I want to become Christian and have been researching the differences between Orthodoxy and Catholicism...

I want to become Christian and have been researching the differences between Orthodoxy and Catholicism, and I have a question.
Do Catholics worship Mary?
Why is Mary mentioned so much more in Catholicism than in other denominations?

Attached: 02f.jpg (655x527, 34.36K)

Other urls found in this thread:


Do you Catholics worship Mary?

If you've been doing so much research, why have you overlooked the Catholic Catechism and every other source of Catholic dogma which states clearly and repeatedly—unbroken for two thousand years—that Mary, as a creature, cannot be worshipped?

Read the CCC and you'll see that Catholics give Mary the title of "Mediatrix". Whether you worship her or not, giving her this title is heresy because there is one mediator between man and god, the man Christ Jesus (1 Timothy 2:5).

Catholics believe that Mary was necessary for Christ to incarnate (instead of being merely an incidental choice because God could have incarnated however he wanted) and they believe that Mary wasn’t created by Jesus. In other words, massively heretical beliefs about Mary.

Why didn't you post the footnote from the CCC you serpent

Because you shouldn't need external mental gymnastics to explain something (if it's found in the Bible, as all doctrines of faith should be). If it's sound doctrine it'll be in line with scripture. Luke 11:28 shows us that veneration of Mary is not scriptural. Jesus never tells us to venerate or pray to his mother and the only instruction he gives us regarding her is a rebuke of someone trying to praise her for being the one who gave birth to Jesus.

Lying is a sin. The Vatican condemns that particular doctrine as being heretical.

Go Orthodox.

Thanks for that user, Luke 11:27 and 11:28 do make it pretty clear.
Definitely going to BEGOME now

Attached: begone.jpg (720x479, 32.91K)

This board is run by pagans son,

Catholics workshop THE Queen of heaven called Mary for they ARE actually all pagans

Pic related

Attached: a0f2adbb3c377d9e51f8ee000850dbb3.png (1790x601, 114.53K)

Here comes THE army of sinners To defend THE honour of Mary

One TIME a Catholic even told me he Will pray To Mary just To spite me

Filthy pagans do all they can To Sprite all what rightous

You type like a schizo.

Silence you heretic filth

I am your master

Have fin burning in hell kiddo

Show No Mercy To THE pagans

Put Them ön spikes like THE Swedes did

Attached: asd.jpg (929x623, 161.9K)

You're outright lying. You said 'well they consider her mediatrix therefore equal to Christ but there's only one mediator between man and God' and the following sentence brings your lie to life
That's not mental gymnastics, that's a perfectly clear statement. And a protestant scolding others for mental gymnastics is the pinnacle of comedy.

Since the beginning of Christianity Apostolic Christians have prayed for our Lady's intercessions. I love it when you try to isolate Catholicism and link it to Roman paganism.

The Syrians are the oldest Christians btw. Should I trust them or you? Do you want me to link you Coptic doctrine on Mary? Antiochan? Jerusalem's? Constantinople's? They're all wrong but you're right?

Oh but you prots are too busy interpreting the scripture correctly to be paying attention to Apostolic tradition

THE Catholic heretic calls another man a liar

To rather listen To A baboon would be of greater intellectual value than this abomination before God

He is lying that the Catholics consider Mary to be co mediatrix with Christ, obviously.

Silence scum

It's obvious To any man With experience With catholics you ARE idolaters

Read that image and learn kid

That last link is some nice well-poisoning but easily refutable. Individual pastors signing something is not declarative of the beliefs of all who would claim they belong to the same denomination. I believe you would make the same argument if I pointed to Pope Francis saying something out of line with the Catholic faith (not ex-cathedra of course).

Yes, your catechism says that Mary's influence flows forth from Christ, and gets all power from His mediation, etc. That explanation, no matter how clearly it may be stated, is not supported by scripture. Jesus never tells us to pray to his mother.

As for that quote from Mary, it says that all generations shall call her blessed. I don't disagree and I don't hate Mary in the slightest. I think she was very blessed to have been chosen to give birth to our Lord and Savior. That doesn't mean we should pray to her.

You do know that heresies existed even during Jesus' life, right? To say "early Christians did this thing, therefore it's automatically correct" is faulty logic. Some early Christians did things that you would just as quickly call heresy, so should those things be considered right just because they were done early on?

I'm not a Catholic, but those weren't heretics. There are early catacomb paintings of Mary and they surely revered her. And I pray that I'm never tested as severely as they are with the amount of persecution they dealt with. Rather than heretics, they are the giants of our faith and we'd be nowhere without the strength Christ gave them to endure and build his church in the darkest of times. Not only do I pay Mary respect, but pay them respect too. I sympathize with the basic Protestant impetus of keeping "things simple", but it's gotten out of hand when it becomes so dismissive of saints…especially those who paid the ultimate price.

If anything, the actual heretics (like Gnostics) didn't even care about the virgin birth. The whole paradigm of "material reality" was inconsequential to them.. including the incarnation and death of Jesus (the latter of which they denied of truly happening). They propped Jesus into the realm of abstracts. Heretics weren't the ones who both worshipped the Son of God and celebrated his very earthly side.

Also (sorry for double posting), I don't see how I can be lying about something when it's your catechism that says it. I'm gonna pull a couple quotes from the CCC that I'm curious about, if you would be so kind as to help me understand them.

So is it Jesus' sacrifice that delivers our souls from death, or Mary's prayers?

This makes it seem like the RCC believes that Mary has a part in our salvation. If God is truly all powerful, and Jesus' sacrifice is what gives us eternal salvation, then why is Mary needed to bring them to us?

Can you find any scriptural support for this? Last time I checked this faith was about worshiping Christ, not Christ's mother.

Where in scripture does it say that she was assumed bodily into heaven?

Early catacomb paintings doesn't refute my previous point about something being proper doctrine just because early Christians did it. Is the veneration of Mary supported by scripture?

Is it? Because you claim that sound doctrine in the Bible is so obvious. Yet I would bet that the people who signed that letter would swear on their lives they're following the Bible. And this is the real evil of sola scriptura.

These are not just random groups of Christians. These are Christians who were directly taught by the Apostles. And lo and behold, what a huge coincidence, all Christians taught by the Apostles believe the same things.
Acts 15:24
See, in order to preach, you had to have the permission of the Apostles. How many times in the Bible did Apostles say 'follow only traditions that we have given you'? And you're telling me you rediscovered Apostolic tradition 1500 year later and you know it better then the people of Nineveh? lol

Christians have always asked for the help of Christians in Heaven and who can be of better help than the mother of our Lord? For He, apart from being fully God, was also fully human and He loved His mother just like every human loves his mother.

Posting this for the 3rd time:

She's not 'needed'. But following her example of obedience to God will lead you to eternal salvation. Do you believe in OSAS? Do you believe you don't need any help to obtain eternal salvation?
How about the history of Christianity?
Again, Apostolic tradition. Here's what the Copts say what happened:

Sorry, same user. Anytime I turn VPN on/off, it'll switch ID. I'm only saying they're not heretics. Their actions prove it. What more needs to be said? The amount of love they had for God is staring us in the face.. for they loved God so much they gave up EVERYTHING for him. Jesus told you plainly that no one has greater love than this. Pay some respect. And don't assume their Mariology is reflective of modern Mariology. You're attacking them because you project what, say, some modern person in Mexico does (for example). You don't know what their Mariology actually was to go that far. But if you look at Orthodox, they don't even go so far in their Mariology as Catholics do. This tells me that the catacomb Christians had a simplified form as well. We should try to understand it rather than dismiss because of modern understanding and call them heretics for things we don't even know that they did.

They obviously were not heretics though, since they died and suffered for Christ.

Also, research more into what heresy was in those days. It was the complete opposite of those who embraced persecution. Part of the motivation of early heresies were their proclivity to "blend" in the Roman world and speak only in abstracts and try to paint a "respectable" face of Christianity that philosophy loving Greeks and Romans could like. The heretics were the ones who ESCAPED persecution.

It's the same with heretics nowadays. They're always trying to look good to the outside world and try to make friends. It's ridiculous to blame catacomb dwelling Christians of the same thing (of mingling pagan ideas), when they were the ones being killed.

Oh and speaking of Copts, they even remember when the first church consecrated to Mary was built and why

This goes over the basis of marian devotion from scripture, very good talk.
No we don't worship mary, we have distinct categories for things
Mary is special among the saints and this video goes over how
Scripture affirms any group that doesn't call her blessed isn't Christian.

For anyone this ignorant/stupid the queen mother is a fairly common historical thing, it's in scripture as the mother of David. David is a type of Christ and as David is king, Christ is king, and both of their mothers are queen. David was not an idolater and neither is Christ. Sadly people don't read their bibles

This touches on that (but embed goes over most)

Also just because it's so obvious
It's clearly speaking of Mary (no sane person would deny this) and says she has a crown.

You can either deny Mary gave birth to Christ or you just kind of have to accept she is queen.

And to op

We mention her most because she destroys heresies and all the other religions are false, so how could they?

She's still actively and openly participating in the Church today, check out some of the recent apparitions.
This goes in depth on a number of scientifically verifiable miracles many of which Mary was a participant.

That dodges the question. The CCC says "by your prayers, will deliver our souls from death". Even if her salutary powers come from God, is it God that saves us or Mary praying for us that saves us?

I didn't ask for history, which is the tradition of man, I asked for scripture that is the word of God. Can you supply me with God's word saying that we should do this?

See above. That is following the traditions of man not the word of God, unless Mary veneration is found in scripture. If it is found in scripture, and is therefore the word of God, why is it so hard to provide proof of that? Why do you need to point to history instead of God's word?

I don't deny that they loved God, but didn't pagans have the same love for their gods? I respect that they died for our Lord, and your point about my lack of knowledge regarding their form of Mariology is actually a really good one. Like I've said before in the thread, I have a respect for Mary but I think that the RCC view of her has gotten out of hand. Also, what you wrote here about heretics being the ones to escape persecution is really good information and I didn't make that connection before. Thank you for helping me to understand where you were coming from.

That's still not a good argument. Pagans built temples consecrated to their gods, does that make them right?

Also if someone wants a list that delusional people would think means they are all idolators
It's literally a political title

check this out
she is the mediator of all graces, no one received graces without her prayers.
God to glorify her as much as possible as his greatest creation (and why she was given the grace of birthing God) has chosen to further glorify her by granting all graces through her.

You can deny it's actuality but it's possibility is fairly easy to see. Video goes quite a bit more in depth.

Where is this in scripture, or is it just a tradition of man? Also, posting a 22-minute youtube video as a response isn't usually a very good argumentation tactic, but I'll sit through it and see if I can understand your position a bit better.

He goes over the scripture, you have to keep in mind when speaking with Catholics we have very fundamentally different paradigms for Truth. I can provide resources that go over all the scriptural evidences for things and I find them insightful myself however we aren't a religon of the Book as muslims call it. Scripture is a true test of the faith and I love it, mostly reading and re-reading the gospels along with commentaries and meditations on them where Christ speaks most clearly.
Great essay on the majesty of the gospels I love.

However we don't view scripture as a doctrinal textbook or specific list of teachings. The fundamental principle of the Catholic Church is that it is a real and active institution founded by Christ that he still actively teaches through, and it's by that teaching ability we know and trust scripture, and also by that teaching we know for certain verses which readings are permitted and those which aren't. A key part of this is that scripture is under-determined, or "incomplete" (using a technical term), in that it does not in itself provide a total and complete basis for any specific belief, many verses can be read, and reasonably so, in contradictory ways. (Though I don't think you can read scripture in a way that doesn't point to the institution of an active and actual body of believers like the Catholic Church).
But yeah I can't and am not arguing with you, we have fundamentally different paradigms. I can't really use scripture just to argue stuff, because I think you could have different rational beliefs based on scripture. All the Church's teaching is and must be in line with scripture, and often has a scriptural basis though some basically don't and I don't really have any problem with it. Scripture is useful for teaching and better understanding things, however it isn't the final test. The final test is the mechanism Christ created so that the Truth of the Faith was always clear, accessible (not hidden in a book that requires a very high intelligence to read/understand), and consistent, and that is the very test by which any Catholic trusts scripture at all.

If you want to read my favorite scripture commentary check this out
goes super in depth in Christ's parables, particularly in relation to anesthesiology but touches on many issues. Has an emphasis on that actual interactive institution thing I've made reference to though.
The sections are somewhat standalone but the first section on the Parable of the Good Samaritan is great at showing the incredibly depth Christ put into every carefully chosen word.

uh ecclesiology spell check meme'd me

Let me start by saying thank you for using a very polite tone in this post, I really appreciate that and it made it much easier to read.
My one question based on this response is about the Berean Jews. These people were talked about in the Bible as a good example of what Christians should be because of how eager they were to learn about God and how they checked the teachings of Paul and Silas against the scriptures. They didn't take the teachings simply because someone with authority told them to, but because what they preached matched scripture. So how would you reconcile this with the RCC, the organization that historically banned the translation of the Bible into the common tongue?

Well St. Paul was making scriptural claims about the incoming messiah, Jews were a group of people who were awaiting the messiah so it makes sense that they'd check the stuff of their religion to verify his claims. The messiahship of Jesus is quite clear in scripture, but of course many learned people like St. Paul himself rejected that at first as well.
Also this still does apply for modern stuff in the Catholic Church as well, we still test everything by scripture, just within the constraints of things we know as taught by the Magisterium, and you will see Catholics use scripture to resolve different views and go with that which matches scripture. For example with that mediatrix idea, some Catholics do deny that, and some argue against them using scripture. This would apply with many other ideas like how many people go to heaven (which I rely on scripture heavily to discuss).
Scripture in itself is underdetermined for everything, but it's still the inerrant word of God so if something is very clearly stated in scripture, nothing can go against that. Even the weirdest heretics (among Catholics) use scripture just in really weird ways. It's just not all there is, and the same problems people have with reading scripture some Catholics have with the Church Fathers and stuff. They'll pull some random quote from them and use it to justify something clearly no one actually taught.

This is very different from say converting a pagan, I am a convert from athiesm/nihilism and if someone tried to prove in the OT how Christ was the messiah I wouldn't care at all, because I had no reason to care about scripture.

Christ did specifically tell the apostles to follow a Chair of authority as many Catholics follow the Chair of St. Peter. Their practice may be bad but we still are obliged to maintain what they teach.

This is somewhat not accurate, there were common tongue scripture translations hundreds of years before Protestantism. (but again keep in mind most people couldn't read anyway, and anyone who could read, could read latin).
you can read a bunch of the vernacular here though

The thing the banned was unapproved translations, because I think it goes without saying you CAN translate scripture very badly, and IIRC there were people who openly said they did bad scripture translations to mislead people. I also would totally support doing this.
The only sort of argument was they weren't complete bibles, which if you had to hand write the entire thing I think is a bit more understandable, espeically if you are doing so with the standard of quality in this picture.
(picture is a german translation from 1390)

They had a very high esteem for scripture and wanted it's printing to fit that quality.

I know there was also a big political element where printers liked to be revolutionaries, so at first they printed protestant stuff, and later printed Catholic stuff just to go against the grain.

Fairly historically complicated but we had scripture every mass and any educated person could access scripture, and they were the ones who could read anyway.

This is a good lecture on the inquisition that shows what it actually was, and where the totally fake absurd ideas came about (we can track them to specific books that were written like horror stories)

Kind of scattered but there was lots to cover

Also the only rational reason the Church would hide scripture is if that alone would be enough to prove the Church was false and lead to it's destruction.
It's still here, many people very knowledgeable on scripture convert, and we've had a ton of heresies going back to the beginning. Also the actors in the protestant thing were all very educated people, not random lay people reading scripture in vernacular and realizing the Church is wrong.

Attached: Bible_vaclav.jpg (579x841, 330.03K)

Mary is the ark of the new covenant. Her power stems from God just as the arks power stems from God, and her role in giving spiritual victory is again the same - it's no wonder we give her praise. She's our ace (and also our mom, your too).

That she is the ark of the covenant is indisputable once you see the scriptural parallels between her and the ark. They're quite something if you've never seen them before, so i'd recommend looking it up. There are also parallels between Mary and eve, so just as through one man and woman's sin all were condemned, through one man and woman all men would be saved.

So that's could be considered indirect scriptural evidence. I don't think its exactly right to say it is baseless.