Against Mary - "Totus tuus, Mary"

[Keikiolu]

I HAD to change the font color. It was killing me with it’s obnoxiousness.

I have asked this question repeatedly on this site. If you think they have interpreted the scriptures infallibly, do you know where i can find this source? I’m not speaking of the catehism or any church documents but a manual or commentary on the scriptures that tells you what each verse of the Bible means.

You ask for a source for our belief, then you disallow the sources we use because you apply your “game rules” to our “game”.

Thus, you guarantee “victory” for yourself in your verbal “battle”.

Any comments on that…?

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[HailMary]

I didn’t find this defintion adequate. Can you put it in your own words what it means?

Sure, I’ll try. Sola Scriptura is the notion that all I need is the bible for guidance/authority on matters of religion for the Christian. Furthermore, it also means that tradition, a living magisterium, and any extra-biblical sources are to be avoided.

Sola Scriptura, in a nutshell, states that the bible- as interpreted by the individual believer, is the only source of religious authority and is the Christian’s sole rule of faith

source

 

[zemi]

‘Where can i find this in the catholic church’ infallible interpretation “book”?
There are thousands of verses in the scriptures. Do you know of anymore?

Justasking,

if you want to win any war the basic advice is - know your opponent. You don’t know your “opponent” very well it seem. When did you read the Cathechism of the Catholi Church for the last time…?

Have you ever seen it how it is interwoven with the references to biblical verses Chruch Fathers and other councils (documents of which have again biblical references in themselves)?!

---

880 When Christ instituted the Twelve, "he constituted [them] in the form of a college or permanent assembly, at the head of which he placed Peter, chosen from among them."398 Just as "by the Lord’s institution, St. Peter and the rest of the apostles constitute a single apostolic college, so in like fashion the Roman Pontiff, Peter’s successor, and the bishops, the successors of the apostles, are related with and united to one another."399

881 The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the “rock” of his Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock.400 "The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of apostles united to its head."401 This pastoral office of Peter and the other apostles belongs to the Church’s very foundation and is continued by the bishops under the primacy of the Pope.

882 The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter’s successor, "is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful."402 "For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered."403

883 “The college or body of bishops has no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff, Peter’s successor, as its head.” As such, this college has "supreme and full authority over the universal Church; but this power cannot be exercised without the agreement of the Roman Pontiff."404

884 "The college of bishops exercises power over the universal Church in a solemn manner in an ecumenical council."405 But "there never is an ecumenical council which is not confirmed or at least recognized as such by Peter’s successor."406

885 "This college, in so far as it is composed of many members, is the expression of the variety and universality of the People of God; and of the unity of the flock of Christ, in so far as it is assembled under one head."407

886 "The individual bishops are the visible source and foundation of unity in their own particular Churches."408 As such, they "exercise their pastoral office over the portion of the People of God assigned to them,"409 assisted by priests and deacons. But, as a member of the episcopal college, each bishop shares in the concern for all the Churches.410 The bishops exercise this care first “by ruling well their own Churches as portions of the universal Church,” and so contributing "to the welfare of the whole Mystical Body, which, from another point of view, is a corporate body of Churches."411 They extend it especially to the poor,412 to those persecuted for the faith, as well as to missionaries who are working throughout the world.

887 Neighboring particular Churches who share the same culture form ecclesiastical provinces or larger groupings called patriarchates or regions.413 The bishops of these groupings can meet in synods or provincial councils. "In a like fashion, the episcopal conferences at the present time are in a position to contribute in many and fruitful ways to the concrete realization of the collegiate spirit."414

---

taken from HERE

 

[zemi]

*** The teaching office**

888 Bishops, with priests as co-workers, have as their first task “to preach the Gospel of God to all men,” in keeping with the Lord’s command.415 They are “heralds of faith, who draw new disciples to Christ; they are authentic teachers” of the apostolic faith "endowed with the authority of Christ."416

889 In order to preserve the Church in the purity of the faith handed on by the apostles, Christ who is the Truth willed to confer on her a share in his own infallibility. By a “supernatural sense of faith” the People of God, under the guidance of the Church’s living Magisterium, "unfailingly adheres to this faith."417
**
890** The mission of the Magisterium is linked to the definitive nature of the covenant established by God with his people in Christ. It is this Magisterium’s task to preserve God’s people from deviations and defections and to guarantee them the objective possibility of professing the true faith without error. Thus, the pastoral duty of the Magisterium is aimed at seeing to it that the People of God abides in the truth that liberates. To fulfill this service, Christ endowed the Church’s shepherds with the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals. The exercise of this charism takes several forms:

891 “The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium,” above all in an Ecumenical Council.418 When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed,"419 and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith."420 This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.421

892 Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a “definitive manner,” they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful "are to adhere to it with religious assent"422 which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.

The sanctifying office

893 The bishop is "the steward of the grace of the supreme priesthood,"423 especially in the Eucharist which he offers personally or whose offering he assures through the priests, his co-workers. The Eucharist is the center of the life of the particular Church. The bishop and priests sanctify the Church by their prayer and work, by their ministry of the word and of the sacraments. They sanctify her by their example, "not as domineering over those in your charge but being examples to the flock."424 Thus, "together with the flock entrusted to them, they may attain to eternal life."425

The governing office

**894 **“The bishops, as vicars and legates of Christ, govern the particular Churches assigned to them by their counsels, exhortations, and example, but over and above that also by the authority and sacred power” which indeed they ought to exercise so as to edify, in the spirit of service which is that of their Master.426

895 "The power which they exercise personally in the name of Christ, is proper, ordinary, and immediate, although its exercise is ultimately controlled by the supreme authority of the Church."427 But the bishops should not be thought of as vicars of the Pope. His ordinary and immediate authority over the whole Church does not annul, but on the contrary confirms and defends that of the bishops. Their authority must be exercised in communion with the whole Church under the guidance of the Pope.

896 The Good Shepherd ought to be the model and “form” of the bishop’s pastoral office. Conscious of his own weaknesses, “the bishop . . . can have compassion for those who are ignorant and erring. He should not refuse to listen to his subjects whose welfare he promotes as of his very own children. . . . The faithful . . . should be closely attached to the bishop as the Church is to Jesus Christ, and as Jesus Christ is to the Father”:428

---

taken from HERE

 

[zemi]

Those numbers in the text refer to footnotes of course which you can find in the cathechism link provided

 

[zemi]

This is the infallible teaching you pressumably claim we never had about the Catholic Church stemming from the Bible verses.

BTW, have you ever read some documents from the Vatican II.?

 

[LilyM]

Have you looked at this passage and the context? Its says nothing about succession.

The statement defines the Bible passage as applying also to the Popes - which is interpretation. It is a giving of a definition of what the verse means. Which is interpretation. You may not view it as a correct interpretation, but that’s entirely beside my point.

I’m simply addressing your comment that the Church has never infallibly interpreted a scripture passage. I’m showing that that verse HAS been interpreted by the Church, and has been interpreted under conditions making that interpretation infallible, and that your comment is inaccurate.

Even if i’m wrong, there are hundreds of other verses that have not been infallibly defined. That’s why all catholics are in the same boat as protestants on this issue. They have no infallible interpretation of the scriptures themselves that tells them what they mean.

Certainly the most important thing is to understand the CONTEXT and WHOLENESS of Scripture, and how Scripture is to be applied to your life, not an inflexible verse-by-verse interpretation of it. I mean passages such as ‘Jesus wept’ require no interpretation and have their meaning plainly on their face.

The Church, all Christian churches, are like John the Evangelist, giving us what is necessary for our salvation first, and only afterwards working on the more esoteric truths of Scripture.

And the Church certainly provides plenty of practical guidance, in the light of both Scripture itself and revealed Traditional truth, as to how we are to apply and interpret scripture, and much more Truth besides.

Certainly we are much better guided as to Scriptural interpretation than yourself, because we better understand the wholeness of it, whence both Scripture and the authority to interpret it come, and what its proper role is.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Let’s get back on topic. The original question is given by Zemi (but not held by Zemi), and is thus:

If the Pope and you, Catholics, give yourself all to Mary, what is there left to give to Jesus!!?!!

Let me attempt to go back to answer that once more. Anything --any honor, any respect, any devotion we give to Mary, we give to her because she is the Mother of Jesus, and because in giving it to her, we give it even more perfectly to Him. Nothing is given to Mary that “should have been given” to Jesus. Nothing that goes to her goes to her only, but always through her to Jesus. In fact, we give MORE to Jesus when going through Mary, because we add her loving prayers to ours. (Remember that Scripture, “Where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in their midst”, and also “the prayer of a righteous man availeth much.”?)

So the whole question springs from a complete misunderstanding regarding Mary’s role, and our Catholic devotions. Instead of ‘taking something away from God and giving it to another’, rather, we are giving God even more, every time we go through Mary.

Mary, undeniably, had a unique role to play as the Mother of the Savior. Simply in ‘bearing Him’, she did what no other human has, or will ever do. The honor is beyond imagining.

So, we are all sinners. Even when we try to present good things–love, devotion, prayer–to God, they are still ‘tinged’ with our human frailty and our human sins. (For those who seem to fixate on the verse, “All have sinned and fallen short”, remarkably few seem to feel that any of THEIR efforts to serve God may ‘fall short’ or be tinged by sin. It’s almost surprising how many seem to feel that even the most cursory ‘good’ action, done grudgingly, will be greeted by God AND all humanity as on a par, pretty much, with the deeds of the apostles and the saints. . .)

Imagine that you are presenting a beautiful apple to God. You stand before Him, grubby and tattered, holding in a dirty hand that apple. (Now certainly God loves even his imperfect children, but–citing Scripture again-- do you remember the story of the man who had no wedding garment, and was cast out of the banquet? When we are presenting anything to God, we must ‘be perfect as our heavenly Father is perfect’ for “nothing impure can ever be admitted to heaven”.)

Now imagine that you give that beautiful apple to Mary to give to God FOR you. She takes that beautiful apple into her glorified, heavenly hands, puts it onto a beautiful plate, and, coming to see her beloved Son, offers to him YOUR apple–made even more beautiful and worthy in its presentation, making you appear even more humble (in going through Mary rather than stomping in to see the Lord face to face, as though WE were the ones conferring a favor to GOD by showing him just how wonderful we thought our actions and our presents --and of course, our own selves --are.)

Do you remember Cain and Abel? Nowhere is it stated that Cain’s offering was foul. Obviously, he offered things that may have looked perfectly okay–not great, but not ‘bad’. But Abel offered only the FINEST things to God. And God was displeased with Cain’s offering. Mind you, Cain offered SOMETHING, Cain did not offer anything obviously inferior–but he did not offer the best. That story is in the Bible for a reason. It’s one we should be more mindful of in these times when authority is constantly mocked and trampled, and ‘individuality’, and “it’s good ENOUGH” seems to be the new golden rule.

 

[jabelltulsa]

yet it has never done so infallilby.

What is your definition of infallabilty?

 

[zemi]

I didn’t find this defintion adequate. Can you put it in your own words what it means?

The thing is that even the Protestants vary in their definition.

But let’s take as definition I say what Luther said as he’s the father of it:

The true rule is this: God’s Word shall establish articles of faith, and no one else, not even an angel can do so.

(Martin Luther, Smalcald Article II, 15)

 

[LilyM]

If the Pope and you, Catholics, give yourself all to Mary, what is there left to give to Jesus!!?!!

Interesting question. When you marry do you not promise to give your whole self to your spouse, ‘forsaking ALL others’? An old form of the vows goes ‘with my body I thee worship, with all my worldly goods I thee endow’ and more in the same vein, making it even clearer.

When you have children, do you not give yourself all to them, if you truly love them?

Is any of this complete self-giving incompatible with giving yourself completely to God as well? Not a bit. Completely the contrary.

Christ commands us to ‘love one another as I have loved you’. Is His love for His own not a complete love, a complete giving of self? And that is the type of love we are called to imitate in our relations with each other. So this is also the level of love we should have for Mary.

 

[justasking4]

Keikiolu;2580362]I HAD to change the font color. It was killing me with it’s obnoxiousness.

You ask for a source for our belief, then you disallow the sources we use because you apply your “game rules” to our “game”.

Thus, you guarantee “victory” for yourself in your verbal “battle”.

Any comments on that…?

I’m not changing any rules but asking for some evidence for claims that are being made. If someone says my understanding of a particular passage of scripture is wrong then that must mean they have the correct interpretation of that passage. That’s why knowing how the catholic church interprets a passage is so important to know. This interpretation is not the catechism of your church,

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[justasking4]

Sure, I’ll try. Sola Scriptura is the notion that all I need is the bible for guidance/authority on matters of religion for the Christian. Furthermore, it also means that tradition, a living magisterium, and any extra-biblical sources are to be avoided.

source

I don’t anyone who believes in sola scriptura would go with these 2 defintions.

 

[HailMary]

I don’t anyone who believes in sola scriptura would go with these 2 defintions.

That is pretty much the traditional defn. What do you say it is?

 

[justasking4]

What is your definition of infallabilty?

not erring: incapable of making a mistake

 

[HailMary]

not erring: incapable of making a mistake

That isn’t quite accurate, try this for more.

 

[justasking4]

LilyM;2580439]The statement defines the Bible passage as applying also to the Popes - which is interpretation. It is a giving of a definition of what the verse means.

huh? This passage says nothing about popes or succession.

Which is interpretation. You may not view it as a correct interpretation, but that’s entirely beside my point.

I’m simply addressing your comment that the Church has never infallibly interpreted a scripture passage. I’m showing that that verse HAS been interpreted by the Church, and has been interpreted under conditions making that interpretation infallible, and that your comment is inaccurate.

Do you know where i can find this one infallible interpreted verse?

Certainly the most important thing is to understand the CONTEXT and WHOLENESS of Scripture, and how Scripture is to be applied to your life, not an inflexible verse-by-verse interpretation of it.

How can you truly understand it if you don’t know what the praticular verses mean?

I mean passages such as ‘Jesus wept’ require no interpretation and have their meaning plainly on their face.

Why did Jesus weep if He knew He was going to defeat death anyway?

The Church, all Christian churches, are like John the Evangelist, giving us what is necessary for our salvation first, and only afterwards working on the more esoteric truths of Scripture.

And the Church certainly provides plenty of practical guidance, in the light of both Scripture itself and revealed Traditional truth, as to how we are to apply and interpret scripture, and much more Truth besides.

What “Traditional truth” source do you use to determine what verse means?

Certainly we are much better guided as to Scriptural interpretation than yourself, because we better understand the wholeness of it, whence both Scripture and the authority to interpret it come, and what its proper role is.

Huh? Throughout these threads i have seen to much supportive interpretations in support of the catholic view. I do see a lot of attacks on sola scriptura and the like.

 

[Techno2000]

The apostles never taught such a doctrine. There is absolutely no need to go through Mary or any saint to give yourself to Christ.The apostles never used themselves as some kind of conduit to Christ nor should we.

The Blessed Mother is a short-cut to Heaven.

 

[LilyM]

huh? This passage says nothing about popes or succession.

The Church has infallibly interpreted Christ’s statement that Peter is the Rock as meaning also his successors in the Papacy. Like I said, you might not agree with this, but your disagreement doesn’t make it any the less an interpretation of that verse nor any the less THE infallible Catholic interpretation.

Do you know where i can find this one infallible interpreted verse?

Read the documents of the Council of Chalcedon, as I said in post 230. There is a line in in them where Pope Leo states that he speaks with the voice of Peter. They should be easily available on the internet. And they fit the definition of infallibility as many Church Council documents do. I’m not going to do your homework for you on infallibility, there’s plenty of material available about it. If you can’t understand THAT concept for yourself then then there’s no point in us even discussing any further.

Why did Jesus weep if He knew He was going to defeat death anyway?

Because He was human and loved Lazarus, and Martha and Mary, and was grieving with them. Did you really need even to ask that? Boy you got some learning to do - about human beings, let alone Christ, let alone Catholicism and the Bible.

Do you mind if I ask how old you are? And is English your first language?

What “Traditional truth” source do you use to determine what verse means?

Infallible ones where possible - the statements of Church Councils and ex-cathedra pronouncements from the Popes as these are available.

Huh? Throughout these threads i have seen to much supportive interpretations in support of the catholic view. I do see a lot of attacks on sola scriptura and the like.

Of course you do. Sola scriptura (or even the idea that the Bible is the supreme or only source of truth) is illogical.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

See John 12:20-22

Now among those who went up to worship at the feast were some Greeks. [21] So these came to Philip, who was from Beth-sa’ida in Galilee, and said to him, “Sir, we wish to see Jesus.” [22] Philip went and told Andrew; Andrew went with Philip and they told Jesus.

Note that the Greeks went through Philip, who went through Andrew, to get to Jesus.