St. Mary Magdalene - the Patroness of Utah

[KathleenGee]

I mean, the Reformation is now coming to non-Catholics.

People have to let go of the past and move on.

 

[SteveVH]

True. God is mystery. And many articles of faith, too. I think that should help others understand why some of us. with a Catholic heritage. have trouble believing various mandatory doctrines that seem so precise about matters that are mystery. Somehow, at least in my view, they try to unveil these mysteries when they should remain subjects about which there can be free and open discussion.

Like the Eucharist or Mary. Why can’t there be various interpretations of the Eurcharist -transubstantiation, but also, for example, the spiritual presence and enrichment of Christ that does not impact the physical bread and wine? Or, Mary? Why must be believe that she was the only human being born immaculately? Why is that necessary for her to be honored? This can seem to be a gradual development growing out of Catholic theology, not defined until 1864 and Pius IX, and not clearly substantiated by scripture. The same may be said about her perpetual virginity (‘purity’ - as though marital sex is impure). And about her Assumption as well, not defined until 1950.

In speaking of the Eucharist, you ask why there cannot be " various interpretations of the Eucharist -transubstantiation, but also, for example, the spiritual presence and enrichment of Christ that does not impact the physical bread and wine?".

Well, as you know, there already are various interpretations among every Protestant denomination out there. It is an objective truth that they cannot all be true because they conflict with each other and truth cannot conflict with truth. It is the responsibility of the Church to guard the truth handed down to it by the Apostles. Christ promised that He would send the Holy Spirit to guide it into all truth, so I guess you either believe that or you don’t. The real presence of Christ in the Eucharist is not only biblical but has been held in our Tradition since the beginning. So who is more qualified to answer this question; the Church started by Christ himself, or someone who happens to pick up a Bible and start their own Church?

As for Mary and the doctrines surrounding her, the same applies. The Church, with Christ as its head, has the authority to make such determinations because it is guided by the Holy Spirit. These were not new ideas that just cropped up in 1864 and in 1950. The Church was very slow in making these pronouncements. As far as your comment about her perpetual virginity, this has nothing to do with marital sex being impure. It certainly is not. Her purity comes from the standpoint that she reserved herself for God alone.

 

[Erich]

Or, Mary? Why must be believe that she was the only human being born immaculately? Why is that necessary for her to be honored? This can seem to be a gradual development growing out of Catholic theology, not defined until 1864 and Pius IX, and not clearly substantiated by scripture. The same may be said about her perpetual virginity (‘purity’ - as though marital sex is impure). And about her Assumption as well, not defined until 1950.

The Table of Contents of scripture isn’t clearly substantiated by scripture, either. In fact, it’s not at all substantiated by scripture.

Nor is the doctrine that public revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle clearly substantiated by scripture (if at all), or the doctrine that all human life from conception to natural death is sacred, or the doctrine of monogamy.

That said, Mary’s Immaculate Conception and perpetual virginity are closely related to her being the Ark of the New Covenenant:

Mary, the Ark

The Bible itself attests to Mary’s perpetual virginity:

The Perpetual Virginity of Mary

 

[Swiss_Guy]

I always have been confused re Mary Magdalene. She usually is associated with the “woman in the city who was a sinner” (Luke 7:37) who washed Jesus’ feet. Scholars I have read say that there is no scriptural basis for this common belief. It’s an assumption not specifically supported by the gospels.

 This matter of assigning patron saints to this or that state, this or that career, this or that malady, etc. - how is that determined and by whom? Is there some suggestion that Utah has more sinners? Or, because it is a Mormon stronghold perhaps it needs conversion so badly?

  I've seen lists of saints and confess that this whole 'saintology' troubles me some. It can seem like a holdover from polytheism. Do we really have to believe that certain saints have special pull with Christ? Does St. Anthony of Padua, for example, really help us find lost items? I watch the Lords on EWTN as they tell about saints, and some of the tales they relate strike me as well beyond belief. 

  When I pray I go to God. **No intermediary needed.** It strikes me - in reading of saints - that some were canonized more for political than spiritual reasons.

  It's one thing to lift up folks like Mother Theresa who can inspire us. But this whole saint emphasis can become dangerously cultic. Reminds me some of my time in India when Hindus had their favorite gods and goddesses.

The part I bolded is unscriptural. Read 1 Tim. 2:1. And some people have to be political leaders; everyone has to have a job. If the leader is a great Christian and just so happens to be known for politics (probably doing things in favor of the Church), then they should be a canonized saint. And why is an emphasis on the communion of saints a bad thing? I’d like to know how.

The holdup from polytheism has little historical backup. Prove where the Church’s teaching of the communion of saints has pagan origins. (Hint: read the Church Fathers)

However, I understand where you are coming from, since I was once there. And I only responded to the things I felt were most important.

God bless.

 

[Erich]

Like the Eucharist or Mary. Why can’t there be various interpretations of the Eurcharist -transubstantiation, but also, for example, the spiritual presence and enrichment of Christ that does not impact the physical bread and wine?

Did the Apostles teach different doctrines to different people? The answer, of course, is “No.” The Apostles all taught the same doctrines…ALL the same doctrines. After all, Jesus tells us that the Holy Spirit was to guide them into all truth. If they are guided into all truth, then they cannot help but teach identical doctrines…they cannot help but teach the same truths…to all the different peoples they came across.

 

[KathleenGee]

Roy,

If you would hang around…it is pretty simple…Jesus saved us from sin and gives us new life in the Eucharist. It is the new worship…concrete…

The Lord is not the author of guessing games, Who Done It, who do you believe, what happened to them?..like the successors of the Apostles, etc…

The Lord said This is My Body, This is My Blood’…to the Apostles and their successors, ‘Do this in memory of Me’…the New Memorial…Jesus Christ now the Victim Lamb…the Atonement of sin…

The more you understand and come into the deep reality of the Eucharist, in time Mary will make herself known to you. We do tend to know her through our celibate priesthood as the Immaculate Conception.

And the followers of St. Jude carried a picture of him, not Jesus, on their person…others took handkerchiefs to touch the Apostles…we as human beings need sacramentals, the concrete.

 

[Roy5]

It’s not my intention to debate with anyone, but simply to express my personal views on such matters as the Eucharist, Mary, etc.

There are those who are willing to accept whatever the church says because they also accept the teaching that the church also is guided by the Holy Spirit and cannot err when it comes to questions of faith and morals. I respect that opinion.

However, I guess I must have been born to think for myself, feeling that God gave us a brain to use constructively. So, I am convinced that the Lord respects those who honestly come to different conclusions. In my case, as a general statement I think that in many areas there is plenty of mystery that remains, so wonder if the church is/was wise to insist upon strict conformity to its doctrinal positions.

I treasure the freedom to think, research, ponder, accept, reject, question, doubt. I find this exciting and something that increases rather than diminishes my devotion to God. That is why I have become a Christian rather than remain loyal to any one set of doctrines. I must say that I have come to admire those mainline Protestant denominations which seem to be at ease with various points of view, where Bible studies welcome different interpretations, where people of various opinions express those opinions without fear of ostracism or rejection.

Actually, my main concern is (and to) Christian love. See Matt. 25. And I Cor. 13. People can be hyper-orthodox in their doctrines and have all manner of prejudice and unkindness in their minds and hearts. In fact, it seems to be that emphasis on doctrinal conformity leads easily leads to bigotry. 

I recognize that my sort of atttude, held by millions of others, is dismissed by many as egotism, rebelliousnes, or whatever. I leave that judgement in the hands of God.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

It’s not my intention to debate with anyone, but simply to express my personal views on such matters as the Eucharist, Mary, etc.

I understand.

There are those who are willing to accept whatever the church says because they also accept the teaching that the church also is guided by the Holy Spirit and cannot err when it comes to questions of faith and morals. I respect that opinion.

that’s good that you respect it, especially because it’s right.

However, I guess I must have been born to think for myself, feeling that God gave us a brain to use constructively. So, I am convinced that the Lord respects those who honestly come to different conclusions. In my case, as a general statement I think that in many areas there is plenty of mystery that remains, so wonder if the church is/was wise to insist upon strict conformity to its doctrinal positions.

What makes you think that you cannot think for yourself within the Catholic Church? But you’re entitled to your own opinion. It’s you vs. the Church Christ established (but you’d disagree ). And some doctrines have to be strict to avoid heresy.

I treasure the freedom to think, research, ponder, accept, reject, question, doubt. I find this exciting and something that increases rather than diminishes my devotion to God. That is why I have become a Christian rather than remain loyal to any one set of doctrines. I must say that I have come to admire those mainline Protestant denominations which seem to be at ease with various points of view, where Bible studies welcome different interpretations, where people of various opinions express those opinions without fear of ostracism or rejection.

People in the Early Church were loyal to the Church, but . And if you’re not in a mainline denomination, don’t join one (atleast not the ELCA, unless you like ultra-liberal people, and assuming you don’t live in the upper Midwest where ELCAers aren’t as liberal). But hey, maybe you’d like mainliners - they’ve become churches/denominations where you believe what you want to believe/agree to disagree.

Actually, my main concern is (and to) Christian love. See Matt. 25. And I Cor. 13. People can be hyper-orthodox in their doctrines and have all manner of prejudice and unkindness in their minds and hearts. In fact, it seems to be that emphasis on doctrinal conformity leads easily leads to bigotry. 

I recognize that my sort of atttude, held by millions of others, is dismissed by many as egotism, rebelliousnes, or whatever. I leave that judgement in the hands of God.

Well, then according to you the apostles were bigots. Cause they had doctrinal conformity and those who didn’t agree about certain things were excommunicated. Why do you think that orthodox Christians can’t love others (it just seems like you’re implying this).

Also, it seems like we like to participate in the same threads .

 

[CHRISTINE77]

It’s not my intention to debate with anyone, but simply to express my personal views on such matters as the Eucharist, Mary, etc.

There are those who are willing to accept whatever the church says because they also accept the teaching that the church also is guided by the Holy Spirit and cannot err when it comes to questions of faith and morals. I respect that opinion.

However, I guess I must have been born to think for myself, feeling that God gave us a brain to use constructively. So, I am convinced that the Lord respects those who honestly come to different conclusions. In my case, as a general statement I think that in many areas there is plenty of mystery that remains, so wonder if the church is/was wise to insist upon strict conformity to its doctrinal positions.

I treasure the freedom to think, research, ponder, accept, reject, question, doubt. I find this exciting and something that increases rather than diminishes my devotion to God. That is why I have become a Christian rather than remain loyal to any one set of doctrines. I must say that I have come to admire those mainline Protestant denominations which seem to be at ease with various points of view, where Bible studies welcome different interpretations, where people of various opinions express those opinions without fear of ostracism or rejection.

Actually, my main concern is (and to) Christian love. See Matt. 25. And I Cor. 13. People can be hyper-orthodox in their doctrines and have all manner of prejudice and unkindness in their minds and hearts. In fact, it seems to be that emphasis on doctrinal conformity leads easily leads to bigotry. 

I recognize that my sort of atttude, held by millions of others, is dismissed by many as egotism, rebelliousnes, or whatever. I leave that judgement in the hands of God.

I don’t see how believing that there were especially holy people in history who are now saints in heaven has anything to do with being a free thinker or not.

 

[KathleenGee]

OK, Roy.

You do so much work looking at so many different beliefs…we were just trying to help out…and that is good you want all to get along…we do, too!

God bless you!!!

 

[RebeccaJ]

It’s not my intention to debate with anyone, but simply to express my personal views on such matters as the Eucharist, Mary, etc.

There are those who are willing to accept whatever the church says because they also accept the teaching that the church also is guided by the Holy Spirit and cannot err when it comes to questions of faith and morals. I respect that opinion.

However, I guess I must have been born to think for myself, feeling that God gave us a brain to use constructively. So, I am convinced that the Lord respects those who honestly come to different conclusions. In my case, as a general statement I think that in many areas there is plenty of mystery that remains, so wonder if the church is/was wise to insist upon strict conformity to its doctrinal positions.

I treasure the freedom to think, research, ponder, accept, reject, question, doubt. I find this exciting and something that increases rather than diminishes my devotion to God. That is why I have become a Christian rather than remain loyal to any one set of doctrines. I must say that I have come to admire those mainline Protestant denominations which seem to be at ease with various points of view, where Bible studies welcome different interpretations, where people of various opinions express those opinions without fear of ostracism or rejection.

Actually, my main concern is (and to) Christian love. See Matt. 25. And I Cor. 13. People can be hyper-orthodox in their doctrines and have all manner of prejudice and unkindness in their minds and hearts. In fact, it seems to be that emphasis on doctrinal conformity leads easily leads to bigotry. 

I recognize that my sort of atttude, held by millions of others, is dismissed by many as egotism, rebelliousnes, or whatever. I leave that judgement in the hands of God.

Well, I use what God gave me as well, to think for myself. So, it comes across as kind of hypocritical for you to say free thinking creates people such as yourself, and the opposite of yourself, is bigotry.

The irony is sort of humorous.

 

[KathleenGee]

Church is a gathering of human beings. People can choose to believe whatever they want by themselves.

If you are going to come together as a gathering, it takes work to set things up. You have to define why you are together, look for loopholes in your beliefs, find a plan of action in case you miss something and it is taking a spin of its own by a member of your gathering go out into another place people are confused about going to or staying with the main gathering. Then you have to look at sources of what you will use to draw on to nuture your shared values, and then have another responsibility if insuring what comes in the future will continue people together as a gathering and not split up its original purpose…you then have to find people, able and willing and competent to oversee these disciplines…then you have to decide your joint expressions of faith when you do come together to make sure every word and action coincides with the beliefs and values you are professing. This is all what church people do. It can be a real pain in the neck.

But I would prefer to be a member of a church than for myself, be like the lone ranger and try to figure all this stuff out by myself .

 

[RebeccaJ]

The communal aspect of our faith is one of the beauties that struck me in my conversion to Catholicism. God saved us as a people, we are a pilgrim Church, together, all making up the One Body of Jesus Christ. Dying does not remove us from our communion with each other. It still exists, in and through the Person Who Created us and Saves us from our sins.

The individualism of non-denominational Protestantism, which appears to lack this understanding, has no appeal to me whatsoever.