An Example of Hyper Hyper Hyper Dulia?

[notsmart]

" We can go very very very very far in speaking of her, because there is no limit possible to praise of Him. And if this is overlooked, our tepid words about her can look blasphemous even when they are not"



I never thought of it this way before. Now I feel as if I have not even scratched the surface on loving Jesus.

 

[Scottgun]

I think you might like this article by Mark Shea: mark-shea.com/mother_f.html where he asked the question:

If Catholics honor Mary too much, exactly how do we Evangelicals honor her “just enough”? For the reality was that my native Evangelicalism recoiled from any and all mention of Mary.
This was odd. After all, Evangelicals could talk all day about Paul and never feel we were “worshipping” him or giving him “too much honor.” We rightly understood that God’s word comes to us through St. Paul, and there’s no conflict between the two (even though Paul exhibits more character flaws than Mary).

As an Evangelical, my own tradition found it remarkably easy to detect bar codes, Soviet helicopters, the European Common Market, and the Beatles encoded into the narrative of Revelation. But when Catholics suggested that the woman of Revelation might have something to do with the Blessed Virgin occupying a place of cosmic importance in the grand scheme of things, this was dismissed as incredible.

 

[Mystic_Warrior]

Triune,

For a balanced and Scriptural treatise on the role of the Blessed Virgin Mary, I would recommend books by Dr. Scott Hahn, specifically, “Hail Holy Queen”. I haven’t read it but I’ve heard him speak on his show on EWTN about her and it’s very convincing IMHO.

I would also recommend this site HERE called, “Scot Hahn on our Lady”.

Peace…

MW

 

[Belloc_Fan]

So Mary knew intrinsically that Jesus could turn water into wine? Considering it is the first sign of His ministry, as John makes reference to, and that Mary in many other instances seems completely oblivious to the exact nature of Christ, it seems unlikely that she expected anything out of the ordinary to occur.

(1) Less, “Mary knew intrinsically,” and more the power of the Most High overshadowed her. Just like Moses (or whoever wrote Genesis) didn’t “intrinsically” know about the Creation of the World. In neither case is it explicit from Scripture how they know, but implication is pretty obvious - the Holy Spirit.

(2) How was Mary oblivious? Perhaps you mean when Jesus was in the Temple, but I think even having a good grasp of the fully God / fully man thing, His disappearance was sort of unexpected. An angel appears to Mary, tells her she’s going to bear the Messiah, the Son of God, and you think she just assumes He’s an ordinary kid? That seems to be taking Sola Scriptura to its logical limit…

(3) If she didn’t expect “anything out of the ordinary to occur,” why DID she ask? The liquor store quip from earlier seems more pertinent now.

I understand being annoyed with the extent that some Catholics take the focus on Mary, but to do the 180 degree turn to denigrating the mother of God seems offensive to the chosen of God.

 

[PerryJ]

Yep; they back into it—start with Tradition, arrive, by any means, at proof.

I do not see anything in your post to disprove the Catholic statement. Luke clearly shows ongoing result. Ephesians may or may not show ongoing result. Nothing provided disputes the belief.

As stated the concept of Mary though is not dependant upon one verse. It is dependant upon the Bible taken as a whole. To reject the doctrine of Mary requires the rejection of many parts of the Bible. Some I already mentioned.

Triune I know that you are not guilty of this; however, Protestants tend to try and fit everything in one verse or take a verse out of context to prove a point. With the doctrine of Mary one has to look at the whole Bible. This is how to define doctrine. Not do it one verse at a time. Does one think they can prove or disprove an action of God, the interaction of God and Mary in one verse.

Sandusky, you are better than the statement above. If you disagree that is fine. We are not forcing the issue. To me if one reads the whole Bible the doctrine of Mary is very clear.

 

[PerryJ]

I know, I know. It was really weird. I listen to CA radio every day on the way home. I actually really enjoy the Q and A show they have. It’s different people every time. I’m not Catholic, but I still enjoy it.

Peace…

MW

To paraphrase that conversation on the radio it was discussed the use of the term woman with regard to Jesus, Mary and other woman within the Bible. Woman was a common term used for other woman. For example the use of it with Mary Magdalene would be common. It was not used to address ones own mother. The point being that when Christ address his mother as a woman he is referring to womanhood.

Tell me if I missed anything.

 

[ralphinal]

Perry, I heard it too, and you are dead on it.

Now, the conversation has not spoken on it much, but the reason that the Marian dogmas are required for salvation has nothing to do with Mary per se. It has to do with the authority of the Church. If the Church as the authority to teach God’s revelation AND they have the power to proclain dogmas through the possession of the Keys to the Kingdom, then any dogma must be accepted. The faithful can be comforted in the fact that the Holy Spirit will not allow the Church to declair a dogma that is in opposition to the Gosple.

 

[PerryJ]

To say that none of the Reformers was enamored of the Papacy would be an understatement; had any of the them been around when Pius XI, changed the doctrine of the IC to the dogma of the IC along with its dire pronouncements for speaking against it (which, IMO, amounts to changing the Gospel of Jesus Christ), and, had they witnessed the same Pope some years later declaring his predecessors, himself, and his successors infallible, I think you’d have heard a cacophony of protest from each of them.

Your post seems to suggest that you do not understand papal infallibility. It is because of the failure of men and the Pope that papal infallibility is required. We do not hold that the Pope is inspired or that they are free from sins. How could they be free of sin and human desires. This would be against the Bible. We hold that Christ will not allow his church’s teaching to error. This is a huge difference.

I am curios as I heard that reformers do not believe that Christ in heaven could enter Christ on earth. Is this a true belief of reformers? I thought you were reformed. If this is not true sorry for the error.

 

[Mystic_Warrior]

To paraphrase that conversation on the radio it was discussed the use of the term woman with regard to Jesus, Mary and other woman within the Bible. Woman was a common term used for other woman. For example the use of it with Mary Magdalene would be common. It was not used to address ones own mother. The point being that when Christ address his mother as a woman he is referring to womanhood.

Tell me if I missed anything.

That’s it. And Tim said several times that you simply wouldn’t call your mother “woman”. And yes, he referenced Mary Magdalene and the common use of the term. And he also said that it didn’t have the derogatory connotation that it has in modern times.

Peace…

MW

 

[cfrancis]

TU, thanks for the reply to my quesiton:

If the underlying logic is, a doctrine must have explicit evidence in Scripture, what is the basis for your belief in the canon of Scripture, an important Christian doctrine?

In the ability of God to make his truth known to His people.

By your answer, you appear to be saying, while there is no explicit Scriptural evidence for this Christian doctrine, the canon of Scripture, you accept this Christian doctrine in faith, based upon “the ability of God to make his truth known to His people.”

Is my summation fair?

 

[fix]

The following is a good reason of why Protestants find the Roman Catholic dogma of the intercession of Mary to be inherently dangerous and, in the example here, utterly blasphemous.

Now I know, I know, it will be defended according to all manner of apologetic attempts to justify this kind of theology in light of Scripture, or tradition, or magisterial decrees. But I would ask your consideration in order to better understand why we feel this must be utterly rejected. From St. Alphonsus Liguori’s The Glories of Mary:

Mary not only assists her beloved servants at death and encourages them, but she herself accompanies them to the tribunal seat of God. (p. 103)
With reason does an ancient writer call her “the only hope of sinners,” for by her help alone can we hope for the remission of sins. (p. 83)
He falls and is lost who has not recourse to Mary. (p. 94)
But now, if God is angry with a sinner, and Mary takes him under her protection, she withholds the avenging arm of her Son, and saves him. “And so,” continues the same saint, "no one can be found more fit for this office than Mary, who seizes the sword of divine justice with her own hands to prevent it from falling upon and punishing the sinner. (p. 124)
St. Anselm, to increase our confidence, adds, that “when we have recourse to this divine Mother, not only we may be sure of her protection, but that often we shall be heard more quickly, and be thus preserved, if we have recourse to Mary and call on her holy name, then we should be if we called on the name of Jesus our Saviour,” and the reason he gives for it is, “that to Jesus as a judge, it belongs also to punish; but mercy alone belongs to the Blessed Virgin as a patroness.” Meaning, that we more easily find salvation by having recourse to the Mother than by going to the Son. (p. 136-137)
And shall we scruple to ask her to save us, when “the way of salvation is open to none otherwise than through Mary.” (p. 169)
[St. Peter Damian] addresses her in these words: “All power is given to thee in heaven and on earth, and nothing is impossible to thee who canst raise those who are in despair to the hope of salvation.”(p. 180)
“At the command of Mary all obey - even God.” St. Bernardine fears not to utter this sentence, meaning, indeed, to say that God grants the prayers of Mary as if they were commands…Since the Mother, then, should have the same power as the Son, rightly has Jesus, who is omnipotent, made Mary also omnipotent; though, of course, it is always true that where the Son is omnipotent by nature, the Mother is only so by grace. (p. 181-182)
“Be comforted then, O you who fear,” will I say with St. Thomas of Villanova: “Breathe freely and take courage, O wretched sinners; this great Virgin, who is the Mother of your God and judge, is also the advocate of the whole human race; fit for this office, for she can do what she wills with God; most wise, for she knows all the means of appeasing him; universal, for she welcomes all, and refuses to defend no one.” (p. 198)
[Prayer of St. Ephraim:] O Immaculate Virgin, we are under thy protection…we beseech thee to prevent thy beloved Son, who is irritated by our sins, from abandoning us to the power of the devil. (p. 273)
The holy Church herself attributes to the merits of Mary’s faith the destruction of all heresies: “Rejoice, O Virgin Mary, for thou alone hast destroyed all heresies throughout the world.” (p. 566)

I have not gone thru every quote but what I see so far is true. Certainly no Catholic would find any of it troubling. It does require have some catechesis but none of it is troubling.

 

[eelpis]

And the problem with a lack of explicit evidence in the case of the Marian dogmas is that all of it is reasoning and examples of ridiculous argumentation by churchmen down through the centuries. Some of it is downright laughable. One can certainly make many valid arguments for some of the Marian doctrines, but to force them as binding on the consciences of the faithful is beyond crazy.

The Church acknowleges Tradition as well as Scripture as the word of God.

We should never be afraid to love or exalt Mary too much, God has loved and exalted her in a way that borders on the infinite already.
God cannot be outdone in generosity.

 

[Wolseley]

Frankly, I would hope Catholics would condemn this kind of junk as forcefully as possible. It is precisely that kind of thing that has given rise to much misunderstanding.

Perhaps. But you know, in all my nearly 48 years, I have never once encountered a Lutheran or a Lutheran church who went on record as forcefully condemning works such as On the Jews and Their Lies, or Luther’s comments about getting to heaven by slaughtering peasants, or his opinions regarding polygamy in a positive light.

Or is it only Catholics who should start forcefully rejecting “junk” wholesale, whilst the Protestants can ignore, or even maintain, every questionable doctrine their leaders of churches espouse?

 

[twb1621]

try reading from the following link and you should understand better what the Catholic faith proclaims and why in regard to Mary.

www.catscans.com/catholicsite/mary.htm

 

[fix]

“Totus tuus ego sum, et omnia mea tua sunt,” wrote St. Louis-Marie (1673-1716) – “I am all yours, and all that is mine is yours.”

For Karol Józef Wojtyla, whether as a young man in Nazirun Poland, a newly ordained priest in his Soviet-controlled homeland, or as Successor of St. Peter in the Vatican Apostolic Palace, the Mother of Jesus deserved the love of each Christian and merited our serious and sincere attempts to model our lives on hers.

In his mind, veneration of Our Blessed Lady was not optional; it is natural and expected from all disciples of Christ. Any follower of the Risen Savior, the Holy Father seemed to believe, would *want *to express his affection for the Woman of Nazareth who conceived, by the power of the Holy Spirit, the Word made flesh and brought Him forth from her virginal womb…

 

[twb1621]

It is amazing that so many Christians of separate denominations can recognize the Catholic Church as their “mother Church” yet never seem to question why someone 1500 or more years after Christ instituted His church founded their faith with differences based on the new founders interpretations. Investigate Christianity from the beginning, understand the difference between honor and worship, instead of being so quick to condemn based on misinformed prejudice.

 

[sandusky]

ralphinal:

Perry, I heard it too, and you are dead on it.

Now, the conversation has not spoken on it much, but the reason that the Marian dogmas are required for salvation has nothing to do with Mary per se. It has to do with the authority of the Church. If the Church as the authority to teach God’s revelation AND they have the power to proclain dogmas through the possession of the Keys to the Kingdom, then any dogma must be accepted. The faithful can be comforted in the fact that the Holy Spirit will not allow the Church to declair a dogma that is in opposition to the Gosple.

That’s a different Gospel:**Galatians 1:6-9

6 I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel;

7 which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ.

8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!

9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!**The papacy claims an unbroken line back to Peter and all of the authority that being Peter entailed such that I’ve heard people refer to the Pope as Peter himself.

Paul’s warning doesn’t give you pause?

 

[sandusky]

PerryJ:

I do not see anything in your post to disprove the Catholic statement. Luke clearly shows ongoing result. Ephesians may or may not show ongoing result. Nothing provided disputes the belief.

As stated the concept of Mary though is not dependant upon one verse. It is dependant upon the Bible taken as a whole. To reject the doctrine of Mary requires the rejection of many parts of the Bible. Some I already mentioned.

Perry, the Bible, as a whole, doesn’t say very much about Mary.

PerryJ:

Triune I know that you are not guilty of this; however, Protestants tend to try and fit everything in one verse or take a verse out of context to prove a point. With the doctrine of Mary one has to look at the whole Bible. This is how to define doctrine. Not do it one verse at a time. Does one think they can prove or disprove an action of God, the interaction of God and Mary in one verse.

Sandusky, you are better than the statement above. If you disagree that is fine. We are not forcing the issue. To me if one reads the whole Bible the doctrine of Mary is very clear.

The Bible, as a whole, doesn’t say very much about Mary.

PerryJ:

Your post seems to suggest that you do not understand papal infallibility. It is because of the failure of men and the Pope that papal infallibility is required. We do not hold that the Pope is inspired or that they are free from sins. How could they be free of sin and human desires. This would be against the Bible. We hold that Christ will not allow his church’s teaching to error. This is a huge difference.

I have no difficulty understanding papal infallibility—it’s not that difficult to understand.

PerryJ:

I am curios as I heard that reformers do not believe that Christ in heaven could enter Christ on earth. Is this a true belief of reformers? I thought you were reformed. If this is not true sorry for the error.

Forgive me, Perry, I don’t understand what you’re asking; will you rephrase it?

 

[Mannyfit75]

Perry, the Bible, as a whole, doesn’t say very much about Mary.

Not really. The First Chapter of Luke and the Gospel of John account of the Wedding feast of Cana and, when Mary stands before the foot of the cross when Jesus gave John to Mary as his mother and John as her son.

The Bible, as a whole, doesn’t say very much about Mary.

Same answers as I provided. Even though the accounts are short concerning Mary in the Gospels. Her faith in God and her loyalty to God is very well noticed.

I have no difficulty understanding papal infallibility—it’s not that difficult to understand.

From your understanding of infallibility? How do you defined it?

Forgive me, Perry, I don’t understand what you’re asking; will you rephrase it?

Perry will answer that.

On a side not, not everything that Jesus said and done is written in the entire Gospels. If it did, no book in the world would not be available to contain it.

 

[cfrancis]

Perry, the Bible, as a whole, doesn’t say very much about Mary.

Following the underlying logic, the Bible says nothing about the canon of Scripture.