@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:

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.

Note: for some reason I was locked out of my previous account (Omenuko) so I opened a new account (Omenuko1). . . .

@Omenuko1,

Glad to read from you. Believe me, I had almost made up my mind to not continue in this discussion whatsoever after my penultimate reply (#219). It is one thing for Christians to discuss and sometimes get very reactive; quite another to throw all conscience away and tend towards blasphemous statements. Somehow, you managed to invite me back basically because people like you choose to be reasonable - and that is what I appreciate more than anything else. Thank you for your composure.

Omenuko1:

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:

Yes, I've come across many, many Catholics who say the same thing - that they do not worship or pray to Mary or images. For your sake, I would have quietly acquiesced and left it at that as I don't want to distress many Catholics on purpose. However, let's keep the thought of "worship" at hand and focus on that as we move along.

Omenuko1:

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.

The highlighted part is the main concern to me personally. But let me outline answers to each point you raised:

1. "is it your argument that God forbids the making of images that portray heavenly things?"

No, that is not my argument, as I'm quite aware of the very fact that sculpted representations were commanded by God to be made on various occasions. The question is: how were these things applied in view of the express commandment to not worship or bow down to them? I already explained (here - reply #198) precisely why that commandment would be violated: bowing down to them in worship. Let me quote the section of that explanation again:
________________________________________________________________

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” . . . .
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.
________________________________________________________________

Thus, the other passages where people made sculpted representations as commanded by God (eg., Exo. 25:18-20 and Num. 21:8-9) do not violate the 2nd commandment in as much as we don't read of anyone bowing down to such representations in worship.


2. "do you object to one paying honor/veneration to fallen heroes in Christ."

I absolutely object to the kind of Catholic "honour/veneration" being paid to 'fallen heroes in Christ'. One could speak in an honourable or respectful manner of Biblical persons; but when such tends to being a part of our worship, there's every reason to raise a red flag.


3. "do you object to one bowing to created beings (i.e., human beings)."

It depends on what context you're asking that question. Bowing to "created beings" (whether angels or human beings) IN WORSHIP is in contrast to bowing to living people as a sign of obeisance. Let me give a few examples to contextualize what I mean:

[list][li]In Genesis 24:52, we read that "when Abraham's servant heard their words, he worshipped the LORD, bowing himself to the earth". He certainly was not bowing to those in his presence; but even though they saw him bowing himself, it is clear that it was in worship to the LORD.[/li]

[li]In Genesis 27:29, Isaac blessed Jacob thus: [list]"Let people serve thee, and nations bow down to thee: be lord over thy brethren, and let thy mother's sons bow down to thee: cursed be every one that curseth thee, and blessed be he that blesseth thee."[/list] This is prophetic, as we understand that Isaac did not mean for his son Jacob to be worshipped by anyone - rather he was declaring prophetic blessings upon Jacob in terms of making that latter prosperous. We don't find anywhere in Scripture where Jacob was worshipped by anyone. When Jacob encountered his brother Esau and "bowed himself to the ground seven times" (Gen. 33:3), we understand he was not worshipping but rather showing deference in obeisance.[/li]

[li]There are many other passages we read of people bowing down to other people. The question, of course, is whether God had indicated those events were to be out model for worship to Him. One such example where He categorically spoke of people bowing down to other people is Isaiah 60:14 - "and all they that despised thee shall bow themselves down at the soles of thy feet", but the context of that verse is clear: it was signalling judgement on those who antagonized God's people.[/li]

[li]In Acts 10:25-26, we read this: [list]And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him. But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man.[/list] Peter's response showed why it would be wrong to have men bow down to men as an expression of worship.[/li][/list]

Thus, when such bowing down to 'created beings' are involved in our expression of worship, that is a clear indication of violating God's Word.


4. Or, do you object to one bowing to inanimate objects?

This is the issue - and yes, bowing down to inanimate objects in worship is clearly violating God's commandment forbidding such. More on this as we move on.

Omenuko1:

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.

No, not according to 'pilgrim.1', but rather according to God's Word. It is, however, interesting that you made some pointers here that tessellate with what we find in Scripture:

● any depiction of Jesus

● any depiction of God

● anything from heaven above

. . . and we might add these:
● anything in the earth beneath
● anything that is in the water under the earth

These are the various pointers as regards the 'graven images' that Scripture speaks about - and one should always keep in mind that the substance of the commandment concerning such matters is a question of our bowing down to them in worship. This is why we often like to quote the texts in full for people to read and see for themselves:

[list]

Exodus 20:4-5
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image,
~ or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above,
~ or that is in the earth beneath,
~ or that is in the water under the earth:
Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them:
for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me

Leviticus 26:1
Ye shall make you no idols nor graven image,
neither rear you up a standing image,
neither shall ye set up any image of stone in your land,
~ to bow down unto it:
for I am the LORD your God.

Deuteronomy 4:15-19, 23
Take ye therefore good heed unto yourselves; for ye saw no manner of similitude on the day that the LORD spake unto you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire:

Lest ye corrupt yourselves, and make you a graven image,
~ the similitude of any figure,
~ the likeness of male or female,
~ The likeness of any beast that is on the earth,
~ the likeness of any winged fowl that flieth in the air,
~ The likeness of any thing that creepeth on the ground,
~ the likeness of any fish that is in the waters beneath the earth:

And lest thou lift up thine eyes unto heaven, and when thou seest the sun, and the moon, and the stars, even all the host of heaven, shouldest be driven to worship them, and serve them, which the LORD thy God hath divided unto all nations under the whole heaven.

Take heed unto yourselves, lest ye forget the covenant of the LORD your God, which he made with you, and make you a graven image, or the likeness of any thing, which the LORD thy God hath forbidden thee.

Deuteronomy 5:8-9
Thou shalt not make thee any graven image,
~ or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above,
~ or that is in the earth beneath,
~ or that is in the waters beneath the earth:
Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them:
for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me

Acts 17:29
Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God,
we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto -
~ gold, or
~ silver, or
~ stone,
graven by art and man's device.

[/list]

You can see that all these are not according to 'pilgrim.1', but rather according to God's Word. What gives substance to that commandment is not the making of the edifices, images or sculpted representations in themselves, but rather the express purpose of making them to "bow down to them in worship".

Omenuko1:

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.

In all three cases you cited (Ezekiel 41:17–18, 1 Chr. 28:18–19, Ex. 25:18–20), which one of them indicates that ANY JEW bowed down in worship to any of those sculpted representations? Which one exactly? Please, if you find any verse saying that any Jew bowed down and worshipped any of those things anywhere, could you kindly quote the verse and let's read it for ourselves?

Let me go one step further and show you somewhat why those things were made and why no Jew worshipped any one of them:

In Exodus 25, God specifically instructed a sanctuary to be made from such things as Israel offered - the purpose was that He might dwell among them (vv. 1-. In verses 9 and 40, Moses was commanded to make those things according to the pattern that was shown to him - it was the pattern of the tabernacle, and of all the instruments thereof. In the next chapter, it was also stated: "And thou shalt rear up the tabernacle according to the fashion thereof which was shewed thee in the mount" (Exo. 26:30). This was all testified to all through the redemptive history of the Jewish people (see Acts 7:44 - "Our fathers had the tabernacle of witness in the wilderness, as he had appointed, speaking unto Moses, that he should make it according to the fashion that he had seen".

However, what Moses reared up is described in Scripture as thus:

● the example and shadow of heavenly things - Heb. 8:5

● things which could not perfect the conscience of the worshipper - Heb. 9:9

As such, it is no surprise that NONE OF THE JEWS ANYWHERE ever went so far as to bow down in worship to any of those sculpted representations! NONE. Perhaps, a picture is worth more than a thousand words; so if we show some of them, it may help to see the difference between what the Jews did and what is done today in Roman Catholicism:







Now, a simple thought: where in Scripture would any Jew have bowed down in worship or prayer to any sculpted or graven representation? Do the above indicate the same thing as what we read of in Exodus 25 and other passages as you cited?

Omenuko1:

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).

Nice quote, and I was already aware of that when reviewing the Mary statutes issue in Catholicism. The point still stands - none of those bitten ever sought to bow down in WORSHIP to the brass serpent.

God specifically ordered the making of the brass serpent as a remedy for those bitten by snakes in their disobedience, for He had sent the serpents as judgement to them for their rebellion (verses 5-6). The event was not about worship or bowing down as an act of divine service - in as much as the purpose of the brass serpent was not for the people to worship. Indeed, Israel later took this same brass serpent as an act of worship, which was clearly violating the 2nd commanment of the Decalogue - and it was in 2 Kings 18:3-4 that we read of Hezekiah destructing the brass serpent:

And he did that which was right in the sight of the LORD, according to all
that David his father did. He removed the high places, and brake the images,
and cut down the groves, and brake in pieces the brasen serpent that
Moses had made: for unto those days the children of Israel did burn incense to it:
and he called it Nehushtan.

By calling it 'Nehushtan' (ie., a worthless piece of brass), the Godly king Hezekiah was showing contempt for the idolatry that Israel had fallen into. The brass serpent was not meant to be included in their worship, in as much as they had been clearly warned on such terms as:

● do not bow down to them

● do not serve them

● do not worship them

By burning incense to it, the Israelites had turned the brass serpent into a thing of idolatry - expressly violating God's warning.

Omenuko1:

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.

No, that's not true. I'm sure that those who are "unfortunate" to think like 'pilgrim.1' can readily see the difference and understand that God does not contradict Himself in this issue. I've outlined the simple point here: God never intended for His people to -

● bow down to them

● serve them

● worship them

Moses' tabernacle reared up according to the pattern shown him had nothing to do with anyone bowing down in worship to such images. Besides, Moses' pattern has been set aside and proven to be ineffectual to the Christian worshipper (Heb. 8:5 and 9:9) - by trying to incorporate such images as part of our worship today (whether bowing down to them in worship or burning incense to them), such people are effectively stating that their consciences are not made right with God even after Christ has obtained eternal redemption for us and also purged our consciences from dead works to serve the living God (Heb. 9:12-14).

Not in one instance do we find anyone among God's people bowing down to any graven image as an act of divine service or worship or to pray to such representations under any excuse. None.

Omenuko1:

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.

Well, look again at 2 Kings 18:3-4 - doesn't it show plainly that God hated the ritual use of the serpent in the worship and/or devotion of His people Israel?

Omenuko1:

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)?

The act of pledging oneself to a country/idea/goal etc may or may not be regarded as idolatry or a violation of the 1st (or 2nd) commandment. The reason is because such people are

- not "praying to" their country/idea/goal

- not "bowing in worship" to their country/idea/goal

- not "burning incense" to their country/idea/goal

Now, certainly their are people who may do this in many places around the world; but are they claiming to be doing so as CHRISTIANS? Are they claiming to be doing so on the basis of a Biblical faith in reference to the Decalogue? It is when we as Christians who should know better are the ones who begin to deliberately excuse why we contravene God's Word that it then becomes an issue for us, not them. Yes, the Bible shows that people who are not Christians have their own devotions and temples where they serve those things referred to as idols (1 Cor. 8:4) - but that in itself does not mean we should do the same thing as they do and then consider it at par with Christian worship. I don't know anybody that venerates a flag and regards it as a 'divinity'.

Omenuko1:

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?

Have you seen any such visitors bowing down in worship and praying to those monuments/statues? Have you seen any such visitors burning incense to those monuments/statues? If you have, then you're seeing an open case of a violation of the 2nd (or 1st) commandment as far as the Christian is concerned.

Omenuko1:

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.

There is a vast difference between the secular and the religious; but the point in our discussion could again be made plain by seeing what 2 Kings 17:10-12 says -

And they set them up images and groves in every high hill, and under every
green tree: And there they burnt incense in all the high places,
as did the heathen whom the LORD carried away before them; and wrought
wicked things to provoke the LORD to anger: For they served idols, whereof
the LORD had said unto them, Ye shall not do this thing.

One does not measure Biblical Christianity by what obtains in heathenism or any other system of belief. So also, you cannot appraise the Biblical faith on the basis of secularism. Since the Biblical faith is committed to all who profess faith in Jesus Christ, it is our happy privilege to ensue we be found faithful stewards in keeping that faith inviolate and free of any form of syncretism.

Omenuko1:

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.

I understand all those terms; but not in one instance do we read of anyone extending them to mean it is okay to be devoted to saints and worship them, however that may be expressed.

Omenuko1:

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.

It is understood that in legal, civil, diplomatic and political circles and practices around the world, titles such as those are used, including -

Your Majesty
Your Honour
Your Worship
Your Imperial Highness
Your Lordship

Even the French term "Monsieur" is equivalent to our English "my lord".

However, all these terms so used are not to be misconstrued for the meaning conveyed when used in Christian worship. It is not merely the giving of titles in honour that we're talking about here; but the very practice of devotion in commiting one's hopes, faith and soul to the object addressed in prayer and worship. At least, one difference is clearly that no one worships any such VIPs in political or civil affairs by seeking to connect with God in a spiritual sense - whereas, Catholics are not merely giving titles to Mary as an act of honour, but they go so far as to PRAY TO Mary, and rest the salvation of the Roman people on Mary!

Omenuko1:

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.

It is not that simplistic as you stated it. More than merely seeking to give titles to Mary and the past saints as if to honour them, Catholic teaching commits the soul of the worshipper to them and involves praying to them. You will not find any Christian in the Bible anywhere praying to any dead saint, from Abraham to Mary or anyone else.

Omenuko1:

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.

It is true that across board (Catholic and Protestant), there are expressions of unorthodox practices. What is worrying is that while Catholic authorities would claim that they come out strongly against worshipping Mary or anyone else other than God, it is the same authorities themselves who have actually laid the foundation for such Mary-worship. This is why again and again one reads clear pointers to the fact that Catholic teaching approves of such practices while claiming that it condemns them in public.

Omenuko1:

Note: for some reason I was locked out of my previous account (Omenuko) so I opened a new account (Omenuko1). . . .

I wondered. But thanks for sharing your concerns.

Lets leave the second commandment and move on to the sixth which clearly says
in deut 5 :6
Observe the sabbath day and keep it holy, as the Lord your God commanded you.

For six days you shall labour 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


Since obviously you dont recognise the authourity of the pope who transferred the solemnity of the sabath to sunday,why do you and other pentecostals fragrantly dis regard this commandment of God because of a pronouncement of a pope whose authourity you dont recognise?

@pilgrim

It is a common practise among we nigerians to prosrate(dobale),bow to our eldersespecially our traditional rulers ,does this constitute a violation of the second commandment since obviously these people represent images of people on earth.?

Mind you the ark of the covennt was adored and venerated even though it was made with mere wood,do you think this acts would constitute a violation of the second commandment?

@chukwudi44,

chukwudi44:

Lets leave the second commandment

Uhm, why so hurriedly?
There was more that could be sourced from Catholic sources about the worship of Mary, you know. Anyhow, let's move on - as you wish.

chukwudi44:

. . and move on to the sixth which clearly says
in deut 5 :6
Observe the sabbath day and keep it holy, as the Lord your God commanded you.

For six days you shall labour 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

Okay.

chukwudi44:
Since obviously you dont recognise the authourity of the pope who transferred the solemnity of the sabath to sunday,why do you and other pentecostals fragrantly dis regard this commandment of God because of a pronouncement of a pope whose authourity you dont recognise?

1. It is true that (speaking for myself) I do not recognize the authority of the Pope.

2. It is one thing to understand the 'sabbath' (as the seventh day) in a Biblical way; quite another thing to talk about "the solemnity of the sabbath". The solemnity of the sabbath would be pointing to its 'gravity' or 'seriousness' - and no one could honestly say that any Pope "transferred" the gravity/somenity of the sabbath to Sunday.

3. What you probably are referring to is a switch from the days (between the seventh day to the first day of the week) for the sabbath.

4. Taking on from the seventh to the first day of the week, I don't see why that should be looked upon as fragrantly flagrantly disregarding the sixth commandment, for the following reasons:

         ●  the Law was not given to Gentiles (ie., non-Jews)  [Psa. 147:19-20]

         ●  but the Law still speaks to both Jews and Gentiles [Rom. 15:4]

         ●  Christians are not looking to any seventh day to be justified before God [Col. 2:16]

         ●  however, the keeping of "sabbaths" was not limited to just a seventh day:

                     ► Scripture mentions different days in connection with the "sabbath":
                             "a certain day" (Heb. 4:7)
                             "Today, after so long a time" (Heb. 4:7)
                             "another day" (Heb. 4:8)

                     ► In the OT, God speaks of other days of "sabbath"
                             the first day of the month, shall ye have a sabbath - Lev. 23:24
                             the seventh day is the sabbath of rest - Lev. 23:3
                             the eighth day shall be a sabbath - Lev. 23:39
                             in the ninth day of the month at even. . .shall ye celebrate your sabbath
                                (Lev. 23:27-32)

So, you can see that even in the OT, there were other "sabbath days" than just the seventh day - there were -

          ~ 1st day
          ~ 7th day
          ~ 8th day
          ~ 9th day . .  and even
          ~ 10th day

So, why do I mention these various days for the sabbath? Because Scripture recognizes more than one day of the sabbath - as is clear from these statements:

Exodus 31:13
Speak thou also unto the children of Israel, saying,
Verily my sabbaths ye shall keep:
for it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations;
that ye may know that I am the LORD that doth sanctify you.

Leviticus 19:3
Ye shall fear every man his mother, and his father,
and keep my sabbaths: I am the LORD your God.

Leviticus 26:2
Ye shall keep my sabbaths,
and reverence my sanctuary: I am the LORD.

Ezekiel 20:12
Moreover also I gave them my sabbaths,
to be a sign between me and them,
that they might know that I am the LORD that sanctify them.

You can see that the word "sabbaths" is in the plural; and also that God had given it to "them" - the Jews (Ezekiel 20:12).

Now, which one of those days do you as a Catholic recognize as the proper "sabbath day" to catch up on the 6th commandment? I know that traditionally, we many times have fixed our minds on just one day - the seventh day; however, seldom do we take our time to look carefully as see the big picture.

Dear chukwudi44, God speaks about other days as "sabbath", not just the seventh day. However, Christians are not under the "solemnity" of the sabbath day - for though we have a "sabbath" in Christ (Heb. 4:9), but it is not a question of a specific day constrained to just the seventh day.

Blessings.

chukwudi44:

@pilgrim

It is a common practise among we nigerians to prosrate(dobale),bow to our eldersespecially our traditional rulers ,does this constitute a violation of the second commandment since obviously these people represent images of people on earth.?

Well, I'm Yoruba - and not in one instance do we "worship" those elders to whom we prostrate to. 'Dobale', yes; but "worship"? No. This is all the difference between what obtains in Catholicism and what we find in other cultures.

Besides, I've already discussed why I do not have a problem with people 'prostrating' to other people:

[list]

3. "do you object to one bowing to created beings (i.e., human beings)."

It depends on what context you're asking that question. Bowing to "created beings" (whether angels or human beings) IN WORSHIP is in contrast to bowing to living people as a sign of obeisance. Let me give a few examples to contextualize what I mean:

[list][li]In Genesis 24:52, we read that "when Abraham's servant heard their words, he worshipped the LORD, bowing himself to the earth". He certainly was not bowing to those in his presence; but even though they saw him bowing himself, it is clear that it was in worship to the LORD.[/li]

[li]In Genesis 27:29, Isaac blessed Jacob thus: [list]"Let people serve thee, and nations bow down to thee: be lord over thy brethren, and let thy mother's sons bow down to thee: cursed be every one that curseth thee, and blessed be he that blesseth thee."[/list] This is prophetic, as we understand that Isaac did not mean for his son Jacob to be worshipped by anyone - rather he was declaring prophetic blessings upon Jacob in terms of making that latter prosperous. We don't find anywhere in Scripture where Jacob was worshipped by anyone. When Jacob encountered his brother Esau and "bowed himself to the ground seven times" (Gen. 33:3), we understand he was not worshipping but rather showing deference in obeisance.[/li]

[li]There are many other passages we read of people bowing down to other people. The question, of course, is whether God had indicated those events were to be out model for worship to Him. One such example where He categorically spoke of people bowing down to other people is Isaiah 60:14 - "and all they that despised thee shall bow themselves down at the soles of thy feet", but the context of that verse is clear: it was signalling judgement on those who antagonized God's people.[/li]

[li]In Acts 10:25-26, we read this: [list]And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him. But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man.[/list] Peter's response showed why it would be wrong to have men bow down to men as an expression of worship.[/li][/list]

Thus, when such bowing down to 'created beings' are involved in our expression of worship, that is a clear indication of violating God's Word.

source: my reply to Omenuko1, #225
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-284000.224.html#msg4098373
[/list]

chukwudi44:
Mind you the ark of the covennt was adored and venerated even though it was made with mere wood,do you think this acts would constitute a violation of the second commandment?

I don't know who ever "prayed to" or "worshipped" or "bowed down" to the Ark of the Covenant. Do you? Perhaps there are quite a few instances where these have occured: could you point them out from Scripture so that we discuss further?

However, along the lines of Mary-worship as violating the 2nd (or 1st) commandment, there are clear statements that cannot be confused from the lips of Catholic Popes and Bishops about Catholics worshipping Mary - yes, "worship" is the very word they used, not any other such as 'honour', etc. Like I said, I don't want to be distressful to Catholics, that is why I'm somewhat reserved from posting links and quotes from such Popes and Bishops.

Cheers.

@pilgrim
A bout bowing down to images I have this for you

Exodus 20:5
do not bow down to any IDOL or worship it because Iam the Lord ,your God and I tolerate no rivals.

Deut 5:9

Do not bow down to any IDOL or worship it ,for I am the Lord your God and I tolerate no rivals.

Now the oxford dictionary defines the word IDOL as an image of a god ,often carved in stone or wood and used as an object of worship.So obviously the statutes of Mary and other saints used in catholic veneration fails this definition ,since they are not regarded as gods and are not used as an object of worship.(hope you know the difference between veneration and worship)

Prostrating(dobale) before elders is even worse than bowing ,since in this case you are fully lying on the ground unlike in bowing when you merely move your head.

If you dont regard dobale as worship why do you regard catholics bowiong to images of saints as worship?

pilgrim.1:

@chukwudi44,

Uhm, why so hurriedly?
There was more that could be sourced from Catholic sources about the worship of Mary, you know. Anyhow, let's move on - as you wish.

Okay.

1. It is true that (speaking for myself) I do not recognize the authority of the Pope.

2. It is one thing to understand the 'sabbath' (as the seventh day) in a Biblical way; quite another thing to talk about "the solemnity of the sabbath". The solemnity of the sabbath would be pointing to its 'gravity' or 'seriousness' - and no one could honestly say that any Pope "transferred" the gravity/somenity of the sabbath to Sunday.

3. What you probably are referring to is a switch from the days (between the seventh day to the first day of the week) for the sabbath.

4. Taking on from the seventh to the first day of the week, I don't see why that should be looked upon as fragrantly flagrantly disregarding the sixth commandment, for the following reasons:

● the Law was not given to Gentiles (ie., non-Jews) [Psa. 147:19-20]

● but the Law still speaks to both Jews and Gentiles [Rom. 15:4]

● Christians are not looking to any seventh day to be justified before God [Col. 2:16]

● however, the keeping of "sabbaths" was not limited to just a seventh day:

► Scripture mentions different days in connection with the "sabbath":
 "a certain day" (Heb. 4:7)
 "Today, after so long a time" (Heb. 4:7)
 "another day" (Heb. 4:8)

► In the OT, God speaks of other days of "sabbath"
 the first day of the month, shall ye have a sabbath - Lev. 23:24
 the seventh day is the sabbath of rest - Lev. 23:3
 the eighth day shall be a sabbath - Lev. 23:39
 in the ninth day of the month at even. . .shall ye celebrate your sabbath
(Lev. 23:27-32)

So, you can see that even in the OT, there were other "sabbath days" than just the seventh day - there were -

~ 1st day
~ 7th day
~ 8th day
~ 9th day . . and even
~ 10th day

So, why do I mention these various days for the sabbath? Because Scripture recognizes more than one day of the sabbath - as is clear from these statements:

Exodus 31:13
Speak thou also unto the children of Israel, saying,
Verily my sabbaths ye shall keep:
for it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations;
that ye may know that I am the LORD that doth sanctify you.

Leviticus 19:3
Ye shall fear every man his mother, and his father,
and keep my sabbaths: I am the LORD your God.

Leviticus 26:2
Ye shall keep my sabbaths,
and reverence my sanctuary: I am the LORD.

Ezekiel 20:12
Moreover also I gave them my sabbaths,
to be a sign between me and them,
that they might know that I am the LORD that sanctify them.

You can see that the word "sabbaths" is in the plural; and also that God had given it to "them" - the Jews (Ezekiel 20:12).

Now, which one of those days do you as a Catholic recognize as the proper "sabbath day" to catch up on the 6th commandment? I know that traditionally, we many times have fixed our minds on just one day - the seventh day; however, seldom do we take our time to look carefully as see the big picture.

Dear chukwudi44, God speaks about other days as "sabbath", not just the seventh day. However, Christians are not under the "solemnity" of the sabbath day - for though we have a "sabbath" in Christ (Heb. 4:9), but it is not a question of a specific day constrained to just the seventh day.

Blessings.

Young lady I admire your boldness when you decide to lie and confuse people,the sabath day was the seventh day(saturday),no other day was regarded as sabath.

Mind Jews are still in existence and they are still observing the sabath.

So you mean of all the 10 commandments only one was part of the obsolete mosaic law? what was your criteria for determining which part of the 10 commandments fall under the mosaic law ?

You protestant point to catholics as not observing the commandments when you are equally guilty of more .Since I recognise the authourity of the Pope I recognise the transfer of the sabath from saturday to sunday,but If I may ask you and other protestants on what basis do you regard the sunday as sabath?

The Apostle paul in his letters to the corinthians and Timothy made it clear that Women should not be alowed to hold leadership positions in the church .You protestants fragrantly disregard this order appointing womens as pastors and in some cases as general overseer.

99% of pentecostals women do not cover their hair as the scripture instructs they should do.

Why dont you remove this log in your eyes ,so you might be able to see th supposed speck in roman catholicism

Jesus has sopken to some christians through images,francis of asisi perhaps the greatest christian evangelist in the last 1000 years had a vision where an icon of jesus came alive and spoke to him.

for more of this story follow the link below
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_of_Assisi

Dont tell me about sola bible since I dont beleive in it besides it has no biblical foundation.

The blessed virgin mary also spoke a nun through an image of her.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Lady_of_Akita

emphasis should be placed on worship of idols not legitimate veneration ogf images

@chukwudi44,

chukwudi44:

@pilgrim
A bout bowing down to images I have this for you

Exodus 20:5
do not bow down to any IDOL or worship it because Iam the Lord ,your God and I tolerate no rivals.

Deut 5:9

Do not bow down to any IDOL or worship it ,for I am the Lord your God and I tolerate no rivals.

Okay, nice quotes.

chukwudi44:

Now the oxford dictionary defines the word IDOL as an image of a god ,often carved in stone or wood and used as an object of worship.So obviously the statutes of Mary and other saints used in catholic veneration fails this definition ,since they are not regarded as gods and are not used as an object of worship.

The definition of the Oxford dictionary is not the only definition that is available; nor is it the one that settles Catholic theology. We can consult other references - including Catholic references to see what definitions are given for 'idol'. Other dictionaries give definitions of idols as including:

         _______________________________________

         1. An image or representation of anything.

         2. An image of a divinity;
         a representation or symbol of a deity or any other being or thing,
         made or used as an object of worship; a similitude of a false god.
         _______________________________________

         Reference:
         Dictionary.com [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/idol]

Notice above that the definition of 'idol' includes a representation or symbol of any other being or thing - made or used as an object of worship. Do the statues of Mary not fit precisely into this definition? Do the statues not fit the definition of "an image or representation of anything"?

Of course, the Bible tells us plainly that the graven images includes all such things as "any likeness of any thing" - whether those things be in heaven above, in the earth beneath, or in the water under the earth" (Exodus 20:4); and from the definitions above it is square and clear that the statues of Mary qualify as 'idol' as defined above.

Now, even if as a Catholic you would like something more cogent, let me draw from Catholic sources on the definition of 'idol'. Here:
         _______________________________________

          IDOL. Any creature that is given divine honors.
          It need not be a figure or representation, and may be a person.
         _______________________________________

         References:
         Modern Catholic Dictionary [http://www.therealpresence.org/cgi-bin/getdefinition.pl]
         Catholic Refrence.Net [http://www.catholicreference.net/index.cfm]
         Catholic Culture [http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/]

"Any creature that is given divine honors" - is that not what the Catholic Church has done with Mary? Dear chukwudi44, I've said several times that it's not my inclination to be distressful or troubling to Catholics by going so far as to quote clear statements of Catholic Popes and Bishops on the worship of Mary. However, if you are inclining towards that end, I would advise that you contact me privately be email so I could share only with you on that note - I'd not like to post them openly to perturb other Catholics.

chukwudi44:

(hope you know the difference between veneration and worship)

I absolutely do - and I hope for your sake that you also know the difference. The words used by the Catholic Popes and Bishops are clearly "worship" to Mary - and if I happen to quote them, I shall not edit any word in those quotes.

chukwudi44:
Prostrating(dobale) before elders is even worse than bowing ,since in this case you are fully lying on the ground unlike in bowing when you merely move your head.

I already showed you directly from Scripture that prostrating is not the same thing as worshipping a created being. I quoted you the relevant passage from my reply to Omenuko1 - did you just skip it in order to argue vacantly? Im my culture, no one I know in Yoruba assumes that they are worshipping the one they prostrate to. The mere act of prostrating does not in itself constitute "worship" - which is what Catholicism does with the worship of Mary.

chukwudi44:

If you dont regard dobale as worship why do you regard catholics bowiong to images of saints as worship?

Because that is precisely what your Catholic Popes and Bishops have openly declared - WORSHIP to Mary. Nothing less than that.

@pilgrim1

Madam please when will you stop being a hypocrite ,so now catholic definition of idol now spercedes the oxford dictionary definition of idol.But when catholics tell you the truth about scriptures they become unreliable sources,please stop applying double standards.

I am well versed in catholic history and I have never come across any document from the vatican which directed the worship of Mary or any other saint.

By the way if the above definition of idol you gave is anything to go buy ,then probably all yorubas will go to hell since dobale is part of their culture.Dobale is far worse than merely taking a bow since you all part of your body is involved.

Why didn't you also reply to my other posts that exposes your hypocrisy.You point one finger to catholics while four are pointed to you.

You don't have to communicate anything by email since this is an open forum which everyone should benefit from.
I wasn't previously versed in catholic history but reading arguments between you and lady over the months made me to investigate my faith and I can tell you that I am a better catholic for it.

Your puerile rants and insults on Mother Mary,popes and roman catholicism as a whole has made me a better catholic .

I have been following arguments on this forum between you and lady for almost a year before I started contributing ,May I say that the Insults you heaped on Mary in this forum is second only to the devil,even though the tone of your posts have come down now I pray that God almightymight have Mercy upon you and forgive you for your sins.

Your posts feature on more than 80% of anti -catholic threads on this sites,it loke you dont have any other job doing besides surfing the web to bash catholics

chukwudi44:

Young lady I admire your boldness when you decide to lie and confuse people,the sabath day was the seventh day(saturday),no other day was regarded as sabath.

Lol, please open your Bible and sort yourself out on this. I wasn't lying when I quoted the Bible and showed that there are OTHER DAYS regarded as sabbath. Shall I quote them again? Here:

                    ► In the OT, God speaks of other days of "sabbath"
                            the first day of the month, shall ye have a sabbath - Lev. 23:24
                            the seventh day is the sabbath of rest - Lev. 23:3
                            the eighth day shall be a sabbath - Lev. 23:39
                            in the ninth day of the month at even. . .shall ye celebrate your sabbath
                               (Lev. 23:27-32)

If you want the quotes in full, here they are as well (all taken from the favourite Catholic version, Douay Rheims):

[list][li]Leviticus 23:24
Say to the children of Israel: The seventh month,
on the first day of the month, you shall keep a sabbath,
a memorial, with she sound of trumpets, and it shall be called holy.[/li]
.
.
[li]Leviticus 23:3
Six days shall ye do work: the seventh day, because it is the rest of the sabbath, shall be called holy. You shall do no work on that day: it is the sabbath of the Lord in all your habitations.[/li]
.
.
[li]Leviticus23:39
So from the fifteenth day of the seventh month, when you shall have gathered in all the fruits of your land, you shall celebrate the feast of the Lord seven days: on the first day and the eighth shall be a sabbath, that is a day of rest.[/li]
.
.
[li]Leviticus 23:31-32
You shall do no work therefore on that day: it shall be an everlasting ordinance unto you in all your generations, and dwellings. It is a sabbath of rest, and you shall afflict your souls beginning on the ninth day of the month: from evening until evening you shall celebrate your sabbaths.[/li][/list]

Read again through those quotes, and then look again at your claim: "no other day was regarded as sabath" - are you kidding yourself? If no other day was regarded as sabbath, what is the meaning of such statements as -

                  'on the first day and the eighth shall be a sabbath'

- and all the highlighted words? I did not lie to you - and the verses are there. Perhaps you're too insecure in your Catholicism to even open your eyes and see plain statements before you hastily launch your accusations unnecessarily.

chukwudi44:

Mind Jews are still in existence and they are still observing the sabath.

I understand that; but they also knew the fact that other days besides the seventh day were also known as sabbaths - the verses above point that out. If you're in doubt, you could consult scholarly materials on Judaism that outline the special sabbaths of the Jews.

chukwudi44:

So you mean of all the 10 commandments only one was part of the obsolete mosaic law?

What are you on about? Did you again read my reply or trying ever so hard to read into my reply?

chukwudi44:

what was your criteria for determining which part of the 10 commandments fall under the mosaic law ?

I quoted straight out of the Mosaic Law to you, didn't I? Which part did you not understand as of the Law?

chukwudi44:

You protestant point to catholics as not observing the commandments when you are equally guilty of more .

Nada. Catholics from their own lips have told us exactly what they do, and that is why I take the time to quote directly from your own authority. Of course, there are Protestants who may have some tendency to violate God's Word on many issues; but when worship of Mary becomes an official Catholic doctrine, you need to pull up your socks and take notice.

chukwudi44:

Since I recognise the authourity of the Pope I recognise the transfer of the sabath from saturday to sunday,but If I may ask you and other protestants on what basis do you regard the sunday as sabath?

Speaking for myself, I don't regard Sunday as the sabbath; so I cannot answer for those who think it is so for them.

chukwudi44:

The Apostle paul in his letters to the corinthians and Timothy made it clear that Women should not be alowed to hold leadership positions in the church .You protestants fragrantly disregard this order appointing womens as pastors and in some cases as general overseer.

^{Uhm, first of all, we all make typos - my own sef plenty. But the word is not "f[b]r[/b]agrantly" (sweet smell) but 'f[b]l[/b]agrantly' (notoriously).}

Anyhow, 'leadership' is a word that many people use quite loosely without a clue what they're talking about. There are various leadership roles that people play apart from pastor and overseers - but that is another thread entirely.

Yet, your complaint here does not stand peculiar with Protestant believers. Perhaps you said that out of being upset; but actually, chukwudi44, no be today I know say women ordination sef dey worry Catholic Church. Haba.

Yes, women ordination to leadership is one very hotly contested subject in the Catholic Church today - and I shall point you to just a few non-troubling examples:

       ___________________________________________________________

          ●  The ordination of women in the Roman Catholic Church

          ●  There are at least seven reasons why women can and should
              receive Holy Orders!
          ●  Eight out of ten Catholic scholars in the world support
              the ordination of women.

              sources:   http://www.womenpriests.org/default.asp
                                      http://www.womenpriests.org/scholars.asp
                                      http://www.womenpriests.org/menu.asp
       ___________________________________________________________


          ●  Catholic Women's Ordination (a Catholic organization)

             Our site is dedicated to the support for ordaining women
             in the Catholic Church. Many are curious about the subject
             and we offer a site rich in interesting material,

             We are a forum to examine, challenge and develop the current
             understanding of priesthood. We aim to achieve the ordination
             of women to a renewed priesthood in the Roman Catholic Church.

            source:  http://www.catholic-womens-ordination.org.uk/
       ___________________________________________________________


          ●  Roman Catholic Womenpriests (RCWP)

              Roman Catholic Womenpriests (RCWP) is an international initiative
              within the Roman Catholic Church. The mission of Roman Catholic
              Womenpriests North America is to spiritually prepare, ordain, and
              support women and men from all states of life, who are theologically
              qualified, who are committed to an inclusive model of Church, and
              who are called by the Holy Spirit and their communities to minister
              within the Roman Catholic Church.

              source:  http://www.romancatholicwomenpriests.org/

       ___________________________________________________________


          ●  Women's Ordination Conference (WOC)

              The Women's Ordination Conference (WOC) is the world's
              oldest and largest organization working solely for the ordination
              of women as priests, deacons, and bishops into an inclusive and
              accountable Catholic Church.

              source:  http://www.womensordination.org/  

       ___________________________________________________________


@chukwudi44,  if you want many more, simply ask - so you may know that there's such a serious movement of ordination of women in the Catholic Church.

chukwudi44:

99% of pentecostals women do not cover their hair as the scripture instructs they should do.

That may be true - but disobedience does not favour any movement, whether Catholic or non-Catholic.

chukwudi44:

Why dont you remove this log in your eyes ,so you might be able to see th supposed speck in roman catholicism

How blind do you want to be before you see clearly that Catholic Popes and Bishops are worshipping Mary according to their own confirmed statements? What else do we need to open out eyes that such a system is clearly in violation of God's Word? I'm not pointing accusing fingers at your cherished beliefs; that is why I'm willing to share such things privately instead of posting them publicly. But if you wan shakara pass this your gra-gra, simply ask and I shall oblige you free of charge.

Shalom.

chukwudi44:

Jesus has sopken to some christians through images,francis of asisi perhaps the greatest christian evangelist in the last 1000 years had a vision where an icon of jesus came alive and spoke to him.

Poor fellow. Francis of Asisi should have calmly read Galatians 1:8 -- "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed". An icon coming to speak to a Christian to confirm what is contrary to God's Word should make you think, dear chukwudi44.

chukwudi44:

for more of this story follow the link below
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_of_Assisi

I'd seen it long before now, thank you for the offer.

chukwudi44:

Dont tell me about sola bible since I dont beleive in it besides it has no biblical foundation.

I feel very sorry for you. This is why Catholics like you should be very well schooled before you come to the public to weaken your position. I know you don't believe in what the Bible teaches, and I'm not forcing you to change your mind; but did the Catholic Church not boast itself on the fidelity to Scripture when it came to apologetics? The Catholic authorities often like to quote this line from Jerome against Helvidius when it tries to defend their Catholicism -

Jerome was content simply to reply:

Just as we do not deny these things which are written,
so do we repudiate things that are not written.
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xv/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xv_enc_15091920_spiritus-paraclitus_en.html

Does the Catholic Church today repudiate the things that are NOT WRITTEN? No - that's the one reason why you must always make excuses for what you can't find in Scripture.

chukwudi44:

The blessed virgin mary also spoke a nun through an image of her.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Lady_of_Akita

Where is that written - do you repudiate what is NOT written in Scripture? Of course not - and we know from the mouth of Catholic Popes and Bishops that all such things tend to the worship of Mary.

chukwudi44:
emphasis should be placed on worship of idols not legitimate veneration ogf images

There's nothing like "legitimate veneration of images" - the "legitimacy" is dribbled in there to make it acceptable to Catholics, not because you have found it in God's Word.

The commandment specifcally refered  to the seventh day as the day  rest was to be observed .So your sunday worsip has no basis since it is neither in the bible nor based on the proclamation of the pope.

About your so called female priests ,that a group of women went to perfom some so called ordination does not mean that they are recognised as priests within the catholic church.To be a priest in the catholic church you have to be recognised by the vatican or your local bishop .This means that once you are not recognised by the vatican you are not a roman catholic priest.

Your rantings will not any way affect the growth and development of the church,.You can go on and publish your so called secret document,anyone that will leave the church will eventually  leave.

Inspite of the campaign of calunmy against the catholic church it has continued to grow even at a rate that exceeds the worlds growth rate.The chuch has between 1950 -2007 seen a rise in population of 450,000,000-1,147,000,000.

@chukwudi44,

chukwudi44:

Madam please when will you stop being a hypocrite ,

How am I being a hypocrite - because simple and plain truth is far too bitter for you to swallow?

chukwudi44:

so now catholic definition of idol now spercedes the oxford dictionary definition of idol.

HAHAHAHA!! This is simply magical! So, in your Catholic eschatology, Oxford Dictionary supercedes Catholic dogma??  Abeg yan me more!

chukwudi44:

But when catholics tell you the truth about scriptures they become unreliable sources,please stop applying double standards.

Lol, what double standards have I applied? Have you not noticed that most of my quotes are sourced directly from Catholic authorities? I have not made any source you guys quote to be "unreliable", other than discussing the weaknesses of some of the desperations you advance. In the case of the Oxford Dictionary, I didn't make it "unreliable" but merely said that it is not the only definition of the term "idol" - that was why I pointed you to Catholic sources to hear them from their own mouths! What is wrong now with Catholic theology - too tough for you, abi? Or are they also hypocrites?

chukwudi44:

I am well versed in catholic history and I have never come across any document from the vatican which directed the worship of Mary or any other saint.

This is a laugh!  
My dear sir, please zip your trap - you know absolute zilch about the documents from the Vatican if you can be so brash to make such vacant assertions. I don't want you to push your luck, that is why I invite you to contact me through email - I'd be too glad to share them with you. If you are going to be a trouble to both yourself and other Catholics, here's where I should give you my disclaimer: you're responsible for what follows after I post them.

chukwudi44:

By the way if the above definition of idol you gave is anything to go buy ,then probably all yorubas will go to hell since dobale is part of their culture.Dobale is far worse than merely taking a bow since you all part of your body is involved.

Lame excuse.  My replies are getting you too riled up to even address issues - now it has become a matter of all Yorubas going to hell. Abeg pass make I hear word.  Dobale in Yoruba culture does not even resemble your Catholic Mariolatry - just go compare and let's see.

chukwudi44:

Why didn't you also reply to my other posts that exposes your hypocrisy.You point one finger to catholics while four are pointed to you.

What other posts? Please point them and I shall oblige. My apologies for my slow replies - I'm posting while attending to some other stuff in my office.

chukwudi44:

You don't have to communicate anything by email since this is an open forum which everyone should benefit from.

Okay, I hear.

chukwudi44:

I wasn't previously versed in catholic history but reading arguments between you and lady over the months made me to investigate my faith and I can tell you that I am a better catholic for it.

Dress warm - you may hurt yourself further than when you began, and I won't be responsible.

chukwudi44:

Your puerile rants and insults on Mother Mary,popes and roman catholicism as a whole has made me a better catholic .

I feel sorry for you. If your Catholic champion can afford to be blasphemous in accusing God, how does that make you a "better" Catholic? It seems you're beginning to feel desperately insecure, that is why you've typically turned now to beggar this discussion with such pifffling rather than discuss issues.

chukwudi44:

I have been following arguments on this forum between you and lady for almost a year before I started contributing ,May I say that the Insults you heaped on Mary in this forum is second only to the devil,even though the tone of your posts have come down now I pray that God almightymight have Mercy upon you and forgive you for your sins.

Em, I don't know if my discussions with ~Lady~ began a year ago; but be that as it may, I don't need to be alarmed at your extended reactive gesticulations - they're inconsequential to the discussion.

chukwudi44:
Your posts feature on more than 80% of anti -catholic threads on this sites,it loke you dont have any other job doing besides surfing the web to bash catholics

Lol, then you might be confusing me for someone else - and I forgive you that sin mistake.

On sola bible you pentecostals are bloody hypocrites,you only profess sola bible when it will favour you.

When your pastors claim God asked them to open churches where is it in the Bible?

When Jesus appears to Roman catholics it is unacceptable because it is not in the bible,but he can appear to Benny Hinn and Keneth Hagin even though it is not in the Bible.Your hypocrisy stinks!!!

The honour pentecostals gives to money and their pastors far exceeds the honour given to Mary by the catholic church.Christianity has been been turned into a wide business empire ,so obviosly the merchants Jesus drove out of the synagogues has returned in form of pentecostals.All they preach is prosperity,tithes ,first fruits,seed sowing e.t.c

The early fathers of prostestantism were not like you pentecostals ,in the 80s we had less than 200 churches in Nigeria and a christian poulation of 50%,today we have more than 2000 churches and the population still stands at 50% obviously the growing number of churches has not reflected in the christian population.

They are not interested in taking christianity to areas in the north that are under muslim control rather they will all come to lagos where they hope to make more money .They even go as far as US , britain and other rich countries that are already under christian control.

The oyibo missionaries that brought christianity to Nigeria first captured their countries before moving out .Our so called God assigned pastors should first strive to christianize all parts of their homeland before looking for whom else to evangelize.

You only evangelize where you hope to reap bountifully fom illegal tithes ,e.t,c

Go to the rural areas ,the only pentecostal churches you will likely find are the deeper life church,it is only filled with churches like Roman catholic,anglican ,methodist ,baptist and other old churches.

Our modern day evangelists in pentecostal churches are only interested in evangelizing where they will reap bountifully from illegal collection of tithes.In fact I propose that pentecostal churches should henceforth be designated as tithe collection centres.Lagos state government should proceeed with the collection of tax from pastors .

So many so called God called miniters like you have brought their time to attack the catholic church hoping to pull down,the church it has continued to grow in mounts and bounts over the years between the 57 year period 1950-2007 it has seenan astronomical rise in poulation from 450,000,000-1,147,000,000 far exceeding the percentage growth of the world population over the same period.

Your evil machinations are obviously not working ,you can go ahead and publish your so called vatican secret document you claimed directed catholics to worship Mary.It will be in line with the scriptures which directs us to dispel false teachings

If I may ask what qualifies a writing to be called scriptures,and when did the holy spirit inspired writings end .
You may use your sola scriptures to answer this questions.

we can have new churches ,but no new scriptures what hypocrisy!!!

@chukwudi44,

chukwudi44:

On sola bible you pentecostals are bloody hypocrites,you only profess sola bible when it will favour you.

When your pastors claim God asked them to open churches where is it in the Bible?

When Jesus appears to Roman catholics it is unacceptable because it is not in the bible,but he can appear to Benny Hinn and Keneth Hagin even though it is not in the Bible.Your hypocrisy stinks!!!

The honour pentecostals gives to money and their pastors far exceeds the honour given to Mary by the catholic church.Christianity has been been turned into a wide business empire ,so obviosly the merchants Jesus drove out of the synagogues has returned in form of pentecostals.All they preach is prosperity,tithes ,first fruits,seed sowing e.t.c

The early fathers of prostestantism were not like you pentecostals ,in the 80s we had less than 200 churches in Nigeria and a christian poulation of 50%,today we have more than 2000 churches and the population still stands at 50% obviously the growing number of churches has not reflected in the christian population.

They are not interested in taking christianity to areas in the north that are under muslim control rather they will all come to lagos where they hope to make more money .They even go as far as US , britain and other rich countries that are already under christian control.

The oyibo missionaries that brought christianity to Nigeria first captured their countries before moving out .Our so called God assigned pastors should first strive to christianize all parts of their homeland before looking for whom else to evangelize.

You only evangelize where you hope to reap bountifully fom illegal tithes ,e.t,c

Go to the rural areas ,the only pentecostal churches you will likely find are the deeper life church,it is only filled with churches like Roman catholic,anglican ,methodist ,baptist and other old churches.

Our modern day evangelists in pentecostal churches are only interested in evangelizing where they will reap bountifully from illegal collection of tithes.In fact I propose that pentecostal churches should henceforth be designated as tithe collection centres.Lagos state government should proceeed with the collection of tax from pastors .

chukwudi44:

So many so called God called miniters like you have brought their time to attack the catholic church hoping to pull down,the church it has continued to grow in mounts and bounts over the years between the 57 year period 1950-2007 it has seenan astronomical rise in poulation from 450,000,000-1,147,000,000 far exceeding the percentage growth of the world population over the same period.

Your evil machinations are obviously not working ,you can go ahead and publish your so called vatican secret document you claimed directed catholics to worship Mary.It will be in line with the scriptures which directs us to dispel false teachings

chukwudi44:

If I may ask what qualifies a writing to be called scriptures,and when did the holy spirit inspired writings end .
You may use your sola scriptures to answer this questions.

we can have new churches ,but no new scriptures what hypocrisy!!!

If you have any salient point to discuss, please do so. But if you're beginning to lose your grip and want to turn now to uncouth exchanges ('bloody hypocrites', 'evil machinations' etc), it might be better to leave you to pipe down and sizzle in your own heat. It does not seem like you're interested in discussing anymore and are only out to make matters worse for your brethren. In just about the same way, anyone who truly wants to take a swipe on your system and reduce it to its meaninglessness could point out the many atrocities of the Catholic Church where Catholic priests for many years were sexually abusing children, enjoying adulteries - and the millions in dollars that the Catholic Church proposed to pay for reparations to victims of those abuses. There are other unprintable things you have to worry about in your Catholicism, but what good would it do you at the end of the day if you're only too busy foaming in the mouth and tearing out your hair about Protestants? They're 'bloody hypocrites' with 'evil machinations' - how do these things make you a better Catholic or promote your own cherished beliefs?

When you find your ground for a discussion, please let us know. But if you're going to keep on getting red in the face with such tempers, it's all up to you. . . just do hold your heart so that it does not escalate to things you shouldn't say against God.

If you have any salient point to discuss, please do so. But if you're beginning to lose your grip and want to turn now to uncouth exchanges ('bloody hypocrites', 'evil machinations' etc), it might be better to leave you to pipe down and sizzle in your own heat. It does not seem like you're interested in discussing anymore and are only out to make matters worse for your brethren. In just about the same way, anyone who truly wants to take a swipe on your system and reduce it to its meaninglessness could point out the many atrocities of the Catholic Church where Catholic priests for many years were sexually abusing children, enjoying adulteries - and the millions in dollars that the Catholic Church proposed to pay for reparations to victims of those abuses. There are other unprintable things you have to worry about in your Catholicism, but what good would it do you at the end of the day if you're only too busy foaming in the mouth and tearing out your hair about Protestants? They're 'bloody hypocrites' with 'evil machinations' - how do these things make you a better Catholic or promote your own cherished beliefs?

When you find your ground for a discussion, please let us know. But if you're going to keep on getting red in the face with such tempers, it's all up to you. . . just do hold your heart so that it does not escalate to things you shouldn't say against God.

Aww! This section shouldn't have been created, Devil is using some people to perpetrate evil here

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.

Then why do you even bother?

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.

I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are not aware of what the 'popery' really is. So the question is was Peter the leader of the Apostles or not?
Did Christ give him the Keys to the Kingdom of heaven or not?
What do those Keys mean?
What does it mean to bind and loose? Or to Shut and to open?

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.

No the first 'daft' person would be St. Ignatius of Antioch who used it in 100AD, he was the successor of Peter in Antioch and an apprentice of St. John who wrote the gospel. He also was the child who sat on Jesus' lap in the gospel.

Like I said the One, Holy, Catholic, Church, not the Roman Catholic Church as it is but one part of the Catholic Church. If you cannot deal with that simple truth and would like to turn a blind eye to it, that is not my problem, it is entirely yours. The Church doesn't cease to be Catholic bcus you say so.

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.

1) I was making my own statement, I don't ride on anyone's coat tails.
2) The word used in Luke 1:42 for Lord is Kyrios or Adonai, and we very well know that those words are reserved for God alone, you would be better acquainted with the word Adonai, so if Elizabeth calls Mary the Mother of Adonai, how does that not equate to Elizabeth calling her the Mother of God, or is Adonai no longer God?
3) Theotokos, means God-bearer, last I checked Mary gave birth to God, either that or Jesus isn't God. Take your pick. There is no other logical way you can explain that. Also it isn't 'romish' to call Mary the Theotokos, it is rather Catholic to do so. And anyone who's studied the history of Christianity will see that Mary has always been regarded as the Theotokos. Not just that, even the Eastern Orthodox Christians who are no longer identified as Catholic call her the Theotokos. Even Martin Luther who started the revolt called Mary the Theotokos.
In denying Mary as the God-bearer, you are indirectly denying Jesus as God. In denying Mary as the Mother of God, you are indirectly denying Jesus as God. Which is the actual reason why the title was given to Mary. Because of those who denied the divinity of Christ. Infact their argument was that God couldn't have a mother and because Jesus has a mother he couldn't be God. The difference between you and them is that you do not go so far as to say that Jesus couldn't be God because he has a mother. If you will say that God cannot have a mother then you are also saying that Jesus cannot be God because he has a mother, and you cannot deny that Jesus has a mother and that the Bible does call Mary his mother.
4) The reason for rejecting Catholicism, is because you have absolutely zero knowledge of the Bible from Genesis to Revelations, and are clearly unaware of the beliefs of early christians. More and more protestants/pastors/theologians/historians agree that the Catholic interpretation of the Bible is the better fit, and most logical.

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.

Have you forgotten that you were the first one to boast about how people were leaving the Church for the 'truth' and that I was replying to your boast? Hypocritical are we?

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?

Ok sure whatever.
Whomever is not in union in Rome is not Catholic. Plain and simple, you know it, I know it. There is no division. If you place yourself outside of the Church, you are outside of the Church, no matter how much you try to call yourself Catholic. That was my whole point on the 'catholic' and 'Catholic' crap you were trying to pass off here.

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.

No contradictions in the Church Christ founded. Contradiction is confusion. Yet you all claim to be in the Church that Christ founded. When did Christ found contradiction.

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?

This is based on your assumption that you have the correct interpretation of the Bible and that you are the one who is seeing the message in the Bible clearly. With all the contradictions going on in the Churches that claim to be of Christ and directed by the Holy Spirit, how do you know that you have the correct interpretation or understanding and they do not? Are you the infallible interpreter? Are you without sin that when you read the Bible you infallibly interpret it?

The unchanging interpretation and teaching of the Church for 2000 years is proof enough.
'How is it that the MOTHER OF MY LORD will come to me?' Who is the Lord here and who is the Mother? Who is being called the Mother of the Lord?

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.

Yet we're the only ones quoting scripture that have to do with the topic. And you guys are the ones making accusations without backing it up, and without biblical basis. hmmmmmmmmm

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]

It is rather convenient to quote a passage that has nothing to do with the topic. We were talking about apostolic successions which deals with the power to preach, heal, and all that.

Where does the power to cast out demons equate to preaching? Did the man preach the gospel, did Christ commission him to preach?
All Christians can cast out demons but not all christians can preach.
In all my biblical posts, I showed apostolic succession, and every single one of them had to do with preaching, not casting out demons, so where did you get the casting out demons from it?

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".

heheh omo u try sha, but not well enough. All your OPINION.

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

Once again, you state YOUR OPINION and backed up YOUR OPINION. Nothing about facts here

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

ROTFLMAO
But you DO see authority being TRANSFERRED. So you cannot say there was not supposed to be apostolic succession, and that's why you're about to switch positions.
It not being transferred to romish popery is YOUR OPINION.

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.

And YOU DO SWITCH POSITIONS. Apparently there IS apostolic succession that you claim was not existent. Now your position is that it wasn't in Rome, and that is rather a poor position, bcus we can very clearly see St. Paul writing about apostolic succession, he certainly wouldn't exclude Rome from it. So there is proof that it is in Rome, now the question is was Peter ever in Rome? Well 1st and 2nd Peter certainly tells us that he was in Rome, not just that, history tells us that he was in Rome, or is it that you haven't studied history my dear? Maybe you should?

The papal authority has nothing to do with Rome. Infact several councils were not held in Rome, but that doesn't take away from the fact that Peter was Bishop of Rome. Basically all you're saying is that if Obama were to hold a meeting in England it means he isn't the President of America. How does a meeting being held in England take away from Obama being President of America? or better yet How does a meeting being held in Jerusalem take away from Peter being the Bishop of Rome?
Infact that logic is perfectly flawed as we see that it isn't only Peter that is present in Rome, but several other Bishops, certainly you cannot say that those Bishops were all Bishops of Jerusalem instead of their respective provinces because they were present at the council in Jerusalem.
And not just that, it is also saying the Paul never traveled to other places to preach and that he didn't found the other churches because he was in Jerusalem.

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.

James was the Bishop of Jerusalem that's why he was more prominent there. But it still doesn't take away from Peter being the Pope.
This was also the beginning of the Church it wasn't fully established that Peter's seat would permanently be in Rome. Peter was the Bishop of Antioch not Jerusalem before he moved to Rome. The Church was birthed in Jerusalem and Acts talks of the first days of the Church, clearly almost everyone was still there in the beginning before moving out. Acts does not only talk about Peter being in Jerusalem, it continues to talk about Peter moving to the land of the gentiles certainly Rome cannot be excluded since later we see that Paul talks about building on another man's foundation, this was after Peter founded the Church in Rome. The councils are presided over by the Bishop of the place where the council is being held, that doesn't take away from Peter being the leader of the apostles, or Peter being the Pope.
Bottom line, Peter holds the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, the other apostles did not get those keys.

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

Once again YOUR OPINION.

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!

Well ofcourse the Church has grown that was why they ORDAINED deacons. That was why Apostolic Succession took place.

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.

Ok where in my post did I say that the Church in Antioch started in Acts 13?
My point is apostolic succession took place, and this is seen in the laying on of hands, and Acts 13 talks about laying on of hands.
So how about you start using Biblical passages to refute what I am actually talking about not what I wasn't talking about.

People talking what they don't know.

Many of the people arguing their heads off here were simply born into a sect and they feel it is the best.
Until most of you have your own minds not influenced by your upbringing, it will be difficult to appreciate across the divide.

The devil prefers it that way . . .that you will continue to fight each other instead of obeying the call.

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.

Well you would've had me there, except it doesn't talk about those people preaching. Where does it say that they preached. They were scattered because they were running for their lives, but where does it say that they ran to go preach the gospel. Actually the people that are spoken of preaching are those we see who've been ORDAINED.

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.

Barnabas and Paul were ordained.

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".

Before Barnabas goes to Antioch, Antioch received the message most likely from Nicholas who was a convert from Antioch. This is evidence that the Apostles had already preched to the Antiochans.

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?

I seriously dislike reminding people of things, it's one of my pet peeves. Whether Peter was in Nigeria, or Iraq, or Amsterdam, he would still be Pope. The Papacy doesn't have to be from Rome. Peter was Pope when he was in Antioch as Bishop, before moving to Rome. I also mentioned 1st&2nd Peter several times look it up

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:

Ok this one is different from the one I wrote how?
How is the Bible a hoax? Is that passage not in the Bible? And does it not talk about people who had no commandment or mandate from the apostles to preach?

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.

Once again Obama being present in England does not make him any less the President of America. You can hold an office and be in other places you know?
I know the letter was addressing an issue and it was addressing the issue of your belief that anyone can get up and preach, this verse proves that they have to have a mandate by the apostles to preach. So after they established that those who were preaching heresy wasn't from them, what did they do? Just tell them to be careful and to read the Bible well or did they send Ordained preachers to them?
Thanks for proving my point?

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!

Which of the preachers were not ordained?

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.

Apparently you've forgotten that there are more than one versions of the Bible.
Anyway, how is dispensation different from Office
DISPENSATION

4. Theology. a. the divine ordering of the affairs of the world.
b. an appointment, arrangement, or favor, as by God.
c. a divinely appointed order or age: the old Mosaic, or Jewish, dispensation; the new gospel, or Christian, dispensation

OFFICE
a position of duty, trust, or authority, esp. in the government, a corporation, a society, or the like

Either way Paul was appointed, a dispensation is an appointment, an office is also an appointment.

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

           

LOLOLOLOL THIS IS SOO FUNNY. PLIGRIM.1 DOES NOT KNOW THE MEANING OF WORDS. OR CANNOT TELL FROM A PASSAGE WHAT IT IS SAYING. OMO U NO SABI ENGLISH AGAIN.

I saw the next point, and cannot wait to get to it, so here it goes

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".

I just want you to know, that I find it very hard to reply to this post, because I am laughing hysterically, my mother thinks I have lost my mind.
Girl LAYING OF HANDS IS NOT APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY?
WHAT IS IT THEN?

The laying on of hands is ordination but somehow it isn't apostolic authority or sucession? When the laying of hands happened nothing happened? HAHAHA.

LOLOLOL Ok this verse talks about a gift, ok so I guess we need to determine what the gift is.
But he receives this gift by the laying of hands of the presbyter who is also known as the Priest, look it up in the dictiocary presbyter and priest are synonyms, so we see this gift being given by the Priest, and it is NOT apostolic authority?

How is it not may I ask?

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

Um apparently you don't know what transfer means. When you take your knowledge and you give it to another are you not transferring that knowlegde? Let's say your mother gives you the recipe to a cake that apparently is not the act of transferring? hmm thanks for telling me that when something is given to another it isn't being transferred.

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

You really think you're clever but you're not. Who's the US John talks about? Is that not the apostles, the bishops, the successors? Who is it?
You do the classic thing, when trapped you proceed to your lies. Girl it doesn't do it anymore, try a different tactic this time. Try addressing the issue at hand.
Does John talk about us listening to the apostles or not? And doesn't the Bible show where the laying on of hands, as in ordination, as in succession, as in transfer takes place?

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?

Girl you need to learn to answer questions. Where in the Bible does it say Bible alone? Is the Bible the only way to get the Gospel? Is the Gospel the Bible?
Where in Salus Populi Romani did you get Mary? Show me which of those words mean Mary.
You hateful and deceitful woman.

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.

What the hell?

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.

Right, Catholic websites that you never cited.

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.

Did I happen to loose you somewhere? You do know that I was using the Anglicans as an example of people who want to call themselves catholic but really aren't right, and you do knot that particular 'diet catholic' thing was a joke right?
I don't think we're on the same page anymore

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.

So you agree with me?

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

So if you're not worried why do you constantly ignore the topic and dash to talk about the poperish romish.

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?

Oh I am mrs. somebody o, learn to respect.
who be u?
Ok EWTN stating that the name is Catholic it is expressing to those who are unaware and who consider the Catholic Church to be a denomination to know that the actual Church founded by Christ is Catholic. However amongst ourselves we know that Catholic is a description of the Church. No Catholic will disagree with me, not even EWTN.
So in an effort to properly correct you, I let you in on how WE view ourselves when we're gathered. If you were to go through the question and answer forums and you come across someone asking on the Church who is Catholic, they will rarely ever ask a question using The Catholic Church, they most likely would use The Church. This is how we know when a person is Catholic. Got it now?

And you do know the meaning of peculiar don't you? Please say you do.

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.

So you would kindly use wikipedia to prove your point but when it proves your opponents point it is no longer worthy of being used? Are you sure you're no longer a muslim? Cause you sound like one. Well maybe it never really got out of your system.
I already showed you the church in the bible, you choose to ignore it it is your own palava.

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. 

Actually you're right, it's not the same Philip, but guess what though, he was already ORDAINED. This Philip is one of the 7 ordained by the apostles in Acts 6. So my point still stands. HE WAS ORDAINED. HE WAS COMMISSIONED. HE WAS APPOINTED. does that clarify it for you?

Where did it say that they were commissioned?

It doesn't explicitly state that they were comissioned. But since that isn't the only passage in the Bible and in other passages we see that those who preached were commissioned we can safely assume that they too were commissioned.
You will not find a place in the Bible where those who preached were not commissioned.