My Problem with the Catholic Mary

[benny4victory]

i recommend people read the, marian movement of priests book,
i have a strong dedication to our lady, as a god given authority, leader, and loving motherly heart for our church, i trust that the marian movement of priests, is inspired by the virgin mary, not only because its approved by the catholic church, but because of personal spiritual experiences. its a good read, and should give you a stronger understanding of our lady’s role in the church.
she talks about an upcoming unity and purification of the church.
may god bless you.

 

[benny4victory]

i recommend people read the marian movement of priests book.
i have a strong dedication to our lady, her being a god given authority, leader and loving motherly heart for our church, i trust that the marian movement of priests, is inspired by the virgin mary, not only because its approved by the catholic church, but because of personal spiritual experiences. its a good read, and should give you a stronger understanding of our lady’s role in the church.
she talks about an upcoming unity and purification of the church.
may god bless you.

 

[JRKH]

I thank you for all of the posts. I am sorry to say that I have heard all of these explanations many times before. To me I must on scripture, no where in scripture does it say “Mary was without sin” no where in scripture does it say “Mary was the ark of the New covenant” no were in scripture does it say “Mary ascended and was crowed queen of heaven”

These are all legalities and theological assumptions that the pagans formed during the Nicean Creed when Constantine legalized Christianity. Not scriptural or historically accurate.

Jlaymon2,
I note that in your OP on this thread you said that you said:

I have recently left the church because of this issue. I hope someone can prove me wrong.

Is this an indication that you are interested in returning to the Church?

As to the rest. I think that the main issue that must be addressed is not marion doctrines but rather the issue of The Bible and it’s relation to Church.
It is obvious that, at some point, you determined the Bible was supreme over the Church, even though Christ never established a book, but rather a living teaching Church.
If you reject the fullness of the Church, founded by Christ, in exchange for the one part of that Church, we call the Bible, then there are no arguments or presentations that will make you comfortable with marion doctrines.
However if you lift your eyes from the narrowly defined canon of written words and look instead to the Living Word of Christ in His Glorious Church, you will find much new understanding and freedom.
It is obvious from your second paragraph above that you have bought into this whole idea of the Church being corrupted at the time of Constantine.

It appears my friend that you were raised in the Church, which can be likened to a large house, or mansion, filled with many rooms, books, and history. However at some point you were led astray into a small, single room called Sola-Scriptura. after you entered you closed and bolted the door behind you, pulled down the shades on the windows and will accept only that which you can find in this room without even the advantage of the teachings of early Church fathers.

I would suggest that you get a good grounding in Documented Church history, the development of doctrine, the safeguards utilized by the Church and also the development protestantism and the splintering therof.

I hope you are not offended by my frankness.
In Christian Love my wish is:
May God Guide you Home

Peace
James

 

[benny4victory]

id like to add, that being involved in the church give us a sense of being in communion with each other, as well as with god, our local parish priest, in a sermon, had a cross in 2 parts he said the vertical part represents our relationship with god, and the horozontal part represents our relationship with each other, then he put them together and made the cross, so our relationship with god has to be symbolicly, both horozontal and vertical. when we go to mass we feel like more of a community of christians, and reading and listening to the same scriptures gives us a sense of kind of all being on the same page, to me thats important, in helping us along in our spiritual journey.

 

[thrufaithalone]

Hippolytus;4512404]Jesus Hates Sin: God could not be in a Tabernacle that has sin in it, an Ark of the New Covenant which is impure. Mary was the Ark of the New Covenant.

Again your reasoning would necessitate that the entire world be sinless for Christ to enter it. Jesus came for the express purpose of bearing our sin. He had his own body. Nowhere does Scripture refer to Mary as the “Ark of the New Covenant”.

In regards to the blood, Acts 20:28 calls it God’s blood “Take heed unto yourselves, and to all the flock, in the which the Holy Ghost hath made you bishops, to feed the church of God, which he purchased with his own blood.”

Read “The DNA of Jesus Christ” By William L. “Sonny” Payne

%between%

 

[NotWorthy]

Again your reasoning would necessitate that the entire world be sinless for Christ to enter it. Jesus came for the express purpose of bearing our sin. He had his own body. Nowhere does Scripture refer to Mary as the “Ark of the New Covenant”.

In regards to the blood, Acts 20:28 calls it God’s blood “Take heed unto yourselves, and to all the flock, in the which the Holy Ghost hath made you bishops, to feed the church of God, which he purchased with his own blood.”

Read “The DNA of Jesus Christ” By William L. “Sonny” Payne

Thrufaithalone, do you believe in Bible coincidences? Have you read 2nd Samuel 6, and compared it with Luke 1?

You say that Scripture does not see Mary as the Ark, and yet before Scripture was even canonized, the Church was reading Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant.

 

[wellington]

maybe the more sensible issue to resolve on this matter is what really the bible has to tell us about mary. Is it in harmony with the bible teaching that mary did not sin?

Do we have a basis on the bible in saying that Mary is sinless?

Thanks.

 

[wellington]

in my humble point of view, if the catholic church recognizes the “bible” as “part” of it, then, there should be no contradiction between the “book” and the “church”. I f we are going to accept a premise that the “book” (or books for that matter, bible) is but a product of the church, we are then obliged to accept that the product should not contradict its producer.

Or else, one would be forced to admit that the “bible” is not an inspired scripture.

 

[nilofc]

in my humble point of view, if the catholic church recognizes the “bible” as “part” of it, then, there should be no contradiction between the “book” and the “church”. I f we are going to accept a premise that the “book” (or books for that matter, bible) is but a product of the church, we are then obliged to accept that the product should not contradict its producer.

Or else, one would be forced to admit that the “bible” is not an inspired scripture.

Well then point out where the Church contradicts the bible?

Have you ever heard about typology?

What’s the purpose of the Old Testament then if not for Typology?

 

[nilofc]

Thrufaithalone, do you believe in Bible coincidences? Have you read 2nd Samuel 6, and compared it with Luke 1?

You say that Scripture does not see Mary as the Ark, and yet before Scripture was even canonized, the Church was reading Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant.

Yes brother…and you can also point him to Rev. 11-12.

Before there were no chapter division… when John saw the ark and he followed it up with “the woman”…he meant it clearly…Mary is the Ark of the new covenant.

 

[wellington]

Well then point out where the Church contradicts the bible?

Have you ever heard about typology?

What’s the purpose of the Old Testament then if not for Typology?

No offense meant, sirs. Just tryin to discuss things that might help me in my search for truth. However, please correct me if im wrong… as i may site some practices in the Catholic Church that, in my opinion, seemingly, not in harmony with what the bible teaches, for instance…

1. “And call no man your father upon the earth; for one is your Father, which is in heaven.” (Mat. 23:9)
   So, with all due respect, i wonder why the catholich church allows the use of the title POPE and FATHER?

I hope that this reply be not misunderstood as if being diversion of topic, for what are we trying to resolve here is, we cannot go away with referring to the bible when we are discussing matters of the faith, as mentioned earlier.

Thanks everyone. May all the good things come our way always!

 

[SD_Catholic]

No offense meant, sirs. Just tryin to discuss things that might help me in my search for truth. However, please correct me if im wrong… as i may site some practices in the Catholic Church that, in my opinion, seemingly, not in harmony with what the bible teaches, for instance…

1. “And call no man your father upon the earth; for one is your Father, which is in heaven.” (Mat. 23:9)
   So, with all due respect, i wonder why the catholich church allows the use of the title POPE and FATHER?

I hope that this reply be not misunderstood as if being diversion of topic, for what are we trying to resolve here is, we cannot go away with referring to the bible when we are discussing matters of the faith, as mentioned earlier.

Thanks everyone. May all the good things come our way always!

This has been discussed in a few threads but they usually don’t last long as it’s an old accusation that shouldn’t even be considered if one knows the Bible… Do you remember any place in there where people are called father other than God?.. or maybe where Paul tells people that he is their father?

SD

 

[teachccd]

Well, the two thousand year old Church founded by Christ is not here to “prove” you wrong but to uphold Her teachings. This would include the Church’s understanding of the role of Mary in our salvation history. Jesus wore the very flesh of Mary and Mary’s womb was the very tabernacle of the living Word of God. The Church sees that as the highest honor that could ever be awarded to anything in God’s creation.

You see, I find it quite perplexing that so many non-Catholics would see to find Mary as just another sinful, ordinary woman. That’s like saying that the Ark of the Covenant in the Old Testament was just a dirty, ordinary box. The Ark of the Covenant held the written Word of God (decalogue) and God was VERY explicit on how it was to be constructed (with carved cherubim by the way) and how it was to be handled. In fact, when Uzzah put out his hand to steady the Ark, he was killed because nobody touched the Ark.

Now, we would find that if we truly know Jesus to be the living Word of God that we would expect no less of the Ark of the New Covenant, Mary. Catholics knowing this, in my opinion, hold a much higher adoration for our Lord in knowing that He would not be brought to us in a stained and ordinary vessel. We think way too much of Jesus than to think that He would be treated lower than the stone tablets of the Old Testament.

You mentioned that you recently left the Church because of this issue. Really. What about the Sacraments, mainly the Eucharist whereby Catholics have known for 2000 years the Real Presence that has been lived by Christians since the first century? What about the very New Testament that you quote? Where did it even come from if not from an already established Church founded by Christ?

My dear friend, you have many more issues than the one that you state if you really left the Church for a certain reason. No Catholic that I know would leave the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the Eucharist for a misunderstanding regarding Mary. You may have left the building but I doubt that you were a devout Catholic who left because of our Blessed Mother. Try again…God bless you and you are in my prayers…teachccd

---

 

[wellington]

This has been discussed in a few threads but they usually don’t last long as it’s an old accusation that shouldn’t even be considered if one knows the Bible… Do you remember any place in there where people are called father other than God?.. or maybe where Paul tells people that he is their father?

SD

I am referring to Matthew 23:9, and Ezekiel 18:4. I believe, it is forbidden to call any man on earth your father, just like how GOD is a Father to us… as mentioned in Ezek. 18:4. God is the father of our souls.

The Catholic Church allows the usage of the title POPE as the highest father of souls here on earth, and as the successor of the Lord.

Thanks.

 

[SD_Catholic]

I am referring to Matthew 23:9, and Ezekiel 18:4. I believe, it is forbidden to call any man on earth your father, just like how GOD is a Father to us… as mentioned in Ezek. 18:4. God is the father of our souls.

The Catholic Church allows the usage of the title POPE as the highest father of souls here on earth, and as the successor of the Lord.

Thanks.

Then you misunderstand much about the Catholic Church… For starters we don’t view the Pope as successor to the Lord as father of our souls… he is the successor of Peter whom Jesus appointed as leader of his earthly Church.

You must understand that our use of the word “father” in no way takes away from God the “Father” and is not used with the same meaning as when we refer to God as “Father”… I’ll add some copyed info to help you understand.

The following taken from “This Rock” magazine:

*First, as we’ve seen, the imperative “call no man father” does not apply to one’s biological father. It also doesn’t exclude calling one’s ancestors “father,” as is shown in Acts 7:2, where Stephen refers to “our father Abraham,” or in Romans 9:10, where Paul speaks of “our father Isaac.”

Second, there are numerous examples in the New Testament of the term “father” being used as a form of address and reference, even for men who are not biologically related to the speaker. There are, in fact, so many uses of “father” in the New Testament, that the Fundamentalist interpretation of Matthew 23 (and the objection to Catholics calling priests “father”) must be wrong, as we shall see.

Third, a careful examination of the context of Matthew 23 shows that Jesus didn’t intend for his words here to be understood literally. The whole passage reads, “But you are not to be called ‘rabbi,’ for you have one teacher, and you are all brethren. And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. Neither be called ‘masters,’ for you have one master, the Christ” (Matt. 23:8–10).

The first problem is that although Jesus seems to prohibit the use of the term “teacher,” in Matthew 28:19–20, Christ himself appointed certain men to be teachers in his Church: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations . . . teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.” Paul speaks of his commission as a teacher: “For this I was appointed a preacher and apostle . . . a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth” (1 Tim. 2:7); “For this gospel I was appointed a preacher and apostle and teacher” (2 Tim. 1:11). He also reminds us that the Church has an office of teacher: “God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers” (1 Cor. 12:28); and “his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers” (Eph. 4:11). There is no doubt that Paul was not violating Christ’s teaching in Matthew 23 by referring so often to others as “teachers.”

Perhaps the most pointed New Testament reference to the theology of the spiritual fatherhood of priests is Paul’s statement, “I do not write this to make you ashamed, but to admonish you as my beloved children. For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel” (1 Cor. 4:14–15). *

SD

 

[wellington]

Then you misunderstand much about the Catholic Church… For starters we don’t view the Pope as successor to the Lord as father of our souls… he is the successor of Peter whom Jesus appointed as leader of his earthly Church.

You must understand that our use of the word “father” in no way takes away from God the “Father” and is not used with the same meaning as when we refer to God as “Father”… I’ll add some copyed info to help you understand.

The following taken from “This Rock” magazine:

*First, as we’ve seen, the imperative “call no man father” does not apply to one’s biological father. It also doesn’t exclude calling one’s ancestors “father,” as is shown in Acts 7:2, where Stephen refers to “our father Abraham,” or in Romans 9:10, where Paul speaks of “our father Isaac.”

Second, there are numerous examples in the New Testament of the term “father” being used as a form of address and reference, even for men who are not biologically related to the speaker. There are, in fact, so many uses of “father” in the New Testament, that the Fundamentalist interpretation of Matthew 23 (and the objection to Catholics calling priests “father”) must be wrong, as we shall see.

Third, a careful examination of the context of Matthew 23 shows that Jesus didn’t intend for his words here to be understood literally. The whole passage reads, “But you are not to be called ‘rabbi,’ for you have one teacher, and you are all brethren. And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. Neither be called ‘masters,’ for you have one master, the Christ” (Matt. 23:8–10).

The first problem is that although Jesus seems to prohibit the use of the term “teacher,” in Matthew 28:19–20, Christ himself appointed certain men to be teachers in his Church: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations . . . teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.” Paul speaks of his commission as a teacher: “For this I was appointed a preacher and apostle . . . a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth” (1 Tim. 2:7); “For this gospel I was appointed a preacher and apostle and teacher” (2 Tim. 1:11). He also reminds us that the Church has an office of teacher: “God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers” (1 Cor. 12:28); and “his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers” (Eph. 4:11). There is no doubt that Paul was not violating Christ’s teaching in Matthew 23 by referring so often to others as “teachers.”

Perhaps the most pointed New Testament reference to the theology of the spiritual fatherhood of priests is Paul’s statement, “I do not write this to make you ashamed, but to admonish you as my beloved children. For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel” (1 Cor. 4:14–15). *

SD

In one of your publications written by a certeain Juan Trinidad, Catholic Priest, with “Nihil Obstat” and “Imprimatur”, Mr, trinidad clearly stated that the Holy Father (POPE) is the highest father fo souls here on earth, because he is the successor of the Lord. And continues to state that because the priests are the ones who give life to our souls, through the holy sacrament, even them are called “Father of our Souls”.

I agree with what you have stated above that *"the imperative “call no man father” does not apply to one’s biological father. It also doesn’t exclude calling one’s ancestors “father,” as is shown in Acts 7:2, where Stephen refers to “our father Abraham,” or in Romans 9:10, where Paul speaks of “our father Isaac.” *

However, aposlte paulnever claimed to be father of Souls. The POPE also is said to be the “VICAR OF CHRIST” while it is clearly written in the bible that Jesus Christ " continueth ever" and “hath an unchangeable preisthood”. (Heb. 7:24-25).

Jesus Christ is “the same yesterday, and today, and for ever.” (Heb. 13:8)

Thanks.

 

[wellington]

Please refer also to this:

The Catechism claims that:

“The Pope enjoys, by divine institution, supreme, full, immediate, and universal power in the care of souls” Pg. 246, #937

“For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.” Pg. 234, #882
“The Roman Pontiff… as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful…” Pg. 235, #891

Thanks again.

 

[JRKH]

In one of your publications written by a certeain Juan Trinidad, Catholic Priest, with “Nihil Obstat” and “Imprimatur”, Mr, trinidad clearly stated that the Holy Father (POPE) is the highest father fo souls here on earth, because he is the successor of the Lord. And continues to state that because the priests are the ones who give life to our souls, through the holy sacrament, even them are called “Father of our Souls”.

I agree with what you have stated above that *"the imperative “call no man father” does not apply to one’s biological father. It also doesn’t exclude calling one’s ancestors “father,” as is shown in Acts 7:2, where Stephen refers to “our father Abraham,” or in Romans 9:10, where Paul speaks of “our father Isaac.” *

However, aposlte paulnever claimed to be father of Souls. The POPE also is said to be the “VICAR OF CHRIST” while it is clearly written in the bible that Jesus Christ " continueth ever" and “hath an unchangeable preisthood”. (Heb. 7:24-25).

Jesus Christ is “the same yesterday, and today, and for ever.” (Heb. 13:8)

Thanks.

Forgive me for jumping in here without completely reading the posts, but I wish to address a couple of things if I may.
This argument about calling one Father is an interesting one and the verses you cite regarding calling none father except he that is Our father in heaven are compelling. However, it cannot be denied that in the NT Paul and others refer to themselves, the Patriarchs or others as “father” in something different than a biological sense. It is in this distinction that we find the solution. It is possible for us to address anscestors, teachers etc as fathers in faith without overstepping ourselves.
Given that this practice has been in use since antiquity, pre-bible canon days, it seems unlikely that Jesus intended the injunction in the way that you wish to interpret it.

As to the term “Vicar of Christ”. The term Vicar is was a common one. It simply refers to one who stands in for another who is away for a time. In this sense, the Pope, Vicar of Christ, is standing in for Christ until His second coming. It does not, in any sense, indicate a usurping of power as some try to read into it. Instead it really relates back to the idea of Peter being given the keys to the Kingdom of God on earth. Peter, by this act, became Christ the King’s Steward of His Kingdom. When Peter was Martyred, the Keys passed to his successor in Rome and so on down to Pope Benedict XVI today.

One of the Problems for those relying strictly and solely on the Bible, is that it is like trying to Earn a Doctorate Level Physics Education by using only a Basic Level Physics text. Everything in the Entry Level text is true and applicable to the Doctorate, but there is so much more in detail, experience, history, etc. that are not covered, or only alluded to in the Basic Text.
In addition, no one would think of trying to earn a doctorate level education by using texts alone. No, they would attend classes taught by people trained by people who were trained by peop…all the way back to when the discoveries were made. The Bible and the Church are similar. The Bible is that Basic Text and what it contains is true, but not always understandable or clear to the average or casual reader. It is in the community and history of the Church that the information in the Bible, as well as numerous other texts, find their fullness and clarity.
My intent is not to belittle the Bible, but rather to try to give some perspective. Also it is necessary to understand that, since the Church was established long before the texts of the Bible were complete and canonized, and it was within the Church that these books were written, selected and canonized, that the books in the Bible will naturally fit in with Church teaching.

Peace
James

 

[SD_Catholic]

Please refer also to this:

The Catechism claims that:

“The Pope enjoys, by divine institution, supreme, full, immediate, and universal power in the care of souls” Pg. 246, #937

“For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.” Pg. 234, #882
“The Roman Pontiff… as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful…” Pg. 235, #891

Thanks again.

Vicar of Christ simply means represenative of Christ… his purpose is to lead the faithful in the way instituted by Christ that is most beneficial to the wellness of their souls… Jesus set this up starting with Peter, not because the CC wanted it to be that way but because Jesus required it.

SD

 

[wellington]

Forgive me for jumping in here without completely reading the posts, but I wish to address a couple of things if I may.
This argument about calling one Father is an interesting one and the verses you cite regarding calling none father except he that is Our father in heaven are compelling. However, it cannot be denied that in the NT Paul and others refer to themselves, the Patriarchs or others as “father” in something different than a biological sense. It is in this distinction that we find the solution. It is possible for us to address anscestors, teachers etc as fathers in faith without overstepping ourselves.
Given that this practice has been in use since antiquity, pre-bible canon days, it seems unlikely that Jesus intended the injunction in the way that you wish to interpret it.

As to the term “Vicar of Christ”. The term Vicar is was a common one. It simply refers to one who stands in for another who is away for a time. In this sense, the Pope, Vicar of Christ, is standing in for Christ until His second coming. It does not, in any sense, indicate a usurping of power as some try to read into it. Instead it really relates back to the idea of Peter being given the keys to the Kingdom of God on earth. Peter, by this act, became Christ the King’s Steward of His Kingdom. When Peter was Martyred, the Keys passed to his successor in Rome and so on down to Pope Benedict XVI today.

One of the Problems for those relying strictly and solely on the Bible, is that it is like trying to Earn a Doctorate Level Physics Education by using only a Basic Level Physics text. Everything in the Entry Level text is true and applicable to the Doctorate, but there is so much more in detail, experience, history, etc. that are not covered, or only alluded to in the Basic Text.
In addition, no one would think of trying to earn a doctorate level education by using texts alone. No, they would attend classes taught by people trained by people who were trained by peop…all the way back to when the discoveries were made. The Bible and the Church are similar. The Bible is that Basic Text and what it contains is true, but not always understandable or clear to the average or casual reader. It is in the community and history of the Church that the information in the Bible, as well as numerous other texts, find their fullness and clarity.
My intent is not to belittle the Bible, but rather to try to give some perspective. Also it is necessary to understand that, since the Church was established long before the texts of the Bible were complete and canonized, and it was within the Church that these books were written, selected and canonized, that the books in the Bible will naturally fit in with Church teaching.

Peace
James

I do hope that we do not miss the point here. We referred to Matthew 23:9 and Ezekiel 18:4 to “find the fullness and clarity” of the prohibition of the title or name “FATHER” in the sense that God is “Father” to us, that is, father of our souls.

Nowhere in the bible did the early Christians called, Peter, or Paul, or any other apostle, their “FATHER”, while catholics today call their POPE their “HOLY FATHER”. Moreover, it is clearly stated in the Catholic publications that the POPE is the highest FATHER OF OUR SOULS, which I believe, no offense meant, is a direct violation of the commandments stated in the mentioned verses of the bible.

This is not to belittle the Church, as if it is while referring to the bible. Infact, it is more of recognition of the WORDS OF GOD written in the bible. And i believe that the BIBLE, and the commandments written in it, goes in harmony with the genuine practice of the true Christians.

It is simple and plain that Jesus Christ forbids the calling of any man on earth your Father. We are so sure that this does not apply to our biological fathers, or to the Patriarchs (e.g. Abraham). When Jesus Christ referred to God as our only Father, we are sure that he is referring to the name attributed to God only, that is, FATHER OF SOULS. And this is the point we are raising here, for the Catholic Church uses the title “HOLY FATHER” in referring to their POPE, and with explicit reference to them as the highest father of souls, while calling the priests as “fathers of our Souls”.

Peace. This comes to you with every wish of God’s blessing.