Former Catholics - Mary worship

[marywarfield]

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

Actually according to Amorth and Malachi and others
Hollywood does not do a good job of portraying exorcism.
No don’t laugh- really Hollywood doesn’t.

I just finished reading I think Martin’s last book
on the subject “Hostage to the Devil” in which
he detailed five actual cases from start to finish.

The focus in every single one was sex, gender,
and eastern religions. But sorry there wasn’t a lot
of Hollywood vomit. I ended up falling asleep over it
six times before I finished.

I didn’t agree with all he said. He p(name removed by moderator)ointed the
use of enneagrams in the N.A Catechimenate out
of Loyola Univ. as a big problem.
Personally I believe it is more than likely due
to a decrease in devotion to the Virgin.

 

[YADA]

Actually according to Amorth and Malachi and others
Hollywood does not do a good job of portraying exorcism.
No don’t laugh- really Hollywood doesn’t.

I just finished reading I think Martin’s last book
on the subject “Hostage to the Devil” in which
he detailed five actual cases from start to finish.

The focus in every single one was sex, gender,
and eastern religions. But sorry there wasn’t a lot
of Hollywood vomit. I ended up falling asleep over it
six times before I finished.

I didn’t agree with all he said. He p(name removed by moderator)ointed the
use of enneagrams in the N.A Catechimenate out
of Loyola Univ. as a big problem.
Personally I believe it is more than likely due
to a decrease in devotion to the Virgin.

And I never said that Hollywood did a good job - in fact - that was kind of my point … when you say 50k exorcisms - its the Hollywood depiction that springs to the average American mind … hopefully not average Catholic - but I would hazard a guess it does to some…

Exorcisms come in many forms as I pointed out - even baptisms are exorcism … not what you see depicted in the movies … there may be some crying infants - but no spinning heads with pea green vomit

and 50,000 equates to one exorcism per day for 136 plus years …

 

[marywarfield]

And I never said that Hollywood did a good job - in fact - that was kind of my point … when you say 50k exorcisms - its the Hollywood depiction that springs to the average American mind … hopefully not average Catholic - but I would hazard a guess it does to some…

Exorcisms come in many forms as I pointed out - even baptisms are exorcism … not what you see depicted in the movies … there may be some crying infants - but no spinning heads with pea green vomit

and 50,000 equates to one exorcism per day for 136 plus years …

Hmmm that’s a good point actually LOL. But I’m
pretty sure that’s what Amorth said to the Daily Telegraph.
I will go re read it.
Nevertheless exorcisms are on the increase.
And we need to honestly look at any possibility
that catechism is just not all that recently.
And Rosary use too of course.

 

[amyj4]

Could you please quantify “Worship” by what you mean of this word. ? Thanks. As a lot of people it means different, especially to a non Catholic.

I think you may have hit the key to this problem. I know what “worship” means, but am hard put to put it into words. It is an “action” (a real one, not just in the head) between me and God that is invisible to all except Him. I can do it kneeling, standing, walking, lying in bed, etc.

I really can’t fathom how one can accuse another of worshiping Mary and mean it. They can read minds? Only God can do that.

amyj4

 

[Dorothy]

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…

I agree with you, what you shared about what another Catholic said about Mary!

That is not Church teaching, and is misleading. It sounds like a cartoon.

I do recognize the Blessed Mother as my mother in the order of grace, and I love the role she has in the Body of Christ, the Church.

 

[amyj4]

As a former Roman Catholic myself,looking back on " the Rosary " ect ,I would sympathise and suggest that it is an honest expression ( from Catholics ) to honour the mother of Jesus.
But is this veneration in her memory justified by what the holy Scriptures reveal of her (incredibly important) role?
The last " catholic doctrines " that I let go of ,next to the role of the priesthood in mediation and that , on my behalf ,was my misunderstanding of the role this beautiful Christian example ( Mary) played in Gods plan of salvation. (Ie. sinless and ever virgin)
This is now in relation to what I believe to be testified by the New Testament.
Looking back now,it is not so much a question of was I " worshiping Mary" but was I honouring that Mary revealed in the word of God ,as I would now claim.
According to Paul’s instruction for the married wife is that she is to be in submission to “her own husband” and ( 1Cor11:3 ) " the head of the woman is the man".

This I believe,is the order In Scripture, my former beliefs seems to me to make Mary the head of the man( Joseph).If not why does not Joseph receive the credit ( for example) for Mary being ever virgin because as head of the house : the final decision would have been his?In any case would not Mary who was so faithful to" the " Word of God"( or Jesus her Son) be faithful in the decision of Joseph if it was that of the marriage bed ; which according to Paul ,“is undefiled”?

My take on this is that Mary and Joseph had made a sacred vow to remain celibate in marriage in order to serve God better. This they did before they were betrothed, otherwise it would be betrothal under false pretenses. This thought centers on her question on how she was to conceive “when I know not man”. If they had intended to have marital relations as usual that question would never be asked.

amyj4

 

[adf417]

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

I hope I did not imply otherwise! I was trying to point out the differences of responsibilities of teachings vs. student. The student has responsibilities that the teacher is not accountable to.

Peace!!!

 

[benhur]

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.

What we believe about God is that He is triune , The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Mary is mother to the incarnation of the Son, Jesus, the Son of Man referencing this, as opposed to the Son of God. Mother of God is inaccurate and possibly misleading to some. Jesus the God existed before Mary and had no mother. Jesus the Man had Mary as the mother.

 

[benhur]

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

Not really. Just as our spirit/inner man are one with our body so was Jesus the Son-God - who is Spirit, one with His body, within Mary and from conception, like us, forever more in glorification( hypostasis). Did Nestorius say that, for there are a few versions of what he did actually believe ? Was he really an adoptionist or was that an easy denouncing label for Cyril instead of addressing the real issue /problem with “mother of God” ? Not sure, but you did it with me. it’s OK

 

[adf417]

Jesus the God existed before Mary and had no mother. Jesus the Man had Mary as the mother.

Sounds like two Jesus’ and therefor two Gods. I’m beginning to understand why JW’s have removed the deity of Christ.

Peace!!!

 

[benhur]

Sounds like two Jesus’ and therefor two Gods. I’m beginning to understand why JW’s have removed the deity of Christ.

Peace!!!

Mary is mother to the incarnation of the Son of God. it is not two Jesus’s but certainly two forms of existence. Why do you go around the issue with unrelated stuff? You know the term requires “understanding” and can be misleading to outsiders, for whom are message is.

 

[marywarfield]

Mary is mother to the incarnation of the Son of God. it is not two Jesus’s but certainly two forms of existence. Why do you go around the issue with unrelated stuff? You know the term requires “understanding” and can be misleading to outsiders, for whom are message is.

Mary did not give birth to a nature or even two
forms of existence. Mary is the Mother of God simply
because she gave
birth to ONE divine human Person- Jesus Christ-the only
begotten Son of God and the Second Person of
the Trinity. This does not say she is the SOURCE of
the eternal divinity.
Her Son IS God. Therefore she is the Mother of God.
If you want to go the two forms of existence route
all you’ve done is resurrected the same old Arian heresy.

In the same way that your mother did not give birth to
just your body. She gave birth to your body with eternal
soul. A body/soul combination.

 

[Per_Crucem]

Mary is mother to the incarnation of the Son of God. it is not two Jesus’s but certainly two forms of existence. Why do you go around the issue with unrelated stuff? You know the term requires “understanding” and can be misleading to outsiders, for whom are message is.

You are preaching Christological heresy, here, benhur. There are not “two forms of existence” in Jesus. There is one person, two natures, two wills, one divine, one human.

“We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable [rational] soul and body; consubstantial [co-essential] with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ; as the prophets from the beginning [have declared] concerning Him, and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us.”

 

[Per_Crucem]

Mary is mother to the incarnation of the Son of God. it is not two Jesus’s but certainly two forms of existence. Why do you go around the issue with unrelated stuff? You know the term requires “understanding” and can be misleading to outsiders, for whom are message is.

This demonstrates clearly why misunderstanding the Mother of God will most assuredly lead to misunderstanding her Son. Arguments like these that are put forward by American Protestantism should serve as the poster boy for evangelical gnosticism, nominalism, and anti-intellecualism and why every Christian should avoid it like the plague.

 

[adf417]

Mary is mother to the incarnation of the Son of God. it is not two Jesus’s but certainly two forms of existence. Why do you go around the issue with unrelated stuff? You know the term requires “understanding” and can be misleading to outsiders, for whom are message is.

What you are saying sounds too much like the Son, the second person of the Trinity, is not fully God. I hope I am “mis”-leading others away from this wrong understanding of who Jesus is. This heresy was dealt with many years ago and many people didn’t like it then either.

Peace!!!

 

[PeaceInChrist]

What we believe about God is that He is triune , The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Mary is mother to the incarnation of the Son, Jesus, the Son of Man referencing this, as opposed to the Son of God. Mother of God is inaccurate and possibly misleading to some. Jesus the God existed before Mary and had no mother. Jesus the Man had Mary as the mother.

Jesus is both God and man. Listen to Elizabeth’s words:

“And how does this happen to me, that the mother of my Lord* should come to me?”

…that the mother of my Lord* should come to me?

…mother of my Lord…

Is Jesus Lord and God? Let’s ask Thomas:

Thomas answered and said to him, “My Lord and my God!”

…said to him, “My Lord and my God!”

… My Lord and my God

So, let’s see here: we have Elizabeth proclaiming that Mary is the mother of The Lord, and scripture also attests to Jesus as BOTH Lord and God. Not one at some times and the other at different times. He is both Lord and God, God and man, at the same time.

What you are espousing is an ancient heresy. Jesus’ divinity and humanity are bound through hypostatic union, and cannot be separated. The Logos was Incarnate through Mary, and Jesus, both God and man, was born of her flesh. Therefore, she is the Mother of God.

Note, it is only Protestants who are offended by this title, largely because they cannot seem to grasp the Incarnation or hypostatic union. Most don’t like the term because they claim it means that Mary preceded God. This is illogical at best and idiotic at worst. It is absurd that a creation (Mary) existed prior to God. This is a misunderstanding of the ancient term of theotokos. Mary did not exist before God, but she is the mother of God Incarnate. Thus, the Mother of God. It’s really not that complicated.

 

[adf417]

You are preaching Christological heresy, here, benhur. There are not “two forms of existence” in Jesus. There is one person, two natures, two wills, one divine, one human.

“We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable [rational] soul and body; consubstantial [co-essential] with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ; as the prophets from the beginning [have declared] concerning Him, and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us.”

You say it much better than I.

 

[Per_Crucem]

You say it much better than I.

I give the credit to St. Augustine!

 

[adf417]

I give the credit to St. Augustine!

Ok. You copy and paste it much better than I!

 

[benhur]

Mary did not give birth to a nature or even two
forms of existence. Mary is the Mother of God simply
because she gave
birth to ONE divine human Person- Jesus Christ-the only
begotten Son of God and the Second Person of
the Trinity. This does not say she is the SOURCE of
the eternal divinity.
Her Son IS God. Therefore she is the Mother of God.
If you want to go the two forms of existence route
all you’ve done is resurrected the same old Arian heresy.

In the same way that your mother did not give birth to
just your body. She gave birth to your body with eternal
soul. A body/soul combination.

The proof is in da pudding. All the verbiage and misunderstanding when we are on the same page. I said Jesus had two forms of existence, and I meant not while on planet Earth. He had an existence before the incarnation in the heavenly realm as a Spirit. He gave up that exalted existence and became flesh here on Earth, his second type of existence, which He retains though in a glorified body. All this you believe also. All this is due to slippery verbiage that she is the "Mother of God* ", which she is but with explanation, that is an asterisk* which is unnecessary, especially when the main problem back when the term originated was that
gnosticism questioned whether Jesus was really a man, did he really come in the flesh… Jesus referred to himself mostly as the Son of man, to say, “I am just like you yet I Am” that is God made flesh, more than emphasizing flesh making God, which your term may infer. So I am wondering if the term is not so much about Christology but about not avoiding the temptation elevating Mary, as so many pagan customs of the time would prefer…We have no Christological debate here. We do debate how best to portray such a wonderful mystery to the world.