I'm getting tired of hearing from Protestants that we worship Mary and the saints!

[Leeann]

LilyM - Are you saying that you have never had your beliefs misunderstood simply because language doesn’t perfectly express them? You certainly have - for one Muslims call you a polytheist because language can’t and doesn’t express the reality of the Trinity in such a way that they, having been brought up in a non-Trinitarian mindset, can understand. I can list several other Christian teachings that run into similar problems.

Thank you…point taken. I think I was more worried about “my” analogy than yours there.

What, like the ‘explicitness’ of the wedding vows which say ‘with my body I thee WORSHIP’??? All those idolatrous wedding ceremonies over the centuries - tsk tsk! Again, language is a wonderful but very imprecise and often very INexplicit thing.

I agree and that’s why it is so important to make sure you make it as clear as possible, especially when dealing with the clear cut boundaries of where one’s “spiritual” identity should be focused….and if that can’t be done sufficiently, it might be best not to muddy the waters.
Clearly – from other life long Catholics that I have spoken with and some others in various threads such as these – and of course to people of other faiths, there are various interpretations as to what some of the words that have been instituted by the Catholic church mean, “sin” has to be broken down into various “kinds” and identified specifically in order for it to be dealt with properly ….”worship” has to be “explained”.
That’s interesting, the wedding vow quotation above……I’ve never heard of that one in particular.

No - no more than it’s ‘The Father/The Son/The Son’s pinky finger/and the Holy Spirit’. Mary, although an essential part of God’s plan and united in will with her Son, is CREATURE. Why do you have more problems, it seems, grasping the BIG difference between creature and creator than we supposedly idolatrous Catholics?

First of all, I would not refer to you as idolatrous Catholics and secondly, I have no problem with grasping the big difference between creature and creator, as is evident in the way that I believe I appropriately honor them.
But you do confuse me here…you are very adamant that Mary is “creature” here…and yet in a you imply earlier that Mary is somehow more than just “creature” *…“You possibly think she can have been an ordinary human for God incarnate to submit Himself to her?” *

Thank you LilyM for the time you’ve taken to respond and for your (name removed by moderator)ut. I sincerely appreciate it.

Peace and God Bless

 

[Leeann]

“Your true character starting to eke out…?”

That’s okay Rob, I’m human and I am who I am, responding in kind is not an admirable quality, but nevertheless it happens!

 

[Mannyfit75]

First of all, I would not refer to you as idolatrous Catholics and secondly, I have no problem with grasping the big difference between creature and creator, as is evident in the way that I believe I appropriately honor them.
But you do confuse me here…you are very adamant that Mary is “creature” here…and yet in a you imply earlier that Mary is somehow more than just “creature” *…“You possibly think she can have been an ordinary human for God incarnate to submit Himself to her?” *

Peace and God Bless

Mary is created being. We revere her so because she was granted the priviledge by God to become the Mother of Our Lord. No creature was granted this special grace; only Mary did. Jesus, Word of God first 9 months resided in Mary’s sacred womb. Jesus, the first born of all creation.

 

[RobHom]

That’s okay Rob, I’m human and I am who I am, responding in kind is not an admirable quality, but nevertheless it happens!

Yes, you have proven you are human… but respond in kind you did not. You made an assumption as to my emotional state and that assumption was erroneous. I made simple plain spoken statements in response to your demand for an answer. Try not to read emotion into something where there is none…OK?

 

[Leeann]

That is a false misconception. Mary is not the Fourth Person of the Trinity. That itself is a heretical doctrine. The Catholic Church has never taught that.
Manny, I know that the Catholic church has never officially taught that as a doctrine, it wasn’t asked in a serious sense, but more in a way to clearly define where Mary’s"position" is and Lilym replied by explaining the “inseparable” position.

I do like to note that when we are baptized in the Name of Jesus Christ, we become a member of family of God. Jesus is the Head of the Church. We are his body. This mystical Body of Christ include the prophets of old, the Patriarchs, and the saints both living and dead.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states gives a good explanation:

Para 2009 Filial adoption, in making us partakers by grace in the divine nature, can bestow true merit on us as a result of God’s gratuitous justice. This is our right by grace, the full right of love, making us “co-heirs” with Christ and worthy of obtaining “the promised inheritance of eternal life.” The merits of our good works are gifts of the divine goodness. “Grace has gone before us; now we are given what is due. . . . Our merits are God’s gifts.”

“Us” is the Entire People of God. The Church and Her children.

Mary was always there with Jesus in the beginning of his life and to his end or ascension into heaven. She was always the faithful “handmaid of the Lord.” She was not “unfaithful” handmaid of the Lord.

Her unity with her son is due to her obedience to God’s calling by her FIAT, “Be it done onto me according to your word” and “Do whatever he tells you”

Each Christians has an important role for building up the Church, which Jesus Christ founded. Mary’s role is to bring God’s children closer to her son. She is the Mother of the Church. Like any mother, she wants what is best for her children. Mary seeks all mankind to be brought to Jesus Christ.

Mary have a much more personal relationship with Jesus than us. For one thing. She knows Jesus for 33 yrs, or should I say she knows her son for more than 2,000 yrs.

She was the proto-Christian. The first who accepted Jesus.

Many of the Early Church Fathers often describe Mary as the

1. Daughter of the God, the Father.
2. Spouse of the Holy Spirit, because through the Holy Spirit, Mary became pregnant with Jesus Christ.
3. Mother of God, Jesus, 2nd Person of the Trinity, or Theotokos.

She has a relationship with the Trinity much deeper sense than we can comprehend.

Thanks for your time and effort in explaining all this and posting it here.

Peace and God Bless

 

[RobHom]

Mary is created being. We revere her so because she was granted the priviledge by God to become the Mother of Our Lord. No creature was granted this special grace; only Mary did. Jesus, Word of God first 9 months resided in Mary’s sacred womb. Jesus, the first born of all creation.

I think maybe if Leeann and other non-Catholics were to take time to read the Infancy Gospel of Matthew, and pay particular attention to what Matthew wrote concerning Mary…from the beginning, she and others might possibly be able to discern why we revere the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Here is a link to the Infancy Gospel of Matthew as translated by Jerome from the original Hebrew that it was written in:

newadvent.org/fathers/0848.htm

I realize that she and others may be adherents of “sola scriptura” and may declare that the Gospel by Matthew is not inspired… because its not included in the Bible, but that’s OK… But the point is…Matthew wrote it, Jerome translated it, and its accepted as a writing by Matthew the Apostle. Further, the point is to clarify how and why Catholics feel as they do regarding the Blessed Virgin Mary, and why it cannot be accepted that she was just some common Jewish girl God put a child into. (That anyone could think that makes me cringe.)

Keeping in mind…that pushing a non-Catholic agenda or attempting to subvert Catholicism is a no-no here…

 

[Mannyfit75]

Thanks for your time and effort in explaining all this and posting it here.

Peace and God Bless

It is my pleasure to inform a Non-Catholic.

 

[hays1122]

Leeann,

You posted this:

**"I appreciate your genuine and heart felt concern, especially when it has been offered so graciously…is this also some your “Catholic way” as you described above?

I believe there are others in this thread that I have been in discussion with on this topic….if you feel that you have answered my question sufficiently and have posted everything that you feel compelled to post……then I thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut and time taken.**

Now, if you happened to take umbrage to what I said previously, please read this cautiously and without inserting emotion.

You asked a question. I answered it. Others have answered it. It has been answered. Yet you still want to persist in trying to push the boulder up the mountain, as did Sisyphus.

I think I detected a little “snideness”, or was that an attempt to “condescend”? I made the point about you hijacking a snippet of scripture out of context, because that is precisely what you did. The context you placed it in had absolutely nothing relative to the origin of the passage. Its as wrong and silly as saying “money is the root of all evil”…which is an entirely wrong statement.

If by your other comment you were trying to allude to Catholic veneration of Mary as being “evil”, then I think you are very much out in left field…not to mention “wrong”. That you do not agree with the Catholic position where Mary is concerned is a problem that is yours.

If you choose to…you are free to expend as much energy as Sisyphus… or do this: :banghead: Its your life.

As to my “Catholic way”… Mmmmm, yes…and I have been very “charitable” and kind…actually. Far more charitable and kind than “Protestants” on their forums… The forum rules here require it. I abide by their rules.

Like I said, the “OP’s” question was answered. Move on.

About these protestant forums you’ve visited. Where are they?
I have never found anything like this for protestants.
And I’m sorry they weren’t charitable and kind to you.
This is a good place.

 

[RobHom]

About these protestant forums you’ve visited. Where are they?
I have never found anything like this for protestants.
And I’m sorry they weren’t charitable and kind to you.
This is a good place.

Forum rules I believe frown on that. They are out there though. Googling will find them. But in this thread there is mention of one:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=271811

Its a new thread.

I would rather not post any links to any. From my experiences on those sites…lets just say…not pleasant, and it was actually difficult for me to begin to believe that these people considered themselves “Christians”.

Not knowing what kind of non-Catholic you are…I say this with all kindness. BEWARE…you could be just as much of a target.

 

[Leeann]

Yes, you have proven you are human… but respond in kind you did not. You made an assumption as to my emotional state and that assumption was erroneous. I made simple plain spoken statements in response to your demand for an answer. Try not to read emotion into something where there is none…OK?

Hahahahaha…No…I didn’t make an assumption as to “your” emotional state"…I was taking a jab “my” emotions…see below:

The “responding in kind” comment I made, was in relation to your previous post to me, where assumptions were made and snide remarks were made on your part …if you dish it out, don’t be surprised if it comes flying back at you…and unfortunately I “responded in kind”, and as I’ve said and admitted too…it’s not a very admirable way of doing things, is it? As for the “demand for an answer”…I simply kept posting until some people did kindly respond and actually addressed what I was referring too.

 

[RobHom]

Hahahahaha…No…I didn’t make an assumption as to “your” emotional state"…I was taking a jab “my” emotions…see below:

RobHorn: Now, if you happened to take umbrage to what I said previously, please read this cautiously and without inserting emotion.

Please…accept the fact that you erred. Let it go. You made the assumption. I make no assumptions ever. Its not my way. I’m pretty ambivalent about most things…and most certainly about forum posting. Been doing this kind of thing for too long to be otherwise. If you did not find my answer sufficient or kind enough to meet your parameters…the fault lies with you, not I. I answered the question…beyond your requested information. Take the time to read and absorb before firing from the hip. Ok?

BTW… its R o b H o m… no r in it…

Peace!

 

[Leeann]

Here is a link to the Infancy Gospel of Matthew as translated by Jerome from the original Hebrew that it was written in:

newadvent.org/fathers/0848.htm

I realize that she and others may be adherents of “sola scriptura” and may declare that the Gospel by Matthew is not inspired… (she isn’t…and has made no such declaration)because its not included in the Bible, but that’s OK… But the point is…Matthew wrote it, **Jerome ****translated it, **(keeping his “letter” in mind…an excerpt below.) and its accepted as a writing by Matthew the Apostle.

(from above website posted by RobHorn)
There is extant another letter to the same bishops, attributed to Jerome:—

You ask me to let you know what I think of a book held by some to be about the nativity of St. Mary. And so I wish you to know that there is much in it that is false. For one Seleucus, who wrote the Sufferings of the Apostles, composed this book. But, just as he wrote what was true about their powers, and the miracles they worked, but said a great deal that was false about their doctrine; so here too he has invented many untruths out of his own head. I shall take care to render it word for word, exactly as it is in the Hebrew, since it is asserted that it was composed by the holy Evangelist Matthew, and written in Hebrew, and set at the head of his Gospel. Whether this be true or not, I leave to the author of the preface and the trustworthiness of the writer: as for myself, I pronounce them doubtful; I do not affirm that they are clearly false. But this I say freely— and I think none of the faithful will deny it— that, whether these stories be true or inventions, the sacred nativity of St. Mary was preceded by great miracles, and succeeded by the greatest; and so by those who believe that God can do these things, they can be believed and read without damaging their faith or imperilling their souls. In short, so far as I can, following the sense rather than the words of the writer, and sometimes walking in the same path, though not in the same footsteps, sometimes digressing a little, but still keeping the same road, I shall in this way keep by the style of the narrative, and shall say nothing that is not either written there, or might, following the same train of thought, have been written.

I believe that St. Jerome was very honest and fair in his assessment.

 

[hays1122]

Forum rules I believe frown on that. They are out there though. Googling will find them. But in this thread there is mention of one:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=271811

Its a new thread.

I would rather not post any links to any. From my experiences on those sites…lets just say…not pleasant, and it was actually difficult for me to begin to believe that these people considered themselves “Christians”.

Not knowing what kind of non-Catholic you are…I say this with all kindness. BEWARE…you could be just as much of a target.

Well if you put it that way “BEWARE”, I don’t think I’ll even look.
If the Lord wants me to find another site, he will lead me to it.
I’m happy here for now.
thnx

 

[RobHom]

Please note that the word “attributed” has a particular meaning. That being that it cannot be proven that he wrote it.

I noted that you took the negative approach and did not quote the letter that is known to have been written by Jerome, which follows here:

**Reply to Their Letter by Jerome.

To my lords the holy and most blessed Bishops Cromatius and Heliodorus, Jerome, a humble servant of Christ, in the Lord greeting.

He who digs in ground where he knows that there is gold, does not instantly snatch at whatever the uptorn trench may pour forth; but, before the stroke of the quivering spade raises aloft the glittering mass, he meanwhile lingers over the sods to turn them over and lift them up, and especially he who has not added to his gains. An arduous task is enjoined upon me, since what yourBlessedness has commanded me,** the holy Apostle and Evangelist Matthew himself did not write for the purpose of publishing. For if he had not done it somewhat secretly, he would have added it also to his Gospel which he published. But he composed this book in Hebrew; and so little did he publish it, that at this day the book written in Hebrew by his own hand is in the possession of very religious men, to whom in successive periods of time it has been handed down by those that were before them. And this book they never at any time gave to any one to translate.** And so it came to pass, that when it was published by a disciple of Manichæus named Leucius, who also wrote the falsely styled Acts of the Apostles, this book afforded matter, not of edification, but of perdition; and the opinion of the Synod in regard to it was according to its deserts, that the ears of the Church should not be open to it. Let the snapping of those that bark against us now cease; for we do not add this little book to the canonical writings, but we translate what was written by an Apostle and Evangelist, that we may disclose the falsehood of heresy. In this work, then, we obey the commands of pious bishops as well as oppose impious heretics. It is the love of Christ, therefore, which we fulfil, believing that they will assist us by their prayers, who through our obedience attain to a knowledge of the holy infancy of our Saviour.**

There is a significant difference in the two letters. Herein Jerome states that the Infancy Gospel was written by Matthew, while it is merely attributed to Jerome that he wrote the extant letter. The extant letter raises questions as to the veracity of the authorship being Jerome.

Did you read the Infancy Gospel itself or just leap on the extant letter as some hoped for justification of your thoughts?

Oh, the bolding above was mine.

 

[Leeann]

Please…accept the fact that you erred. Let it go. You made the assumption. I make no assumptions ever. Its not my way. I’m pretty ambivalent about most things…and most certainly about forum posting. Been doing this kind of thing for too long to be otherwise. If you did not find my answer sufficient or kind enough to meet your parameters…the fault lies with you, not I. I answered the question…beyond your requested information. Take the time to read and absorb before firing from the hip. Ok?

That is excellent advice RobHom…thank you for offering it…and now I will leave you with the same posting I made quite awhile ago…and then perhaps we can “both” “Let it go.”

From my Post #267 to RobHom:

I believe there are others in this thread that I have been in discussion with on this topic….if you feel that you have answered my question sufficiently and have posted everything that you feel compelled to post……then I thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut and time taken.

Peace and God Bless

 

[Leeann]

Please note that the word “attributed” has a particular meaning. That being that it cannot be proven that he wrote it.

You are absolutely right!

Dictionary.com

Attributed

• to consider as made by the one indicated, esp. with strong evidence but in the absence of conclusive proof:

However, apparently this letter had enough “stong evidence” to have it included in the Advent Website along with the Chapters of the “Gospel of Pseudo Matthew”.

Dictionary.com

Pseudo

• not actually but having the appearance of; pretended; false or spurious; sham.

I noted that you took the negative approach and did not quote the letter that is known to have been written by Jerome, which follows here:

I did read it all and what you imply by taking the “negative approach” was not from my perspective, by posting the letter that I did, I felt that Jerome gave an honest and fair appraisal…as I stated before.
It wasn’t done with intention. Try not to read too much into these postings…remember…open mindedness.

**Reply to Their Letter by Jerome.

To my lords the holy and most blessed Bishops Cromatius and Heliodorus, Jerome, a humble servant of Christ, in the Lord greeting.

He who digs in ground where he knows that there is gold, does not instantly snatch at whatever the uptorn trench may pour forth; but, before the stroke of the quivering spade raises aloft the glittering mass, he meanwhile lingers over the sods to turn them over and lift them up, and especially he who has not added to his gains. An arduous task is enjoined upon me, since what yourBlessedness has commanded me,** the holy Apostle and Evangelist Matthew himself did not write for the purpose of publishing. For if he had not done it somewhat secretly, he would have added it also to his Gospel which he published. But he composed this book in Hebrew; and so little did he publish it, that at this day the book written in Hebrew by his own hand is in the possession of very religious men, to whom in successive periods of time it has been handed down by those that were before them. And this book they never at any time gave to any one to translate.** And so it came to pass, that when it was published by a disciple of Manichæus named Leucius, who also wrote the falsely styled Acts of the Apostles, this book afforded matter, not of edification, but of perdition; and the opinion of the Synod in regard to it was according to its deserts, that the ears of the Church should not be open to it. Let the snapping of those that bark against us now cease; for we do not add this little book to the canonical writings, but we translate what was written by an Apostle and Evangelist, that we may disclose the falsehood of heresy. In this work, then, we obey the commands of pious bishops as well as oppose impious heretics. It is the love of Christ, therefore, which we fulfil, believing that they will assist us by their prayers, who through our obedience attain to a knowledge of the holy infancy of our Saviour.**

There is a significant difference in the two letters. Herein Jerome states that the Infancy Gospel was written by Matthew, while it is merely attributed to Jerome that he wrote the extant letter. The extant letter raises questions as to the veracity of the authorship being Jerome.

Yes…I see your point…there is quite a difference in them.
I wonder which one was written “first”?
Oh…the “underlined” part above is mine.

Did you read the Infancy Gospel itself or just leap on the extant letter as some hoped for justification of your thoughts?

I’m certainly glad to see that you are sticking to your statements posted previously, about not making any “assumptions” or “judgements” as to what someone else may be thinking or doing. In all honesty I got to about the 30th chapter when I was interrupted by one of my daughters with an msn message…I have about 12 chapters left. Your last comment also displays a lack of that “ambivalence” you described yourself of usually having when in these threads. (An aside here: I don’t think you really meant to use the word “ambivalent”…I got carried away a bit while researching the words “attributed” and “Pseudo” and looked up “ambivalent” too, just to see how you regarded yourself…)

The Free Dictionary (online)

Adj. 1. **ambivalent **- uncertain or unable to decide about what course to follow; “was ambivalent about having children” - incertain, uncertain, unsure - lacking or indicating lack of confidence or assurance; “uncertain of his convictions”; “unsure of himself and his future”; “moving with uncertain (or unsure) steps”; “an uncertain smile”; “touched the ornaments with uncertain fingers”

I don’t see you like that at all, just for the record.

Peace and God Bless

 

[hays1122]

Forum rules I believe frown on that. They are out there though. Googling will find them. But in this thread there is mention of one:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=271811

Its a new thread.

I would rather not post any links to any. From my experiences on those sites…lets just say…not pleasant, and it was actually difficult for me to begin to believe that these people considered themselves “Christians”.

Not knowing what kind of non-Catholic you are…I say this with all kindness. BEWARE…you could be just as much of a target.

OK, I checked out the forum and read what was posted.
Then I said a prayer and clicked on the website offered.
Thank God I received an error message stating that the website did not exist or is not available.
Maybe it was shut down, And all is well.

 

[JeanneFrancoise]

You can show anything you want to, but it doesn’t make it true. We all know that Scripture is the truth and the Word of God. Tradition that comes from Scripture is true. But, how can teachings from a magisterium that disregards Scripture be true? Catholics have shown much more than Scripture, you bet! Problem is, what they have shown doesn’t square with Scripture.

SIA I think that you are very confused and would suggest that you do some serious study and research before you can consider yourself qualified to debate on this subject.

Seriously, you do yourself an injustice.

 

[JeanneFrancoise]

notsmart;4225875:

Peace and God Bless

I realise that it must be difficult for you to begin to understand the love we have for Mother Mary. We have a devotion to the Holy Family - Jesus, Mary and Joseph. We believe that Mary is our Mother as is Jesus our brother and we love Joseph as a great model of a Father.

We do not worship Mary. Look how she dealt with Jesus at the Wedding at Cana. “Do as he tells you”. No Mary was special. Don’t forget she is also the Mother of God.

God bless you

 

[adrift]

You can show anything you want to, but it doesn’t make it true. Doesn’t make it wrong either We all know that Scripture is the truth and the Word of God. Tradition that comes from Scripture is true. But, how can teachings from a magisterium that disregards Scripture be true? Catholics have shown much more than Scripture, you bet! Problem is, what they have shown doesn’t square with Scripture.

Who’s truth? That is the problem with private interpretation. You cannot be sure who is interpreting according to the Holy Spirits intention. That is why Jesus wouldn’t have left us without a sure infallible source. It is only your interpretation that says it goes against Scripture and when you are shown it doesn’t you disregard it.