B
babochka
Guest
Thank you, Father, for your clear and simple answer.
- Status
G
godisgood77
Guest
You’re correct, there is a long history behind it. The history just doesn’t lead to a truth about Mary a Mediatrix of All Graces…I’d say that this believe clearly falls in to the ‘maximalist’ tendency that you can only go to Christ through Mary, which for a great number of Catholics is not a belief.
A few thoughts on the topic of Mary Mediatrix of All Graces…
I think it’s important to start by reminding everyone of the weight of the various Church teaching documents… in descending order of formal authority: apostolic/dogmatic constitution, encyclical letter, encyclical epistle, apostolic exhortation, apostolic letter, letter and message. Lumen Gentium is an Apostolic Constitution which carries the greatest weight and would hold a higher place than the Apostolic Letters and Encyclicals frequently referenced as mentioning the idea of Mediatrix of All Graces. Now it does not take and ex cathedra statement or a council to declare a magisterial teaching, but a council can clarify what may have been said previously and further develop doctrine - as in this case.
Lumen Gentium very purposefully stopped short of declaring Mary the Mediatrix of All Graces when it said “Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked by the Church under the titles of Advocate, Auxiliatrix, Adjutrix, and Mediatrix. These, however, are to be so understood that they neither take away from nor add to the dignity and efficacy of Christ the one Mediator.” The footnotes that are mentioned earlier in this thread point to minor papal statements and radio addresses which express a personal devotion of various Popes.
This is clear when you understand how the teaching was formed at the VII. During the daily interventions, Archbishop Corrado Mingo of Monorail, Italy argued at the Council that the title “Mediatrix” should be amplified to “Mediatrix of All Graces”, yet it was omitted from LG. Several other Council fathers made that argument as well, still it was not included. It’s a well documented fact that it was considered a compromise between disparate groups at the Council to include the title ‘Mediatrix’, but ‘of All Graces’ was excluded. The fact that the topic was openly argued on the council floor is pretty compelling evidence that the doctrine is not fully formed, let alone universally agreed on by Church Fathers… far from it.
Also at the Council, Bishop Ancel, of Lyons, France said that title “Mediatrix” was given in LG, but at the same time it was given no endorsement, thus leaving the door open for further study as the topic is still heavily debated among theologians. "Perhaps the title ‘Mediatrix might be listed with the other titles, in order to avoid the impression that it is a privileged one’ he said.
To further reinforce the point that the doctrine was not fully formed in the Constitution…during the Council, Cardinal Alfrink of the Netherlands said “the title ‘Mediatrix’ should not be insisted upon, since it generates such great difficulties.” There was a clear divisions between the Council Fathers on whether or not to even include the title 'Mediatrix", let alone define it… And there is no mention of ‘Mediatrix of All Graces.’
Last point, the last formal action on this subject was in 1996, when, at the request of the Holy See, a commission was formed to determine whether or not a 5th Marian Dogma should be defined addressing the titles Coredemptrix, Mediatrix and Advocate. The commission unanimously decided not to define a fifth Marian dogma on those titles. You can read more about it here: campus.udayton.edu/mary/resources/internationalmarianacademy.htm
So….A Dogmatic Constitution holds the Church’s highest teaching authority. Lumen Gentium did not declare Mary ‘Mediatrix of All Graces.’ and purposefully omitted it from the Constitution. The Church has yet to define a teaching on Mary a ‘Mediatrix’ and the last formal action on the subject ended with a decision not to pursue a definition.
Why would the Church allow this issue be openly debated on the Council floor at VII if it was part of the ordinary Magisterium?
What about the graces that flow naturally from the sacraments?? Are we saying that Mary is involved in distributing sacramental graces?
Why wouldn’t it be included in the Catechism that was issued in the 1980’s?? There is no reference to it. The Catechism was developed under PJPII, as much a marian Pope as we have had, no?
Why are there no magisterial documents that define what the title means?
Ultimately, this piece of Marian devotion falls in to the category of personal devotion. The Church may one day declare Mary to be "Mediatrix of All Graces’, but it does not teach that today.
Pax in Agno,
Dan
G
godisgood77
Guest
I’ll add my thanks as well.
O
otjm
Guest
Well, I will admit that I have not taken notes on what each poster has said, but I missed that one… could you remind me which post that was?
[/QUOTE]
O
otjm
Guest
Kudos! Would that this could lay the issue to rest, but sadly, the torch will continue to be carried.
D
Don_Ruggero
Guest
My words were deliberately and carefully chosen. In what, precisely, have I said that is unclear? Perhaps you would clarify what gave you offence?
The cornerstone to what I said is: “Beyond the essentials, there is tremendous latitude when it comes to living Catholicism.”
One must give the assent of faith that Our Lady is (1) the Theotokos, (2) perpetually virgin, (3) the Immaculate Conception, and (4) assumed body and soul into Heaven. Depending upon where you live, you may or may not have an obligation to attend Mass for one of the solemnities observed for these truths.
Please note what the original thread is about. It is about a lay man and a question about the devotions in a parish to the Blessed Virgin as Our Mother of Perpetual Help, a title promoted by the Redemptorists. It’s an optional and private devotion. There’s simply no occasion when a Catholic is OBLIGATED to have a prolonged colloquy to the Blessed Virgin. One is not obliged to say the rosary. One is not obliged to visit her images or adorn her shrines. One is not obliged to light candles or burn votive lamps in her honour. THIS is the question being addressed. To choose not to visit an image is not the same as saying “get rid of it.” Your statement to that effect is absurd.
I don’t know why you chose to turn this into a matter focused on priests and religious.
In any event…
The liturgical cult is not addressed directly to Our Lady. Masses in honour of Our Lady are orations addressed to God, speaking about Our Lady, not to her. There are multiple theological distinctions between the liturgical cult of the Church on the one hand and private devotions on the other hand. That is basic theology.
Now to your point about priests and the Divine Office – the Office is also addressed to God. There are very few instances when an antiphon/responsory will be addressed directly to Our Lady. The occasion each day when the liturgy does address Our Lady is at the end of Compline and a Marian antiphon is said or sung. It could be, simply, the recitation of one Hail Mary. That is the extent of the priest’s obligation of speaking to Our Lady. I would not recommend that. But it is not my decision.
On the one hand, I’ve known bishops and priests who were veritable apostles of the Blessed Virgin. Myself, I have a very marked devotion to her and I was a professor of Mariology for years. On the other hand, I’ve worked with both bishops and priests who had no pronounced devotion to Our Lady. They said the Masses and Offices of her solemnities, feasts, & obligatory memorials…never optional memorials and never choosing, for example, the Saturday optional commemoration of her at either Mass or Office. No sponsored parish devotions or Marian societies.
The first category would scarcely miss an opportunity to use a free Saturday or a lesser known feast day to make a Marian occasion of it. Others, like myself, would attempt to balance our personal devotions with our perception of the need of the congregation at hand, relative to the choice of Mass texts when there was an option. One might choose a Marian text or not always Marian, but then offer to say the rosary after Mass with anyone who chose to stay.
Now to your point about religious. If a man or woman seeks to enter consecrated life and they have a particular devotion to Our Lady, there are no shortages of institutes of perfection with a Marian charism. Such are not, however, half of the sum total. On the other hand, for men and women who wish to enter consecrated life without a pronounced devotion to Our Lady, there are also institutes where they would feel at home. The monastic orders come especially to mind where expressions of Marian piety are largely left up to the individual Religious.
Who said anything about not subscribing to the communion of saints? But to say “I believe in the communion of saints” does not mean a person must be having devotions to any one of them or to all of them. One can venerate them without always invoking them in one’s private life. Is that how I live my life? No. But I also don’t try to impose my devotions and piety on other people…clergy, Religious or laity. I do not tell them that they are required to do something that in fact the Church does not require.
Our Lady has a role in the life of every person. EVERY person since each was saved by the Blood of her Son. She quite demonstrated, at the miracle of the wedding at Cana, that she can intervene in lives on her own initiative and with no need of being asked…because she is a mother. But, it is up to each person to have the relationship with her that they wish to have.
D
Don_Ruggero
Guest
Relative to Mary as Mediatrix of All Grace, Cardinal Mercier of Belgium led a campaign for this after World War I. It was rejected by the Pope. Ultimately, Pope Pius XII would proclaim the Assumption in 1950…but not Mary as Mediatrix of All Grace. A petition was raised for the Council. It was rejected. In the 1980s & 90s, there was a movement for the definition that Mary is Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix and Advocate. Pope Saint John Paul II considered the prospect and referred it to the International Theological Commission. After careful consideration and reflection, they counseled against such a definition and the Holy Father accepted the advice.
The Council Fathers at Vatican II went to great pains, actually, when it came to their teaching on the Blessed Virgin. It was the most contentious issue at the Council. The Fathers were split almost down the middle as to whether the Council’s teachings on Our Lady would constitute its own document or a chapter in the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium. By the smallest of margins, the latter prevailed.
The Fathers wanted to address Mary very carefully. The Church had just passed through more than a century of Marian phenomena. Two dogmatic definitions had been proclaimed. Numerous encyclicals and other statements had been promulgated. Multiple series of visions of Our Lady had entered into popular piety. Shrines were thronged. Societies of Marian devotion had arose, very prominent, such as the Legion of Mary and the Blue Army among many others. Many missionary congregations, male and female, such as the one founded by Saint Eugene de Mazenod, the Oblates of Mary Immaculate, were dedicated to the Mother of Jesus.
The Fathers chose to be very measured in what they wrote. They decided there would be no new pronouncements from the Council about the privileges and prerogatives of the Blessed Virgin. His Holiness, Pope Paul VI had proposed that the title “Mother of the Church” be proclaimed by the Fathers. They declined. He chose to proclaim the title using his Petrine office, which was of course his prerogative, on November 21, 1964.
As I said, the Fathers folded their treatment of Our Lady into a final chapter of Lumen Gentium. This was a deliberate choice. The mystery of the Holy Virgin was to be seen and contemplated in the light of the mystery of the Church…and not as something distinct and apart from the Church.
The whole treatise deserves reading: vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html
At the end of their teaching, they placed a very expressive paragraph and a very cautionary paragraph.
*66. Placed by the grace of God, as God’s Mother, next to her Son, and exalted above all angels and men, Mary intervened in the mysteries of Christ and is justly honored by a special cult in the Church. Clearly from earliest times the Blessed Virgin is honored under the title of Mother of God, under whose protection the faithful took refuge in all their dangers and necessities. Hence after the Synod of Ephesus the cult of the people of God toward Mary wonderfully increased in veneration and love, in invocation and imitation, according to her own prophetic words: “All generations shall call me blessed, because He that is mighty hath done great things to me”. This cult, as it always existed, although it is altogether singular, differs essentially from the cult of adoration which is offered to the Incarnate Word, as well to the Father and the Holy Spirit, and it is most favorable to it. The various forms of piety toward the Mother of God, which the Church within the limits of sound and orthodox doctrine, according to the conditions of time and place, and the nature and ingenuity of the faithful has approved, bring it about that while the Mother is honored, the Son, through whom all things have their being and in whom it has pleased the Father that all fullness should dwell, is rightly known, loved and glorified and that all His commands are observed.
The Council Fathers at Vatican II went to great pains, actually, when it came to their teaching on the Blessed Virgin. It was the most contentious issue at the Council. The Fathers were split almost down the middle as to whether the Council’s teachings on Our Lady would constitute its own document or a chapter in the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium. By the smallest of margins, the latter prevailed.
The Fathers wanted to address Mary very carefully. The Church had just passed through more than a century of Marian phenomena. Two dogmatic definitions had been proclaimed. Numerous encyclicals and other statements had been promulgated. Multiple series of visions of Our Lady had entered into popular piety. Shrines were thronged. Societies of Marian devotion had arose, very prominent, such as the Legion of Mary and the Blue Army among many others. Many missionary congregations, male and female, such as the one founded by Saint Eugene de Mazenod, the Oblates of Mary Immaculate, were dedicated to the Mother of Jesus.
The Fathers chose to be very measured in what they wrote. They decided there would be no new pronouncements from the Council about the privileges and prerogatives of the Blessed Virgin. His Holiness, Pope Paul VI had proposed that the title “Mother of the Church” be proclaimed by the Fathers. They declined. He chose to proclaim the title using his Petrine office, which was of course his prerogative, on November 21, 1964.
As I said, the Fathers folded their treatment of Our Lady into a final chapter of Lumen Gentium. This was a deliberate choice. The mystery of the Holy Virgin was to be seen and contemplated in the light of the mystery of the Church…and not as something distinct and apart from the Church.
The whole treatise deserves reading: vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html
At the end of their teaching, they placed a very expressive paragraph and a very cautionary paragraph.
*66. Placed by the grace of God, as God’s Mother, next to her Son, and exalted above all angels and men, Mary intervened in the mysteries of Christ and is justly honored by a special cult in the Church. Clearly from earliest times the Blessed Virgin is honored under the title of Mother of God, under whose protection the faithful took refuge in all their dangers and necessities. Hence after the Synod of Ephesus the cult of the people of God toward Mary wonderfully increased in veneration and love, in invocation and imitation, according to her own prophetic words: “All generations shall call me blessed, because He that is mighty hath done great things to me”. This cult, as it always existed, although it is altogether singular, differs essentially from the cult of adoration which is offered to the Incarnate Word, as well to the Father and the Holy Spirit, and it is most favorable to it. The various forms of piety toward the Mother of God, which the Church within the limits of sound and orthodox doctrine, according to the conditions of time and place, and the nature and ingenuity of the faithful has approved, bring it about that while the Mother is honored, the Son, through whom all things have their being and in whom it has pleased the Father that all fullness should dwell, is rightly known, loved and glorified and that all His commands are observed.
- This most Holy Synod deliberately teaches this Catholic doctrine and at the same time admonishes all the sons of the Church that the cult, especially the liturgical cult, of the Blessed Virgin, be generously fostered, and the practices and exercises of piety, recommended by the magisterium of the Church toward her in the course of centuries be made of great moment, and those decrees, which have been given in the early days regarding the cult of images of Christ, the Blessed Virgin and the saints, be religiously observed. But it exhorts theologians and preachers of the divine word to **abstain zealously both from all gross exaggerations as well as from petty narrow-mindedness in considering the singular dignity of the Mother of God. Following the study of Sacred Scripture, the Holy Fathers, the doctors and liturgy of the Church, and under the guidance of the Church’s magisterium, let them rightly illustrate the duties and privileges of the Blessed Virgin which always look to Christ, the source of all truth, sanctity and piety. Let them assiduously keep away from whatever, either by word or deed, could lead separated brethren or any other into error regarding the true doctrine of the Church. Let the faithful remember moreover that true devotion consists neither in sterile or transitory affection, nor in a certain vain credulity, but proceeds from true faith, by which we are to know the excellence of the Mother of God, and we are moved to a filial love toward our mother and to the imitation of her virtues. ***
In other words, the Magisterium, that is the College of Bishops that wrote this very paragraph, will be determining (and are the judges) of the exercise of Marian devotion and piety and it will be well grounded theologically.
D
Don_Ruggero
Guest
Yes Marian piety and devotion is a pervasive element in Catholic life…in the life of the Church…but that does not mean that every Catholic must practice it extensively in their own life.
From a theological perspective, I think it is very important to address the charge of minimalism that has been made in this thread relative to Catholic piety and the spiritual life.
One could have an extremely robust spiritual life through:
- Daily Mass and daily Communion
- Weekly Confession
- A weekly or even daily holy hour before the Most Blessed Sacrament
- Daily meditation on the Passion of Christ or the walking of the Stations of the Cross
- Daily reading of Sacred Scripture
- The praying of the Liturgy of the Hours, at least Morning Prayer, Evening Prayer and Night Prayer.
But, please note, this list is not marked by either Marian devotions or devotions to various saints. Both are good and fine – for those who find them helpful and to their tastes. For those who don’t, there is an entire patrimony of spirituality at their fingertips and they should not be made to feel like second class or inferior Catholics because they want to spend an hour before the Blessed Sacrament or reading the gospels instead of Marian devotions or devotions in favour of one or more saints.
As I have often told people who have to choose between the Liturgy of the Hours and the rosary, the Liturgy of the Hours is the more perfect prayer…it is the public prayer of the Church and one is celebrating the liturgy when one prays it. The rosary is a private devotion. It’s a lovely devotion. It is highly esteemed. But it is not the liturgy of the Church.
That said, if one is attracted to one or the other – and there is no obligation – one is perfectly free to choose.
D
drforjc
Guest
When I read your last paragraph, it sounds like you and I are on the same page. Your very last sentence is basically what I stated above.
D
drforjc
Guest
.
I feel without some involvement of Mary and the saints, even that would be somehow incomplete.
The Body of Christ, the Communion of Saints, is a family. What kind of family member ignores the rest of the family?
This is arguing against something I have not said. If you read my posts carefully, I allow that there are different levels of devotion to Our Lady just as there are different forms of its expression. But having none at all is foreign to the concept of the Communion of Saints.
Surely Christ can be at the center without basically ignoring our Mother whom He gave us and our brothers and sisters who have gone before us.
Yes, the form of Marian devotion and its exact prominence in our lives will differ, but my point stands that it is integral to Catholic spirituality, not an add-on as our friend Elizium has very nicely pointed out.
D
drforjc
Guest
I’m currently reading “Come, Be My Light” which is the story of Bl. Mother Theresa of Calcutta’s spiritual darkness and its meaning and significance related by a priest of the Society and including much of her own correspondence.
In it, she is clear that her overwhelming desire is to slake the thirst of Jesus on the Cross for souls. She is intimately in communion with him in her desire even when she cannot feel anything, in fact feels abandoned by God.
It’s surprising how often she mentions Our Lady… even one so desperately in love with Jesus himself has this balanced, integrated love and tenderness for His Mother.
Here is a quote that moved me, and I think it is in perfect harmony with what I’ve said in my posts above:
In it, she is clear that her overwhelming desire is to slake the thirst of Jesus on the Cross for souls. She is intimately in communion with him in her desire even when she cannot feel anything, in fact feels abandoned by God.
It’s surprising how often she mentions Our Lady… even one so desperately in love with Jesus himself has this balanced, integrated love and tenderness for His Mother.
Here is a quote that moved me, and I think it is in perfect harmony with what I’ve said in my posts above:
B
Bonnie
Guest
Again, no one has said anything about ignoring Mary or the rest of the saints. Not even me. What I DID say is that I don’t have any emotion involved in it and I cannot manufacture emotion.
I don’t know how some people have taken this conversation from not being comfortable with certain non-essential prayers to the accusation that we don’t believe in the communion of saints.
On the other hand, I’m happy to see that I’m not alone!
B
babochka
Guest
If a person lives a full liturgical life, involvement of the saints and the Blessed Mother are built-in. No ignoring is possible, unless you take the ridiculous notion that someone is internally closing their eyes and holding their ears and saying “Nanananana… I can’t hear you!” any time the feast of a saint or the Blessed Mother is mentioned. I say this as an Eastern Catholic, where prayers to the Theotokos and veneration of the saints is built in to the liturgy, but private devotions, as found in the west, are considerably less prominent. But the Mass does, in the collect for each feast day, call to mind a member of the Communion of Saints. So if a person is going to Mass, that person is not ignoring the communion of saints. That person is praying with the communion of saints.
D
drforjc
Guest
You’re arguing beyond what I stated.
As in the example of Bl. Mother Theresa that I cited, it can and should be integrated into one’s entire spiritual life, both liturgical and devotional. As I said, the prominence (we both use that word, I see) can vary, even to a considerable extent, but we had posters above saying “Christ alone is enough” which statement although maybe true on a technical theological level, is not the sort of statement one finds in traditional spirituality, if by it one means the complete absence of any extraliturgical devotion whatsoever to our Mother and the Saints.
D
drforjc
Guest
And, if you read my posts, it’s not you I’m debating with. But we did have some folks who appeared to go beyond your position and I feel that needed some clarification from the point of view of tradition.Again, no one has said anything about ignoring Mary or the rest of the saints. Not even me. What I DID say is that I don’t have any emotion involved in it and I cannot manufacture emotion.
I don’t know how some people have taken this conversation from not being comfortable with certain non-essential prayers to the accusation that we don’t believe in the communion of saints.
On the other hand, I’m happy to see that I’m not alone!
And no, I said nothing about not believing in the Communion of Saints. That is a caricature of my position. What I did say is that, in the spiritual life our love for them normally expresses itself to some extent in our communication with them. No specific prayers or devotions mentioned (for I think the 4th time).
B
Bonnie
Guest
You didn’t address the post I responded to to any person in particular - I’m not a mindreader, nor can I keep a pages-long discussion in my head & remember who responded to whom.
If you want responses only from certain people and no one else, please say so in your post.
B
babochka
Guest
How so? Don Ruggero the following as a sample prayer life:
and you replied
I’ll go beyond the liturgy of the Church, since I think my greater familiarity with the East is skewing my perception of how much veneration of the saints and Mary is present if a person leads a full liturgical life.
Father mentioned meditating on the passion of Christ and praying the Stations of the Cross. If I’m not mistaken, one of the Stations of the Cross is “Christ meets his mother”. If one reflects upon this station with the mind of the Church, one will reflect upon Mary’s role in our salvation. Regular reading of scripture, again with the mind of the Church, will at times lead one into knowledge of and contemplation of the Blessed Mother and Communion of Saints. You stated that his list of prayer and devotions would be incomplete without some involvement of Mary and the saints. I’m just saying that Mary and the saints are so present in the life of the Church that one cannot live the life of the Church, the liturgy, while completely ignoring Mary and the saints.
How have I argued beyond what you have said?
This is not ignoring them!
That was in a separate post, which came after the one to which I replied. I must admit, I was taken aback by the statement that I’ve bolded above, but I was replying to a specific post, the one in which you stated that something would be somehow incomplete if one had such a robust prayer life as Don Ruggero outlined, but failed to include specific extra-liturgical prayers to Mary and the saints.
I still stand by my assertion that if one leads a complete liturgical life, one does not ignore the Blessed Mother. . If one prays the Mass with devotion, if one prays the stations of the cross with devotion, how can they not be said to express a devotion to Mary and the saints? I don’t mean in an emotional sense, though. One can’t force emotion. Many people don’t have an emotional faith anyway, even toward Christ. But they do have devotion. And if one is praying the Liturgy of the Hours, the prayer of the Church. From an Eastern perspective, it all starts from the liturgy (not just the Eucharistic liturgy, the Mass, but the entire liturgy of the Church) and flows forth from there.
I’ll share the collect from today’s Mass, which invokes the intercession of Saints Timothy and Titus:
And the troparion and kontakion for today’s Byzantine Divine Liturgy, to Saints Xenophon and Mary:
Both express and assume devotion to the saints.
O
Oneofthewomen
Guest
I think that the problem may be that we are talking over each other and that there is some question as to what “devotion” means.
For me, I do not practice any particular devotion to the Blessed Virgin, in any of her incarnations (Perpetual Help, Fatima, Lourdes, etc) and I do not pray the Rosary with any regularity.
I do, however, have a deep devotion to her, as the Mother of God, who by her “yes” changed the world, but I never felt that I must say certain prayers, pray novenas, and participate in any on the Marian cults, so to speak. And this is what I believe the OP is talking about, and what Don Ruggerio is trying to articulate.
To sum up-
devotion to Mary= a good thing, that most of us already have, just because we are Catholic
practicing a devotion to Mary, i.e. the Rosary, prayers to OL of Fatima, Lourdes, Guadalupe, etc= a pious practice and a good thing, so long as it fits with one’s spirituality and one is not “forced” to participate.
Does this help?
For me, I do not practice any particular devotion to the Blessed Virgin, in any of her incarnations (Perpetual Help, Fatima, Lourdes, etc) and I do not pray the Rosary with any regularity.
I do, however, have a deep devotion to her, as the Mother of God, who by her “yes” changed the world, but I never felt that I must say certain prayers, pray novenas, and participate in any on the Marian cults, so to speak. And this is what I believe the OP is talking about, and what Don Ruggerio is trying to articulate.
To sum up-
devotion to Mary= a good thing, that most of us already have, just because we are Catholic
practicing a devotion to Mary, i.e. the Rosary, prayers to OL of Fatima, Lourdes, Guadalupe, etc= a pious practice and a good thing, so long as it fits with one’s spirituality and one is not “forced” to participate.
Does this help?
B
Bonnie
Guest
I agree. What I got from some posters is that devotion = love = devotions (prayers, etc). But what is love? Some of us - perhaps born this way or resulting from past experiences - do not love indiscriminately. While I can talk (pray) to saints, they do not talk to me. Nor does God. There is no relationship in the normal human sense.
So to suggest that one must love - whether it be God, Mary, other saints, the pope - is counterproductive. Apparently I’m not a “real” Catholic if I cannot come up with the correct emotions. I went through that in the Pentecostal church - never again will I be manipulated that way.
J
JM3
Guest
- Status