Some quotes for Catholics to ponder...

would you be so kind to provide a link?

 

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=johndeerefan+site%3Acatholic.com&aq=f&aql=f&aqi=&oq=

 

It's "johndeerEfan" not "johndeerfan".................you typed it wrong.

 

ooops! Thank you

 

You're welcome! :thumbs:

 

I posted some things from the Catechism on another thread that even the Catholic defenders here (who accuse those of us trying to expose the problematic teachings of the RCC as "rabid") would not touch with a ten foot pole. What was the response? It was sheer silence. Not a peep, not a word. I was waiting for the Catholic defenders to jump up and defend these teachings but they didn't. Why not? Because even they could see they were not biblical.

 

Such as....

 

Really, any non-Catholic who wants to defend the teachings of the RCC needs to read the Catechism. I find that some here seem not to know why there are serious problematic teachings in the RCC. If you have no problems with this, well, maybe you should leave your Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist, etc. church and join the RCC. I certainly am not recommending it, but at least be honest to the doctrines that you profess.

So if you are going to defend the RCC, as many of you non-Catholics here do, then at the very least be familiar with their teachings and join them if you agree. You can't decide based on forum postings or what anyone says - investigate the official teachings and decide. That is why I am posting from the Catechism; these are the official RCC teachings.

 

personally, i'm not here to 'defend' every Roman Catholic doctrine (if i could defend and agree, i would be RC and not Orthodox), so honestly i just skim through half of these posts. if i see something i can comment on i will or if there's a topic that hasn't been discussed in more than a week...lol...i may re-engage...

in regard to Orthodox Christianity...the Eucharist is both symbolic and mystical. Also, the Eucharist in the Orthodox Church is understood to be the genuine Body and Blood of Christ, precisely because bread and wine are the mysteries and symbols of God's true and genuine presence and his manifestation to us in Christ.

The mystery of the Holy Eucharist defies analysis and explanation in purely rational and logical terms. For the Eucharist, as Christ himself, is a mystery of the Kingdom of Heaven which, as Jesus has told us, is "not of this world." The Eucharist, because it belongs to God's Kingdom, is truly free from the earth-born "logic" of fallen humanity.

John of Damascus had this to say:

"If you enquire how this happens, it is enough for you to learn that it is through the Holy Spirit ... we know nothing more than this, that the word of God is true, active, and omnipotent, but in its manner of operation unsearchable".​

what i like about the Orthodox Church is that we're not so hell bent on defining everything in specific abosolute terms (but somethings we do...the Holy Trinity...but in the end...it's still a mystery)...i'm happy with the answer..."it's a mystery..."

In XC
-

 

O noble Virgin, truly you are greater than any other greatness. For who is your equal in greatness, O dwelling place of God the Word? To whom among all creatures shall I compare you, O Virgin? You are greater than them all. O [Ark of the New] Covenant, clothed with purity instead of gold! You are the Ark in which is found the golden vessel containing the true manna, that is, the flesh in which divinity resides. Should I compare you to the fertile earth and its fruits? You surpass them. . . . If I say that heaven is exalted, yet it does not equal you. . . . If we say that the cherubim are great, you are greater than they, for the cherubim carry the throne of God, while you hold God in your hands.

—St. Athanasius, quoted by L.Gambero in Mary and the Fathers of the Church (Ignatius Press, 1999), pp. 106-7
:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

I think Athanasius had it right. She indeed was the TRUE ark of the covenant. I saw that even as a Baptist. She is indeed the Holy Mother of God.

 

Well, I wasn't really addressing or thinking of you, but of the Baptists, Methodists, and other non-Orthodox church members here.

 

That is crazy. God existed before Mary.

Due to the rife anti-Catholic -- not anti-Catholicism -- sentiment that exists among a few overly vocal posters, I hate to say anything against Catholicism, but if you are going to assert a premise such as this, I am going to point out its folly. Stick to advancing premises that are not blatantly foolish.

God: existed before Creation. Mary: first existed well less than 60 years before Jesus Christ. It is obvious that Mary could not be the "Mother of God" because God existed LONG before she did.

There are several reasons why the Scriptures never call her that, the first of which is that she was not.

There is no way that Mary is the mother -- lower case -- of God Who existed before her.

From Luke 11:

27 As he said these things, a woman in the crowd raised her voice and said to him, “Blessed is the womb that bore you, and the breasts at which you nursed!” 28 But he said, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!”(ESV).​

Jesus did not `Amen' her exaltation of Mary. Do not expect Him to `Amen' yours.

Exalt Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is the One Who did the work to be our Savior.

 

Was or was not Jesus Christ God? Did she just carry his humanity in her womb??

 

Try checking out this link and see that both Luther and Calvin both supported the use of the term for Mary: The Mother of God

http://www.catholic.com/library/Mary_Mother_of_God.asp

 

The article also addresses Daron Steele (and many other fundamentalist) objection based on God existing long before Mary came onto the scene. Please read all the article to get the perspective of many other theologians other than Catholic.

 

They were Catholics, no surprise.

 

Luther and Calvin?

Did mary only carry Jesus human nature in the womb?

And simply because this page was posted by Catholics, does that automatically mean anything that is said is to be totally rejected?

 

Did you really read the whole article? That was mighty fast, I just posted it.

 

This is taken from Wikipedia concerning Martin Luther's views of Mary:

"Despite Luther's harsh polemics against his Roman Catholic opponents over issues concerning Mary and the saints, theologians appear to agree that Luther adhered to the Marian decrees of the ecumenical councils and dogmas of the church. He held fast to the belief that Mary was a perpetual virgin and the Theotokos or Mother of God. Special attention is given to the assertion, that Luther some three-hundred years before the dogmatization of the Immaculate Conception by Pope Pius IX in 1854, was a firm adherent of that view. Others maintain that Luther in later years changed his position on the Immaculate Conception, which at that time was undefined in the Church; however, he maintained belief in Mary's lifelong sinlessness"