Prayer of Pope to Mary: To Whom Would the Apostles have pointed him ..Mary or Jesus?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Leeann
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Bud, are you accusing Catholics of being a cult, may I ask?
The point is you will be hard pressed to find that definition in the dictionary. If that is your definition then it is yours. Yes cults do change the meaning of christian words to suit their needs. What I mean by that is your own interpretation.
 
So…I’m sitting in the family room with my husband and our children while I chatter with all the lovely people on CAF… and we’re watching Charlie brown.

I have to say… I agree with Charlie on this one.

“Good GRIEF.”
 
“Cult” is a word that has changed over time. It was not always pejorative and in the antiquated sense, could be used to describe Catholocism. As a matter of fact, “cult,” used to be a good thing…

dictionary.reference.com/browse/cult
I understand your frustration, if, enmity means, that they have no part in one another. That fits very nicely into your traditional belief about Mary. To quote the bible again all have sinned, except Jesus.
 
…The problem you have …
At what point in history did you become the authority about me and what I believe?
… you cannot rely on your church to tell you what a specific verse means since it has never infallibly interpreted the Scriptures.
I don’t have to rely upon my Church to tell me infallibly what the Bible means. My beliefs are not built upon the Bible alone.

Nor do I have a problem with the Church because they have not published a exhaustive and infallible Bible commentary. Why? Because Catholics take a different view of Scripture than Protestants. We don’t believe that each and every verse has one and only one meaning fixed for every century. We also don’t believe that Jesus, the true Word of God, meant to include his deposit of faith in only written form, apart from the authority of apostolic tradition handed on by the authoritative teaching of the Church.

Catholics instead take the view of Scripture expressed by St. Ephraim of Syria, which he taught over 1000 years before the heresy of Protestantism was even invented in the 16th century…

**St. Ephraim the Syriac, 4th century:***Lord, who can grasp all the wealth of just one of your words. What we understand is much less than what we leave behind. Like thirsty people who drink from a fountain, for your word, Lord, has many shades of meaning, just as those who study it have many points of view. The Lord has colored his word with many hues, so that each person who studies it can see in it what he loves. He has hidden many treasures in his word, so that each of us is enriched as we meditate on it. The word of God is a tree of life that from all its parts offers you fruit that is blessed. It is like that rock that is open in the desert, which from all its parts gave forth a spiritual drink. He, who comes into contact with some share of its treasure, should not think that the only thing contained in the word is what he himself has found. He should realize that he has only been able to find that one thing from among many others. Nor, because only that one part has become his should he say that the word is void, empty, and look down on it. Because he could not exhaust it, he should give thanks for its riches. Be glad that you are overcome and do not be sad that it overcame you. The thirsty man rejoices when he drinks, he is not downcast because he cannot empty the fountain. Rather let the fountain quench your thirst, than have your thirst quench the fountain. Because if your thirst is quenched and the fountain is not exhausted, you can drink from it again whenever you are thirsty. But if, when your thirst is quenched, the fountain also is dried up, your victory will bode evil for you. So be grateful for what you have recieved and don’t grumble about the abundance left behind. What you have received and what you have reached is your share. What remains is your heritage. What at one time you are unable to receive, because of your weakness, you will be able to receive at other times, if you persevere. Do not have the presumption to try to take in one draft what cannot be taken in one draft. And do not abandon out of laziness what you may only consume little by little.

*[St. Ephraim, cited by Dr. Scott Hahn, *The End: A Study of the Book of Revelation, (St. Joseph Communications, audio series)]
Asking other Christians in this world to pray for you is right and proper since the Scriptures teach this.
Correct. And the Scriptures teach that death does not separate us from Christ, so the saints and angels in heaven are Christians too, still part of the same body of Christ, and still interceding in prayer for us. The ridiculous claim that they are somehow “off limits” because they are in heaven is absurd and entirely unsupported by any passage of Scripture. It would be really impressive if you could convince your fellow Protestants of this claim, but it appears your so-called “Scriptural” arguments are simply too weak to make a compelling case even among Protestants.

What seems to upset the antagonists against Catholicism (and Orthodoxy, and even some Protestant scholars), is that in attempting to be consistent with a flawed “Bible alone” epistemology, you can’t provide a single chapter and verse of Scripture which denounces this ancient Christian practice. Not one. And, yet you ironically claim it is somehow prohibited. That’s obviously inconsistent. We don’t accept your flawed Protestant “traditions of men” as proof. If Protestantism was in any way consistent, it would only quote chapter and verse and leave out their absurd interpretation.

I can see how that can be frustrating for you, but your dissent is of no concern to faithful Christians of every century who request Mary’s aid since even before the Christian Bible was even canonized.

I applaud those Protestant pastors (e.g. C. Dickson, N. Ward,) who admit that praying the Rosary is a pious Christian practice. I even applaud the Protestants who, perhaps in their ignorance, request Mary and Joseph “lend their aid” when they sing “Angels we have heard on high.” Whether they know it or not, they are praying to saints. :eek:
 
I understand your frustration, if, enmity means, that they have no part in one another. That fits very nicely into your traditional belief about Mary. To quote the bible again all have sinned, except Jesus.
Understand I am not frustrated. I wanted to share my knowledge with those reading this about the word, “cult.” It may come up at a party…or on Jeopardy.

There is a book, I think this is it. It explains more about the word, “cult.” I don’t know if it is the book that I have downstairs. Right now I am too lazy to retrieve said book and look up the meaning of the word, “cult.”

Wait! looks through my posts to see if I have already posted something about this.

In the meantime, book: amazon.com/Catholic-Church-Built-Western-Civilization/dp/0895260387

Edit: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3915793&postcount=59
 
Bud, you never answered my question.

Why do you hate the Catholic church?

Do you even know?
 
zenit.org/index.php?l=english

Excerpt from this article:

The Pope’s leading of the Supplication of the Blessed Virgin of the Rosary, a prayer written by Blessed Bartolo Longo (1841-1926) was one of the high points of this 12th pastoral trip in Italy.

“We implore you to have pity today on the nations that have gone astray, on all Europe, on the whole world, that they might repent and return to your heart,” the text of the prayer reads.

With the words of Bartolo, the Pontiff turned to Mary, saying: “If you will not help us because we are ungrateful and unworthy children of your protection, we will not know to whom to turn.”
Question:

In view of the Pope saying - “we will not know to whom to turn”… my question is, if the Apostles were standing next to the Pope, to whom do you think they would be advising him to “turn” too …to Mary…or Jesus?
 
Leeann… we’ve explained, that for Catholics… this is NOT a question.

One cannot point to Christ without pointing to Mary. One cannot point to Mary without pointing to Christ.

You cannot ask “would the aspostles point to Jesus or Mary?” Because the “OR” distinction does not exist.

I’m sorry if you don’t like that answer, but asking it over and over again won’t change the result.
 
Leeann… we’ve explained, that for Catholics… this is NOT a question.

One cannot point to Christ without pointing to Mary. One cannot point to Mary without pointing to Christ.

You cannot ask “would the aspostles point to Jesus or Mary?” Because the “OR” distinction does not exist.

I’m sorry if you don’t like that answer, but asking it over and over again won’t change the result.
Hi Ashley Belle:

Have been busy with family matters and just came in to go back and read some posts, as my hubby has been in reading and advised it’s really gone off topic…I reposted the “original thread topic” question.

There may be “other” Catholics who would like to post their answers too.

If you feel that you’ve answered this question and have nothing else to offer, that’s fine, you don’t have to post or continue if you don’t want too. That’s up to you.

But the “question” is the “thread”.

God Bless
 
🤷
Code:
That’s *your *assumption, *about me basing *what I’ve been saying, on “everything they taught is in the NT.”   I’ve never said that.
I’ve stated that the “gospel message” that Jesus and the Apostles preached and taught was complete and as effective at the time it was preached back then, as it was recorded in the Gospel books and epistles later and as it is preached today.
How is that different? Do you agree that not everything was written, and if so, how, on the basis of SS can you assert that is it was not taught?
Code:
That gospel message being for the salvation of all mankind – by belief and faith in the blood of Jesus Christ…
Yes…
and not altered or affected in any way by things later added to it to ensure ‘mankinds’ salvation - such as belonging to the Catholic Church or having to adhere to its “erroneously developed” doctrines.
Here is one of those “slams” that you like to sneak in to your responses. You call it “replying”. I see that you use every chance to make detractions against the Catholic faith.

On what basis do you pronounce that the Catholic Church “erroneously developed” doctrines?
I guess it depends on how they go about reading it.
I agree. I think you are reading the NT devoid of the Apostolic Teaching from whence it came, which is why you perceive it so differently.
Yes…but you see…the Pope really believes that He is the only one on earth, with the *authority *to be able to do this…and who is he’s dedicating it too…. Mary.
This is another example of the slanderous and sarcastic remarks that you make, justifying them as “replies”. You are wrong. this is not what the Pope “really believes” as if you were in a position to determine that", and it is not Catholic teaching.
Code:
You mean babbling nonsense like you are right now.
Another example of an uncharitable comment which you slide into your posts, stating that they are “replies to what was posted”. This does not exemplify anything Christlike at all.
 
40.png
guanophore:
I think it is imperative that you see it that way, so that you can justify rebelling against it.
You are precious guanofreud, err, phore.
 
guanophore;4370148]
Originally Posted by Leeann View Post
Yes…but you see…the Pope really believes that He is the only one on earth, with the authority to be able to do this…and who is he’s dedicating it too…. Mary.
guanophore
This is another example of the slanderous and sarcastic remarks that you make, justifying them as “replies”. You are wrong. this is not what the Pope “really believes” as if you were in a position to determine that", and it is not Catholic teaching.
Nonsense. The pope is expressing not only his belief in Mary and what she can do but also what the Catholic church does in fact teach and promote. This is not slander. You are mistaken again…:eek:
 
40.png
itsjustdave1988:
I disagree. Hebrews doesn’t do away with all priesthood. We have a priesthood of all believers (cf. 1 Peter 2:9, Revelation 5:10). We have a high priest in Jesus Christ. We also continue to have a ministerial priesthood comprised of bishops (episcopoi), priests (presbuteroi). The English word “priest” derives from the Greek NT word presbuteros. For example, James 5:14 makes clear that the priests (presbuteroi) have a distinct role separate from the priesthood of all believers, exhorting those who are among the “priesthood of all believers” to go get the ministeral priest (presbyter), in order that the presbyter pray and annoint the sick person so that they may be healed and forgiven of sins.

James 5:14-15 - “Is any sick among you? let him call for the presbyteros (priests) of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord: And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him.”

If there was no distinct presbyteros to call upon, then the above passage makes no sense. If there was no ministerial priesthood, then any of the “priesthood of all believers” should have been able to anoint the sick person with oil in the name of the Lord, pray, and save the sick and have their sins forgiven. Clearly James understood that there was indeed a ministerial priesthood distinct from the priesthood of all believers, with a unique role in the life of the Church.
You’re wrong, Dave.

Presbeuteros in both the Gospels and epistles is translated Elder, while in those same Gospels and epistles the word Priest is the Greek word hierues.

See your own Catholic Douay-Rheims Bible, Mt 27:12, as an example: both high priest (archiereus), and “ancients” (presbeuteros) in the same verse.

There’s no NT priesthood such as you have in your church.
40.png
itsjustdave1988:
J.N.D. Kelly, a Protestant church historian, traces the papacy from Benedict XVI to Peter. In his book, Oxford Dictionary of the Popes says, “The Papacy is the oldest of all Western institutions with an unbroken existence of almost 2000 years.”
And there are others who say that prior to 300 ad there’s no certainty. I cited Gonzalez as one of them.
40.png
itsjustdave1988:
Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles Peter and Paul… The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate…
Irenaeus attributes the initial appointment to "the apostles," and not specifically to Peter, and that’s not a quibble, but is significant in that Linus is not said to be Peter’s successor.
40.png
itsjustdave1988:
Peter was the chief pastor of the flock, not by human invention, but by commission of the Savior. The first century Christians, those who learned Christianity directly from the apostles themselves, continued this office because this was the NT-established construct. They were charged by the apostles to continue their ministry, so they did so in electing successors to Peter, in accordance with apostolic tradition.
Again, Dave, according to Irenaeus, the successors were those of the apostles, and not just Peter.
40.png
itsjustdave1988:
You might not like the evidence of history, but it is more compelling than the novel interpretations which date no earlier than the 16th century.
The Gospel was rediscovered and recovered in the 16th century; that’s all I care about.
 
Have you not heard that Jesus was tempted in the wilderness.
That he over came sin? By not submitting to the temptation.
Jesus is God in human flesh. He is not half God and half man. He is fully divine and fully man. That is, Jesus has two distinct natures: divine and human. Jesus is the Word who was God and was with God and was made flesh, (John 1:1,14). This means that in the single person of Jesus is both a human and divine nature. Jesus’ two natures are not “mixed together,” nor are they combined into a new God-man nature. They are separate yet act as a unit in the one person of Jesus. This is called the Hypostatic Union.

The man part “flesh” is what he got from Mary. If Mary was a special sinless human then he would never have inherited the man part, that fell into sin. Like God told Abraham I shall provide myself a sacrifice.

Three temptations, each representing the manner in which all men are tempted (1 John 2:16 For all that is in the world–the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life–is not of the Father but is of the world.)
Thank you for clarifying this, Bud. Now it is clear that your rejection of the Teachings results from a deficient understanding of salvation history. 👍

Eve was created without sin. She was fully human, and produced fully human offspring. Mary was created withou tsin, and was fully human, and produced fully human offspring. The offspring of both are “man part” that can fall into sin. Eve chose to fall into sin. Mary did not .

Yes, God provided HImself a sacrifice - an unblemished male lamb, born of a woman, born under the law.
 
You’re wrong, Dave.

Presbeuteros in both the Gospels and epistles is translated Elder, while in those same Gospels and epistles the word Priest is the Greek word hierues.

See your own Catholic Douay-Rheims Bible, Mt 27:12, as an example: both high priest (archiereus), and “ancients” (presbeuteros) in the same verse.

There’s no NT priesthood such as you have in your church.

And there are others who say that prior to 300 ad there’s no certainty. I cited Gonzalez as one of them.

Irenaeus attributes the initial appointment to "the apostles," and not specifically to Peter, and that’s not a quibble, but is significant in that Linus is not said to be Peter’s successor.

Again, Dave, according to Irenaeus, the successors were those of the apostles, and not just Peter.

The Gospel was rediscovered and recovered in the 16th century; that’s all I care about.
I must disagree. The Greeks (Orthodox) view Priests in the same light the Catholics do. That MUST count for something.
 
guanophore needs a proverb to go with his 9952 post

When words are many sin is not absent.
Perhaps you will be kind enough to point out where I have fallen short?

Prov 27:17
17 Iron sharpens iron,
and one person sharpens the wits of another.
 
I still have to wonder… why the hatred towards the Catholic pious devotion to our blessed mother?

Devotion to Mary is the most profound and humbling practice in which to strengthen our love of Christ.

There has been so much blind hate in this thread… So many accusations towards Catholics and towards Mary herself. I have to ask why? Why do you not believe us when we tell you that it is THROUGH our devotion to the Mother of God that we grow more deeply in love with her Son?

The Catholic faith is filled with rich traditions and applications for our faith! It doesn’t just teach us “about” Christ…or encourage a one on one relationship with Christ… it teaches us to LOVE Christ, and to LOVE the family of God! It teaches us to apply that love, not only to our personal relationship with Him, but to let that love flow through our actions, our devotions, and our service.

It is such a beautiful and faithful practice. It reaffirms Christ’s teaching that we are to come as little children. It builds our faith and love for God and all our brothers and sisters in Christ. Why do you condemn us for loving our Lord?
 
I still have to wonder… why the hatred towards the Catholic pious devotion to our blessed mother?

Devotion to Mary is the most profound and humbling practice in which to strengthen our love of Christ.

There has been so much blind hate in this thread… So many accusations towards Catholics and towards Mary herself. I have to ask why? Why do you not believe us when we tell you that it is THROUGH our devotion to the Mother of God that we grow more deeply in love with her Son?

The Catholic faith is filled with rich traditions and applications for our faith! It doesn’t just teach us “about” Christ…or encourage a one on one relationship with Christ… it teaches us to LOVE Christ, and to LOVE the family of God! It teaches us to apply that love, not only to our personal relationship with Him, but to let that love flow through our actions, our devotions, and our service.

It is such a beautiful and faithful practice. It reaffirms Christ’s teaching that we are to come as little children. It builds our faith and love for God and all our brothers and sisters in Christ. Why do you condemn us for loving our Lord?
Does the truth the matter? If a person has good reasons to believe something is not true do they have a responsibility to address that?
 
Nonsense. The pope is expressing not only his belief in Mary and what she can do but also what the Catholic church does in fact teach and promote. This is not slander. You are mistaken again…:eek:
Nosense, guanophore is correct. JA4 you are:thumbsup: wrong again!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top