M
mcq72
Guest
Again the transfiguration sets the rule…the heavenly do not speak to us yet as God does now
- Status
M
MarysLurker
Guest
So you’re saying that because Moses and Elijah didn’t say anything to Peter and company, no one in Heaven communicates with those on earth. Thing is, Jesus was on Earth at the time and He did talk to them. ( Matthew 17:1–8) “Well, He’s God,” you’ll say. But elsewhere in the Bible we do see communication between creatures, like the rich man talking to Lazarus Luke 16:19-31, or the elders and martyrs in Revelation.
T
tafan2
Guest
Except most Protestants do get rid of Mary. Very few do exalt her along with other great saints. Almost all of them completely ignore her Magnificat . Very few call her blessed. The words may be Mary’s, but Luke included them in his inspired writings.
T
tafan2
Guest
Really? You claim she was not a perpetual virgin, St Augustine claimed she had made a vow of virginity:
“Because she had made a vow of virginity and her husband did not have to be the thief of her modesty instead of its guardian (and yet her husband was not its guardian, since it was God who guarded it; her husband was only the witness of her virginal chastity, so that her pregnancy would not be considered the result of adultery), when the angel brought her the news, she said: How can this be, since I do not know man?” (Lk 1:34). Had she intended to know man, she would not have been amazed. Her amazement is a sign of the vow.”
Oh, but maybe St Augustine thought she had simply broken this vow after the birth of Christ. Is that your reasoning? Unlikely, since St Augustine also thought she was sinless:
“With the exception of the holy Virgin Mary, in whose case, out of respect for the Lord, I do not wish there to be any further question as far as sin in concerned, since how can we know what great abundance of grace was conferred on her to conquer sin in every way, seeing that she merited to conceive and bear him who certainly had no sin at all?”
And considering the above, he would have strongly disapproved of the Immaculate Conception? Your logic is untenable.
As for the great honor we Catholics give her, St Augustine likewise considers her the Mother of The Church:
“…She is clearly the Mother of his members; that is, of ourselves, because she cooperated by her charity, so that faithful Christians, members of the Head, might be born in the Church. As for the body, she is the Mother of its Head…Mary gave birth to our Head; the Church gave birth to you. Indeed, the Church also is both virgin and mother, mother because of her womb of charity, virgin because of the integrity of her faith and piety.”
St Augustine clearly had a Catholic view of Mary. The idea that Mariology was in it’s infancy at that time is also inaccurate, the title Mother of God was already widespread. It was not affirmed by a council until a year after his death, but that occurred, as most Councilor definitions only in response to a heresy denying a widespread belief.
“Because she had made a vow of virginity and her husband did not have to be the thief of her modesty instead of its guardian (and yet her husband was not its guardian, since it was God who guarded it; her husband was only the witness of her virginal chastity, so that her pregnancy would not be considered the result of adultery), when the angel brought her the news, she said: How can this be, since I do not know man?” (Lk 1:34). Had she intended to know man, she would not have been amazed. Her amazement is a sign of the vow.”
Oh, but maybe St Augustine thought she had simply broken this vow after the birth of Christ. Is that your reasoning? Unlikely, since St Augustine also thought she was sinless:
“With the exception of the holy Virgin Mary, in whose case, out of respect for the Lord, I do not wish there to be any further question as far as sin in concerned, since how can we know what great abundance of grace was conferred on her to conquer sin in every way, seeing that she merited to conceive and bear him who certainly had no sin at all?”
And considering the above, he would have strongly disapproved of the Immaculate Conception? Your logic is untenable.
As for the great honor we Catholics give her, St Augustine likewise considers her the Mother of The Church:
“…She is clearly the Mother of his members; that is, of ourselves, because she cooperated by her charity, so that faithful Christians, members of the Head, might be born in the Church. As for the body, she is the Mother of its Head…Mary gave birth to our Head; the Church gave birth to you. Indeed, the Church also is both virgin and mother, mother because of her womb of charity, virgin because of the integrity of her faith and piety.”
St Augustine clearly had a Catholic view of Mary. The idea that Mariology was in it’s infancy at that time is also inaccurate, the title Mother of God was already widespread. It was not affirmed by a council until a year after his death, but that occurred, as most Councilor definitions only in response to a heresy denying a widespread belief.
M
MarysLurker
Guest
Also, Mary’s perpetual virginity is clearly taught by Ezekiel.
She is the Temple Gate. The physical Herodian Temple does not fulfill the prophecy because nowhere in the Bible does Jesus walk through a gate that is exclusive to Him. If Mary is not a perpetual Virgin, Jesus is not the Messiah. Full stop!
The Virgin Mary's Womb as Ezekiel's Closed Gate of the Messiah - Taylor Marshall
The Prophet Ezekiel who foretold Mary’s perpetual virginity. Many ancient theologians such as Saint Ambrose and Saint Augustine (and most of the Eastern Fathers) interpreted Ezekiel’s prophecy about the Temple’s closed eastern gate as a prophecy of the virgin birth of Christ. According to...
taylormarshall.com
Last edited:
M
mcq72
Guest
Yes…do you communicate with Moses, Peter and they back to you like transfiguration ?..why I say that exception makes the rule ( that normally we dont talk back and forth with other realms.)
Not sure why Jesus had to be transfigured
Rich man and Lazarus were in same realm but different quarters…not sure they spoke amongst each other…i believe the conversation was between God and rich man, just like in heaven, between saints and God…yes they petition God on behalf of all saints on earth also with their prayers…the prayers are offered to God and saints are aware of their fragrance but not sure of any specificity other than what is stated in Rev…again they do not speak back to us in our earthly realm
Last edited:
M
mcq72
Guest
You are correct in your observations ( of a relatively lowerv remebrance of Mary vs other churches) but you are misgiven in your judgement. It is not getting rid of her anymore than we get rid of Job or Malachi or John the baptist( the greatest prophet ever born) or Ruth or Daniel ( one of the few saints with no mentioned error of ways)
.
So your observation good but judgement on others wrong.
Last edited:
M
MarysLurker
Guest
It’s certainly possible. I haven’t heard from Moses or St. Peter personally (and no one here would be able to tell you if they have , as there is a forum rule against sharing unapproved private revelations). But if we look at the private revelations approved by the Church, we can see that they correctly predicted global events like World War II and the rise of communism (thinking just of Our Lady of Fatima). Now, either that’s legit or faked (backdated based on the events having already occurred). There’s no two ways about it.
In the case of OLoF, we have contemporary secular documentation of the miracle. It’s not rational to conclude it was faked, especially since the “best” explanations that atheists can come up with are really stupid: “mass hallucination,” “sun dogs,” etc.. Let me put it to you this way. The fact that this apparition and miracle actually happened is pretty much the only thing you can get Fox News and the Washington Post to agree on.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
And then, of course, there’s what President Reagan said about it. And what happened as a result.
Last edited:
M
Mintaka
Guest
Saints in Heaven are part of the Body of Christ. Unlike us here, they are perfectly and sinlessly part of His Body. What He knows, they know, and vice versa. (At least, up to the capacity of their souls to understand and love, because they are not infinite like God is.)
We are able to pray to God with confidence because we are also part of Christ’s Body. And we are part of the Communion of Saints with everyone who is part of Christ’s Body.
So of course the saints hear us, whether we address Christ or them, and of course Christ knows all about it when we talk to saints. Everybody is right there. It’s us here on Earth who have the bad connection, not them.
Of course, Jesus could cut saints out of communication with Him or with us, but why? They are His Body, part of Him.
We are able to pray to God with confidence because we are also part of Christ’s Body. And we are part of the Communion of Saints with everyone who is part of Christ’s Body.
So of course the saints hear us, whether we address Christ or them, and of course Christ knows all about it when we talk to saints. Everybody is right there. It’s us here on Earth who have the bad connection, not them.
Of course, Jesus could cut saints out of communication with Him or with us, but why? They are His Body, part of Him.
Last edited:
M
mcq72
Guest
Not sure about that…i only have scanty information, but see that flipped.
.that Indeed the apparition got many people praying to Mary for world peace , and we had one of the worst centuries ever for wars.
Last edited:
T
tafan2
Guest
So your point is that Mary is not exalted simply because no saints are exalted. I knew that, no mistake. But in the post to which I was responding, you certainly implied otherwise.
Which of course means, even without the dogmas of the immaculate conception, or the assumption, Protestants would still take exception to our honoring of Mary.
Which of course means, even without the dogmas of the immaculate conception, or the assumption, Protestants would still take exception to our honoring of Mary.
Last edited:
M
MarysLurker
Guest
But without Our Lady of Fatima, the Ronald Reagan / John Paul II / Billy Graham campaign that took down the Berlin Wall would not have happened. If you don’t believe me, that’s fine; do your own research and come to your own conclusion. And look at the real reasons for the English Reformation, as put forth above. The Queen of England and all of Protestantism took the side of the Caliph of Islam, against Mary—no getting around that.
Last edited:
M
mcq72
Guest
Not sure what you mean
Give honor to whom it is due. We give honor to the great cloud of witnesses St. Paul i think mentions. What I meant is that we honor them all, including Mary, according to their faith and deeds and according to what scripture tells us . My post only suggests we do not get rid of Mary because we only speak of her several times a year, just as we may only speak of Ruth or Job or John the baptist several times a year…but we usually speak of ,read of ,honor some saint each week.
M
mcq72
Guest
Do not doubt that all prayers to God availed the teardown…not sure how Fatima ties in ,if it is specific to tear wall down. And if such prayer was asked to be directed towards her etc…
M
MarysLurker
Guest
It doesn’t make sense that God would send Mary to warn the world about WW2 and the Cold War, provide a recourse that specifically included prayer for Her intercession—the Consecration of Russia—and then actually bring about the end of the Cold War when that consecration was accomplished if He didn’t want people asking Mary for help. Here’s the timeline. The USSR’s collapse began right after the prayers “to” (really through the intercession of) Mary on May 13, 1984. See for yourself.
Last edited:
L
Lion_IRC
Guest
Your reply is so extraordinarily disconnected from what I said that I think you have me confused with someone else. You’ve even presumed me to be part of some imaginary group "you guys"Lion_IRC:
That is exactly what the Christological heretics is the first centuries did. It’s what Jews do to reject the New Testament. And it’s also what the Mormons and Jehovah’s Withesses (modern Arians) do today. You can make the Bible say whatever you say because you pick the hermeneutics and interpretive mechanisms. And if that’s true for you it’s true for everyone. The Episcopalians, Presbyterians and most other mainline Protestants figured out how to make same-sex marriage and abortion quote-unquote biblical. Just because some Protestant says something is biblical does not mean that it is, no matter how many verses they cough up.
Here’s why I’m so mad. If you are teaching your kids that “It’s not possible for any bible verse to be used against Jesus’ divinity,” the single most important thing in the Bible, you’re teaching them that it’s not possible to use any Bible verse against anything at all. You have your interpretation. The Mainliners have theirs. The only thing you guys agree on is that the Catholics are wrong. This charade needs to stop or the secular culture will wipe your church out. I don’t want that. Please give Mary a chance.
But as for me… like I said, I need a break.
M
MarysLurker
Guest
“You guys” are legacy Protestants still holding out against Catholicism and I told you why that bugs me so much. It’s because I’m afraid of what the secular culture will do to your children if you don’t tell them the truth about Mary.
Now, the fact is, you said that no Bible verse can be used against Christ’s divinity. That is unbiblical. The devil does that very thing right there on the pages of the Bible.
L
Lion_IRC
Guest
How can Logos contradict Logos?
BTW - please stop labelling me a “legacy Protestant” or I will report you.
BTW - please stop labelling me a “legacy Protestant” or I will report you.
V
VanitasVanitatum
Guest
Some parts of scripture aren’t true like what Sennacherib said to Hezekiah.
M
MarysLurker
Guest
The Bible is not the “Logos.” Jesus is. The Bible is the written Word of God but not the living Word. I too was a “legacy” Protestant (by which I mean coming from a denomination with a legacy of anti-Catholicism) and it had a bit of that bibliolatry streak going on where it was a sin to put other books in top of the Bible or spill coffee on it, etc. (Catholics will notice that bibliolatry confuses the Bible with the Eucharist.)
Last edited:
- Status