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

[Non_Serviam]

I can’t believe you made this post at this point, so I’m gonna have to digress.

Put yourself in my shoes for a moment, coming back from a weekend away and reading the posts from mid to late 70’s. I’ve seen lots of hypotheses, speculations, inferences and deductions, but no solid link to the Apostles. I became perhaps a bit perturbed. My apologies.

Per your two points-Peter did speak to Tabitha-we don’t read that he asked her to pray for him. Jesus also spoke to a fig tree-we don’t ask those for prayer either. Likewise, we don’t think of Jesus asking Lazarus to intercede for Him.

As for the point about angels-they aren’t dead saints. Two more cases of apples and oranges.

 

[Non_Serviam]

I think this is a fair argument only if you are willing to apply it consistently throughout your theology. Nowhere in scripture or history do we have evidence that the Apsotles taught the doctrine of the Trinity. Yet most protestants accept the notion without question. The same is true regarding the nature of Jesus Christ as the Second Person of the Trinity, One Person with both a human nature and a divine nature. But the reality is that these doctrines developed over a long period of time that exceeded the livetimes of the Apostles. So, from a Catholic perspective, it is consistent to see the development of the doctrine of the community of saints, with roots in scripture and tradition, coming to this age from the deposit of faith.

Are you willing to apply this argument consistently? If so, you can start throwing out not just the community of the saints, but the Trinity. The Hypostatic union, and other common christian doctrines I am sure.

Peace,
-Robert

Robert,

Your point is well taken, and it is something that I’ve thought about a great deal. All of the definitions you mention occurred after the time of the Apostles. I think you’ll agree with me that the Apostles never recited the Nicene or Athanasian creeds, nor the Chalcedonian formula. Yet we have no doubt that they and those to whom they preached who responded were saved.

Does that mean those definitions are without worth? No. On the other hand, can we say they are Apostolic (from the Apostles)? I don’t think so. While I believe the Apostles would have given an answer to their beliefs that would not have contradicted any of these creeds, I believe their explanations would have been simpler and broader, without the same degree of precision and exclusivity as the later definitions.

Having said that would you throw out the Apostolic witness to the Real Presence because ti doesn’t speak of substance and accidents? I don’t think so-and yet, one cannot say that transubstantiation is taught in the New Testament.

All this to reiterate my previous comments: we have clear witness to the Apostles pointing people to God the Father via Jesus. Thus my answer to the OP is God the Father via Jesus. I’ve asked the other posters to provides examples of Apostolic practice or exhortation of prayer to dead saints and there is as of yet none. TO me that leaves the necessity of classifying the practice under “development of doctrine” such as these practices we’ve discussed and yet some seem to have a real reluctance to do so.

 

[Leeann]

Robert in SD

I think that questions like yours can only be addressed by exposing the faulty premise upon which it is built. Your question presumes, by giving a literalistic interpretation to the litany, that Pope Benedict XVI does not know enough to turn to Christ.

Which part(s) should not be taken literally?

Robert in SD

I’m afraid that your presumption does not withstand honest scrutiny.

That’s a very presumptuous remark on your part!

Robert in SD

His faith is clear even if you simply read the text of his homily delivered on the date referenced in the article, to those present in Pompeii for the Litany… here. Certainly, his other writings clearly manifest his Christ-centered faith. Deus Caritas Est is another writing of Benedict, showing his clear and Christ-centered faith. I’m sure that any Apostle standing next to him in Pompeii would also have taken that encyclical letter into consideration. Don’t you think?

Indeed I do believe if the Apostles were standing next to him in Pompeii they would have taken both the Litany and encyclical letter into consideration….and having done so….I’m sure they would have pointed him to Jesus/God, as they’d soon discover, after reading his words, that somewhere along the line, things have gotten a bit off course!

“*I entrust you all to Mary, each one of you, dear faithful and inhabitants of this region, and you too, who are united in spirit with this celebration via radio and television, I entrust you all to Mary and invite you to trust always in her maternal support.”

“Let us now allow her, our mother and teacher, to guide us in reflecting on the Word of God that we have just heard.”

“The episode of Bartolo Longo’s spiritual crisis and conversion appears very relevant today. In fact, in the period of his university studies in Naples, influenced by immanentist and positivist philosophers, he had drifted from the Christian faith. He had become a militant anti-clerical, and even indulged in spiritualistic and superstitious practices. His conversion, with the discovery of God’s true Face, contains a very eloquent message for us since, unfortunately, such tendencies are not lacking in our day. In this Pauline Year,** I am pleased to emphasize that like St Paul, Bartolo Longo was transformed from persecutor to apostle: an apostle of Christian faith, of Marian devotion and, in particular, of the Rosary, in which he found a synthesis of the whole Gospel.”***

(Unfortunately…Paul’s conversion gets lumped in here with BL’s “transformation” and all the extras that are apparently beneficial to getting closer to Jesus.)

“And let us once again turn our hearts to Mary with the words of the Supplication that in a little while we shall be reciting together: “As our Mother, thou art our Advocate and our Hope. To thee, amidst sighs, do we lift up our hands, crying for mercy!” Amen.”

**John advises us of who our “Advocate” is – and it’s not Mary – but Jesus Christ the righteous.
1 John 2 : V 1

Paul advises us who our “Hope” is – and it’s not Mary – but the Lord Jesus Christ.
1 Timothy V 1.**

With regards to the “Deus Caritas Est” – It begins with God’s love - the main body of it speaks mostly of the Catholic Church and its functions and concludes with two paragraphs on Mary, closing with a prayer to…………Mary.

“Mary, Virgin and Mother, shows us what love is and whence it draws its origin and its constantly renewed power. To her we entrust the Church and her mission in the service of love:
Holy Mary, Mother of God,
you have given the world its true light,
Jesus, your Son – the Son of God.
You abandoned yourself completely
to God’s call
and thus became a wellspring
of the goodness which flows forth from him.
Show us Jesus. Lead us to him.
Teach us to know and love him,
so that we too can become
capable of true love
and be fountains of living water
in the midst of a thirsting world.

Robert in SD

A fair understanding of this man’s theology as seen in his writings makes it crystal clear that his faith is centered on a real relationship with Jesus Christ. Marian devotion, contrary to the implication inherent in the OP, does nothing to diminish that Christ-centered faith. Rather, it deepens that relationship with Christ.

Yes…it is also evident in the prayer to Mary above……how “close” and “focused” a relationship
with Jesus he has….going to/through her to Him?

Robert in SD
What I suggest you do, Leeann, is try to develop a better understanding of what Catholics believe when it comes to Marian devotion.

Peace,
-Robert

I am attempting to do that….excerpt from Post # 90

“Also - it is not so much a matter of the “question” being answered sufficiently by any “one” poster, as much as it is the way the views have been expressed by “various posters” - at times indicating a different understanding or acceptance of what has been taught or expounded and absorbed over the years by both Catholic and non-Catholic believers.”

The responses have been varied and most interesting.

 

[Peter_J]

I’m confused. What point are you saying I disagree with Aquinas on?

Sorry about that. I was so happy that you were illustrating what I had just been talking about, I guess I got a little sloppy. I was referring to your position that we pray to living saints, as compared with Aquinas’ position that we do not. (Needless to say, Aquinas’ agrees with you that we do ask them to pray for us.)

Here’s the relevant text:

Reply to Objection 3: Those who are in this world or in Purgatory, do not yet enjoy the vision of the Word, so as to be able to know what we think or say. Wherefore we do not seek their assistance by praying to them, but ask it of the living by speaking to them.

P.S. Not that anyone asked me, by personally I quite agree with Aquinas on this point. (I’m a little skeptical of his other claim --i.e. that we cannot pray to the souls in purgatory – but I won’t go into that right now.) I’ve sometimes wondered whether this idea, that we pray to our fellow Christians, actually stems from the fact that the English word “pray” has more than one meaning – as RobHom pointed out, it is also defined as “entreat , implore”, etc. (“Speak the speech, I pray you, as I pronounced it to you, trippingly on the tongue” - Hamlet)

 

[Peter_J]

As for the point about angels-they aren’t dead saints. Two more cases of apples and oranges.

True. In principle, it’s two separate questions.

In practice, however, those who deny praying to the saints usually also deny praying to angels, so it makes sense to deal with both question at the same time.

(You made some other good points too, but it’s a little too late for me to respond to them tonight. I’m in the Eastern time zone, btw.)

 

[guanophore]

I believe the Pope is a man who fulfills the role of Bishop of Rome in the Catholic church.

Yes, he is that, but he is also shepherd of the whole flock.

As a point of clarification, I don’t believe the catechism, or the Pope himself uses the title Apostle, as they believe that to be reserved to the 12:

No, not reserved for the 12, as there were more than 12 Apostles, the most famous being Paul, who was not one of the 12. There are also others mentioned in the NT. however, the requirements to be an Apostle could no longer be met after the death of Christ, so those that were ordained by Apostles (successors) are called bishops.

I believe the preferred title is successor of the Apostles or successor of Peter.

It is imprecision of this type that I feel led to so many current practices and wordings that don’t line up with what we see in the early New Testament and extrabiblical texts.

Are you speaking here of rinnie’s imprecision, or some other?

If on the other hand, you are referring to the charism of infallibility, I don’t think the Pope would have claimed to have been speaking infallibly on this occasion.

I lost something along the way here. What occasion are you referring to?

Now if we can get back to the question from the OP-I still believe based on the documented writings and sermons that we have of the Apostles that they would point people to pray to God the Father via Jesus. Do you have an Apostolic citation that shows them doing something else?

No, I am sure that this was the practice. However, given the other beliefs of the Apostles, it would not be a contradiction to pray to the elect that had gone to be with the Lord. The Apostles did not consider those who had parted any less a part of the Body. This is what the doctrine of the communion of saints is all about.

 

[Non_Serviam]

True. In principle, it’s two separate questions.

In practice, however, those who deny praying to the saints usually also deny praying to angels, so it makes sense to deal with both question at the same time.

(You made some other good points too, but it’s a little too late for me to respond to them tonight. I’m in the Eastern time zone, btw.)

It is two separate questions. One could deny asking intercession from angels if one denied the canonicity of the Apocrypha or if one believed that the references in those books were simply a Jewish practice that wasn’t part of the Apostolic praxis in the NT, but there are also early references to asking angels for intercession among the ECF’s so at the very least the belief held some sway in some parts of the early church. There’s more proof for it than for prayers to dead saints in the same time period.

(I understand-I’m on the East coast as well-as an fyi I’ll be travelling the next 2 weeks and my access to the forum will be sketchy at best, so don’t be surprised if several days go by without any posts from me-I haven’t abandoned the discussion, but simply submitted to the demands of life.)

 

[Non_Serviam]

Yes, he is that, but he is also shepherd of the whole flock.

No, not reserved for the 12, as there were more than 12 Apostles, the most famous being Paul, who was not one of the 12. There are also others mentioned in the NT. however, the requirements to be an Apostle could no longer be met after the death of Christ, so those that were ordained by Apostles (successors) are called bishops.



Are you speaking here of rinnie’s imprecision, or some other?

I lost something along the way here. What occasion are you referring to?

No, I am sure that this was the practice. However, given the other beliefs of the Apostles, it would not be a contradiction to pray to the elect that had gone to be with the Lord. The Apostles did not consider those who had parted any less a part of the Body. This is what the doctrine of the communion of saints is all about.

You and I will have to agree to disagree on the “shepherd of the whole flock” belief-there are aspects of Peter’s ministry that I believe were specific to Peter that didn’t pass to those who succeeded him, just as the Catechism states that the office of a Bishop succeeds from the Apostle but doesn’t correspond 100% to that of an Apostle.

As for the number of Apostles, that’s one thing I found to be odd in the Catechism-when I looked references to Apostles, the terms “Apostles” and “the twelve” seemed to be used rather interchangeably, giving the impression that there were only 12. Personally I believe there to have been more, at the very least 13 with the inclusion of Paul.

As to imprecision, I was referring to rinnie’s as well as what seems to be a general current of imprecision in some Catholic terminology. The one that leaps to mind at the moment is speaking of the “unanimous consent” of the ECF’s when something isn’t actually unanimous. The terminology creates an impression that the reality doesn’t support.

Another imprecision is the fact that there is no dogmatic list of Catholic dogma, which allows a bit of wiggle room to a Catholic apologist when one is trying to point out that a belief or practice changed over time. One of the selling points of Catholicism is its “rightness”, but the parameters of just which things come under the heading of possessing that protection from error are kept blurry enough to make it difficult to actually evaluate a belief.

The occasion I was referring to was the time the prayer mentioned in the OP was offered-it doesn’t appear to fall under the Vatican I definition of an infallible statement.

As for your last point, I’ve agreed that one can accept the doctrine on the basis of current catholic authority-the question posed in the OP was what response would the Apostles give. I believe thusfar, that they would still point to God the Father via Jesus.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Sorry about that. I was so happy that you were illustrating what I had just been talking about, I guess I got a little sloppy. I was referring to your position that we pray to living saints, as compared with Aquinas’ position that we do not. (Needless to say, Aquinas’ agrees with you that we do ask them to pray for us.)

Here’s the relevant text:

P.S. Not that anyone asked me, by personally I quite agree with Aquinas on this point. (I’m a little skeptical of his other claim --i.e. that we cannot pray to the souls in purgatory – but I won’t go into that right now.) I’ve sometimes wondered whether this idea, that we pray to our fellow Christians, actually stems from the fact that the English word “pray” has more than one meaning – as RobHom pointed out, it is also defined as “entreat , implore”, etc. (“Speak the speech, I pray you, as I pronounced it to you, trippingly on the tongue” - Hamlet)

Ah. Well if this is the point in question, I don’t disagree with Aquinas. It is indeed a semantic manner. If I tell you “I pray you intercede for me that I might have more humlity” I can well by definition be said to have made a prayer to you, a plea, a petition. I also disagree with Aquinas on not praying to those in Purgatory. And I disagree with him cuz I’m a Molinist. So that’s only twice.

 

[MarcoPolo]

As for the point about angels-they aren’t dead saints. Two more cases of apples and oranges.

That’s interesting. So if the OP’s question had been “Who would the Apostles have us pray to, Jesus or angels?” you would side with the rest of us and say that it’s a false dichotomy?

 

[Non_Serviam]

That’s interesting. So if the OP’s question had been “Who would the Apostles have us pray to, Jesus or angels?” you would side with the rest of us and say that it’s a false dichotomy?

I really like that you persevere in trying to find some point of agreement MP.

In that hypothetical situation, I would have acknowledged the OT precedents and ECF references, much as I did in my reply to Peter J, then followed up with the point that there is no Apostolic example of asking angels for intercession nor of Apostles exhorting others to do so, while there is a wealth of evidence for the Apostles exhorting people to pray to God the Father via Jesus, so on that basis my answer wouldn’t change, if only due to sheer statistical probability.

This is in keeping with the belief that the “angels” spoken of in the Apocalypse are in fact messengers and not actual angels-an interpretation which I believe is acceptable within Catholic circles.

 

[Peter_J]

Ah. Well if this is the point in question, I don’t disagree with Aquinas.

I assume you meant to say “Well if this is the point in question, I don’t -]dis/-]agree with Aquinas.”

 

[Peter_J]

If I tell you “I pray you intercede for me that I might have more humlity” I can well by definition be said to have made a prayer to you, a plea, a petition.

Um … okay. Should we then fault Aquinas for not speaking English?

 

[MarcoPolo]

I really like that you persevere in trying to find some point of agreement MP.

In that hypothetical situation, I would have acknowledged the OT precedents and ECF references, much as I did in my reply to Peter J, then followed up with the point that there is no Apostolic example of asking angels for intercession nor of Apostles exhorting others to do so, while there is a wealth of evidence for the Apostles exhorting people to pray to God the Father via Jesus, so on that basis my answer wouldn’t change, if only due to sheer statistical probability.

This is in keeping with the belief that the “angels” spoken of in the Apocalypse are in fact messengers and not actual angels-an interpretation which I believe is acceptable within Catholic circles.

I meant the angels prayed to in the OT that I mentioned earlier. In the Apocalypse you also have those elders receiving prayers of the saints that you hear many apologists cite when confirming prayer to the saints. (Rv 5:8) And that was written by the apostle John, tying in the OT representation of prayers in the form of incense, rising to the elders in heaven.

But oh well to our point of agreement, or lack thereof. I am completely satisfied with the theology of the apostles presented herein, which is, in my humble opinion, by far more consistent with a unified Body of Christ spanning heaven and earth.
:tiphat:

 

[guanophore]

Guanophore,

If you like this sort of “proof-text” hopscotch, then Believers has a version that you’ll really enjoy:

I noticed that! Very creative. Non-Apostolic, however, if one were to embrace this, though it falls short of the teaching of Jesus, it is still very beneficial. It just goes to show that even partial understanding of the truth can be a source of saving grace.

I was not trying to “proof text”, as I do not believe scripture can “prove” anything, nor is it necessary. I suggested these verses to help you understand the Catholic practices.

(I’m guessing you don’t find this interpretation as convincing-even if it is more textually coherent than the one you provided, coming entirely from John and almost all from the same chapter)

Actually, I find it quite convincing and creative. I can see how people would fall for it.

There have also been a number of humourous attempts on the Internet to make the Bible “teach” rather bizarre lessons, using the same interpretive method.

Yes. I was impressed by a recent teaching I heard, Father Corapi I think it was, the point was made that authority requires the ability to take responsibility. This is why Jesus gave this to the Church.

As to your last question, I repeat, yet again, that I believe the saints in heaven pray, and I repeat my caveat in hopes that I might get a more direct answer for it:

Can you show me an example of the Apostles praying to a dead saint or instructing one or more believers to pray to a dead saint?

And I will repeat my answer again, in the hopes that at least the lurkers will get the point, as it seems to be missing you.

Catholics believe that those who are in Christ are “alive forevermore”. The saints are alive in heaven with Him, never to be separated or experience death. Catholics do not, nor ever have, prayed to the “dead”.

 

[guanophore]

It’s the step of jumping from this position to “the Apostles did/taught this” that I’m not willing to let slide. With the exception of the Roman inscriptions, there doesn’t appear to be any documentary support linking the practice to the Apostles.

Possibly you do not know about the liturgical evidence, or possibly you consider it invalid?

I asked about early liturgy on this thread or another, and was told that praying to saints is a private devotional and thus wouldn’t appear in liturgical works, so I didn’t pursue that line in this part of the discussion.

This is not the case. Prayers to the saints and angels have been in the public practice of the Church since the beginning.

I’m willing to consider early historical evidence-I’ve said so before-all I’d like to see is something early and something linking the practice to the Apostles.

This would require that you accept the Apostolic Succession.

The Apostles chose faithful men who were able to teach others also. By this means they passed on the practices that were imparted to them.

The early ECF’s were always happy to credit the Apostle’s in their writings for insights and practices, so if the Apostles did practice this, it should be simple to provide a reference. Cyril of Jerusalem in 350AD seems to be the first solid citation of this being a regular practice among believers-it being part of his catechetical lectures. There’s no pedigree attached to the belief her, but it does show it has been institutionalized at that point.

I think it is good that you are willing to consider the historical evidence.

Thoughts?

I am curious why you keep calling those who have gone to be with the Lord as “dead”. You don’t seem to accept that they are alive in Him. I am wondering why you think that Samuel was aware of what was going on here in the earth, and was able to impart to Saul information about the future.

1 Sam 28:15-19
15 Then Samuel said to Saul, “Why have you disturbed me by bringing me up?” Saul answered, “I am in great distress, for the Philistines are warring against me, and God has turned away from me and answers me no more, either by prophets or by dreams; so I have summoned you to tell me what I should do.” 16 Samuel said, “Why then do you ask me, since the LORD has turned from you and become your enemy? 17 The LORD has done to you just as he spoke by me; for the LORD has torn the kingdom out of your hand, and given it to your neighbor, David. 18 Because you did not obey the voice of the LORD, and did not carry out his fierce wrath against Amalek, therefore the LORD has done this thing to you today. 19 Moreover the LORD will give Israel along with you into the hands of the Philistines; and tomorrow you and your sons shall be with me; the LORD will also give the army of Israel into the hands of the Philistines.”

 

[guanophore]

Which part(s) should not be taken literally?

I think it is more a case of taking these words in isolation of the rest of his words and faith practice.

That’s a very presumptuous remark on your part!

It is, but so are your presumptions about the faith of the pope!

Indeed I do believe if the Apostles were standing next to him in Pompeii they would have taken both the Litany and encyclical letter into consideration….and having done so….I’m sure they would have pointed him to Jesus/God, as they’d soon discover, after reading his words, that somewhere along the line, things have gotten a bit off course!

I believe that you say this because you do not understand what Catholic worship is all about.

“*I entrust you all to Mary, each one of you, dear faithful and inhabitants of this region, and you too, who are united in spirit with this celebration via radio and television, I entrust you all to Mary and invite you to trust always in her maternal support.”

“Let us now allow her, our mother and teacher, to guide us in reflecting on the Word of God that we have just heard.”

“The episode of Bartolo Longo’s spiritual crisis and conversion appears very relevant today. In fact, in the period of his university studies in Naples, influenced by immanentist and positivist philosophers, he had drifted from the Christian faith. He had become a militant anti-clerical, and even indulged in spiritualistic and superstitious practices. His conversion, with the discovery of God’s true Face, contains a very eloquent message for us since, unfortunately, such tendencies are not lacking in our day. In this Pauline Year,** I am pleased to emphasize that like St Paul, Bartolo Longo was transformed from persecutor to apostle: an apostle of Christian faith, of Marian devotion and, in particular, of the Rosary, in which he found a synthesis of the whole Gospel.”***

(Unfortunately…Paul’s conversion gets lumped in here with BL’s “transformation” and all the extras that are apparently beneficial to getting closer to Jesus.)

Where did you get this material?

“And let us once again turn our hearts to Mary with the words of the Supplication that in a little while we shall be reciting together: “As our Mother, thou art our Advocate and our Hope. To thee, amidst sighs, do we lift up our hands, crying for mercy!” Amen.”

John advises us of who our “Advocate” is – and it’s not Mary – but Jesus Christ the righteous.
1 John 2 : V 1

They are not mutually exclusive. Jesus has been very generous with his role of advocate. He has grafted many people into this work or reconciling the world to Himself. Mary’s heart is completely conformed to HIm, she is His faithful handmaid, and says to us “do whatever He tells you”. That is why Jesus “and not” Mary is a false dichotomy. Now that she has been perfected in faith, she desires nothing outside his will.
Leeann;4629627:

Paul advises us who our “Hope” is – and it’s not Mary – but the Lord Jesus Christ.
1 Timothy V 1.

Mary is the best example of God’s fulfillement of His promise to humanity. She embodies that Hope to which we all aspire in Christ.

With regards to the “Deus Caritas Est” – It begins with God’s love - the main body of it speaks mostly of the Catholic Church and its functions and concludes with two paragraphs on Mary, closing with a prayer to…………Mary.

“Mary, Virgin and Mother, shows us what love is and whence it draws its origin and its constantly renewed power. To her we entrust the Church and her mission in the service of love:
Holy Mary, Mother of God,
you have given the world its true light,
Jesus, your Son – the Son of God.
You abandoned yourself completely
to God’s call
and thus became a wellspring
of the goodness which flows forth from him.
Show us Jesus. Lead us to him.
Teach us to know and love him,
so that we too can become
capable of true love
and be fountains of living water
in the midst of a thirsting world.

Do you not agree with this?

Yes…it is also evident in the prayer to Mary above……how “close” and “focused” a relationship
with Jesus he has….going to/through her to Him?

I am quite sure that it is possible to know and love Jesus apart from His mother. However, He chose to come to us through human flesh and blood, to be part of a family, to share His mother with His disciples. He could have chosen to appear on earth in a fiery chariot (could have borrowed the one Ezekiel came in on) but He did not. He entrusted His Godhead to this woman who held Him at her breast. If He is able to become totally vunerable in her arms, why should we worry?

I think that most people who have a problem have unresolved trust issues with their earthly mothers. It is difficult for those of us who have come from environments that are toxic or dysfunctional to appreciate the best mothering possible on earth.

 

[guanophore]

You and I will have to agree to disagree on the “shepherd of the whole flock” belief-there are aspects of Peter’s ministry that I believe were specific to Peter that didn’t pass to those who succeeded him, just as the Catechism states that the office of a Bishop succeeds from the Apostle but doesn’t correspond 100% to that of an Apostle.

Of course this would have to be the case. If you were to accept what Jesus taught on this, then you could no longer, in good conscience, be Protestant.

As for the number of Apostles, that’s one thing I found to be odd in the Catechism-when I looked references to Apostles, the terms “Apostles” and “the twelve” seemed to be used rather interchangeably, giving the impression that there were only 12. Personally I believe there to have been more, at the very least 13 with the inclusion of Paul.

Indeed, the terms are often used interchangeably and this is not accurate. There were other Apostles. At least two more are named:

Rom 16:6-8
7 Greet Andronicus and Junia, my relatives who were in prison with me; they are prominent among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was.

As to imprecision, I was referring to rinnie’s as well as what seems to be a general current of imprecision in some Catholic terminology. The one that leaps to mind at the moment is speaking of the “unanimous consent” of the ECF’s when something isn’t actually unanimous. The terminology creates an impression that the reality doesn’t support.

Yes, I agree.

Another imprecision is the fact that there is no dogmatic list of Catholic dogma, which allows a bit of wiggle room to a Catholic apologist when one is trying to point out that a belief or practice changed over time.

Well, we don’t see Jesus teaching in the form of “lists” do we?

Would it be proper to say that His teachings were “imprecise” or allow “wiggle room” because they do not come in the form of “lists”?

One of the selling points of Catholicism is its “rightness”, but the parameters of just which things come under the heading of possessing that protection from error are kept blurry enough to make it difficult to actually evaluate a belief.

I understand what you are saying here. I think this point, though valid, is outside the scope of this thread.

The occasion I was referring to was the time the prayer mentioned in the OP was offered-it doesn’t appear to fall under the Vatican I definition of an infallible statement.

Certainly not!

As for your last point, I’ve agreed that one can accept the doctrine on the basis of current catholic authority-the question posed in the OP was what response would the Apostles give. I believe thusfar, that they would still point to God the Father via Jesus.

You seem to espouse the erroneous notion that Mary would be pointing to someone other than Christ as well.

 

[Leeann]

Originally Posted by Leeann
Indeed I do believe if the Apostles were standing next to him in Pompeii they would have taken both the Litany and encyclical letter into consideration….and having done so….I’m sure they would have pointed him to Jesus/God, as they’d soon discover, after reading his words, that somewhere along the line, things have gotten a bit off course!

guanophore:
I believe that you say this because you do not understand what Catholic worship is all about.

The words speak for themselves.

Originally Posted by Leeann

“I entrust you all to Mary, each one of you, dear faithful and inhabitants of this region, and you too, who are united in spirit with this celebration via radio and television, I entrust you all to Mary and invite you to trust always in her maternal support.”

“Let us now allow her, our mother and teacher, to guide us in reflecting on the Word of God that we have just heard.”

“The episode of Bartolo Longo’s spiritual crisis and conversion appears very relevant today. In fact, in the period of his university studies in Naples, influenced by immanentist and positivist philosophers, he had drifted from the Christian faith. He had become a militant anti-clerical, and even indulged in spiritualistic and superstitious practices. His conversion, with the discovery of God’s true Face, contains a very eloquent message for us since, unfortunately, such tendencies are not lacking in our day. In this Pauline Year, I am pleased to emphasize that like St Paul, Bartolo Longo was transformed from persecutor to apostle: an apostle of Christian faith, of Marian devotion and, in particular, of the Rosary, in which he found a synthesis of the whole Gospel.”

(Unfortunately…Paul’s conversion gets lumped in here with BL’s “transformation” and all the extras that are apparently beneficial to getting closer to Jesus.)

guanophore:
Where did you get this material?

It’s from the Vatican website – Pastoral Visit to the Pontifical Shrine of Pompei –
Homily of His Holiness Benedict XVl
See post #123…it’s from the first site link (not an address) there that was referred to me by a poster.
Sorry I should have posted it in that post at the time.

Originally Posted by Leeann

“And let us once again turn our hearts to Mary with the words of the Supplication that in a little while we shall be reciting together: “As our Mother, thou art our Advocate and our Hope. To thee, amidst sighs, do we lift up our hands, crying for mercy!” Amen.”

John advises us of who our “Advocate” is – and it’s not Mary – but Jesus Christ the righteous.
1 John 2 : V 1

guanophore:

They are not mutually exclusive. Jesus has been very generous with his role of advocate. He has grafted many people into this work or reconciling the world to Himself. Mary’s heart is completely conformed to HIm, she is His faithful handmaid, and says to us “do whatever He tells you”. That is why Jesus “and not” Mary is a false dichotomy. Now that she has been perfected in faith, she desires nothing outside his will.

If you understand this to be what she is saying to you, then why not do what she says and do what He tells you and what the Apostles told/tell us…which is to go to HIM.
You state that “they are not mutually exclusive”…meaning Jesus and Mary….this is what the Catholic Church teaches, however this is not what the Apostles ever made reference too when they advised people to whom to go to in time of trouble, in time of need…they advised and exhorted people to go directly to Jesus/God.
HE is above all things created and always will be.
Whatever Mary desires, is irrelevant…the point is, is that HE is able and willing and desiring that we go to HIM….that is HIS will.

Originally Posted by Leeann

Paul advises us who our “Hope” is – and it’s not Mary – but the Lord Jesus Christ.
1 Timothy V 1.

guanophore:
Mary is the best example of God’s fulfillement of His promise to humanity. She embodies that Hope to which we all aspire in Christ.

What “promise to humanity” of God’s are you referring too here?
As far as I am aware, Jesus is the fulfillment of God’s promise to humanity…our hope.

As Paul writes in Colossians 1 – V 27-28

21 And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled
22 in the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblamable and unreprovable in his sight:
23** if ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister;**
24who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body’s sake, which is the church:
25 whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God;
26 even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints:
27** to whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory:**
28 whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus:

 

[Leeann]

Originally Posted by Leeann
With regards to the “Deus Caritas Est” – It begins with God’s love - the main body of it speaks mostly of the Catholic Church and its functions and concludes with two paragraphs on Mary, closing with a prayer to…………Mary.

“Mary, Virgin and Mother, shows us what love is and whence it draws its origin and its constantly renewed power. To her we entrust the Church and her mission in the service of love:
Holy Mary, Mother of God,
you have given the world its true light,
Jesus, your Son – the Son of God.
You abandoned yourself completely
to God’s call
and thus became a wellspring
of the goodness which flows forth from him.
Show us Jesus. Lead us to him.
Teach us to know and love him,
so that we too can become
capable of true love
and be fountains of living water
in the midst of a thirsting world.

guanophore:
Do you not agree with this?

No.

guanophore:
I am quite sure that it is possible to know and love Jesus apart from His mother. However, He chose to come to us through human flesh and blood, to be part of a family, to share His mother with His disciples. He could have chosen to appear on earth in a fiery chariot (could have borrowed the one Ezekiel came in on) but He did not. He entrusted His Godhead to this woman who held Him at her breast. If He is able to become totally vunerable in her arms, why should we worry?

I’m not sure I understand your question???

guanophore:
I think that most people who have a problem have unresolved trust issues with their earthly mothers. It is difficult for those of us who have come from environments that are toxic or dysfunctional to appreciate the best mothering possible on earth.

Yes, I believe there is a lot of truth in what you’ve stated here, I’ve seen you make this comment before.

I also think that it works the other way around ….*those people, with unresolved trust issues with their earthly mothers *– or lack of a positive female relationship in their lives -have a desperate need to believe in what the Catholic Church has taught about Mary - the absolute perfection – the “protection” - thereby deriving the comfort and solace that they may never have experienced from an ‘earthly mother/woman’ - attempting to fill a void within themselves.

*It is easy for those who are desparately wanting and who have come from environments that are toxic or dysfunctional *to be able to believe and cling onto a theology that offers the notion that “mother” – the mother of God, is there and will never turn them away……even if Jesus/God does?

“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.”