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

[Non_Serviam]

Wow, lots of discussion in my absence, and the case of clarity and reason has been ably handled by Leeann.

Before I continue to discuss some of the posts that occurred in my absence I have something that I need cleared up.

There is no dichotomy. There is no ‘Mary OR Jesus’.

There is no such thing as Mary being ‘separate’ from Jesus such that she (or indeed any saint in heaven) is a focus, if you will, in and of herself/himself.

So Mary would not be standing ‘here’ and Jesus "there’ with the apostles saying to us, “Dudes, take your eyes from Mary here and turn to Jesus there”.

Mary is not ‘detached’ from Jesus as a semigod, demigod, hemidemisemisquaver god, what have you.

She is standing right there with Him–so close that she cannot be separated from Him, nor He separated from her (or indeed any other of the saints).

LeeAnn, you appear to be confused into thinking that because Mary and the saints are not separated from Jesus as part of the Body of Christ, that they are thus no longer individuals in themselves.

Mary did not ‘disappear’ into Jesus. She is present with Jesus, not separated from Him but not ‘swallowed up’ by Him.

In response to comments by Guanophore and Tantum Ergo on the “unity” between Jesus and Mary I posted a point in which I noted that Catholics make at least one distinction between Mary and Jesus as worship is said to be offered only to Jesus and not Mary. In response to this and comments by Leeann, Tantum Ergo made the first 2 quotes above, continuing to emphasize that unity above all else.

After Leeann quite rightly showed him that if everything flows through Mary to Jesus then it would be ok to worship Mary since it would flow through to Jesus he backtracked to the position espoused in the third quote.

What I want to know is:

Did Tantum Ergo already believe in distinctions between Mary and Jesus and used the language of the first two quotes in bad faith as a debating trick in hopes that it might win a victory at the expense of truth, or did the exchange with Leeann actually clarify his thinking on the situation, causing him to better understand the relationship between Jesus and Mary than he had previously?

I’m hoping it isn’t the former, but I feel compelled to ask due to his repeated attempts to badger us into proving negative arguments along with repeated ad hominem arguments and straw men.

So before leaping to address any other questions on the thread, I am hoping Tantum Ergo will answer the one first.

Thanks in advance.

 

[Non_Serviam]

Now let’s tidy this point up:

No, it does not. Catholics only ask for prayer from those we believe are alive in heaven with Christ.

No, actually, it is the insistence that the saints are not dead.

I should think so. I do not believe that there is such a thing as a “dead” saint. If they are a saint, then they are alive in heaven with Christ. If they are “dead”, then they are in hell, and not a saint.

I think we agree more than we disagree. But first a couple of quotes:
NEW LAWS FOR THE CAUSES OF SAINTS:

1. a) The Bishop competent to instruct causes of canonization is the one in whose territory the Servant of God died, unless particular circumstances, recognized as such by the Sacred Congregation, suggest otherwise.
2. a) In recent causes, the petition must be presented no sooner than five years after the death of the Servant of God.
3. a) Before the inquiry is concluded, the Bishop or his delegate is to inspect carefully the tomb of the Servant of God, the room in which he lived or died and, if there be any, other places where someone can display signs of cult in his honor. He is also to make a declaration on the observance of the decrees of Urban VIII regarding the absence of cult.(5)

(Full text at vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/csaints/documents/rc_con_csaints_doc_07021983_norme_en.html )

Paul:

For to me life is Christ, and death is gain

Neither the Vatican, nor the Apostle Paul attempt to separate death and believers as you do. Paul recognizes there is a sense in which a believer who has died is alive with Christ, but he also recognizes that there is a difference between that believer and one who has not died in the flesh.

Likewise there is a difference between the life experienced by Lazarus or the holy Jews after the Resurrection and the life now experienced by those who have died in Christ.

I use the term “dead saints” to make a distinction between those believers who have died and:

a) saints still living on the earth (as Paul uses the term in his Epistles to refer to the believers to whom he is writing)
b) certain Angels that the Catholic Church has chosen to recognize as saints, since Mary wasn’t and isn’t an angel.

It is simply a matter of precision without resorting to a labourious phrase such as “those believers who having died are no longer active participants in the physical church on earth” which would get monotonous for both of us.

If you’d like to suggest a term that preserves the distinction while remaining brief, feel free.

Likewise, guanophore stated that I reject “the Communion of Saints” and as the Catholic Church defines it, I don’t see Apostolic madate for it-but to be clear, I don’t reject all things under that heading.

I accept that those believers who have died are still to be considered part of the church. (and so did the Apostles)

I accept that those dead saints do indeed pray to God (John tells us so in the Apocalypse)

I accept that some of those prayers may be intercession for others on earth (Paul suggests that this is the case)

I DON’T accept a statement that suggests the Apostles told us to ask dead saints for prayers as there is no evidence that they did so or that they told others to do so. As stated before neither the catechism, nor the Catholic Encyclopedia suggest that the Apostles ever taught this practice.

There are clear examples of the Apostles teaching Baptism, Real Presence, Inspiration of Scripture, the Divinity of Christ both in Scripture and in writings of the earliest ECF’s.

There is nothing in Scripture or in the earliest ECF’s that cites an Apostle as having participated in or having taught the practice of praying to dead saints.

As I’ve said before, Catholics can still defend the practice on the basis of “development of doctrine” but the Apostolic imprimateur isn’t there as it is for the other doctrines mentioned above.

So bringing it back to the OP, one is still faced with the numerous examples of the Apostles pointing seekers directly to God the Father via Jesus and no examples of them doing so via Mary or a dead saint. And no examples of the Catechism saying that they did so.

Which brings us back to where we were before.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Good evening, Non Serviam. Just as a minor note of information, I’m a she, not a he.

And the answer to your question:

My quotes were neither made in ‘bad faith’ as a debating tool :

NOR

after reading LeeAnn’s words did I ‘come to a better understanding’. I had a perfectly good understanding the first time.

I stand by my remarks. The unity between Mary and Jesus in the body of Christ (or indeed between Jesus and any saint) as I have expressed it I thought was quite clear. If you do not find it so, I regret that it is not clear to you.

As for the remarks of my being dishonest, browbeating, badgering etc., well, we’ll just let my posts stand for themselves. Again, if you have found them as such, I sincerely regret that they were not clear to you.

With best wishes for clear understanding at all times,
Mistress TE

 

[Non_Serviam]

Good evening, Non Serviam. Just as a minor note of information, I’m a she, not a he.

And the answer to your question:

My quotes were neither made in ‘bad faith’ as a debating tool :

NOR

after reading LeeAnn’s words did I ‘come to a better understanding’. I had a perfectly good understanding the first time.

I stand by my remarks. The unity between Mary and Jesus in the body of Christ (or indeed between Jesus and any saint) as I have expressed it I thought was quite clear. If you do not find it so, I regret that it is not clear to you.

As for the remarks of my being dishonest, browbeating, badgering etc., well, we’ll just let my posts stand for themselves. Again, if you have found them as such, I sincerely regret that they were not clear to you.

With best wishes for clear understanding at all times,
Mistress TE

My apologies for the error about your gender. I try to be precise with my words, but the medium doesn’t always make that possible.

Thank you for answering my question-I don’t particularly want to spend what little time I have on this forum engaged in debating tussles with someone who thinks it is “fun”. I have no problem in working through a difference of opinion with someone who honestly wants to do so. In all honesty, the repeated requests that I defend a negative gave that impression.

As I stated in my second post today, I agree that there is an aspect in which saints (including Mary) are united to Christ, being part of the church, and at the same time there are clear distinctions between Jesus and these saints.

An analogy would be spending the evening at the house of a married couple-Scripture tells us clearly they are one, but if you spend the entire evening speaking only to the wife, it isn’t kosher to tell everyone the next day that you spent the evening talking to the husband (since the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is head of the church Eph 5:23) is it?

I believe that’s the point Leeann has been trying to make in her responses-that there is a difference in speaking with Mary instead of Jesus, since no matter how much she focuses on Him, she is still a separate person (In the theological sense of “person” at the very least)

Thoughts?

 

[Roy5]

WHY DOESN’T PAUL MENTION MARY?

A major problem I have with such emphasis on Mary is that we can search all the letters of St. Paul and he never once mentions her.

 Paul deals with all sorts of theological issues. Much Christian theology stems from his epistles. The fact that he doesn't so much as refers to Mary has always made me ask why she has become so central in worship? Honoring Mary as the mother of Christ is one thing. However, much Mariology has gone well beyond that and treats her as though she were a goddess who exercises enormous influence over God, her son.  Else, why does the Rosary, for example, have so many 'Hail Marys' as compared to the 'Our Fathers'?

 

[Non_Serviam]

WHY DOESN’T PAUL MENTION MARY?

A major problem I have with such emphasis on Mary is that we can search all the letters of St. Paul and he never once mentions her.

 Paul deals with all sorts of theological issues. Much Christian theology stems from his epistles. The fact that he doesn't so much as refers to Mary has always made me ask why she has become so central in worship? Honoring Mary as the mother of Christ is one thing. However, much Mariology has gone well beyond that and treats her as though she were a goddess who exercises enormous influence over God, her son.  Else, why does the Rosary, for example, have so many 'Hail Marys' as compared to the 'Our Fathers'?

While it is true that Paul doesn’t address Mary in any theological way, the New Testament as a whole and early Christian writings make it clear that she was highly respected in the early church and considered to have been given a singular honour by God.

While it often appears that many go overboard in their focus on her and the language used in doing so, it must be remembered that she never asked for that and shouldn’t be disdained as a result-she should get the respect that the New Testament says she’s entitled to.

 

[guanophore]

So if Mary is not ‘detached’ from Jesus, why is there a differentiation in the type of “worship” allowed to her…she must be “separate” in some regard to necessitate this….for if Mary is so closely attached to Jesus and vice versa as you claim….then when you are “venerating” Mary…you are “venerating” Jesus….it stands to reason also then, that when you are worshipping Jesus/GOD…you are worshipping Mary…yes?..as they cannot be separated.

I can understand this quandary. Think of it this way. Picture the shepherds and the wise men coming to adore the Lord. He was an infant at his mother’s breast, or a toddler on her lap. They came to adore HIm, but she was not separated from Him. She is not the focus of the adoration, but she is present.

This is why we say you have created a false dichotomy in the OP. Jesus no longer needs to sit on Mary’s lap, but she is still present with Him as His mother and His disciple. Just as the shepherds and wise men would be pointed to HIm by His mother, so today. This is why Catholics pray “show unto us the blessed fruit of your womb, Jesus”. She holds HIm forth to the world as much today as she did in Bethlehem.

All members of the communion of saints are “with Christ” inseparable in unity. Yet, when we come together to worship Him we do not end up worshipping one another!

Scripture tells us that we are all united, as true and faithful believers in spirit and are members of His Body and that no one can separate us from the love of God.

Yes. Every faithful Christian should “point” to Christ just as the Apostles and Mary do. However, sometimes a Christian is the only"bible" a person might ever read. There are some people in my life that have no connection or experience of Christ. I may be the only “Christ” they ever personally encounter. We all have the responsibility to point to HIm. Someone very separated from Him may say to one of us “if you cannot help us, where can we turn?” It is an opportunity to point to Him, and to manifest Him to the world. I am sure that you have tried to do this with your over the top Marian devotee loved ones.

Scripture tells us about Jesus and how HE is above ALL things created…that EVERY knee shall bow and EVERY tongue confess….on earth, in heaven….

Amen! Even though the wise men bowed down and offered gifts with Mary and Joseph present, their worship was directed to Him.
Leeann;4721236:

I’ll refer you to your own very first sentence of your post:

“There is no such thing as Mary being ‘separate’ from Jesus such that she (or indeed any saint in heaven) is a focus, if you will, in and of herself/himself.”

You have described people in your life who apparently have gotten off track, and do focus on Mary in what appears to you to be the “exclusion” of Christ, so obviously this does happen. However, the Catholic Church teaches that only God is to be worshipped and adored, and offering this to anyone else is idolatry.

What about the all the shrines and statues….named for Mary, in honor of Mary……do they not qualify as being separate from Jesus in such that “she is the focus”.

Well, for faithful Catholics they are not. They are like having photographs of beloved family members. However, in the early days of the Church, there were no photos or paintings (that came later). Shrines at graves were common, and statues commemorating those we honor.

In my part of the country, there is a statue of Onate. I find it a despicable commemoration (he was a spanish conquistador that chopped off the foot of native americans that escaped from the reservation where they were imprisoned). However, he is highly honored and respected by most of those of Spanish descent here. They don’t worship him, though.

Mary always points to Jesus, so any attention to her will be redirected to HIm.

 

[guanophore]

All that are “in HIM” and all those that “HE is in”…how much closer do you need to get?

I am sure there are degrees which I cannot even fathom.

But Mary is not among human beings, she is in heaven

Do you think there are no human beings there? Being in heaven does not separate her from the Body of Christ. Part of that Body is in heaven, part here on earth. She is “among” us to the extent that she is in the communion of Saints. You can see more of who is in the “great cloud of witnesses” by reading Heb. ch. 11.

Pride propels all humans at times to extremes….some in the way you described above, where they loose all sight of the fact that God is Holy and Just and they forget that we will all have to stand before Him one day and be Judged….and then there are those who go to extremes in the other direction and believe that He is some cosmic ‘ogre’ who only wants people to be ‘scared’ and ‘guilty’ and ‘unworthy’ to approach His throne of Grace – even after they proclaim that they believe and have been baptized and trust and have faith in the efficacy of the blood sacrifice of His Son.

It would be a mistake to think that we are perfect just because we become Christians. In fact, even the most faithful disciple will do things that are unworthy of Him.

We do not become eligible to approach the throne of grace because we are worthy, but because Christ is worthy. We spend our lives learning to bear fruit that befits repentance.

This belief is so distorted that they have to devise practices in how to “navigate more gently” into His presence and place their hope and faith and focus in or through the efficacy of Mary’s or other special “Saint’s” prayers to do so. (both Mary and these “Saints” having their own special “righteousness” now afforded to them by these people, in order to make this practice viable in their reasoning).

As a catechist. I will be the first to agree that there is a gross degree of distortion present. It is hard to find a Catholic in the average parish that is not in need of catechesis. However, I really don’t see a problem with navigating more gently to God. He uses His people to draw all unto Himself. When we see a good role model, it is inspiring and encourages us to follow along the same steep and narrow way.

Paul said he became all things to all men that by all means he may “save some”. Do we imagine that he thought he was saving others apart from God’s grace?

What does that specifically have to do with regards to praying to/through Mary…
the Apostles never taught or encouraged this practice and none of the scriptures quoted do either.

You say things like this because you are cut off from the portion of Apostolic teaching that is not found in Scripture.

The NT was not intended to be a liturgical or catechetical manual of the faith. The assumption that all we need to know about the faith is contained within it is a modern error that constitutes a “different gospel” than the one that was delivered to us. We know that this is part of the faith of the Apostles because it has been preserved in what has been handed down to us from them.

 

[diggingdeeper]

I am sure there are degrees which I cannot even fathom.

Do you think there are no human beings there? Being in heaven does not separate her from the Body of Christ. Part of that Body is in heaven, part here on earth. She is “among” us to the extent that she is in the communion of Saints. You can see more of who is in the “great cloud of witnesses” by reading Heb. ch. 11.

It would be a mistake to think that we are perfect just because we become Christians. In fact, even the most faithful disciple will do things that are unworthy of Him.

We do not become eligible to approach the throne of grace because we are worthy, but because Christ is worthy. We spend our lives learning to bear fruit that befits repentance.

As a catechist. I will be the first to agree that there is a gross degree of distortion present. It is hard to find a Catholic in the average parish that is not in need of catechesis. However, I really don’t see a problem with navigating more gently to God. He uses His people to draw all unto Himself. When we see a good role model, it is inspiring and encourages us to follow along the same steep and narrow way.

Paul said he became all things to all men that by all means he may “save some”. Do we imagine that he thought he was saving others apart from God’s grace?

You say things like this because you are cut off from the portion of Apostolic teaching that is not found in Scripture.

The NT was not intended to be a liturgical or catechetical manual of the faith. The assumption that all we need to know about the faith is contained within it is a modern error that constitutes a “different gospel” than the one that was delivered to us. We know that this is part of the faith of the Apostles because it has been preserved in what has been handed down to us from them.

Why is your Bible just like all the other Bibles (with tiny variances)?

 

[guanophore]

Why is your Bible just like all the other Bibles (with tiny variances)?

I don’t believe it is. Catholics use the collection of scriptures that was used by Jesus and the Apostles. The Reformers took out seven books. I hardly call that a “tiny variance”, especially when so much of the content of those books is about the Apostolic faith.

Furthremore, the Catholic faith is not “bible based”. Our faith comes from Jesus, through the Apostles. We receive the faith as it was entrusted to faithful men who were able to teach others also. The Bible, esp. the New Testament, reflects the Catholic faith because it was produced by Catholics, for Catholics. However, the Source of our faith is Jesus. We do not separate the Apostolic Teaching from the Bible produced by it.

 

[Leeann]

Guanophore

*Originally Posted by Leeann *
So if Mary is not ‘detached’ from Jesus, why is there a differentiation in the type of “worship” allowed to her…she must be “separate” in some regard to necessitate this….for if Mary is so closely attached to Jesus and vice versa as you claim….then when you are “venerating” Mary…you are “venerating” Jesus….it stands to reason also then, that when you are worshipping Jesus/GOD…you are worshipping Mary…yes?..as they cannot be separated.

Guanophore:
I can understand this quandary. Think of it this way. Picture the shepherds and the wise men coming to adore the Lord. He was an infant at his mother’s breast, or a toddler on her lap. They came to adore Him, but she was not separated from Him. She is not the focus of the adoration, but she is present.

As any good mother would have been. But that has nothing to do with my quote you posted above and to what it was originally in reference too.

Guanophore
This is why we say you have created a false dichotomy in the OP. Jesus no longer needs to sit on Mary’s lap, but she is still present with Him as His mother and His disciple.

And how does that make the OP a false dichotomy….the OP is not about whether Jesus needs to sit on Mary’s lap, or whether she is present with Him….it’s with regards to whom the Apostles would have pointed the Pope to in prayer……Mary or Jesus.

Guanophore:
Just as the shepherds and wise men would be pointed to HIm by His mother, so today.
This is why Catholics pray “show unto us the blessed fruit of your womb, Jesus”. She holds HIm forth to the world as much today as she did in Bethlehem.

Based on what was recorded as to her significance of being with her Baby or Child - *as would be commonly expected of any mother *– this in no way supports the claim of being able to pray to/through her, as there is no evidence that Mary held Him forth to the shepherds or the wise men in Bethlehem.
The angels heralded the news of Christ’s birth to the shepherds and told them where they would find Him….and when they did find Him…Mary didn’t have to “hold Him forth” or “point to Him” - all focus was on HIM….they knew who He was.

Luke 2: 15 – 2

10 And the angel said to them: Fear not; for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, that shall be to all the people: 11 For, this day, is born to you a Saviour, who is Christ the Lord, in the city of David. 12 And this shall be a sign unto you. **You shall find the infant **(nothing about Mary)wrapped in swaddling clothes, and laid in a manger. 13 And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly army, praising God, and saying: 14 Glory to God in the highest; and on earth peace to men of good will. 15 And it came to pass, after the angels departed from them into heaven, the shepherds said one to another: Let us go over to Bethlehem, and let us see this word that is come to pass, which the Lord hath showed to us. 16 And they came with haste; and they found Mary and Joseph, and the infant lying in the manger. 17 And seeing, they understood of the word that had been spoken to them concerning this child. (nothing about Mary)18 And all that heard, wondered; and at those things that were told them by the shepherds. 19 **But Mary kept all these words, pondering them in her heart. (she was pondering) **20 And the shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God, for all the things they had heard and seen, as it was told unto them.

In **Matthew 2 **we also see the amount of significance that is afforded to Mary when the wise men visited.

9 Who having heard the king, went their way; and behold the star which they had seen in the east, went before them, until it came and stood over where the child was. 10 And seeing the star they rejoiced with exceeding great joy. 11 And entering into the house, they found the child with Mary his mother,(**which is perfectly normal) **and falling down they **adored him; **and opening their treasures, they offered him gifts; gold, frankincense, and myrrh.

Once again, Mary didn’t have to “hold Him forth” or “point Him out”…the wise men “knew” who He was and they “adored HIM”.

Leeann - Scripture tells us about Jesus and how HE is above ALL things created…that EVERY knee shall bow and EVERY tongue confess….on earth, in heaven….

Guanophore
Amen! Even though the wise men bowed down and offered gifts with Mary and Joseph present, their worship was directed to Him.

There’s no reference to Joseph’s presence.

 

[Leeann]

Originally Posted by Leeann *
I’ll refer you to your own very first sentence of your post:

“There is no such thing as Mary being ‘separate’ from Jesus such that she (or indeed any saint in heaven) is a focus, if you will, **in and of **herself/himself.”

*Response by Leeann *
What about the all the shrines and statues….named for Mary, in honor of Mary……do they not qualify as being separate from Jesus in such that “she is the focus”.

Guanophore
Well, for faithful Catholics they are not. They are like having photographs of beloved family members. However, in the early days of the Church, there were no photos or paintings (that came later). Shrines at graves were common, and statues commemorating those we honor.

Nevertheless….they are named for Mary and in honor of Mary – not Jesus.With regards to the shrines and statues of Mary,being “like having photographs of beloved family members”……the big difference would be that you wouldn’t be **praying to/through **beloved family members.

Guanophore
In my part of the country, there is a statue of Onate. I find it a despicable commemoration (he was a spanish conquistador that chopped off the foot of native americans that escaped from the reservation where they were imprisoned). However, he is highly honored and respected by most of those of Spanish descent here. They don’t worship him, though.

Yes….and I don’t imagine they **pray to/through **him either….so the reference made to Onate is totally irrelevant to the topic at hand. Apple/oranges.

Guanophore:
Mary always points to Jesus, so any attention to her will be redirected to HIm.

There shouldn’t be any attention to Mary **that would necessitate **her pointing to Him in the first place.

 

[Leeann]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leeann
But Mary is not among human beings, she is in heaven

Guanophore:
Do you think there are no human beings there? Being in heaven does not separate her from the Body of Christ. Part of that Body is in heaven, part here on earth. She is “among” us to the extent that she is in the communion of Saints. You can see more of who is in the “great cloud of witnesses” by reading Heb. ch. 11.

Oh guanophore……the quote of mine you posted is in response to another dialogue I was engaged in and then question you asked below it…are so out of context and have nothing at all to do with what you are trying to imply……as if I was somehow saying that “being in heaven separates Mary from the Body of Christ”. :tsktsk:

Guanophore
As a catechist. I will be the first to agree that there is a gross degree of distortion present. It is hard to find a Catholic in the average parish that is not in need of catechesis. However, I really don’t see a problem with navigating more gently to God. He uses His people to draw all unto Himself. When we see a good role model, it is inspiring and encourages us to follow along the same steep and narrow way.

Navigating more gently to God is always a good practice, but not if it means having to **pray to/through **anyone else, as the Apostles always encouraged and pointed the early believers to go with faith and boldness (due to the virtue an efficacy of Christ’s blood) directly to His throne of Grace.

Guanophore
Paul said he became all things to all men that by all means he may “save some”. Do we imagine that he thought he was saving others apart from God’s grace?

Of course not…and just as Paul used himself as an example, we too are to be examples to one another and to those who do not yet know Jesus as their Lord and Savior, by God’s grace through us….that’s a given, how can we not be examples if we are truly in Him and He in us!

 

[Leeann]

Originally Posted by Leeann
What does that specifically have to do with regards to praying to/through Mary…
the Apostles never taught or encouraged this practice and none of the scriptures quoted do either.

Guanophore:
You say things like this because you are cut off from the portion of Apostolic teaching that is not found in Scripture.

Okay…here we go again…

You say things like this because this is what you HAVE to believe because it is taught by the Catholic Church and if you don’t….you’ll be in big trouble

Guanophore
The NT was not intended to be a liturgical or catechetical manual of the faith.

Well not of the Catholic Church’s faith…………

Guanophore
The assumption that all we need to know about the faith is contained within it is a modern error that constitutes a “different gospel” than the one that was delivered to us.

The assumption that all we need to know about the Catholic Faith itself is not contained within scripture, is what the Catholic Church teaches - however with regards to its sufficiency for the Christian faith of all true and faithful believers within the Body of Christ it is…sufficient.

Guanophore
We know that this is part of the faith of the Apostles because it has been preserved in what has been handed down to us from them.

A “different gospel” can easily be ascertained by comparing what the Apostles taught the early believers of the churches they established, where they themselves cautioned the early believers not to follow the traditions of men but to remember and adhere to the practices that they HAD already been taught, both by word of mouth and by their epistle ….not by things “handed down” or “developed” later by men.

 

[ron77nyc]

Okay…here we go again…

The assumption that all we need to know about the Catholic Faith itself is not contained within scripture, is what the Catholic Church teaches - however with regards to its sufficiency for the Christian faith of all true and faithful believers within the Body of Christ it is…sufficient.

A “different gospel” can easily be ascertained by comparing what the Apostles taught the early believers of the churches they established, where they themselves cautioned the early believers not to follow the traditions of men but to remember and adhere to the practices that they HAD already been taught, both by word of mouth and by their epistle ….not by things “handed down” or “developed” later by men.

I was reading the Colossians 2 in the USCCB website. The US Conference of Catholic Bishops. Look at their footnotes.

2 [4-23] In face of the threat posed by false teachers (Col 2:4), the Colossians are admonished to adhere to the gospel as it was first preached to them (Col 2:6), steeping themselves in it with grateful hearts (Col 2:7). They must reject religious teachings originating in any source except the gospel (Col 2:8) because in Christ alone will they have access to God, the deity (Col 2:9). So fully has Christ enlightened them that they need no other source of religious knowledge or virtue (Col 2:10). They do not require circumcision (Col 2:11), for in baptism their whole being has been affected by Christ (Col 2:12) through forgiveness of sin and resurrection to a new life (Col 2:13; cf Col 3:1 and Romans 6:1-11). On the cross Christ canceled the record of the debt that stood against us with all its claims (Col 2:14), i.e., he eliminated the law (cf Eph 2:15) that human beings could not observe–and that could not save them. He forgave sins against the law (Col 2:14) and exposed as false and misleading (Col 2:15) all other powers (cf Col 1:16) that purport to offer salvation. Therefore, the Colossians are not to accept judgments from such teachers on food and drink or to keep certain religious festivals or engage in certain cultic practices (Col 2:16), for the Colossians would thereby risk severing themselves from Christ (Col 2:19). If, when they accepted the gospel, they believed in Christ as their savior, they must be convinced that their salvation cannot be achieved by appeasing ruling spirits through dietary practices or through a wisdom gained simply by means of harsh asceticism (Col 2:20-23).

 

[guanophore]

As any good mother would have been. But that has nothing to do with my quote you posted above and to what it was originally in reference too.

Well, ok. I cannot think of a better way to respond to it, so maybe Good Fella can do better. It seems clear to me that worshipping Christ while Mary is present is not the same as worshipping Mary. Talking to Mary while Jesus is present does not “subtract” from Jesus. She has her role as mother to Him, she is not a goddess. She remains in the role He gave to her. She receives our honor and “blessing” for it,but is not to be worshipped.

And how does that make the OP a false dichotomy….the OP is not about whether Jesus needs to sit on Mary’s lap, or whether she is present with Him….it’s with regards to whom the Apostles would have pointed the Pope to in prayer……Mary or Jesus.

Mary always points to Jesus. The Apostles always point to Jesus. If someone looks to the servants of God, they point to Jesus. The false dichotomy is “either/or”.

Based on what was recorded as to her significance of being with her Baby or Child - *as would be commonly expected of any mother *– this in no way supports the claim of being able to pray to/through her, as there is no evidence that Mary held Him forth to the shepherds or the wise men in Bethlehem.

I agree. It also does not indicate that we must refuse to interact with her because we are focused on Christ.

The angels heralded the news of Christ’s birth to the shepherds and told them where they would find Him….and when they did find Him…Mary didn’t have to “hold Him forth” or “point to Him” - all focus was on HIM….they knew who He was.

Do you think? I always imagined the shepherds had to go looking about the town to find which manger He was in. The town was small, granted but swelled to overflow with the census traffic. How did they know, when they went to inquire at that stable, if they were in the right place? Why would Mary NOT confirm for them that they were, by showing them the baby?

Luke 2: 15 – 2

And they came with haste; and they found Mary and Joseph, and the infant lying in the manger. 17 And seeing, they understood of the word that had been spoken to them concerning this child. (nothing about Mary)18 And all that heard, wondered; and at those things that were told them by the shepherds. 19 **But Mary kept all these words, pondering them in her heart. (she was pondering) **20 And the shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God, for all the things they had heard and seen, as it was told unto them.

This passage also contains another of Mary’s examples that we strive to emulate, keeping God’s words, and pondering them in the heart. This practice of hers is one of the reasons that Jesus said “blessed even more is the one who hears the Word of God, and keeps it”. She was blessed to give birth to Him, but even more blessed because she kept all these words, and pondered them.

In **Matthew 2 **we also see the amount of significance that is afforded to Mary when the wise men visited.

9 Who having heard the king, went their way; and behold the star which they had seen in the east, went before them, until it came and stood over where the child was. 10 And seeing the star they rejoiced with exceeding great joy. 11 And entering into the house, they found the child with Mary his mother,(**which is perfectly normal) **and falling down they **adored him; **and opening their treasures, they offered him gifts; gold, frankincense, and myrrh.

I agree, it is perfectly NORMAL! This is why I cannot undertstand why there is such a drive to excise Mary from the picture.

Once again, Mary didn’t have to “hold Him forth” or “point Him out”…the wise men “knew” who He was and they “adored HIM”.

And nothing was subtracted from Him because she was present, either.

There’s no reference to Joseph’s presence.

True. He is presumed to be present. Oh for a fuller accounting!

Nevertheless….they are named for Mary and in honor of Mary – not Jesus.With regards to the shrines and statues of Mary,being “like having photographs of beloved family members”……the big difference would be that you wouldn’t be **praying to/through **beloved family members.

Here is the false dichotomy again. Mary AND NOT Jesus. Since Mary’s soul magnifies the Lord, any honor to her is magnified unto Him. Actually, I do have some family members that are very good prayer warriors. I do not hesitate to ask them for prayers.

Yes….and I don’t imagine they **pray to/through **him either….so the reference made to Onate is totally irrelevant to the topic at hand. Apple/oranges.

It is an example that a statue is a way of commemorating a person, not an act of worship, or necesarily tied to worship, or even religious practice, for that matter.

 

[Roy5]

REGARDING OLD TESTAMENT BOOKS

 Just one little matter. Both the Catholics and Protestants can justify their number of books in the Old Testament. However, the Protestant version is the same one you will find in Jewish synagogues. 

  Protestants don't fully reject the other seven, but place them in the Apocrypha which is respected but not seen as part of the canon.

 

[guanophore]

There shouldn’t be any attention to Mary **that would necessitate **her pointing to Him in the first place.

This is your personal opinion and assumption. However, the fact of the matter is that we are human, and we live in a world populated by humans. God decided to become human, and He has ordained that all humans belonging to Him should point to Him. He has enabled us, by His spirit, to manifest him, in our humanity, to the world, so that the world can come to know Him. If we are not drawing attention that can be pointed to Christ, then we are failing to be salt and light in the world.

Oh guanophore……the quote of mine you posted is in response to another dialogue I was engaged in and then question you asked below it…are so out of context and have nothing at all to do with what you are trying to imply……as if I was somehow saying that “being in heaven separates Mary from the Body of Christ”. :tsktsk:

Oh. OK. I had the communion of saints on my mind, and my thought process was contaminated by another thread I was reading. I am glad that we are in agreement that being in heaven does not separate the saints from the Body.

Navigating more gently to God is always a good practice, but not if it means having to **pray to/through **anyone else, as the Apostles always encouraged and pointed the early believers to go with faith and boldness (due to the virtue an efficacy of Christ’s blood) directly to His throne of Grace.

Well, we see it differently. There are many people who have been deeply wounded by what they were taught to think of as “God”. Some have suffered from religious abuse, or have a very warped view of God as “Father”. I think it is good for them to start wherever they are. If there is a godly person that they feel comfortable being with, talking , reading scripture, and prayer then they can grow into that “boldness”.

Of course not…and just as Paul used himself as an example, we too are to be examples to one another and to those who do not yet know Jesus as their Lord and Savior, by God’s grace through us….that’s a given, how can we not be examples if we are truly in Him and He in us!

Are we not in agreement that every time someone tried to exalt Paul, he vigorously directed them to Christ? This is what Mary does also.

 

[guanophore]

You say things like this because this is what you HAVE to believe because it is taught by the Catholic Church and if you don’t….you’ll be in big trouble

Actually, no, that is not a consideration for me. I lived largely content as a Protestant for 20+ years after being baptized as a Catholic. I spent 3 years in a Protestant seminary, at which time I discovered my own family history. I realized that I had cut myself off from the Apostolic Succession, so I came back. I did not do this because I was in “big trouble” but because I was fully pursuaded that the Church that Jesus founded was, and is, Catholic.

I began to earnestly apprehend the Teaching of the Apostles, including the portion that is not explicit in Scripture. I found that the Catholic Church had received and obeyed the Apostolic commandment to preserve the Sacred Traditions just as they were handed down.
Leeann;4726102:

Well not of the Catholic Church’s faith…………

There was only one faith when it was written, Leeann. It was not until 1500 years later, when some people decided to separate from the authority appointed by Christ, that the decision was made to use the Bible as if it were a complete liturgical and catecuminal manual. This decision has resulted in the fruit of division and separation that we seen in the Body of Christ today.
The reason we know it was an error is by the fruit it has produced.
The Scriptures were never meant to be separated from the Sacred Tradition that produced them.

The assumption that all we need to know about the Catholic Faith itself is not

contained within scripture, is what the Catholic Church teaches - however with regards to its sufficiency for the Christian faith of all true and faithful believers within the Body of Christ it is…sufficient.

And since you consider it so, you have cut yourself off from the portion of Apostolic Tradition that is not contained within it’s pages. Therefore, you say “the Apostles did not teach”…because you cannot find it in your bible.

A “different gospel” can easily be ascertained by comparing what the Apostles taught the early believers of the churches they established, where they themselves cautioned the early believers not to follow the traditions of men but to remember and adhere to the practices that they HAD already been taught, both by word of mouth and by their epistle ….not by things “handed down” or “developed” later by men.

It is true that the traditions of men are prone to error, however, the Sacred Traditions that were delivered “by word of mouth or by letter” are protected by the Holy Spirit, just as the Holy Scriptures have been. The things that were handed down are what they taught, there is not difference between the two. These practices, put in place by the Apostles, are the same as we have today.

Development of doctrine is another matter. Certain things had to be developed in response to heresies. The reason we know that praying to the saints is not a later development is because the church had furious responses to heretical (non-Apostolic) doctrines and practices.

If you think that development is not necessary, or guided by God, then you will have to throw out all the fruit of it, such as the hypostatic union, the Trinity, the canon of the NT, etc, etc.

 

[Good_Fella]

REGARDING OLD TESTAMENT BOOKS

 Just one little matter. Both the Catholics and Protestants can justify their number of books in the Old Testament. However, the Protestant version is the same one you will find in Jewish synagogues. 

  Protestants don't fully reject the other seven, but place them in the Apocrypha which is respected but not seen as part of the canon.

At the Council of Rome (A.D. 382) Pope Damasus in his infallible decree listed the books that belong to the canon we have today in the Church.

His decision was finally ratified by the Council of Trent in 1556 in the wake of the errors of the Reformers, who with no divine authority rejected seven of the Old Testament books at the time.

If you believe that the Jews, who rejected Christ, have the authority to dismiss seven books of the Old Testament, then to be consistent you must grant them the authority to reject the New Testament books as well.

Luke referred to the Book of Judith which Luther rejected:

“Blessed are you, our God, who today have brought to nought the enemies of your people. Blessed are you, daughter, by the Most High God, above all the women on earth.”
Judith 13, 17-18

And Elizabeth, filled with the Holy Spirit, cried out in a loud voice and said, “Most blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb.”
Luke 1, 42

“Your deed of hope will never be forgotten by those who tell of the might of God.”
Judith 13, 19

“Blessed are you who believed that what was spoken to you by the Lord would be fulfilled.”
Luke 1, 45

"May God make this redound to your everlasting honor, rewarding you with blessings, because you risked your life when your people were being oppressed, and YOU diverted our disaster, walking uprightly before our God. And all the people answered, “Amen! Amen!”
Judith 13, 20

And Mary said,
“My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord;
my spirit rejoices in God my saviour.
For he has looked upon his handmaid’s lowliness;
behold, from now all generations will call me blessed.
The Mighty one has done great things for me,
and holy is his name.
His mercy is from age to age to those who fear him.”
Luke 1, 46-50

Coincidence?

Since many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the events that have been fulfilled among us [Sacred Tradition], just as those who were eyewitnesses from the beginning and ministers of the word have handed them down to us [Oral Tradition], I too have decided, after investigating everything accurately anew, to write it down in an orderly sequence for you [Sacred Scripture], the most excellent Theophilus, so that you may realize the certainty of the teachings you have received.
Luke 1, 1-4

PAX :tiphat: