Rebutting Anti-Catholic objections to Marian Doctrine

Humble Virgin

Anti-Catholic said:
There are serious problems with Mary being an ever-virgin. Here is why:1) No mention of it in the Scripture. None of the authors of Scripture claim she was a perpetual virgin. 

True. But that causes problems for you, not for us.

1. Your claim proves too much since none of the authors of Scripture claim that Jesus was a perpetual virgin either. Since it is not denied in Scripture, does that mean it is affirmed that Jesus is not a perpetual virgin?

2. I assume that you believe in Scripture alone. And since Scripture does not say that Mary was not a perpetual virgin, you must be relying upon a non-biblcial source to claim that she was not.

2) The passage in Luke 1:48 in which Mary says she is a virgin does not mean she took a vow of perpetual virginity. It is only that she is a virgin up to this point in time.

If it is read without the benefit of the Traditions and Doctrines of Jesus Christ which underly the whole of the New Testament. If, however, you understand the Traditions and Doctrines of Jesus Christ which are the basis of the New Testament, then you will realize that it is impossible that Mary not be a perpetual virgin.

Anti-Catholic said:3) The idea that a person who is about to be married is taking or has taken a vow of perpetual virginity is unheard of Biblically. There is no indication from the OT or NT that it would be acceptable to be married and yet chose to be a perpetual virgin. Married Jewish couples were to be fruitful and multiply. This is OT teaching. 

And yet St. Paul teaches:
1 Corinthians 7:29
King James Version (KJV)
29 But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none;

Could it be that St. Joseph was aware of this teaching?

4) When brothers and sisters are used in connection with father or mother then it does not mean cousins but actual blood brothers and sisters. See Matthew 13:55-56, Mark 3:31-32; Mark 6:3; John 2:12; Galatians 1:19

a. Not so. The Bible was not written for teachers of grammar but for the common people. And common usage is evident throughout.

b. Even today, in certain societies, cousins are referred to as brothers.

c. In the New Testament, the brethren of Jesus Christ are identified multiple times as His Apostles.

d. If we study the Scriptures, we find that 3 of the 4 brethren identified in Matt 13:55-56 are indeed, Apostles. Let me show you:

Matthew 13:55-56
King James Version (KJV)
55 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

So, who are these brethren? First let us correlate the lists of the Apostles in the various Gospels:
Matthew 10:1-4
King James Version (KJV)
1 And when he had called unto him his twelve disciples, he gave them power against unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease. 2 Now the names of the twelve apostles are these; The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother; 3 Philip, and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the publican; James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus; 4 Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him.

Mark 3:
16 And Simon he surnamed Peter; 17 And James the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James; and he surnamed them Boanerges, which is, The sons of thunder: 18 And Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus, and Simon the Canaanite, 19 And Judas Iscariot, which also betrayed him: and they went into an house.

Luke 6:13-16
King James Version (KJV)
13 And when it was day, he called unto him his disciples: and of them he chose twelve, whom also he named apostles; 14 Simon, (whom he also named Peter,) and Andrew his brother, James and John, Philip and Bartholomew, 15 Matthew and Thomas, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon called Zelotes, 16 And Judas the brother of James, and Judas Iscariot, which also was the traitor.

St. John does not provide a list. Here we go:

They all begin with Simon Peter, showing his primacy.
They all mention Andrew, his brother, although not in the same order.
They all mention James, the son of Zebedee.
They all mention John, the brother of James.
They all mention Philip.
They all mention Bartholomew.
They all mention Thomas.
They all mention Matthew.

Now, pay close attention to the next three:

ONE: They all mention James the son of Alphaeus. Some call him James the less.

TWO: Matthew's Labbaeus Thaddeus is Mark's Thaddeus which corresponds to Luke's Judas the brother of James. Did you catch that? Judas the brother of James. Keep that in mind.

THREE: Next, Matt's and Mark's Simon the Canaanite corresponds to Luke's Simon Zelotes.

We can disregard the final Apostle, the traitor Iscariot.

What were the names of those brethren again? James, Joses, Simon and Judas. Is it a coincidence then that James, Judas the brother of James and Simon are always listed together in the lists of Apostles?

There is no question in my mind, that these three Apostles are the brethren mentioned in Matt 13:55-56. But lets go to the next point.


Furthermore:
e. If we study further, we will also see that these same 3 brethren are identified as the children of the other Mary. There is another Mary who is the "sister" of the Virgin Mary. Let us correlate some Scriptures:

John 19:25
Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.

This Mary is always mentioned along with Mary Magdalene.

Matthew 28:1
In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.

Note that she is the mother of James:
Luke 24:10
It was Mary Magdalene and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and other women that were with them, which told these things unto the apostles.

I'm assuming that Joanna is Salome, who is also frequently mentioned with Mary Magdalene and the other Mary:
Mark 15:40
There were also women looking on afar off: among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome;

Now, this Mary is the mother of James the less and of Joses. Therefore she is also the mother of Judas the brother of James and of Simon:

Matthew 13:55
King James Version (KJV)
55 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

We know from Tradition that the Virgin Mary is an only child. Therefore her "sister", the OTHER Mary, is her "cousin."

The children of this other Mary, James, Joses, Simon, Judas and Salome are kindred of Jesus. But not brothers of the womb.

Perhaps of further interest is this. One of the early Church Fathers reveals that Alphaeus (aka Cleophas) is St. Joseph's brother. Now, the Jews were expected to marry their cousins. Remember how Abraham sent his servant to his brother to find a wife for Isaac?

This leads to another interesting situation. James the greater and John, the sons of Zebedee are related to Jesus Christ from both sides of His earthly family. Salome, the other Mary's daughter is the wife of Alphaeus, St. Joseph's brother. She is the mother of Zebedee's children, James and John.

5) In the previous passages noted the best way to understand these relationships “brothers-sisters” is that these are siblings of Jesus by blood. 

They are kin, but not siblings.

6) There is no hint in Scripture that Joseph was previously married and had children. 

There is no hint in Scripture that Mary ever committed sin nor that she had other children. Yet, you believe these things.

7) Paul refers to James as the “brother of the Lord” in Galatians 1:19. 

Meaning "cousin" or "kin". But not "brother of womb."

This same James is the brother of Jude. But Jude introduces himself as:
Jude 1:1
Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called:

NOT the "brother of Jesus Christ and James.

8) There are Greek words for cousin—anepsios as in Colossians 4:10 or kinsman = sungenis which is used in Luke 1:36. The bible never uses these two Greek words anepsiosor sungenisin reference to Jesus brothers.

But we can prove from the Scriptures that those whom you claim are His blood brothers are actually His cousins.

9) Psalm 69 which is a messianic Psalm clearly shows that Jesus has brothers. Verse 8—“ I have become estranged from my brothersAnd an alien to my mother’s sons.”

Ahhhh, how you twist the Scriptures to your convenience. That is a reference to the Nation of Israel. My mother's sons are my fellow Israelites. The mother being Israel:
Deuteronomy 17:15
Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the LORD thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother.

10) Other references to Jesus’ brothers by Mary included: John 2:12, 

That is a reference to the Apostles.

John 7:3; 

You didn't read John 6?

The disciples had just abandoned Jesus:
John 6:66

The only ones left were the Twelve, His brethren. And they were concerned both for His safety and for the fact that the Church had literally been disbanded before it began. Therefore they suggested.

John 7:3
King James Version (KJV)
3 His brethren therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into Judaea, that thy disciples also may see the works that thou doest.

Acts 1:14

That is a reference to His Apostles or to His Kin or to both. But again, it is proven from Scripture that those whom you claim are Mary's children are the children of another woman also named Mary.

11) Protestant scholar D. A. Carson points out, if "brothers" refers to Joseph's sons by an earlier marriage, not Jesus but Joseph's firstborn would have been legal heir to David's throne. The second theory — that "brothers" refers to sons of a sister of Mary also name "Mary" — faces the unlikelihood of two sisters having the same name.

A. That's funny. Because it is not uncommon in many households, even today, for EVERY woman to be named Mary.

B. The word "sister" is also a reference to "cousins". We know by Tradition that Mary was an only child.

All things considered, the attempts to extend the meaning of "brothers" in this pericope, despite McHugh's best efforts, are nothing less that farfetched exegesis in support of a dogma that originated much later than the NT... — D. A. Carson, Matthew in The Expositor's Bible Commentary, volume 8 (Zondervan, 1984).

Its a shame that the best Bible Scholars that Protestantism can produce have not bothered to do some actual research in the Bible. If they had, they would have found that the other Mary is the mother of the four individuals whom they claim are the "brothers" of Christ.

It is, indeed, pitiful.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Is it in the Spirit of the Mass to hold hands during the Our Father?

I think so. It’s been over thirty years since I’ve been back to the Catholic Church and the People of God (that’s us) have been holding hands, during the recitation of the Our Father, for all that time. 
Read More...

Two simple rules for the Mass

Recently, there’s been a lot of commotion on the internet claiming that praying in the orans position or holding hands during the Our Father, is wrong. But, I’ve been back to the Church for 33 years and those customs were well established when I came back. 

Read More...

Refuting more anti-Catholic objections

Anti-Catholic said:  

Whenever idolatrous devotees to Mary are identified (such as the hoards in Mexico, Caribbean, Philippines, etc.) Catholics claim that excessive devotion showed by such pagan so-called "Catholics" arises because these simple people were "not well catechised." 

Catholic replied: 

I’ve heard countless times about how Catholics in the places you mentioned are idolaters, but I’m skeptical. This skepticism is borne out of the near-continual “Catholics worship idols” slander that I’ve heard from anti-Catholic Protestants, including yourself.   Since I know you’re lying about the Catholics you do know, why should I trust you to give me accurate information about Catholics you’ve never even met?  And why should I trust you to give me accurate information on Mexican and Filipino Catholics, when you’re openly racist? 

Anti-Catholic replied:

The same news-media that slanders "racists" promotes abortion and homosexuality and atheism ... I happen to believe in both Genesis 10 and Acts 7, and see no contradiction between them both. (i.e., God loves and saves all races by Jesus Christ, yet God wants races to reside in their own distinct separate nations. I am an equal-opportunity critic of all - let everyone acknowledge we are all worms before God.) 

Nevertheless, the excessive Marian devotion of third-world Catholics either proves that the "infallible teaching church" is failing to properly teach - or else calls into question the Church's sincerity in its "veneration versus worship" argument. 

Ironically "uncatechized" tribes of early European barbarians had more sense - they received Christ but wouldn't call Mary "mother of God" and got slandered as "Arians" when they were not. Profession of the Trinity is no virtue to those who use it to shoe-horn Mary into the Godhead (as God's mother no less!). 

Marian fanatics won't rest until some Pope announces her apotheosis. The "pillar and ground of the truth" placates any noisy group - today they kiss the Koran, tomorrow they deify Mary. I invite you to be a Bible Christian. Or perhaps you like where you are at while ignoring inconvenient facts. 

If I'm wrong, God have mercy on me - my ambition was to be consistent and Bible believing.

My response to Anti-Catholic:

The same news-media that slanders "racists" promotes abortion and homosexuality and atheism ...

Rather than deny that you are a racist, you justify your belittlement of people whom you don't know simply on the basis of their genetic heritage?  Strange.  Have you not read in Scripture:

Colossians 3:11
Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all.

I happen to believe in both Genesis 10 and Acts 7, and see no contradiction between them both.

There is no contradiction between them.

(i.e., God loves and saves all races by Jesus Christ, yet God wants races to reside in their own distinct separate nations.

I wonder why God did not punish Moses for having a wife of another race?  Nor does Scripture say anything about God rejecting the Egyptians which left Egypt and joined with the Hebrews.  In fact, God only seems to be angered by the sinful actions of the other nations.  Especially by their idolatry.

I am an equal-opportunity critic of all - let everyone acknowledge we are all worms before God.) 

 That is a Catholic Teaching.  And all the more reason why we are united in one body under God.  The Church, the Body of Christ.

Nevertheless, the excessive Marian devotion of third-world Catholics either proves that the "infallible teaching church" is failing to properly teach - or else calls into question the Church's sincerity in its "veneration versus worship" argument.  

1.   You are not an authority of Catholic doctrine or worship and in no way qualified to judge what is excessive Marian devotion.
2.  The Catholic Church is quite clear in its distinction between veneration and worship.  The only ones confused on the issue are anti-Catholics who pretend not to understand the teaching for their own reasons.
3.  The errors of Catholics do not invalidate the infallibility of any Church Teaching.
4.   Your idea that any disciple's failure to understand a teaching somehow brings into question the sincerity of the Teacher indicts not only the Catholic Church, but every Christian teacher through the ages up to and including Jesus Christ.  You even indict yourself since you are here teaching your version of Christianity and I know that I don't understand how you come up with more than half of your ideas.

Ironically "uncatechized" tribes of early European barbarians had more sense - they received Christ but wouldn't call Mary "mother of God" and got slandered as "Arians" when they were not. Profession of the Trinity is no virtue to those who use it to shoe-horn Mary into the Godhead (as God's mother no less!).

Thanks for providing this.  It gives me an opportunity to compare your beliefs to Scripture and Catholic doctrine to Scripture.

Obviously, you explicitly deny that Mary is the Mother of God.  So, what does Scripture say with regard to that question?

Luke 1:43-45
King James Version (KJV)
43 And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?
44 For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy.
45 And blessed is she that believed: for there shall be a performance of those things which were told her from the Lord.

Lets break this down:
1.  The word "Lord" is here mentioned two times.
2.  In the second instance, it is an obvious reference to God.  "Blessed is she who believes that the LORD would fulfill His promises."  That is an obvious reference to God.
3.  Therefore, then, what could she possibly have meant when  she said, "mother of my LORD"?
4.  Since she was inspired by the Holy Spirit to utter these words, she must have meant what is most obvious.  Is Jesus, God?  Yes.  Therefore, the words she uttered could also be translated, "mother of my GOD".

So, God explicitly teaches us, in His Word, that Mary is the Mother of God.  This is what you deny and therefore you deny the outright teaching of the Word of God in Scripture.

Marian fanatics won't rest until some Pope announces her apotheosis.

 Apotheosis?  I'm not sure if that is a synonym of Theosis, which is Catholic Teaching regarding us all. All who die in Christ will share in the divine nature:

2 Peter 1:4
Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

The "pillar and ground of the truth" placates any noisy group -

Your mistaken.  If that were so, the Protestants would have been placated long ago as they are the noisiest group ever.

today they kiss the Koran,

Show me where Scripture says it is a sin to kiss a book?  If it isn't a sin, then what is your objection?

tomorrow they deify Mary.

 We honor Mary in obedience to the instructions of Scripture.

Luke 1:48
For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden: for, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.

I invite you to be a Bible Christian.

 Catholics are already Bible Christians.  I invite you to be a true Bible Christian and leave behind the errors of the Protestants.

Or perhaps you like where you are at while ignoring inconvenient facts.  

I love the Church which Christ established for my salvation.  It is you who are ignoring the plain teaching of the Word of God.

If I'm wrong, God have mercy on me - my ambition was to be consistent and Bible believing. 

You are wrong.  If you do not repent, may God have mercy on your soul:

James 3:1
My brethren, be not many masters, knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation.

But God has sent you to this blogsite in order that you may learn the Wisdom of His Word through the Teaching of His Church:

Ephesians 3:10
King James Version (KJV)
10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,

Sincerely,

De Maria

Fielding more anti-Catholic objections

Queen of Heaven

Anti-Catholic said: 

Good thing I'm not in that religious cult where free thinking is prohibited. It's based in Rome, heard of it?  

Again, I thank you for providing this statement.  It makes it very simple to compare your teachings to Scripture and Catholic Doctrine to Scripture.

So, is so called "free thinking" approved of in Scripture?  Let us see what Scripture says:

Proverbs 3:5
Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.

Not in that verse.  No.


Hebrews 13:17
King James Version (KJV)
17 Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.

Not in that verse, either.


1 Timothy 4:16
Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.

Nor in that verse.


Romans 6:17
But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.


Matthew 18:17
King James Version (KJV)
17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.


Not there either.  Can you provide any verse which supports or promotes "free thinking"?

Please ignore everything I say -

I'm doing my best.

but you can't ignore the Bible.

We know.  We follow the Teaching of Scripture diligently.  It is the Teaching of the Church.  The Church wrote the New Testament and canonized the Old and then bound them together in one Holy Book.

Is that arrogance? You'd only think so if you mistook what I said for what the Bible said. If you make that mistake, shame on you, not me. 

Its not we who mistake what you say for what the Bible actually says.  It is you confounding the two.

The Bible says sorcery and enchantment really exist (eg, Ex 7:11, Acts 8:9, Isaiah 47:12, Prov 6:13) -

That is Catholic Teaching.  That is why we have Exorcists.

whether Jack Van Impe ("imp" means a devil) uses it is pure speculation.

I have no idea who this guy is nor what you guys are talking about.  Carry on.  No comment on my part.

Also, the Bible has a rapture (Rev 14:14-16; Matthew 25:1) and a rapture (2 Thess 2:6-7; 1 Cor 15:52)- if you can reconcile them some other way than one post-trib and other pre-trib, then go ahead.

Only the Father knows.  I'll leave it to Him to reveal it in His good time.

And if you can explain the mystery of James the son of Alphaeus who is Christ's brother - without changing the text - then go ahead.

Easily.  The word "adelphos" is used to mean "close or intimate friend" as in the following:

Mat 23:8 But 1161 be 2564 0 not 3361 ye 5210 called 2564 Rabbi 4461: for 1063 one 1520 is 2076 your 5216 Master 2519, [even] Christ 5547; and 1161 all 3956 ye 5210 are 2075 brethren 80.

All of the Apostles are brethren according to Christ.

Strong's G80 - adelphos
ἀδελφός
Transliteration
adelphos

The word used there is adelphos. 

Jhn 20:17 Jesus 2424 saith 3004 unto her 846, Touch 680 me 3450 not 3361; for 1063 I am 305 0 not yet 3768 ascended 305 to 4314 my 3450 Father 3962: but 1161 go 4198 to 4314 my 3450 brethren 80, and 2532 say 2036 unto them 846, I ascend 305 unto 4314 my 3450 Father 3962, and 2532 your 5216 Father 3962; and 2532 [to] my 3450 God 2316, and 2532 your 5216 God 2316.

This disproves the Protestant teaching that adelphos must always be a "brother of the womb".

Ignore me every time -

Still doing my best.

but the Bible says what it says. 

Yeah.  And the Bible continually supports Catholic doctrine because it is based upon Catholic Teaching.

Why do you concern yourself so much with Mary while avoiding a Bible-based study of her?

Hm?  It is you who concern yourself with denying the Bible based doctrines concerning the Mother of Our Lord.

Isn't that rather ridiculous?  

Your position is, yes.

We can thank Reformers for any Bible doctrine that stamps out men's traditions -

No.  It is precisely the opposite.  The Reformers confounded the teaching of Scripture and have led many people astray, including you.

including the reformers' traditions.

Any of their traditions which contradict the Teaching of the Catholic Church  also contradict Scripture.

Traditions are fine unless the Bible says otherwise.

Exactly!  Let me give you a clear example.  Protestants say "justified by faith alone."  Scripture says:

James 2:24
Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

Why should snake handling cults shock people more than Roman Catholics whipping themselves or crucifying themselves??  

Why should Catholics whipping themselves or crucifying themselves shock people more than snake handling Christians?

Galatians 2:20
I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

1 Corinthians 9:27
King James Version (KJV)
27 But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.

1 Pet 4:1
King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin;

Let the Pope sit in this special little seat and acknowledge the supremacy of the King James Bible over everything - then we will have something worthwhile to unify around.  

The King James Bible is a translation based in part upon St. Jerome's Latin Vulgate.  It is St. Jerome's Latin Vulgate which is the best translation of the originals that ever existed.

That sordid bigot Leo X attacked Martin Luther and cut his church off from the work of God - which continued elsewhere.

It is the other way around.  Martin Luther cut himself off from the work of God when he revolted against the Church.

Romanism went on to enacted the ludicrous "anathemas" in the Council of Trent - cutting itself off completely from Bible Christianity.

Still more error on your part.  The Catholic Church did precisely what She was supposed to do when She condemned the heinous errors of the Protestants.

Luther wrote to the German princes that in view of Rome's manifest failure to lead the flock of God, it was necessary that fellow Christians - who are all priests - appoint their own bishops. He was exactly right - 2 Tim 2:2. 

He was wrong.  He innovated and changed the Word of God.  Thereby disobeying the verse you have provided in support of his heinous behavior:
2 Timothy 2:2
King James Version (KJV)
2 And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.

This is the support for Apostolic Succession.  He flagrantly also violated this Scripture:
Hebrews 13:17
King James Version (KJV)
17 Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.

Of course, "pillar and ground of the truth" (1 Tim 3:15) isn't a sarcastic title when applied to saved believers under Christ's head - but it is when applied to Romanism under the pope's head.

On the contrary, it is a perfect description of the Catholic Church.  The term "saved believers" when applied to Protestants is irony in its purest form.  It is they who deny the Fountains of God's grace which are the Sacraments.  The only vessels by which they can be saved in this life.

In that very chapter, 1 Timothy 3, Paul says Bishops should be married.

And in another verse he says that in order to better serve the Lord a man should remain unmarried:
1 Corinthians 7:32
But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord:

Which verse carries the greater force in your opinion?

So please forgive me if I involuntarily snicker when somebody calls Rome the "pillar and ground of the truth." 

It is God whose forgiveness you should seek for belittling the Church which His Son sacrificed Himself to build:
Ephesians 5:
24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.  25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

You aren't aware of the "co-redemptrix" lobby? Once they get their way you will then have ample opportunity to "explain" how this didn't deify Mary, like you explain so many other "consistencies" from 313 AD until the present.  

Mary is co-redemptrix.  It is a simple title which acknowledges that we are all fellow laborers with God and she chief among us because she brought Christ into the world:
1 Corinthians 3:9
For we are labourers together with God: ye are God's husbandry, ye are God's building.

Remember your loyalty must be first and foremost to holy scripture.

First and foremost to God and His Word which is taught us in Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture by the One, Holy, Apostolic and Catholic Church.

If you think God doesn't allow his people to be tested by a corrupt religious leadership run by the devil, then you need to re-read the lessons taught in the Old Testament. 

I believe it.  It is you being tested by the corrupt leadership which you follow and which has mainlined the sins of adultery (Matthew 5:32), abortion (abortifacent contraception), homosexuality (permits homosexual ministers and has written homosexual versions of Scripture), etc. etc.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Fielding an onslaught of anti-Catholic objections

And many other such traditions, they held.

Anti-Catholic says: 

Eating blood is forbidden as a universal concept - before the law (Gen9:4) under the law (Lev 17:14) and in the NEW TESTAMENT:
"...abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood." Acts 15:20"...abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood..."Acts 15:29

Read in context, those two prohibitions have to do with the eating of anything which was killed and offered in a pagan ritual. It is written in the typically redundant manner of a Hebrew. Abstaining from the pollution of idols includes the abstaining from fornication which frequently accompanied the pagan rituals and from eating strangled and dismembered in the same rituals.

The people making these prohibitions are the same ones who eat the bread which is the body of Christ and drink the wine which is the blood of Christ: 1 Corinthians 10:16

You blaspheme Jesus Christ - he NEVER violated the law, in spirit or letter. 1 Pt 2:22; Hebrews 7:26; John 8:45.

Apparently, the Jews thought that He did. That is why they judged Him guilty of sacrilege and had Him killed. Let us see what the Scripture says on that matter:

Deuteronomy 13:1-6
1 If there arise among you a prophet,.... Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them; ....5 And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; ....

The Jews did not believe that Jesus was God. Therefore they said to Him:
Matthew 26:65 Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy.

Washing hands before you eat is not a law, nor taking grain by hand on the sabbath. 

Taking grain by hand on the Sabbath was against the Mosaic law as is clearly evidence in the attempted gathering of the manna on the Sabbath: Ex 16:26-30

Hung on a tree was not prohibited - the body was simply to be taken down and buried that day: Dt 21:23 (see, John 19:31 ff). 

You've missed the point.

Deuteronomy 21:23...(for he that is hanged is accursed of God;) 

Anyone who is hanged is accursed of God. Therefore, according to a literal interpretation of the Scriptures, such as a Protestant would make, Jesus is accursed of God.

Unsaved Romanists

With the Apostle I say God is my Judge: 1 Cor 4:2-4

Whether I am saved or not is for God to judge. Not you. And you, no matter how often you call yourself saved, will also stand before the judgement seat: Rom 14:10

You think you can save yourself by claiming salvation, but you are simply usurping God's right to judge all mankind. You can have your judgement. I will await God's.

read John 6 and think of a priest mumbling over a cup of red alcohol. A saved man reads John 6 and sees Christ's blood shed on the cross at Calvary. 

That is where you are wrong. A Catholic reads John 6 and understands how Christ said He would save us with His Blood. Whereas it is still a mystery how Protestants claim to be washed in the Blood of Christ when they don't believe that Christ gives them that Blood in the Eucharist.

Apparently, they go out and slaughter Christ again in order to so bathe.

Eternal life is obtained spiritually by believing in Christ,

Believing in Christ does not mean denying His words.

not by physically eating and drinking: "It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life." John 6:63.

Scripture is spiritually discerned: 1 Cor 2:14

Have you not heard of the THE flesh?

Romans 7:25...but with the flesh the law of sin.

But does Christ say to eat THE flesh or HIS flesh?

John 6:54
Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

There's a big difference between HIS flesh and THE flesh:
Hebrews 4:15
For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

"He that believeth on me hath everlasting life." John 6:47. "For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink" Rom 14:17. 

But in order to enter the Kingdom of God you had better eat of the Flesh of the Son of man and drink His Blood:

53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.

Christ died once and sat down at God's right hand: "after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool." Heb 10:12-13. 

Amen! But did you forget that He remains the Lamb slain in eternity?
Revelation 5:6
And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth.

So Jesus doesn't leave God's right hand until the second advent (Rev. 19:11).

1. It says He sat down. It doesn't say He never stands back up again. Nor does it say that He doesn't come back again and frequently.

2. However, everything is possible for God, therefore, He can be in millions of places at the same time.

Deny it. Go ahead, deny that God can be in many places at once.

Since Christ's sacrifice is finished ("he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost." John 19:30). 

Again, you say this because you don't understand the Scriptures. He said that His portion of the sacrifice was finished. We still have our part.

1. Christ is our Passover:
1 Corinthians 5:7

2. The Passover must be eaten:
Exodus 12:8-12

So what is the significance of the Roman Catholic's eucharistic sacrifice:"the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils." 1 Cor 10:20.

That describes pagan sacrifice. We offer the pure oblation which God commands: Malachi 1:11

"...seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame." Heb 6:6. 

This is a reference to those who have received all the Sacraments of God and then turned away from Christ. Note that they crucify Him again. Because He died for their sins and then they embrace those same sins again.

You don't take Christ literally anyhow - you say he was making a metaphor that his blood just stands for wafers and "unbloody" wine slurped by Roman Catholic priests. 

I have no idea what you're talking about. We believe Christ. We believe everything He says. It is only by faith that one can receive these spiritual truths.

The literal meaning is that Christ literally poured out his blood on the cross for the sins of mankind. That is the literal meaning. And it wasn't painless little ceremony at high noon on a lace covered table. It entailed monumental shame and agony and was endured by Christ just once, and it now over and done with:"for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God." Heb 12:2. 

Yes, it was painful and a tremendous sacrifice. And Christ commanded that you do this painless little ceremony in remembrance of His painful sacrifice. But you reject and disobey His Command. Here is what the Word of God says about those who refuse to remember Christ's sacrifice:
Hebrews 10:25-31
King James Version (KJV)
25 Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching. 26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, 27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. 28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: 29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people. 31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

But Catholics say, "you didn't die quite enough, more shame, more agony please. Don't sit down in heaven, come down to our altars and suffer again. We will shame again as a perpetual victim. We want to sacrifice you anew and drink your blood." What a blasphemous mockery! 

It is Protestants who blaspheme and make a mockery out of Christ's sacrifice by refusing to remember what He did for us. Yes, its a painless little ritual which takes less than an hour. BUT YOU REFUSE TO DO IT IN REMEMBRANCE OF CHRIST as He commanded. Remember the Scripture:
Hebrews 5:9
And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;

Therefore obey.

Shame on you cannibalistic, bible-rejecting, vampires

Shame on you bible rejecting murderers who sacrifice Christ again and tread upon the sacrifice which He shed His blood for you. It is you who reject the Word of God in Scripture and Tradition. It is you.

You mock what Jesus Christ really did in 33 AD to elevate the importance and idolatry of your own weekly ceremony in sacrifice to devils. 

No, we remember His Sacrifice. Whereas, you belittle it and tread upon it.

"Their sorrows shall be multiplied that hasten after another god: their drink offerings of blood will I not offer, nor take up their names into my lips." Ps. 16:4.

This is speaking of the Old Testament. Whereas in the New, Jesus says:
1 Corinthians 11:23-25
King James Version (KJV)
23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: 24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. 25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.

And you refuse.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Baptism does now save you

Quote:

Well of course, you have to obey God. If you believe in God, you will do what he says. Protestants practice baptism. We obey Jesus because we go throughout the world baptizing those who believe.

The original poster is saying that by simply believing that baptism is a symbol, we are denying the power of God and are blaspheming Him. So, because Protestants obey God by being baptized but we don't share the particular theological fine print of Catholics, we are damned. Really?

It is in Scripture. Do you believe the Word of God or not?

Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Do you believe that your sins are washed away in Baptism or not?

Acts 22:16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

They blaspheme the Spirit of God who claim that God can't wash away their sins by the pouring of water.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Importance of the Sacraments

Protestants confess their sins. However, they don't go to a priest to do it. We pray to God directly for forgiveness of our sins

So do Catholics. But we also go to the Sacrament of Confession in order that our souls be washed of our sins in this life. That is the benefit of the Sacrament.

Whether you're Catholic or Protestant, confession is a must.

Very true. Because without repentance, there is no salvation.

Yes, I realize this. I didn't mean to infer that you would not have gone to Christ in prayer to confess. I should have cleared that up, but thanks for doing so.

What you don't realize is that they "think" they are confessing to God. But in fact, they are not. They are simply recounting to themselves their own guilt.

One does not need to confess in order for God to know that they are truly repentant. God is omniscient. The benefit of the Sacrament of Confession is in the CONFIRMATION by the Minister of God that God has heard the repentant sinner and washed away their sin.

2 Corinthians 5:20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.

This is the doctrine of Baptisms. Every Sacrament is a Baptism.

Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
The Protestant who denies the benefit of the Sacrament of confession, has, by his unbelief, condemned himself.

But he that approaches the founts of grace, the Sacraments, including Confession, with sincere belief that God can do through that Sacrament what He promised, that man is saved.

The Triune God came in the Person of Christ.

Concerning the Trinity, some people ridicule it because they can't understand it. 
Read More...

Scripture alone, a tradition of men

A tradition of men, such as the one mentioned in Scripture, would be the doctrine of Scripture alone, which gives all individuals the right to interpret Scripture any way they want. Thus, invalidating the God given rule that one must obey those He has put in charge of our souls, in the Church. 
Read More...