Why should we pray to Virgin Mary? The reasons are many.
Why do Catholics pray to Mother Mary? Is Rosary really powerful?
The intercession of Mother Mary is very powerful as Jesus cannot neglect His mothers commands.This can be proved by the first miracle Jesus did at the wedding at Cana. – (John 2:1-11). Mother Mary told Jesus “They have no more wine.” And what was the final result? He turned water into wine.
In “The Poem of the Man-God” by Maria Valtorta, she says that Jesus told her about this incident as “I did it for Mary”. This proves that the intercession of Mother Mary is very very strong.
Mother Mary was blessed with Holy Spirit abundantly. We can see this as we read “At that time Mary got ready and hurried to a town in the hill country of Judea, where she entered Zechariah’s home and greeted Elizabeth. When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit.” (Luke 1:39-41) ; just by Virgin Mary’s greeting.
Listen to the talk from Apologetics on Mary, Purgatory and The Bible
What the angels thought on this matter:-
When angel appeared before Zechariah,father of John, angel just greets him by his name ,nothing more although he was “upright in the sight of God, observing all the Lord’s commandments and regulations blamelessly.” – (Luke 1:6)
When angel appeared before Joseph, the greeting was like this: “an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.” – (Matthew 1:20). Angel greeted him ‘son of david’, thats all.
Now let us see how did the angel greet Virgin Mary. It goes like this: “The angel went to her and said, “Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you.” (Luke 1:28). See the difference….
Also read the article Mary, The Mystical Rose
Alan,1410,
I have not been ‘debunked’.For someone once wrote or said ‘there has to be a beginning to everything’.Thus when Jesus established the ‘Catholic Church’ it could not then be called ‘catholic’ for at thet time it was geographically restricted.However when it started to spread world wide it became universal.But always Christian!
Just akin to yourself for it took time for you to become a man.Or where you called ‘a man’ when you were aged 2?
When one reads what you have written above recently,Alan,is it not about time that you did the honest thing and study Catholicism as it is rather than the utterances of liars who are friends of the father of lies.
May I also enlighten you in-case it becomes a big shock to you:The title ‘Pope’ took some time to be used in reference to St.Peter’s successors (perhaps the end of the 2nd century AD or the 3rd AD).Of course as some one once wrote or said ‘what’s in a name’?.After all Peter and his successors are predestined Fathers of the Catholic (Christian) Church.For Christ Jesus only established ONE!!!!!!!
Alan,
The truth is there for you above.If you dont want to accept that’s OK.
Eventually you have admitted that you are not a ‘protestant’.But your statements confirm the latter.
Obviously influenced arising from a split protestantism worldwide you have established your own church or are about to.In the footsteps of Luther,Calvin,etc,.
I wish you the best!
Revelation 12-
Relates to 4 main characters who are in battle.Symbolic for some persons but they are specific persons too.The woman with the man-child is Mary with Jesus.
Verse 17-‘Then the dragon was angry with the woman and went off to make war on the rest of her offspring,on those who keep the commandments of God and bear testimomy to Jesus….’
Thus if you bear testimony to Jesus and keep his commandments then spiritually Mary is our mother.Thus Mary is a warrior maiden who does battle through her motherhood.
@Christine Marie:
Then there is “Catholic Church†– all uppercase letters
Sorry … my mistake. I meant only the first (C) are uppercase.
Christian Church??? Or Roman Catholic “Universal†Church!!!
Hello Sir Alan! I admire your sincerity sharing to us your knowledge of the scripture and your promptness in replying was more impressive and unequalled to anyone of us here. Perhaps only brother Liam can match your accuracy and firmness to sound discussion. However there were points I wish to correct in your response #1409 and I shall state it below here.
“You have just “debunked†and nailed Liam :) So the First Century Church was always a “Christian†church and not Catholic or Roman Catholic church. The later happened in the second century, onward. Therefore the RC Church is not the one-true church established by Jesus.â€
NO, on the contrary brother Liam declarations to you was supported by my own statement only there was some miss-representation of fact you failed to recognize and I will point to you the discrepancy of your statement. And I believe your statement above had been referred to in Acts 11:26: We will check the verse on your favorite Bible, the KJV.
v26. And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch. (KJV- pure Cambridge authorized version)
My dear Sir, the paragraph two above was your statement that I have just quoted to examine all the angles you wish it to be interpreted and the paragraph four was taken from the KJV version as bases of our discussion.
Here is your statement;â€So the First Century Church was always a “Christian†church and not Catholic or Roman Catholic churchâ€. You have wittingly combined or let us say re-coined the word “Christian church†to make it appear that the first Church Christ instituted was named “Christian Church†and not Catholic which means “Universalâ€. The last phrase of Acts 11:26 speak of the disciples being called Christian, (take note) it does not speak of a church to be called Christian Church as you have strongly indicated but rather calling Christians the first disciples in Antioch. Vv.26; that speaks of church which no name indicated was meant to be the church of Antioch as we can glean before vv.19 started. In vv. 22; the church in Jerusalem sent Barnabas to Antioch for an apostolic mission to give instruction to a large number of people. Originally Christians weren’t even called Christians. They were called “disciples” (i.e., “students”) of Jesus of Nazareth. Later, in the city of Antioch, they received the name “Christians” (Acts 11:26). This happened in the A.D. 30s. This term spread very quickly as far as Rome (1 Peter 5:13) where St. Peter establish the foundation of the so called Catholic “Universal†Church. So it follows where the place Church established they called it Church of Antioch, Church of Jerusalem, etc..and later the Roman Church where Peter being the head ( first Pope) established and founded the name Roman Catholic Apostolic Church. When Ignatius wrote the Letter to the Smyrnaeans in about the year 107 and used the word catholic, he used it as if it were a word already in use to describe the Church. This has led many scholars to conclude that the appellation Catholic Church with its ecclesial connotation may have been in use ( take note this Sir Alan) as early as the last quarter of the 1st century not in the second century onward as you have falsely indicated. A discrepancy of couple of years are acceptable but a hundred years or one century is unimaginable!
Listed below are some references for you to check out Sir and this may help you come out of erroneous impression you had with our Catholic belief.
The Apostolic Fathers
These Saints immediately preceded the Apostles of Jesus Christ and were disciples of the Apostles:
St. Clement of Rome (1st Century)
• Bishop at Rome.
• May have been a disciple of the Apostles of Peter and Paul.
• Wrote First Clement (c.95 A.D.) to the Corinthian church, which advises on spiritual discipline.
St. Ignatius of Antioch (35 – 107 A.D.)
• Bishop at Antioch.
• A disciple of at least one of the Apostles.
• Was arrested for being a Christian and taken to Rome for execution.
• On his journey to Rome he wrote seven letters that delineate Church governance: Bishop, presbyters and deacons.
St. Polycarp of Smyrna (65 – 156 A.D.)
• Bishop of Smyrna.
• Friend of Ignatius of Antioch.
• Disciple of the Apostle John.
• Martyred in old age by being burned to death.
God used these Apostolic Fathers to carry on the Christian faith during times of terrible persecution and maintain orthodox doctrine (teaching) within the Church.
Read more at Suite101: Catholic Saints List: Ignatius of Antioch to Gregory the Great | Suite101.com
St. Ignatius was Bishop of Antioch after Saint Peter and St. Evodius (who died aroundAD 67). Eusebius records that St. Ignatius succeeded St. Evodius. Making his apostolic succession even more immediate, Theodoret (Dial. Immutab., I, iv, 33a) reported that Peter himself appointed Ignatius to the see of Antioch. Aside from his Greek name, Ignatius, he also called himself Theophorus (“God Bearer”), and tradition says he was one of the children Jesus took in His arms and blessed. St. Ignatius is one of the Apostolic Fathers (the earliest authoritative group of the Church Fathers). He based his authority on being a bishop of the Church, living his life in the imitation of Christ. It is believed that St. Ignatius, along with his friend Polycarp, with great probability were disciples of the Apostle St. John.
MARYRDOM
Epistles attributed to St. Ignatius report his arrest by the authorities and travel to Rome:
From Syria even to Rome I fight with wild beasts, by land and sea, by night and by day, being bound amidst ten leopards, even a company of soldiers, who only grow worse when they are kindly treated. — Ignatius to the Romans, 5.
Along the route he wrote six letters to the churches in the region and one to a fellow bishop. He was sentenced to die at the Colosseum. In his Chronicle, Eusebius gives the date of Ignatius’s death as AA 2124 (2124 years after Adam), which would amount to the 11th year of Trajan, i.e. 108 AD.
He is also responsible for the first known use of the Greek word katholikos (καθολικός), meaning “universal”, “complete” and “whole” to describe the church, writing:
Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful to baptize or give communion without the consent of the bishop. On the other hand, whatever has his approval is pleasing to God. Thus, whatever is done will be safe and valid. — Letter to the Smyrnaeans 8, J.R. Willis translation.
It is from the word katholikos (“according to the whole”) that the word Catholic comes. When Ignatius wrote the Letter to the Smyrnaeans in about the year 107 and used the word Catholic, he used it as if it were a word already in use to describe the Church. This has led many scholars to conclude that the appellation Catholic Church with its ecclesial connotation may have been in use as early as the last quarter of the 1st century. On the Eucharist, he wrote in his letter to the Smyrnaeans:
Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God … They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes. — Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1
Saint Ignatius’s most famous quotation, however, comes from his letter to the Romans:
I am writing to all the Churches and I enjoin all, that I am dying willingly for God’s sake, if only you do not prevent it. I beg you, do not do me an untimely kindness. Allow me to be eaten by the beasts, which are my way of reaching to God. I am God’s wheat, and I am to be ground by the teeth of wild beasts, so that I may become the pure bread of Christ. — Letter to the Romans ( Reference: Wikipedia, free encyclopedia)
Sir, I wish I can match your esteem in written discussion and there were so many interesting points to explore and I shall take it one at a time. Have a nice day and God Bless!
Jesus King of Mercy I Trust in You. Ave Maria!
@liam (#1414)
You are trying to re-write the Bible with your own skewed interpretation. The Apostle John who wrote the book of Revelation when in exile in the island of patmos would have mentioned the woman is mary with child Jesus. Besides Jesus is not a child anymore in heaven. He was 30+ years of age when he was crucified and ascended bodily into heaven (See Book of Acts). YOUR ROMAN CATHOLIC INTERPRETATION IS WRONG AS YOU ARE TRYING TO ELEVATE MARY AS PER YOUR FAULTY TEACHINGS RECEIVED FROM THE RC CHURCH. I PRAY THAT ALMIGHTY GOD PUT THE LOVE OF JESUS IN YOUR HEART.
Revelation 12-
Relates to 4 main characters who are in battle.Symbolic for some persons but they are specific persons too.The woman with the man-child is Mary with Jesus.
@Christine Marie (#1416):
First and foremost, i don’t consider anything posted on wikipedia as authoritative.
This term spread very quickly as far as Rome (1 Peter 5:13) where St. Peter establish the foundation of the so called Catholic “Universal†Church. So it follows where the place Church established they called it Church of Antioch, Church of Jerusalem, etc..and later the Roman Church where Peter being the head ( first Pope) established and founded the name Roman Catholic Apostolic Church.
Peter was never the first Pope. Lets look at it.. Verses below showing St.Paul confronting Peter. St.Paul addresses him by His name Peter and not Pope Peter. St.Paul confronts Peter for His doctrinal errors in spreading the Gospel and despite the fact that He was leader over the Apostle’s. Carefully analyse the two verses below. If you would be an Apostle today, would you be able to confront the present pope and tell him of His errors? No .. but with blind obedient faith you will not dare so. Also do the present popes spread the Gospel like Paul, Peter and the rest did. No!!!
Gal_2:11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
Gal_2:14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?
Peter himself in Acts 10:26 says – … Stand up; I myself also am a man. Why didn’t he say so that he was pope? Why did the man Cornelius who was a Centurion of the Italian Band address him with the present usurped pope titles like “Holy father”?
The Apostles Jesus apointed were ordinary fisher-folks, un-schooled men who came from humble dwellings yet in pleased God to use these ordinary man to proclaim His glory and take the Good News of the Gospel of Jesus to the uttermost parts of the earth.
Question: what do you understand about apostolic succession?
Question: “Was Saint Peter the first pope?”
Answer: The Roman Catholic Church sees Peter as the first pope upon whom God had chosen to build His church (Matthew 16:18). It holds that he had authority (primacy) over the other apostles. The Roman Catholic Church maintains that sometime after the recorded events of the book of Acts, the Apostle Peter became the first bishop of Rome, and that the Roman bishop was accepted by the early church as the central authority among all of the churches. It teaches that God passed Peter’s apostolic authority to those who later filled his seat as bishop of Rome. This teaching that God passed on Peter’s apostolic authority to the subsequent bishops is referred to as “apostolic succession.â€
The Roman Catholic Church also holds that Peter and the subsequent popes were and are infallible when addressing issues “ex cathedra,†from their position and authority as pope. It teaches that this infallibility gives the pope the ability to guide the church without error. The Roman Catholic Church claims that it can trace an unbroken line of popes back to St. Peter, citing this as evidence that it is the true church, since, according to their interpretation of Matthew 16:18, Christ built His church upon Peter.
But while Peter was central in the early spread of the gospel (part of the meaning behind Matthew 16:18-19), the teaching of Scripture, taken in context, nowhere declares that he was in authority over the other apostles, or over the church (having primacy). See Acts 15:1-23; Galatians 2:1-14; and 1 Peter 5:1-5. Nor is it ever taught in Scripture that the bishop of Rome, or any other bishop, was to have primacy over the church. Scripture does not even explicitly record Peter even being in Rome. Rather there is only one reference in Scripture of Peter writing from “Babylon,†a name sometimes applied to Rome (1 Peter 5:13). Primarily upon this and the historical rise of the influence of the Bishop of Rome come the Roman Catholic Church’s teaching of the primacy of the bishop of Rome. However, Scripture shows that Peter’s authority was shared by the other apostles (Ephesians 2:19-20), and the “loosing and binding†authority attributed to him was likewise shared by the local churches, not just their church leaders (see Matthew 18:15-19; 1 Corinthians 5:1-13; 2 Corinthians 13:10; Titus 2:15; 3:10-11).
Also, nowhere does Scripture state that, in order to keep the church from error, the authority of the apostles was passed on to those they ordained (the idea behind apostolic succession). Apostolic succession is “read into†those verses that the Roman Catholic Church uses to support this doctrine (2 Timothy 2:2; 4:2-5; Titus 1:5; 2:1; 2:15; 1 Timothy 5:19-22). Paul does NOT call on believers in various churches to receive Titus, Timothy, and other church leaders based on their authority as bishops or their having apostolic authority, but rather based upon their being fellow laborers with him (1 Corinthians 16:10; 16:16; 2 Corinthians 8:23).
What Scripture DOES teach is that false teachings would arise even from among church leaders, and that Christians were to compare the teachings of these later church leaders with Scripture, which alone is infallible (Matthew 5:18; Psalm 19:7-8; 119:160; Proverbs 30:5; John 17:17; 2 Peter 1:19-21). The Bible does not teach that the apostles were infallible, apart from what was written by them and incorporated into Scripture. Paul, in talking to the church leaders in the large city of Ephesus, makes note of coming false teachers. To fight against their error does NOT commend them to “the apostles and those who would carry on their authorityâ€; rather, Paul commends them to “God and to the word of His grace†(Acts 20:28-32). It is Scripture that was to be the infallible measuring stick for teaching and practice (2 Timothy 3:16-17), not apostolic successors. It is by examining the Scriptures that teachings are shown to be true or false (Acts 17:10-12).
Was Peter the first pope? The answer, according to Scripture, is a clear and emphatic “no.†Peter nowhere claims supremacy over the other apostles. Nowhere in his writings (1 and 2 Peter) did the Apostle Peter claim any special role, authority, or power over the church. Nowhere in Scripture does Peter, or any other apostle, state that their apostolic authority would be passed on to successors. Yes, the Apostle Peter had a leadership role among the disciples. Yes, Peter played a crucial role in the early spread of the gospel (Acts chapters 1-10). Yes, Peter was the “rock†that Christ predicted he would be (Matthew 16:18). However, these truths about Peter in no way give support to the concept that Peter was the first pope, or that he was the “supreme leader†over the apostles, or that his authority would be passed on to the bishops of Rome. Peter himself points us all to the true Shepherd and Overseer of the church, the Lord Jesus Christ (1 Peter 2:25).
Revelation is the last book in our HOLY BIBLE.Heed the warning REVELATION 22: 18-19, DO NOT ADD ANYTHING OR TAKE ANYTHING AWAY FROM THIS LAST BOOK INSPIRED BY GOD.Dear brothers sisters in CHRIST, Hold faith in JESUS CHRIST OUR SAVIOUR, THROUGH HIM AND HIM ALONE, by the grace of OUR HEAVENLY FATHER,and the power of the DIVINE HOLY SPIRIT, we abide in HIS TRUTH REVEALED IN THE BIBLE, prepare ourselves for the LAST TRUMPET blown,to receive the gift of eternal life together with all those faithful ones died in CHRIST. For CHRIST WARNS, HE WILL COME AS A THIEF AT UNEXPECTED TIME,let us hold firm to the teachings of OUR SAVIOUR JESUS, be the 5 wise girls prepare oil for their lamps awaiting the coming of the BRIDEGROOM AT MIDNIGHT, DO NOT FALL ASLEEP. REJECT ALL FALSE DOCTRINES AND PRACTICES OF MAN WHICH ARE AGAINST THE TEACHINGS OF GOD’S BELOVED SON JESUS CHRIST.AMEN
1417-Alan-
You are now contending that you know the thinking of John-what he would have said/what he would’nt have said.Even ‘reformed’ authorities agree with what I have written.
But then again,unfortunately,you are or consider yourself a modern day Calvin or Luther.As the man says bent on destruction and perhaps unaware of the master you serve.I pray for you.
An objective consideration of your input to this debate confirms a confusing awareness far from the truth and littered with personal pathetic formulations in opposition to the ‘Truth’.
If you are in a position to do so,Alan,please visit the Priscilla catacombs at Rome.There you will see a fresco dating from the beginning of the 3rd century AD.It is one of the most ancient pieces of Christian art and it relates to the mystery of the incarnation of the Son of God being conceived and born to the Virgin Mary who is also our Mother for Jesus is our Brother.
At the left of the fresco there is a figure of a man pointing to a star,located above the Virgin with her Son:a prophet,possibly Balaam,who announced that ‘a star shall come out of Jacob,and a sceptre shall rise out of Israel'(Num 24:17).This is the whole expectation of the Old Cevenant and the cry of a fallen humanity for a Saviour and Redeemer(cf.&&27;528.)-
This prophecy was fulfilled in the birth of Jesus conceived by the Spirit and born of Mary(cf.&&27;53;422;488).
Thus, I pray to Mary for it was she who brought Jesus to us.For this reason Mary is the image of the Church formed by her Son and confirmed by the above fresco which was composed in the early days of the Christian Church.Hundreds of years prior to any major desertion from the growing Catholic Church of Christ.
Question: “What is the origin of the Catholic Church?”
Answer: The Roman Catholic Church contends that its origin is the death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ in approximately A.D. 30. 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?
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 with the Edict of Milan in A.D. 313. Later, in A.D. 325, Constantine called 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 his or her religious beliefs to 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-bearerâ€) 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 (this is known as theophagy, the eating of one’s god). Mithraism also had seven “sacraments,†making the similarities between Mithraism and Roman Catholicism too many to ignore. Constantine and his successors found an easy substitute for the sacrificial meal of Mithraism in the concept of the Lord’s Supper/Christian communion. Sadly, some early Christians had already begun to attach mysticism to the Lord’s Supper, rejecting the biblical concept of a simple and worshipful remembrance of Christ’s death and shed blood. The Romanization of the Lord’s Supper made the transition to a sacrificial consumption of Jesus Christ, now known as the Catholic Mass/Eucharist, complete.
(3) Most Roman emperors (and citizens) were henotheists. A henotheist is one who believes in the existence of many gods, but focuses primarily 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.
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.
Second 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.â€
Friends in Christ,
In John 3:5 Jesus affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptise them-Mt 28:19-20.And in Mk 16:16 Baptism is necessary for salvation to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.
Friends in Christ,
Across the centuries in many languages,cultures,peoples and nations the Catholic Church of Christ has constantly confessed ‘one faith’which it received from its founder-one Lord-transmitted by one Baptism, and grounded by the conviction that all people have only one God and Father.
And as a saint once wrote “for though languages differ throughout the world, the content of tradition is one and the same…”.
Thus the above is why I am a Christian and why I pray to Mary for when she said ‘yes’to Gabriel she uttered it on behalf of all human nature.In fact as St.Augustine wrote ‘Mary’ with her own being is the ‘handmaid of the Lord’which is based in the Bible-(Lk 1:38).In truth by her obedience Mary became the ‘new Eve’- Mother of the living.
@Liam,
based on your 1414 comments:- Can you prove Revelation 12 woman is Mary?
I am sure you never read the chapter 12 fully.
Rev 12:6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.
Liam: why Mary fleeing into wilderness?Please explain.
God bless you
Apostolic succession and the Primacy of Rome Bishops:
Hello sir,
I expected your denial of the sources that I have referred to; the Wikipedia, free Encyclopedia and the Britannica Encyclopedia Americana, because if you admit all your arguments will collapsed like a domino that falls from the beginning to the end. The argument you raised one time to me about “study†(2TIM.2:15) seem a farce and apply only to satisfy its usage to the one who wish to manipulate its true essence and meaning. The first thing you raised this issue to me I feel somewhat convinced of your goal and admittedly push me to read more about the words in the scriptures. But, as I go along on reading (studying) I have noticed that we differ considerably in understanding of the issues we were discussing, both of us is on the opposite side. Now my question is who among us, on its true essence of the word “study†follow its true meaning?
Encyclopedias were written for the purpose of providing references to anyone who wish to know something and give us exact information what actually transpired in the past events. The Encyclopedia Americana, and the Wikipedia, free Encyclopedia informs us of the first Church was instituted through Peter: these were the facts and references no one can dispute. And to make it more convincing, our first Pope, Peter, up to these present times has been recorded properly and historically; to deny these facts is to let prejudice override reason.
The three paragraphs below from Sir Alan are worth to be examined as he himself suggested. And I am obliged to do so.
“Peter was never the first Pope. Lets look at it.. Verses below showing St.Paul confronting Peter. St.Paul addresses him by His name Peter and not Pope Peter. St.Paul confronts Peter for His doctrinal errors in spreading the Gospel and despite the fact that He was leader over the Apostle’s. Carefully analyse the two verses below. If you would be an Apostle today, would you be able to confront the present pope and tell him of His errors? No .. but with blind obedient faith you will not dare so. Also do the present popes spread the Gospel like Paul, Peter and the rest did. No!!!â€
“Gal_2:11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.â€
“Gal_2:14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?â€
To understand these two verses shared to us by my dear mate (Sir Alan) in this forum one must understand first the characters of St. Paul especially when at stake are his converts. First, he had a child like trust in the converts at Philippi, Ph.1:7; 4:10-20, a deep affection for those at Ephesus, Acts 20:17-38; he was furious with those in Galatia who where in the verge of apostasy, Gal.1:6; 3:1-3, and deeply upset when he thought that the Christians in Corinth had become vain and unstable, 2Cor.12:11; 13:10, and he was ironical with people he considered superficial,1Cor.4:8; 2Cor.11:7. But after these outbursts he became tender, 2Cor.11:1-2; 12:14, and fatherly, 1Cor.4:14; 2 Cor.6:13, even motherly, 1Th.2:7; Gal.4:19, and anxious to restore the earlier affection, Gal.4:12; 2Cor.7:11-13. To sum up, Paul fiercest outburst were directed against everybody who tried to seduce his converts, whether they were Jews, who opposed him wherever he went, or Judaising Christians who wanted all follower of Christ to follow the Law, Gal.1:7; 2:4.
I was appalled by the way you reconstructed these two verses (Gal. 2:11 and Gal. 2:14, in the first paragraph I have quoted from your letter), that may seem the apostles Paul and Peter was in total disagreement and reconciliation between them to resolve the issues is far from over. You may charge me I misunderstood your phrasing but anyone who read your letter can rightfully understand Paul disrespects Peter when he vehemently confronted and opposed him to the face. The insinuation is very clear!
But one must understand that when Paul confronted Peter, Paul knows very well that his authority comes from God meaning in equal footing just like St. Peter, Gal.1:15-16;â€Then God, who had specially chosen me while I was still in my mother’s womb, called me through his grace and chose to reveal His Son in me, so that I might preach the Good News about him to the pagans.†Secondly, Paul understands very well their agreement in Gal.2:9, “So James, Cephas and John, these pillars, shook hands with Barnabas and me as a sign of partnership: we were to go to the pagans and they to the circumcised. This rightfully explains Gal.2:11-14. And the numerous references I listed above about his characters prove correct. Though Paul claimed to be just as witness to Christ as they were, 1Cor.9:1, his attitude was conciliatory, Acts 21:18-26.
I hope these humble instructions may open your eyes to the wrong application you have had in explaining Gal.2:11-14.
Constructive discussion is now in a high gear and I am very much glued to my seat especially if opposition like you pushes me to the limit. Now, we shall settle the last issue thrown at me.
“Question: what do you understand about apostolic succession?â€
Reply: Apostolic succession was illustrated in the scripture. It means the line of bishops we have in our Catholic Church all over the world is stretching back to the first apostles of Christ. This doctrine is illustrated by Paul to Timothy, “What you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first three generations of apostolic succession—his own generation, Timothy’s generation, and the generation Timothy will teach.
Acts1:15-26; In those days Peter stood up among the brethren (the company of persons was in all about a hundred and twenty), and said, “Brethren, the scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke beforehand by the mouth of David, concerning Judas who was guide to those who arrested Jesus. . . . For it is written in the book of Psalms, `Let his habitation become desolate, and let there be no one to live in it’; and `His office let another take.’ So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us — one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection.” And they put forward two, Joseph called Barsab’bas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. And they prayed and said, “Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, show which one of these two thou hast chosen to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside, to go to his own place.” And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthias; and he was enrolled with the eleven apostles.
These are the partial list I have dig for your additional knowledge and I doubt you can provide me some lists of your own or had have in your congregation of which I am pretty sure you have none to produce.
The Apostolic Fathers succession and the primacy of the Roman Bishops:
These Saints immediately proceeded the Apostles of Jesus Christ and were disciples of the Apostles:
St. Clement of Rome (1st Century)
• Bishop at Rome.
• May have been a disciple of the Apostles of Peter and Paul.
• Wrote First Clement (c.95 A.D.) to the Corinthian church, which advises on spiritual discipline.
St. Ignatius of Antioch (35 – 107 A.D.)
• Bishop at Antioch.
• A disciple of at least one of the Apostles.
• Was arrested for being a Christian and taken to Rome for execution.
• On his journey to Rome he wrote seven letters that delineate Church governance: Bishop, presbyters and deacons.
St. Polycarp of Smyrna (65 – 156 A.D.)
• Bishop of Smyrna.
• Friend of Ignatius of Antioch.
• Disciple of the Apostle John.
• Martyred in old age by being burned to death.
God used these Apostolic Fathers to carry on the Christian faith during times of terrible persecution and maintain orthodox doctrine (teaching) within the Church.
The Apologists of the 2nd and 3rd Century
These Saints were renown for defending the Christian faith (apologists) against heresy:
St. Irenaeus (130 – 200 A.D.)
• Bishop of Lyons.
• Argued against the “Gnostics” — an early heresy within the Church.
St. Justin Martyr (100 -165 A.D.)
• A pagan philosopher converted to Christianity.
• Wrote Dialogue with Trypho the Jew arguing that Jesus is the Promised Messiah.
• Martyred in Rome.
St. Tertullian (160 – 225 A.D.)
• A lawyer converted to Christianity mid-life in Rome.
• Possibly a presbyter in North Africa.
• Vehemently defended the Christian faith in his writings.
• Wrote Against Praxeas, which argues for a “threefold” unity of God — later to be called the doctrine of the Trinity.
St. Cyprian of Carthage (200 – 258 A.D.)
• Bishop of Carthage during the bloody persecution of Christians under Emperor Decius.
• Argued for a lenient discipline for those who lapsed under Decius’s persecution of the Church.
• Wrote On the Unity of the Catholic Church, which would become a model for Church unity.
• Under the later persecution of Emperor Valerian, Cyprian refused to offer sacrifice to pagan gods and died a martyr.
These Saints contended for the true Christian faith (Jude 1:3) passed down from the Apostles.
The Fourth to Sixth Century Saints
These Saints were some of the greatest thinkers and theologians of the Christian Church:
St. John Chrysostom (344 – 407 A.D.)
• Archbishop of Constantinople.
• His eloquent preaching earned him the name “Chrysostom,” which means “golden mouth.”
• Exhorted Christians to ethical behavior, morality and care of the poor.
• Exiled in 403 A.D.; died Armenia.
St. Augustine of Hippo (354 – 430 A.D.)
• Considered to be one of the greatest thinkers and theologians of the Western church.
• Wrote Confessions — the story of his conversion to Christianity as well as The City of God.
• Became Bishop of Hippo.
• Placed a great emphasis on the necessity of divine grace for salvation.
• Strove against the Briton monk Pelagius, who argued for man’s response to grace and moral responsibility to God.
• Counted as one of the “Doctors” (teachers) of the Latin, or Western, Church.
St. Benedict of Nursia (c. 5th Century )
• Called “the father of Western monks.”
• Wrote Rule of Benedict — an organized manual on the monastic communal life.
• Used the ruins of an abandoned pagan temple on the mountain of Monte Cassino to build a monastery that still functions as the home of the Benedictines.
St. Gregory the Great (540 – 604 A.D.)
• Considered the last of the ancient popes and first of the medieval popes.
• Wrote the Pastoral Rule — a handbook of spiritual care for ministers.
• Gregorian chanted is named after St. Gregory.
• Considered one of the “Doctors” of the Western Church.
While this is not a comprehensive listing of Saints in the Church, the influence all these men had profoundly affected the theologians who followed in their train. The teaching and examples of these Church Fathers and Saints is still felt and debated today by theologians today.
Sources:
• Bercot, David W. A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs: A Reference Guide to More Than 700 Topics Discussed by the Early Church Fathers. Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson Publishers, 1998.
• Jefford, Clayton N., Kenneth J. Harder, and Louis D. Amezaga. Reading the Apostolic Fathers An Introduction. Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson Publishers, 1996.
• Mursell, Gordon. The Story of Christian Spirituality: Two Thousand Years, from East to West. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001.
• Sparks, Jack N. The Apostolic Fathers. Nashville: T. Nelson, 1978.
Read more at Suite101: Catholic Saints List: Ignatius of Antioch to Gregory the Great | Suite101.com
Thus Alexander Schmemann wrote:
It is impossible to deny that, even before the appearance of local primacies, the Church from the first days of her existence possessed an ecumenical center of unity and agreement. In the apostolic and Judeo-Christian period, it was the Church of Jerusalem, and later the Church of Rome – presiding in agape, according to St. Ignatius of Antioch. This formula and the definition of the universal primacy contained in it have been aptly analyzed by Fr Afanassieff and we need not repeat his argument here. Neither can we quote here all testimonies of the fathers and the councils unanimously acknowledging Rome as the senior church and the center of ecumenical agreement. It is only for the sake of biased polemics that one can ignore these testimonies, their consensus and significance.”
In the West, Ludwig Ott wrote:
The doctrine of the primacy of the Roman Bishops, like other Church teachings and instructions, has gone through a development. Thus the establishment of the primacy recorded in the Gospels has been gradually more clearly recognized and its implications developed. Clear recognition of the consciousness of the Primacy of the Roman Bishops, and of the recognition of the Primacy by the other churches appear at the end of the 1st century…St. Ignatius elevated the Roman community over all the communities using in his epistle a solemn form of address. Twice he says of it that it is the presiding community, which expresses a relationship of superiority and inferiority.
Jesus King of Mercy I trust in you. Ave Maria!
@Liam (#1423):
You are up again brain-washing people with your false teachings:
(i) John 3:5 no where indicates “baptism” is necessary salvation. You are simply “reading into” that verse.
(ii) Mt 28:19-20 – yes it is a command of the Lord to proclaim the Gospel and only “those” who believe the “gospel” can be baptized and NOT those who don’t believe.
Do you go out and proclaim the correct Gospel of Christ and win souls or are you just spurting the words simply for the “heck” of it?
Also if you consider it as a “command” from the Lord to proclaim the gospel, you should be aware that you should be proclaiming the “true gospel” of Jesus Christ, as there are may “false gospels” floating around and being preached to unsuspecting souls. And most notably the one preached by the Roman Catholic Church from its headquarters in the Vatican.
How do we know that the Roman Catholic gospel is a false one and is not the Biblical gospel? Well JESUIT Priest Mich Pacwa clearly explains on EWTN talk show – and that the Roman Ctaholic Gospel it is not the same biblical Gospel of Christ and is therefore is a “false Gospel”. All Roman Catholic take note of this.
See the Roman Catholic false gospel as explained by JESUIT priest Mich Pacwa at . Side-by-side comparison of Roman Catholic false gospel and the true biblical gospel of Christ can see here http://www.biblecatholics.com/two_gospels.htm.
(iii) Mark 16:16 and Baptism – “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.” -Mark 16:16.
Mark 16:16 is one of the most misinterpreted Scriptures in the Word of God. False religions such as the Church of Christ, Lutherans, Catholics, Jehovah Witnesses, Russian Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, and so many others…all require that a person be baptized in order to go to heaven. This heresy is known as “Baptismal Regeneration.” The Bible condemns such ADDING to the simple plan of salvation. The Word of God is clear that salvation is obtained simply by believing upon the Lord Jesus Christ (“And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. -Acts 16:30,31).