Former Catholics - Mary worship

[adf417]

Be it ever so scriptural in character,as you know,Christ looks at the heart,where true worship is in spirit and in truth. To answer your question then : true 'worship '( in truth) is also a state of 'heart.as saith the scripture " a new heart and a right spirit within".

I will take this to mean you believe prayer is not only worship and only God knows true worship.

Prayers from a brother who is yet living,on ones behalf ,does not ,I believe,equate with praying with ,or through the dead.

As Richard Feynman just pointed out and has been pointed out many times the Saints are not dead. You do believe this right? or do you not believe in “the communion of saints”?

Peace!!!

 

[YADA]

I don’t doubt that ‘YADA’ ,in response to my challenge has ALMOST( but not quite) in my opinion,come up with the goods( good verse).

What ever may be true in regards to Elizabeth’s “my Lord” ( Luke 1:43) and what she herself understood by it ,I don’t believe,is so clear.

Consider these words spoken by Elizabeth :verse 44 " For lo,as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears,the babe leaped in my womb for joy."

The baptist ,yet still in his mothers womb ,was also apparently ,affected by the same Holy Spirit ,that so 'filled" his mother.

Since the giving of the Holy Spirit ( the Comforter) awaited the Son,s departure( after the resurrection) then at this juncture ,the same Spirit of Truth ,in regards ‘the Lord’,had not evidently ‘lead’ Elizabeth ,and dare I say,John ,“into all truth”.That is in respect to him being the eternal Son of God;and that ‘Son to be the Saviour of the world’( 1john4:14)

For one ,his own disciples did not of know of his suffering pathway ,through the cross at Golgotha ,that is their Lord and Saviour,until after he had risen from the dead.

But more importantly while awaiting is end ,it in prison,John is still to fully recognise the Lord
Or the ministry of Christ.

In regards to your own point 'peace in Christ" ,although not a Protestant by profession,I would object to what I have attempted to explain of my belief;and how a ‘former Catholic’ might view the Mary of scripture,as denying the presence or work of the ‘Holy Ghost’ .

This is certainly ,mightily seen ,in the opening chapters of Luke:

Both with Zachariah and Elizabeth and also Joseph and his wife Mary.

Wow … what gymnastics you must be going through … though I get that your personal interpretation guides you … You have taken personal interpretation to new heights when the understanding [or how you understand the understanding] of those around Jesus is the determination of what a passage means … regardless of what the passage states -

You discount the clear meaning of scripture because Elizabeth may not have realized the fullness of what “my Lord” meant in relationship to the Jesus who was to come - to die - and to rise again?

I ask you - Who is the Lord being referred to by Elizabeth? The answer - the only answer is that the Lord is Jesus - it can be no other … Would Elizabeth have referred to any other child in the womb as ‘My Lord’? Answer - ‘No’ …Is the mother Mary or some other pregnant woman also within view? Answer - ‘Mary’ … Mary had no other child but Jesus …

Why mention the response of the babe in Elizabeth’s womb? What is the reason for this observation?

This passage mirrors the passage in 1 Chronicles 13 where in the Ark was in the hill country for 3 months - just as Mary went to the hill country for 3 months

12David was afraid of God that day, and he said, “How can I bring in the ark of God to me?” 13Therefore he did not take the ark with him into the City of David, but deposited it instead at the house of Obed-edom the Gittite. 14The ark of God remained in the house of Obed-edom with his family for three months, and the LORD blessed Obed-edom’s household and all that he possessed.

Elizabeth’s words echo David’s and like David who often danced and leaped before the Lord in the Ark of the Covenant - John leaps before Jesus being carried by the Ark of the New Covenant - Mary …

Clearly - you stated that Mother of God was un-biblical … and just as clearly the Scriptures support Mary as the Mother of God - Jesus …

Regardless of Elizabeth’s, the Disciples, John the Baptist or any other contemporary’s understanding of who Jesus was - how they understood His Divinity and Humanity - nothing changes the reality of that Divinity and Humanity …

John tells us that “In the Beginning - the Word was with God and the Word was God” … Jesus is the Alpha and the Omega … He is, He was and He ever shall be …

whether I acknowledge that or not …
whether You acknowledge that or not …
whether Elizabeth acknowledged that or not …

Our comprehension, understanding, confession of who Jesus is does not impact that Truth one iota … Jesus is Lord, the Saviour of the world and He is Divine - the One True God … Second Person of the Trinity … All of that

 

[donohueb]

Quite often I’ve had JW’s accuse me and Catholics in general of Mary worship. Yawn…

I would hold up a statue of Mary. It is usually made of plaster or plastic. I would show it to them… real close up. Some of these plastic statues still have the “Made in China” label on them. I would show that as well and say that this is a piece of plastic… yes? They usually agree.

Then I would say to them…

“You mean to say that YOU BELIEVE, Catholics think a piece of plastic is GOD the creator of the universe???” “You believe THAT???”

They are usually quite confused at this point. So I ask again… really… slowly…
“Are you saying that JWs BELIEVE that Catholics think that a piece of plastic created everything and is GOD???” “You believe that?” “This little piece of plastic here… Unbelievable!!!” “Catholics certainly don’t believe this little piece of plastic or any other piece of plastic or plaster or whatever is GOD. But is seems that YOU believe that catholics do. Amazing”

Next comes praying to her. Prayer is like a phone call. I can TXT you or phone you or email you or FAX you etc with a message. The message could be anything. 1. Can you help fix my car… or… 2. Praise to you GOD creator of the whole universe. Message 1 would be asking for your intercession and message 2 is worship.

Praying to Mary is like the telephone call. What you ask of Mary over the phone call of prayer can be very different things. You could say 1. “Mary please pray to Jesus on my behalf” or 2. “Mary you are GOD creator of the universe”. The first sentence would be acceptable and is asking for Mary to pray for us. Then second is NOT okay and catholics definitely don’t pray the second sentence.

I really find it amazing that here we are in 2014 and non catholics still don’t understand this.

 

[PeaceInChrist]

Dear PeaceinChrist,

Matthew 11:2-4 "Now when John had heard in the prison the works of Christ he sent two of his disciples.

And said unto unto him,Art thou he that should come,or do we look for another?

Jesus answered and said unto them.Go and shew John again those things which ye do hear and see"

Now in Luke 7:28, The ‘Lord’ says of "the Baptist :

“For I say unto you,Among those that are born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist :but he that is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he”

Greater than his mother perhaps ,who was also born of a “women” ?

I don’t doubt that ‘YADA’ ,in response to my challenge has ALMOST( but not quite) in my opinion,come up with the goods( good verse).

What ever may be true in regards to Elizabeth’s “my Lord” ( Luke 1:43) and what she herself understood by it ,I don’t believe,is so clear.

Consider these words spoken by Elizabeth :verse 44 " For lo,as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears,the babe leaped in my womb for joy."

The baptist ,yet still in his mothers womb ,was also apparently ,affected by the same Holy Spirit ,that so 'filled" his mother.

Since the giving of the Holy Spirit ( the Comforter) awaited the Son,s departure( after the resurrection) then at this juncture ,the same Spirit of Truth ,in regards ‘the Lord’,had not evidently ‘lead’ Elizabeth ,and dare I say,John ,“into all truth”.That is in respect to him being the eternal Son of God;and that ‘Son to be the Saviour of the world’( 1john4:14)

For one ,his own disciples did not of know of his suffering pathway ,through the cross at Golgotha ,that is their Lord and Saviour,until after he had risen from the dead.

But more importantly while awaiting is end ,it in prison,John is still to fully recognise the Lord
Or the ministry of Christ.

In regards to your own point 'peace in Christ" ,although not a Protestant by profession,I would object to what I have attempted to explain of my belief;and how a ‘former Catholic’ might view the Mary of scripture,as denying the presence or work of the ‘Holy Ghost’ .

This is certainly ,mightily seen ,in the opening chapters of Luke:

Both with Zachariah and Elizabeth and also Joseph and his wife Mary.

So because Elizabeth didn’t fully comprehend the Incarnation, Scripture is confused as to Who she refers? So much for the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. And you mean to tell me that the Holy Spirit didn’t work prior to Pentacost? That’s absurd. We see reference to Him in the Old Testament.

As for John, look at the context. He is speaking of his role as a prophet. Not only did he directly precede the Christ, he also witnessed to Him in person. Was he greater than Mary? Peter? How about Jesus? Jesus was certainly born of woman. Yet somehow, based on the reading of Scripture in context, and the guidance of the apostolic sees, we know that Jesus is greater than John.

Here is an excerpt from the Haydock commentary:

Ver. 9. More than a prophet. John was a prophet, because he foretold the coming of Christ; and he was more than a prophet, because he saw him, which was a privilege that none of the ancient prophets enjoyed; and not only did he see him, but pointed him out, before he was acknowledged in that character. Again, he was more than a prophet, in as much as he was the precursor of the Messias, who even deigned to receive baptism at his hands. (Menochius)

Ver. 11. He that is the lesser, &c. Many understand this of Christ, who is less in as much as he is more humble, younger in age, and according to the erroneous opinion of men, of less sanctity than John. Maldonatus and Tolletus suppose the meaning to be, that he who is the least in sanctity in the Church of Christ is greater than John; not that John did not excel in sanctity many, nay even most of the children of the Church of Christ, but that those who belong to the Church, on account of this circumstance of their being under the new law, which is the law of children, are greater than those under the old law, which was the law of bondsmen, as the least among the children is greater than the greatest among the bondsmen. Now John in this respect did not belong to the Church of Christ, as he was slain before Christ’s death, before which time the gospel was not fully established. (Menochius) — There hath not risen … a greater, &c. This comparison, by what we find, Luke vii. 28, is only betwixt John and the ancient prophets, to signify that John was greater than any of the prophets, at least by his office of being the immediate precursor of the Messias. The comparison cannot be extended to Christ himself, who was both God and man, nor to his blessed Virgin Mother; nor need we understand it of his apostles. (Witham)

 

[Hockeygurl]

Unfortunately, the Catholic church is not consistent nor strict with it’s teachings on Mary. I was told by a Catholic family member that if you tried to climb a ladder to heaven Jesus would throw you down in disgust (even though he loved you enough to die for you) but if you climbed the ladder to Mary, she would have pity on you.

I just think there are too many “out of the norm” teachings floating around out there. Which just gives anti-Catholics too much ammo…

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Unfortunately, the Catholic church is not consistent nor strict with it’s teachings on Mary. I was told by a Catholic family member that if you tried to climb a ladder to heaven Jesus would throw you down in disgust (even though he loved you enough to die for you) but if you climbed the ladder to Mary, she would have pity on you.

I just think there are too many “out of the norm” teachings floating around out there. Which just gives anti-Catholics too much ammo…

What your family member said isn’t Church teaching. That’s the real problem --not that there are ‘out of the norm’ teachings, but that some Catholics don’t understand the teachings, and also that some non-Catholics don’t understand the teachings. And when you get both together–a Catholic who doesn’t quite understand a teaching trying to tell the non-Catholic what the teaching is-- THAT’S when the ‘out of the norm’ stuff gets passed around.

The Church is quite ‘strict’ and consistent with its teachings, but it is also quite old and quite ‘diverse’. Poetic works couched in language from the 17th century which THEMSELVES are not presented as doctrine but as allegories or metaphors are taken at ‘face value’ and presented as though they were the 11th commandment by well-meaning Catholics–AND non-Catholics–when they are nothing of the kind.

 

[Richard_Feynman]

What your family member said isn’t Church teaching. That’s the real problem --not that there are ‘out of the norm’ teachings, but that some Catholics don’t understand the teachings, and also that some non-Catholics don’t understand the teachings. And when you get both together–a Catholic who doesn’t quite understand a teaching trying to tell the non-Catholic what the teaching is-- THAT’S when the ‘out of the norm’ stuff gets passed around.

The Church is quite ‘strict’ and consistent with its teachings, but it is also quite old and quite ‘diverse’. Poetic works couched in language from the 17th century which THEMSELVES are not presented as doctrine but as allegories or metaphors are taken at ‘face value’ and presented as though they were the 11th commandment by well-meaning Catholics–AND non-Catholics–when they are nothing of the kind.

I couldn’t agree more. It’s not out of the norm teachings… It’s out of the norm understanding.

 

[Hockeygurl]

Well, you know somethin’ aint right when you have to tell your daughter’s boyfriend (a confirmed Catholic) that ABC is not allowed (he said they never told him that). You can’t tell me they are doing a great job with teaching. At least not here.

I told him to read the CCC.

 

[adf417]

Well, you know somethin’ aint right when you have to tell your daughter’s boyfriend (a confirmed Catholic) that ABC is not allowed (he said they never told him that). You can’t tell me they are doing a great job with teaching. At least not here.

I told him to read the CCC.

Hockeygurl, do you think all religions should be judged by their adherents or just the Catholic Church? Do you also believe it aint right when a math teacher tries to teach twhat he square root of 9 is and a portion of the students test out with an answer of 6? Do you automatically blame the teacher or the math itself?

What you describe above is quite sad, assuming the “ABC’s” are of substantial concern. I suggest however, the teachings of the church, neither yours nor mine, should ever be judged by the actions or understanding of its adherents. If we did, we would all be in trouble.

Peace!!!

 

[benhur]

Immediately thought of this passage, too. Baffling to me that someone could miss it or disassociate Jesus’ Divinity and His Lordship. I wonder what Protestants think sometimes when I read the first and second chapters of Luke. Like in the visitation, when the Holy Spirit fills Elizabeth at the sound of Mary’s greeting, and then deny that the Holy Spirit would work through Mary (even though He has before, at this moment, the Incarnation itself, and many others in Scripture).

Pretty bad when one has time to quibble over words. Could be vain disputation that Paul or someone warns about, like it all depends on what the meaning of is is. Avoid any appearance of “missing the mark”. “Mother of God” qualifies as something that should have been avoided. The definition of mother is to bring into existence something that was not before hand, even providing parental stock. God was certainly around before Mary as was Christ. Mary did not provide parental stock to diety, but only to the flesh that diety inhabited. Mary was mother to the Son of man…Of course Mary is the mother of Jesus but why use a contrivance, a problematic term to convey truth as if other simple wording is not enough for some gnostics ? If they don’t believe the truth then let it be. Don’t impurify the message , even compromise the truth to win an unregenarate heart ? Jesus didn’t do that . If you were lost, He really wanted you lost so you would really desire to be saved. the term is confusing and requires extra explanation . Of course maybe the intent was to further the seedbed of elevating Mary beyond words that are in God’s Written Words.

 

[benhur]

Hockeygurl, do you think all religions should be judged by their adherents or just the Catholic Church? Do you also believe it aint right when a math teacher tries to teach twhat he square root of 9 is and a portion of the students test out with an answer of 6? Do you automatically blame the teacher or the math itself?

What you describe above is quite sad, assuming the “ABC’s” are of substantial concern. I suggest however, the teachings of the church, neither yours nor mine, should ever be judged by the actions or understanding of its adherents. If we did, we would all be in trouble.

Peace!!!

Partly true but partly missing the point that you can judge by fruits/actions or lack of…And yes we are all in a bit of trouble except by the grace of God when maybe something goes right…Sometimes it is the textbook for some are better than others (ask any school board member, or any expensive publisher who every ten years comes out with a new and improved version of elementary math- really?)

 

[JM3]

Mary did not provide parental stock to deity, but only to the flesh that deity inhabited. Mary was mother to the Son of man…

What we believe about the Blessed Virgin Mary comes from what we have come to understand about Jesus. Jesus is fully man and fully God. The Blessed Virgin is not the mother of a nature, but of a person. Therefore, she is called Mother of God.

 

[adf417]

Partly true but partly missing the point that you can judge by fruits/actions or lack of…

Two points here Ben, 1) Hockeygurl was speaking of intelligence, or the lack of, not fruits. 2) Teachings of a church should not be held accountable to bad fruits/actions of the members of this church. Do all of the members of your church follow your church’s teaching perfectly?

And yes we are all in a bit of trouble except by the grace of God when maybe something goes right…Sometimes it is the textbook for some are better than others (ask any school board member, or any expensive publisher who every ten years comes out with a new and improved version of elementary math- really?)

Let me know when you find a text book that teaches the square root of 9 to be 6 please. Sure, they may try to reinvent new methods on how to teach and communicate the math but the answers/truth never changes.

Peace!!!

 

[JM3]

What you describe above is quite sad, assuming the “ABC’s” are of substantial concern

ABC - Artificial Birth Control

 

[adf417]

ABC - Artificial Birth Control

Oops! my bad! I would say that’s substantial. :yup:

 

[YADA]

Pretty bad when one has time to quibble over words. Could be vain disputation that Paul or someone warns about, like it all depends on what the meaning of is is. Avoid any appearance of “missing the mark”. “Mother of God” qualifies as something that should have been avoided. The definition of mother is to bring into existence something that was not before hand, even providing parental stock. God was certainly around before Mary as was Christ. Mary did not provide parental stock to diety, but only to the flesh that diety inhabited. Mary was mother to the Son of man…Of course Mary is the mother of Jesus but why use a contrivance, a problematic term to convey truth as if other simple wording is not enough for some gnostics ? If they don’t believe the truth then let it be. Don’t impurify the message , even compromise the truth to win an unregenarate heart ? Jesus didn’t do that . If you were lost, He really wanted you lost so you would really desire to be saved. the term is confusing and requires extra explanation . Of course maybe the intent was to further the seedbed of elevating Mary beyond words that are in God’s Written Words.

And you are the arbiter of what should be avoided and what has the appearance of missing the mark? So when the definition of the word ‘pray’ changes in modern parlance and understanding from its ancient use taking on a limited definition [from ask to communication on with a deity] - then all Christianity must stopped using the term in order to avoid the appearance of missing the mark? … Because you believe something is a contrivance and problematic - your opinion carries more weight then the historical Christian understanding in addition to the current day Christian Churches and their adherents … And because you dislike it - you project ill intent upon those who don’t fall in line to your beliefs

Really - what does “mother of my Lord” mean? … why not “mother of the son of man” then - if that is really what the author intended? … the term ‘son of man’ is used in many places …

Clearly - Mary is the Mother of the Lord - as in Lord Jesus Christ - our Lord and Savior …You are the one that is clouding the message with gymnastics to modify the meaning… And Jesus is wholly Divine and wholly Human - two natures … you say that Mary provided no ‘parental stock’ [whatever you mean by that ] to the deity … Jesus received His humanity from Mary … Jesus is the Word made Flesh - Incarnate - The Word was present at in the Beginning - the Word was with God and the Word was God … but the Incarnate God choose to be born of a Woman and that woman was Mary - essentially Mary provided Jesus’ human DNA - is that not something of importance?

The Why, The How, …Divine Mystery - Only God knows … we have to await the opportunity to ask our Lord …

 

[marywarfield]

Two points here Ben, 1) Hockeygurl was speaking of intelligence, or the lack of, not fruits. 2) Teachings of a church should not be held accountable to bad fruits/actions of the members of this church. Do all of the members of your church follow your church’s teaching perfectly?

Let me know when you find a text book that teaches the square root of 9 to be 6 please. Sure, they may try to reinvent new methods on how to teach and communicate the math but the answers/truth never changes.

Peace!!!

She has a point though. Every local parish has a
responsibility to teach correct doctrine.

I think it was Malachi Martin who predicted the
Chief exorcist we have now in Rome Fr. Amorth would
be drowning in exorcisms now and in the future because
of faulty catechism on local levels.
And it appears that at the fifty thousand Amorth by
himself has exorcized with most of them Catholic
and most issues revolving around sex and gender,
Martin was correct.

 

[marywarfield]

Let me see. A quick look around the forum this
evening tells me: Catholics are fighting with each other
over birth control, abortion, homosexuality, gay marriage,
Women priests and even if we as Catholics should
practice any self denial? Carry a cross?

It seems to me a quick glance at the arguments
tells us we do not honor the Virgin sufficiently yet.
Worship her? No. Honor her? We haven’t even begun.
Apparently being full of grace is not an ordinary
occurrence for us. She was. We arent’t.
Get out those Rosaries.

 

[Per_Crucem]

Pretty bad when one has time to quibble over words. Could be vain disputation that Paul or someone warns about, like it all depends on what the meaning of is is. Avoid any appearance of “missing the mark”. “Mother of God” qualifies as something that should have been avoided. The definition of mother is to bring into existence something that was not before hand, even providing parental stock. God was certainly around before Mary as was Christ. Mary did not provide parental stock to diety, but only to the flesh that diety inhabited. Mary was mother to the Son of man…Of course Mary is the mother of Jesus but why use a contrivance, a problematic term to convey truth as if other simple wording is not enough for some gnostics ? If they don’t believe the truth then let it be. Don’t impurify the message , even compromise the truth to win an unregenarate heart ? Jesus didn’t do that . If you were lost, He really wanted you lost so you would really desire to be saved. the term is confusing and requires extra explanation . Of course maybe the intent was to further the seedbed of elevating Mary beyond words that are in God’s Written Words.

You just espoused Nestorianism. The Council of Chalcedon is not impressed.

 

[YADA]

She has a point though. Every local parish has a
responsibility to teach correct doctrine.

I think it was Malachi Martin who predicted the
Chief exorcist we have now in Rome Fr. Amorth would
be drowning in exorcisms now and in the future because
of faulty catechism on local levels.
And it appears that at the fifty thousand Amorth by
himself has exorcized with most of them Catholic
and most issues revolving around sex and gender,
Martin was correct.

And you realize of course that exorcism does always or even often mean, resemble or entail what was portrayed in the movies … right?

You realize that a baptism is a form of exorcism. That the Scrutiny’s are an exorcism [you may have observed them during Lent performed over the catechumens].

You realize when a priest blesses holy water its an exorcism … when the Bishop blesses the Oils they are exorcised …

When one speaks of exorcisms the Hollywood vision is what comes immediately to minds …

And that some people may not understand Church teaching as has been reported here does not equate with the local church failing to teach the Christian faith correctly. In fact - in this case you have a third party reporting on what a second party told them … and no indication of what role and to what extent the local church had any role in the second person’s catechesis …

I always take statements like that with many grains of salt … consider the following …

1]Regarding the second person - What is the age, intelligence and education, level of catechesis, active practicing catholic - or not, Sacraments received, etc. What did they actually say - exactly? Context of the conversation - who started the conversation and what was the original topic/topics.

2] Regarding the third person - What is the age, intelligence and education, level of catechesis, active practicing faith tradition - or not - anti-Catholic biases, What did they actually say - exactly? Context of the conversation - who started the conversation and what was the original topic/topics. What did they hear and how then was what they heard re-stated - word for word or interpreted …

3] Regarding the first person - 2 parts - the Church - what is the authentic teaching of the Church on the subject topic/topics … and how / who / at what age was the second person when this teaching was transmitted …

Lots of moving parts and players - to make any statements that imply that the Church is failing to faithfully hand on doctrines