@pilgrim.1

It's funny how you want to wriggle from this issue. BOTH Christians and Jews agree on the same things in the Decalogue - they also quote the 2ND COMMANDMENT. Not so with the Catholic Church that deliberately dropped the 2nd commandment in order to keep bowing to idols.

Also, the protestants and the Jews do not number the commandments the same. All groups (non-catholics, Jews, and Catholics) include the ten commandments, the only difference is in the numbering. The numbering according to the Jews is slightly different from that of the Catholics, which in turn, is different from that of the non-catholic christians.

Hi Omenuko,

Omenuko:

I know this is off topic, but how does the Catholic Church drop the 2nd commandment?

Omenuko:

@pilgrim.1

Also, the protestants and the Jews do not number the commandments the same. All groups (non-catholics, Jews, and Catholics) include the ten commandments, the only difference is in the numbering. The numbering according to the Jews is slightly different from that of the Catholics, which in turn, is different from that of the non-catholic christians.

Okay, if you say so.

However, although some contend that the numbering differs between various listing, the fact is that the 2nd commandment is not contained in the Catholic list. Specifically, it is the very commandment that forbids the bowing down to graven images as an expression of worship.

Taking from chukwudi44's referral to Wikipedia, the 2nd Commandment in particular that is being spoken of here is this one:

        ___________________________________________________________

        "Do not make an image or any likeness of what is in the heavens above, "

         This prohibits the construction or fashioning of "idols" in the likeness of
         created things (beasts, fish, birds, people) and worshipping them.

        ______________________________________[source: Wikipedia]______

While this commandment is featured in the various other lists regardless of the numbering system, it simply does not feature in Catholic listing. Instead, what has happened is that the Catholic list divide the 10th commandment into two and then made one single commandment into #9 and #10 to have a "10 commandment" list.

@ Chukwudi and other catholics

I suppose you now agree that the doctrine of pugatory is a fallacy from hell?

pilgrim.1:

Hi Omenuko,

Okay, if you say so.

However, although some contend that the numbering differs between various listing, the fact is that the 2nd commandment is not contained in the Catholic list. Specifically, it is the very commandment that forbids the bowing down to graven images as an expression of worship.

Taking from chukwudi44's referral to Wikipedia, the 2nd Commandment in particular that is being spoken of here is this one:

        ___________________________________________________________

        "Do not make an image or any likeness of what is in the heavens above, "

         This prohibits the construction or fashioning of "idols" in the likeness of
         created things (beasts, fish, birds, people) and worshipping them.

        ______________________________________[source: Wikipedia]______

While this commandment is featured in the various other lists regardless of the numbering system, it simply does not feature in Catholic listing. Instead, what has happened is that the Catholic list divide the 10th commandment into two and then made one single commandment into #9 and #10 to have a "10 commandment" list.

My question still stands. . . .How has the Catholic Church done away with this commandment?

@pilgrim.1

The Ten Commandments (Catholic numbering)

1"I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery; you shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and fourth generation of those who reject me, but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments."

Catholic teaching distinguishes between dulia—paying honor, respect and veneration to saints and also indirectly to God through contemplation of objects such as paintings and statues—and latria— adoration directed to God alone. (See Catechism 2084–2141.)

2 "You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the LORD your God, for the LORD will not acquit anyone who misuses his name."

This commandment prohibits not just swearing but also the misappropriation of religious language in order to commit a crime, participating in occult practices, and blaspheming against places or people that are holy to God. (See Catechism 2142–2167.)

3 "Observe the sabbath day and keep it holy, as the LORD your God commanded you. Six days you shall labor and do all your work. But the seventh day is a sabbath to the LORD your God; you shall not do any work—you, or your son or your daughter, or your male or female slave, or your ox or your donkey, or any of your livestock, or the resident alien in your towns, so that your male and female slave may rest as well as you. Remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the LORD your God brought you out from there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm; therefore the LORD your God commanded you to keep the sabbath day."

4 "Honor your father and your mother, as the LORD your God commanded you, so that your days may be long and that it may go well with you in the land that the LORD your God is giving you." . . . . . . .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_commandments#Text_of_the_Ten_Commandments

How has the Catholic Church done away with the 2nd commandment?

Omenuko:

My question still stands. . . .How has the Catholic Church done away with this commandment?

@Omenuko,

Thank you again for contextulaizing your question. Indeed, the expression ‘does not feature’ may be misleading, and I’m willing to acknowledge that it was my fault there. If I may explain, it was used in the sense that the Catholic Church does not give the 2nd commandment its due respect - hence why it is not “featured” in the sense it is lacking its due “special treatement” in Catholicism. This again was why I noted in my previous post that the 2nd commandment has been “dropped” in Catholicism -

[list]

It's funny how you want to wriggle from this issue. BOTH Christians and Jews agree on the same things in the Decalogue - they also quote the 2ND COMMANDMENT. Not so with the Catholic Church that deliberately dropped the 2nd commandment in order to keep bowing to idols

[/list]

In consequence thereto, you asked an important question:

         ‘how does the Catholic Church drop the 2nd commandment?’

. .  which again has been asked more pointedly:

         'How has the Catholic Church done away with this commandment?'

I should have been clearer in my response, which I failed to do; but if you may, I shall now discuss it to show HOW the Catholic Church has “dropped” or not “featured” or "done away with" the 2nd commandment in the sense of no longer obeying that command.

Omenuko:

@pilgrim.1

The Ten Commandments (Catholic numbering) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_commandments#Text_of_the_Ten_Commandments

The source you cited does not give that particularly listing as "Catholic numbering" - perhaps you meant the list below that where various lists are compared. Hang on patiently - inbetween my busy schedule, I shall sort this out for you, as I'm quite aware where you might have been coming from.

The 10 Commandments in General Outline

Before we go on, it may help at this point to give a rough outline of what are regarded as the Decalogue - the 10 Commandments. These are found in Exodus 20:1-17 and Deuteronomy 5:6-21. Below is a sketch of how the Decalogue is generally outlined in the Biblical faith:

         

Please note: the commandment forbidding the making of graven images does not stand alone - it is rather expressly stated as to why God forbade it: “you shall not bow down to them or worship them” for this very thing (bowing down to them in worship) is what constitutes that very act as “idolatry”. In so many instances where we read of this connection, we find that idolatry is expressed in hard evidence of people worshipping images, however fashioned. Let’s review some of them:

        ●  Exodus 32:8 - ‘they have made them a molten calf, and have worshipped it’

        ●  Exodus 34.15 - ‘they go a whoring after their gods, and do sacrifice unto their gods’

        ●  Leviticus 26:1 - ‘You shall not make idols for yourselves or erect an image or pillar,
            and you shall not set up a figured stone in your land to bow down to it, for I am
            the LORD your God.’

It is not simply the making of any image or figurine in and of itself that completes the commandment forbidding idolatry - it is its connection with any expression of worship that gives that commandment its meaning.



Catholic Catechism and the 2nd Commandment

Various sources reproduce the verses Exodus 20:2-5 on the warning against idolatry, and some of these sources for Catholic listing also quote the entire verses:

    _________________________________________________________

       "I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt,
       out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before me.
       You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of
       anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or
       that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them
       or serve them."

                   The first commandment according to the Catechism of
                                        the Catholic Church
    _________________________________________________________

       source: Wikipedia; and also Catechism of the Catholic Church


The quote above is what the Catholic Church makes provides as her own 1st commandment in her list. Question is whether that commandment is retained or has been “dropped” or "done away with" in Catholicism, so that Catholics are expressly violating that commandment.

pilgrim.1:

@Omenuko,

Thank you again for contextulaizing your question. Indeed, the expression ‘does not feature’ may be misleading, and I’m willing to acknowledge that it was my fault there. If I may explain, it was used in the sense that the Catholic Church does not give the 2nd commandment its due respect - hence why it is not “featured” in the sense it is lacking its due “special treatement” in Catholicism. This again was why I noted in my previous post that the 2nd commandment has been “dropped” in Catholicism -

[list][/list].

In consequence thereto, you asked an important question:

        ‘how does the Catholic Church drop the 2nd commandment?’

. .  which again has been asked more pointedly:

        'How has the Catholic Church done away with this commandment?'

I should have been clearer in my response, which I failed to do; but if you may, I shall now discuss it to show HOW the Catholic Church has “dropped” or not “featured” or "done away with" the 2nd commandment in the sense of no longer obeying that command.

pilgrim.1, I don't know what game you are playing, but I just showed you the 2nd commandant (according to the protestant numbering) in the Catholic number of the Ten commandments.  You clearly stated that the Catholic Church dropped the 2nd commandment.  I showed you we didn't.  All one had to do was read the wikipedia page that chukwu44 posted.  Now, you want to change your wording and say how the Catholic Church is not giving the 2nd commandment its due respect.  Instead of apologizing because you made a mistake (I'm beginning to believe it was on purpose to bear false witness) and ending it there you want to continue to argue.  All I wanted was for you to acknowledge that you were wrong and withdraw the false statement.  Why do you want to argue?

pilgrim.1:

The 10 Commandments in General Outline

Before we go on, it may help at this point to give a rough outline of what are regarded as the Decalogue - the 10 Commandments. These are found in Exodus 20:1-17 and Deuteronomy 5:6-21. Below is a sketch of how the Decalogue is generally outlined in the Biblical faith:

         

Please note: the commandment forbidding the making of graven images does not stand alone - it is rather expressly stated as to why God forbade it: “you shall not bow down to them or worship them” for this very thing (bowing down to them in worship) is what constitutes that very act as “idolatry”. In so many instances where we read of this connection, we find that idolatry is expressed in hard evidence of people worshipping images, however fashioned. Let’s review some of them:

        ●  Exodus 32:8 - ‘they have made them a molten calf, and have worshipped it’

        ●  Exodus 34.15 - ‘they go a whoring after their gods, and do sacrifice unto their gods’

        ●  Leviticus 26:1 - ‘You shall not make idols for yourselves or erect an image or pillar,
            and you shall not set up a figured stone in your land to bow down to it, for I am
            the LORD your God.’

It is not simply the making of any image or figurine in and of itself that completes the commandment forbidding idolatry - it is its connection with any expression of worship that gives that commandment its meaning.



Catholic Catechism and the 2nd Commandment

Various sources reproduce the verses Exodus 20:2-5 on the warning against idolatry, and some of these sources for Catholic listing also quote the entire verses:

    _________________________________________________________

       "I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt,
       out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before me.
       You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of
       anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or
       that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them
       or serve them."

                   The first commandment according to the Catechism of
                                        the Catholic Church
    _________________________________________________________

       source: Wikipedia; and also Catechism of the Catholic Church


The quote above is what the Catholic Church makes provides as her own 1st commandment in her list. Question is whether that commandment is retained or has been “dropped” or "done away with" in Catholicism, so that Catholics are expressly violating that commandment.

Again, the numbering you just posted is the protestant numbering of the Ten Commandments; i[b]t is not the Jewish number, nor the Catholic numbering, nor the Eastern Orthodox numbering.[/b]

Omenuko:

Again, the numbering you just posted is the protestant numbering of the Ten Commandments; i[b]t is not the Jewish number, nor the Catholic numbering, nor the Eastern Orthodox numbering.[/b]

Omenuko:

pilgrim.1, I don't know what game you are playing, but I just showed you the 2nd commandant (according to the protestant numbering) in the Catholic number of the Ten commandments. You clearly stated that the Catholic Church dropped the 2nd commandment. I showed you we didn't. All one had to do was read the wikipedia page that chukwu44 posted. Now, you want to change your wording and say how the Catholic Church is not giving the 2nd commandment its due respect. Instead of apologizing because you made a mistake (I'm beginning to believe it was on purpose to bear false witness) and ending it there you want to continue to argue. All I wanted was for you to acknowledge that you were wrong and withdraw the false statement. Why do you want to argue?

The question has been explained - if you're feeling insecure, re-read my explanation and exercise the patience to see my answer to your question as stated:

[list]

Omenuko:

How has the Catholic Church done away with the 2nd commandment?

[/list]

It is not a matter that rests on DIFFERENT NUMBERING on the list; but rather HOW Catholicism had "done away with" the 2nd commandment.

Is that clear enough now?

pilgrim.1:

The question has been explained - if you're feeling insecure, re-read my explanation and exercise the patience to see my answer to your question as stated:

[list][/list]

It is not a matter that rests on DIFFERENT NUMBERING on the list; but rather HOW Catholicism had "done away with" the 2nd commandment.

Is that clear enough now?

My apologies if I misunderstood what you were saying. . . .but the below is what I was addressing:

pilgrim.1 wrote

However, although some contend that the numbering differs between various listing, the fact is that the 2nd commandment is not contained in the Catholic list. Specifically, it is the very commandment that forbids the bowing down to graven images as an expression of worship.

@Omenuko,

I already explained that my assumption initial was wrong and my fault -

pilgrim.1:

Thank you again for contextulaizing your question. Indeed, the expression ‘does not feature’ may be misleading, and I’m willing to acknowledge that it was my fault there.

Inspite of that, it is plain that Catholicism has "done away with" the 2nd commandment - and that's what I want to show you, in response to your question: "How has the Catholic Church done away with the 2nd commandment?" Indeed, the Catholic Church has done away with the 2nd Commandment - and I'm going to show you HOW.

Does that clarify issues now for you?
___________________

addendum:

Omenuko:

My apologies if I misunderstood what you were saying. . . .but the below is what I was addressing:

I understand you; and I cannot give any excuses there - my wording was patently misleading, and I'll take the time to show you my answer to your question.

Catholicism on the warning against Idolatry

What is the position of the Catholic Church on the express warning forbidding the making of graven images and bowing down to them in worship?

In the first place, it is not as if the Catholic Church and her authorities are not aware of the 2nd commandment in question. Yes, they certainly are aware of it - but the question of it having been “done away with” in Catholicism is one that rests on how they have interpreted that command.

Consulting mainly the Catechism of the Catholic Church would be quite helpful here; and the relevant sections are quoted:

[list]

IV. "YOU SHALL NOT MAKE FOR YOURSELF A GRAVEN IMAGE . . ."

2129 The divine injunction included the prohibition of every representation of God by the hand of man. Deuteronomy explains: "Since you saw no form on the day that the Lord spoke to you at Horeb out of the midst of the fire, beware lest you act corruptly by making a graven image for yourselves, in the form of any figure. . . . "⁶⁶ It is the absolutely transcendent God who revealed himself to Israel. "He is the all," but at the same time "he is greater than all his works."⁶⁷ He is "the author of beauty."⁶⁸

2130 Nevertheless, already in the Old Testament, God ordained or permitted the making of images that pointed symbolically toward salvation by the incarnate Word: so it was with the bronze serpent, the ark of the covenant, and the cherubim.⁶⁹

2131 Basing itself on the mystery of the incarnate Word, the seventh ecumenical council at Nicaea (787) justified against the iconoclasts the veneration of icons - of Christ, but also of the Mother of God, the angels, and all the saints. By becoming incarnate, the Son of God introduced a new "economy" of images.

2132 The Christian veneration of images is not contrary to the first commandment which proscribes idols. Indeed, "the honor rendered to an image passes to its prototype," and "whoever venerates an image venerates the person portrayed in it."⁷⁰ The honor paid to sacred images is a "respectful veneration," not the adoration due to God alone:

[list]Religious worship is not directed to images in themselves, considered as mere things, but under their distinctive aspect as images leading us on to God incarnate. The movement toward the image does not terminate in it as image, but tends toward that whose image it is.⁷¹[/list]

IN BRIEF

2133 "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul and with all your strength" (Deut 6:5).

2134 The first commandment summons man to believe in God, to hope in him, and to love him above all else.

2135 "You shall worship the Lord your God" (Mt 4:10). Adoring God, praying to him, offering him the worship that belongs to him, fulfilling the promises and vows made to him are acts of the virtue of religion which fall under obedience to the first commandment.

2136 The duty to offer God authentic worship concerns man both as an individual and as a social being.

2137 "Men of the present day want to profess their religion freely in private and in public" (DH 15).

2138 Superstition is a departure from the worship that we give to the true God. It is manifested in idolatry, as well as in various forms of divination and magic.

2139 Tempting God in words or deeds, sacrilege, and simony are sins of irreligion forbidden by the first commandment.

2140 Since it rejects or denies the existence of God, atheism is a sin against the first commandment.

2141 The veneration of sacred images is based on the mystery of the Incarnation of the Word of God. It is not contrary to the first commandment.

[/list]

Let's recap: on the commandment that: "YOU SHALL NOT MAKE FOR YOURSELF A GRAVEN IMAGE", the Catholic Catechism interprets this as meaning:

● The divine injunction included the prohibition of every representation of God
by the hand of man.

So far so good. What exactly is included in this "prohibition"? In the Wikipedia source, this explanation is given for what the Catholic Church holds:

[list]The first commandment, according to Church teaching, "means that [followers] must worship and adore God alone because God is alone."^[32] The Catechism explains that this prohibits idolatry, providing examples of forbidden practices such as the worship of any creature, and of "'demons , power, pleasure, race, ancestors, the state [and] money'".^[32] Augustine interpreted this commandment as "Love God and then do what you will".[/list]

What every conscientious Catholic (and indeed any Christian) should take to heart here are these:

~ that [followers] must worship and adore God alone

~ this prohibits idolatry, such as the worship of any creature[/color]

It seems so nicely well said. Question: how do these prohibitions from the Catholic Church work out where evidently Catholics WORSHIP Mary?

Yes, there are alway excuses from Catholicism to include just about anything it prohgibits; and here's just one of them:

[list]While Catholics are often accused of worshiping images, in violation of the first commandment,^[36] the Church says this is a misunderstanding. In the Church's opinion, "the honor paid to sacred images is a 'respectful veneration', not the adoration due to God alone".^[36][37] In the early centuries of the Church, heated arguments arose over whether religious icons were prohibited by the first commandment. The dispute was almost entirely restricted to the Eastern church; the iconoclasts wished to prohibit icons, while the iconodules supported their veneration. At the Second Council of Nicaea in 787, the ecumenical council determined that the veneration of icons and statues was not in violation of the commandment and stated "whoever venerates an image venerates the person portrayed in it."[/list]

Are there things that are wrong here? Let's see -

~ It is clear that the worship of images did not begin with apostolic Christianity

~ It was as late as the 8th century (Nicaea in 787) that such idolatry got into Christianity

~ those who sought to incorporate this activity knew it had something to do with
violating God's Word

~ the so-called 'respectful veneration' (dulia and hyperdulia) was not found among
the apostles; but those who sought to incorporate it understood it was a recent matter
beyond the time of the apostles

~ it is amazing that the issue was a "dispute" in post-apotolic age; for this was not even
a matter to be debated among early Christians; for the apostles were quite definite on
this issue and we can understand where they stood -

● that they abstain from pollutions of idols - Acts 15:20

● idolaters had nothing to do with God's Kingdom - 1 Cor. 6:9

● what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? - 2 Cor. 6:16

● Little children, keep yourselves from idols - 1 John 5:21

● that they should not worship devils,
and idols of gold, and silver, and brass, and stone, and of wood:
which neither can see, nor hear, nor walk - Rev. 9:20

Should anyone be reading from the apostles and still wonder about making graven images to bow down to them in the mistaken doctrine that - what? That the incarnation of Christ was a precedence to such idolatry and yet we didn't find any such things among the apostles?

pilgrim.1:

It seems so nicely well said. Question: how do these prohibitions from the Catholic Church work out where evidently Catholics WORSHIP Mary?

Of course, the fact that Catholics worship Mary is no longer news. We've discussed this in another Catholic thread and also examined the various excuses that the Vatican gives to allow for the worship of Mary - such as the expressions dulia and hyperdulia as distinct from latria. The question is not so much that a distinction is made between the various "types" of worship - the fact is that no other being is worthy of worship than GOD alone. That is essentially what we read the Catholic sources acknowledge earlier:

       ●  'The first commandment, according to Church teaching, "means that [followers]
           must worship and adore God alone because God is alone"

       ●   The Catechism explains that this prohibits idolatry, providing examples of
            forbidden practices such as the worship of any creature

More explicit in the condemnation of idolatry is what the Catechism states:

[list]2112 The first commandment condemns polytheism. It requires man neither to believe in, nor to venerate, other divinities than the one true God. Scripture constantly recalls this rejection of "idols, [of] silver and gold, the work of men's hands. They have mouths, but do not speak; eyes, but do not see." These empty idols make their worshippers empty: "Those who make them are like them; so are all who trust in them."⁴² God, however, is the "living God"⁴³ who gives life and intervenes in history.

2113 Idolatry not only refers to false pagan worship. It remains a constant temptation to faith. Idolatry consists in divinizing what is not God. Man commits idolatry whenever he honors and reveres a creature in place of God, whether this be gods or demons (for example, satanism), power, pleasure, race, ancestors, the state, money, etc. Jesus says, "You cannot serve God and mammon."⁴⁴ Many martyrs died for not adoring "the Beast"⁴⁵ refusing even to simulate such worship. Idolatry rejects the unique Lordship of God; it is therefore incompatible with communion with God.⁴⁶[/list]

Does the reader get anything from all these? If the meaning is lost in the format, let's outline them the salient points:

          ●   man is not to venerate other divinities than the one true God

          ●   Scripture rejects the idols, [of] silver and gold, the work of men's hands

          ●   These empty idols make their worshippers empty

          ●   Idolatry consists in divinizing what is not God

          ●   Man commits idolatry whenever he honors and reveres a creature in place of God

          ●   Idolatry rejects the unique Lordship of God

          ●   it is therefore incompatible with communion with God

Despite reading all of these, what do we yet find as regards the practice of Catholic worship, veneration and the 2nd commandment (1st commandment for Catholicism)? It is worrying indeed to read all the above and still find Catholicism violates ALL of them through the worship of MARY.

Please note: the word 'worship' is quite a strong one, and when asked, many Catholics would tell you they do not "worship" Mary. Quite to the contrary, it is Catholic authoity that articulates the worhip of Mary -

E[/b]xcerpts from the "[b]Fulgens Corona" Encyclical of Pope Pius XII:

[center][list]

34. But let this holy city of Rome be the first to give the example, this city which from the earliest Christian era worshipped the heavenly mother, its patroness, with a special devotion. As all know, there are many sacred edifices here, in which she is proposed for the devotion of the Roman people; but the greatest without doubt is the Liberian Basilica, in which the mosaics of Our predecessor of pious memory, Sixtus III, still glisten, an outstanding monument to the Divine maternity of the Virgin Mary, and in which the "salvation of the Roman people" (Salus Populi Romani) benignly smiles. Thither especially let the suppliant citizens flock, and before that most sacred image let all put forth pious prayers, imploring especially that Rome, which is the principal city of the Catholic world, may also give the lead in Faith, in piety and in sanctity.

[/list][/center]
[list]Source: "Fulgens Corona" - Encyclical of Pope Pius XII [from a Vatican website].[/list]

Please note tyhe following from the above -

          ●  Rome took the lead to give the early example of having worshipped the "heavenly mother"

          ●  it rests the "salvation of the Roman people" (Salus Populi Romani) on Mary

          ●  it enjoins that "before that most sacred image let all put forth pious prayers"


WHERE is the 2nd Commandment (or 1st commandment, Catholics) in all this?? What has happened to the express forbidding of worship and bowing down to images in all this? What has happened to all the fine talk we find in the Catechism of the Catholic Church about the fact that "Idolatry rejects the unique Lordship of God"?

It's not only Catholics that like to say that the 'Catholic Church' is not a denomination - that is what they won't claim, just as many other groups would not claim of their own groups. Yet, we know that 'the Catholic Church' as used widely today is undeniably a seperate denomination from other Christian groups - 'The Roman Catholic Church, officially known as the Catholic Church' [here]. When the early writers used the word 'catholic' in reference to the Church, were they all speaking about the Roman Catholic Church?

I understand completely your point, and what I am trying to express to you that it is false. Just because something is accepted by popular culture doesn't make it the truth. Most people think sex before marriage is okay but we both know that it's not the truth. Just because people today consider the Catholic Church a denomination doesn't make it a denomination. I was trying to express to you that we have never been a denomination, as from the beginning when the church was called catholic, it was one church and was not a denomination and is therefore today not a denomination.

If it is your belief that the Catholic church as you know it today is not the same as spoken of then, could you kindly point me to the Catholic church spoken of by the early christians?

Please. Neither Christ nor the apostles spoke about the system of the Romish papacy. When Catholics are asked to show where Christ and the apostles spoke about the Catholic Church (ie., the Roman Catholic Church), you guys will duck that one and start shouting you do not appeal to the Bible.

We've shown it to you many times, but then again you neither understand the Bible or the Catholic teaching so how could you see it?

The same place where Christ gave the Keys to the KIngdom of heaven to Peter (is this not in the Bible?) the place where Christ prayed that his church be one in unity (is this also not in the Bible) the part where Matthias was APPOINTED by the APOSTLES to take the place of Judas, proving that you do need apostolic succession (or is this also not in the Bible?)

The Church as the Body of Christ is NOT a denomination nor is it the Romish papacy system. Your problem here is equating the Popery with the Church which the apostles identified as the Body of Christ, so that it is convenient for you to refer to non-Catholics (non-Roman Catholics) as heretics.

Sweetheart you can deny it all you want but it doesn't make it true. The muslims deny the divinity of Christ does it make it true?
Point remains that you are yet to show the true church of Christ. Or does that church not exist?

That is interesting. Do we then take it that 'Ignatius and the others' were speaking of the Popery of the 'Roman Catholic Church' in reference to the 'catholic Church'? You don't see any distinctions and all are the very same thing, yes? It is of little consequence whether you use the term 'denomination' or not, it is a fact that Roman Catholicism is a separate group on its own as is every other group that do not call themselves a 'denomination'.

Ok one more time, it is not the Roman Catholic Church, it is the Catholic Church. In stating RCC you are insulting various catholics around the world and excluding them from the Church. I do not appreciate you excluding my fellow catholics from the Church.

And it is rather idiotic of you to argue with me about my own name. If everyone calls me Lady but I tell you that my name is Sandra, why in the world would you call me Lady when I've told you my name is Sandra and I want to be called Sandra, why would you argue with me over my own name, does that make any sense?
Or are you the one that gave me my name?

Nope, that is where you're getting it all 'Romishly' wrong! What you're thinking of is 'sectarianism' - and which Christian group would go about self-identifying as a 'sectarian' group? No, not the Roman Catholic Church, nor any non-Catholic church (as far as I know). But a 'denomination' in this case would be 'a group of religious congregations having its own organization and a distinctive faith' (Concise English Dictionary) - is that not true of the Roman Catholic Church inspite of whatever you may protest? Is that not why 'Catholics' go about with the cognomen of 'Our Catholic faith' (qv); and the same reason why other 'Catholics' see the Roman Catholicism of the Vatican as 'actually a counterfeit “Catholic” sect' (qv)? I wasn't using 'denomination' in the sectarian sense nor as a name of any church; and it inconsequential whatever protests you may offer.

1. a religious group, usually including many local churches, often larger than a sect: the Lutheran denomination.  http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/denomination

You are exactly right in your thinking, the Catholic faith is a sect, it is THE CHRISTIAN SECT. However you guys have fooled yourselves into thinking you're christians, and therefore have created christian denominations, among the "christian denominations" Catholic is not included. Catholic is plain and simply THE CHRISTIAN SECT. Catholic is not included in the delusions you guys have cooked up for yourselves.

The way Catholics identify their own Church is nothing less of the 'Roman Catholic Church' [here] - if that's what Ignatius was speaking about, it all the more makes my point in the body of my discussions.

Sweetheart how does it make your point when your point was that the Catholic church spoken of by Ignatius is different from the Catholics believe their church to be?
Ringing around the rosie are we?

How flattering!
Although I'm a late comer to the gracious salvation of Christ (having converted from Islam), I would've been so joyful to hold the belief of non-Catholics today if they held them in the days of Paul and Peter. Are you forgetting that most of the doctrines of Popery had nothing to do with the apostles? We've discussed this before in other threads on 'Catholics', and there's no denying the fact that what sustains the Popery of the RCC have nothing to do with the apostles. On the contrary, the apostles themselves urged that -

Oh on the contrary honey, if you were to read the Bible well, and were to do some research to find out what they believed you will see that the 'popery' is exactly what they believed in or is it not Paul that writes about our obedience to the Bishops and is it not Paul that goes to spend 2 weeks with Peter learning from him. Or is it not Paul that knew that he needed hands to be laid on him you know as in apostolic succession?

Infact it is Paul himself that distinguishes Peter as the leader of the apostles, hence the pope.

Well let's take a look at the Bible. How does Paul distinguish Peter?

Rom. 15:20 - Paul says he doesn't want to build on "another man's foundation" referring to Peter, who built the Church in Rome. Now how do we know that Peter was in Rome? Because he wrote from Rome, take a look at 1 Peter and 2 Peter in your Bible and see where he wrote from. 1 Peter 5:13

1 Cor. 9:5 – Peter is distinguished from the rest of the apostles and brethren of the Lord.

1 Cor. 15:4-8 - Paul distinguishes Jesus' post-resurrection appearances to Peter from those of the other apostles. Christ appeared “to Cephas, then to the twelve.”

Gal.1:18 - Paul spends fifteen days with Peter privately before beginning his ministry, even after Christ's Revelation to Paul.

Now how does the Bible portray Jesus?

1 Peter 5:1 - Peter acts as the chief bishop by "exhorting" all the other bishops and elders of the Church.

In the very first council that was held

Acts 15:7-12 - Peter resolves the first doctrinal issue on circumcision at the Church's first council at Jerusalem, and no one questions him. After Peter the Papa spoke, all were kept silent.

Acts 15:12 - only after Peter (the Pope) speaks do Paul and Barnabas (bishops) speak in support of Peter's definitive teaching.

Acts 15:13-14 - then James speaks to further acknowledge Peter's definitive teaching. "Simeon (Peter) has related how God first visited, "

Look at the places where Peter was spoken of he is always as the leader of the apostles, and just in case you do not know, the Pope is the leader of the apostles. We know that the current Pope is the successor because Christ established an office, and the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven doesn't end with Peter, Jesus didn't intend his Church to end with the apostles, he intended for his church to be always.

if anyone preached a different Gospel from what they had preached,
      let them be anathema - Galatians 1:8-9

This is talking about you. Do yourself a favour and do some research about the beliefs of the early christians, or better yet look at all the orthodox churches, those who have a direct link to the apostles and see what they believe.
If you are not afraid, you should do some research and tell me what you find.

if anyone preached or taught differently from what the apostles taught,
      Godly Christians should separate themselves and reject such doctrines
      that have no bearing with what the apostles have taught - 2 Tim. 2:19-21.

Yeah also talking about you. You're the one who doesn't believe anything close to what the Bible says or what the early christians believed. The apostles did not believe what you believe, again, please do some research on what they believe. The local churches of the christians are very well known, and archaeologists and historians will tell you how they lived their lives and what they believed in. Even the Romans and Jews will tell you what they believe in.

All this back and forth is nothing. Simply do your research and see.

Most of the doctrines of the Papacy not only have nothing to do with the apostles, they were also brought into Christianity centuries later and directly opposed to apostolic teaching. If these new heresies have no place in Biblical Christianity, what does it matter that the RCC is busy accusing other Christians with the charge of 'heretic' in the mistaken idea that the apostles would have sanctioned Popery?

Honey you know nothing of what the Church teaches, neither do you know what the Bible contains. Simply reading the Bible does not mean you understand, and to understand the Bible you will have to read each passage in light of the others and not just pciking one verse and going with it. If you knew what the Church believes you would see how very biblical it is.

We've done a very good job explaining it to you, but out of pride you've dismissed them. You've already shown that you do not read what we write and neither do you accept what we write at all.

But seriously find out what the church believed in the 1st centuries and you will see it is the same thing as we do.

Such as. . .? Where did the apostles sacrifice their lives for the heresy of Mariolatry? When did the veneration of angels and dead saints begin? Where did any apostle bow down to images, and why do we not find any apostle doing so anywhere? Database or no, Christians today reject and condemn these post-apostolic heresies because there's no shred of authentic evidence that they were practised by the apostles and Christians during their time.

They didn't, thank God the Catholic Church doesn't teach Mariolatry.

Veneration of angels and saints have always been there and is found in the Bible.

Definition of Venerate from oxford dictionary
venerate
/vennrayt/

  • verb regard with great respect.

  — DERIVATIVES veneration noun venerator noun.

Matt. 15:4; Luke 18:20; Eph. 6:2-3 Exodus 20:12; Lev. 19:3; Deut. 5:16 - we are instructed to honor our father and mother. Honouring you parents is veneration.

Luke 1:28 - the angel Gabriel venerates Mary by declaring to her "Hail, full of grace." The heavenly angel honors the human Mary, for her perfection of grace exceeds that of the angels.

1 Cor. 4:16 - the most important form of veneration of the saints is "imitating" the saints, as Paul commands us to do.

1 Cor. 11:1 - again, Paul says, "Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ." The ultimate objective of veneration is imitation.

Phil. 2:25-29 - Paul teaches us to honor Epaprhoditus who almost died for the faith. How much more honor is owed to the saints that did die for the faith!

Phil. 3:17 - Paul says to imitate him and others, which is the goal of veneration. Veneration is not worship.

Gen. 19:1 - Lot venerates the two angels in Sodom, bowing himself with his face to the ground.

Dan. 8:17 - Daniel fell down prostrate in veneration before the angel Gabriel.

Just because it is not writing that Paul wiped his butt doesn't mean it didn't happen. They weren't writing to people to tell people that they are at a certain point in time bowing to any image.

But even at that it isn't foreign in the Bible.

Look at the bronze serpent, look at the ark of the covenant. These were used in worship by the Jews. Why would God command them to make images to use in worship?

2 Chron. 29:29-30 - King Hezekiah and the assembly venerate the altar by bowing down in worship before the sin offerings.

Honey, Christians today condemn it because they are afraid. I haven't met a protestant christian who has researched and found out what the early christians believed come to me and tell me that it is different from what the Catholics believe. Actually after finding out they became Catholic. Weird huh?

If there isn't any evidence prove it. Show everyone here what the early christians believe. Use non-christian sources. Do not use catholic sources or non-catholic christian sources. Come back with secular sources, those are unbiased, and show what the early christians believed.

I can't tell you how very weak that sounds. The Popery of Rome likes to think itself the authentic Body of Christ so as to make non-RCC believers to be OUTSIDE the Body of Christ. They have forgotten that it is not in their power to save or add anybody to the Body of Christ - for it is the Lord Himself who saves and adds believers to His Body (Acts 2:47 - "the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved". Rome can shout as much as they feel like, they can do no more than that, for the Body of Christ is not the system of the Vatican nor can they effect any grace upon any soul anywhere in the universe. Ask Catholics to point to the Bible for their many post-apostolic heresies and the default response is they do not practise sola scriptura - like that is supposed to be a neat sustitute for their inability to defend Romish heresies. This is why I can confidently reject the Popery - for it was not the RCC that saved me, but it was the Lord Jesus Christ.

Lol, honey your rhetoric is tiring, when will you start backing it up. You've been screaming we've been wrong shouldn't you have been able to prove us wrong by now, instead of trying to turn things around?

[quote][/quote]

~Lady~:

I understand completely your point, and what I am trying to express to you that it is false. Just because something is accepted by popular culture doesn't make it the truth. Most people think sex before marriage is okay but we both know that it's not the truth. Just because people today consider the Catholic Church a denomination doesn't make it a denomination. I was trying to express to you that we have never been a denomination, as from the beginning when the church was called catholic, it was one church and was not a denomination and is therefore today not a denomination.

The pointers I made nonetheless demonstrate that the Catholic Church is a denomination, despite the disavowal of Catholics on this point. The meaning of 'denomination' as a different group from others is clear, and unless you're saying that the RCC is not a different group from other churches then I can bear with your disavowal. Which would then require you to show that the RCC is the same as all churches today.

~Lady~:
If it is your belief that the Catholic church as you know it today is not the same as spoken of then, could you kindly point me to the Catholic church spoken of by the early christians?

I thought I've shown this already? Especially here.

~Lady~:

We've shown it to you many times, but then again you neither understand the Bible or the Catholic teaching so how could you see it?

All you need to do is show where the Papacy from Scripture. That's all that was requested. Stating over and over that you've shown it and yet not able to do more than state it does not do the job.

~Lady~:

The same place where Christ gave the Keys to the KIngdom of heaven to Peter (is this not in the Bible?) the place where Christ prayed that his church be one in unity (is this also not in the Bible) the part where Matthias was APPOINTED by the APOSTLES to take the place of Judas, proving that you do need apostolic succession (or is this also not in the Bible?)

Are all that the PAPACY?

~Lady~:

Sweetheart you can deny it all you want but it doesn't make it true. The muslims deny the divinity of Christ does it make it true?
Point remains that you are yet to show the true church of Christ. Or does that church not exist?

I have not denied the Church which is the Body of Christ - and I've shown it several times. The one thing I asked for still remains standing - yet unanswered. Where is the Papacy of Rome in the Bible, ~Lady~?

~Lady~:

Ok one more time, it is not the Roman Catholic Church, it is the Catholic Church. In stating RCC you are insulting various catholics around the world and excluding them from the Church. I do not appreciate you excluding my fellow catholics from the Church.

Why your "fellow" Catholics? Does that not show already that you're divided already? C'omon dear, we know that Catholicism is divided already, and by pointing it out and making the distinction, we don't suppose that any new case is built here. Besides, I've shown already that this fact is considered as such by catholics themselves.

~Lady~:

And it is rather idiotic of you to argue with me about my own name.

It's a pity you are confused about your own name, really. I don't think resorting to insolence is doing a better job for you, so please don't go down that route yet again. A discussion is quite in order; but if you've got nothing for your defences, why beggar the discussion with vitriol? Is that typical of Catholicism?

~Lady~:

If everyone calls me Lady but I tell you that my name is Sandra, why in the world would you call me Lady when I've told you my name is Sandra and I want to be called Sandra, why would you argue with me over my own name, does that make any sense?

If everyone called you Sandra, there would be a reason why they do so - and the problem is not mine or theirs. You may choose to shout Sandra everytime - that doesn't make EVERYONE wrong and only you right! By extension, most of the sources I cited are catholic sources, not outside observers.

~Lady~:
Or are you the one that gave me my name?

Nope, and I wonder why Catholic sources recognize the distinctions and you're the only one floating out on sea unable to take it in.

~Lady~:
1. a religious group, usually including many local churches, often larger than a sect: the Lutheran denomination.  http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/denomination

You are exactly right in your thinking, the Catholic faith is a sect, it is THE CHRISTIAN SECT.

Uhm, is that now a knee-jerk confession? Are you admitting to the very thing you kicked and fought to disavow and yet come back saying I was right? Oh, the Catholic faith is a "sect" - in the common sense as understood widely?

~Lady~:
However you guys have fooled yourselves into thinking you're christians, and therefore have created christian denominations, among the "christian denominations" Catholic is not included.

It's not news that the typical Catholic sees non-Catholics as non-Christians. Use all the insolence you have stored up, it won't change a thing about the fact that the Papacy and Romish rites are unfounded and can't be found among the apostles. It is this very Romish heresies that upsets Catholics - and that is why you assume that non-Romish believers are not Christians.

~Lady~:
Catholic is plain and simply THE CHRISTIAN SECT.

Lol, which one - the one that Catholics like sancta called the heresy of the vatican? Is he not a Catholic too?

~Lady~:
Catholic is not included in the delusions you guys have cooked up for yourselves.

We didn't cook up nothing - tsk-tsk. . look again and see that Romish rites have no place among the apostles - that's why you have not been able to point them out up until now.

~Lady~:
Sweetheart how does it make your point when your point was that the Catholic church spoken of by Ignatius is different from the Catholics believe their church to be?

Who has just acknowledged a moment ago that her Catholic church is a sect? Was that a smart way to wriggle out of your delimma?
Ringing around the rosie are we?

Hehe. .  ~Lady~, you're very funny. 
Who else but the RCC in all the Universe has rejected the teachings of Christ through the apostles? Where did Christ ever teach the apostles any of the heresies of the Vatican? We believe what Christ said - that HE is the Way, the Truth and the Life. He did not point to the RCC as the Way, the Truth or the Life. It has never occured to you that the Lord Jesus Christ can and does save those who come to Him by faith OUTSIDE the RCC? The Vatican or the Papacy does not equate to the Saviour, so they can't mislead or goon anybody with your quip up there, sorry.

If this will make you sleep better at night, ok. But it still doesn't change anything.
It doesn't change the fact that you do not acknowledge Christ's Church on earth. It doesn't change anything that you do not listen to the words of Christ and that you only choose what you want to believe. You pick certain points that make you feel better. You dismiss authority of the Church, that Jesus talks about, that Paul talks about, that Peter talks about.
You dismiss the veneration of the saints done by the apostles. You dismiss the prayers of the saints and angels for us as evidenced in Revelations [ Rev. 5:8 - the prayers of the saints (on heaven and earth) are presented to God by the angels and saints in heaven. This shows that the saints intercede on our behalf before God, and it also demonstrates that our prayers on earth are united with their prayers in heaven. (The “24 elders” are said to refer to the people of God – perhaps the 12 tribes and 12 apostles - and the “four living creatures” are said to refer to the angels.)]

You dismiss the honouring of his mother.
You completely disregard him telling us that unless we eat his FLESH and drink his BLOOD we won't have life in us. So you see dear, you are the ones dismissing what God says in the Bible. Maybe you should spend more time studying the Bible, and not just going to certain parts of the Bible that make you feel good.

It is because we take our time to read the Bible and reason, that is why we can intelligently reject the heresies of the RCC - that is why many staunch Catholics have also rejected them and found faith in Christ alone. On the other hand, how many Catholics would point to the Bible and show us where their claims are to be found? Just one question about the name of the Church being "Catholic" has brought us thus far, and no Catholic has been able to point it out from the Bible they read. NOT ONE.

That's because Catholic isn't a name, it is adescription of Christ's church or are you too daft to understand the difference between a name and a description. I see you completely disregarded all I've written throughout.

Sweetheart. it doesn't make sense that the Bible talks about eating the flesh and blood of Christ and you say it doesn't John 6:35-63. It makes no sense that Mary is called the Mother of God in the Bible and you say it doesn't Luke 1:42. It makes no sense that the Bible talks about so much and you guys dismiss it.
No where did Christ say that all that come to his church will stay. It is very much expected. But understand that there are so much more who become Catholic after reading the Bible and after rigorous studying of it and the history of the Christianity. I am one of them. My friends are also one of them. Various former pastors have also converted. More and more people are becoming Catholic, and protestantism is dying out. You guys have no sound doctrine.
I feel sorry for the Catholics that have left. They left sound doctrine and truth for churches that fight each other everyday on who can properly interpret the Bible.
It is a known fact that all you guys do is fight each other on who has the better understanding of the Bible. Each one of you calim that it is from the Holy Spirit yet the God is not the author of confusion. Why are you all contradicting each other?

How do you know who's telling the truth when all of you claim to be touched with the Holy Spirit. Since when did the Holy Spirit start contradicting Himself.

Girl stop deluding yourself. It still remains that everyone knows you guys are as confused as ever. Today you interpret one thing out of a passage, tomorrow you interpret another thing from the same passage. When you attend one church, you hear something you don't want to hear so you leave and you go find another church.
Each pastor puts his own interpretation in the Bible, even after the Bible says that the Bible is not meant for private interpretation and talks about people who interpret and twist the scriptures 2 Peter 1:20 and 2 Peter 3:16.

Stay there thinking the Catholic Church is the enemy. The Jews thought Jesus was also the enemy.

Please stop making excuses and adding your own appendages to what the Bible says. The Bible never in one instance rest salvation on any claim to 'apostolic succession' - not once. Rome has rejected the teachings of Christ and continues to bring up many 'bulls' to fill in the gaps, and we're sitting here adding and slicing what the Bible does not teach?

Lol, honey read the Bible will you.
Here's the Bible on it. Oh by the way every passage is connected to the other so pay attention.

First we see that the apostles have authority give by Christ

Matt. 10:1,40 - Jesus declares to His apostles, "he who receives you, receives Me, and he who rejects you, rejects Me and the One who sent Me." Jesus freely gives His authority to the apostles in order for them to effectively convert the world.

Matt. 16:19; 18:18 - the apostles are given Christ's authority to make visible decisions on earth that will be ratified in heaven. God raises up humanity in Christ by exalting his chosen leaders and endowing them with the authority and grace they need to bring about the conversion of all. Without a central authority in the Church, there would be chaos (as there is in Protestantism).

Luke 10:16 - Jesus tells His apostles, "he who hears you, hears Me." When we hear the bishops' teaching on the faith, we hear Christ Himself.

Luke 22:29 - the Father gives the kingdom to the Son, and the Son gives the kingdom to the apostles. The gift is transferred from the Father to the Son to the apostles.

Now we see that authority transferred to others.

Acts 1:15-26 - the first thing Peter does after Jesus ascends into heaven is implement apostolic succession. Matthias is ordained with full apostolic authority. Only the Catholic Church can demonstrate an unbroken apostolic lineage to the apostles in union with Peter through the sacrament of ordination and thereby claim to teach with Christ's own authority. A successor of Judas is chosen. The authority of his office (his "bishopric" is respected notwithstanding his egregious sin. The necessity to have apostolic succession in order for the Church to survive was understood by all. God never said, "I'll give you leaders with authority for about 400 years, but after the Bible is compiled, you are all on your own."

Acts 6:6 - apostolic authority is transferred through the laying on of hands (ordination). This authority has transferred beyond the original twelve apostles as the Church has grown. To better see this passage read the ones before it Acts 6:3-6

Acts 13:1-3 - apostolic authority is transferred through the laying on of hands (ordination). This authority must come from a Catholic bishop.

This one is my favourite because it proves that not just anybody can get up and start preaching. So because this is my favourite I will write out the passages.

Acts 15:22-27
22 Then the apostles and presbyters, in agreeement with the whole church, decided to choose representatives and to send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. The ones chosen were Judas, who was called Barsabbas, and Silas, leaders among the brothers.
23 This is the letter delivered by them: "The apostles and the presbyters, your brothers, to the brothers in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia, of Gentile origin: greetings
24 [size=14pt]Since we have heard that some of our number who went out [/size] [size=16pt]without any mandate [/size] [size=14pt]from us have upset you with their teachings and disturbed your peace of mind[/size]
25 we have with one accord decided to choose representatives and to send them to you along with our beloved Barnabas and Paul
26 who have dedicated their lives to the name of our Lord Jesus Christ
27 So we are sending Judas and Silas who will also convey this same message by word of mouth.

Notice that they emphasized men who tried to preach [size=14pt]without any mandate [/size] from the apostles. Meaning you must have a mandate from the apostles and the newly appointed Priests/Presbyters. So you see no one can just get up and start preaching.

Col 1:25 - Paul calls his position a divine "office." An office has successors. It does not terminate at death. Or it's not an office. See also Heb. 7:23 – an office continues with another successor after the previous office-holder’s death.
Just like the Office of the President.

1 Tim. 4:14 - again, apostolic authority is transferred through the laying on of hands (ordination).

1 Tim. 5:22 - Paul urges Timothy to be careful in laying on the hands (ordaining others). The gift of authority is a reality and cannot be used indiscriminately.

2 Tim. 4:1-6 - at end of Paul's life, Paul charges Timothy with the office of his ministry . We must trace true apostolic lineage back to a Catholic bishop

2 Tim. 2:2 - this verse shows God's intention is to transfer authority to successors (here, Paul to Timothy to 3rd to 4th generation). It goes beyond the death of the apostles.

1 John 4:6 - whoever knows God listens to us (the bishops and the successors to the apostles). This is the way we discern truth and error (not just by reading the Bible and interpreting it for ourselves).

Now can you show me where in the Bible it says we should go by Bible alone?

I don't remember if my reply was about what some Anglican posts on their website; but I do remember I was making a distinction between 'catholic' (as a term for universal) and 'Catholic' (as an official title for what obtains as the 'Roman Catholic Church').

I'm not sure it's correct to infer that "the anglicans" call themselves 'catholic' - that could be misleading, because it would infer that Anglicans use that term 'catholic' as the RCC uses it today for their Romish rites - not all Anglicans do so. 'There is no single "Anglican Church" with universal juridical authority as each national or regional church has full autonomy. . . For some adherents it represents a non-papal Catholicism, , for others a form of Protestantism though without a dominant guiding figure such as Luther, Knox, Calvin, Zwingli or Wesley' [here]

I already knew some Anglicans go by the denominational appellation of 'Anglican-Catholic' or 'Catholic Anglican'. While some Anglicans refer to themselves as 'The Holy Catholic Church' Anglican Rite here], it still is with the same meaning of their inclination to Roman Catholicism [see here].

Your reply wasn't about the anglican church, I was using the anglican church as an example of those who wish to call themselves 'catholic' as if to say it is anything different from 'Catholic'

You can write it in big or lower case letters it steal means the same thing, and that is 'Universal'.
'Universal' is not different from 'universal' it is the same thing. Like I said, those who now know what Catholic means have found a way to make it seem as if catholic and Catholic are different. They are not.

Anglicans have their own leader, the King of England, their head is Henry VIII.
They are protestants, even though sometimes we like to call them 'diet catholics'

That's a shy complaint. 'Catholic' is not 'catholic' unless you're deliberately ignoring the distinctions and the several quotes from Catholics (eg., faith69) that I already repeatedly highlighted. The other source I offered showed that 'Catholic' is used an as official title for the Roman Catholic Church - a separate group pointing to Rome and not the 'universal' Body of Christ incorporating EVERY CHRISTIAN irrespective of whether they are of Rome or elsewhere. It's not amazing how you guys who claim to know much about this are the same people who are yet unable to acknowledge these simple facts.

Since when does 'Universal' and 'universal' start meaning different things. Since when is there a distinction. You can try to make it different to make yourself feel better but it isn't. Plain and simple, you cannot logically differentiate the 2. The english language does not allow for that.

Oh, I see - new revelation. I never knew such Catholics like 'faith69' was stubborn; I also had o clue that those who distinguished them at the Wikipedia source are also stubborn. And the other dictionary and etymology sources - they stubborn too? Very interesting.

Nice try to twist my words, But I was talking about non-catholics who've finally understood what catholic means and decides to find a difference between 'catholic' and Catholic.
Wikipedia is un bias and will only go by the information given it. If the lutheran church calls itself catholic, wikipedia will report it as so, if buddhist, hindus, muslims, atheists, wish to identify themselves as catholic, wikipedia will report it as so. So that doesn't make any difference.

Yep, and by that it should be the Roman catholic Church, not so? Which again explains why you will never find the term "Catholic" for the Church in the epistles of the apostles.

No the Catholic Church both east and west. RCC is only a part of the Catholic Church, you cannot be so disrespectful to deny the Eastern Catholics their faith.
Lol, you and I both know that you're really begging here. You know very well that a word doesn't have to be in the Bible in order for it to be true. Or are you insinuating that Christ wanted his Church to be in one place and not universal/catholic?

Please be honest to yourself. Catholics (such as Omenuko) had quipped that "the way they are using the term is the exact same way the Catholic Church uses it today" - and I wondered if this meant the Roman Catholic Church - having pointed to the Wikipedia source that clarifies this point. Was it used before the reformation as an OFFICIAL title before the reformation?

Oh I am being honest with myself, but maybe you're misunderstanding me.
Darling what was the Church called before the reformation? I asked you a question, please learn to answer my questions before you ask me one, it is rather insulting that you always fail to answer my questions or that you answer with another question.
I know very well what the Church was called OFFICIALLY. Why don't you also consult wikipedia and tell me what the Church was OFFICIALLY called before the Reformation?
But let me give you my answer. The Church was OFFICIALLY called Catholic before the reformation. Now provide your own answer please. thanks.

You've been singing the lullaby of a child, and it's either one has to patiently follow your gabble until you realise how tenuous your excuses are, or otherwise ignore your incessant vacuous assertions.

Lol girl you make me laugh.
No wonder you haven't been picking up anything. I guess Omenuko and every Catholic who's provided you with answers has provided tenuous excuses. Get over yourself, you know very well we speak the truth but it's too hard for you to swallow it. It's called Pride. It's a vice humility is its virtue, learn it.

I can't believe you have no clue that there were people throughout the Christian history that went to places to preach the Gospel without waiting to be "commisioned" by any apostle? Haba!

In Acts 8:5, which one of the apostles "commissioned" Philip before he went down to Samaria to preach the Gospel? Please tell us.

Oh, look back just one verse in Act 8:4  -  "Therefore they that were scattered abroad went every where preaching the word". Who "commissioned" these believers before they could preach the Gospel? Please tell us, and tell us from Scripture rather than the magical 'bull' of the vatican.

Who were these examples waiting for to be "commissioned" to preach the Gospel - the Papacy?

Lol, girl, read your Bible well. Philip was an apostle himself, he was commissioned by Christ like the other apostles. He was one of Christ's 12 disciples.
Where does it say that they weren't commissioned? It is clear that it must have been from the apostles, considering they were with the apostles. It would make no sense that in other places they were commissioning others and warning of those who were not commissioned and then to not commission it.
At best this passage doesn't show whether or not they were commissioned. But we know the Bible doesn't contradict itself, so if we are shown in various places that people preach because they are commissioned then we can safely conclude that they were commissioned.
But Philip himself is an apostle.

Aww, I knew you'd come up with such an excuse. In other words, what you can't establish in Scripture is to be excused away? Brilliantly romish.

hiss and ignorantly foolish of you. What you thought I'd forget that you made an assertion? If you don't know the difference between ignatius' catholic and the catholic church today why make an assertion that there is a difference? This is how stupidity is caught, the stupid admit to being stupid.
Girl quit with your nonsense twisting, it's getting too old. Everyone's caught up to it.
Answer my questions.

Nope - until Roman Catholicism divided the Church with their heresies. What other reason has the same Roman Catholic Church sought to murder those who rejected her heresies and sought to discredit other churches with dubious pretences?

And when did that happen? Show us the belief of the early christians and then the heresy that the RCC introduced, and show us the difference between the 2.
make sure you don't come with your rubbish rhetoric but come with facts.

How do these exculpations answer the question of your several claims yet unsubstantiated? Excuses are the tools of the frantic people. Whenever people have asked questions and pointed to the Bible, Catholics will frantically rush to quotes from so-called 'church fathers' to fill the gaps. This is why I'm rather "requesting" that you help us trace your assertions back to the Bible so we see the Popery of the RCC there. Is that a taboo that continues to prove elusive for Catholics?

Lol look at you trying to hide from questions.

Since when did the questions.

Was the Church un-holy?
Was the church only to be in one place?

become church father quotes.

1. Apologises in case you took my statements the wrong way, hope we can kiss and make up now  . Yes enemies can be made as a result of my statements, however they are not set up to make enemies rather to reveal the truth and hopefully make longterm friends.

2. Yes you were feisty in the past, but haba Lady we usually still got along. What happened you are have changed.

No need for apologies.

I haven't changed, I just have less tolerance for foolishness, stupidity, ignorance, and liars, you've exhibited all those traits.

1. Haba now @Lady you are starting to hit below the belt.

2. I have not gotten this personal, yet you have gotten so personal to the point of referencing parents, which is unacceptable as far as am concerned. You can do ur best to insult me personally i won't mind but please kindly zip your tongue wen it comes to parents.

3. I have backed up my statement by referencing the Messiah Himself (who is the best witness), @pilgrim1 went a step further to show you that it occurs in the book of revelation.

4. I don't need to prove anything because i am using the bible for my arguments and simple logic tells you that i don't need to prove the bible. You and I both know the bible is true. Hence you statements insinuating that i still need to prove myself are quite disingenious. I do not need to prove myself cus i am using the bible.
Unless of course you are now saying that your catholic church history is more authentic and truthful than the bible itself.

1. I was stressing a point.

2. Apologies to your parents. Glad you got my point. So you see you don't make friends by insulting them.

3. You've done no such thing. All you've done is given rhetoric and your own opinion. You haven't pointed to Catholic beliefs and shown how it is refuted by the whole Bible. When you are ready to do so let me know. But please don't come with foolishness and personal opinions. Please make sure you have scanned the whole Bible to make sure I cannot refute you. Make sure you learn True Catholic teachings (this is not what you read on anti-catholic sites) and use our own biblical backings to refute our beliefs.
When you can approach this as a true scholar, then I will oblige you with civility.

4. No you didn't. You gave what YOU THINK the Bible is saying, you didn't show anything from the Bible. All you gave was your opinion. Can you put your opinion aside and approach Biblical exegesis from Genesis to Revelation?

It seems so nicely well said. Question: how do these prohibitions from the Catholic Church work out where evidently Catholics WORSHIP Mary?

Oh girl you're grasping at straws and showing everyone that YOU are the one who clearly doesn't understand Catholic teaching.
You post Catholic teaching and agree with it and then go on to say that Catholics Worship Mary.

Does that make sense to you?

Why would we teach something we intend not to practice?

I guess to you Catholic teaching against idolatry means we are really idolaters.

Maybe the reason we worship mary is because you are confusing HONOUR with worship.

Apparently you must think that if a person asks another person to pray for them, it is considered idolatry. Or if they bow before a King it is automatically considered idolatry.

Or did you not see it in the Bible where people bowed in honour to one another?
Anyway I have provided you with Biblical passages above. I can't wait to see how you twist them or dismiss them as if they're not in the Bible.

STOP CONFUSING HONOUR FOR WORSHIP, YOU DECEITFUL WOMAN.

Should anyone be reading from the apostles and still wonder about making graven images to bow down to them in the mistaken doctrine that - what? That the incarnation of Christ was a precedence to such idolatry and yet we didn't find any such things among the apostles?

God must be one heck of a damn liar or confusing person to command no graven images be made and then turn around and command graven images be made and used in worship. Abi no be so?
Or is the Bronze serpent not a graven image? what about the ark of the covenant? what about the gold image details David gave to Solomon on building the temple, God liked it 1 Chronicles 28:11-18?
Or about Ezekiel describing the ideal temple in Ezekiel 41:17-18 "On the walls round about in the inner room and on the nave were carved likenesses of cherubim."

It is very easy to falsely accuse when you refuse to understand what a person or group of people believe.

But the funny thing is that you are way too deceitful to even stop spreading such lies.

The pointers I made nonetheless demonstrate that the Catholic Church is a denomination, despite the disavowal of Catholics on this point. The meaning of 'denomination' as a different group from others is clear, and unless you're saying that the RCC is not a different group from other churches then I can bear with your disavowal. Which would then require you to show that the RCC is the same as all churches today.

And it still stands we are not a denomination, because Catholic isn't a name, it is a description. You guys have names, we just have the description of the Church that Christ founded. So you can try to twist it as you wish it won't work.
And it's not RCC, it is Catholic.

If you guys were considered truly christian then maybe we could be a denomination. But it remains you're a heretic, so we're not a denomination

I thought I've shown this already?

Clearly you don't realise what you wrote. You gave a definition by a dictionary. I am asking you to show me how the catholic church in the past is different from the one today. What were the teachings of the catholic church then, and what is it now? What are the beliefs of the catholics then, and what is it now?

Are all that the PAPACY?

Yes my dear, it is. Or is it that you are unaware of what the Papacy is? Maybe you should find out what the papacy is and then show how it is different from these passages?
Show that the Pope is not the leader of the apostles?

And you didn't respond to Pope Shenouda that I showed you when you claimed the schismatics didn't have a papacy.
in case you've forgotten, go back and read.

I have not denied the Church which is the Body of Christ - and I've shown it several times. The one thing I asked for still remains standing - yet unanswered. Where is the Papacy of Rome in the Bible, ~Lady~?

I won't be redundant and respond to you as if you're a toddler. I showed you take it or leave it. Turning a blind eye to it does nothing. It is what it is.

Why your "fellow" Catholics? Does that not show already that you're divided already? C'omon dear, we know that Catholicism is divided already, and by pointing it out and making the distinction, we don't suppose that any new case is built here. Besides, I've shown already that this fact is considered as such by catholics themselves.

Yes my fellow Catholic. Here's your foolish reasoning. Because someone uses the word "fellow" does not mean a division. I guess your fellow christians are divided from you, no? or your fellow women means divided women? or your fellow nigerian means divided nigeria?
don't use hatred as your driving force, it shows too much, and is very hard to hide.

It's a pity you are confused about your own name, really. I don't think resorting to insolence is doing a better job for you, so please don't go down that route yet again. A discussion is quite in order; but if you've got nothing for your defences, why beggar the discussion with vitriol? Is that typical of Catholicism?

Girl come back and try this with logic ok.

If everyone called you Sandra, there would be a reason why they do so - and the problem is not mine or theirs. You may choose to shout Sandra everytime - that doesn't make EVERYONE wrong and only you right! By extension, most of the sources I cited are catholic sources, not outside observers.

Ok go back and read what I wrote.

Nope, and I wonder why Catholic sources recognize the distinctions and you're the only one floating out on sea unable to take it in.

Last I checked Omenuko agreed with me, or did you miss when he was showing you that it isn't Roman Catholic, but simply Catholic including the east and west.
I know what catholic sources say so don't pass things off ok.

Uhm, is that now a knee-jerk confession? Are you admitting to the very thing you kicked and fought to disavow and yet come back saying I was right? Oh, the Catholic faith is a "sect" - in the common sense as understood widely?

You're reaching too far, and reading what isn't there. I agree that it is a Sect, the Christian sect does not mean I agree it is a denomination. B doesn't mean A.
The argument has never been whether Catholics are a sect, it was whether we are a denomination and you differentiated the 2.

It's not news that the typical Catholic sees non-Catholics as non-Christians. Use all the insolence you have stored up, it won't change a thing about the fact that the Papacy and Romish rites are unfounded and can't be found among the apostles. It is this very Romish heresies that upsets Catholics - and that is why you assume that non-Romish believers are not Christians.

Lol, click your red hills, close your eyes, and pray that this is true. It still won't be true. Catholicism is very evident in the Bible.
All I've done is use Scripture, all you've done is made allegations without backing them up. The evidence of that is everywhere in this thread.

We didn't cook up nothing - tsk-tsk. . look again and see that Romish rites have no place among the apostles - that's why you have not been able to point them out up until now.

Oh really? Is that why Bible alone is not found in the Bible? Why your understanding of graven images is not found in the Bible? Is that why you guys can't make up your mind on what you believe?
Why are you all fighting each other for the correct interpretation of the Bible? Since when did the Holy Spirit become the author of confusion

Who has just acknowledged a moment ago that her Catholic church is a sect? Was that a smart way to wriggle out of your delimma?
Ringing around the rosie are we?

Well if the whole argument was about sectarinism it would be ring around the rosie, but it never was about sectarianism, it was about DENOMINATIONS.

Denominations Oxford dictionary
a branch of the christian church

Sect Oxford dictionary
a group of people who belong to a particular religion but who separate them from the rest of the group.

Don't twist words with me woman.

@~Lady~,

You know, I had thought it would be worth discussing with you - I was dead wrong! Typically, Catholics who grasp at straws would flail and mispunch until when they come to realize how weak are their defences for their romish rites, they resort to accusations and caterwauls. Not that I expected anything from you to rise above that level - and you've managed to prove it just one more time. Well done.

~Lady~:

If this will make you sleep better at night, ok. But it still doesn't change anything.
It doesn't change the fact that you do not acknowledge Christ's Church on earth. It doesn't change anything that you do not listen to the words of Christ and that you only choose what you want to believe. You pick certain points that make you feel better. You dismiss authority of the Church, that Jesus talks about, that Paul talks about, that Peter talks about.
You dismiss the veneration of the saints done by the apostles. You dismiss the prayers of the saints and angels for us as evidenced in Revelations [ Rev. 5:8 - the prayers of the saints (on heaven and earth) are presented to God by the angels and saints in heaven. This shows that the saints intercede on our behalf before God, and it also demonstrates that our prayers on earth are united with their prayers in heaven. (The “24 elders” are said to refer to the people of God – perhaps the 12 tribes and 12 apostles - and the “four living creatures” are said to refer to the angels.)]

You dismiss the honouring of his mother.
You completely disregard him telling us that unless we eat his FLESH and drink his BLOOD we won't have life in us. So you see dear, you are the ones dismissing what God says in the Bible. Maybe you should spend more time studying the Bible, and not just going to certain parts of the Bible that make you feel good.

Do you feel better after those accusations? After all is said and done, please show me the Popery in the Bible - that was all I requested. Having failed to find a single verse for the heresies of the Vatican, the last straw was to turn right round and yowl about me not acknowledging this, that and the other. True, I reject the Popery one and all for the same reasons that the apostles warned Christians against the duplicities of Romish rites.

~Lady~:

That's because Catholic isn't a name, it is adescription of Christ's church or are you too daft to understand the difference between a name and a description. I see you completely disregarded all I've written throughout.

No, the dafter person is you yowling your ignominious duplicity here. Perhaps the first "daft" Catholic would be Cyril of Jerusalem in A. D. 350 who used the term 'Catholic' as the 'peculiar name' of the church - since that time, 'dafter' Catholics have rushed to endlessly quote the same Cyril on that same line of the "peculiar name" (not "description" to dragoon it to Roman Catholicism. Even then, the Catholic EWTN boldly declares that -

           'The proper name of the Church, then, is the Catholic Church.
            It is not ever called "the Christian Church," either.' 
http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/churb3.htm

You just come on board with your vacuous jiggery-pokery when you obviously haven't seen what your popery have been saying, no? Go launch your Catholic crusade on them in order to re-educate them on how "daft" they could have been for contradicting you there.

~Lady~:

Sweetheart. it doesn't make sense that the Bible talks about eating the flesh and blood of Christ and you say it doesn't John 6:35-63. It makes no sense that Mary is called the Mother of God in the Bible and you say it doesn't Luke 1:42. It makes no sense that the Bible talks about so much and you guys dismiss it.

First, that exculpation has no relevance to the part of my reply you quoted; for I was not on about John 6:35-63 there. Was that your not-so-clever wriggling act?

Second, your assertion: "Mary is called the Mother of God in the Bible" - WHERE in the BIBLE? Just don't flail further here, because there's not a single verse in the Bible where Mary is "called" the 'mother of God' - NOT A SINGLE VERSE in the entire Bible! Not even Luke 1:42 comes close to calling Mary that title - 'Mother of God'. The term 'theotokos' for the romish appellation of 'mother of God' upon Mary was a late post-apostolic invention of the third century and has nothing to do with Luke 1:42. What duplicity are you now re-inventing into that verse in this 21st century?

Third, the reason for rejecting Roman Catholicism is precisely because Catholics have rejected what the apostles taught and tried to interpolate their own romish rites into Biblical Christianity - as your example of 'mother of God' in Luke 1:42 above. Such boldfaced falsehood completely rubbishes your noise. We can confidently reject the Popery on the basis of the Godly warning the apostles gave - those who teach differently from the apostles are accursed (Galatians 1:8-9), and it does not matter how you try to dribble in Catholic falsehood into Luke 1:42 on a 3rd century unfounded premise.

~Lady~:

No where did Christ say that all that come to his church will stay. It is very much expected. But understand that there are so much more who become Catholic after reading the Bible and after rigorous studying of it and the history of the Christianity. I am one of them. My friends are also one of them. Various former pastors have also converted. More and more people are becoming Catholic, and protestantism is dying out. You guys have no sound doctrine.

Christ does not base His truth on numeric boasts about how many people convert to become 'Catholic'. In just the same way, we know so many that have been staunch 'Catholics' until they left, as they could no longer endure the falsehood of the Popery and romish rites. If anything, both the Lord Jesus Christ and the apostles warned believers to come out of systems of idol worship that boasts great numbers and yet have turned their backs on the clear Word of God ("And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? . .  Wherefore come out from among them" - 2 Cor. 6:16-17, and also Rev. 18:3-5). It is on record that Catholicism enjoys its own post-apostolic inventions that have nothing to do with Biblical Christianity - so your excuses here are merely filling pages and saying absolute zilch.

~Lady~:

I feel sorry for the Catholics that have left. They left sound doctrine and truth for churches that fight each other everyday on who can properly interpret the Bible.

I think they should feel sorry for Catholics like you. Your duplicity is one thing that would have been a constant source of embarrassment to them if they remained. Another is the Romish excuses that cannot be found in the Bible ('mother of God' as you claimed for Mary in Luke 1:42). We also know that the Catholic Church is divided today, so why pretend a fictitious 'unity' that is no longer news to anybody in the know? How long ago was sancta on this forum and bleached the pretences of the Vatican - did you try to cough back then to join hands with him for the smokescreen you're parading here now?

~Lady~:

It is a known fact that all you guys do is fight each other on who has the better understanding of the Bible. Each one of you calim that it is from the Holy Spirit yet the God is not the author of confusion. Why are you all contradicting each other?

Contradictions would come - and though it is deplored, that is an acknowledged Biblical fact (1 Cor. 11:18-19)! It brings out another fact: that those who understand God's Word may stand out from the unfounded compromises that have nothing to do with the apostles.

In this regard, we also know that Catholicism today is split into opposing factions - see the example of a Catholic bleaching the pretences you are making up here (did you dare cough afterwards?).

In another well-articulated outline, the schisms, deep divisions, rancour and opposing interpretations of teaching in the Catholic Church can be found online here. Excerpts establishing the veracity of the current deep divisions among Catholics -

[list]____________________________________________________[/list]

[list]1. The division within the Roman Catholic Church

For the last decades, problems relating to faith and morality, politics,
economics, social, sexual and family decisions, have all been the subject
of such differing interpretations among Roman Catholics, that they have
led to a split without precedent in the history of the Church. This division
calls for careful analysis. It can be compared with the ongoing schisms
between it and other Christian churches, in some cases for more than a
millennium, and which have also played an important role in the conflicts
between various European nations. On the occasion of the European Bishops
Synod, we feel it worthwhile to focus on a number of considerations in respect
of the division within the Roman Catholic Church.[/list]

They further identified a few of these in their analysis:

[list]1.1. Our analysis of the division in the Church

Social-religious studies show, without exception, that there is
no unanimity among Roman Catholics in following official Church teaching.
International and trans-cultural inquiries - such as that carried out by
the North American sociologist Greeley - show particularly clearly how
the faithful have reached totally different opinions, even in matters which
Papal authority regards as closed for discussion (i.e. 'almost dogmas'),
such as the ordination of women and married men. In many countries,
the majority of the faithful think and act in a manner which the Church's
teaching qualifies as 'erroneous'

http://www.we-are-church.org/forum/forum6engl.htm [/list]

[list]____________________________________________________[/list]

You need to start educating yourself of the reality on ground on this issue and stop deluding yourself further on your jocose hebetude.

~Lady~:

How do you know who's telling the truth when all of you claim to be touched with the Holy Spirit. Since when did the Holy Spirit start contradicting Himself.

For one, the Holy Spirit does not contradict His Word. Now, how have you been able to show the touch of the Holy Spirit in your duplicity of claiming what is not in His Word? The examples I've outlined above should do for now; and if you have a short memory, where in Luke 1:42 did you find that Mary is called the 'mother-of-God'? How can you quote that verse and lie brashly and without conscience?

~Lady~:

Girl stop deluding yourself. It still remains that everyone knows you guys are as confused as ever. Today you interpret one thing out of a passage, tomorrow you interpret another thing from the same passage. When you attend one church, you hear something you don't want to hear so you leave and you go find another church.

That just about describes your Popery who keep inventing and re-inventing Romish amusements for folks like you to gullibly slave over. One minute Catholicism says the pope is infallible; another minute you find Catholics outlining the "heresies" of Catholic popes and bishops (here).

~Lady~:

Each pastor puts his own interpretation in the Bible, even after the Bible says that the Bible is not meant for private interpretation and talks about people who interpret and twist the scriptures 2 Peter 1:20 and 2 Peter 3:16.

Yes, that's precisely what you did with Luke 1:42 - not only trying to interprete it on your private stream, but also interpolating your own ideas into that verse to call Mary what it does not call her. This romish auricular interpretations and interpolations is the reason why Catholics will never feel comfortable referring to the Bible for every single assertion they make. The funny thing is that they soon abandon their assertions as soon as it is blown out of the water; then next, these same catholics will turn round and foam in the mouth with all sorts of accusations and comical jocose hebetude.

~Lady~:

Stay there thinking the Catholic Church is the enemy. The Jews thought Jesus was also the enemy.

Please stop slaving yourself on that excuse - there were Jews who believed on Jesus before and after the Cross (John 10:42-43; 11:45). If the Catholic Church has been too busy hounding believers who rejected the Popery, I can well understand why you're continuing this drama on their behalf. The Catholic Church is rife with internal inconsistencies to such extent that Catholics do not even trust everything that comes from the Vatican or whatsoever is waved by the Pope.

~Lady~:

Lol, honey read the Bible will you.
Here's the Bible on it. Oh by the way every passage is connected to the other so pay attention.

Lol, it's interesting to watch you delude yourself.

~Lady~:

First we see that the apostles have authority give by Christ

Matt. 10:1,40 - Jesus declares to His apostles, "he who receives you, receives Me, and he who rejects you, rejects Me and the One who sent Me." Jesus freely gives His authority to the apostles in order for them to effectively convert the world.

Matt. 16:19; 18:18 - the apostles are given Christ's authority to make visible decisions on earth that will be ratified in heaven. God raises up humanity in Christ by exalting his chosen leaders and endowing them with the authority and grace they need to bring about the conversion of all. Without a central authority in the Church, there would be chaos (as there is in Protestantism).

Sorry miss, that is not the only passages to read from the Bible. Besides the Twelve Apostles, there was someone who did not even count among them nor followed them - he did not wait for your "central authority" but was busy doing mighty works for Jesus. What was the Lord's response to the objection of the apostles? Hear the report for yourself:

And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name,
and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us.
But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name,
that can lightly speak evil of me. For he that is not against us is on our part.
~~ [Mark 9:38-40]

You always have this virus of seeing "chaos" in non-Catholic churches; you simply have no clue about the bigger issues that rattles your suave Catholicism (scroll up and see, yes?).

~Lady~:

Luke 10:16 - Jesus tells His apostles, "he who hears you, hears Me." When we hear the bishops' teaching on the faith, we hear Christ Himself.

When we hear the Catholic bishop spewing out heresies, we're not hearing Christ speak but a diabolic voice - (John 10:5 - "And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers".

~Lady~:

Luke 22:29 - the Father gives the kingdom to the Son, and the Son gives the kingdom to the apostles. The gift is transferred from the Father to the Son to the apostles.

The Kingdom includes all who have believed in Jesus Christ without involving any romish rites - Galatians 3:26.

~Lady~:

Now we see that authority transferred to others.

We don't see the authority "transferred" to romish Popery.

~Lady~:

Acts 1:15-26 - the first thing Peter does after Jesus ascends into heaven is implement apostolic succession. Matthias is ordained with full apostolic authority. Only the Catholic Church can demonstrate an unbroken apostolic lineage to the apostles in union with Peter through the sacrament of ordination and thereby claim to teach with Christ's own authority.

Roman Catholicism "claims" apostolic succession from Peter does not necessarily make it so. For one, the issue of Acts 1:15-26 you quoted has nothing to do with ROME. That meeting took place in Jerusalem (see verse 12), not Rome. Second, all that the Catholic church can claim is "tradition" - that is why none of you can open the Bible and show us the Papacy in a single verse there.

Third, Peter did not establish any seat of his presumed "Popery" at Rome - again, tradition is the fragile boast that Catholicism holds on that. Fourth, there were churches well established among the apostles (read the epistles), yet not a single hint about romish Popery.

Fifth, when we turn to Acts, we find that Peter was mainly at Jerusalem, not Rome - it was from Jerusalem he went forth to visit other places, and back to Jerusalem he went after accomplishing what he went out to do (see for example Acts 8:14, 25; 10:45 & 11:2). Where then did Catholic "tradition" see any Popery for Peter at Rome from Jerusalem? Where in Scripture did the "transfer" occur? Sixth, even in Jerusalem, it was James who seemed to be more prominent than Peter - as in Acts 15 when the former presided over the council there, as well Paul mentioning him first before Peter in Galatians 2:9.

Your claim to a "Catholic church" linkage to the apostles is a farce - live with it. This is simply the reason why you cannot turn to the Bible and show anything from there, but you thrive on the romish "traditions" which have been circulated too many times it has become comical. There were Churches well established in the time of the apostles - we read of them in Scripture; from there also we can find what they believed, taught and lived by. The best shot you can give your own Popery is the fictitious connection of a papacy at Rome for Peter. Romishly scripted, that is.

~Lady~:

A successor of Judas is chosen. The authority of his office (his "bishopric" is respected notwithstanding his egregious sin. The necessity to have apostolic succession in order for the Church to survive was understood by all. God never said, "I'll give you leaders with authority for about 400 years, but after the Bible is compiled, you are all on your own."

Hehe, the apostles in Acts knew nothing of the Papacy in Rome, my dear.

~Lady~:

Acts 6:6 - apostolic authority is transferred through the laying on of hands (ordination). This authority has transferred beyond the original twelve apostles as the Church has grown. To better see this passage read the ones before it Acts 6:3-6

Ah, there - "the Church has grown" - what 'Church' are you talking about? Where is the romish papacy in all this? Please relax - stop shamelessly dragooning the Biblical history to cover up for your Papacy that the apostle knew nothing about!

~Lady~:

Acts 13:1-3 - apostolic authority is transferred through the laying on of hands (ordination). This authority must come from a Catholic bishop.

I knew that's where you were going.
You don't need to invent your Catholic bishop into that scripture. Let me show you.

The Church at Antioch did not start at chatper 13 of Acts. Way back in chapter 11, we read the following -

Now they which were scattered abroad upon the persecution that arose
about Stephen travelled as far as Phenice, and Cyprus, and Antioch,
preaching the word to none but unto the Jews only. And some of them were
men of Cyprus and Cyrene, which, when they were come to Antioch,
spake unto the Grecians, preaching the Lord Jesus. And the hand of the Lord
was with them: and a great number believed, and turned unto the Lord.
~~ Acts 11:19-21.

Those who had been scattered abroad (following Stephen's persecution) were mentioned as far back as Acts 8:1 - it specifically mentions that only the apostles remained at Jerusalem (not Rome):

. . there was a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem;
and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of
Judaea and Samaria, except the apostles.

These same dispersed Christians from Jerusalem had evidently not been "commisioned" or had hands "laid on" them by any apostle. If you see any verse saying that the apostles laid hands on them, please provide it and let's read it openly. No excuses.

However, from Acts 8 to Acts 11, the dispersed preached the Gospel without having waited for any laying on of hands or 'apostolic succession'. Results? The hand of the Lord was evidently with them - proof that the grace of Jesus Christ does not wait for your romish popery system before He works among His people. It was only afterwards that news got to the church in Jerusalem (not Rome), and the next thing happened (Acts 11:22-26):

Then tidings of these things came unto the ears of the church which
was in Jerusalem: and they sent forth Barnabas, that he should go as
far as Antioch. Who, when he came, and had seen the grace of God,
was glad, and exhorted them all, that with purpose of heart they would
cleave unto the Lord. For he was a good man, and full of the Holy Ghost
and of faith: and much people was added unto the Lord. Then departed
Barnabas to Tarsus, for to seek Saul: 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.

Notice here, NOT A SINGLE LINE about "ordination", "laying on of hands" or "Catholic biship" there. When barnabas visited them, he saw what was already taking place without waiting for any Popery to bring romish pretences to Antioch - Barnabas saw "the grace of God, was glad, and exhorted them all". Period. Then he later brought Paul to Antioch - and that was where we read first that the believers were called "Christians".

Now to Acts 13 that you cited. Here again we see nothing of the sort about any "Catholic bishop". The church in Antioch was already established and well taught for a whole year (Acts 11:26) before the event in Acts 13. When the teachers and prophets fasted and prayed, there was no "Catholic bishop" present there to lay romish hands on them. To assert your own "Catholic bishop" into Acts 13 is to read your own falsehood into that scripture. Who was the Catholic bishop who laid hands on them? On the contrary, reading Acts 14:26-28 shows it's more likely that the Church in Antioch had laid their hands on Barnabas and Saul (Paul) before senidng them forth - it was to Antioch they returned after their missionary journey.

More to the point is Galatians 2:11 where Paul had this to say: "But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed." From where did Peter go to Antioch - from Rome or Jerusalem? This is why I don't have anything to worry about with the farce of a Romish papacy for Peter . . .nada! All you Catholics can do is either try to dubiously manufacture your Popery into the Bible; and when that fails, you lose your grip and resort to yowlings by default. The one thing is that non-Catholics can point back to the Bible to show you certain things - you on the other hand have to manufacture words into the texts that are not there. First it was "Mary is called the Mother of God in the Bible" which you read into Luke 1:42; now it is "Catholic bishop" which you tried to manufacture into Acts 13. Please dream up a bigger fallacy - these ones are a total lose for your defence and a complete winner for your comedy central theatricals.

~Lady~:

This one is my favourite because it proves that not just anybody can get up and start preaching. So because this is my favourite I will write out the passages.

Acts 15:22-27
22 Then the apostles and presbyters, in agreeement with the whole church, decided to choose representatives and to send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. The ones chosen were Judas, who was called Barsabbas, and Silas, leaders among the brothers.
23 This is the letter delivered by them: "The apostles and the presbyters, your brothers, to the brothers in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia, of Gentile origin: greetings
24 Since we have heard that some of our number who went out without any mandate from us have upset you with their teachings and disturbed your peace of mind
25 we have with one accord decided to choose representatives and to send them to you along with our beloved Barnabas and Paul
26 who have dedicated their lives to the name of our Lord Jesus Christ
27 So we are sending Judas and Silas who will also convey this same message by word of mouth.

Notice that they emphasized men who tried to preach [size=14pt]without any mandate [/size] from the apostles. Meaning you must have a mandate from the apostles and the newly appointed Priests/Presbyters. So you see no one can just get up and start preaching.

Sorry, your "favourite" interpolation is a hoax. Acts 15:24 from the Catholic favourite version (Douay Rheims) simply reads:

²⁴ Forasmuch as we have heard, that some going out from us
have troubled you with words, subverting your souls;
to whom we gave no commandment:

First, the event was in Jerusalem, not Rome - so please understand it has nothing to do with the romish papacy. Second, the letter was addressing a situation, not "proving" Papal authority. It says: "we have heard, that some going out from us" - they wanted to assure the Christians at Antioch that the apostles and elders at Jerusalem had nothing to do with the heresy preached by "some of the sect of the Pharisees that believed" (v. 5) - it was not about a hole you could exploit for your Romish Popery dragged all the way to Jerusalem.

~Lady~:
So you see no one can just get up and start preaching.

On the contrary, I've shown you that many people were preaching the Gospel without waiting centruries later for a romish popery system. The Church in Antioch was established by the preaching of Christians who were scattered abroad from persecution of Stephen - they didn't wait for any ordination - NONE WHATSOEVER! Even the Lord from Heaven authenticated and blessed their work, and established the Antioch Church there even before the apostles at Jerusalem heard of it!

~Lady~:

Col 1:25 - Paul calls his position a divine "office." An office has successors. It does not terminate at death. Or it's not an office.

Dear Lady, please enough of your abracadabra.
It's now horridly boring to read your manufactured romish ideas into the Bible.
Here is Colossians 1:25 from the favourite Catholic Douay Rheims:

25 Whereof I am made a minister according to the dispensation of God,
which is given me towards you, that I may fulfill the word of God.

That's all - nothing in that verse about Paul calling his "position" a divine "office". There are other verses to look to where he mentioned "office", not Colossians 1:25 - you could try Romans 11:13 ("I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office"; or again 1 Tim. 3:1 ("If a man desire the office of a bishop". And no, Paul does not speak in any one verse about a "successor" in those offices.

~Lady~:

See also Heb. 7:23 – an office continues with another successor after the previous office-holder’s death.
Just like the Office of the President.

This has no bearing (even in context) for the idea of the "successor" thingy for the Popery. Perhaps it might just help here to simply quote the text from the Douay Rheims again and the footnote before commenting on it, yeah? Here:

Hebrews 7:23
And the others indeed were made many priests,
because by reason of death they were not suffered to continue

_{footnote on v.23 (Douay Rheims)
23 "Many priests", The apostle notes this difference between the high priests of the law,
and our high priest Jesus Christ; that they being removed by death, made way for their
successors; whereas our Lord Jesus is a priest for ever, and hath no successor;
but liveth and concurreth for ever with his ministers, the priests of the new testament,
in all their functions. Also, that no one priest of the law, nor all of them together, could offer
that absolute sacrifice of everlasting redemption, which our one high priest Jesus Christ has
offered once, and for ever.}

The point is plain: you cannot use Hebrews 7:23 to extend the romish "successor" thingy fro Christians as priests - for the one reason that there is no "successor" for priests, because ALL Christians are called PRIESTS to God under the new covenant in Christ (see 1 Peter 2:5 & 9 and Revelation 20:6). Apologies - no "successor" thingy for NT priests and priesthood, for ALL are priests unto God without the Popery trying to manufacture romish products anywhere into those verses. Next. . ?

~Lady~:

1 Tim. 4:14 - again, apostolic authority is transferred through the laying on of hands (ordination).

That verse does not teach about "apostolic authority" - this is what it states:

             "Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy,
              with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery."

It was focusing on the gift which came to Timothy through prophecy and laying on of hands of the presbytery - not anything on "apostolic authority".

~Lady~:

1 Tim. 5:22 - Paul urges Timothy to be careful in laying on the hands (ordaining others). The gift of authority is a reality and cannot be used indiscriminately.

As above, please try not reading into the text - that verse does not teach apostolic succession.

~Lady~:

2 Tim. 4:1-6 - at end of Paul's life, Paul charges Timothy with the office of his ministry . We must trace true apostolic lineage back to a Catholic bishop

We've established the fact that there's nothing like "Catholic bishop" in the Bible - it would do nicely to stop the Catholic abracadabra of manufcaturing your own ideas into the texts, thank you.

~Lady~:

2 Tim. 2:2 - this verse shows God's intention is to transfer authority to successors (here, Paul to Timothy to 3rd to 4th generation). It goes beyond the death of the apostles.

Nada. The verse has nothing to do with any such ideas of "successors" - Paul counselled Timothy to teach others what the latter had learned from the former. Nothing like "transfer"  of authority there - whether apostolic, Catholic, romish, popery, Romanism, Vatican, bull or any other. It simply urges Timothy to teach others what he had learned from Paul - see the following:

         2 Timothy 1:13
         2 Timothy 3:10
         2 Timothy 3:14

~Lady~:

1 John 4:6 - whoever knows God listens to us (the bishops and the successors to the apostles). This is the way we discern truth and error (not just by reading the Bible and interpreting it for ourselves).

That's interesting.  
When John was writing that verse, was he doing so as a Roman Catholic?
Was John asking Christians to adopt Roman Catholicism by that very verse?
Does John's writings anywhere suggest the Popery of Rome?
Do the apostles collective not warn us against the heresies of Rome?
Has the Roman Church not repeatedly violated the very teachings of the apostles?
Has Catholicism not violated Biblical warnings against idolatry and bowing down to image?
Where did the apostles or John teach the worship of Mary and bowing down to graven images?

Indeed, it's easy to quote 1 John 4:6 for your Popery; but not so easy to make sense out of what you're quoting. That verse stands as an antidote to Romanism. sorry.

~Lady~:

Now can you show me where in the Bible it says we should go by Bible alone?

I could show you many verses where we're warned against violating Biblical teachings. One I've repeatedly quoted is Galatians 1:8-9 - "If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed". Rome came with another gospel of Salus Populi Romani - the salvation of the Roman people resting on Mary - where did the apostles teach that heresy?

~Lady~:

Your reply wasn't about the anglican church, I was using the anglican church as an example of those who wish to call themselves 'catholic' as if to say it is anything different from 'Catholic'

That's right - I didn't start out about Anglicans calling themselves 'Catholics'. Since you kept using the Anglican case as if I wasn't aware, I offered a bit more gist to rest the case.

~Lady~:

You can write it in big or lower case letters it steal means the same thing, and that is 'Universal'.

This is shamefully hilarious! Not all Catholics are these vacantly assertive as you are - and I've sourced Catholic sources that throw your objections right out the window. You can keep banging your head on that and ignoring the fact, that is not my worry. Your complaints here are laid to rest and have no substance on those Catholic sources that settle the case for you. Ignore them all you like.

~Lady~:

'Universal' is not different from 'universal' it is the same thing. Like I said, those who now know what Catholic means have found a way to make it seem as if catholic and Catholic are different. They are not.

Oh yes, there are vast difference of meaning in that terms as used in catholic circles - and rather than keep grumbling, please discuss those sources I pointed out (hint: they are Catholic sources).

~Lady~:
Anglicans have their own leader, the King of England, their head is Henry VIII.
They are protestants, even though sometimes we like to call them 'diet catholics'

Doesn't matter a bit what you like to call them - I wasn't all about Anglicans, please keep the diversionary tactic for another time.

~Lady~:

Since when does 'Universal' and 'universal' start meaning different things. Since when is there a distinction. You can try to make it different to make yourself feel better but it isn't. Plain and simple, you cannot logically differentiate the 2. The english language does not allow for that.

Shhhhh. . . don't be so hysterical!   Catholic sources already references have made FIVE distinctions of that term - ALL FIVE distinctions are recognized and used in Catholic circles. What is this 'talantolo' noise you're making, eh?

~Lady~:

Nice try to twist my words, But I was talking about non-catholics who've finally understood what catholic means and decides to find a difference between 'catholic' and Catholic.

Sorry, there are Catholics who distinguish between them - I already gave you some, you said nothing about them and are only crying out hysterically here. Please say something more cogent - a complaint from you is not the same thing as an intelligent discourse.

~Lady~:

Wikipedia is un bias and will only go by the information given it. If the lutheran church calls itself catholic, wikipedia will report it as so, if buddhist, hindus, muslims, atheists, wish to identify themselves as catholic, wikipedia will report it as so. So that doesn't make any difference.

Wikipedia is an open online source where anybody could post their bias - it does not mean that Wikipedia necessarily is giving you "truth" in a finalist tone, nor do they claim to do so.

~Lady~:

No the Catholic Church both east and west. RCC is only a part of the Catholic Church, you cannot be so disrespectful to deny the Eastern Catholics their faith.

I'm not being disrespectful, which is why I have not been yapping about anything "Eastern".

~Lady~:

Lol, you and I both know that you're really begging here. You know very well that a word doesn't have to be in the Bible in order for it to be true. Or are you insinuating that Christ wanted his Church to be in one place and not universal/catholic?

Begging. . who - you? Lol, Christ didn't preach the romish popery you've been touting hysterically, so what is my worry?

~Lady~:

Oh I am being honest with myself, but maybe you're misunderstanding me.
Darling what was the Church called before the reformation? I asked you a question, please learn to answer my questions before you ask me one, it is rather insulting that you always fail to answer my questions or that you answer with another question.

And you're "mrs" who. . that you consider it an insult you can't read my answers? Your arrogance is quite a display, but no worries.

The Church which is the Body of Christ was not called "Catholic Church" from Biblical times - that was not its 'name' or what it was 'called'. On the one hand you guys are too busy confusing yourselves on this same issue: one minute, you scream that "Catholic" was not the "name" of the Church; whereas Catholic cources like the EWTN are busy shouting the contrary: "The proper name of the Church, then, is the Catholic Church" - why are you guys so nonplussed on this one issue that you can't even agree among yourselves? Then again Cyril of Jerusalem said that "Catholic" was the peculiar name of the Church; and that has been shown to be patently false! What then is my worry if this has become a dilemma for your hysterics?

~Lady~:

I know very well what the Church was called OFFICIALLY. Why don't you also consult wikipedia and tell me what the Church was OFFICIALLY called before the Reformation?

It wasn't called Catholic - Wikipedia is NOT the Bible; and I've shown from the Bible that there was nothing said about a "catholic" Church or Bishop there. On the other hand, you have tried many times to manufacture your romish "Catholic" church and bishops into the Bible, and I've sorted your tango out. Do yourself the well-deserved favour of pointing to sorting out the cacophony between you saying one thing and Catholic sources saying quite another thing - then come back and show me where in the Bible you find any romish "Catholic Church" there, free from your abracadabra.

~Lady~:

But let me give you my answer. The Church was OFFICIALLY called Catholic before the reformation. Now provide your own answer please. thanks.

I just did, above.

~Lady~:

Lol girl you make me laugh.
No wonder you haven't been picking up anything. I guess Omenuko and every Catholic who's provided you with answers has provided tenuous excuses. Get over yourself, you know very well we speak the truth but it's too hard for you to swallow it. It's called Pride. It's a vice humility is its virtue, learn it.

What "answers"? The manufactured dribbling you've attempted here several times? Please pass.

~Lady~:

Lol, girl, read your Bible well. Philip was an apostle himself, he was commissioned by Christ like the other apostles. He was one of Christ's 12 disciples.

Lol, sorry - Philip the apostle was not the Philip the evangelist. You don start again - anywhere you see "Philip" you just shakara and think it must be the apostle throughout.

~Lady~:

Where does it say that they weren't commissioned?

Where did it say that they were commissioned?

~Lady~:

It is clear that it must have been from the apostles, considering they were with the apostles. It would make no sense that in other places they were commissioning others and warning of those who were not commissioned and then to not commission it.

There's not a verse anywhere saying they were commissioned - being "scattered abroad" following a persecution does not automatically translate into "commission" simply because they were with the apostles. Besides, these who were scattered abroad were not going about "warning" of those who were not commissioned - they were preaching the Gospel. What sort of high-handed manufacturing have you been attempting?

~Lady~:

At best this passage doesn't show whether or not they were commissioned. But we know the Bible doesn't contradict itself, so if we are shown in various places that people preach because they are commissioned then we can safely conclude that they were commissioned.
But Philip himself is an apostle.

That Philip was not an apostle; second, I've given detail earlier about the very fact that you can't read into the text to make it say what it does not say or "safely conclude".

~Lady~:
hiss and ignorantly foolish of you.

Thank you - after hissing and the insolence, please show me Romish Popery in the Bible.

~Lady~:

What you thought I'd forget that you made an assertion? If you don't know the difference between ignatius' catholic and the catholic church today why make an assertion that there is a difference? This is how stupidity is caught, the stupid admit to being stupid.

The stupid admit to being stupid - was that your CV?
I don't see how you're the only person trying to assert the direct opposite of what other Catholics are saying.

~Lady~:
Girl quit with your nonsense twisting, it's getting too old. Everyone's caught up to it.

I didn't twist nada - others can see your abacadabra with "mother of God" deliberately read into Luke 1:42 and numerous others.

~Lady~:

Oh girl you're grasping at straws and showing everyone that YOU are the one who clearly doesn't understand Catholic teaching.
You post Catholic teaching and agree with it and then go on to say that Catholics Worship Mary.

Does that make sense to you?

Why would we teach something we intend not to practice?

I guess to you Catholic teaching against idolatry means we are really idolaters.

Maybe the reason we worship mary is because you are confusing HONOUR with worship.

Have you lost your marbles or something? Did the quote from the pope say "honour" instead of "worship"??

~Lady~:

Apparently you must think that if a person asks another person to pray for them, it is considered idolatry. Or if they bow before a King it is automatically considered idolatry.

Or did you not see it in the Bible where people bowed in honour to one another?
Anyway I have provided you with Biblical passages above. I can't wait to see how you twist them or dismiss them as if they're not in the Bible.

STOP CONFUSING HONOUR FOR WORSHIP, YOU DECEITFUL WOMAN.

Sorry o. . no be my word - na you pope openly declare WORSHIP to Mary, he did not say "honour", so please shut this flapping clapper to pretend you can't read.

~Lady~:

God must be one heck of a damn liar or confusing person to command no graven images be made and then turn around and command graven images be made and used in worship. Abi no be so?

Aww. . . need I say anymore? If you can accuse God in such a manner, what more is there to say?

People can discuss and debate; but if this is your desperation to save face, I would rather leave you all to it. Not when Catholicism drags you down that raod to say such unprintable things.

(Bo & Mo in the commentary box )

Bo - the smart money was always riding on Pilgrim 1 in this bout. Well schooled though Lady is, Pilgrim has mixed it at a higher level of opposition and as we enter the later rounds her experience is starting to show.

Pilgrims stamina is legendary and her ability to ride storms in the early rounds and come on strong is standing her in good stead.

Lady came out firing, but the wily Pilgrim 1, tucked up tight, defended well and waited for Lady to slow down. Pilgrim 1 is definately turning up the heat now and Lady appears to be wilting. Will she get a second wind and come out fighting? I think she needs to as we enter the championship rounds. What says Mo?

Mo- True talk Bo. Opponents often think that Pilgrims one dimensional approach and not very creative shot selection can easily be dealt with.But once in with her they realise its easier said than done. Apart from her stamina which you've already mentioned, she's actually a lot cuter on the inside than many give her credit for. And don't lets overlook her tight defense.

Lady's the new kid on the block, brings a lot of support, a decent pedigree and truck loads of glamour to the sport, but maybe she's in too deep on this one. There's been a lot of unanswered punches in the last round or so and the ref maybe thinking of calling a halt to this one.

But so far it's been a helluva fight. The kind of tear-up the fans love. One for the ages - Mo & Bo will rejoin you for the next round. Seconds out.

@pilgrim.1

Are there things that are wrong here? Let's see -

       

       ~ It was as late as the 8th century (Nicaea in 787) that such idolatry got into Christianity

       ~ those who sought to incorporate this activity knew it had something to do with
          violating God's Word

       ~ the so-called 'respectful veneration' (dulia and hyperdulia) was not found among
          the apostles; but those who sought to incorporate it understood it was a recent matter
          beyond the time of the apostles

       ~ it is amazing that the issue was a "dispute" in post-apotolic age; for this was not even
          a matter to be debated among early Christians; for the apostles were quite definite on
          this issue and we can understand where they stood -

              ●  that they abstain from pollutions of idols - Acts 15:20

              ●  idolaters had nothing to do with God's Kingdom - 1 Cor. 6:9

              ●  what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? - 2 Cor. 6:16

              ●  Little children, keep yourselves from idols - 1 John 5:21

              ●  that they should not worship devils,
                  and idols of gold, and silver, and brass, and stone, and of wood:
                  which neither can see, nor hear, nor walk - Rev. 9:20

Should anyone be reading from the apostles and still wonder about making graven images to bow down to them in the mistaken doctrine that - what? That the incarnation of Christ was a precedence to such idolatry and yet we didn't find any such things among the apostles?

Catholics do not worship statues or icons.  Of all the postings you provided from the ‘Catechism of the Catholic Church’ (I think you did a good job I might say) it is plainly clear that worship of anything other than God is prohibited.  You do right to say:

~ It is clear that the worship of images did not begin with apostolic Christianity

The Catholic Church speaks out against the worship of images, starting from the apostles and continuing to present day; as per the 1st commandment:

"I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery; you shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and fourth generation of those who reject me, but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments."

Question, is it your argument that God forbids the making of images that portray heavenly things?  Or, do you object to one paying honor/veneration to fallen heroes in Christ.  Or, do you object to one bowing to inanimate objects?  Or, do you object to one bowing to created beings (i.e., human beings).  I’m having difficulty in understanding your objections. 

According to you, the making of a cross, or any depiction of Jesus, or God, or anything from heaven above as graven image is wrong.  In other words, when the Jews created the Ark of the Covenant and placed cherubim and seraphim aside it and when they placed statues of angels in their temples they were breaking the 1st commandment (according to pilgrim.1), Ezekiel 41:17–18, 1 Chr. 28:18–19, Ex. 25:18–20. 

What about when a plague of serpents sent to punish the Israelites during the exodus, God told Moses to "make [a statue of] a fiery serpent, and set it on a pole; and every one who is bitten, when he sees it shall live; were they breaking the 1st commandment?  So Moses made a bronze serpent, and set it on a pole; and if a serpent bit any man, he would look at the bronze serpent and live" (Num. 21:8–9). 

How can God forbid his people from making graven images and then at the same time command them to build them.  Not only does he command them to build images of heavenly things, he also commands them to put them in their places of worship (i.e., their temples, the Ark of the Covenant, etc.).  Does God contradict himself?  According to the protestant (well those who think like pilgrim.1) yes, he does. 

According to Catholic teaching (the teaching of the early Church), God forbids the worship of images as gods, but he doesn’t ban the making of images. If he had, religious movies, videos, photographs, paintings, and all similar things would be banned (including the crucifix).  But, as the case of the bronze serpent shows, God does not even forbid the ritual use of religious images.  That’s the bottom line in the prohibitions of the 1st Commandment; worshiping graven images as gods.

Does the reader get anything from all these? If the meaning is lost in the format, let's outline them the salient points:

          ●   man is not to venerate other divinities than the one true God

          ●   Scripture rejects the idols, [of] silver and gold, the work of men's hands

          ●   These empty idols make their worshippers empty

          ●   Idolatry consists in divinizing what is not God

          ●   Man commits idolatry whenever he honors and reveres a creature in place of God

          ●   Idolatry rejects the unique Lordship of God

          ●   it is therefore incompatible with communion with God

Despite reading all of these, what do we yet find as regards the practice of Catholic worship, veneration and the 2nd commandment (1st commandment for Catholicism)? It is worrying indeed to read all the above and still find Catholicism violates ALL of them through the worship of MARY.

For one thing, the Catholic Church does not teach the veneration of other divinities.  What is practiced is the veneration of saints and heroes of the Church.  The act of venerating/honoring and worshiping (using present day lingo) are two different things.  Many people don’t realize that when they pledge themselves to their country/flag they are performing a form of veneration.  Any time I attend a Nigerian function I hear people pledging themselves to their country.  Why is the act of pledging oneself to a country/idea/goal not idolatry (i.e. prohibited by the 1st commandment)?  I live in Washington DC and whenever I go downtown I see countless number of people coming here and going to monuments/statues of past American heroes.  They stand near the statue, reflect on the deeds of the individual, some even touch the statue, and what they experience becomes a lasting moment to them.  They are giving honor to the person that the statue/monument depicts.  What is the difference between doing this in a secular sense (honoring national heroes) and doing this in a religious sense (honoring religious heroes)?  Catholics do rightly in giving honor to saints, because they are worthy of honor.  We do not give them the honor do to God alone. 

Catholics have three forms of honor/veneration.  They are latria, dulia, hyperdulia.  Historically, Catholics have used those terms to describe the different types of Honor given to God and the saints.  The Greek term latria came to be used to refer to the honor that is due to God alone, and the term dulia came to refer to the honor that is due to human beings, especially those who lived and died in God’s friendship (the saints).  In referring to the Blessed Virgin Mary another term (hyperdulia) was used to describe honor given to her because of her unique role in salvation history; since Mary is a finite creature, the honor she is due is fundamentally different in kind from the latria owed to the infinite Creator.

All these terms (e.g. latria, hyperdulia, dulia) have come to be described by the English word (old English) weorthscipe, which means the condition of being worthy of honor, respect, or dignity. To worship in the older, larger sense is to ascribe honor, worth, or excellence to someone, whether a sage, a magistrate, or God.  The word worship, today, has a more limited meaning and does not have the same wider usage as in the past.  But there are some instances where it still remains.  For example, in the British legal system they would refer to their magistrates as "Your Worship" and in the American system we use "Your Honor".  What this means is that they are giving the title-holder (e.g., magistrate, judge, politician, etc.) the honor appropriate of their office.

Excerpts from the "Fulgens Corona" Encyclical of Pope Pius XII:
Quote
34. But let this holy city of Rome be the first to give the example, this city which from the earliest Christian era worshipped the heavenly mother, its patroness, with a special devotion. As all know, there are many sacred edifices here, in which she is proposed for the devotion of the Roman people; but the greatest without doubt is the Liberian Basilica, in which the mosaics of Our predecessor of pious memory, Sixtus III, still glisten, an outstanding monument to the Divine maternity of the Virgin Mary, and in which the "salvation of the Roman people" (Salus Populi Romani) benignly smiles. Thither especially let the suppliant citizens flock, and before that most sacred image let all put forth pious prayers, imploring especially that Rome, which is the principal city of the Catholic world, may also give the lead in Faith, in piety and in sanctity.

Source: "Fulgens Corona" - Encyclical of Pope Pius XII [from a Vatican website].

Please note tyhe following from the above -

          ●  Rome took the lead to give the early example of having worshipped the "heavenly mother"

          ●  it rests the "salvation of the Roman people" (Salus Populi Romani) on Mary

          ●  it enjoins that "before that most sacred image let all put forth pious prayers"


WHERE is the 2nd Commandment (or 1st commandment, Catholics) in all this?? What has happened to the express forbidding of worship and bowing down to images in all this? What has happened to all the fine talk we find in the Catechism of the Catholic Church about the fact that "Idolatry rejects the unique Lordship of God"?

That document (Fulgens Corona) was first written in latin and translated into English.  At most, what we can say about that document is that the term worship is used in the sense of giving the Virgin Mary the appropriate honor, her ability to fully (100%) follow God's will by giving birth to our savior.  The word "worship" has undergone a change in meaning in English and the term, as is in the document, is not a good translation into the English vernacular of today.  I think the more appropriate word would be 'honor'. 

Again, let me reiterate what I said before, the catholic Church does not teach the worship (latria) of anyone or anything other than God.  There may be people who improperly elevate Mary and the saints to levels that are improper and unorthodox (nay, anti-biblical), just as you will find in other denominations; when this occurs, the Church strongly comes out against it and condemns the practice.

@pilgrim.1

Are there things that are wrong here? Let's see -



~ It was as late as the 8th century (Nicaea in 787) that such idolatry got into Christianity

~ those who sought to incorporate this activity knew it had something to do with
violating God's Word

~ the so-called 'respectful veneration' (dulia and hyperdulia) was not found among
the apostles; but those who sought to incorporate it understood it was a recent matter
beyond the time of the apostles

~ it is amazing that the issue was a "dispute" in post-apotolic age; for this was not even
a matter to be debated among early Christians; for the apostles were quite definite on
this issue and we can understand where they stood -

● that they abstain from pollutions of idols - Acts 15:20

● idolaters had nothing to do with God's Kingdom - 1 Cor. 6:9

● what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? - 2 Cor. 6:16

● Little children, keep yourselves from idols - 1 John 5:21

● that they should not worship devils,
and idols of gold, and silver, and brass, and stone, and of wood:
which neither can see, nor hear, nor walk - Rev. 9:20

Should anyone be reading from the apostles and still wonder about making graven images to bow down to them in the mistaken doctrine that - what? That the incarnation of Christ was a precedence to such idolatry and yet we didn't find any such things among the apostles?

Catholics do not worship statues or icons. Of all the postings you provided from the ‘Catechism of the Catholic Church’ (I think you did a good job I might say) it is plainly clear that worship of anything other than God is prohibited. You do right to say:

~ It is clear that the worship of images did not begin with apostolic Christianity

The Catholic Church speaks out against the worship of images, starting from the apostles and continuing to present day; as per the 1st commandment:

"I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery; you shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and fourth generation of those who reject me, but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments."

Question, is it your argument that God forbids the making of images that portray heavenly things? Or, do you object to one paying honor/veneration to fallen heroes in Christ. Or, do you object to one bowing to inanimate objects? Or, do you object to one bowing to created beings (i.e., human beings). I’m having difficulty in understanding your objections.

According to you, the making of a cross, or any depiction of Jesus, or God, or anything from heaven above as a graven image is wrong. In other words, when the Jews created the Ark of the Covenant and placed cherubim and seraphim aside it and when they placed statues of angels in their temples they were breaking the 1st commandment (according to pilgrim.1), Ezekiel 41:17–18, 1 Chr. 28:18–19, Ex. 25:18–20.

What about when a plague of serpents sent to punish the Israelites during the exodus, God told Moses to "make [a statue of] a fiery serpent, and set it on a pole; and every one who is bitten, when he sees it shall live; were they breaking the 1st commandment? So Moses made a bronze serpent, and set it on a pole; and if a serpent bit any man, he would look at the bronze serpent and live" (Num. 21:8–9).

How can God forbid his people from making graven images and then at the same time command them to build them. Not only does he command them to build images of heavenly things, he also commands them to put them in their places of worship (i.e., their temples, the Ark of the Covenant, etc.). Does God contradict himself? According to the protestant (well those who think like pilgrim.1) yes, he does.

According to Catholic teaching (the teaching of the early Church), God forbids the worship of images as gods, but he doesn’t ban the making of images. If he had, religious movies, videos, photographs, paintings, and all similar things would be banned (including the crucifix). But, as the case of the bronze serpent shows, God does not even forbid the ritual use of religious images. That’s the bottom line in the prohibitions of the 1st Commandment; worshiping graven images as gods.

Does the reader get anything from all these? If the meaning is lost in the format, let's outline them the salient points:

● man is not to venerate other divinities than the one true God

● Scripture rejects the idols, [of] silver and gold, the work of men's hands

● These empty idols make their worshippers empty

● Idolatry consists in divinizing what is not God

● Man commits idolatry whenever he honors and reveres a creature in place of God

● Idolatry rejects the unique Lordship of God

● it is therefore incompatible with communion with God

Despite reading all of these, what do we yet find as regards the practice of Catholic worship, veneration and the 2nd commandment (1st commandment for Catholicism)? It is worrying indeed to read all the above and still find Catholicism violates ALL of them through the worship of MARY.

For one thing, the Catholic Church does not teach the veneration of other divinities. What is practiced is the veneration of saints and heroes of the Church. The act of venerating/honoring and worshiping (using present day lingo) are two different things. Many people don’t realize that when they pledge themselves to their country/flag they are performing a form of veneration. Any time I attend a Nigerian function I hear people pledging themselves to their country. Why is the act of pledging oneself to a country/idea/goal not idolatry (i.e. prohibited by the 1st commandment)? I live in Washington DC and whenever I go downtown I see countless number of people coming here and going to monuments/statues of past American heroes. They stand near the statue, reflect on the deeds of the individual, some even touch the statue, and what they experience at that time becomes a lasting moment in their life. They are giving honor to the person that the statue/monument depicts. Is this prohibited by the 1st commandment? What is the difference between doing this in a secular sense (honoring national heroes) and doing this in a religious sense (honoring religious heroes)? Catholics do rightly in giving honor to saints, because they are worthy of honor. We do not give them the honor do to God alone.

Catholics have three forms of honor/veneration. They are latria, dulia, hyperdulia. Historically, Catholics have used those terms to describe the different types of Honor given to God and the saints. The Greek term latria came to be used to refer to the honor that is due to God alone, and the term dulia came to refer to the honor that is due to human beings, especially those who lived and died in God’s friendship (the saints). In referring to the Blessed Virgin Mary another term (hyperdulia) was used to describe honor given to her because of her unique role in salvation history; since Mary is a finite creature, the honor she is due is fundamentally different in kind from the latria owed to the infinite Creator.

All these terms (e.g. latria, hyperdulia, dulia) have come to be described by the English word (old English) weorthscipe, which means the condition of being worthy of honor, respect, or dignity. To worship in the older, larger sense is to ascribe honor, worth, or excellence to someone, whether a sage, a magistrate, or God. The word worship, today, has a more limited meaning and does not have the same wider usage as in the past. But there are some instances where it still remains. For example, in the British legal system they would refer to their magistrates as "Your Worship" and in the American system we use "Your Honor". What this means is that they are giving the title-holder (e.g., magistrate, judge, politician, etc.) the honor appropriate of their office.

Excerpts from the "Fulgens Corona" Encyclical of Pope Pius XII:
Quote
34. But let this holy city of Rome be the first to give the example, this city which from the earliest Christian era worshipped the heavenly mother, its patroness, with a special devotion. As all know, there are many sacred edifices here, in which she is proposed for the devotion of the Roman people; but the greatest without doubt is the Liberian Basilica, in which the mosaics of Our predecessor of pious memory, Sixtus III, still glisten, an outstanding monument to the Divine maternity of the Virgin Mary, and in which the "salvation of the Roman people" (Salus Populi Romani) benignly smiles. Thither especially let the suppliant citizens flock, and before that most sacred image let all put forth pious prayers, imploring especially that Rome, which is the principal city of the Catholic world, may also give the lead in Faith, in piety and in sanctity.

Source: "Fulgens Corona" - Encyclical of Pope Pius XII [from a Vatican website].

Please note tyhe following from the above -

● Rome took the lead to give the early example of having worshipped the "heavenly mother"

● it rests the "salvation of the Roman people" (Salus Populi Romani) on Mary

● it enjoins that "before that most sacred image let all put forth pious prayers"


WHERE is the 2nd Commandment (or 1st commandment, Catholics) in all this?? What has happened to the express forbidding of worship and bowing down to images in all this? What has happened to all the fine talk we find in the Catechism of the Catholic Church about the fact that "Idolatry rejects the unique Lordship of God"?

That document (Fulgens Corona) was first written in latin and translated into English. At most, what we can say about that document is that the term worship is used in the sense of giving the Virgin Mary the appropriate honor, her ability to fully (100%) follow God's will by giving birth to our savior. The word "worship" has undergone a change in meaning in English and the term, as is in the document, is not a good translation into the English vernacular of today. I think the more appropriate word would be 'honor'. As was said earlier, we give Mary and all the saints honor because of their faithfulness towards God. Despite all of the hardships they may have endured, the way they lived the lives is a tangible (present day) which we strive for. We know they are not gods, but rather created beings.

Again, let me reiterate what I said before, the catholic Church does not teach the worship (latria) of anyone or anything other than God. There may be people who improperly elevate Mary and the saints to levels that are improper and unorthodox (nay, anti-biblical), just as you will find in other denominations; when this occurs, the Church strongly comes out against it and condemns the practice.

@pilgrim.1

Are there things that are wrong here? Let's see -



~ It was as late as the 8th century (Nicaea in 787) that such idolatry got into Christianity

~ those who sought to incorporate this activity knew it had something to do with
violating God's Word

~ the so-called 'respectful veneration' (dulia and hyperdulia) was not found among
the apostles; but those who sought to incorporate it understood it was a recent matter
beyond the time of the apostles

~ it is amazing that the issue was a "dispute" in post-apotolic age; for this was not even
a matter to be debated among early Christians; for the apostles were quite definite on
this issue and we can understand where they stood -

● that they abstain from pollutions of idols - Acts 15:20

● idolaters had nothing to do with God's Kingdom - 1 Cor. 6:9

● what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? - 2 Cor. 6:16

● Little children, keep yourselves from idols - 1 John 5:21

● that they should not worship devils,
and idols of gold, and silver, and brass, and stone, and of wood:
which neither can see, nor hear, nor walk - Rev. 9:20

Should anyone be reading from the apostles and still wonder about making graven images to bow down to them in the mistaken doctrine that - what? That the incarnation of Christ was a precedence to such idolatry and yet we didn't find any such things among the apostles?

Catholics do not worship statues or icons. Of all the postings you provided from the ‘Catechism of the Catholic Church’ (I think you did a good job I might say) it is plainly clear that worship of anything other than God is prohibited. You do right to say:

~ It is clear that the worship of images did not begin with apostolic Christianity

The Catholic Church speaks out against the worship of images, starting from the apostles and continuing to present day; as per the 1st commandment:

"I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery; you shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and fourth generation of those who reject me, but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments."

Question, is it your argument that God forbids the making of images that portray heavenly things? Or, do you object to one paying honor/veneration to fallen heroes in Christ. Or, do you object to one bowing to inanimate objects? Or, do you object to one bowing to created beings (i.e., human beings). I’m having difficulty in understanding your objections.

According to you, the making of a cross, or any depiction of Jesus, or God, or anything from heaven above as a graven image is wrong. In other words, when the Jews created the Ark of the Covenant and placed cherubim and seraphim aside it and when they placed statues of angels in their temples they were breaking the 1st commandment (according to pilgrim.1), Ezekiel 41:17–18, 1 Chr. 28:18–19, Ex. 25:18–20.

What about when a plague of serpents sent to punish the Israelites during the exodus, God told Moses to "make [a statue of] a fiery serpent, and set it on a pole; and every one who is bitten, when he sees it shall live; were they breaking the 1st commandment? So Moses made a bronze serpent, and set it on a pole; and if a serpent bit any man, he would look at the bronze serpent and live" (Num. 21:8–9).

How can God forbid his people from making graven images and then at the same time command them to build them. Not only does he command them to build images of heavenly things, he also commands them to put them in their places of worship (i.e., their temples, the Ark of the Covenant, etc.). Does God contradict himself? According to the protestant (well those who think like pilgrim.1) yes, he does.

According to Catholic teaching (the teaching of the early Church), God forbids the worship of images as gods, but he doesn’t ban the making of images. If he had, religious movies, videos, photographs, paintings, and all similar things would be banned (including the crucifix). But, as the case of the bronze serpent shows, God does not even forbid the ritual use of religious images. That’s the bottom line in the prohibitions of the 1st Commandment; worshiping graven images as gods.

Does the reader get anything from all these? If the meaning is lost in the format, let's outline them the salient points:

● man is not to venerate other divinities than the one true God

● Scripture rejects the idols, [of] silver and gold, the work of men's hands

● These empty idols make their worshippers empty

● Idolatry consists in divinizing what is not God

● Man commits idolatry whenever he honors and reveres a creature in place of God

● Idolatry rejects the unique Lordship of God

● it is therefore incompatible with communion with God

Despite reading all of these, what do we yet find as regards the practice of Catholic worship, veneration and the 2nd commandment (1st commandment for Catholicism)? It is worrying indeed to read all the above and still find Catholicism violates ALL of them through the worship of MARY.

For one thing, the Catholic Church does not teach the veneration of other divinities. What is practiced is the veneration of saints and heroes of the Church. The act of venerating/honoring and worshiping (using present day lingo) are two different things. Many people don’t realize that when they pledge themselves to their country/flag they are performing a form of veneration. Any time I attend a Nigerian function I hear people pledging themselves to their country. Why is the act of pledging oneself to a country/idea/goal not idolatry (i.e. prohibited by the 1st commandment)? I live in Washington DC and whenever I go downtown I see countless number of people coming here and going to monuments/statues of past American heroes. They stand near the statue, reflect on the deeds of the individual, some even touch the statue, and what they experience at that time becomes a lasting moment in their life. They are giving honor to the person that the statue/monument depicts. Is this prohibited by the 1st commandment? What is the difference between doing this in a secular sense (honoring national heroes) and doing this in a religious sense (honoring religious heroes)? Catholics do rightly in giving honor to saints, because they are worthy of honor. We do not give them the honor do to God alone.

Catholics have three forms of honor/veneration. They are latria, dulia, hyperdulia. Historically, Catholics have used those terms to describe the different types of Honor given to God and the saints. The Greek term latria came to be used to refer to the honor that is due to God alone, and the term dulia came to refer to the honor that is due to human beings, especially those who lived and died in God’s friendship (the saints). In referring to the Blessed Virgin Mary another term (hyperdulia) was used to describe honor given to her because of her unique role in salvation history; since Mary is a finite creature, the honor she is due is fundamentally different in kind from the latria owed to the infinite Creator.

All these terms (e.g. latria, hyperdulia, dulia) have come to be described by the English word (old English) weorthscipe, which means the condition of being worthy of honor, respect, or dignity. To worship in the older, larger sense is to ascribe honor, worth, or excellence to someone, whether a sage, a magistrate, or God. The word worship, today, has a more limited meaning and does not have the same wider usage as in the past. But there are some instances where it still remains. For example, in the British legal system they would refer to their magistrates as "Your Worship" and in the American system we use "Your Honor". What this means is that they are giving the title-holder (e.g., magistrate, judge, politician, etc.) the honor appropriate of their office.

Excerpts from the "Fulgens Corona" Encyclical of Pope Pius XII:
Quote
34. But let this holy city of Rome be the first to give the example, this city which from the earliest Christian era worshipped the heavenly mother, its patroness, with a special devotion. As all know, there are many sacred edifices here, in which she is proposed for the devotion of the Roman people; but the greatest without doubt is the Liberian Basilica, in which the mosaics of Our predecessor of pious memory, Sixtus III, still glisten, an outstanding monument to the Divine maternity of the Virgin Mary, and in which the "salvation of the Roman people" (Salus Populi Romani) benignly smiles. Thither especially let the suppliant citizens flock, and before that most sacred image let all put forth pious prayers, imploring especially that Rome, which is the principal city of the Catholic world, may also give the lead in Faith, in piety and in sanctity.

Source: "Fulgens Corona" - Encyclical of Pope Pius XII [from a Vatican website].

Please note tyhe following from the above -

● Rome took the lead to give the early example of having worshipped the "heavenly mother"

● it rests the "salvation of the Roman people" (Salus Populi Romani) on Mary

● it enjoins that "before that most sacred image let all put forth pious prayers"


WHERE is the 2nd Commandment (or 1st commandment, Catholics) in all this?? What has happened to the express forbidding of worship and bowing down to images in all this? What has happened to all the fine talk we find in the Catechism of the Catholic Church about the fact that "Idolatry rejects the unique Lordship of God"?

That document (Fulgens Corona) was first written in latin and translated into English. At most, what we can say about that document is that the term worship is used in the sense of giving the Virgin Mary the appropriate honor, her ability to fully (100%) follow God's will by giving birth to our savior. The word "worship" has undergone a change in meaning in English and the term, as is in the document, is not a good translation into the English vernacular of today. I think the more appropriate word would be 'honor'. As was said earlier, we give Mary and all the saints honor because of their faithfulness towards God. Despite all of the hardships they may have endured, the way they lived the lives is a tangible (present day) experience which we strive for. We know they are not gods, but rather created beings.

Again, let me reiterate what I said before, the catholic Church does not teach the worship (latria) of anyone or anything other than God. There may be people who improperly elevate Mary and the saints to levels that are improper and unorthodox (nay, anti-biblical), just as you will find in other denominations; when this occurs, the Church strongly comes out against it and condemns the practice.