E
Eilish_Maura
Guest
Would this idea that Mary is more responsive, more giving, more anything than any member of the Trinity be heresy?
- Status
E
Eilish_Maura
Guest
- If Jesus taught this idea that he and the Father were less willing to give graces or respond to prayers in anyway than the BVM outside of Scripture, opposing what he taught within it, there is a VERY serious problem!
- Apparitions ‘don’t count’
- The discussion has not been that seeking her intercession is compulsory but that one “loses out” or is “in peril” or “rejects God”.
E
Eilish_Maura
Guest
NOTHING that has been discussed would come anywhere near the issue being addressed in Luke 10:16.
J
Johndigger
Guest
Care to explain why?
I’m not talking about the teaching authority of the Church (which this passage certainly relates to) but rather the intimate connection between God using people and our rejection of those people is the *same *thing as rejecting Him. To highlight that we can’t say that “Oh, I can have God but I can reject the intercession of the Blessed Virgin. Because rejecting Mary’s prayers IS rejecting God.”
Why chuck out one line of rhetoric with no reasoning? What purpose does it serve in furthering our conversation?
God bless.
JD
C
Calliope
Guest
If God chose to utilize Mary to dole out graces, that is his perogative. The grace comes from Him, and through her. Like water from a faucet, the faucet isn’t the source, but the water doesn’t run unless you turn it on. Or, of course, you can drive to the lake and bail up as much water as you wish, but someone has provided an easier way to get it…the faucet. It’s up to you to use the means provided by the loving Father or not.
God is generous with graces and gave many means of supplying them, the sacraments, prayer, reading scripture, good works, and the Blessed Virgin. If you choose not to partake of any of those means of receiving grace, that is your free will at work, it is not God witholding, but you unwilling to use the resources made available to you. It will not be counted against you, but you may not be getting all the graces you might if you did utilize those means.
Apparitions are part of tradition. The sacred heart of Jesus…came from an apparition, as have many other worthy devotions. These are optional, again, if you choose not to participate, you will not be penalized, but you may find benefit from participating. It’s up to you.
No, you are not in peril if you choose not to seek the intercession of the Virgin. Nor are you rejecting God, but you might be rejecting an opportunity for grace that He provided for you. And many would consider that losing out. It’s like not cashing in on a winning lottery ticket.
E
Eilish_Maura
Guest
The faucet is not the only way to get water.
Not all people are drawn BY GOD to praying to Mary for intercession. All gifts are given by God in HIS time whether Mary is included in the loop or not.
So long as we turn to God we will have all the graces we will need - even if we leave out some of the ‘means’ to get them. That is the real core to the opening question - the impression that we will get more than our needs require going through another (paricularly Mary) or get it faster than praying to the Father directly.
Rejection has nothing to do with it and no - it is not like failing to cash in on a winning lottery ticket.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Hi, me again.
EM --and Calliope too, hi there:
We’ve been over this ground a lot and have had lots of opportunities to link to sources like the catechism which discuss Catholic teaching.
But are we really listening to each other, or talking PAST each other?
Do we really know what the other person is saying, or are we ‘hearing’ something which we THINK the other person is saying, and addressing THAT instead?
I’d like to post this from another thread, indirectly related to this one.
But is it really the teaching that is flawed, or is the understanding flawed? Sometimes a person can express one aspect regarding a teaching imperfectly, but the actual teaching is quite correct. Jumping on the one small imperfection while ignoring the context which gives a correct understanding of the whole isn’t really finding fault with the teaching but on an incorrect understanding, apart from the teaching. And sometimes a person can listen to something quite correct but misunderstand or misunderpret it, and then argue that the teaching is wrong based on his ‘misunderstanding’.
Are we doing that here?
Are we focusing on what we’re saying, or what we THINK the other person is saying (which might not be what the other person is saying at all?)
EM --and Calliope too, hi there:
We’ve been over this ground a lot and have had lots of opportunities to link to sources like the catechism which discuss Catholic teaching.
But are we really listening to each other, or talking PAST each other?
Do we really know what the other person is saying, or are we ‘hearing’ something which we THINK the other person is saying, and addressing THAT instead?
I’d like to post this from another thread, indirectly related to this one.
But is it really the teaching that is flawed, or is the understanding flawed? Sometimes a person can express one aspect regarding a teaching imperfectly, but the actual teaching is quite correct. Jumping on the one small imperfection while ignoring the context which gives a correct understanding of the whole isn’t really finding fault with the teaching but on an incorrect understanding, apart from the teaching. And sometimes a person can listen to something quite correct but misunderstand or misunderpret it, and then argue that the teaching is wrong based on his ‘misunderstanding’.
Are we doing that here?
Are we focusing on what we’re saying, or what we THINK the other person is saying (which might not be what the other person is saying at all?)
C
Calliope
Guest
EM,
It is clear that you are eager to downplay any role that Mary has been given as intercessor. I don’t know why. I believe you have your reasons.
At this point you are giving point by point responses that show you have not carefully read the reply given to you, or you are willfully misrepresenting what others are saying.
I made it clear that God, not Mary is the source of grace and one can go directly to God for grace. But God has provided other means of receiving graces and made them available to us. No, not all water comes from a faucet, that was the point I was making. But the faucet is there should we wish to use it. No one has to, but it has been provided for us.
I know not all people are drawn to Mary. I am one of them. For my own reasons (and you can read where I’ve discussed the issue on CAF) I am very uncomfortable with approaching Mary as an intercessor, and with much of the “hoopla” that I see in many Marian devotions.
But I can put my personal issues aside to present the teachings of the Church, which is what I have been doing. I prefer to go to the lake and haul the water myself, doesn’t make sense to lots of people, but everyone has to work things out for themselves.
Without a doubt one can receive all the graces they need and then some without the intercession of Mary or the saints.
Yes, the impression IS that we will get more and faster by using the Virgin. I don’t know if that is correct or not, since I am neither a trained Catholic scholar, nor do I have a devotion to Mary, but I have heard exactly that from Catholics who do over the course of my life.
Sometimes we don’t like, or feel comfortable with the teachings of the Church. Sometimes they don’t make “human” sense to us, or we can’t understand why God would order things the way He chooses to.
Whether or not we are comfortable or it seems sensible really isn’t the issue. God will do what God will do. And obedience to God and the doctrine protected by the Church is required of her members, even when we don’t like something.
As for it not being like cashing in a winning ticket…I wonder. It sounds an awful lot like me of people who argue they don’t need church, the sacraments or even Christ…they’ll just go to God. Yes, I guess that can be done, but God has set up another way, an easier and better way. He has given us the gift of Christ and the Church, the sacraments and the disciplines and the communion of saints. He has chosen to make these other means available to us as a way for us to come to Him. Not all are equal, but they are all instituted by God for our good.
You have been told from the start that you need not go through Mary. I am not sure what else you want from us. I cannot change what the church teaches, or what God has set up for the good of his people because you and I are uncomfortable with it.
Many people reject God because they don’t like how he does things, they think He was wrong to sacrifice His own son, for instance, the crucifix makes them uncomfortable, confession makes them uncomfortable. But comfort isn’t what it’s all about. Not yours, or mine, or even Christ’s.
Calliope
E
Eilish_Maura
Guest
One does not have to set aside anything other than this image that it is harder/more work go to the ‘lake’ rather than use the ‘faucet’.
This impression is NOT supported by the Church and that is the point.
NO ONE has brought this up, especially not me.
If you look at the posts again the others have been 'sure you don’t need to go through Mary BUT you will be rejecting God/rejecting Jesus/cheating yourself/putting yourself in peril/etc.
The items after the BUT are not part of what the Church teaches - the only thing I am uncomfortable with is pretending that it is.
C
Calliope
Guest
I think I see what you are getting at. People with a very strong relationship to Mary, and a very strong devotion to her often use very strong language, and have a different understanding about her role than those of us who do not.
They may present their understanding and experience in very strong language or assume it to be universal.
Sometimes it can be very difficult to understand one another, as our experiences greatly differ.
Some people are called to a close relationship with the Virgin. Others are called to other types of devotions. And when one is in close relationship with a devotion, they come to know and understand it differently than those who are not.
When I read what people with a strong devotion to Mary say, I read it with an understanding that they are speaking from their own experience, and will feel and know things about it I do not. I have not been thus called. I think sometimes it is hard for them to understand that not everyone is called to that type of relationship with the Virgin.
They may speak in universal language about something that is perhaps not so universal.
Just as everyone is not called to a religious vocation, or parenthood, etc, neither are all called to a special devotion to the Virgin. Some are called to other spiritual disciplines.
When something is so meaningful in a person’s life, they have a difficult time understanding that it may not be so for another. And indeed, I have often been on the receiving end of scolding from many a rabid Marian devotee.
God has made many means of grace available. The Church informs us of them. We may feel particularly drawn to some over others. That is fine.
I am not arguing that you must or even should go through Mary. But I do think that the Church teaches that she is a particularly powerful intercessor and a generous means of receiving grace. I do think that is in accordance with Church teaching.
There are no if’s, and’s or but’s. about that.
For the people who think that everyone MUST have a specific devotion to Mary, for to do so is to honor Christ. I would invite them to consider that there are other saints and devotions that God calls people to, and that since God likewise provided those means, they are pleasing to him and honor Christ as well.
Following the call of God to other styles of acceptable devotion is not a dishonor to the Virgin or Christ, but acceptable and provided for by the Church herself.
F
FCEGM
Guest
First off, Aquinas himself says (along with the Church) that Mary IS our mother. So, if you wish to cite Aquinas, cite him consistently. Secondly, your statement above is a very foolish one, since what it really denies is the reality of our one-Flesh Covenant with Jesus, i.e., the fact that the Church is mysteriously but truly the Body of Christ. In Acts 9, when Christ appears to Saul on the road to Damascus, He does notsay “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting my church?” - which is what Saul was doing. He says, rather: “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?” This is more than a figure of speech; the Church’s status as the Body of Christ is more than merely figurative language, just as the Eucharist which we receive is more than a mere symbol, but truly the Body (the very Self) of Christ, which becomes one-Flesh with our bodies when we receive it, thereby making the Church the Body of Christ and establishing a true, one-Flesh Covenant between Christ and the members of His Church. In this mystery, Mary IS our Mother, for she bore the very Body of Christ which we ourselves now intrinsically belong to. If you deny this, then you deny the very heart and reality of the Catholic Faith, and specifically the Eucharist. Do you even realize that you are doing that?
This is not an either-or situation. Both Mary and our biological mothers are our true mothers, albeit in different senses. Mary is our mother in the sense that Eve is our mother; just as all human beings are one-flesh with Eve, so are all Apostolic Christians one-Flesh with Mary through Christ and His Eucharistic Covenant.
Your expression above is such bad theology that it’s not even worthy of a half-baked Fundamentalist. Mary is our mother in the order of grace. The Catholic Church officially teaches that, and no Catholic is free to deny it. Secondly, the fact that Mary is our mother in the order of grace in no sense makes Mary an equal with God the Father, nor does it imply such a thing, for we also happen to believe that Abraham, for example, is our father in the order of grace (see Gal 3:29), as are many other patriarchs and saints, including St. Peter and all the Popes who followed him. Mary’s grace-filled maternity applies to the area of the Incarnation itself, and to our Covenant with Christ which depends on this Incarnation, i.e., the Church as the Body of Christ (see above).
As for Mary’s relation to God the Father viz. the birth of Christ, do you not know that Jesus Christ the Messiah is the union between God and man. He is, so we teach and believe, fully God and fully man. He received His Divinity from all eternity through being eternally begotten of the Father, and thus One in Being with Him; but, He received His humanity from Mary. Thus, if you wish to claim that Christ is somehow “more” the Son of God than He is the son of Mary (i.e., the Son of Man), then you are professing the Monophysite heresy or, still worse, the Docetist heresy, which denied the reality of His Incarnation. If Christ is both fully-God and fully-man, then Mary is just as much His mother as the eternal Father is His Father. If you say otherwise, then you are denying that He Who is Divine and eternal truly became a man and truly experienced human birth, so as truly to acquire a human mother. It is blatantly clear that you have a very poor appreciation of the Incarnation of Christ, and so it is no wonder that you do not appreciate the role of Mary in the Church.
Wrong. See above.
Yes. Just as she is just as much Christ’s own mother as the Father is His Father. If you say otherwise, then you deny the Hypostatic Union of Christ - His being fully-God and fully-man - and you make yourself a Monophysite (or a Docetist …or, funny enough, a Nestorian …which is usually the opposite error of Monophysism!
No they are not. You only think they are because you do not realize what the Incarnation of the eternal Son of God really means. He Who was God from all eternity truly became a man, without ceasing to be God; thus, whatever was proper to the man known as Jesus of Nazareth belonged fully and totally to the eternal Divine Person of the Son. This includes His relationship to His human mother. Therefore, the Mother of Christ is the Mother of God, i.e., the human mother of the eternal Person of God the Son. Such is the true union of Christ’s Incarnation.
The Catholic Church is not confused, rather, you are. You are undermining and dismantling the Hypostatic Union of Christ in favor of either a Nestorian or a Monphysite view.
Who says that she does nothing for her children? And you base this on what evidence? Did you once pray to Mary yet fail to get that shiny new bicycle for Christmas??
Needless to say, one could make the same sort of irrational and oh-so-emotional argument in regard to God the Father Himself when one fails to receive a favorable answer to a prayer directed to Him. So, are we then to say that God Himself is a poor Father??? It is ridiculous that you would cite Aquinas but then preach both quasi-Nestorianism and quasi-Monophysism in the same breath!
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
I put this on the other thread but thought it would do well here also.
Today, at Mass, Father said the Third Eucharistic Prayer.
In this prayer, after the consecration, Father prays, “To Mary and the saints. . .on whose constant intercession we rely for help”.
Now that is right at Mass.
I figure, that if the saints are interceding for us at our request, constantly, and we are relying on them for help, that indeed there IS a consequence to ‘not’ asking the Virgin for intercession.
I think that consequence is a ‘lessening’ of one’s participation in the Body of Christ.
I think the whole point is that the idea of making it into a competition and focusing on ‘me and Jesus’ is a very recent (last few hundred years), very ‘individualistic’, and at times a very “Protestant” idea. Because certainly our most ‘basic’ unity is ‘self and God’, it is not a ‘false’ idea, but it is not a COMPLETE idea. And if one does make it so complete as to IGNORE the ‘rest’ of God’s body (Church Militant, Church Suffering and Church Triumphant --the latter of whom include the saints and the Virgin)–then we are indeed ‘missing’ something which could make our relationship with God ‘deeper.’
You know how St. Paul talks of 'making up what is lacking in Christ’s suffering?" Well, of course Jesus Himself is not ‘lacking’ and it was HIS suffering which redeemed us, no question. But IF we are thinking that WE do not have to do anything in ourselves and WITH others, then there IS a lacking in Christ’s suffering–and the lacking is in US.
IMO it is the ‘minimalist’ approach that is more dangerous than the ‘inclusive’ approach.
The minimalists are ‘fearful that we may ‘neglect’ God for the saints, or become confused and misunderstand and think the saints are as powerful as God.’ But they fail to realize that THEY may come to neglect the true and authentic role the saints have in Christ, and THEY may and do become confused, misunderstand, and think that anybody who speaks of the saints is automatically thinking the saints are as powerful, etc. --when the persons are not, never have, and never will say that.
There are, it appears, more people (some Catholic as well as many Protestant) who are making that ‘minimalist’ error. Far more (despite the finger-pointing at one poster out of dozens) than those who might APPEAR to be or who even do err on the side of being confused into thinking the saints have more power than they do.
Today, at Mass, Father said the Third Eucharistic Prayer.
In this prayer, after the consecration, Father prays, “To Mary and the saints. . .on whose constant intercession we rely for help”.
Now that is right at Mass.
I figure, that if the saints are interceding for us at our request, constantly, and we are relying on them for help, that indeed there IS a consequence to ‘not’ asking the Virgin for intercession.
I think that consequence is a ‘lessening’ of one’s participation in the Body of Christ.
I think the whole point is that the idea of making it into a competition and focusing on ‘me and Jesus’ is a very recent (last few hundred years), very ‘individualistic’, and at times a very “Protestant” idea. Because certainly our most ‘basic’ unity is ‘self and God’, it is not a ‘false’ idea, but it is not a COMPLETE idea. And if one does make it so complete as to IGNORE the ‘rest’ of God’s body (Church Militant, Church Suffering and Church Triumphant --the latter of whom include the saints and the Virgin)–then we are indeed ‘missing’ something which could make our relationship with God ‘deeper.’
You know how St. Paul talks of 'making up what is lacking in Christ’s suffering?" Well, of course Jesus Himself is not ‘lacking’ and it was HIS suffering which redeemed us, no question. But IF we are thinking that WE do not have to do anything in ourselves and WITH others, then there IS a lacking in Christ’s suffering–and the lacking is in US.
IMO it is the ‘minimalist’ approach that is more dangerous than the ‘inclusive’ approach.
The minimalists are ‘fearful that we may ‘neglect’ God for the saints, or become confused and misunderstand and think the saints are as powerful as God.’ But they fail to realize that THEY may come to neglect the true and authentic role the saints have in Christ, and THEY may and do become confused, misunderstand, and think that anybody who speaks of the saints is automatically thinking the saints are as powerful, etc. --when the persons are not, never have, and never will say that.
There are, it appears, more people (some Catholic as well as many Protestant) who are making that ‘minimalist’ error. Far more (despite the finger-pointing at one poster out of dozens) than those who might APPEAR to be or who even do err on the side of being confused into thinking the saints have more power than they do.
F
FCEGM
Guest
All excellent points, TE. 
E
Eilish_Maura
Guest
Anything pertaining to this thread should be responded to ONLY here - I asked that you stop trying to blend the threads. TIA
E
Eilish_Maura
Guest
This has NOTHING to do with the issues raised.
No one is recommending anything that would qualify as ‘minimalist’.
No one has objected or found fault with anything in the liturgy.
Can we either end this thread or get back on track?
No one is recommending anything that would qualify as ‘minimalist’.
No one has objected or found fault with anything in the liturgy.
Can we either end this thread or get back on track?
E
ElizabethPH
Guest
I agree and you as well FCEGM!All excellent points, TE.
W
water
Guest
also today, at the beginning of the Mass, we say the Penitential Rite:
“…and I ask blessed Mary, ever virgin,
all the angels and saints,
and you, my brothers and sisters,
to pray for me to the Lord our God.”
Is there anyone here who prays this prayer and say “I don’t pray and ask Virgin Mary and the Saints for intercession”?
“…and I ask blessed Mary, ever virgin,
all the angels and saints,
and you, my brothers and sisters,
to pray for me to the Lord our God.”
Is there anyone here who prays this prayer and say “I don’t pray and ask Virgin Mary and the Saints for intercession”?
E
Eilish_Maura
Guest
Go back and count the number of times it has been repeated that the discussion focused on the request for intercession OUTSIDE OF THE LITURGY and you will have your answer.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Why is all right to ask for intercession during the liturgy and not outside?
If it is ‘good’ for one, it is good for the other.
God is not contradictary. He does not have one set of rules to follow in ONE circumstance and a totally different set for another circumstance.
If it is ‘good’ for one, it is good for the other.
God is not contradictary. He does not have one set of rules to follow in ONE circumstance and a totally different set for another circumstance.
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
**“Drawn” is the operative word. **
What some people seem not to appreciate - it is all too easy to forget
- is that people have different attraits; an attrait is an attraction. Some people are attracted to a particular Attribute: God’s Majesty or His Holiness or His Glory or some other. People are attracted to different Saints; or to this or that feast or mystery, such as the Passion or the Ascension; or to different virtues. And these different attractions express, & lead to, different types of Christian character, emphasising different aspects of the Mystery of Christ in His Church.**Love is a form of attraction - different people are led to love different Attributes, feasts, mysteries of faith, virtues, Saints. Today is the feast of St. Philip Neri, & for some people it will be an occasion of particular joy because God has attracted them to St. Philip. For others, it will be of less significance: that does not make them any less Catholic - it means only that they have no attrait to St. Philip; they are different in what attracts them, not inferior. They cannot be forced or shamed or bullied into loving this Saint, because love cannot be forced. And the same is true of an attrait to any Saint - including the God-Bearer Mary. To try to force-feed devotion to her into Christians who lack an attrait will certainly make them sick of her, & it is most unlikely to make them love her. How can that possibly be desirable ? **
**How can it be harmful or perilous for people to love God in the ways in which He attracts them ? If those ways & drawings are truly God’s, how ****can it matter whether He draws hearts to love the God-bearer or any other Saint, or none of them ? Some of us have enough to do loving our neighbour whom we can see, without adverting to the Saints in Heaven. **
**That is a reason or two for ****why individual ****devotion to her cannot be compulsory, & why the OP quoted in this post is spot-on in what she says. **
- Status