Mary as Fourth Part of the Trinity

[Gottle_of_Geer]

So, what are you saying, Micheal? Are you declaring that such apparitions are totally false, having definite erronious teachings, eventhough the bishop, with the support of Rome declared the vision worthy of belief?

Funny you should ask that - from the link a few posts above your post:​

“Pope Benedict, for one, takes them = alleged “private revelations”] seriously. Three years ago, while Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), he said that private revelations posed a threat to the unity of the Church and warranted an “exemplary pastoral response” from the Holy See.”

[My[/COLOR] emphasis]

Good for him - there is nothing nothing remotely unCatholic in rejecting them. ##

So, are you declaring the message of the apparition of the Lady of all Nation as being a sham, or a deception of Satan, with no possibility for the vision being authentic…or am I misinterpretating what you have written?

IMO, it is a sham. The Catholics in the diocese where the “Lady of all Nations” has “appeared” do not have to believe the “apparitions” are genuine - so why should we have to ? One is no worse for not bothering with such things - sceptics are as Catholic as those who are convinced of the genuineness of this or apparition. It is no part of piety to swallow every apparition one comes across - even if it’s on a tortilla. Credulousness is what makes frauds in religion possible - it is not the same thing as faith, but a shabby simulacrum of faith; it’s an evil.​

Why not read some of the pages which say why the “LoaN” apparitions are doctrinally dicey ?

Or this:

“On July 11th of this year, just one day after excommunicating his own Bishop, Mr. O’Brien went to the trouble of excommunicating ten of the better- and lesser-known Catholic visionaries of our own day and age for sowing Satanic confusion and sinning against the Holy Spirit…”

http://members.aol.com/UticaCW/Mar-Review.html

…cont’d…]

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

…cont’d & over]

Many…many protestant will quote scriptures in order to claim that Mary had other children as well…

I said nothing of that - I was talking about the uniqueness of the redeemer in the OT, & thus, the Uniqueness of the NT Redeemer; & the lack of sense in trying to make redemption a two-man job. His Redeeming work is also a work of Judgement - so if there is to be a co-Redeemer, is there to be a co-Judge ? Why not put up another Cross, so that we can be saved by the Precious Blood of Mary too? I’m not joking: start dividing the saving work of the Unique God-Man Redeemer, so that He has an associate or colleague, & there is no reason to deny that colleague anything asserted of Him. This is why the Bible is so valuable - it tells us what was involved in our salvation. Co-redemption isn’t a little thing, just as salvation through the Blood of Christ is not a little thing, for that Blood, is “the Blood of God” (Acts 20.28) - **that is how much God loved sinners: the price of redemption was His own Blood. **​

So why, if it is by coredemption that we are redeemed, do we not have just one verse to say so ? Is just one verse, about the Good News of our co-redemption by Mary, too much to ask ? No such verse exists - not in the NT, nor the OT. Out of 35,000 verses (the number in the DR-Challoner Bible), not one so much as hints at a co-redemption by Mary. But there is book after book too show why redemption is the act of one sole Redeemer. Leviticus says nothing of a co-expiation for our sins - yet that Mary must be, if she is to co-redeem. Why is there no “Apologia for the Coredemption by the Mother of God” by any Father ? The Kinsman-Avenger in the Bible is an individual - not a duo. As St.Paul might ask, “Was Mary crucified for you ?” - no: but that means she cannot co-redeem.

Sorry, but this kind of thing distorts the faith pictured in the NT. Jesus Christ is the only Redeemer we need, He is the only one we have, & He is the only one we are going to get. Protestants who refuse to overload Mary by giving her work she could never do show more real love for her - IMO - than those indiscreet clients of hers who make her do the work of the Son & of the Holy Spirit. ##

Protestants also claim her to be a Saint, Micheal.

1. Please spell my name right - OK ? It’s “ae”, not “ea” - there are plenty of us around, & lot of us have our names in our sig lines: spelt properly ​

2. I know they do; I mentioned her sanctity only to avoid accusations of having denied it; for no other reason. ##

Therefore God is unable to create a living being equal to Him…Is that what you are implying?

Not just implying - stating as clearly as I could. God cannot create a second God, because that mean God is Himself not Unique - for only what is not unique can be duplicated. But if God is not the Unique God, then He cannot be all-powerful to create - so He still can’t create a second God.​

Acoording to you, is the Church capable of teaching authoritavely in terms of dogma, untruths? If not, then you have nothing to worry about…the Church will **never **elevate lies to a domagtic level…

Andre

Then there is nothing for us to disagree about I don’t believe the Church is self-sufficient - I do believe the Church is always answerable to Christ, & always needs His attention & protection - even from herself, just as we need the same protection from ourselves; as St. Augustine knew he did from himself​

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Funny you should ask that - from the link a few posts above your post:​

“Pope Benedict, for one, takes them = alleged “private revelations”] seriously. Three years ago, while Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), he said that private revelations posed a threat to the unity of the Church and warranted an “exemplary pastoral response” from the Holy See.”

[My[/COLOR] emphasis]

Good for him - there is nothing nothing remotely unCatholic in rejecting them. ##

IMO, it is a sham. The Catholics in the diocese where the “Lady of all Nations” has “appeared” do not have to believe the “apparitions” are genuine - so why should we have to ? One is no worse for not bothering with such things - sceptics are as Catholic as those who are convinced of the genuineness of this or apparition. It is no part of piety to swallow every apparition one comes across - even if it’s on a tortilla. Credulousness is what makes frauds in religion possible - it is not the same thing as faith, but a shabby simulacrum of faith; it’s an evil.​

Why not read some of the pages which say why the “LoaN” apparitions are doctrinally dicey ?

Or this:

“On July 11th of this year, just one day after excommunicating his own Bishop, Mr. O’Brien went to the trouble of excommunicating ten of the better- and lesser-known Catholic visionaries of our own day and age for sowing Satanic confusion and sinning against the Holy Spirit…”

http://members.aol.com/UticaCW/Mar-Review.html

…cont’d…]

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

My mistake Thursday, I did not want to imply the possibility of equalness between Mary and God. In this thread, I did mention specifically that Mary could never be called God, due to the reasoning you’ve mentioned. Having said that; a creature of God can receive the presence of God within; how much, potentially,depending on it’s nature, God is more revealed to some and less to others.Being simply creatures, there will be an infinite communion gap between the creature and God,since God is an infinite Being.There will always remain an infinitely deep mystery between God and His creatures. However, we know that such a Gap does not exist between the Father and His Son, since the Son, according to nature, is also God. My question to Micheal was this; isn’t it possible for God to create a being capable in having also a perfect communion with God, without any mystery remaining between the creator and the creature?

God is infinite, without creation, & transcendent - Mary is none of these. End of story. No creature, however full of grace, could be transcendent, or uncreated, or infinite.​

I think you’re looking for a creature which is pure act, & free of all potentiality. No such being is possible - to be created, is to be to some degree “in potentiality”. Only God is pure act, because only God is absolutely simple - as a human being, Mary is composite, not simple. Therefore, she is not pure act. Unless she is a Divine Person, she cannot possibly be anything more than a creature, albeit one exalted by grace. ##

I believe that God can certainly create such a creature. I also have never claimed that Mary was such a creature, but only that it was possible that she was, through the reading of church documents such as St. Alphonsus de Liguori .
My question, I guess, would be whether you or Micheal could accept the writings of such Saints as being catholic teachings?

“The Glories of Mary” is not a book of teachings - it is of a mixed character, mainly homiletic, with many anecdotes in it which may or may not be true; they are sermon exempla - not history. These are two different kinds of writing - which one wishes some critics of the “GoM” would remember. No one has to agree with the theological notions of St. Alphonsus insofaras they are his: he revised his “Moral Theology”, so why should the “GoM” be set in stone ? No theologian, however eminent or holy or learned, = the Catholic Faith; not even a Doctor of the Church (which he is; as well as a Bishop, Confessor, Founder, & Patron of Moral Theologians). There is nothing wrong in disagreeing with Saints, even Saints eminent for theological wisdom - if St.Thomas had thought otherwise, he would never have have differed from St. Augustine at all. (both of them are Doctors too)​

Here I stress that the book The Glories of Mary does not identify Mary as being created in such a manner, however, the language used definitely points to such a direction.

Andre

As a footnote to this apparition daftness:​

"Web Site Predicts World War III Starts on July 4, 1999
A sprawling web site on Catholic apocalypticism recently posted the following, deliciously precise prediction:
“On July 4th of 1999, Russia and Iran-led Muslims shall attack Europe and NATO with weapons of mass destruction to begin World War III which shall last for 30 years and two-thirds of mankind shall perish. This war we bring upon us and our children for the SIN OF ABORTION.”
The author bases this prediction principally upon his reading of Nostradamus. Mark your calendars!

For full text and citations, see: http://web1.tusco.net/ourlady/allmysites.htm"

Found at: http://members.aol.com/UticaCW/Mar-Review.html

Someone is getting their prophecies in a twist - anyone recall the nuclear holocaust Michael Drosnin said was to happen in…2006 ? It had better get a move on.​

 

[MikeDunphy]

timesonline.co.uk/article/0,3933-2034462_1,00.html

Well assuming the above link is correct (it is cool if I post that link correct?) then I think this one has been put to bed.

Thanks for the link. Until I read the article you pointed out, I was guessing that this “Mary is God” business was a fabrication of anti-Catholic bigots, made to make the Church look bad. I’m still not sure. Google “dominic sanchez falar”. He seems to be against the Pope and for gay priests. I’m not convinced that he is really trying to do anything other than stir up trouble.

 

[seremina]

Thanks for the link. Until I read the article you pointed out, I was guessing that this “Mary is God” business was a fabrication of anti-Catholic bigots, made to make the Church look bad. I’m still not sure. Google “dominic sanchez falar”. He seems to be against the Pope and for gay priests. I’m not convinced that he is really trying to do anything other than stir up trouble.

Whoa. I expected women-who-want-to-be-priests to have built the Mary is God website. What is he trying to gain by this weird and anti-Catholic doctrine?

 

[MikeDunphy]

Whoa. I expected women-who-want-to-be-priests to have built the Mary is God website. What is he trying to gain by this weird and anti-Catholic doctrine?

Well, I thought he was trying to make the Church look ridiculous, but on second thought he could just be confused. Very confused. I don’t know.

 

[rtconstant]

If I read the post that I linked correctly I think the Pope when a Cardinal declared the visions of Ida Peerdeman stating that the Virgin Mary had revealed new truths about her nature to be false.

I don’t know about some of these visions. Maybe its not my place but I just can’t figure out why that the Church as the pillar of Truth needs to have updates or new things added by visions. I’m not saying that they’re all false but I just don’t see the point for them.

 

[mich2]

I apologize for mispelling your name, Michael

“Pope Benedict, for one, takes them = alleged “private revelations”] seriously. Three years ago, while Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), he said that private revelations posed a threat to the unity of the Church and warranted an “exemplary pastoral response” from the Holy See.”

We’ll have to wait the actions of the pope on this one, Michael. First, within the same link, there is also a post on the prophecies of Nostradamus, an article about the Independant catholics movement, and last, but not least, an article about the next pope after Benedict xvi being the return of John Paul II.
I do agree that private revelations can be deceptive. However, for those visions that are indeed authentic (and we will never be certain as to which ones) ought we not to ask ourselves whether Heaven discloses such messages for no reason at all? Or were they given so the we are to acknowledge them as truth?
Here’s a link of the evaluation given by Bishop Punt.

ewtn.com/library/BISHOPS/OLAN.jpg

Good for him - there is nothing nothing remotely unCatholic in rejecting them. ##

If Pope Benedict silences the movement of the Lady of all Nations, it still could be for reasons which he believes will be better for whole of the Church, for now; especially if it comprises of possible improper understanding of the messages themselves.
Remember that Padre Pio was onced silenced. This does not imply a condemnation as such. However, I doubt very much that he will condemn the apparition as such.

##

IMO, it is a sham.

Believe me when I say that I have no problems with your answer. My personal view does not involve a certainty of the apparition as being authentic. However, you did not answer my question precisely, for I asked, " Are you declaring that such apparitions are totally false, having definite erronious teachings…".
Since you wrote “IMO”, I take this as a no, and that was my only concern. We ough to leave the door opened to other possible teachings coming from the Church.

The Catholics in the diocese where the “Lady of all Nations” has “appeared” do not have to believe the “apparitions” are genuine - so why should we have to ?

We don’t have to accept it, Michael, however, one ought not claim it to be an absolute fake. The apparition in Amsterdam is connected to the accepted vision of Akita. The message is the same; the movement itself is that of the Lady of all Nations.
puffin.creighton.edu/jesuit/andre/snows.html

One is no worse for not bothering with such things - sceptics are as Catholic as those who are convinced of the genuineness of this or apparition. It is no part of piety to swallow every apparition one comes across - even if it’s on a tortilla. Credulousness is what makes frauds in religion possible - it is not

the same thing as faith, but a shabby simulacrum of faith; it’s an evil.

Again, my concern was not your personal scepticism of the events,(personal revelations) but your apologetic attack on them.

“On July 11th of this year, just one day after excommunicating his own Bishop, Mr. O’Brien went to the trouble of excommunicating ten of the better- and lesser-known Catholic visionaries of our own day and age for sowing Satanic confusion and sinning against the Holy Spirit…”

http://members.aol.com/UticaCW/Mar-Review.html

…cont’d…]

There are many, many reported visions, Michael; I do understand that many, among those will be false. However, the vision of Amsterdam was accepted by the local bishop after an investigation from Rome was completed on the vision as well as the visionnary.Also, the accepted vision of Akita is directly related to the vision of Amsterdam. Taken from the site below:

The Statue of Our Lady at Akita
The wooden statue in the convent at Akita was carved by a Buddhist woodcarver from an identical image of The Lady of All Nations, the image given to Ide Peerdman in Amsterdam in the period 1945 to 1959.
**The extraordinary events began on June 12, 1973, when Sr. Agnes saw brilliant mysterious rays emanate suddenly from the tabernacle. The same thing happened on each of the two days that followed. **

circleofprayer.com/akita.html

Andre

 

[mich2]

…cont’d & over]

I was talking about the uniqueness of the redeemer in the OT, & thus, the Uniqueness of the NT Redeemer; & the lack of sense in trying to make redemption a two-man job. His Redeeming work is also a work of Judgement - so if there is to be a co-Redeemer, is there to be a co-Judge ? Why not put up another Cross, so that we can be saved by the Precious Blood of Mary too? I’m not joking: start dividing the saving work of the Unique God-Man Redeemer, so that He has an associate or colleague, & there is no reason to deny that colleague anything asserted of Him. . Co-redemption isn’t a little thing, just as salvation through the Blood of Christ is not a little thing, for that Blood, is “the Blood of God” (Acts 20.28)​

From what I understand co-redemption is simply the reversal role of Eve. God had said to Adam (not Eve) not to partake of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Therefore, as St Paul wrote, as death came from one man, life comes from the new Adam.Since no creature, however powerful (yes, this includes Mary) have the power over the bonds of death, only God was able to save us (redemption) throught the death and resurrection of His Son. However, something else happened in the garden. Adam and Eve disobeyed God through the **obedeance **of the serpent, and so there came to be a master/slave relationship between humanity and Satan. Such a relationship needs to be destroyed, and this being, in my opinion the Co-Redemption . Mary is depected as crushing the serpent. She needs not to be divine in order to be the Co-Redemptrix.

So why, if it is by coredemption that we are redeemed, do we not have

 

[holyjoseph]

Yes I have heard of this and it is from Catholics themselves and not from outside the Church. There are certain movements within the Church that have stated that Mary is a Fourth Part of The Trinity. One such movement is Shell or Conchiglia, which is in Italy. This girl has been receiving visions and apparitions from heaven and told that this is the case. I do believe that all these apparitions take place and I would not call these people liars but what I do believe about these apparitions is that they are all Demonic Trickery to deceive the innocent and naïve. I feel that if people stuck to God’s Word The Holy Bible then none of this would take place as people would know the truth and would not listen to these apparitions and visions. But I would not make fun of these people and call them silly saying things like “trinity means three and not four”, because of the simple reason being that when a person is emotionally involved in these things it is really hard to think straight or logically. So don’t be too harsh on these people as their hearts are involved and the Bible says that the heart is treacherous and not to be trusted. Just pray for them and ask God to help them for the sake of their salvation. Ask God to help them not be deceived either by the demons nor by the Devil himself. There are other movements who also believe the same thing about Mary, all of this is getting rather idolatrous where Mary is concerned. It is time that God was brought to the foreground and that He was worshipped instead. After all, “Holy, Holy, Holy is the Lord God the Almighty”! It does not say this about Mary or anyone else. Mary is only a creature of God and not the Creator Himself. Let us get things back into proper perspective!

 

[holyjoseph]

There was one thing that I forgot to say on my previous post and that is that Pope John Paul II was actually influenced by the Conchiglia Movement in the latter part of his life amongst being influenced by others as well. By this time he was nearing his end on this earth and was not in full control of all his senses and so he did and said things that he normally would not say and do.