart of Mary and how are we to practice this great devotion? By the Immaculate Heart of Mary the Church means that aspect of the Virgin symbolized by the word “heart”, then her sinless purity expressed by the word “immaculate”. Calling Mary’s heart immaculate we know to be true and our devotion is honoring her for that great privilege.

What shall we say about Mary’s love? It was totally and exclusively human. Her Son’s Love was both divine and human as He was God and Man, but Mary’s love was always human because that was what she was, a creature – that was all the love she had. Well then, whom did Mary love? And how did Mary love? Both answers are the object of our devotion to her Immaculate Heart. During her life on earth Mary loved God with all her heart. Christ’s command in the Old Testament was followed perfectly, as Mary fulfilled it – loving her Divine Son as only a mother can love the fruit of her womb; she loved Joseph her devoted husband, to whom she was espoused, as only a devoted wife could. Mary is a model in a special way for women. Mary loved her relatives. We know that because when she first heard that her aged kinswoman was with child and would be needing help, St. Luke tells us that Mary ran across the hill country to a town of Juda to assist Elizabeth. Mary loved her friends. When invited to their wedding and they ran out of wine, Mary did something about it. She had no money to purchase it herself, so she asked the Giver of all gifts and the young couple had an excellent replenishment.

Mary loved John the Apostle to whom Jesus entrusted her on Calvary. She loved Peter whom she knew well. Trying to help she told her Son about Peter’s impetuosity, something He might well have seen, but He welcomed His Mother’s intuition. Mary knew Paul because Paul’s best friend was Luke, and of Paul, Luke spoke often to Mary. Paul never saw Jesus but we can be sure that Mary talked often to this great Apostle of the Gentiles. Mary loved greatly all the Apostles and disciples of her Son. Christ loved them and so did Mary. Weren’t they all with Mary on that day when the Holy Spirit came upon them at Pentecost? Now whom does Mary love? Mary, as the Church teaches, loves everyone, but especially those that most love her Son. Mary like every true mother gives her heart to those that love her Son.

How does Mary love? Mary during her life on earth loved sufferingly, for from the moment she conceived the Christ Child in her womb, she became the sorrowful Mother. Simeon early told her that a sword would pierce her heart and so it did.

for more information, see http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/ Mariology/Mariology_015.htm

2009-08-20 23:32:07 by DKong

The Roman Catholic Church contends that its origin is the death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ in approximately 30 A.D. The Catholic Church proclaims itself to be the Church that Jesus Christ died for, the Church that was established and built by the Apostles. Is that the true origin of the Catholic Church? On the contrary. Even a cursory reading of the New Testament will reveal that the Catholic Church does not have its origin in the teachings of Jesus, or His apostles. In the New Testament, there is no mention of the papacy, worship / adoration of Mary (or the immaculate conception of Mary, the perpetual virginity of Mary, the assumption of Mary, or Mary as co-redemptrix and mediatrix), petitioning saints in Heaven for their prayers, apostolic succession, the ordinances of the church functioning as sacraments, infant baptism, confession of sin to a priest, purgatory, indulgences, or the equal authority of church tradition and Scripture.

So, if the origin of the Catholic Church is not in the teachings of Jesus and His apostles, as recorded in the New Testament, what is the true origin of the Catholic Church?
"Bond Girl" did you read the information at the site? Do you agree with it? Is this new information for you? I would like to know who here agrees with the information.
"Anonymous", I am interested in knowing the true origin of the Catholic Church. I address the Christians because I desire to hear the Truth.
"Laveyansatanist", I don't think that I'll receive thousands of answers, and I believe that it's possible for a non-Catholic to give the truth about the origin of the Catholic Church; however, I'm glad to hear of the true origin by Catholics and other non-believers as long as the truth is shared.
"tebone0315", I claim to be a part of the Church that Jesus founded, and it's older than the Catholic Church. I am a part of The Church. It was not founded by any man other than Jesus who was also God the Son. What are the beliefs of the Church? All of them are located in the Word of God. They are not decided or created by any other man that Jesus the Christ the Messiah. So, I don't understand how you can claim that the Catholic "Church" is older than THE CHURCH that existed at the time of the death and resurrection of Jesus.
"Kazoo M", I'm not bashing anything. I'm asking about the origin of the Catholic Church. Rather than read the catechisms created by religious men, I would prefer to read God's Word. God's Word is the basis for my beliefs. If God's Word doesn't instruct me to believe or do something, it's really not necessary, and it can be harmful or fatal. If Catholics say that Jesus created the CATHOLIC Church, I think it should be easy for a Catholic or someone to point me to the scripture in the Bible that says this is true along with scripture in the Bible that supports the claims of Catholics. No need to be offended. I only ask for the Truth from the Bible, God's Word.
"TheBansh...", I'm not trying to pass anything off as my own wording. Since you ask about the source that caused me to create this question, I will share more of it's content with you. As already shared by one responder, the information comes from http://www.gotquestions.org/origin-Catho lic-church.html and I wanted to ask this question to see if people would confirm what I've read or give different answers. Since you're interested in the site more than responding, I'll share more of the details. I would like to know if others here are in agreement with the details.
"TheBansh...", I'm not trying to pass anything off as my own wording. Since you ask about the source that caused me to create this question, I will share more of it's content with you. As already shared by one responder, the information comes from http://www.gotquestions.org/origin-Catho lic-church.html and I wanted to ask this question to see if people would confirm what I've read or give different answers. Since you're interested in the site more than responding, I'll share more of the details. I would like to know if others here are in agreement with the details.
"TheBansh...", I'm not trying to pass anything off as my own wording. Since you ask about the source that caused me to create this question, I will share more of it's content with you. As already shared by one responder, the information comes from http://www.gotquestions.org/origin-Catho lic-church.html and I wanted to ask this question to see if people would confirm what I've read or give different answers. Since you're interested in the site more than responding, I'll share more of the details. I would like to know if others here are in agreement with the details.
"TheBansh...", I'm not trying to pass anything off as my own wording. Since you ask about the source that caused me to create this question, I will share more of it's content with you. As already shared by one responder, the information comes from http://www.gotquestions.org/origin-Catho lic-church.html and I wanted to ask this question to see if people would confirm what I've read or give different answers. Since you're interested in the site more than responding, I'll share more of the details. I would like to know if others here are in agreement with the details.
"TheBansh...", I'm not trying to pass anything off as my own wording. Since you ask about the source that caused me to create this question, I will share more of it's content with you. As already shared by one responder, the information comes from http://www.gotquestions.org/origin-Catho lic-church.html and I wanted to ask this question to see if people would confirm what I've read or give different answers. Since you're interested in the site more than responding, I'll share more of the details. I would like to know if others here are in agreement with the details.
For the first 280 years of Christian history, Christianity was banned by the Roman empire, and Christians were terribly persecuted. This changed after the “conversion” of the Roman Emperor Constantine. Constantine “legalized” Christianity at the Edict of Milan in A.D. 313. Later, in A.D. 325, Constantine called together the Council of Nicea, in an attempt to unify Christianity. Constantine envisioned Christianity as a religion that could unite the Roman Empire, which at that time was beginning to fragment and divide. While this may have seemed to be a positive development for the Christian church, the results were anything but positive. Just as Constantine refused to fully embrace the Christian faith, but continued many of his pagan beliefs and practices, so the Christian church that Constantine promoted was a mixture of true Christianity and Roman paganism.
Constantine found that with the Roman Empire being so vast, expansive, and diverse – not everyone would agree to forsake their religious beliefs and instead embrace Christianity. So, Constantine allowed, and even promoted, the “Christianization” of pagan beliefs. Completely pagan and utterly unbiblical beliefs were given new “Christian” identities. Some clear examples of this are as follows:
(1) The Cult of Isis, an Egyptian mother-goddess religion, was absorbed into Christianity by replacing Isis with Mary. Many of the titles that were used for Isis, such as “Queen of Heaven,” “Mother of God,” and “theotokos” (God-bearer) were attached to Mary. Mary was given an exalted role in the Christian faith, far beyond what the Bible ascribes to her, in order to attract Isis worshippers to a faith they would not otherwise embrace. Many temples to Isis were, in fact, converted into temples dedicated to Mary. The first clear hints of Catholic Mariology occur in the writings of Origen, who lived in Alexandria, Egypt, which happened to be the focal point of Isis worship.
(2) Mithraism was a religion in the Roman Empire in the 1st through 5th centuries A.D. It was very popular among the Romans, especially among Roman soldiers, and was possibly the religion of several Roman emperors. While Mithraism was never given “official” status in the Roman empire, it was the de-facto official religion until Constantine and succeeding Roman emperors replaced Mithraism with Christianity. One of the key features of Mithraism was a sacrificial meal, which involved eating the flesh and drinking the blood of a bull. Mithras, the god of Mithraism, was “present” in the flesh and blood of the bull, and when consumed, granted salvation to those who partook of the sacrificial meal (theophagy, the eating of one’s god). Mithraism also had seven “sacraments,” making the similarities between Mithraism and Roman Catholicism too many to ignore.
(3) Most Roman emperors (and citizens) were henotheists. A henotheist is one who believes in the existence of many gods, but focuses primary on one particular god, or considers one particular god supreme over the other gods. For example, the Roman god Jupiter was supreme over the Roman pantheon of gods. Roman sailors were often worshippers of Neptune, the god of the oceans. When the Catholic Church absorbed Roman paganism, it simply replaced the pantheon of gods with the saints. Just as the Roman pantheon of gods had a god of love, a god of peace, a god of war, a god of strength, a god of wisdom, etc., so the Catholic Church has a saint who is “in charge” over each of these, and many other categories. Just as many Roman cities had a god specific to the city, so the Catholic Church provided “patron saints” for the cities.
(4) The supremacy of the Roman bishop (the papacy) was created with the support of the Roman emperors. With the city of Rome being the center of government for the Roman empire, and with the Roman emperors living in Rome, the city of Rome rose to prominence in all facets of life. Constantine, and his successors, gave their support to the bishop of Rome as the supreme ruler of the church. Of course it is best for the unity of the Roman empire that the government and state religion be centered in the same location. While most other bishops (and Christians) resisted the idea of the Roman bishop being supreme, the Roman bishop eventually rose to supremacy, due to the power and influence of the Roman emperors. When the Roman empire collapsed, the popes took on the title that had previously belonged to the Roman emperors – Pontificus Maximus.
Many more examples could be given. These four should suffice in demonstrating the true origin of the Catholic Church. Of course the Roman Catholic Church denies the pagan origin of its beliefs and practices. The Catholic Church disguises its pagan beliefs under layers of complicated theology. The Catholic Church excuses and denies its pagan origin beneath the mask of “church tradition.” Recognizing that many of its beliefs and practices are utterly foreign to Scripture, the Catholic Church is forced to deny the authority and sufficiency of Scripture.

Do you agree with this origin of the Catholic Church? Is it new information for you? It's new to me!
The origin of the Catholic Church is the tragic compromise of Christianity with the pagan religions that surrounded it. Instead of proclaiming the Gospel and converting the pagans, the Catholic Church “Christianized” the pagan religions, and “paganized” Christianity. By blurring the differences and erasing the distinctions, yes, the Catholic Church made itself attractive to the people of the Roman empire. One result was the Catholic Church becoming the supreme religion in the “Roman world” for centuries. However, another result was the most dominant form of Christianity apostatizing from the true Gospel of Jesus Christ and the true proclamation of God’s Word.
2 Timothy 4:3-4 declares, “For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.”
"Hussein", you claim, "The Catholic Church is the only Church on earth which fits the pattern of the Church which Jesus Christ founded, and as Blueprinted for us in the Bible."
My Reply: Perhaps your bible supports the worship of Mary; however, I have read many translations, and I don't find even one reference or hint of a comparison of the modern day Catholic Church and the actual CHURCH of the bible. Jesus established the Church (The People). He didn't create a cathedral full of idols. He didn't teach us a "hail Mary" prayer. Please cite the references in the bible that gives the Catholic church permission to make its claims for each and every one of its rituals and traditions that are NOT MENTIONED in all of the translations that I have read. Again, Jesus established The Church which represents all believers in Him. Catholicism today has added much that's simply not in the bible. For me, the bible is sufficient. God's Word is sufficient. The Truth is what I desire.
“Clare, OCC, SFCU”, you said when you “studied Scripture and compared it to what” you were “hearing from the pulpit” in a Baptist Church, “there was quite a bit missing.” Well, I was raised in a Baptist family, too. I also saw that the Full Gospel of Jesus was not taught by my pastor or denomination. I, too, began to study God’s Word, but studying the Truth did not lead me to the doors of the Catholic church where the Truth is not found. When I studied God’s Word, it led me to the Truth that’s simply found in God’s Word! The scripture led me to a closer walk with Jesus. My relationship with Jesus is also closer now than ever before, but I haven’t had to compromise my beliefs or accept false teachings in the process. I’m glad you have a closer walk with Jesus. It’s my hope that your walk will become even closer until you can see for yourself the traditions and doctrines of man that are not taught or supported or aligned with the Bible. Continue to study the Bible.
“Clare, OCC, SFCU”, you said that “90% Christian evangelization is directed toward…Catholics…rather than people who do not know Christ.”
My Reply: I think this should be a sign to you that the followers of Jesus the Christ the Messiah who know Him as Lord are concerned about your soul. I think that these people know how close you are to knowing and living the Truth; however, you’re surrounded with deception by man that is centuries old. Do you know Jesus as Lord? If yes, you will obey Him. As you look around you in your cathedral or during your Mass, you will see people doing things and hear people saying things that are simply not Scriptural or condoned by Jesus. Drop your title and simply look for the Truth by reading God’s Word without your catechism book that’s created by man. Clare, don't stop searching for the Truth. May your spiritual ears and eyes be opened and your heart softened to hear, see, and believe the Truth in God's Word.
“Clare, OCC, SFCU”, you asked or accused, “Shouldn’t you be out there with the 10% who are actually obeying the Great Commission given by Christ?”
My Reply: Clare, I have left my home, family, and property in the USA to be obedient to God’s Word in a distant nation. Yes, I have accepted the mandate given by Jesus in Matthew 28:19-20. Jesus' command for all believers is to make disciples. It is not optional. These disciples need to know the Truth in God’s Word rather than the traditions and deception created by man. I don’t know if your percentage is correct, but here are the verses you reference.

MATTHEW 28:19-20
"Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."
“Clare, OCC, SFCU”, I am obedient to God’s mandate. I live in a country where I only see believers at our fellowship when we gather to praise and worship God. Throughout the week, I am surrounded by primarily Muslims, Hindus, and atheists. I would give you more details, but it’s not prudent to do so. I will say that most of the people I meet have never known a follower of Jesus the Christ the Messiah who knows Him as Lord, and they have never read let alone seen a Bible. Yes, I am ministering to the lost nations, and it is a challenge. Yes, we need more believers of God’s Word here. Yes, it requires a commitment and sacrifice. However, my love for my Lord and Savior is sufficient to give my life to Him and to His Truth as shared in His Word. I don’t add to the Bible when I speak to the lost. I only share what God reveals to us in His Word.
“Clare, OCC, SFCU”, you asked if “real evangelization” is “too risky, face-to-face?”
My Reply: This is a good question. The answer if “No, real evangelization is not too risky face-to-face when I stand on God’s Word. The Muslim country where I live gives potential for a physical threat, but I do not fear people who can harm my body, I have a holy fear or awe or respect for God who has the ability to receive or reject my soul for eternity. Because Jesus first love me, I now go to share this love with others. Nearly seven years have passed since I left my “comfort zone and the remote control” in the USA. Thank you for affirming, again, the reason I am here in this country and the reason that I now visit the QandA section of Yahoo. I am here, but I’ll not neglect the lost in the USA. Truth can be shared face-to-face here, but I can also use the Internet for Truth to reach around the globe. God is in the business of restoration, and He is drawing people to Him from EVERY NATION.
MATTHEW 16:18
"And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.”

Beware of not seeing the trees (disciples) for seeing the forest (church). Jesus said He would build the church, but He told us to make disciples.

How do you plant a forest? You don't. You plant one tree at a time. Those trees then reproduce other trees and a forest develops. This process takes time and commitment.

Disciples cannot be mass-produced. Be faithful to help whoever God has given you opportunity to disciple, and JESUS will build HIS CHURCH.
"Big Guy 360" and "Kristevonne", I thank both of you for your responses that are most inline with the truth, and your answers give support and clarity to my question which is not a question of hate or intended "to bash". I seek to know the Truth, and I seek to share the Truth.

It is unfortunate that the official members of the Catholic church who call themselves Christians did NOT give any answers to dispute WITH EVIDENCE FROM THE BIBLE, GOD’S WORD or clarify my question. It is unfortunate that the Catholic church cannot support the reasons for the traditions and doctrines that it teaches because they are not taught in the New Testament of the Bible.
Why didn’t even one Catholic give Biblical support to contradict the following: “In the New Testament, there is no mention of the papacy, worship / adoration of Mary (or the immaculate conception of Mary, the perpetual virginity of Mary, the assumption of Mary, or Mary as co-redemptrix and mediatrix), petitioning saints in Heaven for their prayers, apostolic succession, the ordinances of the church functioning as sacraments, infant baptism, confession of sin to a priest, purgatory, indulgences, or the equal authority of church tradition and Scripture.” Why? Because there isn’t any Biblical support for these traditions of man and false doctrines of man. So, my question remains. If the origin of the Catholic Church is not in the teachings of Jesus and His apostles, as recorded in the New Testament, what is the true origin of the Catholic Church? If you are Catholic and you didn’t answer my question, I hope you will at least search for the answers for yourselves.
The Word of God is sufficient, final, and complete.

You said:

"The origin of the Catholic Church is the tragic compromise of Christianity with the pagan religions that surrounded it. Instead of proclaiming the Gospel and converting the pagans, the Catholic Church “Christianized” the pagan religions, and “paganized” Christianity. By blurring the differences and erasing the distinctions, yes, the Catholic Church made itself attractive to the people of the Roman empire"

Right on, brother!

And you also said:

"Even a cursory reading of the New Testament will reveal that the Catholic Church does not have its origin in the teachings of Jesus, or His apostles. In the New Testament, there is no mention of the papacy, worship / adoration of Mary (or the immaculate conception of Mary, the perpetual virginity of Mary, the assumption of Mary, or Mary as co-redemptrix and mediatrix), petitioning saints in Heaven for their prayers, apostolic succession, the ordinances of the church functioning as sacraments, infant baptism, confession of sin to a priest, purgatory, indulgences, or the equal authority of church tradition and Scripture"

You took the words out of my mouth. You don't know how many times I have said this same thing writing this same list. We don't just say to them, "You are wrong!" We point out to them exactly where the churches doctrines and traditions deviate from the bible and true gospel of Christ. But still they call us catholic haters and bashers.

I have come to the conclusion that catholics defend their religion and their priests no matter how much they are shown the error and no matter what crimes they commit. They are taught from birth it is the only true religion yet they don't care about the evil antichristian doctrines they are agreeing with by claiming to belong to this church. Do they think since there is some truth thrown in there with the lies that makes it Godly? That is what every false religion does. It mixes lies with truth.

2008-11-23 08:32:44 by One Way! Jesus!

I recently asked a question about the immaculate conception, more specifically on why people mix it up with the virgin birth. A JW replied that it was the implantation of Jesus's embryo into Mary's womb without sin. This is not the official doctrine of the immaculate conception according to the Roman Catholic church of course, but that's not the issue. What i want to know is, do Witnesses generally use the term "immaculate conception" themselves, and do they define it in that way?

No, Jehovah's Witnesses do not understand the term in a different sense. Jehovah's Witnesses are at different levels of spiritual understanding so some might not know the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. It is a Roman Catholic doctrine. We define it as the Roman Catholic Church does.

Incidentally, my boss is Catholic. He understood the doctrine to refer to the virgin birth of Jesus.

Hannah J Paul

2009-09-09 08:42:21 by grayure