Maybe you should have included what came just before:
**
“When I was in the convent, our mother superior told us about Catholics in Mexico who, in their devotion to Mary, were doing things that we would only do when worshipping God. We were concerned about this. We considered this practice to be unusual and unbalanced. When I was in the convent, our mother superior told us about Catholics in Mexico who, in their devotion to Mary, were doing things that we would only do when worshipping God. We were concerned about this. We considered this practice to be unusual and unbalanced. We thought that the American practice of Catholicism was the true thing.”**
This should be the first warning to any critical reader… any catholic should know that Catholicism isn’t “American” or even mexican or spanish. If local customs deviate from official teaching (it does happen), it still does not make it “catholic teaching”.
**“However, many years later I realized that if you want to know what something really is, then look at how it behaves when it is in a position of power. In America, Catholics are in the minority. To see the true spirit behind Catholicism, watch what the Catholic Church does in countries where it is in power.”
**
She is not referring to official teachings, but to her interpretations of her perception of what others are doing. She admits to choosing to judge other people’s actions, over what she was taught. She does not explain what happened in those “many years” to cause her to change her mind. She offers the same tired charges frequently proven wrong on this forum, that because you see someone bow to a picture or image they are 'worshiping it". There are many reasons why this might happen, other than worship.
She is critical because in the Philippines the Church replaced a bishop and Mother Superior who refused to obey their superiors when told that an apparition there was not approved by the Church and was not acceptable. Why does she find that unfair? So… it is wrong the that some Catholics disregard church teaching and go ‘too far’ with marian devotions… but its unfair if the Church tries to correct excesses and removes from positions of authority those who cling to unapproved devotions ?
More:
She claims to list beliefs in the catechism followed by a bible verse she believes contradicts the catechism, I’m going to give one example, its far from the worst example of taking things out of context:
This is how she presents the Catechism’s teaching on the immaculate conception. This is an exact quote cut and pasted from her page:
"ALL-HOLY – Mary, “the All-Holy,” lived a perfectly sinless life. (“Catechism” 411, 493)"
Hmm… if you look carefully, the two paragraphs referenced are PAGES apart…
look at the entire paragraphs from the catechism:
**
411
The Christian tradition sees in this passage (a passage in the book of Genesis) an announcement of the “New Adam” who, because he “became obedient unto death, even death on a cross,” makes amends superabundantly for the disobedience of Adam.305 Furthermore many Fathers and Doctors of the Church have seen the woman announced in the Protoevangelium as Mary, the mother of Christ, the “new Eve.” Mary benefited first of all and uniquely from Christ’s victory over sin: she was preserved from all stain of original sin and by a special grace of God committed no sin of any kind during her whole earthly life.306**
and (if you look these up you will note that this paragraph is in an entirely different section of the Catechism, nevertheless, she puts them together into one statement)
**493
The Fathers of the Eastern tradition call the Mother of God “the All-Holy” (Panagia) and celebrate her as "free from any stain of sin, as though fashioned by the Holy Spirit and formed as a new creature."138 By the grace of God Mary remained free of every personal sin her whole life long.
**
So the first paragraph specifically says that the special graces given to Mary were from CHRIST.
"Mary benefited first of all and uniquely from Christ’s victory over sin:"
And the second mentions a title given to her by the Eastern Tradition and again, emphasizes her special role is by the grace of God. The second states "
138 By the grace of God Mary remained free…"
It should also be noted that the first reference is from a section commenting on the Creation and the book of Genesis. The second, is from a section commenting on the Creed. Mary is not the primary topic of either section. Neither is there any hint of context.
**IF **someone wanted to fairly and accurately present the Catholic doctrine, why put two unrelated bits into one statement without the context?
Aside from questionable use of her sources, going back to the quotation originally posted. This “former catholic” criticizes the devotion of Pope John Paul II to Mary. She implies that he put Mary over Jesus in his prayer life.
This is what JPII himself said about prayer and his personal devotion to Mary:
Prayer:
catholic.net/rcc/POPE/HopeBook/chap3.html
(I couldn’t post more with the character limit, but its worth reading)
And specifically about his devotion to Mary:
catholic.net/rcc/POPE/HopeBook/chap32.html
**"Totus Tuus. This phrase is not only an expression of piety, or simply an expression of devotion. It is more. During the Second World War, while I was employed as a factory worker, I came to be attracted to Marian devotion. At first, it had seemed to me that I should distance myself a bit from the Marian devotion of my childhood, in order to focus more on Christ. Thanks to Saint Louis of Montfort, I came to understand that true devotion to the Mother of God is actually Christocentric, indeed, it is very profoundly rooted in the Mystery of the Blessed Trinity, and the mysteries of the Incarnation and Redemption.
"And so, I rediscovered Marian piety, this time with a deeper understanding. This mature form of devotion to the Mother of God has stayed with me over the years, bearing fruit in the encyclicals Redemptoris Mater and Mulieris Dignitatem.
"In regard to Marian devotion, each of us must understand that such devotion not only addresses a need of the heart, a sentimental inclination, but that it also corresponds to the objective truth about the Mother of God. Mary is the new Eve, placed by God in close relation to Christ, the new Adam, beginning with the Annunciation, through the night of His birth in Bethlehem, through the wedding feast at Cana of Galilee, through the Cross at Calvary, and up to the gift of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. The Mother of Christ the Redeemer is the Mother of the Church. "**
Over and over again, you see her offering her interpretations, and highly isolated and selected quotes, rather than actual Catholic teaching. If you glance at a long list of her articles you see “Mind Control” “Pope Joan” etc… I didn’t bother to read them. There is obviously an agenda behind them. The one thing I did look for, was her credentials. Didn’t find them. I have learned not to trust someone’s word that they were a “nun.” If they were, the record will still exist. Besides, a “nun” lives in a cloister. The sisters you meet in the world, are Sisters, not nuns.
You’d think a former ‘nun’ would know not to call all former female religious “nuns”.
I bothered to take the time to create this post, because it is on more example of what has been going on with the SDA posters.
BAD scholarship. QUESTIONABLE sources. Repetition of UNSUBSTANTIATED information. NEGLECT of primary sources of information. HYPE over SUBSTANCE.
I have said this before, and I will repeat it now:
I one time I was a committed Seventh day Adventist at a Seventh-day Adventist University seeking a theology degree. I started to reconsider my beliefs, and eventually left because I was absolutely disgusted at the lack of honesty and scholarship in regards to Adventist theology and history. I had one professor tell me, privately but point blank, that he understood my concern over the accuracy of his lectures on some events in Adventist history, but that he would continue to teach a version of events that he ADMITTED to knowing was false, because to do otherwise would cost him his job. This is not second hand information, it is personal experience. Other former SDAs share similar stories.
If someone wants to have a reasonable discussion I’m all for it.
Responding to the same JUNK posts over and over is a waste of time.
MarysRoses
Why would I trust anything she says?