Ineffabilis Deus

  • Thread starter Thread starter OldeThom
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
OldeThom said:
Since the Church has declared Mary was sinless her whole life, along with her Perpetual Virginity, Immaculate Conception and Assumption, it is about authority. Either the Pope and Church’s Magisterium has the Authority via the inspiration of the Holy Spirit to pronounce these as doctrine and to be believed, or it does not. As others have pointed out to me it is about accepting the Church’s authority when it comes to Christian doctrine, Christian belief, Christian living and Christian service.

Respectfully,
Thom
Click to expand...
Thom-

This is exactly right…all the rest can be settled later. Either the Catholic Church speaks with the voice of Christ Himself or she does not. That the Church should speak with such authority should not be problematic for scripture itself declares:

“After this the Lord appointed seventy others, and sent them on ahead of him, two by two, into every town and place where he himself was about to come. And he said to them . . . `He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me’” (Luke 10:1-2, 16).

“[Ananias] sold a piece of property, and . . . kept back some of the proceeds, and brought only a part and laid it at the apostles’ feet. But Peter said, `Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back part of the proceeds of the land? . . . You have not lied to men but to God.’ When Ananias heard these words, he fell down and died. And great fear came upon all who heard of it” (Acts 5:1-5).

“So we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We beseech you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God” (2 Corinthians 5:20).

“[A]nd though my condition was a trial to you, you did not scorn or despise me, but received me as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus” (Gal. 4:14).

More specifically, the authority of Christ is found in the papacy, and this too, can be demonstrated from scripture. In John 21, we read:

15When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon son of John, do you truly love me more than these?”
“Yes, Lord,” he said, “you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Feed my lambs.” 16Again Jesus said, “Simon son of John, do you truly love me?” He answered, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Take care of my sheep.” 17 The third time he said to him, “Simon son of John, do you love me?” Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, “Do you love me?” He said, “Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you.” Jesus said, "Feed my sheep.

We know that Jesus is the Good Shepherd and that there is one Shepherd and one flock (cf. John 10). Yet, in the passage above, we can see that Jesus leaves Peter in charge of feeding, tending and caring for His sheep. Peter becomes the shepherd who will lead the flock after Jesus’ ascension. Therefore, while Jesus is forever our Good Shepherd reigning from heaven, He has made provision for us by naming someone else to stand in His place, to be his vicar, here on earth. The Vicar of Christ established by Jesus is the Pope of the Catholic Church.

Therefore, not only does Peter (and his successors, the Popes) hold the keys to the kingdom of God (cf. Mt 16:18, Is. 22:22), but he holds the shepherd’s crook or crozier, as well.

I hope this helps you on your journey home. :tiphat:
 
Something to think about:

Mary didn’t just say “yes” to God’s will for herself, she said “yes” for all of humanity - those before her time, those during her time, and those yet to be born. Her participation in the salvific actions of God is a singular event. Never before had God acted in this way, nor would He ever again. There would only be One Savior, this action was unique in all of Creation, as in once for all. If a person steps back and actually thinks about what transpired at that moment in time, could they say that it would be in any way tainted by sin whose origin is from the devil? No!

Another point in understanding Marian Doctrine is seeing ourselves. God didn’ t will that Adam and Eve fell, yet it had consequences. God didn’t will for Mary to fall and this too had consequences. God wills for all of us to be with Him where He is. This is presented to us in the Prayers of Jesus recorded by St. John on the night before He was betrayed. God desired that we all be one in Him as Jesus was one in the Father. Mary is what God wills for all humanity. I think what needs to be kept in mind is that we believe in the Ressurection of the Body, not just Jesus’ but the rest of us as well. God desires to give us Heaven with Him. Mary has achieved this. Denying Mary’s sinless nature shows a lack of hope in God’s Mercy and Love and a misunderstanding of His Omnipotence. He can do all He wills. Yet when He does all He wills for one woman, Mary, it is doubted. He wills that where she is we too should be. When we look at her, we see what God wills for us all - the perfection of our humanity. In that regard she is our model, not the fallen Eve. Yet in most comments about her, I see her treated and compared to the fallen Eve. Mary is not Eve and Eve is not Mary! Hello!

I will repeat, Mary didn’t just say “yes” to God’s will for herself, she said “yes” for *all of humanity *- those before her time, those during her time, and those yet to be born. Her participation in the salvific actions of God is a singular event. Never before had God acted in this way, nor would He ever again. This is why we use the term “singular vessel” in her Litany. She is very, very, very special. What she did for us cannot be imagined by the mind without total awe. Please think about what I wrote.

Peace,

Gail
 
Aside from Randy Carson’s post which I found to be unnecessary, a simple explanation and a few reference links would have sufficed, I do appreciate the other comments and clarifications. A note on using quotes pasted into your responses: I have enough written material and internet links to fill a small library, I do not need that kind of detailed information nor is it helpful. For every reference a side can give, I can easily give two or more from the other side, or supply something completely different as it applies to the history of the Church. Please a simple reference will do or link. I am more interested in your thoughts and reasoning, your passion and experience as GailMac and others are doing, not verbatim quotes.

If you want a good place to start in trying to understand where I am in this process, please read Longenecker and Gustafson’s work entitled Mary: a Catholic-Evangelical Debate.

In response to this comment, “Denying Mary’s sinless nature shows a lack of hope in God’s Mercy and Love and a misunderstanding of His Omnipotence.” Before I even knew about the Marian doctrines I knew and understood God’s Mercy and Love first hand. I have never doubted in any of His Eternal and Powerful aspects. My belief in Mary’s sinlessness, then as now, does not show a lack of anything in my Christian life but a lack of understanding in this doctrine. You may call into question my belief in these doctrines, but do not doubt I lack faith in God’s Mercy and Love or His Eternal Power, Glory and Kingdom. I am only here today because I personally know the redeeming power of God’s Mercy and Love in my own life.

Please do not forget, those of you that are cradle Catholics, you have had years and years of conditioning, training, teaching, and tradition in which to cement your views about Mary. What is common place and common knowledge in your lives is like an unfamiliar native tongue, for which there is no reference, in my life. I can not hope to “catch up” to what you already know and take for granted. As a Christian I can see how the veneration of Mary can enhance my Christian life, and that, at this time, is all I say.

When people agree or disagree I have always thought that humility is the best sign of authenticity as we, as Christians, join together in faith and in one Gospel in the search for understanding. I will continue to pray thusly and pray for understanding.

When I first started this journey, if I were an oak seedling but an inch tall, today I am a tree six feet tall, thanks in part to those here on these forums that have helped me in that growth. I still need much in the way of watering and feeding, but I think my soil, at this time, is over saturated. I will be taking an extended break to reflect, meditate and pray about all that I have learned to date. Plus my RCIA class is quickly approaching and I am excited about that as well.

I am sad, however, my initial questions were really never answered succinctly. Another time perhaps.

Respectfully and in God’s Peace and Love,
Thom
 
OldeThom said:
Aside from Randy Carson’s post which I found to be unnecessary, a simple explanation and a few reference links would have sufficed, I do appreciate the other comments and clarifications. A note on using quotes pasted into your responses: I have enough written material and internet links to fill a small library, I do not need that kind of detailed information nor is it helpful. For every reference a side can give, I can easily give two or more from the other side, or supply something completely different as it applies to the history of the Church. Please a simple reference will do or link. I am more interested in your thoughts and reasoning, your passion and experience as GailMac and others are doing, not verbatim quotes.
Click to expand...
I’m sorry you found my post unneccesary…however, it is my experience after having been around this forum for awhile that many people do not actually follow links to unknown websites which may or may not be trustworthy…therefore, I try to give the actual material as often as possible. Sorry if this was a problem for you…I was trying to be helpful by demonstrating that the doctrine you seem to think was unknown prior to the ninth century was actually well-known much earlier.

Now, what about the thoughts in my second post?
 
Hello Olde Thom,

Obviously the research and studies are filling your days. I confess I haven’t read all the posts but I don’t need to tell you that you share the same ‘stumbling blocks’ with multitudes upon multitudes of people who are not only come into The Church, but some who were cradle Catholics!!

I’d just like to suggest to you to be cautious that your research of the ECFS and Church writings is so you would KNOW, rather than so you would BELIEVE, what The Church holds!

I once had a heated debate with an Islander (Pacific Islander) who had converted to Catholicism as an adult, because he was arguing against homosexuality and abortion, and a host of other things that he did not have detailed knowledge of from The Church’s earliest writings. His stand point had moved from Bible only, to The Church only! I queried him as to why he based so much of his arguments on The Church when he had not read even the ECFS or any of the council conclusions.

He said, 'I don’t have to know everything about God to believe that He is The One True God. I don’t have to know everything The Church holds for me to believe in Her, once I was convinced that She is The Church He commenced. Her ‘No’ is my ‘No’; Her ‘Yes’ is my ‘Yes.’ I don’t even know about Mary being assumed into Heaven like Elijah, but The Church says she was, so I accept it! I don’t even know anything about infallibility of the Pope means, but I know he must be when he speaks for God, because God is Infallible!

Needless to say, I was a little taken aback that someone without any formal training or research can accept things so easily. Yet when I reflected on it, he is absolutely right! Scholars and academics spend a lifetime trying to surgically disect and discover various dogmas of Catholicism, only to find what this Christian has ALREADY settled on, is true!

I am not suggesting you give up the research, Thom. You are an analytical mind and must look under the rocks to know things. I am simply pointing out, there are others who already hold to the actual truth of matters that we research the evidence for. For mine, they are the ‘markers’ of our research so we are not lost in the details, because Christianity is a SIMPLE belief. It was not revealed for the intellects, nor the elite.

God Bless your journey…

:cool:
 
Randy, - ah, yes, I forgot to respond to it, by bad! I have already accepted that and you have no argument from me, but I appreciate the step-by-step approach you took. Thank you.

Deconi, - All of this for me is like unfolding or unraveling a mystery. Being a teacher for some years I know that the simple words from the heart of a simple man can reveal the most profound secrets. I am in the cradle of God’s Grace and He wants me to do more with my gifts and abilities than just muse the hours away. God has never ceased calling me, I just stopped listening years ago. I have been moved by the Holy Spirit in recent months to listen in no uncertain terms and this time I believe I understand His purpose 🙂 . So thank you for those kind and encouraging words, as well as your admonition.

I will be away for a bit, but I will be back on in the very near future.

Respectfully,
Thom
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top