bleechers said:
"Worship" is how we define it. You bow down and ask Mary things that only God can do. You assign her the powers of deity (omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence) and call her Co-Redeemer, thus giving her glory that is due God alone. Hense, by Baptist theology, you "worship" her.
So, you get to define worship for us?
You get to define worship for everyone else? Worship is what, and only what, you say it is for 6 billion people?
You and you alone are the only one who has the right to define worship for the rest of the world?
I don't think so. . .
And you do not have the right to define it contrary to the rules of CF . .
You have chosen to be part of the Christian community here at CF . . and that included how to use the word "Worship" and how NOT to use it . .
Your definition of worship has no bearing on us or what we do . .
For your purusal here is the Webster's 1913 dictionary definition of "worship" - the closest thing to your definition is 4th on the list. These definitions take into the distinctions made by Catholics between Latria (worship to God alone) and Dulia - the proper veneration given to people and objects
Definition: \Wor"ship\, n. [OE. worshipe, wur[eth]scipe, AS.
weor[eth]scipe; weor[eth] worth + -scipe -ship. See {Worth},
a., and {-ship}.]
1. Excellence of character; dignity; worth; worthiness.
[Obs.] --Shak.
A man of worship and honour. --Chaucer.
Elfin, born of noble state, And muckle worship in
his native land. --Spenser.
2. Honor; respect; civil deference. [Obs.]
Of which great worth and worship may be won.
--Spenser.
Then shalt thou have worship in the presence of them
that sit at meat with thee. --Luke xiv.
10.
3. Hence, a title of honor, used in addresses to certain
magistrates and others of rank or station.
My father desires your worships' company. --Shak.
4. The act of paying divine honors to the Supreme Being;
religious reverence and homage; adoration, or acts of
reverence, paid to God, or a being viewed as God. ``God
with idols in their worship joined.'' --Milton.
The worship of God is an eminent part of religion,
and prayer is a chief part of religious worship.
--Tillotson.
5. Obsequious or submissive respect; extravagant admiration;
adoration.
'T is your inky brows, your black silk hair, Your
bugle eyeballs, nor your cheek of cream, That can my
spirits to your worship. --Shak.
6. An object of worship.
In attitude and aspect formed to be At once the
artist's worship and despair. --Longfellow
Since we do not view Mary as God or a being in place of God, ascribing to her no divinity whatsoever, we are not worshipping her according to your definition, or that of #4 above.
We are however, giving her what is contained in the first 3 definitions.
Why do you equate "pointing to official doctrines" akin to "bashing"? Is it "bashing" Mormons to say that they are not Trinitarians?
I will try again to explain sinc you have asked.
You are not merely pointing to official doctrines .. you are taking them out of context and misrepresenting them.
You are not misrepresenting mormos by saying they are not Trinitarians for they do not claim to be and do not teach it, and they would agree with you.
Ah, yes, the double-talk. Thanks for pointing this out. I have an article about this type of argumentation. It's the "salvation by ignorance through sincerity" argument that most any Baptist would reject. Well, if they don't "know" the way, then it's best not to tell them so then they can't reject it, right?
well, since you asked . . you confuse "know" with 'know about' . . they are not the same. You can know about something, that does not mean you really know it to be true. . .
Definitions are very important, and it is not double talk to insist on an accurate defintion . .
Call home your missionaries. It's better for Muslims to attain alvation in ignorance rather than risk them understanding the way of the RCC and rejecting it. This is the "complexity" that is designed to confuse.
This is again your complete misrepresentation of what the Church teaches . .
There is nothing complex about this, only in your own perceptions . . .
Do you believe that if someone has never heard the Gospel, they are going to Hell?
I didn't get the exact quote, but here is the section from Lumen Gentium from a RC source (translation) Sorry, but I'm gonna bold to help make the connection:
Lumen Gentium # 16:
But
the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Mohamedans, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind...
[ed note: the Muslim god is a false god!]
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless
seek God with a sincere heart, and,
moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through
the dictates of their conscience--those too
many achieve eternal salvation. Nor shall divine providence deny the assistance necessary for salvation to those who, without any fault of theirs, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God, and who, not without grace,
strive to lead a good life.
Now any Baptist can see that this is incompatible with our salvation doctrines. Essentially this small part of a very complex document teaches that "salvation [is] acheived" because grace is administered via the Catholic Church in some mystical way to help "sincere" people ("first among whom are the Moslems") to "strive to lead a good life."
Of course that is incompatible with
YOUR salvation doctrines as you understand those words above, and how you understand the place of good works
DONE IN GRACE has in salvation. That is a matter for debate in another forum, such as GT . . why don't you start a thread there and we can discuss it more freely.
Needless to say, James does tell us that our faith is dead, like a dead, lifeless body, without good works . . so, without arguing with you on the matter of our respective doctrines, I am merely wishing to point out a few things.
We
do not believe we, or anyone else, can work our way to heaven. We
do not believe we earn our way to heaven through works of the flesh.
You are misusing Church documents to try to make them say something they do not . .
Since nobody can know whether he or she is actaully "saved" then the church can neither tell whether anybody has truly rejected anything, etc. I ran with this argument as a RC apologist... Never mind the "necessity" of Baptism, sacraments either... then it really starts to get complicated.
It is very clear to me that you do not understand the Church's teaching on salvation . . I can most certainly know if I am saved . . where did you ever get that idea?
It is very simple . . am I in a state of Divine Sanctifying
Grace ? Remember, I told you, all the pieces of the puzzle fit together to make one picture .. and
the picture is the utmost in simplicity . . your misrepresentations of our faith have made it seem complex . .. but that is simply a matter of smoke and mirrors . .
It is
ALL about
GRACE.
In all this, I am not debating with you whether or not our doctrines are right or yours are wrong. .
I am simply pointing out the many ways you continually misrepresent our faith to
our brehtern outside of our Church.
All Baptists need to know is that the RCC teaches that nobody can ever know...
I don't think anyone needs to know a myth about the Catholic Church, and what you have stated as fact is indeed a myth . .
that indulgences are propitiatory and that knowledge of salvation condemned with anthema...
You really think indulgences have anything to do with forgivness of sins?
"knowledge of salvation condemned with anathema" ???
You got me there .. now you are so far off base that I can't make heads or tails of what you are alluding to ..
that Mary is Co-Redeemer and necessary for salvation (she is "the cause of salvation"...), etc., etc.
And etc, etc, etc .. again, misrepresenting our faith . . Was not Mary necessary for Jesus' birth? Could salvation have come into the world if she had said no? Would God have forced her to have Jesus, or if He could not have found anyone else to say "yes", would He have forced someone else to have Jesus?
Do you see how, in trying to make it look like we say Mary somehow takes Jesus' place, you are twisting the teaching of the Church.
Mary was necessary for our salvation
IN THE SENSE THAT Jesus needed to be conceived of, and be born of, a virgin, and Mary was that virgin. God's plan of salvation called for this necessity . .
Are you suggesting that a virgin birth for Jesus was not necessary?
Are you asserting that a virgin was not necessary for our salvation to come into the world?
You have indeed twisted the teaching of the Church . why you are doing this, I don't know .. but it is obvious that either
1) you never understood the teachings of the Church to begin with and led many astray within the Catholic Church while you taught others the faith, for if you did not understand it, you passed on your wroing understandings of it to others .. an unfortunately common situation in the last half of the last century, which I find understandable
2) you really do understand the Cahtolic faith and are purposefully misrepresenting it, which I would find deplorable . .
I will give you the benefit of the doubt for now.
You can do what Rome has done and turn that into libraries of complex documents, but you can only go so far before the incompatibility with Baptist theology is evident.
Oh I have no disagreement with you there . . there is definite incompatbility in some areas between Catholic and Baptist theology . .that is not what I am having an issue with.
It is your continued misrepresentation of Catholicism I am having an issue with.
If you are going to point out incompatibilities between the two, at least let them be honest incompatibilities, not made up ones.
Lumen Gentium
He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.
While we're mentioning the Canon of Scripture...Baptists might note from the Council of Trent:
LOLOL
Do you have any idea what an anathema is, and who it does or does not pertain to?
It only pertains to those within the Catholic Church . not to those outside of it. The Anathema's you quote above pertain to Catholics . .
not to Baptists .
And that just scratches the surface.
I hope we have more than scratched the surface of your misrepresntations of our faith.
This is not the place for double-talk. I hesitated to post all these in the many, many posts I have written to this point. They are posted for Baptists to consider.
I hope that enough has been posted for your fellow baptists to question what they are being told in your posts, and to come to OBOB to ask questoins if they want to know what we really believe.
I used to explain these away before God had mercy on me and saved me.
Dear, you had a conversion experience, just as I did. You left the Church, just as I did the Orthodox Church and ended up being a Protestant deep in the bible and Protestant indoctrination from which I learned
many, many precious things about God,
including from Baptists (
to you all.), and grew greatly and deeply in my relationship with Him and in the word, for which I am eternally grateful.
After 30+ years, God has led me back to the fulness of faith in the Catholic Church. I have deeply and intensely examined the clams you make about the Catholic faith .. they are all groundless misrepresentations of what we believe. Do you really think I could become Catholic if what you assert is true? Absolutely not!!
I am not here to argue about whose doctrines are right ..
I am though, telling you that you are wrong about
OUR faith . .
Please note a "half tuth" that I have posted to this point before making such an accusation.
I have already noted many . .
Peace in Him!
