S
SIA
Guest
If the shoe fits, I want you to wear the wig too.
- Status
S
SIA
Guest
Well, that shows me that you don’t know your own faith my friend. Your Catechism clearly shows that Catholics are to believe that MARY is the purest realization of the faith and Pope Pius the 12th stated that MARY is the crystal fountain of faith, both statements of which I have a HUGE problem with as well all Christians should.I know it seems that way to you. I think it cannot appear otherwise. Those who have rejected the Apostolic Succession are generally limited to the small amount of Truth they can glean from their own on the Scriptures. Such a state also leaves on interpreting scriptures without the mindset of those who wrote them, further sundering them from what the Apostles actually believed and taught.
I am glad we are in agreement on these points.
G
guanophore
Guest
I do not understand your assertion at all. Nothing about what we agree upon with regard to this contradicts the Church teaching. Mary is the new Eve. God created Eve pure, without sin. She chose to sin. God created Mary pure, without sin, and she chose to obey God. Her obedience to God is the embodiment of faith, hope and charity. In her life we see what God has in store for all of us as believers. If we make ourselves servants of God, as she did, ponder in our hearts the things we do not understand, do all that he commands, and stand with Him at the foot of the cross, we too can be crystallized in the same faith. Why is this a problem? Do you find something deficient in the life of Mary that is a poor role model?
Do you think that Mary does not have her source in Christ? When she says that her spirit rejoices in God, her saviour, do you imagine she places her faith elsewhere? When we join our lives with His, the fountain of living waters can also spring up from within us, by faith. He, the Living Water, manifests Himself in the lives of all those for whom He is the author and finisher. Mary was the first and prime example of this.
Peter, or man, were not given the power to invent truth. Jesus is the Truth, and Peter an HIs successors are bound to that Truth. That is why it is not possible for the Catholic Church to introduce anything that is contrary to Christ.
M
mpernot
Guest
I think people can be easily mislead about Catholic beliefs in Mary by being fed only quotes like these and not the entire Catholic faith, if that is your question. In such instances, the “feeder” will likely twist them out of context, placing the emphasis on confiding in Mary instead of the reasoning that she brings people to her Son (which is what these quotes plainly tell, by the way). Note that all of the above quotes except for St. Padre Pio’s mention God in addition to Mary, and all five center around the relationship between the two. When Mary’s true place in the faith is understood, these quotes make perfect sense and are shown to be very wise.
R
ron77nyc
Guest
This is not the gospel of Jesus Christ. Jesus never taught this and the apostles never taught this. If someone wanted to be a Catholic today they would be required to accept many beliefs that the apostles and early Christians were not required to profess. How then is this the same Church? How is it the same gospel?
M
mpernot
Guest
I think all this shows is that you still don’t (or won’t) understand Mary’s true place in the Catholic faith.
Mary is the purest realization of faith. As far as creatures created by God go, Mary is the most pure and sinless of them all. When we act out our faith, we realize it; Mary, by her submission to God’s will and purest devotion to her Son, has acted out or realized our faith better than anyone else. That’s all that the quoted statement means, it doesn’t mean mean that she is faith or truth. Jesus is truth, He tells us so in John 14:6. Mary leads people to her Son by her example, plain and simple.
Pope Pius XII’s quote is similarly describing how Mary’s role in the faith is to lead people to her Son by her purest example and intercession. But, Catholics consider* all *relevant text and not just single verses taken out of context, so let’s read the whole thing shall we (comments in normal font intersperced are mine)?
Pope Pius XII’s Prayer Recta Ratio:
Enraptured by the splendor of thy heavenly beauty, and impelled by the anxieties of the world, we cast ourselves into thine arms, O Immacuate Mother of Jesus and our Mother, Mary, confident of finding in thy most loving heart appeasement of our ardent desires, and a safe harbor from the tempests which beset us on every side.
Our heavenly mother Mary intercedes for us because God has given her that power, that’s what Pope Pius XII is invoking here.
Though degraded by our faults and overwhelmed by infinite misery, we admire and praise the peerless richness of sublime gifts with which God has filled thee, above every other mere creature, from the first moment of thy conception until the day on which, after thine assumption into Heaven, He crowned thee Queen of the Universe.
Amazing! This prayer states that Mary is a creature (not a goddess) that has been endowed by God with gifts above all other creatures, among which are sinlessness, assumption, and coronation. Mary didn’t crown herself queen of heaven, God did! Just as the Catholic Church teaches. Mary has this high place because God gave it to her; she didn’t get it from us Catholics here on Earth, though we recognize that she has it.
O crystal fountain of faith, bathe our minds with the eternal truths! O fragrant Lily of all holiness, captivate our hearts with thy heavenly perfume! O Conqueress of evil and death, inspire in us a deep horror of sin, which makes the soul detestable to God and a slave of Hell!
Now that we get the full context of the single line that you misrepresented, let look at is again. “O crystal fountain of faith” is indeed Mary, and the phrase’s imagery is being invoked for a purpose: “bathe our minds with the eternal truths!”. Pope Pius XII is asking Mary to help us know and understand the truth better. We know from John 14:6 that Jesus is truth - Mary, help us to know Jesus better. That’s what this is all about. And again, Mary only has the power to conquer evil and death because her Son equipped her thus.
O well-beloved of God, hear the ardent cry which rises up from every heart. Bend tenderly over our aching wounds. Convert the wicked, dry the tears of the afflicted and oppressed, comfort the poor and humble, quench hatreds, sweeten harshness, safeguard the flower of purity in youth, protect the holy Church, make all men feel the attraction of Christian goodness. In thy name, resounding harmoniously in Heaven, may they recognize that they are brothers, and that the nations are members of one family, upon which may there shine forth the sun of a universal and sincere peace.
A beautiful way of asking Mary to intercede with God on our behalf. Are you seeing a pattern here?
Receive, O most sweet Mother, our humble supplications, and above all obtain for us that, one day, happy with thee, we may repeat before thy throne that hymn which today is sung on earth around thine altars: Thou art all-beautiful, O Mary! Thou art the glory, thou art the joy, thou art the honor of our people!
Amen.
In order for Mary to receive our supplications (prayers), we have to give them. And again, Mary is allowed to share in the glory, joy, and honor of her Son, she doesn’t merit it of her own accord. In fact, everyone in Heaven is allowed to share in the glory, joy, and honor of God, not just Mary.
Please disagree with what Catholics really believe, not what you think we believe.
Happy feast of the Immaculate Conception everyone! Thank you Mary for all of your aid, please continue to help us sinners get closer to your Son so that we may be with you both forever.
M
mpernot
Guest
This is indeed the gospel of Jesus Christ. Catholics imitate Jesus’ love and honor for His mother. Mary referred people to her Son in Scripture (see the wedding at Cana), but the fact that it doesn’t happen in every chapter of the Gospels doesn’t make it unimportant. Mary was also very meek, and wouldn’t draw attention to herself.
There’s also the issue of Sacred Scripture vs Sacred Tradition; not everything the earliest Christians believed was ever written down. St. Paul is very clear about stressing the importance of oral tradition. The fact that beliefs are absent from Scripture (or other documentation of the era) does not mean that they were not professed. Remember that the things we are arguing about were pretty much universally accepted among Christians until Luther’s break from the Church, as evidenced by the lack of Christian denominations until that time.
The early Christians were well aware of Mary’s importance; Marian doctrine isn’t anything new, even though some of it was officially proclaimed relatively late. For example, Pope Pius IX proclaimed the Immaculate Conception in 1854, but that isn’t when the doctrine first appeared. Most often, the case was that popes proclaimed articles of faith when the articles were questioned and/or hereises arose, and the articles need to be clarifed. This is not the same as declaring new doctrine, as the doctrine existed before the clarification was required.
M
mpernot
Guest
I’ll wear the shoe, the wig and the coat if it identifies me with the Catholic faith. Why don’t you answer some questions for a change - everything ncgolf said in post 112 was correct. What makes your interpretation of Scripture more authentic than the Catholic one you are putting down? Whose authority does this interpretation come from - you or some author whose work you read?
Why should anyone believe your assertions that certain Catholic doctrines regarding Mary are counter to Scripture if you won’t give any Scriptural proof of this? I will listen to truth from anyone who has it, including you. Convince me why I should consider your accusations truth.
M
mpernot
Guest
I wanted to provide some documentation that could support this, but I could not find any at the time. To this end, please see this list of prayers to Mary I found from another poster today:
campus.udayton.edu/mary//prayers/SaintsPrayers.htm
You will notice that half of the first page is full of prayers from the early Church fathers (270-450 AD) and continues all the way up through Mother Teresa. Early Christians obviously held Mary in very high regard.
N
ncgolf
Guest
It’s a one size fits all … if you know what I mean, but saying “you people” is a cop out … what have we really done that would render you to grouping Catholics as “you people” … Archie B would have said something like that.
Anyway … what about the rest … what about the rest of the post? Catholics bestow great honor, reverence and we recognize fully what she did to help bring about the Incarnation. We didnt make it up … it is in Scripture … Mary found great favor from God, was graced by God like no other so why can we not honor what God so greatly gave his graces.
What is so special about your interpretation that makes the Catholic position incorrect?
Make me believe what you say, if you can.
C
colliric
Guest
The Magnificat, when she herself says “all generations will call me Blessed”.
Catholic teaching regarding her title as “the blessed Virgin Mary” corresponds to that teaching from Scripture.
This most fundamental teachings about Mary ARE contained in scripture, AS IS the Hail Mary Prayer in it’s original language of Greek, in Luke 1:28 and the Greeting of Elizabeth.
The Assumption of the blessed virgin mary does not need to be contained in scripture in order for it to have been christian truth and tradition. Not all truths are contained within the pages of Scripture, we must understand this so as not to put scripture(the work of human hands, inspired by God and God’s truth) on par with God himself. God authored Scripture in that he created us and allowed us to choose to author it. It was not imperically authored word by word and even itself states that “Jesus said and did many things that are not contained in scripture” or words to that effect at the end of the Gospel of Saint John. Not all Christian teachings are contained in scripture.
The Saducees made this fundamental error during Christ’s time and consiquently were inevitably surpassed by the “Scripture and Tradition” line of thought that other forms of Judaism believed in(the Pharisees, Essenes and other groups).Even those Christ was somewhat associated with. The Saducees did not survive the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple.
If you want “backup” evidence of it having been early christian tradition, simply consult the Orthodoxy, because they also believe in this truth.
C
colliric
Guest
The gospel of Christ is contained in the Church’s deposit of faith. Therefore it is the same Gospel despite the development of faith and church throughout time.
Jesus understood that his church was going to GROW and DEVELOP as time dragged on and that his Gospel and how we understood it, and how it is to be applied, was also going to grow. There is no contradition in the catholic faith with this fundamental understanding of the development of the christian church from it’s early roots to it’s current formation. Take sunday service for instance.
This truth of faith was not part of the original deposit of faith that Christ left on earth. It developed from the fact that Jewish-Christians were denied acess to the temple during the Sabbath so they focused on Sunday instead and began to develop christian theology on Sunday practise.
It was NOT apostolic teaching for instance to teach in a formal manner in the Holy Trinity relationship between God, his son, and the holy spirit. Infact formal teaching in this as Dogma developed at least 200 years after the apostles. They taught it, yes, but it was not formally defined until after the Arianism heresy originally forced the church to formally make a decision as to the relationship between christ and his father and the Holy Spirit.
And the faith continues to move forward and make such decisions to this day.
There is however a fundamental contradiction with this Gospel truth and with Protestantism which theoretically seeks theologically to reverse the development of the faith but in actuality has helped work the opposite within the Catholic Church itself, a counter reformation, the ecumenical movement and other such developmental faith growing ideals. It has helped forward movement of the faith, despite being actually theologically opposed.
G
guanophore
Guest
I don’t agree with this. Doctrinal development refers to our development in understanding of the once for all deposit, not the addition to it. I think that Sunday observance is most certainly part of the original deposit of faith, by virtue of the fact that He chose to rise from the dead on Sunday, the first day of the week. I agree that the observance was centuries in development, but it was part of the original deposit. We can see this reasoning in the earliest Patristic writings:
“But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Savior on the same day rose from the dead” – First Apology 67 [A.D. 155]
“We keep the eighth day [Sunday] with joyfulness, the day also on which Jesus rose again from the dead”–Letter of Barnabas 15:6–8 [A.D. 74]
I think this is a more accurate way to describe doctrinal development. The Teachings existed from the beginning, but have been formalized and defined as needed over time in response to heresies.
Jesus knew that it would be necessary for the Church to adapt and respond to the ages. He also knew that the fledgling Church was not yet ready for all that which was to come:
John 16:12-15
12 “I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own, but will speak whatever he hears, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. 14 He will glorify me, because he will take what is mine and declare it to you. 15 All that the Father has is mine. For this reason I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you.”
I do think that the Protestant Reformation does alter the divine deposit of truth by introducing teachings that were never held by the Apostles such as the “solas”. they do this then accuse Catholics of teaching things that were not embraced by the Apostles.
S
SIA
Guest
I’m sorry to say that much of what you wrote here is blasphemous. I must be harsh in my response because it is warranted in this case. Mary is NOT the purest realization of the faith. Jesus Christ is, period! Pope Pius XII worshipped and influenced the Catholic faithful to worship Mary. He attributes many things to Mary that ONLY rightfully belong to Christ. He spoke blashemy against our Lord.
I wholeheartedly disagree with what you believe regarding Mary and the popes.
M
mpernot
Guest
Catholics don’t worship Mary, and there’s nothing blasphemous in the prayer or my explanation of it that you quoted. I appreciate and share your zeal for our Lord Jesus Christ above all others. But to your statement, Jesus IS the faith; not the full or pure realization of it. The faith exists because of Jesus, not the other way around. He has no need to realize Himself; the sole purpose of faith is to bring us to Him. Again, what need does Jesus have of bringing Him to Himself? Everything in our faith exists to support the truth, and we know who truth is. Us created creatures are the ones who have to “realize” the faith.
Mary, as I’ve said before, is not a Goddess but a created creature like us. This created creature was given special privileges as the mother of Jesus that no one else has ever had or ever will have. As such, she has realized Jesus (and therefore the faith that centers around Him) better and more purely than any other created creature ever has or ever will. That’s what Pope Pius XII’s prayer is all about. There is nothing blasphemous about that, and there’s nothing blasphemous about acknowledging the glory and honor that Jesus GAVE to His Mother.
I agree that the power, glory and honor you have issue with is only due to Christ. I think what you don’t grasp is that He can GIVE these attributes to anyone He wishes without diminishing Himself or raising the recipients to His divine level. That’s what He did for Mary; she has no glory or honor apart from her Son. Catholic teaching on Mary maintains this very thing. From Scripture, we see that Jesus gave the apostles the power to heal the sick, drive out demons, baptize the failthful and forgive sins. They possessed these abilities because Jesus GAVE the abilities to them, they did not possess them due to any increase of their own merits or dilution of His. Same exact idea.
If you feel that you personally cannot honor Jesus’ mother without worshipping her, than I would agree that it is better for you to not do so. However, you shouldn’t scold Catholics just because we are able and you are not; we’re not trying to keep Mary to ourselves, but we can’t force others to accept her either.
I am interested in open-minded dialog, so if you have some specific examples of the prayer/explanation that you have issues with I’d be happy to try and explain the Catholic position further (and I’m sure others will help if I don’t do a good job).
S
SIA
Guest
Where have you been??? I have given the Scriptures over and over. You just wish to ignore that your churches teachings regarding Mary are anti-Scriptural.
S
SIA
Guest
You need not explain anything my friend. I was a devout Roman Catholic for nearly four decades. I know the prayer from Pope Pius XII well. I also know what Scripture says regarding much of this. It’s pure Mary worship. It speaks for itself. He spoke for himself. He unequivocally attributed qualities to Mary that soley belong to Christ. Why don’t you compare his prayer to what many of the Early Church fathers stated about Mary.
S
SIA
Guest
M
mpernot
Guest
Did you read anything that I wrote in post 135? How many times do you have to be told that Catholics (including Pope Pius XII) do not worship Mary before you stop propagating such mistruths? I’d be happy to discuss specific issues that you have with Marian doctrine, but all you seem to want to do is make these type of generalizations and then not back them up.
I wish you would tell me, I’ve had to infer what the Scriptural basis is for your position thus far despite repeated questions to that point. But, I thought I’d give you the benefit of the doubt in case I missed something. I went back through this entire thread and couldn’t find a single verse of Scripture cited by SIA. The only thing remotely close that I found was when you proclaimed that Mary the mother of Jesus isn’t in the book of Acts way back in post 35. You would be better off not counting this as even an indirect Scripture citation to your credit, since Mary the mother of Jesus is clearly called out in Acts 1:14.
Now maybe you say this because you’ve cited Scripture verses in other threads. Alright, that’s cool. I don’t have time to look at everything you’ve ever posted, which is why I asked here. If you won’t give any Scripture here in this thread because you’re sick of hearing the arguments against your interpretation, than I think I really am typing at a brick wall as I feared.
Good idea. I found this as a result of a very quick search as written in post 129. I’m sure someone with more time and effort could do much better, but it proves the point even more.
campus.udayton.edu/mary//prayers/SaintsPrayers.htm
I had this to say about this very thing in post 129:
“You will notice that half of the first page is full of prayers from the early Church fathers (270-450 AD) and continues all the way up through Mother Teresa. Early Christians obviously held Mary in very high regard.”
S
SIA
Guest
You have blinders on and earplugs in. What more can be said?
- Status