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

[Peter_J]

I agree completely with your assessment, that is precisely the intent of His words-I was simply pointing out yet again that the continued assertion that there is no difference between Jesus and Mary is fallacious.

I was thinking just what diggingdeeper said. It’s so fallacious that I really don’t see a need to discuss it.

But the Catholic church has so blurred the lines that we find ourselves having to bring sanity here.

May I refer you to the quotation in #343?

 

[Peter_J]

Friend, all Jesus was doing when He said, “Behold your mother” was telling John to take care of His mother! He was just being a good son."

I was going to reply to this, but then I realized that AshleyBelle had already said what I wanted to say, only better. (I especially like the point that Christ could have dealt with the matter after his resurrection, which I had never considered before.)

 

[Peter_J]

Just a reminder if it gets too far off topic as it can do at times.

There are **other people **who might like to post besides the the ones that have been - even since you posted this…2 new people have posted - **nbtb1348 and diggingdeeper **- and **ron66nyc has just started posting recently and has offered information and a point of view from a very different perspective **as to that of other Catholic posters…which is worth viewing…and **Good Fella has popped **in more recently with his own way of expressing things…(and he plays a mean harp)…

As I stated at the beginning - it’s not about any one poster, or two that give their answer and viewpoint and that’s it…there may be more that want to express their opinions…

Very well. But I a suspect that we’re just going to rehash what has already been said. (Aside from all the off-topic stuff.)

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Not to hijack the thread or anything, but people do realize, I’m sure, that just because ‘some people’ are posting to a thread, this does not in any way ‘hinder’ other people from posting?

The idea that ‘some people’ should ‘refrain from posting’ as though by their posts they were keeping others from posting and that posts could only be made either by ‘some people’ OR by ‘new people’ and not by both groups at the same time is erroneous.

But somehow I’m not surprised this idea came forth. . .all things considered.

 

[nbtb1348]

I know it has been stated repeatedly, but I had to say something incase others have missed it.

Jesus knew when His hour would come. He knew that He would give up His life on the cross for us. He knew down to the smallest detail and minute. And yet, you and others want to claim that it wasn’t until His final dying breaths that He realized He still needed to make arrangements for His mother???

In all due respect, I believe Jesus was a more responsible son that that.

Also…He knew that He would rise on the third day. So, why did He make a point of telling us, as one of the LAST things before He could “finnish” it… “Behold, your mother!” If He knew He was going to rise on the third day and it was just a matter of making living arrangements, He would have known He could take care of that after He rose from the grave.

It seems incredibly significant that He chose THAT moment as He gave Himself on the cross to point out what is no small detail.

God bless

If that was the case, then why didn’t He teach it in detail? Answer: Because it is not what you think.

 

[nbtb1348]

Only if you allow it to.

Perhaps another quotation might help. This one has to do with the possibility of dogmatically defining Mary as Co-redemptrix:

I do not think there will be any compliance with this demand, which in the meantime is being supported by several million people, within the foreseeable future. The response of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is, broadly, that what is signified by this is already better expressed in other titles of Mary, while the formula “Co-redemptrix” departs to too great an extant from the language of Scripture and of the Fathers and therefore gives rise to misunderstandings.

…

Because Mary is the the prototype of the Church as such and is, so to say, the Church in person, this being “with” is realized in her in exemplary fashion. But this “with” must not lead us to forget the “first” of Christ: Everything comes from Him, as the letter to the Ephesians and the Letter to the Colossians, in particular, tell us; Mary, too, is everything that she is through Him.

The word “Co-Redemptrix” would obscure this origin. A correct intention is being expressed in the wrong way. For matters of faith, continuity of terminology with the language of Scripture and that of the Fathers is itself an essential element; it is improper simply to manipulate language.

• Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (2000)

Still misguided. And frankly it is talk like this that absolutely seals the deal on that fact that there is doctrine in the RCC that is not authored by the Holly Spirit. This notion of
‘co-redemptrix’ makes it so easy to spot. And Ephesians is the great teaching on the Church, and NOWHERE is the name Mary even to be found! To call her co-redemptrix SCREAMS that there is heresy and manipulation of the Scriptures. It is so patently obvious.

 

[Ite_ad_Ioseph]

I haven’t been following this thread in a while, nut what was the author’s point if the Apostles wouldn’t have mentioned prayers to saints? Was she trying to discredit the Catholic Church? A troll perhaps?

 

[nbtb1348]

I haven’t been following this thread in a while, nut what was the author’s point if the Apostles wouldn’t have mentioned prayers to saints? Was she trying to discredit the Catholic Church? A troll perhaps?

Whatever she was attempting, another opportunity to direct people away from Mariolotry and toward the correct appraisal and appreciation of her and utter abandonment to Him!

By the way, Ignatius in the 1st century knew of only one Universal (“catholic”) Church: The one all born again people were and are members of . The one Paul said we enter “by grace through faith…it is the gift of God, not of works”. Catholic simply means universal.

God Bless

 

[Leeann]

Not to hijack the thread or anything, but people do realize, I’m sure, that just because ‘some people’ are posting to a thread, this does not in any way ‘hinder’ other people from posting?

The idea that ‘some people’ should ‘refrain from posting’ as though by their posts they were keeping others from posting and that posts could only be made either by ‘some people’ OR by ‘new people’ and not by both groups at the same time is erroneous.

But somehow I’m not surprised this idea came forth. . .all things considered.

Tantum - I was responding to Peter J - trying to explain why I would keep posting with regards to “the topic”…as sometimes it gets way off track, as do all threads,…it happens.

The comment was made that there may be nothing “new” to be added - re-hashing things as most has been covered…and I was pointing out that it’s not so much whether some things are re-hashed …by the same posters…as it is that there may be others that haven’t posted yet…or come in yet…who may want to post their viewpoints, may express them differently…

The “idea” of only “certain people posting” or “new people” or “not both groups at the same time”…is erroneous…but it’s **your ** idea, from your own mind.

I don’t care who posts, what they post, or how often they post…and as I’ve stated many times, I’m grateful for the time that people do take to participate…and share their view.

 

[Peter_J]

Still misguided. And frankly it is talk like this that absolutely seals the deal on that fact that there is doctrine in the RCC that is not authored by the Holly Spirit. This notion of
‘co-redemptrix’ makes it so easy to spot. And Ephesians is the great teaching on the Church, and NOWHERE is the name Mary even to be found! To call her co-redemptrix SCREAMS that there is heresy and manipulation of the Scriptures. It is so patently obvious.

Dude, are you just trying to confuse me here, or what? The quote from then-Cardinal Ratzinger was against dogmatically defining “Mary is Co-redemptrix”, not in favor of it.

 

[Leeann]

Tantum
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.

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.”

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 (based on the Pope’s words that he expressed above) 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.

Oh my goodness Tantum….no need bow to me….you can kowtow if you want too, although I’ve never been exactly sure what that means….but we as Christians should only bow to God…

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.
Me too! We must have a lot in common!

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.

Thank you Tantum…you did that so… graciously.

 

[Leeann]

I haven’t been following this thread in a while, nut what was the author’s point if the Apostles wouldn’t have mentioned prayers to saints? Was she trying to discredit the Catholic Church? A troll perhaps?

Hi Ite ad loseph

Who do you think the Apostles would point the Pope too…Mary or Jesus ?

(with regards to the Pope’s prayer - see the Opening post for this thread).

 

[Ite_ad_Ioseph]

Whatever she was attempting, another opportunity to direct people away from Mariolotry and toward the correct appraisal and appreciation of her and utter abandonment to Him!

By the way, Ignatius in the 1st century knew of only one Universal (“catholic”) Church: The one all born again people were and are members of . The one Paul said we enter “by grace through faith…it is the gift of God, not of works”. Catholic simply means universal.

God Bless

But I do not worship the Theotokos, that would be stupid. How did you the the idea Catholics did that?
And yes, Ignatius did know, of one church, which was called the Catholic Church. I believe that Church still exists today, and that it has the same name. I think you and I are talking about two different churches.

 

[Good_Fella]

Whatever she was attempting, another opportunity to direct people away from Mariolotry and toward the correct appraisal and appreciation of her and utter abandonment to Him!

“Mariolatry” is a loaded term pejoratively used by non-Catholic Christians who hold a pantheistic denial of human mediation in God’s plan of salvation. They subscribe to the unbiblical concept of Sola Christu. And there’s more:

“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the ‘flesh’ of Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.”
Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, 7 (c.A.D. 110)

By the way, Ignatius in the 1st century knew of only one Universal (“catholic”) Church: The one all born again people were and are members of . The one Paul said we enter “by grace through faith…it is the gift of God, not of works”. Catholic simply means universal.

“Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is administered either by a bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude of the people also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.”*
*Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, 8 (c.A.D. 110) *

“For what is the bishop but one who beyond all others possesses all power and authority, so far as it is possible for a man to possess it, who according to his ability [viz., Apostolic Succession], has been made an imitator of the Christ of God.”
Ignatius, Epistle to the Trallians, 7 (c.A.D. 110)

Ignatius (a disciple of John) professed belief in the Holy Eucharist as the Body of Christ: in substance, but not in appearance, the actual flesh of the historic Jesus who died for us and rose from the dead. He emphasized that the unity of the one universal Church is not only spiritual but physical as a visible and concrete institution overseered by the validly appointed bishops who have succeeded the Apostles. The physical unity of the Church is realized in the Blessed Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist and the unity of faith is centered on its celebration in the Sacred Liturgy of the Mass. In his Epistle to the Smyrnaeans Ignatius speaks of the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church as a single, visible, and concrete entity. We have “Catholic” with a capital ‘C’. Christians who refrain from believing in the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist and celebrating the Sacrament are not in full communion with the one universal Church established by Christ and founded on Peter and the Apostles. The idea of an “invisible Church” weaved together strictly by spiritual ties is a Protestant invention. It certainly is not grounded on Scripture and Apostolic Tradition.

The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because the loaf of bread is one, we though many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf.
1 Corinthians 10, 16-17

" Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him."
John 6, 53-56

“I have other sheep, that do not belong to this fold. These also I must lead, and they will hear my voice; and there will be ‘one’ flock, one shepherd.”
John 10, 16

When Jesus pronounced these prophetic words of his, he did not have an invisible and divided Church in mind. The conflicting traditions among the countless Protestant denominations outside the Church do not reflect our Lord’s will which has been realized in the institution of the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church.

“One body and one Spirit, as you were also called to the one hope of your call; one Lord, one faith, one baptism.”
Ephesians 4, 4-5

Whoever teaches something different and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the religious teaching of the Apostolic teaching authority of the Church] is conceited, understanding nothing, and has a morbid disposition for arguments and verbal disputes. From these come envy, rivalry, insults, evil suspicions, the mutual friction among people with corrupted minds, who are deprived of the truth, supposing religion to be a means of gain.
1 Timothy 6, 3-5

When I read this passage I am reminded of the vehement bickering that had existed among the early Protestant reformers to Luther’s dismay and the subsequent dissensions in the Protestant tradition that has resulted in the endless splintering of denominations.
:harp:

 

[Peter_J]

If that was the case, then why didn’t He teach it in detail? Answer: Because it is not what you think.

I would say that the reason that isn’t taught explicitly, in either the Gospels or the Epistles, is that the early Church decided not to make it a mandatory belief. That doesn’t mean that it isn’t true.

 

[Leeann]

nbtb1328 and Good Fella -

If you want to go into more indedpth detail with regards to the “church” could you take it to another thread please that deals more with that…thanks.

 

[guanophore]

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).

My dear ron, you are very confused. The definition of Sacred Tradition is God’s revelation of HImself through the Church. It is the same thing!

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.

There is no “clash” ron. This is a private prayer, a devotion to Mary, whom the Pope has adopted as his spiritual mother. It is not part of the Sacred Tradition, and is not binding upon believers. If you don’t want to pray the prayer, don’t. No problem. If the Pope wants to pray it, why criticize his prayer life? He is not teaching ex-cathedra!

 

[guanophore]

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.

It is love poetry, and private devotion. It is not part of the official teaching of the Church. It is a pious private practice.

 

[guanophore]

That was back when that tall, thick curtain that separated God from the common man had not yet been torn in half. Now we have the privilege, the invitation, and the responsibility…“Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.”–Hebrews 4:16 I think the doctrine of praying to Mary undermines the joy and wonder that we are presented at the prospect of approaching Jesus directly.

People who say things like this have fallen for the false dichotomy presented in the OP. Jesus is accessible to us. He is accessible to us through our loved ones that pray for us. Asking the intercession of others does not subtract from our own access.

 

[guanophore]

If that was the case, then why didn’t He teach it in detail?

He did! He taught them for 40 more days, then after He ascended, sent the HS to guide them into all truth. If you are saying the Church got “off track” then Jesus was either a liar, or to weak to do what He promised.

Still misguided.

According to the infallible standared of nb?

And frankly it is talk like this that absolutely seals the deal on that fact that there is doctrine in the RCC that is not authored by the Holly Spirit.

The problem you face, nb, if you are to be intellectualy honest with yourself, is that this doctrine is not “Roman”. It is known and accepted by all the ancient churches that were founded by Apostles, even those that have no love lost on Rome.

This notion of
‘co-redemptrix’ makes it so easy to spot. And Ephesians is the great teaching on the Church, and NOWHERE is the name Mary even to be found! To call her co-redemptrix SCREAMS that there is heresy and manipulation of the Scriptures. It is so patently obvious.

We don’t see it that way, mainly because our theology is not extracted form the scriptures some 1500 years or more after the Apostles. All the teachings of the Catholic Church come from Jesus, and He committed them completely to the Church before a word of the New testament was ever written. It is the Church who determines heresy, by the authority given her by Christ.