Queenship of Mary?

[FuzzyBunny116]

I’ve got to admit, I don’t exactly agree with much he’s said, but at least try and be a bit more charitable about it >_<.

 

[Michael_Francis]

I’m going to post this general charity warning and I want those of you who know it’s meant for you to take it to heart. I do monitor these threads and some of you have been less than charitable in your posts lately. Mockery is uncharitable. Don’t let me come in here and find you not playing nice, or there will be “time outs”.
Luke 6:31 Do to others as you would have them do to you.

 

[RyanL]

BM5,

Michael and Fuzzy are entirely correct. I apologize. I was wrong for being rude, and I ask that you forgive me. You have nothing to fear as far as being kicked off of the forum, as long as you obey the rules. If you would, please allow me to explain why people (including me) have been uncharitable so far…

1. As a dogma of the Catholic faith, we believe that the Bible is the Holy word of God, and is inerrant.
2. As a dogma of the Catholic faith, we believe that Mary is the mother of God. This does not mean that she gave birth to the Trinity (who existed from all time), only that she gave birth to the 2nd Person of the Trinity, who is a whole person (body and soul).
3. As a doctrine of the Catholic faith, we believe that Nestorianism is a heresy.
4. As a dogma of the Catholic faith, we believe that Jesus is the Messiah.
5. As a revealed truth from Sacred Scriptures, we believe that Jesus is the King of kings, and is righfully in so being from the Line of David, as was prophesied.

You have called all of these things mistakes (or worse), and have brought nothing to the table to support your argument. To us, this is roughly equivalent to saying that you do cold fusion in your basement, or that you know the cure for AIDS. It is wonderful if you do know, but unless you support your position we are likely to think you’re a crack-pot (due to our fallen human nature and our propensity to rush to judgment).

You are certainly welcome to hold the views you do and discuss them with us, but please make sure it’s a discussion; by this I mean please ask questions, and we will answer. Conversely, we will ask questions and will (from now on) be receptive to the answers you provide. It would help if you would cite some sort of (1) Scriptural support for your position, (2) logical basis for your claims, or (3) appeal to history to show (a) that what you claim actually happened and (b) when this happened.

Again, I apologize for not treating you with the dignity you deserve as a child of God.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[mlchance]

RyanL:

Again, I apologize for not treating you with the dignity you deserve as a child of God.

And, not to detract from anything Ryan said, let’s make one thing abundantly clear. My blatant disrespect expressed as internet laughter was directed entirely at BM5’s ridiculous assertions, not at BM5 himself.

Claims to be in on secret knowledge the likes of Fatima merit being taken as not-seriously as possible.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[mikeledes]

Boy, you know this thread is HOT when the moderator has to intervene. BM5 accepts Mary as Queen of Heaven, but does not accept Christ as King and Messiah. I don’t understand the logic here. By doing this, are you not exalting Mary above her own Son? Is that not a contradiction of your arguments claiming that Mary is not the Mother of God?

God Bless

 

[BM5]

apology accepted

This is my creed

I believe in One Almighty Triune God.
The Father, The Son and the Holy Ghost.
Creator of Heaven and Earth.
Who in the Person of the Son, by the Holy Ghost
took flesh of the sinless Virgin Mary and raised it to Divinity.
He suffered for our salvation.
Descended into Hell.
Rose from the dead on the third day.
Ascended into Heaven.
From whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.

There is nothing anti-catholic in this creed. I put myself down as Judeo-Christian ( Deut.-Christian ) believing that the continuity of truth was maintained by the Blessed Virgin Mary with Her multitude of Angels.
I know that the things I post are controversial, I can’t help that.I am only interested in the truth no matter how bizarre or difficult it seems.

God is All, and fills the Universe with His invisible presence, so what does He need Kingship for ?
Our Blessed Mother is human and is the closest a human being can get to Divinity.
This is the way I think and I can’t see any contradiction.

I definitly see contradiction in the policy change I posted above. This justice system established by God through Moses summed up with “eye for eye and tooth for tooth” changed to “turn the other cheek”
So what do you think ? I’ve stated what I think happened to the scriptures and I believe Our Lord warned about it in the parable about the field planted with good seed being contaminated by an enemy at night with weed seed all growing up together. And in another place He warns about the Birds of the Air doing their thing.

But this is just me and enough about me, how about you.

 

[hurst]

BM5:

Exactly right. So why do I say it knowing full well the response ?

Reflect on who the Scribes were and what their main job was.
What did Our Lord say about them ?
The Bible is a composite of truth, half truth and lies.
Those Scribes were always working at it, changing, deleting and adding. They moved into the Church after the Resurrection to get control and keep up their dirty work, even putting into print words
Our Lord never said and could never have said.

…

Hi. I just joined this forum today.

I think that Holy Scripture must be revered as the true Word of God, and no allowance for error should be tolerated. As soon as I believe any part of the Holy Scripture is wrong, I separate myself from the Church, and am left to fend for myself in determining what is true. This has already happened even to scholars within the Church, who in repudiating the teaching of the Church, pick and choose which parts of the Bible they consider “true”.

The papal encyclicals I have read point out that if there is any error in the Scriptures, then God cannot be the author, since He is Truth. But the Church teaches that God is the Author of the Holy Scriptures. I read that St. Augustine so revered it that he would rather believe he misunderstood what he read rather than that what he read was wrong.

If you really believe that the Bible is not all true, then you should not rely on it at all to make a point, should you? You expect us to accept you as the authority who determines which part is valid? Does it not amount to you promoting your own ideas and beliefs?

I base my beliefs on the teachings of the Catholic Church, which are based on the Holy Scriptures and the Pope, preserved in fact for almost 2000 years.

I wonder what you are basing your beliefs on. What have you accepted as being true? It is clearly not the Bible, for you are judging the Bible from another view point which you hold is more valid or true.

May I ask where you received this other knowledge from?

hurst

 

[hurst]

This is going somewhat off-topic, but I would like to address BM5’s concerns.

BM5:

…
I definitly see contradiction in the policy change I posted above. This justice system established by God through Moses summed up with “eye for eye and tooth for tooth” changed to “turn the other cheek”
So what do you think ?
…

I think that what changed is that Jesus fulfilled the Mosaic Law, and then put it aside so that the other promise to Abraham might be brought to the fore. It was by faith that Abraham was justified, and his descendents in faith are the ones who will inherit the promise of eternal life.

Romans 4:13 For not through the law was the promise to Abraham, or to his seed, that he should be heir of the world; but through the justice of faith.

You see, this “justice system” God set up didn’t get started until years after Abraham had died.
Gal 3:17 Now this I say, that the testament which was confirmed by God, the law which was made after four hundred and thirty years, doth not disannul, to make the promise of no effect.

It was in place as a temporary measure until the promise might be fulfilled:
Gal 3:19 Why then was the law? It was set because of transgressions, until the seed should come, to whom he made the promise, being ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.

The law was supposed to be lived by faith all along.
Eccles 32:27 In every work of thine regard thy soul in faith: for this is the keeping of the commandments.
Hab 2:4 Behold, he that is unbelieving, his soul shall not be right in himself: but the just shall live in his faith.

But of itself it did not give faith or life.
Gal 3:21 Was the law then against the promises of God? God forbid. For if there had been a law given which could give life, verily justice should have been by the law.

Abraham was not justified by the Mosaic Law. Neither is anyone else.
Romans 3:20 Because by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified before him. For by the law is the knowledge of sin.

We must do greater than that Law to be justified:
Matt 5:20 For I tell you, that unless your justice abound more than that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

In fact, the “new” law is stricter, requiring our very hearts:
Matt 5:21 You have heard that it was said to them of old: Thou shalt not kill. And whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment. 22 But I say to you, that whosoever is angry with his brother, shall be in danger of the judgment.
Matt 5:27 You have heard that it was said to them of old: Thou shalt not commit adultery. 28 But I say to you, that whosoever shall look on a woman to lust after her, hath already committed adultery with her in his heart.

So the law that was given to Moses was not the fulfillment of the promise. Jesus brings that.
John 1:17 For the law was given by Moses; grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.
Gal 4:4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent his Son, made of a woman, made under the law: 5 That he might redeem them who were under the law: that we might receive the adoption of sons.

Far from contradicting the law, it is actually the fulfillment:
Matt 5:17 Do not think that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.
Romans 3:31 Do we, then, destroy the law through faith? God forbid: but we establish the law.

For what is the law, after all?
Matt 7:12 All things therefore whatsoever you would that men should do to you, do you also to them. For this is the law and the prophets.

As God interacted more with Israel, He required them to respond accordingly:

1. After the Jews spent time as strangers in Egypt, He required them to welcome strangers. Exodus 23:9
2. After God slew the firstborn in Egypt, He required that of the Jews to be consecrated to Him. Exodus 13:15
3. Likewise, after God became man and did good to us who did evil to Him, we must imitate Him.
   John 13:34 A new commandment I give unto you: That you love one another, as I have loved you, that you also love one another.

So yes, it is a new commandment, but it is a perfection and fulfillment of the law.
Romans 8:4 That the justification of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh, but according to the spirit.

But who can live without offending God?
John 7:19 Did Moses not give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law?

By fulfilling the Law in Christ, God was satisfied so that in Christ no one is condemned by that law.
Romans 8:1 There is now therefore no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus, who walk not according to the flesh.

But the tradeoff is that we now belong to Christ.
Romans 7:4 Therefore, my brethren, you also are become dead to the law, by the body of Christ; that you may belong to another, who is risen again from the dead, that we may bring forth fruit to God.

I hoped this clarified that issue.

hurst

 

[BM5]

I believe that Our Lord fullfilled the law and thereby sanctioned it for all us fullfill and carry on with.

“Setting it aside” is the same as destroying it, and is the common acceptable belief based on most of the quotes you bring up which come from Saul of Tarsus, who came 10 years after the Ascension.

Saul of Tarsus wasn’t the Rock that Our Lord chose to build His Church with.

Peter spent three years with Our Lord and had all the things that we all know about. Is it reasonable to believe that after all that, the Apostles would carry on in error until Saul of Tarsus came along to correct them ?
Due to his pressure Deut. was dropped and the split between Judaism and Christianity was established. Continuity was gone.
Do you believe that this is the work of God ?
Yahweh established an everlasting covenant with Abraham and the sign was circumcision, a physcial event.
If outsiders wanted to join up and leave off worshipping false gods then they submitted to the law and were circumcised.
The covenant was confirmed with apostles and the practice was continued until Tarsus.
Doesn’t that raise a red-flag ?

What if,and this is only a" what if "okay ?

What if the bulk of Hebrews were flocking to the Apostles. Doesn’t it say there was great increase, and what if the Pharisees who obviously were losing out big time decided to infiltrate the Pristine Church in order to do something about it. The best way to stop Hebrews from leaving them and joining up would be to get them to drop the law.
To think that the Sanhedrin threw their hands in the air, gave up and went home is a bit nieve.

I suppose if you believe that the Church can never error on anything and has never had any devious people in charge then it follows that anyone who challenges is by default wrong.

 

[Sacramentalist]

I know it’s a sin (motal?) to question Forum Moderators, but I think Michael Frances is off when he says, without qualification, that “mockery is uncharitable.” Saint aul himself mocks his more arrogant disciples, and Our Lord uses all kinds of humor in his parables and discourses. I’d like to see a citation from Mr. Frances.

 

[hurst]

BM5:

I believe that Our Lord fullfilled the law and thereby sanctioned it for all us fullfill and carry on with.

You say He fulfilled it to reinforce the notion that we are all to fulfill it on our own?
That is contrary to the teaching of the Church. Jesus fulfilled the Law to satisfy His Father and obtain pardon for us while giving glory and honor to God.

So why did he institute Baptism? That is not in the Mosaic Law. Why did He initiate the Eucharist? That is not in the Law, though it was prefigured by the manna.

Is it not because by dying with Him we share in His fulfillment of the Law?
Romans 6:3 Know you not that all we, who are baptized in Christ Jesus, are baptized in his death?

Is it not because by eating His flesh and drinking His blood, we have true Life in us?
John 6:54 Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.

BM5:

“Setting it aside” is the same as destroying it, and is the common acceptable belief based on most of the quotes you bring up which come from Saul of Tarsus, who came 10 years after the Ascension.

Saul of Tarsus wasn’t the Rock that Our Lord chose to build His Church with.

Again, it was not destroyed, but fulfilled. And by Baptism we share in that fulfillment.

You are not questioning Saul/Paul, you are questioning the Word of God in the Holy Scriptures. Your underlying assertion is that the Holy Scriptures are not entirely authored by God. So you assert that what “Saul” “wrote” is not to be relied upon. You are rejecting a teaching of the Church, which asserts that the Bible is authored by God Himself through the human writer.

Thus, anything you say is your own opinion, conjecture, and guesswork. While you are entitled to think as you will, it is a danger to anyone’s Faith to believe you over the Church, which was founded to maintain the Faith handed down to us.

If anyone believes your suggestion that the Bible is wrong - for any reason - then they have traded the authority of the Church for your “authority”.

hurst

 

[cmt]

Just as the queen mother in the Davidic dynasty held the highest position of honor and influence, second only to the king, so too does Mary as the new queen mother hold a preeminent position in the new kingdom, second only to Christ.

In the monarchy of King David, as well as in other ancient kingdoms of the Near East, the mother of the ruling king held an important office in the royal court and most subjects who wished a favor from the King, went to the Queen Mother, rather than the King himself. She presented their petitions to the King. Mary continues to do the same. That is why we ask for her intercession, and honor her as Queen Mother.

“So Bathsheba went to King Solomon, to speak to him on behalf of Adonijah. And the king rose to meet her, and bowed down to her; then he sat on his throne and had a seat brought for the king’s mother; and she sat on his right. Then she said, ‘I have one small request to make of you; do not refuse me.’ And the king said to her, ‘Make your request, my mother; for I will not refuse you’” (1 Kgs. 2:19–20).

 

[hurst]

BM5:

Peter spent three years with Our Lord and had all the things that we all know about. Is it reasonable to believe that after all that, the Apostles would carry on in error until Saul of Tarsus came along to correct them ?

No. But again, there is no conflict in the understanding of the Church. The conflict you point out is the same conflict that the Judaizers in the early Church contended.

There is no reasoning with you with the Bible, is there? You don’t hold it true. Then what reasoning is there with you regarding the Church itself?

BM5:

Due to his pressure Deut. was dropped and the split between Judaism and Christianity was established. Continuity was gone.
Do you believe that this is the work of God ?

Again, by what authority or basis do you expect to be believed?
In any case, continuity was with the promise in faith to Abraham, while the legalistic portion was fulfilled and set aside. You say “destroyed”, implying something evil happened that shouldn’t have. But that it was taken away means it was taken away for those who now rely on Christ, because in Him it is done.

If you really want to follow that law, then go right on ahead, if you can. But you won’t obtain life by it. And you won’t even be able to fulfill it. And you will have NO PART in Christ.
John 13:8 Peter saith to him: Thou shalt never wash my feet. Jesus answered him: If I wash thee not, thou shalt have no part with me.

BM5:

Yahweh established an everlasting covenant with Abraham and the sign was circumcision, a physcial event.
If outsiders wanted to join up and leave off worshipping false gods then they submitted to the law and were circumcised.
The covenant was confirmed with apostles and the practice was continued until Tarsus.
Doesn’t that raise a red-flag ?

Again, there were two promises. The promise of eternal life was not linked to following the law, but to living by faith.

By which Law of Moses was the following man healed and forgiven?
Matt 9:2 And behold they brought to him one sick of the palsy lying in a bed. And Jesus, seeing their faith, said to the man sick of the palsy: Be of good heart, son, thy sins are forgiven thee.

Not that the law is thrown out altogether. But it has been spiritualized. We must live it in our hearts
John 4:23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true adorers shall adore the Father in spirit and in truth. For the Father also seeketh such to adore him. 24 God is a spirit; and they that adore him, must adore him in spirit and in truth.

hurst

 

[hurst]

BM5:

What if,and this is only a" what if "okay ?

What if the bulk of Hebrews were flocking to the Apostles. Doesn’t it say there was great increase, and what if the Pharisees who obviously were losing out big time decided to infiltrate the Pristine Church in order to do something about it. The best way to stop Hebrews from leaving them and joining up would be to get them to drop the law.
To think that the Sanhedrin threw their hands in the air, gave up and went home is a bit nieve.

As for what “the best way” would be, that is your own conjecture, isn’t it? But I think it is unfounded, since even before they crucified Our Lord, they were complaining of Him not following their rules. But maybe you are only counting circumcision?

If the Hebrews were flocking to Jesus, it wasn’t necessarily because He was enforcing the Law. Baptism is not in the Mosaic Law. Eating His flesh is not in the Mosiac Law directly, though prefigured by the manna. There are other examples. His teaching focused on faith and repentance.

I agree that they didn’t give up and go home. They were arresting them, flogging them, and telling them to stop preaching Jesus.
Acts 5:40 And calling in the apostles, after they had scourged them, they charged them that they should not speak at all in the name of Jesus; and they dismissed them.

If you decided to believe in Jesus because you thought He meant to keep the Mosaic Law in force, including fleshly circumcision, then you are sadly mistaken. You are not Christian. You are simply a Jew without a temple who believes that Jesus is somehow Divine.

Consider that Baptism fulfills the Mosaic Law by joining us to the death of Christ, and brings us new life in Christ.

BM5:

I suppose if you believe that the Church can never error on anything and has never had any devious people in charge then it follows that anyone who challenges is by default wrong.

Actually, I believe the Church can never err in spite of the fact that it has had devious people in charge.

Thus, if you challenge the teaching of the Church, then I believe you are wrong by default. But if you challenge the opinions and lifestyles of those in charge, then as long as you do it respectfully, you are probably justified.

Even in the days of Israel there were devious people in charge, wouldn’t you agree? But God kept His covenant for His Own Name’s sake, until He fulfilled His promise.

hurst

 

[hurst]

BM5:

Queen of Heaven yes !

Mother of God no !
…
Christ as a King no! Our Lord is Divinity in every little bit, what was supplied by Our Blessed Mother was raised to Divinity and became Divine !

Men become Kings. God is All !

So are you saying you believe that only flesh can be King or Queen? And that the flesh of Christ was raised to Divinity and thus was no longer flesh, hence that He cannot be “King”?

While we are taught that Christ indeed is fully Divine, we are also taught that He is fully man. God came in the flesh. We are taught that God’s grace does not destroy nature, but raises it up without destroying it.

It is interesting that you point out that the Law of Moses can’t/shouldn’t be destroyed, but allow for the flesh of Christ to be deified out of existence (and hence “destroyed”). Am I understanding you correctly? Because if you really believe that Christ was no longer in a fleshly body, but only “Divinity in every little bit”, then there are numerous other consequences that follow…

Meanwhile, that God is a King can be seen in Scripture (though you may deny the truth of it).
Psalm 46:3 For the Lord is high, terrible: a great king over all the earth.
Psalm 94:3 For the Lord is a great God, and a great King above all gods.
Malachias 1:14 Cursed is the deceitful man that hath in his flock a male, and making a vow offereth in sacrifice that which is feeble to the Lord: for I am a great King, saith the Lord of hosts, and my name is dreadful among the Gentiles.

BM5:

Mothers are creators, She did not create God . That is a blasphemy and She would be the first One to tell you so Herself. She created the flesh that was added to Divinty !

To create is proper only to God. Mary gave of her flesh already existing and did not create anything.

BM5:

…
He is above Kingship.

And yet He was pleased to dwell among men. And He did not seek to exalt Himself.
Phil 2:7 But emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men, and in habit found as a man.

BM5:

The term Mesiah does not refer to Our Lord Jesus Christ. It is someone else entirely but I’ m not at liberty to say who.

Once again, you are expecting us to take “your” word for it.

Scriptures indicate otherwise:
John 1:41 He findeth first his brother Simon, and saith to him: We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ. 42 And he brought him to Jesus.

John 4:25 The woman saith to him: I know that the Messias cometh (who is called Christ). Therefore, when he is come, he will tell us all things. 26 Jesus saith to her: I am he, who am speaking with thee.

The Holy Scriptures help us if we see them as being reliable.
Matt 22:29 And Jesus answering, said to them: You err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God.
John 10:35 … the scripture cannot be broken;

Unfortunately, you have access to them and can read, but have no faith in them. But you do have faith in something or someone - and you are keeping it secret, for whatever reason.

I would encourage you to continue seeking truth. Make sure you are aware of what or who you are trusting and basing your beliefs upon. As for me, I trust in the Catholic Church that I believe Jesus established and which is embodied primarily in the Pope who is in charge of dispensing its treasures, which include the Bible, Baptism, Holy Communion, Absoution, and anything else that Christ commanded and taught.

Matt 28:18 And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. 19 Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.

hurst

 

[The_Augustinian]

BM5 and TheOpenTheist are two sides of the same coin. By assuming St. Paul was a revolutionary and essentially changed the Church, they adhere to two different heresies. BM5 is similar to the Ebionites, and TheOpenTheist’s heresy is so new that no nice epithet will do. Bullingerites would suffice, I believe. As it has been written time and again, heresy begets heresy.

 

[BM5]

hurst:

You say He fulfilled it to reinforce the notion that we are all to fulfill it on our own?
yes

That is contrary to the teaching of the Church.
not much I can do about that I guess

Jesus fulfilled the Law to satisfy His Father and obtain pardon for us while giving glory and honor to God.
what about pick up your cross and follow me ?

So why did he institute Baptism? That is not in the Mosaic Law. Why did He initiate the Eucharist? That is not in the Law, though it was prefigured by the manna.
I did not say that Our Lord did not add to Deut.

Is it not because by dying with Him we share in His fulfillment of the Law?
What do you mean dying with Him

Romans 6:3 Know you not that all we, who are baptized in Christ Jesus, are baptized in his death?
I reject Saul of Tarsus

Is it not because by eating His flesh and drinking His blood, we have true Life in us?
John 6:54 Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.
Absolutely no argument with this.

Again, it was not destroyed, but fulfilled. And by Baptism we share in that fulfillment.
That sounds real nice but I still think we have to follow the rules.

You are not questioning Saul/Paul, you are questioning the Word of God in the Holy Scriptures. Your underlying assertion is that the Holy Scriptures are not entirely authored by God. So you assert that what “Saul” “wrote” is not to be relied upon. You are rejecting a teaching of the Church, which asserts that the Bible is authored by God Himself through the human writer.
Yea, I guess I am.

Thus, anything you say is your own opinion, conjecture, and guesswork.
I understand that this is the appearance.

While you are entitled to think as you will, it is a danger to anyone’s Faith to believe you over the Church, which was founded to maintain the Faith handed down to us.
I do not believe that I have said anything that is contrary to the basic Doctrines of Faith. What is there about Saul of Tarsus or anything he says that first of all can’t be found elsewhere and secondly in necessary for salvation ?

If anyone believes your suggestion that the Bible is wrong - for any reason - then they have traded the authority of the Church for your “authority”.
I believe parts of it are wrong, not all, for reasons already stated.
hurst

 

[hurst]

BM5:

Jesus fulfilled the Law to satisfy His Father and obtain pardon for us while giving glory and honor to God.
what about pick up your cross and follow me ?

That is not part of the Mosiac Law. That is part of the new life with Him, which we must do to obtain eternal life.

Is it not because by dying with Him we share in His fulfillment of the Law?
What do you mean dying with Him

Primarily, Baptism. Then, we must renew this death to ourself by daily living in Him, by daily taking up our cross and denying ourselves of our own will. This is done by obedience - doing the Will of God, made known to us by His Church. In this all, though, is a personal relationship with God our Father through His Son who is vouching for us. We are accepted not by fulfilling the Mosiac Law by our efforts, but by faith in what God has provided for us in Jesus.

Basically, obedience to the Church replaces obedience to Moses. Sort of like how children have to obey their parents while the parents take care of more complex legal responsibilities.

We are children of the Church. The Church is our mother. If we leave the Church we no longer have protection.

While you are entitled to think as you will, it is a danger to anyone’s Faith to believe you over the Church, which was founded to maintain the Faith handed down to us.
I do not believe that I have said anything that is contrary to the basic Doctrines of Faith. What is there about Saul of Tarsus or anything he says that first of all can’t be found elsewhere and secondly in necessary for salvation ?

Perhaps not contrary to “your” basic doctrines of Faith. But the creed you shared is only common to a portion of the creed of the Catholic Church.

Also, you reject “Saul of Tarsus” (Paul). So it doesn’t matter what we quote about him, does it?

hurst

 

[hurst]

mikeledes:

“And he (the Christian) that overcometh, and keepeth my word
unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations: And he shall rule them with an iron rod; as vessels of the potter shall they be broken to shivers; even as I received from my Father.”
…

Please feel free to comment, critique, or ask questions.

God Bless

I liked everything you pointed out, though I did not associate it only to the Queenship of Mary. I had started thinking a few weeks ago about doing a study concerning the concept that the saints exert rule of some kind. I see it popping up every now and then in the Liturgy of the Hours. Many of your quotes related to this very topic

Meanwhile, I would like to share part of a prayer of St. Alphonsus Liguori from chapter 1 of “The Glories of Mary”:
St.Alphonsus:

O, Mother of my God, and my Lady Mary; as a beggar, all wounded and sore, presents himself before a great queen, so do I present myself before thee, who art the Queen of heaven and earth.
…

Notice the recognition of Mary as Mother of God and Queen of Heaven being made part of His perspective in looking to her in faith.

…
Therefore do I address thee in the words of St. Bonaventure: “Do thou govern me, O my Queen, and leave me not to myself.”
Command me; employ me as thou wilt, and chastise me when I do not obey; for the chastisements that come from thy hands will be to me pledges of salvation. I would rather be thy servant than the ruler of the earth. I am thine; save me. Accept me, O Mary, for thine own, and as thine, take charge of my salvation. I will no longer be mine; to thee do I give myself.
…

The blessed notion I pick up from this prayer is that in being Queen of Heaven, she is also my Queen! I can entrust myself to her, too. I can be like a child again, secure in the protection afforded me by the one in charge of me.

The Church teaches us to call lovingly to Mary as our Queen in the Salve Regina (which the Church obliged clergy to recite for most of the year):

SALVE REGINA

Salve Regina, Mater misericordiae.
Hail Holy Queen, Mother of Mercy.

Vita, Dulcedo, et Spes Nostra! Salve.
Hail our life, our sweetness, and our hope!

Ad te clamamus, exsules filii Evae.
To thee do we cry, poor banished children of Eve.

Ad te suspiramus, gementes et flentes in hac lacrymarum valle.
To thee do we sigh, mourning and weeping in this valley of tears.

Eia ergo, Advocata nostra!
Turn then, most gracious advocate!

Illos tuos misericordes oculos ad nost converte.
Thine eyes of mercy towards us poor sinners.

Et Jesum, benedictum Fructum ventris tui nobis post hoc exilium ostende.
And after our exile show us Jesus, the blessed fruit of thy womb.

O Clemens, O Pia! O dulcis Virgo Maria.
O clement, O loving! O sweet Virgin Mary.

I think it is important for me to act upon my acknowledgement of Mary’s role in the Church in a personal manner. It enlivens me with joy that I am not alone in the desire to see Jesus honored.

I hope to find others that share my belief.

hurst

 

[BM5]

hurst:

The conflict you point out is the same conflict that the Judaizers in the early Church contended.

well maybe we are right about it

There is no reasoning with you with the Bible, is there? You don’t hold it true. Then what reasoning is there with you regarding the Church itself?

you are not reading me correctly
I say that it is a mix, same with the church

Again, by what authority or basis do you expect to be believed?

this made me feel good, sounds kinda familiar doesn’t it ?

If you really want to follow that law, then go right on ahead, if you can. But you won’t obtain life by it. And you won’t even be able to fulfill it. And you will have NO PART in Christ.
John 13:8 Peter saith to him: Thou shalt never wash my feet. Jesus answered him: If I wash thee not, thou shalt have no part with me.

I really can’t see the connection in the above. When we say LAW what exactly are we arguing about. I support the book of Deut. which has the laws and rules for a just society. So what is wrong with that ?

You got a problem with the ten commandments ?
Anyway:
Consider this: Thou shalt not kill.
Compared to : Thou shalt not kill, unjustly.

hurst