J
- Status
J
joe370
Guest
Hey Joe and Jimmy,
Not at all heretical. ML had an ardent devotion to the blessed mother Mary. It is in keeping with the teaching, to a degree.ML was convinced that the HS moved the CC to embrace and define the Trinity as infallible dogma, in spite of the fact that the holy bible was/is silent regarding the oneness of the Father and the HS or the oneness of the Son and the HS, which includes the interpolation of John 5:7. How the spirit of truth guides and steers Jesus’ one church in the correct doctrinal direction, eg the Trinity - will always be a mystery just as the Trinity itself is a mystery; wouldn’t you agree? What are your thoughts?
J
joe370
Guest
Hey Jon, I’ve got to go for a run and catch some zzz’s. I’ll talk to in a bit…
A
adstrinity
Guest
If you can find the bones of Our Lady, or any other first class relic of Her’s, then you may not believe in it, but, until then, believe She is in Heaven body & soul & glorified in Christ.
K
KathleenGee
Guest
To the Protestants, I never disputed Mary just never related to the plaster madonna in the church.
I came to Mary through Latin missionaries and experienced the witness of their devotion, and finally experienced her presence in my life. My soul filled with much light, it was on Christmas Day, and her presence lifted the heaviness of my cross, and I felt purity around me. Tasting this purity gave me hunger for more of God and not of this earth.
Later in life, every so often she would extend her presence to me. Generally, it was similar to going outside after a snow storm, and walking out on a clear and sunny morning, seeing the winter wonderland, and breathing in the clean, pure, and cool air. When Mary has come to me, it is like experiencing such wonder…but my room looks the same, everything around me is the same, but there is this sense of purity, immaculate…she makes God more present in the depth of my heart.
She is a gift. Wish you could be more open to her. She brings you closer to Jesus than any other being. And in time you learn to find out she has a sense of humor…
I came to Mary through Latin missionaries and experienced the witness of their devotion, and finally experienced her presence in my life. My soul filled with much light, it was on Christmas Day, and her presence lifted the heaviness of my cross, and I felt purity around me. Tasting this purity gave me hunger for more of God and not of this earth.
Later in life, every so often she would extend her presence to me. Generally, it was similar to going outside after a snow storm, and walking out on a clear and sunny morning, seeing the winter wonderland, and breathing in the clean, pure, and cool air. When Mary has come to me, it is like experiencing such wonder…but my room looks the same, everything around me is the same, but there is this sense of purity, immaculate…she makes God more present in the depth of my heart.
She is a gift. Wish you could be more open to her. She brings you closer to Jesus than any other being. And in time you learn to find out she has a sense of humor…
J
Jimmy_B
Guest
I loved this post!
T
Todd520
Guest
Hi Kathleen,
I wonder how you determined it was st. Mary?
I would have assumed it was the Holy Spirt. (I’ve not had such an experience, yet)
Regards
D
david_ruiz
Guest
I am glad you agree that the Assumption is extra-biblical (not in the bible). I understand your position that you believe it is apostolic,early church etc.without any proof except that later on 3rd century(?) ,we may have some documentation.You then assume that because the tradition picked up steam or exists today it MUST be apostolic (filling in the gap) , because the church can not err. I hope your understand the other side .There is nothing wrong with wanting to see it in the bible .There is nothing wrong with wanting to see some first century writing for it. There is nothing wrong with putting on the brakes with the Assumption (not believing in it) when church fathers did so also (Jerome,a pope also-not believing it) It is difficult to believe in it ,because as you say ,Christ founded the church ,with apostles and disciples and they make no mention of it. Again ,the closest mention from them (Peter where she was Assumed),was declared a forgery and anathema by a pope 5th century? Again ,shady stuff going on to further Marionism in the early church .I liken it to some liberal theologians today ,perhaps even catholic ,who have some strange ideas(liberal),but a thousand years from now they will be considered mainstream and correct, and be used as examples of what was normal thinking in their day…Your interpretation of the above scripture is out of context-that nothing is left out that would not be duplication( more healings, more miracles). To say that important dogma was kept out is out of context with entire biblical history -old and new . Anything could go then -Mormonism an extreme example.Marionism has important dogmas that must be believed in as declared by the popes.
K
KathleenGee
Guest
Well,Todd, you ask a very good question…we must always discern the Spirit. For me, it was the circumstances and celebration of Christmas Eve…we in the missions allowing Christ as the Infant to be reborn again in our soul…with Mary. So we had Mass, it was private, and we had our own sharings after the Gospel and priest’s homily. We would share our reflections. It was a most sacred time and I wrote about this experience to my parish back home who in turn, made copies and gave it out to our parishioners. It was a great spiritual moment in my life.
I could discern on Christmas Day her work – as I shared back home in Seattle, I recall saying she made my Cross lighter, gave me the ability to be more in Christ’s joy as we experienced death and much suffering every day among the believers. Also, the other key was that she brought me closer and more intimately united with God, and I experienced heaven with her. Whereas in the Lord, I experience His power, His life in the Sacraments, especially His Body and Blood, His strength and meaning in life. Jesus is the Alpha and Omega.
When I came home, I wanted to find her again in our culture…it took 7 years…she was very evasive and my spirit and faith suffered some confusion from my exposure to liberation theology among some very vocal and powerful missionaries. It was like Mary does not want to be the one sought, she wants to be hidden. That is how humble she is.
A priest said we know more about Mary by what is NOT written about her than what is. Mary’s greatest virtue was her humility.
About her humor? I shared that with a friend. He signed up to go to Nocturnal Adoration at our parish on top of a hill. That night it was snowing. He told me he prayed to the Blessed Mother, ‘Mary, I am going to visit your Son. Please help me to get there!’ As soon as he finished praying and began the upward climb of the hill, a snow truck immediately pulled out in front of him, laying sand before him all the way to the church. He then said as he pulled in to the chapel, ‘Thank you, Blessed Mother!’
There is indeed false Mary’s in the Church who manipulate, sow dissension, are self-promoting. I encountered one who did much harm to me…different devotions to ‘mary’, but bearing different fruits. This is not what the Holy Spirit does.
The Holy Spirit works through the Church and through the saints to bear only one Fruit: Jesus Christ, through many different charisms and personalities…
We know through the Holy Spirit when the Holy Father speaks infallibly. And with Mary, we can only discern by her fruits either in our souls, or in how we commune with others. Mary always works to bring unity. Mary works as a Mother to make us a family.
I could discern on Christmas Day her work – as I shared back home in Seattle, I recall saying she made my Cross lighter, gave me the ability to be more in Christ’s joy as we experienced death and much suffering every day among the believers. Also, the other key was that she brought me closer and more intimately united with God, and I experienced heaven with her. Whereas in the Lord, I experience His power, His life in the Sacraments, especially His Body and Blood, His strength and meaning in life. Jesus is the Alpha and Omega.
When I came home, I wanted to find her again in our culture…it took 7 years…she was very evasive and my spirit and faith suffered some confusion from my exposure to liberation theology among some very vocal and powerful missionaries. It was like Mary does not want to be the one sought, she wants to be hidden. That is how humble she is.
A priest said we know more about Mary by what is NOT written about her than what is. Mary’s greatest virtue was her humility.
About her humor? I shared that with a friend. He signed up to go to Nocturnal Adoration at our parish on top of a hill. That night it was snowing. He told me he prayed to the Blessed Mother, ‘Mary, I am going to visit your Son. Please help me to get there!’ As soon as he finished praying and began the upward climb of the hill, a snow truck immediately pulled out in front of him, laying sand before him all the way to the church. He then said as he pulled in to the chapel, ‘Thank you, Blessed Mother!’
There is indeed false Mary’s in the Church who manipulate, sow dissension, are self-promoting. I encountered one who did much harm to me…different devotions to ‘mary’, but bearing different fruits. This is not what the Holy Spirit does.
The Holy Spirit works through the Church and through the saints to bear only one Fruit: Jesus Christ, through many different charisms and personalities…
We know through the Holy Spirit when the Holy Father speaks infallibly. And with Mary, we can only discern by her fruits either in our souls, or in how we commune with others. Mary always works to bring unity. Mary works as a Mother to make us a family.
D
david_ruiz
Guest
Yes. The more you repeat a lie the more it becomes truth .This in regards to another issue (disunity).and 36,000 divisions //////This is pure propaganda and deserves no respect for lack of unbiased scholarship. Some whwere in my notes I have a good study (I think done by a Jew). Apples to apples, you must then consider each parish as a subdivision in Catholicism and then you also have your thousands .He concluded that there are several main divisions in Catholicism and maybe 6 or 7 in protestantism. Yes there are more in protestantism but thousands ,even hundreds is s statistical distortion. There are 3-4 main protestant groups. At best ,Catholics have unity but lack freedom ,and protestants have freedom , but lack unity…Your juxtaposition of Catholic bible and Catholic Assumption is understood .But as you say , the bible is more complex and larger (I wish you could have said more authoratative). , so please understand that that is partly why the Assumption is denied (not in the bible).Yes, we disagree on the value and role of Holy Scripture, that as you say , Catholicism gave us.I think you agree that this is good(belief in your bible) ,but seems ironic because that is what we use (The"Catholic" Bible ) to do away with some Catholic dogma and practice/tradition. …You yourself quote a scripture to show Peter is Pope-that is good (we just disagree on your interpretation)…I read an interesting book (catholic author- history on Jesuits). What we really protested was not what you believe under your church roof , but that Rome would not allow others the same courtesy .An edict was asked (by Rome) to be enforced by the emperor to not allow protestant churches to exist (threat of arrest confiscation of property etc.),this after they were allowed for several generations.The protestant princes protested at the conference -and were thus called “protestants” Perhaps you should be stirred to jealousy that we use your bible and have grown in leaps and bounds ,and also claim deep intimacy with Christ (outside of Rome).This is much like the Jews being stirred to jealousy at the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the gentiles.
K
KathleenGee
Guest
Also, if people do not know or are familiar with Catholic spirituality, and many Catholics these days are not interested or want to take the time to learn, it greatly facilitates understanding of Mary.
St. John of the Cross, St. Catherine of Siena, St. Bonaventura, St. Theresa of Avila, St. Therese of the Little Flower, St. John Climacus. There is a book out called, “The Fulfillment of All Desire”, a favorite now of seminarians that gives an overlook of Catholic spirituality–the dying of self and the growth of life in Christ, the inner life of the saints, written by Ralph Martin. It would be the easiest to study as it draws on most of these saints.
St. John of the Cross, St. Catherine of Siena, St. Bonaventura, St. Theresa of Avila, St. Therese of the Little Flower, St. John Climacus. There is a book out called, “The Fulfillment of All Desire”, a favorite now of seminarians that gives an overlook of Catholic spirituality–the dying of self and the growth of life in Christ, the inner life of the saints, written by Ralph Martin. It would be the easiest to study as it draws on most of these saints.
K
KathleenGee
Guest
I experience the same Holy Spirit and the fruits of Jesus Christ when I am with devout Protestants who also see Christ as the Alpha and Omega.
But like the pastor said, who had the parish up on the hill with Perpetual Adoration, it is both a grace and privilege that we Catholics/Orthodox have been given faith in the Eucharist,and he implied the same faith in our association with Peter, the Papacy, that holds the Keys to the Blood of Christ.
I never doubted in my entire life, the presence of Jesus in the Eucharist or in confession. But my father told me when I was 21 that I never had faith that the Catholic Church was the true church. I was taught by mean nuns and the elements surrounding the church made it seem like a morgue…then a year later, Vatican II came and changed and restored alot. Anyway, when my dad told me that, I felt convicted. Then I made an act of faith that the Catholic Church was the true church and after that did not doubt. In time everything made sense.
But like the pastor said, who had the parish up on the hill with Perpetual Adoration, it is both a grace and privilege that we Catholics/Orthodox have been given faith in the Eucharist,and he implied the same faith in our association with Peter, the Papacy, that holds the Keys to the Blood of Christ.
I never doubted in my entire life, the presence of Jesus in the Eucharist or in confession. But my father told me when I was 21 that I never had faith that the Catholic Church was the true church. I was taught by mean nuns and the elements surrounding the church made it seem like a morgue…then a year later, Vatican II came and changed and restored alot. Anyway, when my dad told me that, I felt convicted. Then I made an act of faith that the Catholic Church was the true church and after that did not doubt. In time everything made sense.
R
Roman_Catholic_1
Guest
I fail to see how I gave up my freedom when I converted.
Yes, I am not “free” to accept lies and still be able to call myself Catholic, but I am more than free to accept truth or reject it. Is that so different within Protestantism? Does a Protestant have “freedom” to accept that Christ was not Lord? That He did not rise from the dead? I don’t know for sure but I am betting not. Would this mean that a Protestant does not have freedom?The Bible is authoritative…
Who is “we”? Protestants? This is true but Protestant also disagree with the role of Holy Scripture amongst themselves. For instance, Baptists and Lutherans do not see the role of Scriptures as being the same. To be more precise they do not see the role of the Church in interpreting scripture as the same:
modernreformation.org/default.php?page=articledisplay&var1=ArtRead&var2=19&var3=main
Quite the opposite I jump for joy that Protestants have been led to Christ. A lot of those Protestants have also, after being led to Christ, converted to the Catholic Church. I, like the Catholic Church, see that Protestant churches have been used as a, “means of salvation”
scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a9p3.htm#I
God bless you
J
Jimmy_B
Guest
Now, I’m afraid that you’re viewing Catholicism through a Protestant lens.
Catholics follow, Holy Scripture, Holy Tradition and the Church. So, I obviously as a Catholic know that not everything Christian is in the Bible… That’s the context from my perspective as a Catholic…
We aren’t the ones (the Catholic Church) who pick and chose the history that supports our position. And, the Catholic Church does not allow for “personal interpretation” of the Bible, in a way that is contrary to the Church and to Catholic teachings.
The Catholic Church were and are the guardians of Christian history and tradition and we don’t reject Christian history or Christian tradition.
When all you have is the Bible, a Catholic book, two thirds of the equation is missing… right?
How can you prove your point using a Catholic book, without all of the information needed to put it into context?
Now, has far a Christian history, and… who believed what, when, I think that the Catholic Church would have more of a handle on that considering the fact that they were there and were the only ones for hundreds of years, documenting, preserving and protecting Christian history and holding the ecumenical counsels… wouldn’t you agree?
Why would a non-Catholic try to use a Catholic Saint and Father of the Church to try to disprove a Catholic doctrine? That doesn’t make any sense to me. Of course people disagreed and that’s why we have ecumenical councils, the first being documented in the Bible. What do you think St. Paul’s letters were about? Defining something as an “infallible” belief and a Catholic dogma is a long and complicated process.
One cannot connect the Christian dots, without first connecting the Catholic dots, in proper order and in context. Catholic dogma isn’t just pulled from thin air, it doesn’t happen in a vacuum, nor does it occur overnight.
It’s easy to sit here today with a Bible and a computer and play “Monday morning quarterback”, hundreds of years after the fact. Many here, arguing against this belief may have come to their conclusions overnight, with little effort, little documentation, few resources, little man-power or man-hours and by excluding Christian History, Christian tradition, extra-biblical documents from early Church Fathers and others… passed down over the centuries and those things, which have come from ecumenical counsels over the past 2000 years but not the Catholic Church.
That is why we need a Church, a Pope and a Magisterium … Some answers have taken multiple lifetimes to define, by people who completely dedicated their entire lifetimes to Christ and His Church… no wives, no jobs… just Jesus and His Church. Many Catholic/Christian beliefs took hundreds of years to define. Many of those beliefs, are today, shared by our Protestant brothers, because they have decided not to reject something that started as a Catholic belief.
Once again… viewing Catholicism through a Protestant lens here, doesn’t work here.
Thank you for you post.
Your Thoughts?
K
KathleenGee
Guest
David, I am so free in Christ…all we Catholics have to do is to go to Sunday Mass, fast one day a week during Lent, attend Holy Days…stay married and uphold the sanctity of human life. The sacraments are our source of strength to be able to be faith. Without Christ, all this is impossible.
D
david_ruiz
Guest
We are good at observation of historical data:John wrote revelations around100 A.D., Iraneius quotes many of the books as scripture(150 A.D.), Eusubius compiles 50 bibles (350 A.D. ),a council approves the bible (397 A.D.) Where we struggle and differ is in interpretation of these same events .I strongly do NOT see a central institutional church. I do see a strong shepherding of the church by the Holy Spirit ,using saints and offices as listed in scripture(Just do not see pope =central listed).That is why ,after Jerusalem ,you had no church council for hundreds of years. Without the Catholic church there would be no Christianity today is a bit of twist on words .Christianity is and was universal .That is what the earliest use of the term catholic meant-universal. … Sorry, the Church did not come before the bible-you forget the Old Testament… Again , your central organization of today or of Rome is not what I see in "central’ in the Catholic Acts and Epistles .
K
KathleenGee
Guest
David, did you see the description of the Roman Mass explained to the Roman Emperor during that time, 155 A D, written by St. Justin the Martyr? We pretty much pray the same, have the same tone and focus as then.
D
david_ruiz
Guest
"Those ignorant of the past are slaves to the present’ ’ C.S.Lewis .Catholicism is generous to protestants today but has not always been so.You were not free in eastern churches to celebrate Easter as apostolic tradition taught you because Rome said you must do it another day (5thcentury ?) .You were free to say Mary had children after her virgin birth of Christ until the third or fourth centuries ,and the list goes on and on with these non-essential doctrines.Please , the pope had an army until 1870. There could be strict enforcement by the church to not have personal divine inspiration on any matter that differed from the current pope. Some topics should be open to debate (when does thee rapture occurr ,the millenium etc,there should be some freedom of conscience on these issues , popes condemned freedom of conscience and bible societies etc.as late as the1800’s…Good ,the bible is authoratative you say ,and that authority is what puts the brakes on the Assumption. As in Jesus’s days The Word corrects improper tradition(How did the Jews go wrong , they were His chosen, and salvation is of the Jews.etc etc .They went wrong. The Roman Catholic church went wrong, yet every last promise to both Christ has been faithful( the Jews and the catholic church (universal)…Protestants are free to disagree on everything under the sun,The only pure unity we can have is to have our souls washed by the blood of the lamb.Catholics are NOT totally unified on all things either around the world or with their own past…You jump for joy because they become or may become Catholic .I jump for joy because you have become Christian ,and have personally met the creator of all.What church He places you in is peanuts in comparison.The apostles, before Pentecost , were leary and misunderstanding of anyone for Christ outside their niche or group .Remember the story ? I praise God for the good seed planted by much Catholic teaching ,that has led souls to new birth , despite other catholic teachings, even on this new birth, that are wrong. I am sure it happens both ways , but my experience has been that as much as 40 -60 % of my church/ groups are comprised of x- catholics . What is your experience ? As a Catholic ,I remember maybe 1-2% protestants being part of our church /group/school.I fail to see how I gave up my freedom when I converted.
The Bible is authoritative…
Who is “we”? Protestants? This is true but Protestant also disagree with the role of Holy Scripture amongst themselves. For instance, Baptists and Lutherans do not see the role of Scriptures as being the same. To be more precise they do not see the role of the Church in interpreting scripture as the same:
modernreformation.org/default.php?page=articledisplay&var1=ArtRead&var2=19&var3=main
Quite the opposite I jump for joy that Protestants have been led to Christ. A lot of those Protestants have also, after being led to Christ, converted to the Catholic Church. I, like the Catholic Church, see that Protestant churches have been used as a, “means of salvation”
scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a9p3.htm#I
God bless you
J
Jimmy_B
Guest
You seem to pick and chose the parts of Christianity and Christian history that suits you and I surrender to Christ and His Church. One involves ego and the other humility. You are mistaken about the Bible. The “Bible” is a Catholic book. The Torah for example, the books of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy are in the Bible but are not the “Bible”. The Christian Church came before the Christian Bible (Old and New Testament) and Christianity and is rooted in Judaism, which came before the Torah. One cannot write about something that hasn’t yet occurred… The act always occurs before the document that describes that act. I hope this helps.
D
david_ruiz
Guest
Tell me ,did Jesus need the Jewish magisterium,and Jewish tradition to see scripture clearly, or did two thirds of the equation mess up the first ? The Jews did not pull their traditions out of thin air either .They thought they were 100% Jewish .They were the guardians of Holy scripture,their traditions and history .They began before Holy Scripture.How did Jesus ,when going against tradition and history get the right "context " of scripture ? …Then it is a strange feeling to think that some of the dogmas you defend were not believed by your own saints .So what is the big deal if someone outside doesn’t believe it either .That is a point. We bring these saints up mostly because you bring up other saints ,who believe the opposite (in favor of any said dogma). Yes, they are all your saints ,according to you . I understand . I might humbly state I feel a kinship ,a spirit bearing witness with anyone who claims a relationship with Christ first, and any dogmas thereafter, and the more points of agreement, the merrier , be he Catholic or orthodox or protestant…Be careful judging others as to wether they exclude history etc. With computing ,it is amazing the things at our finger tips.and knowledge can be dangerous,for both sides,Alleluia ,I believe no one church ,denomination is pure ,perfect and Jesus promised all things will come to light ,even those things hidden .Again you can not complain if we use your history and saints etc ,and then complain that we do not do our homework.You seem to be saying two thousand years is a long time ,and one must be careful .I agree .That is part why I do not like some dogma that comes out almost two thousand years after the fact ,like the Assumption. It seems like those early voices against it are drowned by time …Clearly we both have faith on this issue ,but just resting on different supports.This is as old as the garden .Just what has God said and done,and how much are we on target, by His graces.Now, I’m afraid that you’re viewing Catholicism through a Protestant lens.
Catholics follow, Holy Scripture, Holy Tradition and the Church. So, I obviously as a Catholic know that not everything Christian is in the Bible… That’s the context from my perspective as a Catholic…
We aren’t the ones (the Catholic Church) who pick and chose the history that supports our position. And, the Catholic Church does not allow for “personal interpretation” of the Bible, in a way that is contrary to the Church and to Catholic teachings.
The Catholic Church were and are the guardians of Christian history and tradition and we don’t reject Christian history or Christian tradition.
When all you have is the Bible, a Catholic book, two thirds of the equation is missing… right?
How can you prove your point using a Catholic book, without all of the information needed to put it into context?
Now, has far a Christian history, and… who believed what, when, I think that the Catholic Church would have more of a handle on that considering the fact that they were there and were the only ones for hundreds of years, documenting, preserving and protecting Christian history and holding the ecumenical counsels… wouldn’t you agree?
Why would a non-Catholic try to use a Catholic Saint and Father of the Church to try to disprove a Catholic doctrine? That doesn’t make any sense to me. Of course people disagreed and that’s why we have ecumenical councils, the first being documented in the Bible. What do you think St. Paul’s letters were about? Defining something as an “infallible” belief and a Catholic dogma is a long and complicated process.
One cannot connect the Christian dots, without first connecting the Catholic dots, in proper order and in context. Catholic dogma isn’t just pulled from thin air, it doesn’t happen in a vacuum, nor does it occur overnight.
It’s easy to sit here today with a Bible and a computer and play “Monday morning quarterback”, hundreds of years after the fact. Many here, arguing against this belief may have come to their conclusions overnight, with little effort, little documentation, few resources, little man-power or man-hours and by excluding Christian History, Christian tradition, extra-biblical documents from early Church Fathers and others… passed down over the centuries and those things, which have come from ecumenical counsels over the past 2000 years but not the Catholic Church.
That is why we need a Church, a Pope and a Magisterium … Some answers have taken multiple lifetimes to define, by people who completely dedicated their entire lifetimes to Christ and His Church… no wives, no jobs… just Jesus and His Church. Many Catholic/Christian beliefs took hundreds of years to define. Many of those beliefs, are today, shared by our Protestant brothers, because they have decided not to reject something that started as a Catholic belief.
Once again… viewing Catholicism through a Protestant lens here, doesn’t work here.
Thank you for you post.
Your Thoughts?
- Status