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

[guanophore]

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.

Catholics use the canon that was used by Jesus and the Apostles, not that used by the Jews who rejected Christ. If you want to discuss this, though, please go to a more appropriate thread or open an new one. Ginger2 started a thread on this. It is off topic here.

 

[ron77nyc]

Is this Catholic or not?
Paul sums it up in Colossians 2
usccb.org/nab/bible/colossians/colossians2.htm

Read the footnotes written by the US Catholic Bishops.
6 So, as you received Christ Jesus the Lord, walk in him,
7 rooted in him and built upon him and established in the faith as you were taught, abounding in thanksgiving.
8 See to it that no one captivate you with an empty, seductive philosophy according to human tradition, according to the elemental powers of the world and not according to Christ.
9 For in him dwells the whole fullness of the deity 4 bodily,
10 and you share in this fullness in him, who is the head of every principality and power.
11 In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not administered by hand, by stripping off the carnal body, with the circumcision of Christ.
12 You were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.
13 And even when you were dead (in) transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, he brought you to life along with him, having forgiven us all our transgressions;
14 6 obliterating the bond against us, with its legal claims, which was opposed to us, he also removed it from our midst, nailing it to the cross;
15 despoiling the principalities and the powers, he made a public spectacle of them, leading them away in triumph by it.
16 Let no one, then, pass judgment on you in matters of food and drink or with regard to a festival or new moon or sabbath. 8
17 These are shadows of things to come; the reality belongs to Christ.

Footnotes by the US Catholic Bishops: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

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Two things:

A. The gospel is not ‘limited’ to Scripture alone. Sacred Tradition and Scripture are both part of the gospel. I mention this not because you, Ron, had ‘limited it’, but because those who are of the Protestant persuasion might be misled as when they refer to ‘the gospel’ THEY mean ‘only’ Scripture.
B. Has anyone ever stated that Mary does things ‘under her own auspice?’ In prayer to Mary, we are 'going directly to Christ. In fact, we are going as directly to Him as we possibly can. He came TO us through Mary in preference to any other way He could have chosen to come, didn’t He? In going to Him (Him, not her) through her, we are simply doing as He did. . .He came to us directly through a humble virgin, we go to Him directly through a humble virgin.

We do think that Christ not only came ‘directly’ to us, but that He, being God, chose the absolute best way in which to do so, don’t we?

 

[Leeann]

ron777nyc

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).

Those are exactly the verses I was thinking of in that section of my post you quoted below.

*Originally Posted by Leeann *
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.

The website for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops is listed below – to find the “Footnotes” – type in Col 2 in the “search” box.

usccb.org/

I wasn’t aware of this site or this information.

Thank you for posting this ron777nyc.

 

[Leeann]

**Originally Posted by Leeann **
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.

guanophore:
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.

What “traditions” are you speaking of here guanophore…the ones that are the same as the Catholic Church has today? The ones that HAD in their fullness, been passed on in the “Apostles” time when they were establishing the churchs?

guanophore:
Development of doctrine is another matter. Certain things had to be developed in response to heresies.

Mary’s Assumption for instance…what heresy was this doctrine in response too?

guanophore:
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.

The Apostles **constant encouragement ****and exhortations to the “early believers”, **to go directly to God by the virtue of Christ’s blood sacrifice could be definitely included in being a way of response to the practice of **“praying ****to/through **saints” back then.

guanophore:
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.

If I or any other Christian thinks that development is not necessary or guided by God - in ANY church or denomination…we are to test it against scripture – as we are instructed to do – place our faith in HIM/The Holy Spirit/ and HIS holy, inspired words and those of the Apostles and prophets, not in the church or the denomination – because they claim to be His one true church. If it’s good it’s worth keeping.
As you said, you’ll know by the fruit it has produced.

 

[Leeann]

***Originally Posted by Leeann ***

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
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.

Thank you for sharing that guanophore – it does help to understand your viewpoint much better and I appreciate that.
When you say you “found…(in regards to the Sacred Traditions)……” what sources did you use to come to this understanding…who provided the information to you?

guanophore
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.

That would be your opinion from the Catholic Church’s perspective, however, all true and faithful believers in Christ Jesus who are members of HIS Church…united in spirit into the One Body….do not see the “fruit of division and separation”…as we are still united in HIM….no matter what denomination or church we attend.

guanophore:
The reason we know it was an error is by the fruit it has produced.

A lot of churches, including the Catholic Church itself, has produced some pretty “rotten fruit” at times.

guanophore:
The Scriptures were never meant to be separated from the Sacred Tradition that produced them.

See Col 2 . - the tradition the was ALREADY given at that time.

**Originally Posted by Leeann **
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
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.

But where is it that the Apostolic Tradition that the Catholic Church claims to have is true.What the Apostles DID teach is clearly in the scriptures, and we all know them to be true.

 

[Good_Daughter]

Yes He did choose Mary and by the Catholic teachings, it is apparent that Mary herself had a “head start” on the rest of the human race, having already been born “without sin” . To take that into consideration and then to say that Mary is a “masterpiece” - a wonderful example of what God desires to do in each of us (which He obviously didn’t do in each of us with regards to “sin” right from the word go)….well it just doesn’t add up …if one is to believe what the Catholic Church teaches about Mary….she does not fall into the same category of being “human” when compared to you or me.

So how in the world are we supposed to imitate Jesus?

I understand what you’re saying here. Fortunately though, the work of the Lord in each of us is not a competition, nor is the point to compare. Though the work He intends to do in each of us is unique, we can still marvel at His works wherever we may see them.

Furthermore, the work He has done in Mary is not meant for her alone, it is meant to be shared, to benefit and inspire all people. Looking at Mary, what is revealed, really? So little about her (she is by her own admission, “lowly”), and so much about God. That she was saved from original sin before her conception (according to Catholic teaching) reveals almost nothing of her, but should impress upon us the unfathomable greatness of He whom she would carry.
Leeann;4723395:

The Apostles, were also chosen by Jesus to establish HIS Church – and they were empowered with His full authority and with the Holy Spirit and with all the necessary information that would best enable both the early believers at that time as well as those who would believe later.

True, and as others have mentioned in this thread, we have no written account of the Apostles “pointing to Mary” or discouraging the practice of “pointing to Mary”. For Catholics, this teaching seems to be a matter of Sacred Tradition.

The Apostles, were in this respect a “divine example” to follow …unless of course you are attributing to Mary a different kind “divinity” – something that elevates her above being human, a normal creation of God’s, in which case, as I stated above, it would be futile for mere humans, including the Pope, to try and follow her example…unless of course he too was born without sin.

No, the “divine example” I referred to was that Jesus, God himself, came to us through Mary. I was just suggesting that this whole *through Mary *idea may be of divine rather than Catholic origin. Anyway, it was just a thought…toss it out if it doesn’t suit you.

Paul points to himself as being an example to follow, and Peter points to Jesus as being an example – it is the Catholic Church with its developed Marian theology that points to Mary.

Again, I think the argument can be made that Sacred Tradition plays a part in holding Mary as an example. I find that common sense tells me to imitate holiness wherever I see it, in Jesus, Mary, Peter or the guy next door, but that’s just me- I need all the help I can get!

Leann, I feel that my portion of this thread has exhausted its usefulness, but I’ve really enjoyed talking to you. Just to be a sport, I’m going to offer you the last word. I promise to consider carefully everything you say, should you choose to respond.

May God bless you abundantly!

 

[Leeann]

Originally Posted by Leeann
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.

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

If you “agree” that ”this in no way supports the claim of being able to pray to/through Mary, as there is no evidence that Mary held Him forth to the shepherds or the wise men”…why did you post this as an example of how : (see bolded below)

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.

Leeann
Originally Posted by Leeann
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.

Response Guanophore:
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?

Perhaps you imagine too much and are looking for things and focusing on things that are not of any great significance ….things that may add to Mary’s significance that just aren’t there.
The point is, as the scripture details, is that they found Mary/Joseph and the infant and seeing, they understood of the word that had been spoke to them concerning the child.

Originally Posted by Leeann
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. *

guanophore
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.

Just as all true and faithful believers were and would be blessed as Jesus pointed out to the crowd of disciples gathered around Him as seen in Mark 3. They/we are even more blessed as we do the will of God.

Mark 3:

31 And his mother and his brethren came; and standing without, sent unto him, calling him. 32 And the multitude sat about him; and they say to him: Behold thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee. 33 And answering them, **he said: Who is my mother and my brethren? 34 And looking round about on them who sat about him, he saith: **Behold my mother and my brethren. 35 For whosoever shall do the will of God, he is my brother, and my sister, and mother. ****

 

[Leeann]

***Originally Posted by Leeann ***
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.

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

Is someone trying to that guanophore – “excise Mary from the picture” – as opposed to “elevating Mary and affording to Mary attributes” that simply aren’t there in the words of scripture.

Guanophore:
She holds HIm forth to the world as much today as she did in Bethlehem.

***Originally Posted by Leeann ***
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”.

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

Yes…and nothing was added to Mary’s significance because of the fact that she was present…she was His mother….that’s what mothers usually do.

***Originally Posted by Leeann ***
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
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.

But do you **pray to **them…as you do to Mary –

My Queen! my Mother!
I give thee all myself, and,
to show my devotion to thee,
I consecrate to thee my eyes,
my ears, my mouth, my heart, my entire self.
Wherefore, O loving Mother,
as I am thine own,
keep me, defend me,
as thy property and possession

And do you **pray through **them…as you do to Mary-

I venerate thee with all my heart,
O Virgin most holy,
above all Angels and Saints in paradise,
as the beloved Spouse of the Spirit of God,
and to thee I consecrate my heart and all its affections,
imploring thee to obtain for me from the Most Holy Trinity
all the means of salvation.

www.catholic.org website

I hope not! Surely there is a difference - why compare family pictures to statues/shrines for Mary?

Quote:
***Originally Posted by Leeann ***
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
It is an example that a statue is a way of commemorating a person, not an act of worship, or necessarily tied to worship, or even religious practice, for that matter.

Yes, but any statues of **Mary **would be connected to “religious practice”.

 

[Leeann]

Leeann
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
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”.

Yes and it begs the question as to what type of religious instruction about “God” they got in the first place that would make them perceive Him in such a way, doesn’t it.

guanophore
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”.

I understand what you are saying here, although I was specifically referring to the need of those who have been encouraged or taught that it is “gentler” and just as “viable” a practice of praying to/through Mary as is it to going with confidence, by the virtue of His blood sacrifice, to His throne of grace for help in time of need…the “truth” of the gospel message.

 

[Leeann]

So how in the world are we supposed to imitate Jesus?

I understand what you’re saying here. Fortunately though, the work of the Lord in each of us is not a competition, nor is the point to compare. Though the work He intends to do in each of us is unique, we can still marvel at His works wherever we may see them.

Furthermore, the work He has done in Mary is not meant for her alone, it is meant to be shared, to benefit and inspire all people. Looking at Mary, what is revealed, really? So little about her (she is by her own admission, “lowly”), and so much about God. That she was saved from original sin before her conception (according to Catholic teaching) reveals almost nothing of her, but should impress upon us the unfathomable greatness of He whom she would carry.

True, and as others have mentioned in this thread, we have no written account of the Apostles “pointing to Mary” or discouraging the practice of “pointing to Mary”. For Catholics, this teaching seems to be a matter of Sacred Tradition.

We all – Catholics and Protestants alike - **DO HAVE **written accounts of the Apostles “pointing to Jesus/God” though!

No, the “divine example” I referred to was that Jesus, God himself, came to us through Mary. I was just suggesting that this whole *through Mary *idea may be of divine rather than Catholic origin. Anyway, it was just a thought…toss it out if it doesn’t suit you.

Again, I think the argument can be made that Sacred Tradition plays a part in holding Mary as an example. I find that common sense tells me to imitate holiness wherever I see it, in Jesus, Mary, Peter or the guy next door, but that’s just me- I need all the help I can get!

Leann, I feel that my portion of this thread has exhausted its usefulness, but I’ve really enjoyed talking to you. Just to be a sport, I’m going to offer you the last word. I promise to consider carefully everything you say, should you choose to respond.

May God bless you abundantly!

Thank you for your participation Good Daughter…as I said when you first posted…it’s interesting to see different viewpoints from a variety of posters as it helps to understand better why or how they’ve come to their understanding of this teaching/practice.

Peace and God Bless - my sister in Christ.

 

[ron77nyc]

Two things:

A. The gospel is not ‘limited’ to Scripture alone. Sacred Tradition and Scripture are both part of the gospel. I mention this not because you, Ron, had ‘limited it’, but because those who are of the Protestant persuasion might be misled as when they refer to ‘the gospel’ THEY mean ‘only’ Scripture.
B. Has anyone ever stated that Mary does things ‘under her own auspice?’ In prayer to Mary, we are 'going directly to Christ. In fact, we are going as directly to Him as we possibly can. He came TO us through Mary in preference to any other way He could have chosen to come, didn’t He? In going to Him (Him, not her) through her, we are simply doing as He did. . .He came to us directly through a humble virgin, we go to Him directly through a humble virgin.

We do think that Christ not only came ‘directly’ to us, but that He, being God, chose the absolute best way in which to do so, don’t we?

To say: “The gospel is not ‘limited’ to Scripture alone. Sacred Tradition and Scripture are both part of the gospel” is not accurate. The gospel was a plan in God’s mind before the foundation of the world. He reveals it through the church but His plan in no way is dependent upon tradition. This is explained in Paul’s letter to the Ephesians.
usccb.org/nab/bible/ephesians/ephesians1.htm

Ephesians1:4 as he chose us in him, before the foundation of the world, to be holy and without blemish before him. In love 5 he destined us for adoption to himself through Jesus Christ, in accord with the favor of his will, 6 for the praise of the glory of his grace that he granted us in the beloved. 7 In him we have redemption by his blood, the forgiveness of transgressions, in accord with the riches of his grace 8 that he lavished upon us. In all wisdom and insight, 9 he has made known to us the mystery 5 of his will in accord with his favor that he set forth in him 10 as a plan for the fullness of times, to sum up all things in Christ, in heaven and on earth. 11 In him we were also chosen, destined in accord with the purpose of the one who accomplishes all things according to the intention of his will, 12 so that we might exist for the praise of his glory, we who first hoped 6 in Christ. 13 In him you also, who have heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and have believed in him, were sealed 7 with the promised holy Spirit, 14 which is the first installment 8 of our inheritance toward redemption as God’s possession, to the praise of his glory.

FOOTNOTE
In the Christ-centered faith and existence of the Christian communities the apostle sees the predetermined plan of God to bring all creation under the final rule of Christ (Eph 1:4-5, 9-10) being made known (Eph 1:9) and carried through, to God’s glory (Eph 1:6, 12, 14).

 

[Tantum_ergo]

To say: “The gospel is not ‘limited’ to Scripture alone. Sacred Tradition and Scripture are both part of the gospel” is not accurate.

Actually, I believe that it is accurate. Scripture itself acknowledges that not all Jesus said and did was ‘recorded’ in Scripture, and St. Paul makes note of the teachings given ‘both by word of mouth and by writing’. Finally, Scripture itself does not claim its authority (the Church is noted as the authority to which a Christian owes allegiance). To state as you did that God’s plan did not call for ‘reliance on tradition’ could as easily be turned that it did not call for ‘reliance on Scripture’ either. Indeed, the gospel can be proclaimed whether one possesses a Bible or not. . .but that doesn’t mean that we are to dismiss entirely Scripture (or tradition). Christ is the good news but He graciously gave us tools (Scripture and tradition) in which His teachings ‘subsist’ but He of course is greater than the tools.

 

[Good_Fella]

The evangelists… never mentioned “the Communion of Saints” as being a necessary essential truth…necessary for salvation. Whereby the Catholic Church teaches it is a necessary essential truth – for if a Catholic does not give their “sacred assent” as you call it below – in believing in this “dogma” – they are considered to be anathema.

The Catholic Church teaches that the Communion of Saints is a revealed divine truth. A dogma is just that. But the existence of the Communion of Saints isn’t necessary for our salvation as are faith and good works, for instance. A Catholic will eventually be excommunicated if he persists to publicly contest any dogma of the Catholic Church. To oppose what the Magisterium has authoritatively declared a revealed divine truth is to oppose Christ Himself. The Paraclete speaks what he hears (Jn 16: 12-13).

Catholics are obligated to believe in the dogma of the Communion of Saints in order to remain members of the Catholic Church….if they don’t… they are considered to be “anathema”. If they are anathema they cannot partake of the sacraments and therefore are not considered to be a part of “the Body of Christ”.

However, Jesus Himself never made this stipulation, nor did any of the Apostles when they went out to convey **the essential truths of the Christian faith **which are necessary for us to know and observe.

Catholics who publicly oppose the teaching authority of the Church put themselves at risk of being excommunicated because they should know better. They are deemed culpable. Non-Catholics like yourself may be held inculpable - undeserving of blame - on account of your “invincible ignorance”. But here we must draw a very thin line. One thing is certain, hearing the word of God and accepting it from Jesus or through his appointed Apostles and their valid successors in the Divine Office is necessary for one’s salvation. Being blameworthy of rejecting the word of God can cost someone her salvation if she fails to retract her objections and persists in contesting a revealed divine truth of the Church out of religious pride, intellectual vanity, or hostility. Jesus has warned us of this sin against the Holy Spirit.

Then why bother posting quotes from “their occasional letters” to support the Catholic teaching of “Communion of Saints”, as if they did instruct this…and now you state above that they haven’t explicitly instructed us……

The Epistles implicity reveal the divine truth of the Communion of Saints and thereby provide good reasons why we should invoke the Saints in heaven for their intercessory prayers. But this form of devotion is not mandatory for practitioners of the faith in a private capacity. Private devotion is simply encouraged, not exhorted. (Yet Paul implicitly exhorts us to invoke the departed saints.) In the Sacred Liturgy of the Mass - public worship - Catholics are obligated to profess belief in the Communion of Saints when reciting the Creed together. For it’s an article of faith. And as a public expression of faith in the unity of the Church Catholics are called upon to invoke the saints during Mass when celebrating their feast days. There’s a marked distinction between the public and private practice of our faith.

But that doesn’t make it “correct”.

As I have pointed out above in this thread, by quoting single scriptural passages, members of the one mystical Body of Christ ask each other for their prayers. Members of the Body pray to God for each other. The saints in heaven, who have been made perfect in God’s grace and are united with us in Christ, are alive. Thus we can ask them for their prayers knowing they are able to pray for us as any member of the Body can. To suggest that the saints in heaven cannot correspond with us because of a chasm between life and death is to divide the mystical Body of Christ in two so that we are left with one Head having two bodies: that of the living and of the dead members. We have two separate vines severed from each other with their respective branches. How can one Head have two distinct mystical bodies? Now that is incorrect.

Brothers, pray for us too.
1 Thessalonians 5, 25

They sent them Peter and John, who went down and prayed for them.
Acts 8, 15

“Death is swallowed up in victory.”
1 Corinthians 15, 55

For as in one body we have many parts, and all the parts do not have the same function, so we, though many, are one body in Christ and individually parts of one another.
Romans 12: 4-5
*
For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body.*
*1 Corinthians 12, 13 *

Pax vobiscum

 

[ron77nyc]

Actually, I believe that it is accurate. Scripture itself acknowledges that not all Jesus said and did was ‘recorded’ in Scripture, and St. Paul makes note of the teachings given ‘both by word of mouth and by writing’. Finally, Scripture itself does not claim its authority (the Church is noted as the authority to which a Christian owes allegiance). To state as you did that God’s plan did not call for ‘reliance on tradition’ could as easily be turned that it did not call for ‘reliance on Scripture’ either. Indeed, the gospel can be proclaimed whether one possesses a Bible or not. . .but that doesn’t mean that we are to dismiss entirely Scripture (or tradition). Christ is the good news but He graciously gave us tools (Scripture and tradition) in which His teachings ‘subsist’ but He of course is greater than the tools.

I agree with you but the problem arises when either scripture or tradition are completely relied on or neglected. That’s what the subject of this thread is really about----scripture and tradition. Father, Son and Holy Spirit all live in us.

John 14:23 Jesus answered and said to him, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our abode with him.

Romans 8:9 However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him.

2 Corinthians 13:5 Test yourselves to see if you are in the faith; examine yourselves! Or do you not recognize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you-- unless indeed you fail the test?

Have you ever been taught about God’s presence within you? This is not an attack on you so please don’t take it that way. It is confusing to me to hear people say they go through Mary to Jesus when Jesus dwells in us. I’m sure the Pope knows Christ lives in him so why would he say he wouldn’t know who to turn to if Mary didn’t listen to him? This is where tradition clashes with scripture.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Ah, but the Pope was not saying that he ‘did not know who to turn to’ and expressing the idea that he could NOT go to God. That is where LeeAnn’s fundamental misreading of the prayer led her. . .an example of how a person can be as sincerely wrong in her interpretation of a statement as St. Paul was sincerely wrong in his original persecution of the Christians.

 

[ron77nyc]

Ah, but the Pope was not saying that he ‘did not know who to turn to’ and expressing the idea that he could NOT go to God. That is where LeeAnn’s fundamental misreading of the prayer led her. . .an example of how a person can be as sincerely wrong in her interpretation of a statement as St. Paul was sincerely wrong in his original persecution of the Christians.

Pope Benedict was repeating a prayer of Bartolo Longo. Here is another one of Bartolo Longo’s prayers. Do you or anyone else think this agrees with the doctrines of the current catechism ?
communio.stblogs.org/2008/10/our-lady-of-pompeii.html

O August Queen of Victories, O Sovereign of Heaven and Earth, at whose name the heavens rejoice and the abyss trembles, O glorious Queen of the Rosary, we your devoted children, assembled in your Temple of Pompeii, on this solemn day, pour out the affection of our heart and with filial confidence express our miseries to You.

From the Throne of clemency, where You are seated as Queen, turn, O Mary, your merciful gaze on us, on our families, on Italy, on Europe, on the world. Have compassion on the sorrows and cares which embitter our lives. See, O Mother, how many dangers of body and soul, how many calamities and afflictions press upon us.

O Mother, implore for us the mercy of your divine Son and conquer with clemency the heart of sinners. They are our brothers and your children who cause the heart of our sweet Jesus to bleed and who sadden your most sensitive Heart. Show all what you are, the Queen of Peace and of Pardon.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I have noticed that many people, perhaps reacting from a dogged dislike of struggling through “Great Expectations” in high school English classes, experience difficulties in appreciation and understanding any literature of the 1800s, not solely prayers.

The core of this prayer is here: O Mother, implore for us the mercy of your divine Son and conquer with clemency the heart of sinners.

When you take into context the fact that this prayer was written at pretty much the height of ‘monarchy’ in Europe, that language was styled to be what today appears ‘overdone’ and ‘overly descriptive’, and again the often unconscious bias that many possess ‘against’ language which is neither ‘contemporary’ nor possessing buzzwords and ‘acceptable jargon’, you can see that there are a lot more factors going on in the average Protestant’s reading of this prayer. Most of them by nature, especially those of the non denominational groups, or even long established ‘U.S.’ groups, are anti-monarchy to start, often anti-European and specifically anti’CATHOLIC European, often ‘educated’ into thinking that the 19th century was full of hypocritical imperialists who were obsessively anti-woman, proslavery, etc. etc.

Now, IF a person looks at the prayer in context, without a bias against any of the factors above (and believe me there are plenty of other misconceptions they could have as well), he or she will see that this prayer does not ask any ‘more’ of Mary than to ‘implore her Son’ to aid people.

Remember, at this time there were many, MANY ‘sovereigns’, some of quite tiny countries, too.

Like it or not (most Protestants do not), Jesus is a King and by Jewish tradition, duly noted in Scripture and therefore a consideration for any Christian, Mary, the Mother of a King, is a Queen herself. Again, throughout history, few ‘queens’ have possessed the power of rule in and of themselves. But of course, queens and kings on earth are not the same as kings and queens in heaven, and we need not believe that because Queen Victoria was queen ‘in her own right’ that the same MUST hold true for Mary. She is queen ‘because of her Son’.

In this prayer, people ask Mary (whom as Catholics we believe is our Mother too) to look upon them (as a mother) and to bring their prayers to the Son who can relieve them.

Is this really so different from the marriage feast at Cana? Is it? Does Mary ‘do anything’ different in this prayer than she did at Cana?

 

[Leeann]

Back to the thread topic “prayer” and OP question -

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

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Yep, back to the thread topic.

In the prayer of the Pope to Mary, he (the Pope) is not looking to her 'instead of" Jesus.

Therefore, the apostles would not need to tell the Pope, 'You need to focus on Jesus, not Mary" for the Pope is not focusing on Mary ‘instead of’ Jesus.

Therefore, the entire question is, as I have said on both this and the previous thread, moot.

Since there is no contradiction, no opposition, no 'either it’s Mary or Jesus, choose". . . the OP has basically asked us to accept her unfounded personal opinion that there is an opposition, that the Pope is setting up a “Mary or Jesus” situation, and that we **must **kowtow and bow to her by ‘admitting’ that this situation exists.

Well, as a Christian I must proclaim truth.

And this is an example of a real either-or situation and not a false one.

Either LeeAnn is right–or she isn’t.

She isn’t. No two ways about it.

Staying silent when a wrong is written–or spoken–would be cooperating in evil. As a Christian, if I see or hear evil, I must counter with goodness and truth.

Note that I am going to be particularly careful in stating here that LeeAnn is wrong in her opinion, but that I am not thereby making any judgment on her personally, and especially not judging her heart and mind in relation to God.