Hail Mary

[Angels_Unaware]

A couple of ways. Jesus or His apostles never taught this and so is not an apostolic teaching. Secondly the Lord Jesus Himself is our Great High Priest Who intercedes before the Father for us. He alone is sufficent for all our needs. No other is needed nor possible.

Jesus never taught the Trinity or the Rapture. I would bet money you believe in both.

You have a limited understanding of Jesus.The saints are part of the Body of Christ. So, you are right, there is no other needed or possible.

None specifically but if we are to be of the apostles teaching then we have no choice. If what you believe is not grounded in Scripture i.e. not taught by the apostles it is of men.

The Saints are not dead. You greatly error to assume that they are.

The term “grounded in scripture” to you means “grounded in Protestant interpretation of scripture”.

If you just considered, for one moment, that the Scripture is with us because of a work of the Holy Spirit acting through the Church; and that the Church mothered the Scripture, then you would understand Sacred Tradition, and would be able to hear the reasons why it is necessary to believe in it.

Sacred Tradition is not Joseph Smith’s revelation. There is no comparison. Catholicism is not a cult, and you aren’t saving anyone. You are battling with Christ’s Church

 

[Angels_Unaware]

So what? All the answers are the same when asked of the Church and not individual Catholics. Why does this matter to you?

I think we all know the answer to this. She has a major problem with pride and is completely blind to the fact that it is her who has something to learn here. She thinks that she is rescuing stupid, ignorant pagans. She doesn’t even believe we’re Christians. She doesn’t even allow her mind to wrap itself around Catholic theology because she thinks it’s from the devil.

 

[Angels_Unaware]

If you are referring to Hebrews 12:1 you will notice it says nothing about praying them nor that they are praying for you. 12:1 is actually a figure of speech, a summation of what the author wrote about in chapter 11. It is not meant to be taken literally as if there is some crowd around us. :

Well, then. If you said so, then of course, you must be right. How stupid of me to turn to the Magisterium for direction instead of you.

 

[justasking4]

happilycatholic;4349585]
Originally Posted by justasking4
Answers sometimes lead to further questions. Since i’m a Christian who believes that the Scriptures are the foundation for truth and pracitice i will usually go there first. If its not there, then i will look elsewhere for the foundation. Is the foundation in Scripture or in the ideas of men.

happilycatholic
Well, I’d say this then. If you walked the earth when Jesus did, Jesus’ teachings appeared to be in His own head, i.e. the teachings of a man.

I don’t this is true. What He taught was sometimes backed up by His miracles. John 11 is a case in point. Secondly when the soldiers came to arrest Him the first time they were prevented from doing so and said they never encountered someone like Him.

Scriptures were not the foundation for His Truth then and they are not the sole foundation for His Truth now. In fact he separated His Truth from the Law.

Huh? He based much of His teachings on the OT. Matthew 5:17-19.

Why did Jesus not have a written form of His teachings in place before His crusifixion? Don’t you think with as much weight as you put on the Scriptures Jesus would have given each disciple a copy at least before His Ascension?

The people of this culture were very good at remembering things. Far better than we are. Secondly there is no reason to think that many disciples of His wrote down for themselves what He taught. Luke 1:1-4 alludes to this.

If our Lord intended this book we call a Bible to be the whole of His teachings don’t you think He would have put it in writing Himself? I know, there’s no Scriptural foundation for that theory, but again, can’t you just tell us how you feel about that theory instead of quoting something?

Remember this was a people who already had a written Scripture i.e. the OT. Since Jesus as regarded as a Prophet it would not be unreasonable to think that His followers would have wanted to put His teachings into written form as the OT was. In fact it was early on believed in the church that the gospels were Scripture. Jesus did not write Himself but left that later to others who would do so. I believe He guided them in this process just as He guided the church and helped the church in Acts.

The Church would not…could not be wrong on this one. Jesus would have left Peter with a written form of Scripture if He’d intended us to rely solely on that or do you think our Lord made a mistake?

There is no doubt in my mind the Lord intended that His teachings and those of His apostles would be written down and considered Scripture. Scripture does not come about haphazardly as an afterthought but is some diliberate by the HS.
The great value of a written text is that it could not be easily changed over time as a strictly oral tradition could be.

Cause it looks to me that He knew this would be a problem and He would have explicitly said, “Take this Book and read it, it is my word.” No blasphemy intended Lord. I really mean that.

Just give me your thoughts, not a bunch of quotes.

Not much quotes here. Hope this helps—

 

[justasking4]

Well, then. If you said so, then of course, you must be right. How stupid of me to turn to the Magisterium for direction instead of you.

Have you read the footnotes on this passage in the The New American Bible which is a Catholic Bible? These are Catholic scholars.

 

[Angels_Unaware]

JA4, you are delusional. If you actually debated these issues, then I would have respect for you. But you don’t debate, you avoid. You have done nothing here but avoid and obfuscate the issues. This poor thread on Hail Mary has been turned into a discussion on the communion of saints and Sola Scriptura. Why? Because you come here and obfuscate the issues, and never actually address any of the issues.

You obviously do not intellectually comprehend much of what has been presented to you. I would guess that is because you have chosen not to comprehend it, because you have been indoctrinated so heavily.

Many people have said this to you, and I will say it again- your actions here are like that of a troll. You start an argument, and you can’t finish it, so you start a new one.

 

[justasking4]

Angels Unaware;4349712]JA4, you are delusional. If you actually debated these issues, then I would have respect for you. But you don’t debate, you avoid. You have done nothing here but avoid and obfuscate the issues. This poor thread on Hail Mary has been turned into a discussion on the communion of saints and Sola Scriptura. Why? Because you come here and obfuscate the issues, and never actually address any of the issues.

This is not a debate its a discussion… As for getting off topic i’m not to blame. Its easy to get off topic especially when people are mad at me…View attachment 4414

You obviously do not intellectually comprehend much of what has been presented to you. I would guess that is because you have chosen not to comprehend it, because you have been indoctrinated so heavily.

Not really. Theological matters are far more complex than most people realize.

Many people have said this to you, and I will say it again- your actions here are like that of a troll. You start an argument, and you can’t finish it, so you start a new one.

You and others totally misunderstand me…

 

[Angels_Unaware]

If it is not a debate to you, then that is your problem. Your problem is that you condescendingly and in error believe you are right and everyone else is wrong, and you need to “discuss that” with them. Frankly, that is delusional.

You have not given the slightest evidence that you comprehend the theological arguments for honoring Sacred Tradition or for understanding Mary’s role in the Church according to Catholicism.

Not the slightest evidence, JA4. I am not mad at you, and I don’t think others are either.

I honestly think you are delusional. Your insistence of “responding to individual Catholics” reminds me very much of a Jehovah’s Witness. It reminds me of a person who has been brain-washed.

 

[Pixie_Dust]

If you are referring to Hebrews 12:1 you will notice it says nothing about praying them nor that they are praying for you. 12:1 is actually a figure of speech, a summation of what the author wrote about in chapter 11. It is not meant to be taken literally as if there is some crowd around us. The New American Bible has an interesting footnote on this verse–"[1-13] Christian life is to be inspired not only by the Old Testament men and women of faith (Hebrews 12:1) but above all by Jesus. As the architect of Christian faith, he had himself to endure the cross before receiving the glory of his triumph (Hebrews 12:2). Reflection on his sufferings should give his followers courage to continue the struggle, if necessary even to the shedding of blood (Hebrews 12:3-4). Christians should regard their own sufferings as the affectionate correction of the Lord, who loves them as a father loves his children."

Actually there are many other passages that tell us the saints in Heaven do pray for us and rejoice when a sinner repents. How could they do that if they have no inkling of what’s happening here on earth, as you seem to believe?

 

[happilycatholic]

I don’t this is true. What He taught was sometimes backed up by His miracles. John 11 is a case in point. Secondly when the soldiers came to arrest Him the first time they were prevented from doing so and said they never encountered someone like Him.

Huh? He based much of His teachings on the OT. Matthew 5:17-19.

The people of this culture were very good at remembering things. Far better than we are. Secondly there is no reason to think that many disciples of His wrote down for themselves what He taught. Luke 1:1-4 alludes to this.

Remember this was a people who already had a written Scripture i.e. the OT. Since Jesus as regarded as a Prophet it would not be unreasonable to think that His followers would have wanted to put His teachings into written form as the OT was. In fact it was early on believed in the church that the gospels were Scripture. Jesus did not write Himself but left that later to others who would do so. I believe He guided them in this process just as He guided the church and helped the church in Acts.

There is no doubt in my mind the Lord intended that His teachings and those of His apostles would be written down and considered Scripture. Scripture does not come about haphazardly as an afterthought but is some diliberate by the HS.
The great value of a written text is that it could not be easily changed over time as a strictly oral tradition could be.

Not much quotes here. Hope this helps—

:

Every reply in here tiptoes around what I said. Including this one:

Huh? He based much of His teachings on the OT. Matthew 5:17-19.

Scriptures were not the foundation for His Truth then and they are not the sole foundation for His Truth now. In fact he separated His Truth from the Law.

I never said He did not draw from the OT. I said the OT is not the foundation of Christ’s teachings in fact, in part it contridicts His teachings. (The Law vs. The New Covenant) Christ Himself is the New Covenant. The New Testament is a collection of writings in the Scripture. Again, I didn’t say He didn’t use the OT, I said it wasn’t the foundation of his Word.

I never said He did not “intend” His teachings to be in written form. I said if He had meant us to put such weight on them, He would have written them Himself. Just as God did the Ten Commandments. It seems to me that if God wants us to believe something word for written word, He writes it.

Oh, so now “there’s no doubt in my mind” that the Lord intended… works for you. That’s interesting.

Why is there no doubt in your mind that our Lord intended for you to love and venerate His Mother. Is that such a stretch.

You are so lost, so, so lost. You are lost in your own translation of what YOU believe the Scriptures mean to YOU.

I’m so bored with you it’s pathetic.

 

[justasking4]

Actually there are many other passages that tell us the saints in Heaven do pray for us and rejoice when a sinner repents. How could they do that if they have no inkling of what’s happening here on earth, as you seem to believe?

The passage in Luke 15:7 does not tell us who is rejoicing and most importantly how they came to know. Secondly, just because those in heaven may be aware of things here in this world does not mean they can communicate with us and you with them. Just as i can be aware of events on the other side of the world does not mean i can do anything about it.

 

[cfrancis]

The passage in Luke 15:7 does not tell us who is rejoicing and most importantly how they came to know. Secondly, just because those in heaven may be aware of things here in this world does not mean they can communicate with us and you with them. Just as i can be aware of events on the other side of the world does not mean i can do anything about it.

You can pray for/about them…

 

[justasking4]

happilycatholic;4349848]Every reply in here tiptoes around what I said. Including this one:

Huh? He based much of His teachings on the OT. Matthew 5:17-19.

Scriptures were not the foundation for His Truth then and they are not the sole foundation for His Truth now. In fact he separated His Truth from the Law.

I never said He did not draw from the OT. I said the OT is not the foundation of Christ’s teachings in fact, in part it contridicts His teachings. (The Law vs. The New Covenant) Christ Himself is the New Covenant.

The OT is the foundation for the teachings of Christ. He came to fulfill them. The OT predicted Him.
What part of the OT contradicts His teachings? Can you give me an example?

The New Testament is a collection of writings in the Scripture. Again, I didn’t say He didn’t use the OT, I said it wasn’t the foundation of his Word.

You are mistaken on this. He certainly did base His teachings and work on the OT. Take His sacrifice on the cross. That was in fulfillment of the OT teachings in a number of ways.

I never said He did not “intend” His teachings to be in written form. I said if He had meant us to put such weight on them, He would have written them Himself. Just as God did the Ten Commandments. It seems to me that if God wants us to believe something word for written word, He writes it.

Oh, so now “there’s no doubt in my mind” that the Lord intended… works for you. That’s interesting.

Why is there no doubt in your mind that our Lord intended for you to love and venerate His Mother. Is that such a stretch.

No need to strech. There is no command in Scripture to love and honor Mary.

You are so lost, so, so lost. You are lost in your own translation of what YOU believe the Scriptures mean to YOU.

View attachment 4415

I’m so bored with you it’s pathetic.

 

[justasking4]

You can pray for/about them…

True. But if i tried to communicate directly to them via prayer they would not hear.

 

[Angels_Unaware]

The passage in Luke 15:7 does not tell us who is rejoicing and most importantly how they came to know. Secondly, just because those in heaven may be aware of things here in this world does not mean they can communicate with us and you with them. Just as i can be aware of events on the other side of the world does not mean i can do anything about it.

Or, in other words, you can’t tell from Scripture whether or not it is possible to communicate with the Saints in heaven or not. Nothing except your prejudice here.
JA4:

The OT is the foundation for the teachings of Christ. He came to fulfill them. The OT predicted Him.
What part of the OT contradicts His teachings? Can you give me an example?

What part of Sacred Tradition contradicts the New Testament? The arguments that you are making for Sacred Tradition to be in opposition to the New Testament could also be made by a Jew about the gospels.

It all comes down to how you interpret things.

That is your fatal, prideful error.

 

[Pixie_Dust]

The passage in Luke 15:7 does not tell us who is rejoicing and most importantly how they came to know. Secondly, just because those in heaven may be aware of things here in this world does not mean they can communicate with us and you with them. Just as i can be aware of events on the other side of the world does not mean i can do anything about it.

Jesus tells us that there is rejoicing in Heaven, and I believe that means everyone who is in Heaven is rejoicing. Not just a select few, leaving the rest to wonder what they’re so durn happy about. What you can do right now cannot be compared to what it’s like in Heaven. I can’t believe you would even make that comparison.

We don’t ask the saints in Heaven to communicate with us, we ask them to pray for us to the Lord our God, and Scripture tells us that they do.

 

[Pixie_Dust]

cfrancis:

You can pray for/about them…

True. But if i tried to communicate directly to them via prayer they would not hear.

Seems to me you’re grasping at straws here. Being on the other side of the planet is not the same as being in Heaven.

 

[guanophore]

What exactly is an Archbishop?

It is curious that a person who rejects the authority of the Catholic bishopric as unbiblical would even make such an inquiry.

Does he not carry authority in the Catholic church?

It seems to me that you have already established for your self that the Catholic Church has no authority over you, and that the authority claimed by the Catholic Church is spurious.

Does he not speak for the church?

If you will look back over your postings, ja4, I think it will become clear that the only person here who you believe has the authority to speak about the Catholic Church is yourself.

Do you think he meant that this work has his approval as something good for catholics to read in the New York area?

I think it is a capital idea for you to write, and ask him.

Otherwise, you are asking us to speculate about what he thinks, and what he meant, and you know how useless speculation can be.

 

[guanophore]

There is a problem here also in say that “There must be proof that it was believed by early Christian”. Many of these doctrines on the Mary were not believed for centuries by the church.

Really? How did you prove that?

This still does not necessarily mean she was assumed into heaven. In fact it is admitted by Catholic scholars they don’t know what happened to her.

I know this has been told you you before, ja4, but I think it bears repeating. Catholic scholars do not define Catholic teaching. Catholic teaching comes from Jesus, through the Apostles, and is the care of the magesterium. Scholars can speculate until they are blue in the face and it will do nothing to change what the Church teaches.

Furthermore any scholar that rejects the assumption of Mary is not Catholic. Calling themselves a CAtholic does not make them one. If they reject the doctrines of the faith, they are not Catholic.

You are assuming she was assumed without any proof. There are no eyewitness documents to this.

LOL. No we are not “assuming”. It would be that if you believed it because you do not accept the TEaching of the Apostles, which is from the Holy Spirit. Instead, you rely on you own presuppositions and assumptions. For us, it is part of the Divine Revelation.

Here is the problem. Things may look convincing on the “big picture” but when you start to study the details things fall apart. This where many claims fail. They cannot be supported by the details and if the details are not to be found then you don’t have Biblical support. This is then is a teaching of men

Well, I guess you need to go back and wrestle with your Sola Scriptura doctrine, then, which does not have biblical support, and therefore, is shown to be a tradition of men.

 

[guanophore]

There is only ONE mediator between God and men. Only one.

It is very Catholic of you to say this!

To say that Mary or anyone else is necessary for direct access to Christ is to add what God never did.

God has ordained it so. No one has access to God but by His will. No one can come to the father but through Him.

There is no teaching in Scripture that says we are to implore Mary’s help in leading us to Christ. That job is done by the HS alone.

Well, we read it differently.

The rosary certainly does. The Hail Mary does when at the most crucial time in a person’s life i.e. death they prray to Mary.

Would you rather we pray to you? :bigyikes: ARe you jealous?

Which do you think catholics know best: prayers of the mass or the Hail Mary?

Hmm. Depends upon whether they use the private devotion of the Rosary, which some do not, and whether they are daily communicants, which some are not. Why would that matter to your, since you don’t recognize either as valid prayer?

How so? Perhaps you can answer these questions to help me clear up my ignorance.

No, ja4, don’t think so. :dts:

These questions have been answered for you faithfully by dozens of Catholics on hundreds of posts over the last two years. Answering them plainly does nothing to clear up your ignorance. The ignorant behavior continues. :whacky: