Having a personal relationship with Mary

[david_ruiz]

I don’t think of myself as having a “personal relationship” with the Blessed Virgin or Christ at all. I just have never thought that way. If someone can show me a passage in the Bible where having a “personal relationship” with them is something I am called to do, then I will change position.

Good question .At first it sounds like a question from a non-believer ,but on second thought ,it may be a question from a practicing Catholic,for I am not sure that the catechism states that you must ,but unfortunately it may only be inferred .Not sure. So may I ask which are you ? Thanks

 

[rinnie]

I don’t think of myself as having a “personal relationship” with the Blessed Virgin or Christ at all. I just have never thought that way. If someone can show me a passage in the Bible where having a “personal relationship” with them is something I am called to do, then I will change position.

I do not think that you will see those exact words in the bible or ST. But I do believe that we are all called to be ONE IN CHRIST. Thats pretty personal. We are called to participate in the Eucharist one on one with him, I would say thats pretty personal

But I think before we can have any relationship with him he must come to us.

1 Jn 4-10 In this is Love, not that we have loved God but the God has loved us.

But I do feel I have a personal relationship with him and the Blessed Mother. I do not see where scripture demands it, but I can not see where it is forbidden.

I guess its that personal relationship that kinda gets me. I think that we have MORE than a personal relationship with Jesus. I think we are part of his family. I think thats alot more then a personal relationship.

I mean I have many friends and we have personal relationships. But a personal relationship is not the same as an intimate relationship. We as Catholic’s are taught that!! To have an intimate relationship with Christ. And I pray I have one with the Blessed Mother also. She is very special to me. She has been alot of help for me. She has gone with me many of times to her Son. She has gone many of times For me also. I pray she will also be there when I die. I would love to see my Blessed Mother and my Loving Father together when my times ends here.

 

[david_ruiz]

Hi David,

Blessings to you my brother. Thanks for your post. Hey, I’m still re-discovering Catholicism and treading carefully, slowly, and dipping my toes in the water as well. I’ve only had Catholicism, Anglicanism, and more unlikely Orthodoxy on the table as possibilities. For me, apostolic succession, sacraments, the priesthood, respect for tradition, these things are paramount. I really believe Christ established a visible, organic Church. The primitive Church of the NT is in its infancy and Christ promised the Holy Spirit would reveal all truth. Over the centuries these truths were steadily revealed as heretics came along and the truth had to be crystalized. Thanks to the bishops of the One Church from Nicea to Ephesus to Chalcedon, etc. we have the truth about Christology, eschatology, soteriology, etc.

I think the Fathers and the didache are not as far removed from the first 12 apostles as you might think, brother David. Take Ignatius of Antioch. He was one of the students of St. John the Apostle, the beloved disciple of Jesus. So Ignatius learned, listened to, and was nurtured by this great apostle himself! St. Polycarp, another sublime and very holy saint, was also a disciple of St. John. So imagine these men listening to John and hearing first-hand the apostolic witness!

I think that’s a powerful reality to digest and contemplate. These men both were highly Eucharistic, believed in the Real Presence, believed in the power of bishops and succession, and were very catholic in their thinking. And they were second generation students of an apostle.

thank-you.did read some St.Ignatius.Definitely talked of "His "body and blood at communion.He was trying to combat the heresy of Jesus only coming in spirit ,that he was not flesh .That would be a good rebuttal claiming,"This is my body ,do this in remembrance…"He does not mention any spiritual benefit , as claimed today (like being energized by his elements), perhaps other than obedience to do it in remembrance.I believe it was also part of the love feast ,and “giving of thanks” (eucharist),may have been the same or combined at first ,and later perhaps separated. I think people would bring their own elements. As you say ,things evolved,and I would say it is not easy to say ,“this is apostolic” ,as far as communion practices today.Part of the problem with extra-biblical matereial ,is that it is just that .For I guess some of his epistles were forgeries.Most believe that seven of them are genuine ,but even there ,some are in long form (embelished) and some in short form .A few do not trust any of them.At times like this ,I shake my head and say ,let ‘s stick to scripture .Even an apostle can speculate on some things. St.Paul said as much -we see thru a clouded glass, that we have the mind of Christ,but even more so down the road. So,even an apostle can speculate on some things (with his disciples), but for sure, when he put it in writing as prompted by the Holy Spirit,it was Rock solid. So all I will say for sure is that we are do do it it in remembrance of Him, and he said “this is my body …and blood, which is shed for you” The closer we stick to that the better .Otherwise we will have rules for umpteen things like what to do if you spill some of the "cup "on your clothes, and it matters if it has dried or not etc. I have had communion on both sides of the issue and see no problem with sticking to scripture ,without conjecture. On a lighter note ,seeing how you like The Excorcist , Fr. O’ Malley,who was in the movie ,had a very warm ,personable communion celebration with us students.I believe he would let us hold the bread and even passed the Cup around,which was unheard of in those days .he was trying to make it relevant ,with less barriers …On a final note, the best critique I saw on St.Ignatius , who believed in the seven epistles as genuine,still held he did not talk of succession with bishops or doctrinal tradition,that they were an office in the congregation.not of “the church”,nor that they related to O.T.priesthood

 

[david_ruiz]

Good question .At first it sounds like a question from a non-believer ,but on second thought ,it may be a question from a practicing Catholic,for I am not sure that the catechism states that you must ,but unfortunately it may only be inferred .Not sure. So may I ask which are you ? Thanks

Well, I can not show you any on Mary , but God , Jesus ,yes . Revelations says ,“Behold I stand at the door and knock,and if any man hear my voice and open the door,I will come into him,and will sup with him,and he with me.” Jesus states that on judgement day He will say this to many, “Depart from me,for I never knew you…” “My sheep know my voice”. He talks to you,you talk to Him. That sometimes is called praying."Those that cry out to the Lord ,will be saved " .That is a bit more than just “head” knowledge .Again, one may know all about George Washington, that he was our first president ,and our general etc, but you never met him. One may have head knowledge of Jesus, that he is the son of God , died on the cross for sins etc. But, Jesus is a spirit, whom one can meet, because man has a spirit that He wants to revive, so there can be a communion. Then one will have first hand revelation that indeed He died for “my” sins , for real. Then one has something to die for (or even live for).

 

[rinnie]

thank-you.did read some St.Ignatius.Definitely talked of "His "body and blood at communion.He was trying to combat the heresy of Jesus only coming in spirit ,that he was not flesh .That would be a good rebuttal claiming,"This is my body ,do this in remembrance…"He does not mention any spiritual benefit , as claimed today (like being energized by his elements), perhaps other than obedience to do it in remembrance.I believe it was also part of the love feast ,and “giving of thanks” (eucharist),may have been the same or combined at first ,and later perhaps separated. I think people would bring their own elements. As you say ,things evolved,and I would say it is not easy to say ,“this is apostolic” ,as far as communion practices today.Part of the problem with extra-biblical matereial ,is that it is just that .For I guess some of his epistles were forgeries.Most believe that seven of them are genuine ,but even there ,some are in long form (embelished) and some in short form .A few do not trust any of them.At times like this ,I shake my head and say ,let ‘s stick to scripture .Even an apostle can speculate on some things. St.Paul said as much -we see thru a clouded glass, that we have the mind of Christ,but even more so down the road. So,even an apostle can speculate on some things (with his disciples), but for sure, when he put it in writing as prompted by the Holy Spirit,it was Rock solid. So all I will say for sure is that we are do do it it in remembrance of Him, and he said “this is my body …and blood, which is shed for you” The closer we stick to that the better .Otherwise we will have rules for umpteen things like what to do if you spill some of the "cup "on your clothes, and it matters if it has dried or not etc. I have had communion on both sides of the issue and see no problem with sticking to scripture ,without conjecture. On a lighter note ,seeing how you like The Excorcist , Fr. O’ Malley,who was in the movie ,had a very warm ,personable communion celebration with us students.I believe he would let us hold the bread and even passed the Cup around,which was unheard of in those days .he was trying to make it relevant ,with less barriers …On a final note, the best critique I saw on St.Ignatius , who believed in the seven epistles as genuine,still held he did not talk of succession with bishops or doctrinal tradition,that they were an office in the congregation.not of “the church”,nor that they related to O.T.priesthood

David not to de-rail, and I will make a quick statement and then get back to the point. You said Jesus said do this in memory of me, but mentioned no spritual benefit You may want to go back and re-read that. Jesus said who ever eats my bread and drinks my blood has eternal life. I would say thats a pretty big spritual benefit

ANd also the APostles can speculate??? What about the Holy Spirit that entered the Church at Pentecost. Thats not speculation. I agree before that you could indeed say that. BUt you may want to re-read that scripture also. RIght before Pentecost they were scared, nervous, but right after Jesus did what he claimed. I am sending the Advcocate the Holy SPirit he will give you the words. That is not mere speculation would you not agree?

 

[david_ruiz]

David not to de-rail, and I will make a quick statement and then get back to the point. You said Jesus said do this in memory of me, but mentioned no spritual benefit You may want to go back and re-read that. Jesus said who ever eats my bread and drinks my blood has eternal life. I would say thats a pretty big spritual benefit

ANd also the APostles can speculate??? What about the Holy Spirit that entered the Church at Pentecost. Thats not speculation. I agree before that you could indeed say that. BUt you may want to re-read that scripture also. RIght before Pentecost they were scared, nervous, but right after Jesus did what he claimed. I am sending the Advcocate the Holy SPirit he will give you the words. That is not mere speculation would you not agree?

Yes.but you first get eternal life , then give thanks for it , which is called"eucharist" .We then are obedient and “remember” and are thankful for His shed blood. Jesus said you must eat Him, which I believe is figurative ,or else Catholics are not saved or regenerated until their first Communion. I did say there was a benefit ,or that Ignatius alluded to it, as there is a spiritual benefit whenever we are obedient to the Lord . It is just that the “elements” are not the direct cause of spiritual energizing- I do not get that from St.Ignatius. I really believe real presence or not, you will be blessed at “communion” with Him,at giving Him thanks for His shed blood (eucharist) , for he inhabits the praises of His people…Yes, it was a night day difference for the apostles after they were baptized in the Holy Ghost. They did not speculate when they wrote God’s inspired words.They were right on .In their conversation, I am sure they had inspired words also ,on extra-biblical topics but I am also sure they were not perfect either .To base doctrine on these conversations is speculation, for one that they had them and two ,that the conversation was perfect and or inspired (again, that is on extra-biblical material). We can glean insight from the apostles’ disciples, but I would suggest with a grain of salt for the above reasons.It certainly would be appropriate to weigh all against Sacred scripture.

 

[guanophore]

I don’t care offhand, but to argue from a Roman Catholic standpoint, if we’re to assume she was ever-virgin, then she had no direct children who, by Jewish law, would be taking care of her, hence why Christ, as He was dying, would ask a close disciple to take care of her. It certainly shows His respect for His mother (following the commandments He asked us to follow), as well as that the apostle John was truly beloved.

What does “Roman Catholic viewpoint” mean?

The Catholic Church is not “Roman”.

The viewpoint you make, though, is correct. This is the view held by all the communities founded by Apostles, including the non-Catholic ones.

That's taking the placement and again presenting the presupposition that when Christ tells the apostle John to take care of her as an adopted mother is a command to us all. It is again simply illogical to assume that's a command to everyone when it's directed to John and simply refers to taking care of the Virgin Mary according to Jewish custom. We haven't seen yet how, from scripture, how this is extended to us all.

Perhaps if you were to realize that the writer of that particular gospel never identifies himself? He describes Himself as “the disciple whom Jesus loved”.

John did not need a mother, as his own mother was standing nearby. John stood in for all of us who love the Lord Jesus and are present with him at the foot of the cross.

 

[guanophore]

My point was that when Mary is given to John by Jesus at the cross it does not apply to us either .

I support your wish to be excluded from the position at the foot of the cross as the disciple loved by Jesus. It grieves me to think that anyone calling themselves Christain would not stand next to His mother, and receive her as His dying wish. However, each man is free to reject any and all of the gifts of God.

It was meant for John and Mary.

I am sure it was, but there was also a reason it was included in the narrative that extends beyond both of them. And the fact the the disciple at the cross is anonymous in the story enables us to stand in his shoes (sandals).

But it is NOT like someone here said ,that Jesus was talking to all of us ,and Mary is our mother now.Just as you seperated us from some of Jesus 's words (the above scenarios) , I do here. Mary is the mother of Jesus …John was to care for her.

Interesting that the entire early church understood this differently than you.

What is so difficult about adopting Mary as your mother?

 

[Reuben_J]

Byzantine_Wolf:

That’s taking the placement and again presenting the presupposition that when Christ tells the apostle John to take care of her as an adopted mother is a command to us all. It is again simply illogical to assume that’s a command to everyone when it’s directed to John and simply refers to taking care of the Virgin Mary according to Jewish custom. We haven’t seen yet how, from scripture, how this is extended to us all.

david ruiz:

But it is NOT like someone here said ,that Jesus was talking to all of us ,and Mary is our mother now.Just as you seperated us from some of Jesus 's words (the above scenarios) , I do here. Mary is the mother of Jesus …John was to care for her.

As an aside, I admit I don’t know much about Protestants belief so I want to figure this out:

Why is it here (Jn 19:27) when Jesus said to the disciple, “Here is your mother,” it means just only to John and not to all Christians; and more over as you (david ruiz) said, not actually to be John’s mother but only to take care of care (not to mention that there is nothing about asking John to take care of her).

But in Rev 3:20 when Jesus gave his message to the Laodiceans it means not only to the Laodiceans but to all Christians (believers)?

I tried to figure out the rational for the inconsistency but was unable to.

 

[david_ruiz]

I support your wish to be excluded from the position at the foot of the cross as the disciple loved by Jesus. It grieves me to think that anyone calling themselves Christain would not stand next to His mother, and receive her as His dying wish. However, each man is free to reject any and all of the gifts of God.

QUOTE]
What is so difficult in adopting her,and all mothers ,who do the will of the father ? And have you adopted her as your sister ?

 

[david_ruiz]

QUOTE=Reuben J;7123169]As an aside, I admit I don’t know much about Protestants belief so I want to figure this out:

Why is it here (Jn 19:27) when Jesus said to the disciple, “Here is your mother,” it means just only to John and not to all Christians; and more over as you (david ruiz) said, not actually to be John’s mother but only to take care of care (not to mention that there is nothing about asking John to take care of her).

Please, we can do better .If we are sticking to what was said , then you can not speculate Mary was given to us by His words,if I (and everybody else) can not speculate that it also meant for John to care of Mary.

But in Rev 3:20 when Jesus gave his message to the Laodiceans it means not only to the Laodiceans but to all Christians (believers)?

I tried to figure out the rational for the inconsistency but was unable to.

You are not confused ,as I am not with you .We just have different interpretations. It is funny , but why do you not apply some of the warnings to the seven churches to my church and yours ? Why was there seven ? Was it not One ,Holy Apostolic , and Catholic church ? Do you literally apply the warning, " I will take away your candlestick" to the Catholic church or was it just for the Ephesians ? I apply the warning to mine.

 

[catholic-rcia]

Y
I believe is figurative ,or else Catholics are not saved or regenerated until their first Communion.

This right here makes me suspect of your motives here. Why would you just make a statement like this? Did the thief on the cross make his first communion? Was he even baptized? Yet he made it to Paradise right? I am Catholic and I do believe in Gods Mercy

Just this one statement from you reminds me we are all sinners. It only makes homest and sincere conversation harder.

Rich
www.utahmission.com

 

[Hesychios]

Yesterday on EWTN radio there was a commentary in which the speaker talked about the value of having a personal relationship with Mary. I guess I had never considered my requests for Mary’s intercession as developing a personal relationship with her – I had always reserved that for Christ. I think the commentary was done by Cardinal Rigali. As a Mormon I didn’t even think about having a personal relationship with Jesus – that was something I wanted to develop with the Father through Jesus. Is that the same way we Catholics normally would look at our relationship with Mary?

One need not develop a ‘personal relationship’ with Saint Mary of Nazareth, that is just one person’s notion.

It can’t really be done anyway, so little is known about her, it’s not like we grew up on the same street and that sort of thing. A relationship with someone we never knew personally is like developing a relationship with Abraham Lincoln, or King Arthur. Sooner or later one has to rely on one’s imagination, or borrow someone else’s imaginings or hallucinations for the purpose.

Very tricky business that.

 

[catholic-rcia]

One need not develop a ‘personal relationship’ with Saint Mary of Nazareth, that is just one person’s notion.

It can’t really be done anyway, so little is known about her, it’s not like we grew up on the same street and that sort of thing. A relationship with someone we never knew personally is like developing a relationship with Abraham Lincoln, or King Arthur. Sooner or later one has to rely on one’s imagination, or borrow someone else’s imaginings or hallucinations for the purpose.

Very tricky business that.

Father Pat a Trappist monk said to me “Did you know we met 65 years ago? I was not born yet. Because I know my faith I said of course as we are all part of the mystical body of Christ. Hope that helps as to our relationship with Mary. She points to her Son, this is how I know her well. I know what she thinks and I know how much she loves me…one creature to another through and in Christ.

 

[Hesychios]

Father Pat a Trappist monk said to me “Did you know we met 65 years ago? I was not born yet. Because I know my faith I said of course as we are all part of the mystical body of Christ. Hope that helps as to our relationship with Mary. She points to her Son, this is how I know her well. I know what she thinks and I know how much she loves me…one creature to another through and in Christ.

Well, you point to her son, but I don’t have a personal relationship with you.

On a second and more important point, you could not have met father Pat sixty five years ago unless you existed sixty five years ago. The souls is created when the body is created, and we are all trapped in space and time, we are not transcendent. The teaching of the pre-existence of the soul was condemned as a heresy when Origin was condemned, if not before.

People say a whole bunch of cute things that aren’t true, like when a mother says to her daughter “you were the prettiest little baby in heaven, and God sent you to me”. We like to hear stuff like that, it makes us feel good, but it is actually false. That is how heresies survive through the ages, as a type of folk religion passed along innocently from one person to the next.

 

[Janet1983]

One need not develop a ‘personal relationship’ with Saint Mary of Nazareth, that is just one person’s notion.

Agreed.

 

[catholic-rcia]

Well, you point to her son, but I don’t have a personal relationship with you.On a second and more important point, you could not have met father Pat sixty five years ago unless you existed sixty five years ago. The souls is created when the body is created, and we are all trapped in space and time, we are not transcendent. The teaching of the pre-existence of the soul was condemned as a heresy when Origin was condemned, if not before.

People say a whole bunch of cute things that aren’t true, like when a mother says to her daughter “you were the prettiest little baby in heaven, and God sent you to me”. We like to hear stuff like that, it makes us feel good, but it is actually false. That is how heresies survive through the ages, as a type of folk religion passed along innocently from one person to the next.

.

I do not beleive in pre-existance, rather that the spirit in me and in Father Pat is the spirit of Christ which has always existed and gives life to humankind. . Do you not see Christ in others? the same Christ he found in others 65 years ago is the same spirit in me today. Do you see what I am trying to say here? Here is where my revelation came as a Mormon who left Mormonism behind to become Christian, (1 Cor 12) to submit myself to Christ. The Most Holy Trinity

If you had a personal relationhip with christ you would then have one with me as well as we are all connected to His Christ’s body. When I go to another Parish I have a personal relationship through the body of Christ with all of them as well.

I beleive we are connected to the one spirit of God, the mystical body of Christ. I know what Father Pat was saying clearly. Not something cute, something much more profound. …"As a body is one though it has many parts, and all the parts of the body, though many, are one body, so also Christ.

For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, slaves or free persons, and we were all given to drink of one Spirit. Now the body is not a single part, but many.

If a foot should say, “Because I am not a hand I do not belong to the body,” it does not for this reason belong any less to the body. Or if an ear should say, “Because I am not an eye I do not belong to the body,” it does not for this reason belong any less to the body. If the whole body were an eye, where would the hearing be? If the whole body were hearing, where would the sense of smell be?

But as it is, God placed the parts, each one of them, in the body as he intended. If they were all one part, where would the body be? But as it is, there are many parts, yet one body. The eye cannot say to the hand, “I do not need you,” nor again the head to the feet, “I do not need you.” Indeed, the parts of the body that seem to be weaker are all the more necessary, and those parts of the body that we consider less honorable we surround with greater honor, and our less presentable parts are treated with greater propriety, whereas our more presentable parts do not need this. But God has so constructed the body as to give greater honor to a part that is without it, so that there may be no division in the body, but that the parts may have the same concern for one another.

If (one) part suffers, all the parts suffer with it; if one part is honored, all the parts share its joy. Now you are Christ’s body, and individually parts of it. 1 Cor 12

www.utahmission.com

 

[Janet1983]

If you had a personal relationhip with christ you would then have one with me as well as we are all connected to His body. When I go to another Parish I have a personal relationship through the body of Christ with them as well.

You can’t have a personal relationship with someone you don’t know.
Once you get to know someone personally (!) you can have a personal relationship with him. If I don’t know the person, I cannot have a personal relationship with him or her.

As an example: I did not know my mothers’ mother until I was 12 years old. I was related to her and we were part of the same family long before that, but I did not have a personal relationship with her. I did not have a personal relationship with her until the day that we met for the first time.

I have a relationship with every believer in Christ, but it is not personal until I get to know them.

A personal relationship can be good or it can be bad but it is always personal. The devil has a personal relationship with the Lord and it’s not a very good one.

 

[catholic-rcia]

You can’t have a personal relationship with someone you don’t know.
Once you get to know someone personally (!) you can have a personal relationship with him. If I don’t know the person, I cannot have a personal relationship with him or her.

As an example: I did not know my mothers’ mother until I was 12 years old. I was related to her and we were part of the same family long before that, but I did not have a personal relationship with her. I did not have a personal relationship with her until the day that we met for the first time.

I have a relationship with every believer in Christ, but it is not personal until I get to know them.

A personal relationship can be good or it can be bad but it is always personal. The devil has a personal relationship with the Lord and it’s not a very good one.

I am speaking spiritually, when I receive the body and blood of Christ with others in Christ beleive me I have a very personal realtionship with them. When you have Christ in common what else do you want to call it? You must be missing out on theCommunion of Saints. If you do not have a personal relationship with Christ how can you have a personal relationship with any meaning with anyone? This would be impossible unless you can bypass Jesus. So because of the Church that Christ built I do have a personal relationship with Mary. It is very special.

Thank you Jesus for all of my relationships whether here on earth or with those in heaven who I know are praying for me and others through you, the one body that means everything

Praise God
Rich
www.utahmission.com

 

[david_ruiz]

This right here makes me suspect of your motives here. Why would you just make a statement like this? Did the thief on the cross make his first communion? Was he even baptized? Yet he made it to Paradise right? I am Catholic and I do believe in Gods Mercy

Just this one statement from you reminds me we are all sinners. It only makes homest and sincere conversation harder.

Rich
www.utahmission.com

I am sorry I made you suspect my motives .I thought my statement was well within the context of the thread with “Rinnie”, where she mentioned you must partake in his real presence in communion to have eternal life.What, you never heard of the debate as to whether Jesus was speaking figuratively when he said you must eat His body to be saved ? Maybe you could honestly and sincerely tell us what you think of such a dogma ? So you can be saved without the Eucharist ,communion, ? Jesus said you MUST partake of His body. Does not the thief on the cross and other scenarios suggest that partaking of His body is figurative, for having FAITH in whom Jesus is and what He did ? Is not that what happened to the thief ? The thief “partook” of His body and blood,by his confession of faith in Jesus…Not to bother , the church has answered for you .The thief is granted absolution on this matter ,for he would have partook in the Eucharist , had he the chance.It has nothing to do with the protestant notion that Jesus was speaking figuratively…Perhaps someone can point out where in the catechism this is probably stated quite fancifully…You are right .My motive was wrong. I was trying to show a kink in the iron clad arguments for the real presence in the Eucharist. Indeed, God is merciful. As you say we are all sinners ,and I feel like that thief, with nothing to offer our Saviour ,except a confession of faith , and run with His promise of being with him in Heaven-because He said so ,not because of anything I could ever do.“To be absent from the body ,is to be present with the Lord”.Thank-you .Peace to our souls.