tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14943121.post1624928605025063672..comments2023-10-30T04:39:31.433-04:00Comments on The Mom With Brownies: DO CATHOLICS PRAY TO DEAD SPIRITS?momwithbrownieshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10303109123571195886noreply@blogger.comBlogger34125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14943121.post-64751263409644256442011-09-30T09:15:24.624-04:002011-09-30T09:15:24.624-04:002011: UPDATE: We are Catholic as of April this yea...2011: UPDATE: We are Catholic as of April this year! :o)<br /><br />Just wanted to update commenters from the past. Here's my blog post about it. <br /><br />http://www.icantbelievemylife.com/2011/04/religion-perceptionperspective.html<br /><br />Thank you all for commenting! :o)momwithbrownieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10303109123571195886noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14943121.post-78795075650162198822010-10-02T13:00:36.409-04:002010-10-02T13:00:36.409-04:00YOU: Does the first-among-equals system work? Well...YOU: Does the first-among-equals system work? Well, yes, it's worked for 1,000 years. Orthodox doctrine has not changed under this system... With respect, I don't think you can say the same about the Catholic faith. The Catholic faith has continued to change its doctrine, adding so much to Holy Tradition, that it lead to the Protestant Reformation. This never happened in the Orthodox Faith. The Orthodox Faith remains the same.<br /><br />ME: That is Completely False. There was NO New Dogma made during those years of chaos. NONE. God protected His church when wolves in sheep’s clothing were TRYING to change things. Though there were some men in the church trying (successfully) to make money from lay people by selling indulgences, that practice was NEVER a dogma of the Catholic Church. <br />YOU: In Galatians 2 you also see that Paul rebukes Peter...<br /><br />ME: “Rebuking?” I would use the word, oppose. Peter was human and, as you know, would not have been perfect except in cases of declaring official dogma after ecumenical council. It would have been completely correct for Peter and Paul to communicate one to another in regard to issues of The Church and how to go about implementing those situations. Peter to the Jews specifically and Paul to the Gentiles…working to build The Catholic Church. I am completely confident that those first ecumenical councils…though they weren’t called such back in that day…were not all sugar and spice and probably have challenges to this day. We’re all human…look at the people who lived WITH Jesus, they denied him and led his killers to him. Why would you think that His Church would be led by perfect people? Of course there were issues and still are to this day…BUT DOGMA IS PROTECTED by God.<br /><br />YOU: As far as the council in Spain, we don't consider it ecumenical; it was a local council and, for us at least, does not hold the same weight. Did it include bishops from the east, who would not have supported the filioque? I don't know, but if not, doesn't sound "ecumenical".<br /><br />ME: I explained that it did have bishops from the east and it was ecumenical and considered so for many years until the East chose to split under the rule of Andronicus II.<br /><br />That’s all I’ve got. I’m sure there are things in my statements that you can reason this way or that way, but in the end, The East doesn’t have “a” leader. To me they are “they” they aren’t THE and that makes every difference in the world to me. Unless you can pull a leader of “the” church from a hat. I’m not going to convert to the church that Andronicus built. I’m sorry but that’s how strongly I feel about this…FOR ME and our family. <br /><br />I do respect that you have a whole slew of varying ideas and thought as to why you and your family are EO and I would never take that away from you. I hope you know that I respect you . Though I’m sure you’ll need to communicate my errors, please know that we’ll never know for sure who’s “right” until we leave this earth. I’m hoping for Jesus’ Love and Understanding to bring us together in that day. :o)momwithbrownieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10303109123571195886noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14943121.post-22310526176938535602010-10-02T13:00:16.127-04:002010-10-02T13:00:16.127-04:00YOU: Maybe the early Church wasn't "play...YOU: Maybe the early Church wasn't "playing semantics". Perhaps they insisted on the term "first-among-equals" to ensure the office of pope was not turn into a "Head" position. The Orthodox view Christ alone as THE Head of the Church. As I said before, the OC doesn't have an issue for the pope being the first-among-equals.<br /><br />ME: During the council of 1274, Eastern Church leaders were in attendance. All told there were 560 Bishops and Abbots. The council was actually a success with leaders leaving on good terms; However, the dissensions from Rome had spread among members of the Eastern Churches with cries of “traitor” being heard from the lay people. The council WAS ecumenical, however, after the death of Michael VIII, his son, Andronicus II REPUDIATED THE UNION. He took the lay people’s cries to heart and split from Rome. He wouldn’t have had to Repudiate a union if there wasn’t one agreed upon at the Ecumenical Council. <br /><br />So AFTER THE ECUMENICAL COUNCIL had been successful, Michael VIII died and THEN THE EAST…USING ANDRONICUS…separate once and for all from Rome. After splitting from Rome, there ceased to be “The” church in the East. This is why “the” Church that Jesus formed on earth cannot be the Eastern Church. THEY cannot convene as one church. There is no leader on earth to call such a meeting. AT BEST there can be a suggested council; not a formal call because there is NO leader. They are Churches by many leaders NOT A Church with A Leader. <br /><br />Next comment...momwithbrownieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10303109123571195886noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14943121.post-90525549684862447962010-10-02T12:59:08.781-04:002010-10-02T12:59:08.781-04:00However, I’ll give further thoughts on your commen...However, I’ll give further thoughts on your comments, though I know this is bordering on “arguing” and I really don’t like to argue things that just aren’t’ going to be agreed upon in the end. <br /><br />We aren’t’ going to agree; we know that right? And that’s okay. :o) <br /><br />I’ll try to give my thoughts about your answers. I do appreciate that you have found your place of worship. I do think we are both serving Christ and hope that we both can have our questions answered by him together one day. :o) <br /><br />1. You need to know that I am not able to commit to a religion that has been unable to convene under a leader on earth since they split from Rome.(and I do recognize that you believe that the EC didn't "split from Rome") <br /><br />2. You and I both know that the Roman Catholic Church does not teach that the Pope is God. Roman Catholics understand VERY well that Christ is THE Head of the church. The Pope is the Head on earth only and Christ is the Pope’s God and Leader. Let that be very well understood. <br /><br />Next comment...momwithbrownieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10303109123571195886noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14943121.post-13139348355556636172010-10-02T12:54:52.649-04:002010-10-02T12:54:52.649-04:00Hi Camptaylor,
I’ve gone from Protestant to Catho...Hi Camptaylor,<br /><br />I’ve gone from Protestant to Catholic without having to argue one side or the other because I can recognize the similarities. I’ve come to Catholicism because of my need to take the Eucharist. This is why I’m getting a chuckle that I’ve had to spend a lot of time debating “what kind” of Catholic I should become since it was the unity of the Catholic Church’s practices from Christ’s time to the present that sealed our decision. <br /><br />All of that said…<br /><br />I’m finding all that all of your reasoning cannot change the fact that the Eastern Orthodox Church has no leader and cannot be called “one” church. The “buck” doesn’t stop anywhere. There is no way to “call” a council. At best, there can be a “suggested” meeting of churches. <br /><br />I don’t view that as “A” church, let alone “the” Church. That’s the sum total of my decision right there. <br /><br />next comment...momwithbrownieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10303109123571195886noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14943121.post-30444196676845999042010-09-30T12:55:42.113-04:002010-09-30T12:55:42.113-04:00Hi there,
I didn't do any extra reading,maybe...Hi there,<br /><br />I didn't do any extra reading,maybe I should have, it just took me a while to respond... :)<br /><br />You said: "The OC even recognized that there had to be a Leader as they always called the Pope the first among equals. Of course, they were playing semantics as there is no "first" if there are equals"<br /><br />Maybe the early Church wasn't "playing semantics". Perhaps they insisted on the term "first-among-equals" to ensure the office of pope was not turn into a "Head" position. The Orthodox view Christ alone as THE Head of the Church. As I said before, the OC doesn't have an issue for the pope being the first-among-equals. <br />Does the first-among-equals system work? Well, yes, it's worked for 1,000 years. <br />Orthodox doctrine has not changed under this system... With respect, I don't think you can say the same about the Catholic faith. The Catholic faith has continued to change its doctrine, adding so much to Holy Tradition, that it lead to the Protestant Reformation. This never happened in the Orthodox Faith. The Orthodox Faith remains the same.<br /><br />BTW, I want to clarify the situation of Orthodoxy in America. As immigrants flooded into America from different parts of the world, they brought along their Orthodox faith. Usually these immigrants would send for a priest from "back home" to serve the needs of their people. Since the country was so new, there wasn't an already existing presence of the church here. So all of a sudden you had priests who were under different bishops or patriarchs. You had overlap, several bishops represented in a single geographic area. This is not normal within Orthodoxy. It has taken years for us all to speak a common language, let alone establish a single American diocese. But we are in the process, and God willing, it will happen within a few years, then there will be a single American Orthodox Church.<br /><br />In Galatians 2 you also see that Paul rebukes Peter...<br /><br />As far as the council in Spain, we don't consider it ecumenical, it was a local council and, for us at least, does not hold the same weight. Did it include bishops from the east, who would not have supported the filioque? I don't know, but if not, doesn't sound "ecumenical".<br /><br />Your journey is between you and God. I firmly believe that people are not convert by arguments; but rather by the Holy Spirit giving them confirmation.<br /><br />There are many other differences between RC and OC. Many are hard to explain; I think the best way to see is to experience both. I think if you spent two Sundays in an Orthodox Church and two in a Catholic Church, you would begin, just begin, to get a feel for the differences. ( And yes I have spent time going to a Catholic Church:) Just a thought.. or as we homeschoolers like to say "Field trip time!!" BTW, I am taking a group of Protestant and Orthodox kids to the Blessed Sacrament Catholic Cathedral for a tour next month.<br /><br />May God bless you on your journey. <br />Christinacamptaylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05269444196351768244noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14943121.post-57815234399601982232010-09-24T11:47:46.432-04:002010-09-24T11:47:46.432-04:00Hi Camp, :o)
Sorry it took me so long to get back...Hi Camp, :o)<br /><br />Sorry it took me so long to get back to you. I've been reading and I keep coming back to the same "issue" (for me)<br /><br />Papal Leadership<br /><br />This was established from day one. Peter was the first. <br /><br />The OC even recognized that there had to be a Leader as they always called the Pope the first among equals. Of course, they were playing semantics as there is no "first" if there are equals. <br /><br />Also, You'll notice that in Galatians 1:18, after Paul had converted to the true faith, where did Paul go? He went to Peter. He made a journey to go see Peter. Why would he do that? What would be the point of it? I think it was because he wanted to check his doctrine against what the Church taught, not just against what he knew in the Old Testament. <br /><br />Furthermore, the Pope didn't change the creed alone. The first discussion about the better understanding began wayyy back in AD 589, at a church council in Toledo, Spain. It was discussed over 100's of years and held to In 796 when Paulinus of Aquileia defended the filioque clause at the Synod of Friuli. More discussion took place and after much time an ecumenical council was convened and the change was made after being agreed upon by the council. The officil standing came about at the Council of Lyons in 1274 which was called by the Leader (Pope).<br /><br />I suppose this all hinges on the interpretation of "on this Rock" and each person's thoughts about having a leader and council rather than a bunch of leaders. Papal leadership beliefs are "basically" what divides OC from RC. <br /><br />Other facets can be contemplated, but for me there has to be a leader. That was true from the beginning of time and I believe was set forth when Jesus established His church on earth...with Peter....the other men were his council and leaders of their specific churches. <br /><br />I hope I worded all of this correctly. Basically my journey to The RC is based on my belief that there has to be a leader. If I didn't beleive that the OC would be fine too. Their beliefs are generally the same in most every other way from what I can gather.momwithbrownieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10303109123571195886noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14943121.post-10635974893693295552010-09-21T15:26:20.196-04:002010-09-21T15:26:20.196-04:00Forgive me I am really trying to understand. I hav...Forgive me I am really trying to understand. I have met people who don't believe that OC is THE church. I get why people might believe that. But you seem to be saying that the OC doesn't see itself as THE church and doesn't see itself as One body? Is that what you are saying?<br /><br />General Ecumenical Principles #1 is actually saying that the pre-schism church was one and that the churches (Orth. Cath and protestant) are no longer one.<br />"The Church is one and remains one and visible in the historic Orthodox <br />communion. However, it is painfully obvious that there is a difference between the faith- <br />affirmation of the unity of the Church and the empirical fractured appearance of <br />Christendom." <br />#6 and 7 speak about the Orthodox view of the unity of the Church.<br />you said-"...that these churches cannot be THE Church breathed by God. Why? Because it would still be standing as One and not splintered by various social stigma and alterations, unable to be convened for council to this day."<br />What social stigma and alterations are you referring to?<br />As I was driving around this morning I began thinking about the Orthodox concept of unity. I have to admit, it is one of the most beautiful aspects of the Church to me. As the Church is planted in a new region by a "mother" church, it slows grows in maturity. At first it has the little t traditions of the mother church, but slowly the Faith begins to be expressed uniquely within that culture. The Greeks sent missionaries to the Slavs, but the Slavs now have their own expression of the identical faith of the Greeks. The weren't expected to be Greek, but their culture was respected and honored, and all that was good in it was "baptized". It's the One Faith expressed in a variety of culture. I think that's pretty cool!<br /><br />Thanks for listening to my rants.<br />May God help us and guide us all!camptaylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05269444196351768244noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14943121.post-33067959550259023002010-09-21T12:22:12.866-04:002010-09-21T12:22:12.866-04:00Hi Camptaylor,
If you read The Orthodox Ecumenica...Hi Camptaylor,<br /><br />If you read The Orthodox Ecumenical Guidelines you will see in the very first guideline that Orthodox Churches "used to be" in unanimity. You'll see the quote about unanimity and see how it was talked about in a rejoicing manner "during the age of Ecumenical Councils." <br /><br />However, Since the split there cannot be a full convening. The first guideline also acknowledges the fractures of the Orthodox churches. It basically agonized over the fact that Orthodoxy cannot be united in oneness now. <br /><br />Here is the full text of the Orthodox Churches.<br /><br />http://www.scoba.us/assets/files/guide_for_orthodox.pdf<br /><br /><br />They still spell out beautiful guidelines after that first paragraph, however, the first guideline itself exposes the truth (to me at least) that these churches cannot be THE Church breathed by God. Why? Because it would still be standing as One and not splintered by various social stigma and alterations, unable to be convened for council to this day. At best, the Orthodox Churches could convene one or two sects at a time in unity. <br /><br />I hope you can see why I (me personally) cannot "accept" them as "The" Church. <br /><br />Thank you for this dialogue. You are very gracious and respectful.momwithbrownieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10303109123571195886noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14943121.post-63349893497420473862010-09-21T10:49:47.750-04:002010-09-21T10:49:47.750-04:00the "American Christian" table...
I comp...the "American Christian" table...<br />I completely agree that it is a spiritual problem and not an American one. What I was speaking to was the fact that the Orthodox have almost no voice in this country. I think Orthodoxy has such a unique opinion about a great many things, that it would enrich the Christian to Christian or Christian to world conversations.<br /><br />Thanks again for your response. While I love these discussions, I now that since they are topics which are so dear to our inner most being, it is easy to offend someone. So please forgive me if anything came off too harsh. Really enjoy your blog and your frank discussions.camptaylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05269444196351768244noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14943121.post-75327839805509003292010-09-21T10:41:36.266-04:002010-09-21T10:41:36.266-04:00About the council in Acts:
Wait a second! If you r...About the council in Acts:<br />Wait a second! If you read the next verse (12) it says that Paul and Barnabas next gave testimony that backed up what Peter said... THEN did James stand and give his, "I judge", decision. So I think what you really see is three apostles giving testimony, followed by the local bishop giving the decision based on the fact that a consensus was met at the council. Then you get the "Amen" of the people in verse 22. This is exactly how the Orthodox work.<br />BTW, Orthodox had no problem with the Bishop of Rome being first among equals. But we believe he did not have the authority to change the creed or to alone declare dogma. This must be done in council. If the Catholics have always believe that the Pope has this authority, then why were there the seven ancient councils anyway?camptaylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05269444196351768244noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14943121.post-8507763795131501892010-09-21T10:33:57.845-04:002010-09-21T10:33:57.845-04:00about unity.....
The Orthodox do not have a "...about unity.....<br />The Orthodox do not have a "general oneness" type theology. We share the same faith, belief, and the same communion. I can walk into any Orthodox Church in the world, and know that they believe exactly as I do and that I can receive Holy Communion in their parish. This cannot be said for the Protestants! Here is a great short article on the Orthodox idea of unity by a notable Orthodox author:<br />www.frederica.com/writings/orthodox-catholic-unity.html<br />So why do Orthodox have "different" national Churches? Because the Gospel can be best transmitted by people of the same language and culture... that's all.camptaylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05269444196351768244noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14943121.post-91637185108297033022010-09-21T10:25:51.424-04:002010-09-21T10:25:51.424-04:00Thanks for your response. I wasn't at all offe...Thanks for your response. I wasn't at all offended, and I hope you weren't either. I really enjoy a frank an open discussion. :)<br />Some of my comments were based on other posters and some on my personal experience. There is a lot of misunderstanding out there about the Orthodox.<br />About emperors calling councils.... No where in the Church's teaching does it EVER say that we are ruled by a secular authority. The Orthodox are currently preparing for another council, and no secular authority is calling it. Rulers may have been involved, but they are not controlling the church.camptaylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05269444196351768244noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14943121.post-42114338321518053242010-09-21T09:15:23.311-04:002010-09-21T09:15:23.311-04:00...continued...
Concern #3: Orthodox Churches are......continued...<br /><br />Concern #3: Orthodox Churches are not trying to "get back into the Catholic Church"! <br /><br />Answer: I may have gotten bad information on that one. <br /><br />Concern #4: We believe that all bishops are equals, and that the Roman Bishop was never intended to rule over the others, but was a first among equals. In Acts, you can see that St. James, the first Bishop of Jerusalem, was heading up this Apostolic Council and that he, not Peter, issued the final decision.<br /><br />Answer: Actually you will see in Acts 15:7-11 that Peter is the ONE who spoke to the leaders of the council in order to give them the information they need to pass on. Only AFTER hearing Peter state the following did James go and pass this information to the people. Only THEN was he able to PASS ON the Apostolic Decree. <br /><br />Acts 15:7-11 (New International Version)<br /><br />7After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: "Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. 8God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. 9He made no distinction between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. 10Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? 11No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are."<br /><br />In Addition: In the Bible, Peter is mentioned no less than 195 times in the New Testaments, while all the other apostles combined are mentioned less frequently. Also, Peter is Always mentioned first among the apostles and Judas is always mentioned last. In Matthew 10:2-4 we see that Peter is mentioned as the first. (Protos: means first and foremost) He is always mentioned as Protos even though in John's Gospel we learn that Andrew is the first apostle to have faith in Jesus as the Messiah. Peter is blatantly laid out in the Bible as First and Foremost.<br /><br /><br />Concern #5: We aren't Protestants with sacraments. We aren't foreign Catholic-wannabe's. We have a rich history and a lot to bring to the "American Christian" table.<br /><br />Answer: Though I am American, I am of French/Cherokee lineage and my husband is Italian. Please know that this isn't an "American" decision. This is a spiritual decision in God's world. I'm studying the History of the Bible, not American history. <br /><br />I do understand your frustration. I was protestant all my life. I was so very tied to my Protestant beliefs. I wanted them to make sense, but I have to assert that after picking up a history book (ie: studying the history of Jesus' life and the years following and weighing it with the Bible) I can no longer "dutifully" hold to my beautiful and loving religion. I have to come home to The Church Jesus ordained through Peter and Breathed into His apostles. <br /><br />I hope that my answers helps you better understand my journey. I am not trying to offend you. I'm basically just trying to log our journey into our family blog. I have to be honest with my mental flow and thought processes so that our children will understand them when they read these books in the future. <br /><br />Thank you for reading my blog. I do appreciate your input.momwithbrownieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10303109123571195886noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14943121.post-55662747069829297522010-09-21T09:14:47.562-04:002010-09-21T09:14:47.562-04:00Hi Camptaylor,
As you may know, I am currently Sw...Hi Camptaylor,<br /><br />As you may know, I am currently Swimming the Tiber. I understand your frustration. I hope I can address each issue. Please know that I'm not trying to convert you or bash your religion. I can only tell you why I'm not choosing Orthodox Christianity. These are "just" my thoughts as I study and go along my personal journey.<br /><br />I'll try to address your concerns in order. :o) <br /><br />Concern #1: The Orthodox do NOT believe Mary had other children. <br /><br />Answer: I believe that was a commenter who made that assertion. I don't have any input on that subject.<br /><br />Concern #2: Orthodox do NOT consider themselves many churches, but One Church. We may look "divided" but this is only administrative. All Orthodox Churches in the world, worship and believe in exactly the same way. <br /><br />Answer: I cannot become an Orthodox Christian because the Orthodox have always depended upon the SECULAR ruler (the emperor) to call the various Orthodox churches together for ecumenical councils. Since there is no emperor representing all the Orthodox churches, they have been unable to come together as a unified whole for more than one thousand years! That's a LONG time. They hold to the SAME ancient traditions as Catholics but have no mechanism for unification into one cohesive whole to this day. Therefore, they are in actuality churches, in the plural. Without true unity, there is no union. They hold themselves to be united in much the same way as Protestants hold themselves to be united. As a former Protestant, I can't stomach that "general oneness" belief anymore. <br /><br />more in next comment...momwithbrownieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10303109123571195886noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14943121.post-87371102051493439982010-09-21T01:22:57.707-04:002010-09-21T01:22:57.707-04:00I am reading your blog for the first tim and am re...I am reading your blog for the first tim and am really enjoying the content. I also homeschool my kids and love to have theology talks at the park with my Protestant friends. I am an Orthodox Christian, and I am a little dismayed at the utter lack of knowledge regarding Orthodox Christianity. The Orthodox do NOT believe Mary had other children. Orthodox do NOT consider themselves many churches, but One Church. We may look "divided" but this is only administrative. All Orthodox Churches in the world, worship and believe in exactly the same way. We are in communion with one another.<br />Also we are not trying to "get back into the Catholic Church"! We believe that all bishop are equals, and that the Roman Bishop was never intended to rule over the others, but was a first among equals. In Acts, you can see that St. James, the first Bishop of Jerusalem, was heading up this Apostolic Council and that he, not Peter, issued the final decision.<br /><br />It does get a little hard being the odd man out on the Catholic- Protestant debate. <br />We aren't Protestants with sacraments.<br />We aren't foreign Catholic-wannabe's.<br />We have a rich history and a lot to bring to the "American Christian" table.<br />Here is a great place for more info:<br />www.ancientfaithradio.com<br /><br />I'll get off my soapbox now... :)camptaylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05269444196351768244noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14943121.post-59534029187233197042010-08-09T23:39:46.017-04:002010-08-09T23:39:46.017-04:00It amazes me how Protestants do not know anything ...It amazes me how Protestants do not know anything about their history. <br />The reformation happened and books of the bible were removed. There are many words in the bible, which have no english translation, such as cousin therefor everyone is called brother. thus the reason that other religions believe that Mary bore other children. To us she was conceived without sin in preparation to live a life without sin to give birth to our Lord Jesus Christ. We honor Mary for without her there would be no Jesus.<br />The missing books of the bible are locked away in Africa. 20/20 or dateline did a special on this a few years back. they interviewed the Monks who are in charge of keeping it under lock and key.marion326https://www.blogger.com/profile/05974714991084020679noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14943121.post-76957033458021821802010-04-06T08:58:02.236-04:002010-04-06T08:58:02.236-04:00Thanks again, Shelly! I've now read all of yo...Thanks again, Shelly! I've now read all of your posts - thanks for pointing them out to me (doh!). =) <br /><br />I honestly never knew that I could just appreciate "the other" point of view for what it is, and I can now that I actually understand it. I bet that your posts will be a blessing to many people. We may or may not ever "all be one" as God so fervently wishes, but if we at least appreciate each other and stop bashing and ridiculing each other, that will be something.<br /><br />Having been raised a Roman Catholic from birth, and coming from many generations of Catholics, I still think I have way less to do with Mary than many Catholics. And that's OK. There's no Catholic requirement regarding Mary - ;) One way I do see her, though, is this: after taking courses in college on Western Civ history (which turned out to basically be church history), as well as studying world and historical beliefs, it seems that pre-Christian religions always had a male AND a female God, or aspect of God. Maybe - and I'm delving into a bit of anthropology here - we have an inner need for a father and mother that drives us so that we have always created myths with both. Suddenly a very patriarchal religion enters history, and perhaps Mary fills a "motherly" need we have. I know as a psychologist, that many people who grew up without a father or with a harsh father, have trouble having an intimate relationship with what we in Christianity always portrayed as a male God. Should they turn to Mary instead? No!!! But I do believe that when Jesus said on the cross, "here is your mother," that he meant it for all of us, and that is how I see Mary. As a spiritual mother who can help me in my walk with her Son. Who can help me be obedient as she.<br /><br />Whatever you decide, wherever God leads you and your family, I will pray that your faith be strong and God brings you where He wants you to be. <br /><br />God bless you!<br />TanyaTanya Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07317264843738139889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14943121.post-79528832888833506412010-04-05T22:50:03.314-04:002010-04-05T22:50:03.314-04:00Hi Tanya, :o)
You aren't offending me at all....Hi Tanya, :o)<br /><br />You aren't offending me at all. I have actually posted much about how Protestants "think" in my earlier Catholic/Protestant posts. If you click on the words in my post that say, "post one" "Post two" etc...you will find out more than you ever thought you wanted to know about Protestants thinking. :o) <br /><br />Now to answer your questions. <br /><br />QUESTION: It has been suggested that Protestants are scared to mention her,(Mary) for fear of sounding like Catholics. <br /><br />ANSWER: I have heard a sermon or two about Mary in a Protestant church. They usually deal with her immediate obedience and unwavering faith through her life. I could see that some churches "may" steer clear of her to try not to "sound" Catholic, but I have never heard that concern voiced. <br /><br /><br />QUESTION: I just wonder if you study Job's response to adversity, for example, why not study Mary's willingness to accept God's will in her life? <br /><br />ANSWER: Mary's willingness to accept God's will is looked upon much the same way as Job and talked about as such in the churches I attended. <br /><br />QUESTION: What do you make of Jesus on the cross saying, "here is your mother", and "here is your son"? Why even mention it in the Bible if it is insignificant? <br /><br />ANSWER: Protestants believe that Jesus was making sure she was going to be taken care of after He left earth. <br /><br />However: I have to wonder why Jesus would ask someone who is not His "brother" to take care of Mary....IF...she had other children as most Protestants happen to believe. I was always taught that Mary had other children...but didn't know that "brother and sister" could mean Aunt, Uncle, Cousin... So IF she had other children...Why allow someone else to care for her other than a natural brother of Christ. Hmmm... There's another pickle my Protestant mind has to navigate. :o)<br /><br /><br />QUESTION: What about the queen of Heaven mentioned in Revelations? Mary seems to have a role besides birthing Jesus. <br /><br />ANSWER: Agreed. But does that mean we HAVE to talk with her to get to Heaven? Wouldn't she be happy that we are serving her son. Would she NEED us to talk with her and honor her?<br /><br />QUESTION: If honoring your mother & father is important enough to be one of only ten commandments, how do you think Jesus felt about his own mother? And then think of that in relation to him saying "here is your mother". <br /><br />ANSWER: I actually go in depth into my thoughts about this in my other posts. He was our Brother "in Christ" and He is our God. How much more would he want us to honor our Mother In Christ? <br /><br /><br />Your questions are great. They are just the things I've been traversing during my study of Catholicism and the answers are leading our family to the Catholic Church...however....we are still asking, waiting and watching for what God wants for us. It's an interesting process to say the least. VERY big decision.momwithbrownieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10303109123571195886noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14943121.post-29596212563942870002010-04-05T21:35:37.629-04:002010-04-05T21:35:37.629-04:00Hi, Shelly! Thanks for your thoughtful answers! ...Hi, Shelly! Thanks for your thoughtful answers! Oh, I have no idea why it put my name as "...". Ha ha! My name is Tanya, in case it does it again.<br /><br />The explanation of what people did before the Bible was widely available - wow, I have to be honest and say that the options are kind of disturbing. But that's just me. One thing I do have to say though, is that the printing press was invented in 1843. 1800+ years after Jesus died! So the issue seems to truly be one of access, not of whether or not the few copies available were hidden from the masses. You may know, however, that the rosary meditations and the stained glass depictions from Jesus' life and the stations of the cross are all ways for those who couldn't read (which was also a very real issue when some Bibles *were* available) to learn about the life of Jesus.<br /><br />Your answer regarding Mary was very helpful and definitely the most understandable answer I have ever heard. Understanding that it doesn't make sense to talk to someone not here on Earth (except God/Jesus) to Protestants really, really helps to understand the whole issue. I didn't really mean *talking" to Mary, though (but I am so glad to finally understand that as well). I just meant that in Protestant churches I have been to (Baptist for a while with someone I was dating at the time, and Pentacostal), Mary is *never* mentioned, even in the context of Christmastime. Other people are mentioned - there are studies of Moses, Job, Paul, but I have never even heard Mary mentioned, and it has been suggested that Protestants are scared to mention her, for fear of sounding like Catholics. I just wonder if you study Job's response to adversity, for example, why not study Mary's willingness to accept God's will in her life? Also, what do you make of Jesus on the cross saying, "here is your mother", and "here is your son"? Why even mention it in the Bible if it is insignificant? What about the queen of Heaven mentioned in Revelations? Mary seems to have a role besides birthing Jesus. If honoring your mother & father is important enough to be one of only ten commandments, how do you think Jesus felt about his own mother? And then think of that in relation to him saying "here is your mother". <br /><br />Again, typing doesn't convey tone and can be easy to misunderstand. I seek to understand others' ways of thinking about these things. I am not trying to convince you of my thinking or judge others. I have wondered what Protestants think of these issues for years! Thank you so much for your thoughtful posts & answers to comments!Tanya Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07317264843738139889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14943121.post-41340055272884539002010-04-04T09:33:31.822-04:002010-04-04T09:33:31.822-04:003. "Why are you so scared of Mary? Because yo...3. "Why are you so scared of Mary? Because you're scared of sounding Catholic, who you think "worship" Mary?"<br /><br />We are very concerned that people begin to take their eyes off of having a Relationship with Christ when we begin honoring the vessel that carried Him. Basically, Protestants understand that she was His earthly mother, but we wouldn't dream of talking to her because we don't "talk" to anyone other than Jesus. We believe that giving Mary honor in our daily lives or asking Her to talk with Jesus for us is actually hindering OUR relationship with Christ. We believe this because the time we spend talking with Mary could be time we build our relationship with Jesus. We actually think we would be offending Jesus by asking Her to go to Him for us becuase He's the one who died for us, so we believe His love for us FAR supersedes any love She could have for us.<br /><br />All of that said....though we think she was wonderful....we would never think that she can hear us down here. We are not brought up to believe that people in Heaven can hear us at all. We believe we will see each other in Heaven again, but we are all worshiping together....without actually "being" together until we meet again in Heaven.<br /><br />Cutting to the chase: We don't put anyone between us and Christ because we are to have a full, committed relationship with HIM. Anyone who would come between that relationship is a hindrance to our time with Christ.<br /><br />HOWEVER....The Bible says that the prayers of the Righteous avails much...so I understand that Saints in Heaven could help us reach the Throne of God. In THAT relationship, I understand talking with Mary....HOWEVER...There are many Catholics who actually ask Saints to do Supernatural things...like find them a house, keep them safe...etc. That is not what the Church teaches...if I'm reading the Catechism correctly. When we take our eyes off of Christ and begin asking other Saints to "do" things for us...we have then replaced our Jesus with His creations and THAT'S not okay.<br /><br />Thank you for your questions!! What are your thoughts? :o)momwithbrownieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10303109123571195886noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14943121.post-42435567299960855912010-04-04T09:32:34.042-04:002010-04-04T09:32:34.042-04:00Hi there "..." :o) You didn't leave ...Hi there "..." :o) You didn't leave your name, so I have to use the dots in your signature. LOL<br /><br />I think I've talked about these in my first post. Here's the link...<br /><br />http://www.icantbelievemylife.com/2009/01/evangelical-me-and-my-catholic-friends.html<br /><br />Okay to answer your questions! :o)<br /><br /><br />1. You stated: "I don't understand why Protestants believe that you can confess Jesus as Savior once and you cannot go to hell after that, regardless of what you do."<br /><br />ANSWER: We don't. That is a HUGE misconception about Protestants. There is a sect of the Baptist Church that believe this, however MOST Protestants do NOT believe this AT ALL. We are constantly praying and asking Jesus to forgive our sins. We pray all the time. We are told to be in a constant state of prayer and faith believing. We are also told to pick up or cross daily....meaning...live our lives for Christ. Basically, we believe He saves us when we pray to Him for forgiveness...sort of like the day Catholics take their first communion and have their first confession...that would be the "day" we would say we were "saved" however, we KNOW that we have to always ask for forgiveness and TRY to live the best that we can to do the work Jesus had planned for our lives. We DON'T believe we can go and be huge sinners and get to Heaven just because we prayed one time. That's crazy talk to us. :o)<br /><br />2. You stateD: "In the case of believing the "Bible alone", what do Protestants think people did for the first 1500 years of Christianity without a Bible?"<br /><br />ANSWER: There are a few "schools of thought" on this subject. A. Many protestants never even consider this. They have no clue that this one the case so it's a non-issue. B. SOME believe that the Catholic church "hid" the Bible for those years and God protected the "real" church as a "remnant" that practiced His teachings in private and later became the Baptist Church. C. Others believe that we were taught from the Bible from leaders, then when we could buy them, we did and that their religion is okay because "anyone who believes in Christ will go to Heaven"<br /><br />All of those have flaws. This is where I have hit a stumbling block in my "Protestant" beliefs. Though I do believe that Christ will accept those who are fervently trying to live for Him and seeking His face....I am starting to really understand the Communion(Eucharist) as something Christ meant to happen as a "true practice of our faith" (Sacrament) So, that's why I'm starting to lean toward Catholicism.<br /><br />more below....momwithbrownieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10303109123571195886noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14943121.post-16768560089967700312010-04-03T23:06:32.350-04:002010-04-03T23:06:32.350-04:00. . . . . Again, if you have questions, I would be.... . . . . Again, if you have questions, I would be happy to converse with you! I have some that I have always wanted to ask of a Protestant, but have never been able to find someone who didn't simply get angry and want to end our conversation first! If you, or any readers, can answer these questions of MINE, in a kind way, please do!:<br /><br />1. I don't understand why Protestants believe that you can confess Jesus as Savior once and you cannot go to hell after that, regardless of what you do. I know that Bible says that confessing Jesus as Savior will save us, and I wholeheartedly agree, but the New Testament is completely filled with Jesus saying that when you get to Heaven, your deeds on Earth may make Jesus turn His head and deny knowing you! (If you need quotes, I can give you quite a list!) I just truly don't understand this.<br /><br />2. Again, in the case of believing the "Bible alone", what do Protestants think people did for the first 1500 years of Christianity without a Bible? And what about all of the referenced in the Bible to the writers passing on more info "by word of mouth", or referring to important teachings that have been passed on "by word of mouth"?<br /><br />3. Why are you so scared of Mary? Because you're scared of sounding Catholic, who you think "worship" Mary? A friend of mine shared something beautiful with me about Mary - the ark of the covenant, which held inside of it something sacred, was considered itself so sacred for what it contained that if someone were to look at it they would perish. So what then, of the woman who contained the Son of God? At the very least, she must be considered worthy of honor for what she contained within her. For many Catholics, myself included for sure, she is the ultimate model of subservience to God. When told of the pregnancy, she said yes! to God, though her situation could have gotten her stoned to death! When asked for help at the wedding at Cana, she pointed seekers TO HER SON FOR THE ANSWER. Why just totally leave her out of the picture of your faith entirely?<br /><br />I'm sure there are more, but those are the ones that come to mind. Please know that while I am a very faithful Catholic, I ask these questions from my heart and from a true desire of understanding others' beliefs! Thanks!Tanya Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07317264843738139889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14943121.post-24488411585124038052010-04-03T23:06:12.875-04:002010-04-03T23:06:12.875-04:00Wow, I commend you on starting a dialogue based on...Wow, I commend you on starting a dialogue based on a true search for understanding and real communication!<br /><br />I am a Roman Catholic from birth, and would be happy to answer any questions you may have.<br /><br />As far as "Bible alone" theology, I am not sure how that started. However it begs many seemingly unanswerable (to Protestants) questions:<br /><br />1. What about the 1500 years that the common person didn't have a Bible to go by?<br /><br />2. There are certain things that simply are not in the Bible, that are only passed on orally, but that you need to know. For example, there are no descriptions of Jewish ceremonies that were essential to "perform the correct way" in the Old Testament, yet somehow people knew. If they were to believe in the Bible alone, I guess they would have been out of luck!<br /><br />3. A list of books that belong in the Bible, as inspired by God, is not contained in the Bible, thus necessarily contradicting the "Bible alone" belief!<br /><br />4. Protestantism - even the word means "to protest". Martin Luther may have been the first to protest and start his own religion, but now you have people doing that left and right - disagreeing with their church and starting their own. There are currently thousands of branches of Christianity, all disagreeing over every little detail of faith, history, and scripture. Who to believe? The "Bible alone" basis cannot possibly hold up because we have thousands of different versions of what that means! <br /><br />5. For me, it's pretty much simple that Jesus did not leave behind a book, but he did leave behind a Church, which was so important that God promised that even the gates of Hell would not prevail against it. The Bible says that "all scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training ...", but this verse in no way states that our faith is "Bible only". However, the Bible itself says that the Church is "the pillar and ground of the truth" (1 Timothy 3:15)!<br /><br />It sounds like you are at a place where many Protestant to Catholic converts arrived before you - in searching the writings of the founding fathers and recreating first century fellowship and church services, they discovered that the Catholic church has kept the teaching in line for 2000 years straight, and they convert. Whether you wish to convert or not, I would encourage you to read a wonderful book that will enhance your understanding and at least allow you to more fully appreciate your friends' faith: "Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic". . . .Tanya Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07317264843738139889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14943121.post-12167274467157257252010-03-13T09:01:44.585-05:002010-03-13T09:01:44.585-05:00Continued--sorry for the length!
"5. They co...Continued--sorry for the length!<br /><br />"5. They contain fabulous statements, and statements which contradict not only the canonical Scriptures, but themselves; as when, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in as many different places."<br /><br />This is the same argument used by skeptics against the entire Bible, Old and New Testament, the "gotcha!" game. That there are *apparent* contradictions between –or even within--different books doesn’t mean there isn’t an explanation. I’ve heard the same type of arguments leveled against Paul’s encounter with Christ in Acts, for example.<br /><br />“6. It inculcates doctrines at variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection.”<br /><br />There’s a bit of question-begging in that formulation, inasmuch if I define the Bible as excluding certain books, then of course I can call doctrines outside of that shortened bible “at variance.” More to the point, it’s wrong: there’s a prayer for the dead in the New Testament:<br /> 16The Lord give mercy unto the house of Onesiphorus; for he oft refreshed me, and was not ashamed of my chain: <br /> 17But, when he was in Rome, he sought me out very diligently, and found me. <br /> 18The Lord grant unto him that he may find mercy of the Lord in that day: and in how many things he ministered unto me at Ephesus, thou knowest very well.<br />2 Tim. 1:16-18 (KJV).<br /><br />“7. It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assassination and magical incantation.”<br /><br />This is the Gotcha! Game again. It depicts the practices without necessarily giving them divine sanction, in the same way Samuel depicts David’s polygamy without indicating God approves, or Jael murdering the helpless Sisera with a tent-peg (an assassination much like that in Judith). I mean, God used astrology—astrology!—to lead the wise men to Jesus. He wrings the good out of His fallen human servants however it may catch us unawares. But it doesn’t mean He’s establishing a pattern, e.g. He does not want us to check our horoscopes.<br /><br />“If having the Apocrypha between the Testaments disqualifies it as authoritative, then the corrupt Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts from Alexandria, Egypt must be totally worthless since their authors obviously didn't have the conviction of the King James translators and incorporated its books into the text of the Old Testament thus giving it authority with Scripture.”<br /><br />Again, this is question-begging, and a peculiarly KJV-purist argument at that. It presumes the Textus Receptus/KJV is uniquely pure (despite the irony that it began as the work of the Dutch Catholic Erasmus) and that the other Codices are “corrupt.” The burden of proof is on the KJV partisan. The fact remains that the original KJV contained the books of the Catholic deuterocanon, and these “apocryphal” books were—and still are—used in the prayers of the Anglican Church.DPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12249117106906577345noreply@blogger.com