I would call and highly **recommend a priest to administer **the Last Rites to dying Catholic, not the scapular.
No, justasking4. The Teaching that has been handed down to us through the authority Jesus appointed to the church does not act on “assumptions”, but on the revealed Word of God. We receive Mary as our mother because this is how the Apostles understood Jesus’ words to John at the foot of the cross. This is part of Sacred Tradition.
Some arguement can be made for this. Olympic champions spend many years imagining themselves to be such, and many will study their place of competition in advance, and imagine themselves winning. Also, there is an imaginal method of praying the scripture that helps one to “become” what one contemplates.
The individuals in the church are capable of error. The promise was made to the Church, and not the individual members of it. Jesus promised to lead the church into all truth,and He has done so.
That is a curious statement, and probably belongs on another thread.
Nobody I know!
I gave you my answer to this already. If you missed it, then you can type my handle into the “search” and chose “posts” in the options.
The scripture was not written to be peicemealed the way it is done by many fundamentalists. It is meant to be taken as a whole, and it reflects the teaching of the Church. Therefore, since it was written by the church, and nothing the Church teaches is in disagreement with it, then I can be sure when I read it in the light of the church teachigns that I will interpret it correctly.
Personally, I would not , because I am not familiar with that particular devotion,and would not consider myself able to properly instruct someone it it’s use. From what I have read on your posts, it seems that there are many activities involved in this devotion that would not commend themselves to a person on their deathbed. I think it might be more prudent to have a priest come over and hear the person’s confession, and administer unction and communion.
OK… so ‘Brothers’ doesn’t always mean brothers in the bible, I can accept that, but where does the bible say that these men are the children of Mary, the mother of Jesus?
But that Mary wasn’t Mary the mother of Jesus, because Mary was at the foot of the cross.
Not all, not even many, scripture verses are designed to have just the one correct interpretation, you know! Scripture is not all literal, so as poetry, prophecy, parable and so on it can and does have multiple meanings in many places. Don’t dumb down scripture by thinking all verses have got just the one meaning!
The problem is that the writers of the NT never present her as the mother of the church. As you may know she is not mentioned again by name after Acts 1:14. None ever make the case in their writings she is the mother of the church.
I can imagine all kinds of things but that doesn’t mean its true. If you want to imagine this so be it. But that doesn’t mean its true because you have no proof for it.
Huh? No doubt she was a follower of Christ otherwise she would not have been there in Acts.
Go to John 16:12-13 and look at this in context. Jesus is speaking to His disciples and not the church.
The problem is that it carries no weight if you don’t have the facts to back up the claims.
But you have no real way to check yourself if you are truly interpreting specific verses correctly. For example what about those verses and passages that have no direct impact on a doctrine?
It’s called FAITH
Who exactly are we supposed to check with??? The Church. Who do YOU check with to be sure YOU are correct in your interpretation? Certainly not the Church which produced and canonised the scriptures, and has been for 2,000 years studying every word intensely.
This is not a problem for Catholics, since we can look at our family history, and easily see that it took decades, and sometimes centuries to understand the Teachings.
My question was, what kind of disciple do you imagine she might be? Do you think she did not “mother” the Apostles, Jesus’ brethren? When Jesus pointed to John, and said, “Woman, there is your son”, do you not think that she mothered John just as much as she mothered her biological son? Have you ever BEEN around a Jewish Mother?!
EXACTLY!! At last! we finally agree upon something. These disciples are the ones that Jesus commissioned. He gave them His authority, the Keys to the Kingdom, and His promise that He would remain with them until the end. These Apostles and prophets, being the foundation of the Church, then appointed persons to succeed them.
You are right, I mean, I am not getting email from the Magesterium about every little question of scripture I have. For example, what did Jesus teach the Apostles for 40 days after His resurrection? Why didn’t Jesus appoint another Apostle to take the place of Judas during that time?
What I have found with Protestants is that they always will get down to their own authority no matter what (“the Bible doesn’t tell ME it this way”). This is their ultimate defense.
I’m sure this is what your private interpretation tells you. But in that case you have a very low view on God’s Church (and even God Himself, as He then is not willing or able to keep His People in the Truth).
The Book of Revelation was written by the “beloved disciple” of our Lord, who is also the author of the Gospel of John. The Marian allusions in Revelation are closely linked with the more explicit references to the Mother of God in John’s Gospel. Here Mary is never named but addressed by her Son as “Woman”, indicating that she is the woman foretold in Genesis and revealed as a sign in heaven in the Apocalypse. At the crucifixion when her Son entrusts her to the care of John, He says, Woman, behold your son," and then “Son, behold your mother.” (Jn 19:27) This instruction from our Lord has always been understood by the Church, since New Testament time, as an act whereby all Christians are placed under the spiritual motherhood of Jesus. If this were not so, then we would not have this verse in the scriptures at all. All seven of our Lord’s last words on the cross have a profound spiritual significance. Nothing he said just before he died was purely incidental. And his instruction explains why in Revelation 12 we read that “the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.” (Rev 12:17) The seed of the woman now includes every Christian, echoing the theme arising in the Gospel of John, where our Lord makes His Mother the mother of all his disciples - the Church. Since the Book of Revelation was not accepted as part of the canon of Scripture for a few centuries, it had no early tradition of interpretation. Once its canonicity was established, the Woman of Revelation 12 became identified primarily with Mary.
Jerry, your argument is circular, in that, the conclusion is implicitly assumed in the premise.**Galatians 1:18-19
Faith in what?
I do think its possible for the most part to understand and have the right interpretation of the scriptures. The same methods we apply to other works, works here also.
Huh? Of course it has one intended meaning. Knowing that does not mean we will be able to discover what it is though.
If what you say is true then there is far more confusion in the catholic church than protestant churches.
huh? Why would it be blasphemous if Mary had other children of her own?
So you agree it was not taught by the apostles?
Maybe. But this is not proof that she was looked upon as the mother of the church though.
no.
If there apostolic succession why is it not mentioned in the scriptures?
It seems to me then that catholics are in no better position to understand the scriptures than protestants who must study the scriptures to determine what it means and do not have a Magesterim giving us an infallible interpretation.You are right, I mean, I am not getting email from the Magesterium about every little question of scripture I have. For example, what did Jesus teach the Apostles for 40 days after His resurrection? Why didn’t Jesus appoint another Apostle to take the place of Judas during that time?
Sometimes its the minutae that nullifies an interpretation. In fact i think this is a problem for most of the marian doctrines.
faith in what the Catholic Church teaches and faith that Jesus started this Church and that He wouldn’t let the Church stray from Him. I’m sorry I’m not as educated as most on this forum seem to be, so I can only tell you what is in my heart.
Quote= OneNow1 Let me also add Pete, faith in God the Father, revealed to us through Jesus Christ His Son. Denying God’s love for Mary the gate the Father used for His Son, is I believe an affront to God. No toher person ever came so close to God as Mary right next to her heart.
This is an error in understanding the written revelation of God. The writer may have one meaning in mind when he wrote, but there are many meanings that can be found. For example, in the Psalms and the Messianic passages of Isaiah, we see the prophets writing about themselves, but we can also see how these passages apply to Jesus many centuries later.
I agree that Catholic doctrine is complex, and is difficult for people with black and white thinking to grasp. I think this is why many fundamentalists attack the church. However, there are many layers to scripture, and diffferent levels of understanding it. When one does not accept this, one is prone to misintrepretation.
It’s clear that you’ve never seriously studied literature if you think it’s the case that ANY literary work is prone to simply having just the one layer of meaning.