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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Leeann
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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. 🤷

According to the infallible standared of nb?

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.

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.
The problem with that is that the Holy Spirit never guides contrary to Scripture. That teaching about co-redemptrix ascended from a deep pit, and the Holy Spirit isn’t down there.
 
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.
When you meet someone who is not a Christian, what is your goal with them?
 
The problem with that is that the Holy Spirit never guides contrary to Scripture. That teaching about co-redemptrix ascended from a deep pit, and the Holy Spirit isn’t down there.
That’s seems a little extreme – although, to be fair, I believe that a number of Protestant beliefs are heresies, which probably seems “a little extreme” to you.
 
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!
Actually, I see it more the other way around. Namely, when the Pope is teaching ex cathedra, he really can’t be legitimately criticized.

P.S. Don’t get me wrong: even when he’s not teaching ex cathedra, I’m still reluctant to criticize him.

P.P.S. In an attempt to avoid going too far off-topic (See Leeann, I can be helpful sometimes ;)) I’ve repeated my comment, along with the relevant portion of your post, on the Theologoumenon thread.
 
Actually, I see it more the other way around. Namely, when the Pope is teaching ex cathedra, he really can’t be legitimately criticized.

P.S. Don’t get me wrong: even when he’s not teaching ex cathedra, I’m still reluctant to criticize him.

P.P.S. In an attempt to avoid going too far off-topic (See Leeann, I can be helpful sometimes ;)) I’ve repeated my comment, along with the relevant portion of your post, on the Theologoumenon thread.
Fortunately we have the unchanging Word of God to judge the words of any and all popes.
 
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.
How would you know if a Catholic stepped over into Mary worship. What would be the evidence?
 
Actually, I see it more the other way around. Namely, when the Pope is teaching ex cathedra, he really can’t be legitimately criticized.

P.S. Don’t get me wrong: even when he’s not teaching ex cathedra, I’m still reluctant to criticize him.

P.P.S. In an attempt to avoid going too far off-topic (See Leeann, I can be helpful sometimes ;)) I’ve repeated my comment, along with the relevant portion of your post, on the Theologoumenon thread.
Thanks PeterJ…saved me the trouble!
Is it all right for me to take a peak at that thread your posted…I don’t want to be accused of being a “troll” by anyone…:rolleyes:
 
The problem with that is that the Holy Spirit never guides contrary to Scripture.
Then how do you explain the major differences in essential doctrines among the countless conflicting Protestant denominations? The one Spirit of truth cannot possibly be guiding them in their private interpretations of Scripture and be the cause of division. Let us not presuppose that there is more than one Spirit. But there are many fallen angels roaming about in our midst. Martin Luther, John Calvin, Zwingli, etc. each had his own guiding demon. 😉
That teaching about co-redemptrix ascended from a deep pit, and the Holy Spirit isn’t down there.
The Church’s invocation of Mary as co-Redemptrix is biblical.

“And you yourself a sword will pierce, ‘so that’ the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed.”
Luke 2, 35

Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ on behalf of the body, which is the church.
Colossians 1, 24


In her flesh Mary filled up what was lacking in the afflictions of Christ by her spiritual suffering for the sake of our salvation. The Gospel of Luke reveals that Mary, by virtue of her Divine Maternity, had immersed herself in Christ’s redemptive sacrifice. But she has no redemptive role of her own neither “with” nor “under” Christ. She acts “in” and “through” Christ in God’s plan of salvation. Her role is subordinate to that of Christ’s, but in itself it is not redemptive. Only Christ could have redeemed the world for, unlike Mary, he is in no need of redemption.

Still Mary is presented as significantly participating in our Lord’s redemptive sacrifice through the spiritual sufferings she would have to endure on account of the love she has for her divine Son, who terribly suffered and died for our salvation. In the faithful spirit of Abraham she willingly offered her Son back to the Father in the temple for our salvation. God chose no path other than the Incarnation to save us from sin. Hence, the Catholic Church does not teach that Mary’s role is co-redemptive, for she has no power to redeem and save the world. She has contributed to the redemption that Christ alone has achieved by helping our Lord save souls in like manner of the Apostles which calls for suffering together with our Lord and exemplified by him. By our baptism, we are called to immerse our acts in those of our Lord and Master in the work of salvation.

Jesus told his apostles at the Last Supper: “What I have done for you, so you must also do for each other.” Although we are saved strictly by the merits of Christ, our Lord desires that we assist him in his great sacrificial Act in the salvation of souls now that he alone has redeemed the world. Mary collaborates with God in his plan of salvation, and she is more closely associated with Jesus than any other of his disciples by virtue of her Divine Maternity. She did help redeem the world, without having to redeem the world herself together with Christ, by faithfully and lovingly obeying the will of God in the Annunciation. The Father spared Isaac, but not Jesus. Mary had to suffer the agony of witnessing the cruel death of her only beloved Son. She suffered so that Christ ‘would’ redeem us. But our Lord could have redeemed us without Mary’s participation if his heavenly Father had not willed that His Only-begotten Son be “made of a woman”.

Together with Elizabeth, who declared: “Blessed are you who believed that what was spoken to you by the Lord would be fulfilled,” we honour Mary for her great act of faith through love. Our Redeemer came into the world through Mary’s ‘Fiat’. God chose Mary because he knew she would say “Yes” to his will, that everyone be saved. Jesus refuses to save us without our love of God. “Faith through love” is essential for our salvation. To be saved we must cooperate with God’s grace now that Christ has redeemed the world from the sin of Adam and Eve. Our personal obedience to the will of God completes our salvation. We are called to fulfill the divine initiative. Mary had answered that call for our benefit. In the order of grace, Mary’s role as a disciple of Christ in the work of salvation is beyond compare.

“There is one Physician who is possessed both of flesh and spirit; both made and not made; God existing in flesh; true life in death; both of Mary and of God; first possible and then impossible, even Jesus Christ our Lord.”
Ignatius of Antioch, To the Ephesians, 7 (c.A.D. 110)

“And thus also it was that the knot of Eve’s disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. For what the virgin Eve had bound fast through unbelief, this did the virgin Mary set free through faith.”
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:22 (A.D. 180)


The unbiblical Protestant concepts Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, and Sola Christu emerged from the deep pit. :yup:

Then the fifth angel blew his trumpet, and I saw a star that had fallen from the sky to the earth. It was given the ‘key’ for the passage to the abyss.
Revelation 9, 1


PAX :harp:
 
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.
It is love poetry, and private devotion. It is not part of the official teaching of the Church. It is a pious private practice.
Sovereign means supreme, highest, greatest. Is that statement OK with you?
 
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! 🤷
The early, first generation Christians who were present in the upper room and many others who were evangelized by the apostles, did not have any of the traditions we have today and they attained salvation by the spoken word of the gospel only.
 
The problem with that is that the Holy Spirit never guides contrary to Scripture. That teaching about co-redemptrix ascended from a deep pit, and the Holy Spirit isn’t down there.
Although I disagree with you about the source, you probably say this because you don’t understand the meaning of the term. In any case, you are fighting a straw man, since this is not an official teaching of the Church, any more than the prayer cited by the OP. I would recommend that we respect the wishes of the OP, and stay on topic.

The OP has created for a topic a false dichotomy, implying that turning to a disciple of Christ will somehow misdirect someone from Christ. Perhaps this would happen if such a disciple was corrupted, and interested in drawing attention to herself at the expense of Christ, such as Simon Magus in the book of Acts. Perhaps the OP believes that Mary is more interested in gleaning attention for herself,than pointing people to Christ?

Perhaps she believes this about Catholics also?
 
The Body of Christ is alive and growing in its understanding of itself. The Body of Christ in the Pentecost in a way is different from the Body of Christ now, in the sense that it grows in its understanding of its role in human salvation as guided by the Holy Spirit.
 
Actually, I see it more the other way around. Namely, when the Pope is teaching ex cathedra, he really can’t be legitimately criticized.
Saying that we have the Bible to judge the Pope’s ex cathedra statements is like saying the we have the Gospel of Matthew to judge the Epistle to the Hebrews.

Once we agree that the Epistle to the Hebrews is part of Sacred Scripture, we automatically know that it isn’t in conflict with any book of the Bible.

Same with a papal ex cathedra statement.
 
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! 🤷
The early Christians had no knowledge of Roman Catholic tradition and still attained salvation.
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!
This is from EWTN ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp2bvm56.htm
In fact, starting from the fifth century, almost in the same period in which the **Council of Ephesus proclaims her “Mother of God”, **the title of Queen begins to be attributed to her. With this further recognition of her sublime dignity, the Christian people want to place her above all creatures, exalting her role and importance in the life of every person and of the whole world.

But already a fragment of a homily, attributed to Origen, contains this comment on the words Elizabeth spoke at the Visitation “It is I who should have come to visit you, because you are blessed above all women, you are the Mother of my Lord, you are my Lady” (Fragment, PG 13, 1902 D). **The text passes spontaneously from the expression “the Mother of my Lord” to the title, “my Lady”, anticipating what St John Damascene was later to say, attributing to Mary the title of “Sovereign”: “When she became Mother of the Creator, she truly became queen of all creatures” **(De fide orthodoxa, 4, 14, PG94, 1157).

*** Only God is sovereign. (highest, greatest, above all) ***
 
Thanks PeterJ…saved me the trouble!
Is it all right for me to take a peak at that thread you posted…I don’t want to be accused of being a “troll” by anyone…:rolleyes:
Oh, well, I suppose I could allow that this one time. 😃
 
It is love poetry, and private devotion. It is not part of the official teaching of the Church. It is a pious private practice.
It is part of the official teaching.

ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp2bvm56.htm
** “Popular devotion invokes Mary as Queen.** The Council, after recalling the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin in “body and soul into heavenly glory”, explains that she was “exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things, that she might be the more fully conformed to her Son, the Lord of lords (cf. Rv 19:16) and conqueror of sin and death” (Lumen gentium, n. 59).
**
In fact, starting from the fifth century, almost in the same period in which the Council of Ephesus proclaims her “Mother of God”, the title of Queen begins to be attributed to her. With this further recognition of her sublime dignity, the Christian people want to place her above all creatures, exalting her role and importance in the life of every person and of the whole world.**
But already a fragment of a homily, attributed to Origen, contains this comment on the words Elizabeth spoke at the Visitation “It is I who should have come to visit you, because you are blessed above all women, you are the Mother of my Lord, you are my Lady” (Fragment, PG 13, 1902 D). **The text passes spontaneously from the expression “the Mother of my Lord” to the title, “my Lady”, anticipating what St John Damascene was later to say, attributing to Mary the title of “Sovereign”: **“When she became Mother of the Creator, she truly became queen of all creatures” (De fide orthodoxa, 4, 14, PG94, 1157).”

This all began with popular devotion. It has nothing to do with sacred scripture. That’s the conflict.
 
Although I disagree with you about the source, you probably say this because you don’t understand the meaning of the term. In any case, you are fighting a straw man, since this is not an official teaching of the Church, any more than the prayer cited by the OP. I would recommend that we respect the wishes of the OP, and stay on topic.

The OP has created for a topic a false dichotomy, implying that turning to a disciple of Christ will somehow misdirect someone from Christ. Perhaps this would happen if such a disciple was corrupted, and interested in drawing attention to herself at the expense of Christ, such as Simon Magus in the book of Acts. Perhaps the OP believes that Mary is more interested in gleaning attention for herself,than pointing people to Christ?

Perhaps she believes this about Catholics also?
I’ll let the bait in that last sentence continue to dangle. 😉

I presented an analogy address this point, which got skipped over over at the time-I’m posting it a second time to see if anyone interacts with it now.
As I stated in my second post today, I agree that there is an aspect in which saints (including Mary) are united to Christ, being part of the church, and at the same time there are clear distinctions between Jesus and these saints.

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

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

Thoughts?
 
I’ll address that analogy --the point of course is that nowhere do we consider that in prayer to Mary we are praying to ‘her alone’.

The whole problem with the OP and the scenario is this ‘disconnect’ in which an unnatural separation and a presumptive ‘unnatural focus’ is presented as ‘truth’.

Prayer to Mary is never ‘instead of’ prayer to Jesus, but rather to be considered an addition.

Therefore in the analogy, it would be considered that in speaking to the husband, we are automatically including the wife–that they are hearing us ‘together’ and that even if we say, “hubby” they hear ‘hubby and wife’; likewise, if we address the wife as ‘wife’, she AND he are automatically hearing, "wife and hubby’.

Because of course any analogy using purely ‘human’ examples is bound to come up short of being able to accurately represent a ‘divine’ example. Christ and his saints in heaven are not bounded by the limitations of ‘earthbound’ humanity.
 
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/…f-pompeii.html
It is part of the official teaching.

ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp2bvm56.htm
** "Popular devotion invokes Mary as Queen.** The Council, after recalling the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin in “body and soul into heavenly glory”, explains that she was “exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things, that she might be the more fully conformed to her Son, the Lord of lords (cf. Rv 19:16) and conqueror of sin and death” (Lumen gentium, n. 59).**
**

etc.

If by “it” you mean the idea that Mary is Queen, then you are correct: it is official teaching. (I don’t claim to speak for guanophore, but I don’t believe that’s what his “it” meant in the above quotation.)
 
Non Seviam… Beyond the point that Leeann has beaten that dead horse innumerable times, and there is literally nothing left of the carcass…the analogy is borderline to useless.

Where the real problem lies…is in the inability of some people to understand, or even try to understand Catholicism, and the fact that everything about Catholicism is “biblical”. The problem is further exacerbated by the recalcitrance of the affected parties to look outside of their narrow scope of “belief”, in that they (non-Catholics) have embraced the wholly MAN-MADE TRADITION of sola scriptura… which has absolutely no biblical foundation anywhere. And those same people completely ignore all of the research and writings of the Early Christian Fathers that do not agree with their particular “agenda”.

Further, the notion that each and every one of those people is apparently embraces the notion that absolutely anyone can interpret the bible. This is a falsehood, as is thoroughly proven by the innumerable number of different Protestant sects, religions and denominations.

The problem extends further when people who are not properly or fully trained in theology take it upon themselves to decide who is right or wrong about another person’s beliefs. I am especially referring to those who set themselves up as pharisees and decide that Catholics are wrong about this or that.

I have a question for you and all other “Protestants”… If you are of the “belief” that anyone can interpret the bible scriptures, …and being fully in the understanding that the word ANYONE is an inclusive word, not leaving anyone out, do you also believe that mentally retarded people, brain damaged, and illiterate persons are capable of interpreting scriptures?

**Its a simple question, requiring only a YES or NO answer.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top