Prayer to the Blessed Virgin

[RobHom]

I not “dissing” anyone,

Come now… you know better than that. That is exactly what you have been doing, and to say anything different is truly “disingenuous”.

your most assuredly not helping your cause. Our first priority should be Christ not Mary.

Ahhh, but she is helping her cause. You just can’t see it.

Christ is our first priority. Mary is neither a god nor an idol. It is you and yours who attempt to elevate her to that position. And wrongly so by your misunderstanding of the subject.

Thou shalt make no other god before me, the first commandment.

And we abide by that commandment, as well as the other 9. Keep in mind…that it is only your opinion that says otherwise.

 

[East_and_West]

You can’t have it both ways - either Christ saves or Mary does. You choose Mary, you wrote it and you can’t deny you did.

Let me tell you it’s Christ work on the Cross that saves us, nothing else or no one else does.

This kind of zero sum thinking is extremely shallow. You forget what st paul says in his epistle, “I fill up in my body what is lacking in the sufferings of Christ.” While It is ultimately Christ who redeemer, mediator, etc. when we become Christians we all participate in the work of redemption as suggested by St. Paul. Now, we do not do this on our own, but only are able to participate in light of the fact that we are incorporated into Christ, and become members of his very body. BUT we could never do this on our own. Its like a Father who is working with his very young child. I remember my dad would take me out to “help” him fix is car when i was a kid. I also remember that I really didn’t do much to add to the situation. I just held tools and handed them to my father.This was something he could have easily done without me. However, I still participated in some way and my proud father would say that I had helped him fix the car. Our God worked with humanity in the same way to bring about our redemption. Humanity has participated in Salvaiton history according to God’s purposes but he could easily have saved us without our help. Yet, we still participated. The person who participated in the most excellent way was the Blessed Virgin Mary. It was through her that Christ became man and came to us. God chose to use her “yes” to be the yes that allowed the incarnation to become a reality and, thus, for Christ to die for our sins and to rise to bring us to life. None of this Dimishes the Glory of God in the matter. In fact, it exalts God all the more because he was able to lead broken, weak, humanity to participate in his most perfect work. In fact, to ignore this, to down play it, is to insult his paternal love.

 

[East_and_West]

Its amazing that people are throwing around the commandment to “have no other god’s” before God, for two reasons. First, Catholics reject the idea that anyone shoud be worshiped but God. Period. God, and God alone is worthy of worship. But the second reason that it amazes me is that everyone is forgetting the commandment “Honor thy Father and thy Mother”. Revelations 12 refers to all Christians as Mary’s “offspring”. If we are her offspring, then she is our Mother and we owe her the honor of a loving mother.

 

[fix]

Clearly this does happen. I just read a post over in the non-Catholic forum where a member had elevated her to a member of the Trinity. :bigyikes:

Do you have a link?

 

[East_and_West]

Do you have a link?

There is a heretical sect out there that elevates her to that level. But obviously they are not Catholics but, rather, a heretical group.

 

[East_and_West]

I know that Catholics say that they do not pray TO Mary; however, I found this published in my local paper this morning:

PRAYER TO THE BLESSED VIRGIN

“(Never known to all) Oh, most beautiful flowers of Mount Carmel, fruitful vine, splendor of Heaven, Blessed Mother of the Son of God, Immaculate Virgin, assist me in my necessity. Oh, Star of the Sea, help me and show me, herein you are my mother. Oh, Holy Mary, Mother of God, Queen of Heaven and Earth! I humbly beseech you from the bottom of my heart to succor me in this necessity. There are none that can withstand your power. Oh, show me herein you are my mother. Oh Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee (3X). Holy Spirit, you who solve all problems, light all roads so I can attain my goal. You who have the divine gift to forgive and forget all evil against me and that in all instances in my life, you are with me. I want in this short prayer to thank you for all things as I confirm once again that I never want to be separated from you in eternal glory. Thank you for your mercy toward me and mine. The person must say this prayer for 3 consecutive days. After 3 days, the request will be granted. This prayer must be published after the favor is granted.”

I know that Catholics say that this is the same as asking friend to pray for us, but is it really? The prayer addresses Mary in the same way as it addresses the Holy Spirit. Is Mary equal to the Holy Spirit?

What about the superstition? The prayer says, “You must say this prayer for 3 consecutive days. After 3 days, the request will be granted. This prayer must be published after the favor is granted.”

I don’t want to argue, but I’m really trying to understand this type of prayer.

Mary is not addressed in the same way as the Holy Spirit. They just both happened to be addressed in this prayer.

 

[historyb]

I think the scriptures I have provided show clearly that there is only one way, by the blood of Christ, and that all those who are in Christ can participate in bringing the salvation He provided to the world.

I am confused as to why you would want to disregard what these scriptures clearly show, that we can participate in the salvation of souls.

I am curious to hear you explain them away. I await your reply.

Your still trying to add to Christ atonement on the Cross, by your own admission and now trying to spin it in the opposite way

 

[historyb]

The scriptures are quite clear…and yet many who claim to be “Bible Believing Christians” who can “interpret” scripture cannot see what is abundantly clear.

They, the scriptures, cannot be explained away. They are clear and concise…there is no denying what they mean. The only response possible is more disbelieving anti- rhetoric and tired old saws… You have to remember… and this is very important: If one of these people like historyb give even an eight of an inch…they think that they have surrendered the world. It is an admission that they were wrong… They are, but they refuse to see it. To admit it is lose any and all justification for their separation from the Catholic Church.

I’m not wrong it doesn’t mean what you all want it to mean, it seems it is Catholics who either on purpose or inadvertently adds to God’s Word. I will get to those verses later today.

 

[East_and_West]

Your still trying to add to Christ atonement on the Cross, by your own admission and now trying to spin it in the opposite way

“I fill up in my body what is lacking in the suffering of Christ.” - St. Paul.
Was St. Paul the Apostle adding to the atonement?

 

[historyb]

“I fill up in my body what is lacking in the suffering of Christ.” - St. Paul.
Was St. Paul the Apostle adding to the atonement?

Colossians 1:24 has consistently baffled and bothered Christians for centuries. Understandably so! Look at it again: “Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church.” Here are a few of the interpretive possibilities, concluding with the two I find most convincing.

First, let’s be clear about what this text does not mean. Paul is not saying that the redemptive sufferings of Jesus on the cross are deficient or incomplete or need to be supplemented by something that Paul or any of us might supply. I say this for several reasons. (a) Everywhere in his epistles, Paul says the opposite: Christ’s death has once for all secured eternal redemption and is perfect and altogether sufficient (cf. Col. 1:12-14, 19-20; 2:13-14). (b) Jesus himself said “It is finished” (John 19:30). (c) Every other NT author says the same (see Hebrews 1:3; 9:12-14, 24-28; 10:11-14; etc.) (d) The word translated “afflictions” is never used in the NT of Christ’s redemptive work at Calvary. Whereas the persecution and abuse he experienced on the earth were part of his messianic calling and qualified him to serve as our savior (see esp. Hebrews 2:10,17-18), it was his suffering and death on a cross that satisfied the wrath of the Father and secured our forgiveness.

Second, some have said that Paul is referring to the afflictions he endures “for the sake of Christ” in order to glorify him and advance the cause of the kingdom. This is true enough, but does not explain the phrase, “what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions,” nor accounts for how Paul can fill them up or complete them.

Third, others appeal to a typological meaning. Paul, they argue, thought of his sufferings as being like those of Christ. The sufferings of Jesus were a type or prefigurement of what all Christians would encounter. Paul’s sufferings, then, correspond to those of Jesus. Again, this is true enough, but fails to explain the “lack” in what Christ suffered or how Paul filled them up.

Fourth, there is the eschatological view. Here, the afflictions of Christ refer not to what Jesus suffered but to those trials and tribulations that immediately precede the end of the age, what some have called the “Messianic woes.” The idea is that there is a prescribed amount or definite measure of afflictions that Christians must endure before the end of the age. That limit, that quota, as it were, of messianic woes has not yet been reached or filled up. There is, therefore, a lack or deficiency which Paul by his suffering hopes to fill. The sufferings of the apostle, together with the sufferings of all believers, contribute to the sum total of these afflictions.
The final two views are more likely than any of the first four. I often find myself vacillating between them.

The fifth option has been defended by John Piper (*Desiring God: Meditations of a Christian Hedonist, *2003). “Paul’s sufferings,” he explains, “complete Christ’s afflictions not by adding anything to their worth, but by extending them to the people they were meant to save. What is lacking in the afflictions of Christ is not that they are deficient in worth, as though they could not sufficiently cover the sins of all who believe. What is lacking is that the infinite value of Christ’s afflictions is not known and trusted in the world. . . . So the afflictions of Christ are ‘lacking’ in the sense that they are not seen and known and loved among the nations. They must be carried by the ministers of the Word. And those ministers of the Word ‘complete’ [or ‘fill up’] what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ by extending them to others” (268).

What is lacking, then, in Christ’s afflictions is not propitiation but presentation. In other words, the sufferings of Jesus fully satisfied the wrath of God, but there is lacking “a personal presentation by Christ Himself to the nations of the world. God’s answer to this lack is to call the people of Christ (people like Paul) to make a personal presentation of the afflictions of Christ to the world. In doing this, we ‘fill up what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions.’ We finish what they were designed for, a personal presentation to the people who do not know about their infinite worth” (269).

The amazing think about this text is how Paul envisions himself (and others) filling up this lack. It is in his “flesh”! In other words, “God intends for the afflictions of Christ to be presented to the world through the afflictions of His people. . . . Our calling is to make the afflictions of Christ real for people by the afflictions we experience in bringing them the message of salvation. Since Christ is no longer on the earth, He wants His body, the church, to reveal His suffering in its suffering” (269-70).

Sixth, and finally, it may be that in some sense Paul is experiencing afflictions in the place of Jesus, afflictions that Jesus otherwise would have endured were he on earth. By doing so Paul is convinced that he is providing an example of endurance and faith that will encourage and be of benefit to the Colossians.

The key to this final option is the concept of a spiritual union that exists between Christ and his people. We read of something similar in Paul’s encounter with Jesus on the Damascus Road – “And falling to the ground he [Saul/Paul] heard a voice saying to him, ‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?’ And he said, ‘Who are you, Lord?’ And he said, ‘I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting’” (Acts 9:4-5; cf. Gal. 2:20; Phil. 3:10). Everything done to the body of Christ, the church, is done to Christ himself, and vice versa.

The afflictions of Paul were the afflictions of Christ: the latter suffered in and with the former because of their spiritual union. In a sense, the sufferings of Paul (and of all Christians) are simply the continuation of the world’s quarrel with our Lord. Jesus, because of the brevity of his earthly life, did not bear the full brunt of the world’s hatred and animosity. Thus, we are the objects of it in his place.

The world hated and afflicted Jesus without ceasing. But since he is not here, their arrows of persecution, meant especially for him, strike his followers. By virtue of our spiritual union and identity with him, as well as our commitment to him, we endure the persecution and affliction which he otherwise would experience. What the world believes is lacking in his suffering, we fill up. We bear the afflictions which are still intended for him (see especially John 15:18-21; 2 Cor. 1:5; 4:10; Gal. 6:17). As Mark 13:13 states, “You shall be hated by all men for my name’s sake.”

Whichever of these last two options proves to be correct (or perhaps a combination of them, or even another view we have not considered), the point is the same: the calling of Christians is to willingly and joyfully endure suffering for the sake of Christ and his kingdom, for the sake of Christ and his body, the church. In this way we are seen to be his own. In this way others see him, through us, in his love for sinners. In this way we “share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death” (Phil. 3:10).

Source

 

[East_and_West]

Source

Interesting. Looks like you are appealing to one MAN"s interpretation of scripture. Which brings us to the fatal flaw of Protestantism. Each person is a Church unto himself interperating the scriptures how he or she see fit. This is why there are thousands of competing protestant sects.

 

[GailMac]

O Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to you.
O Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to you.
O Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to you.

See how easy that is?

Peace,

Gail

 

[justasking4]

Interesting. Looks like you are appealing to one MAN"s interpretation of scripture. Which brings us to the fatal flaw of Protestantism. Each person is a Church unto himself interperating the scriptures how he or she see fit. This is why there are thousands of competing protestant sects.

Keep in mind that individual catholics must also interpret the Scriptures on their own since the church has never done so. Were all in the same boat…View attachment 4039

 

[historyb]

Keep in mind that individual catholics must also interpret the Scriptures on their own since the church has never done so. Were all in the same boat…View attachment 4039

Exactly, since the church only interpreted 7 verses

 

[RobHom]

I’m not wrong it doesn’t mean what you all want it to mean, it seems it is Catholics who either on purpose or inadvertently adds to God’s Word. I will get to those verses later today.

Oh, I think you’re wrong…and you think you’re not. Its kind of like a never ending tennis game, volley after volley. Oh well.

We don’t add to God’s Word…we accept it for what it is. We don’t need to add to it, nor do we need to detract from it or ignore it. 21 centuries of experience covers a lot of ground.

I saw what you posted above…and its little more than one person’s opinion. Sorry, but because someone expresses an opinion…it does not make it so.

 

[RobHom]

Keep in mind that individual catholics must also interpret the Scriptures on their own since the church has never done so. Were all in the same boat…View attachment 4039

SO, apparently the learning process has truly begun…in that you finally have accepted the fact that “Catholics” are able to interpret what they read… Good Job!!

Now, here’s a very salient question: In the event that you read a Scripture and arrive at your personal “interpretation”…and then you have a conversation with a friend in your church and he tells you something wholly different in his interpretation… Who do you turn to settle the issue? And under and by what authority do they “settle” the matter? Do the both of you accept the determination without rancor?

Pray tell?

 

[RobHom]

Exactly, since the church only interpreted 7 verses

Yes…as dogma. However, if you go to this site you will find that the Douay-Rheims Bible drbo.org/ has a rather large number of accepted interpretations that are endorsed by the Church.

You might want to take some time and check out the Douay-Rheims Bible…and the interpretations and notations in it. Its really quite interesting.

Unlike many others, we have a “reliable source” for teaching and interpretation…that doesn’t get involved in the whims of personal interpretation…

 

[TriuneUnity]

SO, apparently the learning process has truly begun…in that you finally have accepted the fact that “Catholics” are able to interpret what they read… Good Job!!

Too bad your hierarchy doesn’t think so

hehe j/k

 

[RobHom]

Too bad your hierarchy doesn’t think so

hehe j/k

Actually…the “hierarchy” does think it. Its even in the Catechism… You can stop running now

 

[guanophore]

Your still trying to add to Christ atonement on the Cross, by your own admission and now trying to spin it in the opposite way

It is not so much a addition as a participation. We are privileged to partake of the pain of HIs sufferings, and the power of His resrurection. When Paul wrote that he makes up in his body what he can “add” to the sufferings of Christ, you don’t really think he meant that Christ’s sacrifice was somehow incomplete, do you?

I’m not wrong it doesn’t mean what you all want it to mean, it seems it is Catholics who either on purpose or inadvertently adds to God’s Word. I will get to those verses later today.

No, we just recognize that HIs Word is not confined to the Scripture.

Don’t you think it is time to change the affiliation you listed in your profile? Isn’t it a bit disingenuous to claim you are Catholic?

Keep in mind that individual catholics must also interpret the Scriptures on their own since the church has never done so. Were all in the same boat…

No, ja4, we are not in the same boat. The Church teaches us the Doctrine, so that we can properly understand the scriptures. We also have guidlines of interpretation, to keep us from going astray. When Jesus said “I will not leave you orphaned”, He meant that.

Too bad your hierarchy doesn’t think so

hehe j/k

This is just a spiteful anti-Catholic remark. If I did not know so many of your posts, I would hope it is in ignorance, but it is not. The reason the Church has the Teachings and methods of interpretation so available is because they understand that we all interpret what we read according to our individual experiences and education (or lack of it). Interpreting privately does not have to get people off track. It only does so when the reader ignores the Apostolic Teachings.