Catholic Heresy (for the record)

[Mec99]

To the Catholics Mary is greater than Jesus. This is why they see nothing wrong with worshiping Mary. To the Catholics its all about Mary.

Many Catholic Churchs have pictures of Mary 40 feet high by 20 feet width!

The pictures of Jesus are only about 2 feet high.

So who do you think the Catholics put the highest, Jesus or Mary?

I have yet to see a 40 foot picture of Jesus in a Catholic Church!

 

[valiant]

Originally Posted by fordman

Okay, I think I know what you mean now. To try and make it more simplified for you, lets look at what Papal Infallibility is not.

1. Infallibility does not mean that a pope is incapable of sin: --All popes are human and therefore sinners.

that is one truth they have made clear throughout history.

2. Infallibility does not mean that the pope is inspired: ---- Papal infallibility does not involve any special revelation from God. A pope learns about his faith in the same way that anyone else does – he studies.

But unfortunately only within the confines of the Roman Catholic church. He studies with a closed mind, and clearly without inspiration

3.Infallibility cannot be used to change existing doctrines or proclaim new ones: ---- It can only be used to confirm or clarify what has always been taught. The teachings of Christ cannot change. As the Scripture says, "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever" (Hebrews 13:8).

Is this intended as a joke, or do you think we are all idiots? Large amounts of what the popes have proclaimed ex cathedra have totally altered Christian reaching. Take for example the blasphemies about Mary, unheard of in the early church. So what you mean is that the popes can invent what they want, then pretend that it has always been taught?

4.

Infallibility does not mean that a pope cannot err when he speaks as a private teacher: ---As a man he is fallible and capable of error.

very,very true.

5. Infallibility does not guarantee that a pope will officially teach anything: However, when he does teach he is protected. If he decides to teach the truth, the Holy Spirit allows it. If he decides to teach error, either knowingly or unknowingly, the Holy Spirit will stop him.

humbug. if this were true popes would never contradict each other. and they do often.

Infallibility is not something that endows a pope with divine powers, but rather it is a gift of the Holy Spirit that protects the Church from the human frailties of a pope.

So it is the church which is infallible, not the pope? Hmmmm LOL

Would you agree all Christians believe that God used men infallibly in writing Scripture? Why then is it so hard to believe that He would work through men to protect it from corruption?

Because had He done so those kept from corruption would have proclaimed only what is found in Scripture. By their fruits they are known.

Surely such a protection was implied when Jesus said to His disciples, "He who hears you hears me" (Luke 10:16).

Not at that time. It only indicated that He expected them to teach only what He had taught. It only applied to the Apostles more literally once they had received a special and unique gift of the Holy Spirit.

Keep in mind Jack, three conditions must be met in order for a pronouncement to be considered infallible:
1. The pope must speak ex cathedra (from the Chair of Peter) in his official capacity.
2. The decision must be binding on the whole Church.
3. It must be on a matter of faith or morals.

as he has no authority to speak ex cathedra the conditions are irrelevant. there are absolutely no grounds part from delusion why anyone should think so. for 600 and more years ALL popes were murderers an adulterers.

The first two conditions can be reasonably deduced from Matthew 16:19: "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

why should a promise made personally to Peter apply to anyone else? there are no genuine grounds for thinking God intended it to apply to anyone else, least of all the bishop of Rome. Nothing can be deduced from it that applies to any subsequent individual. It did of course apply to all the Apostles (matthew 18.18)

The acts of binding and loosing in this context would by necessity be something more than casual remarks.

No but they would necessarily be remarks made by Peter himself.

The previous verse begins with Jesus saying, "You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church" (16:18). Thus the acts of binding or loosing would have to be official and meant for the whole Church.

why? The majority of the church fathers saw the rock as the statement of Jesus' Messiahship. That was meant for the whole church. The Apostles had these special gifts so as to establish the New Testament. Once that was done it was unnecessary.

The third condition stems from the obvious fact that Christian teaching is primarily a matter of faith and morals. Christianity's main objectives have always been getting people to heaven (faith) and teaching them how to live here on earth (morals).

Actually it is God's job to get men safely to Heaven. But what has Christianity to do with special claims made by arrogant men who make special claims for themselves? Jesus excluded people who sought the highest place and made spcial claims for themselves

Infallibility is also extended to the college of bishops when they, as a body, teach something in union with the pope. Collegial authority is usually exercised in an ecumenical council just as it was at the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15:1-29).

No one has suggested that the meeting at Jerusalem was infallible. It made a sensible ad hoc decision that was soon overridden. Why should a group of self-seeking buffoons getting together give them infallibility? No one is infallible.

Upon leaving the earth Jesus' final command to His apostles was to make disciples of all nations, "teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age" (Matthew 28:20). Are we to believe that Jesus left us no means of knowing exactly what He commanded? That would make His parting statement nonsense.

Well it may have escaped your notice but those commands are found in the New Testament. What need have we of anything else? So His parting statement was not nonsense.

what is nonsense is the idea that a bunch of pompous old men can get together in the 21 st century and decide what those commands were.

The Catholic Church believes the Bible when it teaches that:
1. Jesus requires that we obey all that He commanded (Matthew 28:20).
2. Jesus gives us the grace to obey all that He commanded (Philippians 4:13).
3. Jesus provides us a means of knowing what He commanded (Matthew 16:15-19).

Yes all churches teach that and they all know where to look. The Scriptures. It is only the RC church which sticks its head in the sand and says, 'which Scriptures?'

Jack123, even the early Christian writers bear witness to the Church's infallibility.

LOL they are hardly 'early'.. And what right have they to declare anyone or anything infallible?

Cyprian declares: "If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4, 251 AD).

you call 250 years afterwards early? LOL I hope you never have to give me an early call. And Cyprian was not referring to Rome when he said those words. He was actually referring to Peter. He was simply saying all must gather around what Peter taught. that Jesus Christ was the Son of the living God and around the Apostolic doctrine.

Irenaeus writes: "Where the charismata of the Lord are given, there must we seek the truth, with those to whom belongs the ecclesiastical succession from the Apostles, and the unadulterated and incorruptible word. It is they who …are the guardians of our faith…and securely expound the Scriptures to us" (Against Heresies 4:26:5, 180-199 AD).

Succession from all the Apostles? So he did not believe in a special successor of Peter? And what he was appealing to was those who had kept true to the faith of the Apostles as revealed in the New Testament. Once they began to slip from that he would have seen it as no longer applying. Notice that he saw their job as to 'expound the Scriptures'. He was sola scriptura.

Ironically Jack 123, many individuals who oppose the doctrine of papal infallibility claim to receive special revelations from God.

No they simply claim that God helps them to understand just as you claimed He did the pope as with all other men

Most believe that they can privately interpret Scripture in direct violation of 2 Peter 1:20.

so you are one of those who do not understand 2 Peter 1.20?. There he was talking of those who proclaimed God's word as not doing it through private interpretation, for THEY WERE inspired by the Holy Spirit.

They characterize the doctrine of papal infallibility as arrogant,

which it is.

while claiming for themselves authority that goes far beyond it.

Rubbish. No one I know claims to be infallible. and if they did I would laugh at them, just as I laugh at Papa.

And what is the fruit of their claims? Thousands of denominations all claiming the Bible as their authority and yet all disagreeing on what it teaches.

The typical RC misunderstanding. They all mainly agree on the central teachings. And they all accept Bible authority. It is unimportant detail on which they differ, as in fact Roman Catholics do. The difference is that at least they THINK. They do not just follow the party line. So it becomes personal to them.

To make matters worse, many of their teachings change from time to time. Those who object to the doctrine of papal infallibility are the greatest proof of its need.

Not the main essential teachings. If you say they do you lie. They are not proof of the need for a spurious papal infallibility. They are simply proof of a need to let the Holy Spirit speak to them more clearly. Having dogma dictated to them would not help them at all. It would not enter their hearts. Most of us on here agree on the essential doctrines. It is on detail that we disagree, and as we go through life we will be constantly growing and learning. We gain by it, not lose by it.

An honest examination of the evidence can only lead to one conclusion

True, that the claims of the Roman Catholic church are ABSURD.

:

That Jesus Christ established an infallible Church. Scripture teaches it, logic demands it, and history confirms it.

Scripture teaches the opposite, there is no logic to it, and history makes a mockery of it.

What Scripture teaches, and what the early fathers confirmed, is that Scripture is the arbiter of what we should believe, and history demonstrates it quite clearly.

 

[valiant]

Mary carried Jesus in her womb for 9 months. She is, in fact, his mother. Are there any mothers in heaven at all? If not, their status of motherhood was just a temporary situation.

No she WAS His 'mother' in a certain meaning of the word for the first part of His life, but she had lost that motherhood when he began His ministry. Those who believed became His mother. It is interesting that He called them mother, but never called Mary 'mother'/

yes there are no mothers in heaven as such. their status as mothers was a temporary situation. sexual discrimination will be no more. there will be no sexist differences in heaven. 'there is neither male nor female, for we are all one in Christ Jesus.'

 

[fordman]

that is one truth they have made clear throughout history.

But unfortunately only within the confines of the Roman Catholic church. He studies with a closed mind, and clearly without inspiration

Is this intended as a joke, or do you think we are all idiots? Large amounts of what the popes have proclaimed ex cathedra have totally altered Christian reaching. Take for example the blasphemies about Mary, unheard of in the early church. So what you mean is that the popes can invent what they want, then pretend that it has always been tau


very,very true.



humbug. if this were true popes would never contradict each other. and they do often.

So it is the church which is infallible, not the pope? Hmmmm LOL
Because had He done so those kept from corruption would have proclaimed only what is found in Scripture. By their fruits they are known.

Not at that time. It only indicated that He expected them to teach only what He had taught. It only applied to the Apostles more literally once they had received a special and unique gift of the Holy Spirit.

as he has no authority to speak ex cathedra the conditions are irrelevant. there are absolutely no grounds part from delusion why anyone should think so. for 600 and more years ALL popes were murderers an adulterers.

why should a promise made personally to Peter apply to anyone else? there are no genuine grounds for thinking God intended it to apply to anyone else, least of all the bishop of Rome. Nothing can be deduced from it that applies to any subsequent individual. It did of course apply to all the Apostles (matthew 18.18)

No but they would necessarily be remarks made by Peter himself.

why? The majority of the church fathers saw the rock as the statement of Jesus' Messiahship. That was meant for the whole church. The Apostles had these special gifts so as to establish the New Testament. Once that was done it was unnecessary.

Actually it is God's job to get men safely to Heaven. But what has Christianity to do with special claims made by arrogant men who make special claims for themselves? Jesus excluded people who sought the highest place and made spcial claims for themselves
No one has suggested that the meeting at Jerusalem was infallible. It made a sensible ad hoc decision that was soon overridden. Why should a group of self-seeking buffoons getting together give them infallibility? No one is infallible.

Well it may have escaped your notice but those commands are found in the New Testament. What need have we of anything else? So His parting statement was not nonsense.

what is nonsense is the idea that a bunch of pompous old men can get together in the 21 st century and decide what those commands were.

Yes all churches teach that and they all know where to look. The Scriptures. It is only the RC church which sticks its head in the sand and says, 'which Scriptures?'



LOL they are hardly 'early'.. And what right have they to declare anyone or anything infallible?

you call 250 years afterwards early? LOL I hope you never have to give me an early call. And Cyprian was not referring to Rome when he said those words. He was actually referring to Peter. He was simply saying all must gather around what Peter taught. that Jesus Christ was the Son of the living God and around the Apostolic doctrine.

Succession from all the Apostles? So he did not believe in a special successor of Peter? And what he was appealing to was those who had kept true to the faith of the Apostles as revealed in the New Testament. Once they began to slip from that he would have seen it as no longer applying. Notice that he saw their job as to 'expound the Scriptures'. He was sola scriptura.

No they simply claim that God helps them to understand just as you claimed He did the pope as with all other men

so you are one of those who do not understand 2 Peter 1.20?. There he was talking of those who proclaimed God's word as not doing it through private interpretation, for THEY WERE inspired by the Holy Spirit.

which it is.

Rubbish. No one I know claims to be infallible. and if they did I would laugh at them, just as I laugh at Papa.


The typical RC misunderstanding. They all mainly agree on the central teachings. And they all accept Bible authority. It is unimportant detail on which they differ, as in fact Roman Catholics do. The difference is that at least they THINK. They do not just follow the party line. So it becomes personal to them.

Not the main essential teachings. If you say they do you lie. They are not proof of the need for a spurious papal infallibility. They are simply proof of a need to let the Holy Spirit speak to them more clearly. Having dogma dictated to them would not help them at all. It would not enter their hearts. Most of us on here agree on the essential doctrines. It is on detail that we disagree, and as we go through life we will be constantly growing and learning. We gain by it, not lose by it.

True, that the claims of the Roman Catholic church are ABSURD.

Scripture teaches the opposite, there is no logic to it, and history makes a mockery of it.

What Scripture teaches, and what the early fathers confirmed, is that Scripture is the arbiter of what we should believe, and history demonstrates it quite clearly.

Sorry Pop's, but all we have here is nothing more than personal opinions of an angry old man, who hates the Catholic Church. And we all know about opinions now don't we Ol' Timer


Pax Christi


"from henceforth, all generations shall call me Blessed." --- Luke 1:48

 

[Jackson123]

Binding on the whole church means that to rightfully call yourself a Roman Catholic, you must agree with the ex cathedra dogmas, both of which concern Mary.

However, papal infallibility does not have only to do with ex cathedra proclamations. Infallibility also belongs to the body of bishops as a whole, when, in doctrinal unity with the pope, they solemnly teach a doctrine as true.

Vatican II explained the doctrine of infallibility as follows: "Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they can nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly. This is so, even when they are dispersed around the world, provided that while maintaining the bond of unity among themselves and with Peter’s successor, and while teaching authentically on a matter of faith or morals, they concur in a single viewpoint as the one which must be held conclusively. This authority is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church. Their definitions must then be adhered to with the submission of faith" (Lumen Gentium 25).

thank Magenta,

So I believe every official doctrine binding on the whole church.

That mean no salvation outside roman catholic is binding the whole church, and infallible

there is salvation outside roman catholic (Muslim is in the plan of salvation) is also binding the whole church and infallible. ????????

 

[just-me]

So for the record, Catholicism is heresy. That's what the admins of this site believe.

I totally agree. AMEN We must know the the truth about the doctrine that we are promoting, no matter what denomination we belong to.

Protestants follow many Catholic traditions that began during the 1st century
The thread mentioned here complements the truth of your thread.

 

[didymos]

I totally agree. AMEN We must know the the truth about the doctrine that we are promoting, no matter what denomination we belong to. Protestants follow many Catholic traditions that began during the 1st century
This thread complements the truth of your thread.

Nope, THIS thread was never set up judaize
(like your thread)

 

[just-me]

Nope, THIS thread was never set up judaize
(like your thread)

Mine wasn't either. I don't promote things that false accusers say I do. This thread was intended exposes the truth as does mine. Neither is for the purpose of promoting the the HRM that I know nothing about except from false accusers descriptions of them or that, whatever one might want to label it, or them. Whatever.

 

[didymos]

Mine wasn't either. I don't promote things that false accusers say I do. This thread was intended exposes the truth as does mine. Neither is for the purpose of promoting the the HRM that I know nothing about except from false accusers descriptions of them or that, whatever one might want to label it, or them. Whatever.

Many religious customs within the Christian churches are based on counsel of the “early post- apostolic writers” like Ignatius, Marcion, and Tertullian. The fact is that these men have shaped Christianity into what it is today. The most common theme from these founders of the Gentile church is that they severely opposed Jewish culture and law, as do most Christian pastors today. Most church founders appear to have been utterly unable to distinguish between Rabbinical Tradition and Torah observance as taught by Christ Jesus and the Apostles...

In a nutshell, protestantism is bad because it incorporates 'catholic' traditions,
so the only way to go is to return to the judaic roots.

Sounds like judaizing to me alright.

 

[just-me]

In a nutshell, protestantism is bad because it incorporates 'catholic' traditions,
so the only way to go is to return to the judaic roots.

Sounds like judaizing to me alright.

This is also defined in my thread. Catholics of the early church demanded Jews to be separated from the Gentile church which is contrary to true Biblical doctrine.

In his letter to the Smyrnaeans, Ignatius writes.........

They allow not that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which flesh suffered for our sins, and which the Father of His goodness raised up.

(Ignatius teaches that the Eucharist and “flesh” of Jesus is “holy,” and cannot distinguish between the tangible aspects of life, the soul, and the Holy Spirit. Therefore, he maintains his pagan ideology and simply projects it onto Messiah.)

Continuing, he writes...
Do ye all follow your bishop, as Jesus Christ followed the Father, and the presbytery as the Apostles; and to the deacons pay respect, as to God's commandment?
Let no man do aught of things pertaining to the church apart from the bishop.
Let that be held a valid Eucharist which is under the bishop or one to whom he shall have committed it. Wheresoever the bishop shall appear, there let the people be; even as where Jesus may be, there is a universal church.

(Ignatius is credited for being the first person to mention the “Catholic Church” but notice also how he twists “God's commandment” to elevate the authority of his hierarchy.

Continuing, he writes....
It is not lawful apart from the bishop either to baptize or hold a love feast; but whatsoever he shall approve, this is well-pleasing also to God.

Ignatius is one of the biggest heroes of Christo-Paganism because he installed variation of the hierarchy of man. His followers wear labels such as Pope and Reverend which is high-handed blasphemy as these titles are exclusive to God the Father and Jesus Christ. Every religion has one form of Priesthood or another but, of course, those who are called of Messiah are given their authority through Messiah, and certainly not according to man's hierarchy.

"For thou shalt worship no other god: for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God:" Exodus 34:14

"Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." Acts 4:12

 

[just-me]

In a nutshell, protestantism is bad because it incorporates 'catholic' traditions,
so the only way to go is to return to the judaic roots.

Sounds like judaizing to me alright.

For the record, the word Jew is used by me only 3 times in 8 pages of my posts. "Jewish" is also mentioned but only 7 times in 8 pages by yours truly. If Jesus was a Jew (which He was), then how can a person avoid mentioning that term?

It is true that many Catholic traditions that are man made have dribbled over into the Protestant sect. History proves that point, and if we (as protestants) have protested against the Catholics, we should see what we are still observing that is false that came from them. That was the purpose of my thread.

 

[didymos]

...It is true that many Catholic traditions that are man made have dribbled over into the Protestant sect...

So we're a sect now?

You just showed your TRUE face... I've heard enough.

 

[just-me]

So we're a sect now?

You just showed your TRUE face... I've heard enough.

Your false accusations prove to me an agenda you want to promote. I resubmit this post so that all who read will know the truth about your assumptions.
post # 8090

 

[mwc68]

To the Catholics Mary is greater than Jesus. This is why they see nothing wrong with worshiping Mary. To the Catholics its all about Mary.

Many Catholic Churchs have pictures of Mary 40 feet high by 20 feet width!

The pictures of Jesus are only about 2 feet high.

So who do you think the Catholics put the highest, Jesus or Mary?

I have yet to see a 40 foot picture of Jesus in a Catholic Church!

Now you are just lying. Sad

 

[mwc68]

To the Catholics Mary is greater than Jesus. This is why they see nothing wrong with worshiping Mary. To the Catholics its all about Mary.

Many Catholic Churchs have pictures of Mary 40 feet high by 20 feet width!

The pictures of Jesus are only about 2 feet high.

So who do you think the Catholics put the highest, Jesus or Mary?

I have yet to see a 40 foot picture of Jesus in a Catholic Church!

This whole statement is a lie from beginning to end. God says not to lie. You are obviously just a troll trying to upset me and definitely not stating any truth whatsoever about the Catholic Church. I guess you think you are saved now and can just lie all you want. One of the saddest notions you OSAS people have! A license to sin! Tell me I'm wrong and all I have to do is point to your posts where you continually lie about me and the Church. Guess what? Lying is still a sin last time I checked. Or maybe your OSAS background has really made you think you have a license to sin, and there is no consequence for your actions. No wonder you have that "Holier than thou" attitude. I hope you don't think your holier than God by flat out lying about one of his children on a daily basis

 

[mwc68]

To the Catholics Mary is greater than Jesus. This is why they see nothing wrong with worshiping Mary. To the Catholics its all about Mary.

Many Catholic Churchs have pictures of Mary 40 feet high by 20 feet width!

The pictures of Jesus are only about 2 feet high.

So who do you think the Catholics put the highest, Jesus or Mary?

I have yet to see a 40 foot picture of Jesus in a Catholic Church!

Its obvious from this post:

1) You have no respect for God

2) You have no respect for God's Commandments

3) You have no respect for the people who serve God

Dude, this kind of anger and rebellion against God is not healthy, spiritually or physically

 

[mwc68]

To the Catholics Mary is greater than Jesus. This is why they see nothing wrong with worshiping Mary. To the Catholics its all about Mary.

Many Catholic Churchs have pictures of Mary 40 feet high by 20 feet width!

The pictures of Jesus are only about 2 feet high.

So who do you think the Catholics put the highest, Jesus or Mary?

I have yet to see a 40 foot picture of Jesus in a Catholic Church!

I guess what I'm trying to say is "Liar, Liar pants on fire!"

 

[kenthomas27]

This whole statement is a lie from beginning to end. God says not to lie. You are obviously just a troll trying to upset me and definitely not stating any truth whatsoever about the Catholic Church. I guess you think you are saved now and can just lie all you want. One of the saddest notions you OSAS people have! A license to sin! Tell me I'm wrong and all I have to do is point to your posts where you continually lie about me and the Church. Guess what? Lying is still a sin last time I checked. Or maybe your OSAS background has really made you think you have a license to sin, and there is no consequence for your actions. No wonder you have that "Holier than thou" attitude. I hope you don't think your holier than God by flat out lying about one of his children on a daily basis

It's all good MWC. Look at it the way I do - when somebody says there's nothing but white trash over there at the trailer park (even when I lived there) I always assumed they were talking about somebody else. Couldn't have been me!

Catholics are taught that Mary is Holy and I often wonder why Protestants kind of dismiss Mary considering her very DNA is part of the body that sits on the right hand of God Almighty. I mean if Christians believe in Christ's ascension into heaven in body - i.e., flesh and bone and not the life blood left on the ground at Calvary, then you must find holy and important the very woman who gave herself to God in conception, was there at His birth, there at His adolescence, loved Him and followed Him His whole life and in His Ministry, loving and supporting Him as only His mother could, and there at His death with His blood in her hands while ALL our beloved disciple Saints were mysteriously absent. So, let's arbitrarily condemn those of us who think her important and holy while we busily measure the size of pictures.

 

[fordman]

Again i ask, why are you Catholics so obsessed with worshiping Mary? Why do you spend more time with Mary?

And once again I wouldn't call it being obsessed, but giving honor. We honor not just The Blessed Virgin Mary, but all the saints, not for who they are, but for who God made them to be. We honor in them the completed work of grace. We honor in them their faithful obedience, which itself is a gift from God. The Blessed Virgin says, "the Almighty has done great things for me!" We honor Mary and the saints because we are struck with delight and awe at the wonderful things God has done for them. As the moon reflects the sun, so the Virgin and saints reflect the light of Christ. Without him they are nothing. With him they have become divinized–sons and daughters of the Almighty Father.

I have been to a Catholic Church! I find most of what they do to be evil.

But did you attend the Mass? Now you say most if what the Catholic Church does is evil. Well, if that were the case, she is doing a pretty poor job at it. Did you know the Catholic Church is the leader of charity among all Christian organizations worldwide? Pretty evil.. huh? Did you know the Catholic Church pretty much stands alone among all Christian organizations in the fight against abortion? Pretty evil...Huh? When was the last time you stood outside an abortion clinic with us Catholics in peaceful, prayerful protest against the murder of the most innocent? Or is that to evil for you as well? And lastly maybe you'd like to tell all the children and parents of all denominations at St. Judes Catholic Hospital, how evil it is for them not taking payment for the treatment of their child. That's pretty evil....Huh?
Ubi caritas et amour, Ubi caritas, Deus ibi est. (Where there are charity and love,God is there.) Do you get my drift? Sheesh!

Pictures, statues, candles, all to worship Mary!

Icons, statues and candles....Yes! To worship Mary? No!
If you really beleive that Catholics worship Mary, I would challenge you to go back to this church, and ask every Parishioner, Nun, or Priest, leaving or entering, if they are there for the purpose of worshiping The Blessed Virgin Mary. To find the truth, go to the source. I guarantee, if you do, you will walk away with a whole differnt way of thinking.
Don't take the word from the likes of valiant, Jackson123,or kenallen that have an anti-Catholic agenda, and despise the Catholic Church and her teachings. Go find out for yourself! If going to this church you speak if is not possible, go to the nearist Catholic Church, and do the same.

Every picture i saw of Mary was 20 times BIGGER than pictures of Jesus!!!!!!
In fact the very first thing you see when entering a Catholic Church is a picture of Mary 40 feet high!!!!!

Really? If thats the case, would you mind giving me the City/State, and name of this Catholic Church/Parish you speak of? Most Catholic Churches have web-sites that depict the inside of their church, and I'm sure this church is no differnt. Now if what you say is to be true, I see no reason why you wouldn't.

Talk about being obsessed with Mary!!!!

Let's talk after you get back from talking with the folks at the church. I bet you'll have a whole differnt perspective.
　
Pax Christi
　
"From henceforth, all generations shall call me Blessed." ---Luke 1:48.

 

[flob]

are you a dear saint, fordman?