Hail Mary

[AshleyBelle]

Who in the church does infallibly defines and interprets Scripture since the pope does not?

Where is this SACRED TRADITION to be found? Is it in some document in the Vatican somewhere?

?

Scripture is read and illuminated to all of the faithful within the light of tradition and magesterium. Without these, we would be as splintered as our protestant brothers and sisters. The pope does not tell us what scripture says, the holy spirit guides the church in understanding what scripture says. If somebody comes up with an interpretation that is false, the holy spirit will protect the truth by guiding the pope and bishops in correcting the heresy.

Sacred tradition cannot be found compiled in any text, that is what Sacred scripture is for. Let me use an analogy.

Say my husband and I, for the past ten years have always gone to my mother in law’s for thanksgiving.
We don’t write this family tradition down, it is just something we do every year… Perhaps his family did the same thing growing up.
Then one day, when my children are older, they ask me “why dod we go to grandma’s for thanksgiving?”
And I am left to tell them that it is our family tradition.

So they refute me, “But where is there anything in writing that says we MUST go to grandma’s for thanksgiving? Show me!”

So I tell them…OK…you don’t believe we’ve always gone to grandma’s house? I’m your mother, and with the authority of being your mother I am writing it down!" So I pull out paper and pen, and write down, to clarify that YES we do in fact go to grandmas…we have every year for 10 years, and we will continue to do so.

That is tradition.

 

[Angels_Unaware]

JA4, if you truly wish to understand the answers to these questions I suggest that you stop asking dumb questions that have already been answered and read a book.

amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1890177474/stpaulcenterf-20/103-9747447-2395013

 

[justasking4]

JA4, if you truly wish to understand the answers to these questions I suggest that you stop asking dumb questions that have already been answered and read a book.

amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1890177474/stpaulcenterf-20/103-9747447-2395013

These are not dumb questions but questions that help to lead us to a greater understanding…

 

[Angels_Unaware]

These are not dumb questions but questions that help to lead us to a greater understanding…

No, there ARE dumb questions. Dumb questions are ones that you refuse to accept an answer for.

 

[justasking4]

No, there ARE dumb questions. Dumb questions are ones that you refuse to accept an answer for.

View attachment 4435

 

[Angels_Unaware]

View attachment 4435

My sentiments exactly.

 

[justasking4]

What do you think of this prayer to Mary?

Praise to Mary, Heaven’s Gate
By Traditional Catholic Hymn
Saturday, 22 December 2007

Praise to Mary, Heaven’s Gate,
Guiding Star of Christians’ way,
Mother of our Lord and King,
Light and hope to souls astray.
When you heard the call of God
Choosing to fulfill his plan,
By your perfect act of love
Hope was born in fallen man.
Help us to amend our ways,
Halt the devil’s strong attack,
Walk with us the narrow path,
Beg for us the grace we lack.
Mary, show your motherhood,
Bring your children’s prayers to Christ,
Christ, your son, who ransomed man,
Who, for us, was sacrificed.
Virgin chosen, singly blest,
Ever faithful to God’s call,
Guide us in this earthy life,
Guard us lest, deceived, we fall.
Mary, help us live our faith
So that we may see your son;
Join our humble prayers to yours,
Till life’s ceaseless war is won.
Praise the Father, praise the Son,
Praise the Holy Paraclete;
Offer all through Mary’s hands,
Let her make our prayers complete.

 

[SimonArizona]

Did Jesus and His apostles know exactly what books were inspired-inerrant for the OT canon?

It is interesting that Jesus, St. Paul and others quote in the New Testament from the Old Test. books that protestants don’t accept.

 

[Lampo]

Did Jesus and His apostles know exactly what books were inspired-inerrant for the OT canon?

Did you answer my question?

 

[justasking4]

Originally Posted by justasking4
Did Jesus and His apostles know exactly what books were inspired-inerrant for the OT canon?

Did you answer my question?

Are you referring to the canon question or something else? If the canon question how would it relate to Mary?

 

[Angels_Unaware]

What do you think of this prayer to Mary?

I, for one, am much more interested in what you think of this prayer.

 

[guanophore]

I dont believe the Catholic church is what it claims to be.

Why not?

2 Corinthians 11:13-15

For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, masquerading as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. It is not surprising, then, if his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve.

This is curious. How does the Catholic Church masquerade as an “angel of light”? From reading your other posts, it seems clear that you don’t perceive any “light” in Catholicism.

 

[guanophore]

i must have missed the answer.

This is most certainly true, on many levels.

If the church has not infallibly defined the passage then what we have are opinions of what people think it means?

That is what you have, clearly. Catholics have the Apostolic Teaching of what it means, since we interpret it based upon what was believed by those that wrote it.

Not sure what this means–“Scripture is interpreted in the light of the Apostolic Teaching”.

We receive the Teachings of Jesus from those to whom He committed His own Teaching Authority. It was these who wrote, protected, preserved, canonoized and promulgated the Scriptures. Everything that they taught is exactly represented there (in Scripture) because the Teachings (what they received from Jesus) comes from the same Source as the Writings.

how can this be if the apostles in their writings never explain that there is some kind of communication going on between the living here and the living there?

Well, we read it differently.

We also know that all the “explanations” were never meant to be contained in Scripture.
"guanophore:

The Teaching of the Church is that saints are in communion with one another, not separated by death,and that the whole Body of Christ is joined together, and each action on the part of one affects the whole.

I’m familar with this but its not grounded in Scripture.

Such a statement reveals a deplorable ignorance of Scripture. All of these principles are clear in the scriptures.

Are you then claiming that this was decided by a council? If so, which one?

Why would that matter, since you reject the authority of all of them?

Do the apostles in their writings ever explain what books should be included in the Bible?

In a way yes.

I can’t WAIT to hear more about this!

These are not dumb questions but questions that help to lead us to a greater understanding…

No, ja4. I think it is clear from anyone who reads posts from this username over the course of the last 2 years that you have not been led to a greater understanding by the answers to your questions.

 

[guanophore]

How does it flow logically from principles and precepts in scripture Mary’s immaculate conception, her assumption and prayers to her when there is not one verse in the entire Scripture that comes close to even hinting at these things?

well, we read it differently.

furthermore, I don’t think any articles of faith are necessarily “logical”. Scripture is clear that the wisdom of God is foolishness to the carnal mind. One who is in the flesh cannot possibly grasp these matters.

Where can it be found that Hebrews 12:1 is the literal understanding that means that the dead can communicate with you and you with them?

I dont think it can.

What documement do i need to look at?

None. There is no point in studying when one has such a hard heart.

What is the relevance of this to the closing of the canon?

I think such a conception would escape you.

i’m not a scholar. Secondly why do i need to trace this back to the Enlightenment?

No need. No reason for you to study yourself approved.

Not sure what you are saying here. Can you clarify?

Matters of faith are passed on to the faithful through faith. Persons that are confined to the carnal mind cannot apprehend them.

How do you know where they are at? How do you know with any certainty that they are LIVING in Christ?

We can only know what God has revealed to us. We know from the Scriptures that Elijah and Enoch have receive their glorified bodies in Heaven. We know that God allowed Samuel to appear to Saul and tell him what was about to happen. We know that Moses and Elijah appeared to Jesus and spoke to Him about his upcoming crucifixion. We know that the great cloud of witnesses described in Heb 11 surrounds us, and out of respect for their sacrifices and their witness, we should press on… etc.

If you or any catholic denies this teaching (praying to Mary and the saints) of your church what is the consquences for you?

I suppose that they would be the same that would come to anyone who would deny the Truth that God revealed from Heaven. God did not spare His own son, but gave Him up for our salvation. If we deny what Him, He will deny us. There will be no other sacrifice for sins.

It’s not apostolic. If its not apostolic because the apostles never taguht what should it be called then?

I think you are fond of calling it “speculation”, are you not? God has created you with free will. You are capable of denying all that He has revealed. You can call His disclosure of Himself “speculation” if you wish. You will bear the consequences of your choice.

There are 66 inspired-inerrant books that make up the Scriptures.

Where does it say that in the Bible?

Where and when did the Catholic church offically interpret Hebrews 12:1 to say what you claim? All i ask is to see this document when such a thing is stated.

This may come as a surprise to you, but Hebrews is an “official Catholic document”. It was written by, for, and about Catholics.

Huh? What abuses are you talking about?

JA4, you have no interest whatsoever in understanding Jesus Christ as He has been revealed by the One, Holy, and Apostolic Church. Notice the difference between the thought processes of Catholics and Fundamentalists. Catholics/Orthodox are not afraid of putting orthodoxy to the test by reasonable, honest debate.

Immune from what? Error?
Angels Unaware;4357192:

It is because the Orthodox Catholic Church is immune (by the Grace of Jesus Christ, who promised that Hell would not prevail against the Church) to your errors. Truth and reason are inherent to the Catholic Church, and our faith is reasonable!

Huh??? Where did i ever claim such a thing as this?

You have made no secret of the fact that you wish to destroy the Catholic Church.

 

[guanophore]

I’m aware of this. Where in Mark 9:1-8was Jesus praying to them? Are there any other passages in the NT where this passage is used as a passage for praying to someone other than God?

I think that most Protestants have a very narrow understanding of “prayer”. Jesus was conversing with persons whose physical bodies were not present (they were manifested spiritually). Jesus had a conversation with them. By doing this, He role modeled that there is no problem with this.

Who in the church does infallibly defines and interprets Scripture since the pope does not?

How is such a question relevant at all, since you deny that the Church has the gift of infallibility?

Huh? Where have i said i was trying to convince everyone to leave Rome???

First of all, the Catholic Church is not “Rome” as you have erroneously been taught to believe. Secondly, if you really wish to do your community justice, you need to review the postings when you take your turn on this username.

There are many teachings in the Catholic church that are not the teachings of Christ.

Truth is never determined by authority but by the facts. If you don’t have the facts to back up a claim, you really can’t say you have the truth. Do you believe your church can ever be wrong?

I agree much more was taught and said by our Lord. However, the only record we have are the scriptures. We don’t have any other trusted sources that tell us other things.

I believe that the scriptures are the inspired word of God but i don’t always believe what your church or my church teaches is always right. In sense we must pick and choose what we will
believe to be the truth. I’m would think even you have certain qualms about some issues in your church.
"justasking4:

My question is this: since the scripture never teaches such a thing like this about Mary, **is this not
a false teaching **since it cannot be grounded in the scriptures? If not taught in scripture, how would your church know this to be a fact about her?

If you can’t find clear support for a doctrine, then what you are left with is speculation. Speculation is not a foundation in which to build a doctrine on. Its like building on sand. Jesus promised in John 14:26 that the HS would bring “remembrance” of all He said. This would evenually lead to the writing down what they heard. What are the signs that the Holy Spirit is guiding the church?

I have seen this claim many times about Sacred Tradition and those things not recorded in the scriptures. The problem is that if its not in the scriptures, its not
inspired-inerrant. Those things not in the scriptures are not binding though. They do not carry apostolic authority. It is true there are other authorties but since the scriptures alone are
inspired-inerrant these authorities are under the authority of the scriptures. Keep in mind that most of these if not all of them are not grounded in the scriptures.

"guanophore:

ja4, you seem to want to lead Catholics into questioning the Magesterium.

justasking4:

And well they should question. The scriptures warn of false teachers in the church who will decieve many. That is why you should hold your church accountable to what the scriptures teach. When you study the marian doctrines in light of the scriptures you will find that the support is not there.

What you must do is be on guard against false teachers in your own church. The scriptures do warn of** false teachers in the church itself**. There was no promise given by Christ that this would not happen.

guanophore:

Furthermore, my question to you was, why do YOU want to discuss it, since you have already rejected the very notion. Why waste your time?

justasking4:

Engaging for the truth is never a waste of time. Secondly it might get someone who reads these posts to rethink their position.

guanophore:

You have already stated they are “speculations of men” and have no validity, since you do not see them in your bible.

** i want to help others see it to**. Engaging for the truth is never a waste of time.

Secondly it might get someone who reads these posts to rethink their position.

If what you say is true, then this would be a false gospel since Paul was totally unaware of the many doctrines in the catholic church.

It could just as easily be shown in some respects how quickly the church was allowing unbilical teachings into the church at a very early stage.

I would counter Newman with this: To know the Scriptures is to be Protestant.

Where is this SACRED TRADITION to be found? Is it in some document in the Vatican somewhere?

It is found in the hearts of the faithful, who contain the Apostolic letter that is preserved in the Church.

Did Jesus and His apostles know exactly what books were inspired-inerrant for the OT canon?

Of course! How can you ask such a question? Do yo think Jesus is not God?

 

[Good_Fella]

“Just as a normally wedded couple” is precisely how the Holy Spirit & and the BVM did not act. Why would she be betrothed to St.Joseph, if God was going to go the whole nine yards with her ?

It is far from certain that she, rather Christ, is the Ark of the Covenant. Just as it is certain that she is not the woman in Revelation 12.​

Not “incomparable”, just greater. If there is no comparison, then she is not only travelling first class while the rest of us are in steerage - she’s not even on the same boat. If we have nothing comparable to what she has, that in effect means she belongs to a human race of her own, where she won’t be offended by the stink of ordinary humans. By making her too perfect, the CC makes her inhuman, almost an incarnate angel, except that that is not exalted enough. But an inhuman BVM who is “horribly good” has nothing in common with us. ​

This makes St.Joseph a cuckold, & Mary a w—e Aquinas could not, & did not, write such claptrap - this completely perverts the CC’s teaching. As for quoting St. Ignatius, this makes him utter impieties.​

If Mary had intended to have conjugal relations with her betrothed husband Joseph, then she wouldn’t have asked the angel: “How shall this be, seeing I know not man?” Mary had decided to remain a virgin after her betrothal while living under the protection of a man who was more of a guardian to her than an average Jewish husband. The couple agreed to contract a celibate marriage which was not unheard of among the ancient Jews although rare. Meanwhile Jesus took his flesh only from his mother. The Holy Spirit, not Joseph, was the active separate principle in the generation of the Son of Man, in the language of Aquinas.

Luke typifies Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant in four verses: 1:39 / 2 Sam 6:2; 1:41 / 2 Sam 6:16; 1:43 / 2 Sam 6:9; 1:56 / 2 Sam 6:11.

The woman in Revelation 12 is Mary, who may aslo typify the Church:

Mary (Woman) said to the servers, “Do whatever he tells you.”
John 2, 5
When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple there whom he loved, he said to his mother, ** “Woman, behold your son.” Then he said to his disciple, “Behold your mother.”
John 19, 26-27
Then the dragon became angry with the woman and went off to wage war against* the rest of her offspring, those who keep God’s commandments* and bear witness to Jesus.
Revelation 12, 17

John is the author of both his Gospel and the Apocalypse. The parallel between the two texts with regard to the woman is quite obvious. The evangelist perceived Mary first and foremost in his vision of the woman which immediately followed his vision of the ark of the Old Covenant.

“Incomparable” is the more accurate description, since no human being other than Mary has ever been immaculately conceived preserved free from the stain of original sin. Nor has any other woman ever conceived a child of the Holy Spirit. Mary has been most blessed by virtue of her Divine Maternity but rather blessed for hearing the word of God and keeping it (cf. Lk 11:28).

“O noble Virgin, truly you are greater than any other greatness. For who is your equal in greatness, O dwelling place of God the Word? To whom among all creatures shall I compare you, O Virgin? You are greater than them all O Covenant, clothed with purity instead of gold! You are the Ark in which is found the golden vessel containing the true manna, that is, the flesh in which divinity resides.”
Athanasius, Homily of the Papyrus of Turin, 71: 216 (ante A.D. 373)

“I answer that, without any hesitation we must abhor the error of Helvidius, who dared to assert that Christ’s Mother, after His Birth, was carnally known by Joseph, and bore other children…Secondly, this error is an insult to the Holy Ghost, whose “shrine” was the virginal womb, wherein He had formed the flesh of Christ: wherefore it was unbecoming that it should be desecrated by intercourse with man.”
St.Thomas Aquinas

“The Son of God was born perfectly of the holy ever-virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit.”
Epiphanius (A.D. 374)

 

[Henning]

The woman in Revelation 12 is Mary, who may aslo typify the Church:

Revelation 12:2
“And she being with child
cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered.”

Mary was in travail and pain in delivery of Jesus? But isn’t travail and delivery pain a punishment from the ‘fall’ Gen 3:16. Therefore wouldn’t she have original sin??? Or the other way around, if Mary was sinless she wouldn’t have had the delivery pain we see her having in Rev.12:2, and so Mary can’t be the woman of Rev 12…???

 

[Good_Fella]

Revelation 12:2
“And she being with child
cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered.”

Mary was in travail and pain in delivery of Jesus? But isn’t travail and delivery pain a punishment from the ‘fall’ Gen 3:16. Therefore wouldn’t she have original sin??? Or the other way around, if Mary was sinless she wouldn’t have had the delivery pain we see her having in Rev.12:2, and so Mary can’t be the woman of Rev 12…???

Apocalyptic literature is replete with varied symbolism and many meanings. It must be read in a spiritual and anagogical sense. The woman may refer to either Mary, the Church, or Israel. In this case, the birth pangs definitely describe the birth of the Church, which consists of the rest of the woman’s offspring who are being formed in Christ.

Paul describes the hardship he must endure in forming disciples of Christ as painful birth pangs.

My children, for whom I am again in labour until Christ be formed in you!
Galatians 4, 19

Indeed, the apostle tells us the whole creation has been groaning in travail before the coming of Christ. All of us who are being reborn in Christ undergo birth pangs, so to speak.

We know that all creation is groaning in labour pains even until now; and not only that, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, we also groan within ourselves as we wait for adoption, the redemption of our bodies.
Romans 8, 22-23

"For if Mary, as those declare who with sound mind extol her, had no other son but Jesus, and yet Jesus says to His Mother, ‘Woman, behold thy son,’ and not ‘Behold, you have this son also,’ then He virtually said to her, ‘Lo this is Jesus, whom thou didst bear.’ Is it not the case that every one who is perfect lives himself no longer, but Christ lives in him; and if Christ lives in him, then it is said of him to Mary, ‘Behold thy son Christ?’ "
Origen, Commentary on John, 1:6 (A.D. 232)

PAX :tiphat: