And you still haven't addressed this statement made by Pope John Paul II. You claim he didn't support redistribution of wealth, even though he said the right to common use is greater than the right to private property.
Christian tradition has never recognized the right to private property as absolute and untouchable: ‘On the contrary, it has always understood this right within the broader context of the right common to all to use the goods of the whole of creation: the right to private property is subordinated to the right to common use, to the fact that goods are meant for everyone.
No, the bible speaks against baking cakes/offering sacrifice to worship the queen of heaven, hundreds of years before Mary was born. I’m sorry, but you are looking for something to be mad about and you are holding on so tightly to this bias you’re so desperate to not correct that you cannot see how silly your misunderstanding is.
Does the Church teach that Mary is Ishtar? What does the church teach about Mary that suggests that the church puts Mary at the same level as God? You are looking at occult usurpation of spiritual concepts and descending into a dualistic labyrinth.
You completely misunderstand the encyclical; we can get to that once you are able to acknowledge the more important error that yiu are making in your false claims about what the church teaches about Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, the Mother of God Incarnate, the destroyer of the serpent and the queen of heaven (since in hebrew tradition the mother, not the wife, of the king is the queen).
The Queen of Heaven is not a title one should give to the mother of Jesus, as the Bible condemns that title.
The Roman Catholic Church teaches Mary is the co-redemptrix, which means she's essential for the redemption of humanity.
This is the same claim the Babylonians made in regards to Ishtar/Inanna/Ashtoreth.
The Roman Catholic Church teaches Mary is the mediatrix, which is a woman who is a mediator.
The Bible says otherwise.
1 Timothy 2:5For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
And we don't need a mediator between ourselves and Jesus.
Romans 8:35-39
35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?
36 As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.
37 Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us.
38 For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come,
39 Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
The Roman Catholic Church teaches Mary is the advocate, and states tradition is greater than the Word of God, which says otherwise.
1 John 2:1-3
1 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:
2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
3 And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.
And it's obvious you have no answer about Pope John Paul II, and your insistence I must agree with you about Mary before you lie about what Pope John Paul II really meant is quite telling. Your username is the only honest thing about you in this thread.
The OLD TESTAMENT says not to WORSHIP or MAKE OFFERINGS to the Queen of Heaven, before Mary was born, and of course before Jesus was born. There was, at that time, no queen of heaven, and the title referred specifically to Ishtar, Ashtoreth, or Isis, depending on locality.
We do not look to Mary for forgiveness of our sins.
Co-redemptrix does not mean what you say it means. What it means is that Jesus could not have been born in human form, without God choosing Mary to be impregnated with him. She is the helper to the redeemer. She carried him in her womb, bore him, and raised him. She is the mother of God. She is not God, and we do not worship her, ask forgiveness of her, ask of her to gain access to the Father, or any of the things you rightly claim to be wrong.
Tradition is how we got the new testament. The traditions (the mass, the eucharist, confession, etc) had been practiced since christ’s ascension for many years before the gospels were even written, and the oral tradion written down literally is how the gospels came into being as a book, and the writings of Peter, Paul etc were primarily dealing with sorting out issues within the tradition, which was a continuation of Jewish temple worship without the killing of a live creature and without the need for adherence to mosaic and ritual cleanliness laws.
I haven’t gotten into the encyclical because it’s extremely nuanced. The Church as a whole has been the greatest spokesman against communism in the history of communism (notwithstanding rogue actors acting often in secret to help the nazis etc, in explicit violation of church teaching). If you want to pull out one paragraph from one encyclical totally out of context from all church teaching and use it to try to prove that the church is against private property, you’re not even seeking to understand. Read the catechism. Private property is linked to the dignity of the human person, and is the lens through which one must read the encyclical. It’s also not infallible and doesn’t displace other church teaching.
So we can sort out your misconceptions about what the church actually teaches about Mary, if you are inter in understanding those teachings, and if we get through that, then we can spend some time dissecting this one encyclical that you have chosen to interpret in a way that no one in the church has chosen to interpret it.
August 22 is the Roman Catholic feast day of the Queen of Heaven.
The Bible speaks against the Queen of Heaven.
The 8-point star is the star of Ishtar.
Here's another statue of the Queen of Heaven with her 8-point star.
And here's a Christmas ornament sold by a Catholic charity with the same 8-pointed star motif.
And Ishtar also was represented by a crescent moon.
Is there any wonder the Virgin Mary also has statues made of her by the Catholics which incorporate that symbol as well?
And you still haven't addressed this statement made by Pope John Paul II. You claim he didn't support redistribution of wealth, even though he said the right to common use is greater than the right to private property.
Christian tradition has never recognized the right to private property as absolute and untouchable: ‘On the contrary, it has always understood this right within the broader context of the right common to all to use the goods of the whole of creation: the right to private property is subordinated to the right to common use, to the fact that goods are meant for everyone.
No, the bible speaks against baking cakes/offering sacrifice to worship the queen of heaven, hundreds of years before Mary was born. I’m sorry, but you are looking for something to be mad about and you are holding on so tightly to this bias you’re so desperate to not correct that you cannot see how silly your misunderstanding is.
Does the Church teach that Mary is Ishtar? What does the church teach about Mary that suggests that the church puts Mary at the same level as God? You are looking at occult usurpation of spiritual concepts and descending into a dualistic labyrinth.
You completely misunderstand the encyclical; we can get to that once you are able to acknowledge the more important error that yiu are making in your false claims about what the church teaches about Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, the Mother of God Incarnate, the destroyer of the serpent and the queen of heaven (since in hebrew tradition the mother, not the wife, of the king is the queen).
The Queen of Heaven is not a title one should give to the mother of Jesus, as the Bible condemns that title.
The Roman Catholic Church teaches Mary is the co-redemptrix, which means she's essential for the redemption of humanity.
This is the same claim the Babylonians made in regards to Ishtar/Inanna/Ashtoreth.
The Roman Catholic Church teaches Mary is the mediatrix, which is a woman who is a mediator.
The Bible says otherwise.
1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
And we don't need a mediator between ourselves and Jesus.
Romans 8:35-39
35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?
36 As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.
37 Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us.
38 For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come,
39 Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
The Roman Catholic Church teaches Mary is the advocate, and states tradition is greater than the Word of God, which says otherwise.
1 John 2:1-3
1 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:
2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
3 And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.
And it's obvious you have no answer about Pope John Paul II, and your insistence I must agree with you about Mary before you lie about what Pope John Paul II really meant is quite telling. Your username is the only honest thing about you in this thread.
The OLD TESTAMENT says not to WORSHIP or MAKE OFFERINGS to the Queen of Heaven, before Mary was born, and of course before Jesus was born. There was, at that time, no queen of heaven, and the title referred specifically to Ishtar, Ashtoreth, or Isis, depending on locality.
We do not look to Mary for forgiveness of our sins.
Co-redemptrix does not mean what you say it means. What it means is that Jesus could not have been born in human form, without God choosing Mary to be impregnated with him. She is the helper to the redeemer. She carried him in her womb, bore him, and raised him. She is the mother of God. She is not God, and we do not worship her, ask forgiveness of her, ask of her to gain access to the Father, or any of the things you rightly claim to be wrong.
Tradition is how we got the new testament. The traditions (the mass, the eucharist, confession, etc) had been practiced since christ’s ascension for many years before the gospels were even written, and the oral tradion written down literally is how the gospels came into being as a book, and the writings of Peter, Paul etc were primarily dealing with sorting out issues within the tradition, which was a continuation of Jewish temple worship without the killing of a live creature and without the need for adherence to mosaic and ritual cleanliness laws.
I haven’t gotten into the encyclical because it’s extremely nuanced. The Church as a whole has been the greatest spokesman against communism in the history of communism (notwithstanding rogue actors acting often in secret to help the nazis etc, in explicit violation of church teaching). If you want to pull out one paragraph from one encyclical totally out of context from all church teaching and use it to try to prove that the church is against private property, you’re not even seeking to understand. Read the catechism. Private property is linked to the dignity of the human person, and is the lens through which one must read the encyclical. It’s also not infallible and doesn’t displace other church teaching.
So we can sort out your misconceptions about what the church actually teaches about Mary, if you are inter in understanding those teachings, and if we get through that, then we can spend some time dissecting this one encyclical that you have chosen to interpret in a way that no one in the church has chosen to interpret it.
James 1:8
A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.
You're talking out of both sides of your mouth. There's no use in continuing this dialogue.