To set the Record straight Catholics do not worship Mary!

[Angels_Unaware]

This is very typical I am seeing. When someone wishes to prove you wrong with the Bible itself,

You assume this can be done. It cannot be done if in fact people hold differing views of Scripture. That would require someone appointed by God as the interpreter of Scripture. The only Church who teaches that the canon of Scripture established in the 4th century has a divine appointment to interpret Scripture is the Catholic Church. Without this appointment, there is nothing but circular reasoning.

you call them sola-scriptura and then call them biggots. This is very similar to something Satan would do to uphold himself.

Nobody calls someone sola-scriptura. Sola scriptura is a position that people choose to take or do not choose to take.

People are called bigots for stating untruths as facts and spewing violent accusations and telling people that they can read their minds and hearts and know they are going to hell. Now, who is it that really sounds like Satan?

 

[RobHom]

This is very typical I am seeing. When someone wishes to prove you wrong with the Bible itself, you call them sola-scriptura and then call them biggots. This is very similar to something Satan would do to uphold himself.

I don’t want to appear “elitist”, but the word is “bigot(s)”… Now, while you may consider it “typical” one way or the other, what we consider atypical is that many, like you and your partners, redundantly insist and claim that all their is to God’s realm is contained in the Bible…despite the fact that the Bible itself states differently…

Disproving Catholicism with the Bible is a wholly “futile act”. It cannot be done. The reason is that while you might consider “something” a justification… you are not working from the same plane of reality that a Catholic is. We do not limit our beliefs or traditions to the Bible. We are not adherents of sola scriptura, in fact we are opponents to it.

Once you begin to accept the fact that we agree to disagree, you will be in better shape and less frustrated.

Many Catholics, like myself have dealt with doubts over the years, myself for a number of years…but I returned to the Church because I knew it was “right”. You can disagree, which is your right, but it is not your right to demand or assume that others should or will agree with you based on your words or opinions…

 

[Non_Serviam]

You assume this can be done. It cannot be done if in fact people hold differing views of Scripture. That would require someone appointed by God as the interpreter of Scripture. The only Church who teaches that the canon of Scripture established in the 4th century has a divine appointment to interpret Scripture is the Catholic Church. Without this appointment, there is nothing but circular reasoning.

I’ve always found the following two constructions to be more along the lines of circular reasoning.

1. The Catholic interpretation of the Bible teaches that only the Catholic church may interpret the Bible properly.
2. The Catholic church teaches that the Catholic church possesses the teaching of the Apostles.

In either case the Church’s authority is used to prove the Church’s authority. Which seems like circular reasoning to me.

Perhaps you could propose a different way of looking at it?

 

[CentralFLJames]

I’ve always found the following two constructions to be more along the lines of circular reasoning.

1. The Catholic interpretation of the Bible teaches that only the Catholic church may interpret the Bible properly.
2. The Catholic church teaches that the Catholic church possesses the teaching of the Apostles.

In either case the Church’s authority is used to prove the Church’s authority. Which seems like circular reasoning to me.

Perhaps you could propose a different way of looking at it?

You are constructing a fallacy shot full of false assumptions and are way off OP. But while we steer it back to OP let me just offer a quick flip of the logic to show the complimentary view and expose a few fallacies by sending them right back at you.

1. In spite of the fact the bible has been written, published and used by Catholics for 1500 year before Protestants even exist Protestants say that suddenly the Bible now self-teaches itself (except for when Catholics try to interpret it because they proved them selves fallable for the last 1500 years and because everyone else but Catholics are infallable).
2. In spite of the 32,000+ different Protestant denominations teaching different doctrines they all say that their bibles tell them each singularly posses the true faith (but they all agree that their bible teaches them that the Catholics are wrong).

Just brilliant self serving objective logic Non Serviam.

James

 

[Non_Serviam]

You are constructing a fallacy shot full of false assumptions and are way off OP. But while we steer it back to OP let me just offer a quick flip of the logic to show the complimentary view and expose a few fallacies by sending them right back at you.

1. In spite of the fact the bible has been written, published and used by Catholics for 1500 year before Protestants even exist Protestants say that suddenly the Bible now self-teaches itself (except for when Catholics try to interpret it because they proved them selves fallable for the last 1500 years and because everyone else but Catholics are infallable).
2. In spite of the 32,000+ different Protestant denominations teaching different doctrines they all say that their bibles tell them each singularly posses the true faith (but they all agree that their bible teaches them that the Catholics are wrong).

Just brilliant self serving objective logic Non Serviam.

James

I’d asked if someone could be helpful and provide me with a different description of how to view the Catholic appeal to authority.

You’ll pardon me if I keep waiting James as this reply wasn’t helpful at all.

(James does make a good point about my straying from the OP-if someone has a helpful response for me, please PM it. Thanks )

NS

 

[Good_Fella]

I’ve always found the following two constructions to be more along the lines of circular reasoning.

1. The Catholic interpretation of the Bible teaches that only the Catholic church may interpret the Bible properly.
2. The Catholic church teaches that the Catholic church possesses the teaching of the Apostles.

In either case the Church’s authority is used to prove the Church’s authority. Which seems like circular reasoning to me.

Perhaps you could propose a different way of looking at it?

The Church has never formed her doctrines by first referring to the scriptures and interpreting them. The scriptures have always been appealed to after the Spirit of truth has spoken what he hears to the Apostolic teaching authority (Jn 16:12-13). Matthew, for instance, preached about the Virgin Birth before he wrote his narrative. And he did not intuit this truth by first gleaning the texts of the prophet Isaiah and interpreting them (cf. Isa 7:14). He found scriptural confirmation of his faith in the Old Testament and appealed to Isaiah to try to convince the Jews in Palestine that what he believed in and preached was true. To this day the Jews reject Matthew’s interpretation of Isaiah and the Apostolic teaching authority of the one universal Church. It was by the grace of God that Peter had professed his belief in Christ’s divinity. He did not have to initially consult the Scriptures to perceive this fundamental divine truth of our faith.Thus the Church has always recognized herself to be the medium of the fullness of divine revelation and the teaching authority guided by the Paraclete since the time before the New Testament was written and compiled by the late first century (1 Tim 3:15).

Sacred Scripture must reflect the doctrines established through the medium of Sacred Tradition and defined by the Magisterium. Scripture is materially sufficient, but formally insufficient. The former must be interpreted in light of the latter from which it has sprung. The reason why the Protestant tradition is seriously divided is because it is severed from the historic Christian faith and has rejected the notion of a central Apostolic teaching authority of the Church: The Bible alone is the final rule of faith and arbiter of the divine truth. But in reality individual Protestant religious leaders have usurped the valid body of Apostolic teaching authority by appointing themselves as the arbiters of divine revelation, relying purely on their own fallible rationalizations and interpretations of the written word outside the bounds of the Sacred Tradition of the historic Christain faith which originates from the teaching authority of Jesus and, through him, the Apostles and their validly appointed successors by the “laying on of hands”.

Jesus established his one universal Church and founded her on Peter and the Apostles with the intention of guiding the Church to all truth in a single unity of faith until the end of this age. The Scriptures do not explicitly reveal by definition the Holy Trinity or the Hypostatic Union. For this reason a score of Trinitarian and Christological heresies have sprouted in the history of the Church. One cannot honestly accept the Church’s pronouncements on these truths while at the same time reject her Apostolic teaching authority with regard to the Marian doctrines. One who does is simply picking and choosing what he wishes to believe, reading the written word in hindsight bias. Protestantism is all about what individual religious leaders and believers wish to selectively believe and confess according to their own fallible interpretations of the Scriptures. Their human traditions originate soley from the private interpretations of Scripture independent of the agency of the Holy Spirit who works through the central Apostolic teaching authority of the one universal Church established by Christ - not by Martin Luther, Jean Calvin, or John Smith, (etc.). The tragic result is the institution of countless denominations and splintering within them.

“…Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopacy. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect foreknowledge of this, they appointed those ministers already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry…”
*Clement of Rome, Epistle to the Corinthians, 42, 44 (A.D. 98) *

“Those, therefore, who desert the preaching of the Church, call in question the knowledge of the holy presbyters, not taking into consideration of how much greater consequence is a religious man, even in a private station, than a blasphemous and impudent sophist. Now such are all the heretics, and those who imagine that they have hit upon something more beyond the truth…proceeding on their way variously, inharmoniously, and foolishly, not keeping always to the same opinions with regard to the same things…ever seeking and never finding out the truth. It behooves us, therefore, to avoid their doctrines, and to take careful heed lest we suffer any injury from them; but flee to the Church, and be brought up in her bosom [Sacred Tradition], and be nourished with the Lord’s Scriptures.”
*Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 5, 20:2 (A.D. 180) *

" Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church."
*Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, 8:2 (c.A.D. 110) *

PAX :harp:

 

[Napsack]

I don’t want to appear “elitist”, but the word is “bigot(s)”… Now, while you may consider it “typical” one way or the other, what we consider atypical is that many, like you and your partners, redundantly insist and claim that all their is to God’s realm is contained in the Bible…despite the fact that the Bible itself states differently…

Disproving Catholicism with the Bible is a wholly “futile act”. It cannot be done. The reason is that while you might consider “something” a justification… you are not working from the same plane of reality that a Catholic is. We do not limit our beliefs or traditions to the Bible. We are not adherents of sola scriptura, in fact we are opponents to it.

Once you begin to accept the fact that we agree to disagree, you will be in better shape and less frustrated.

Many Catholics, like myself have dealt with doubts over the years, myself for a number of years…but I returned to the Church because I knew it was “right”. You can disagree, which is your right, but it is not your right to demand or assume that others should or will agree with you based on your words or opinions…

Nobody is so blind than the one who will not see.

 

[Napsack]

You assume this can be done. It cannot be done if in fact people hold differing views of Scripture. That would require someone appointed by God as the interpreter of Scripture. The only Church who teaches that the canon of Scripture established in the 4th century has a divine appointment to interpret Scripture is the Catholic Church. Without this appointment, there is nothing but circular reasoning.

Nobody calls someone sola-scriptura. Sola scriptura is a position that people choose to take or do not choose to take.

People are called bigots for stating untruths as facts and spewing violent accusations and telling people that they can read their minds and hearts and know they are going to hell. Now, who is it that really sounds like Satan?

I’m well aware that sola scriptura is a term, that was the point I was making. You label folks as taking that position any time they refute what you profess to be truth and you are totally off base in doing so. It doesn’t matter if a person is in agreement with sola scriptura or not (I am not), the Bible disproves that your church contains all truth.

 

[codebilly]

… Bible disproves that your church contains all truth.

By whose standard? By whose interpretation and on whose authority?

I ask you again. Do you have a personal relationship with Jesus?

If so, with which Person of Jesus? The Infant Jesus? Jesus of the Nativity?

You can’t approach , let alone embrace, Jesus of the Nativity without encountering Mary.

*Mary’s memories

1. Mary lived with her eyes fixed on Christ, treasuring his every word: “She kept all these things, pondering them in her heart” (Lk 2:19; cf. 2:51). The memories of Jesus, impressed upon her heart, were always with her, leading her to reflect on the various moments of her life at her Son’s side. In a way those memories were to be the “rosary” which she recited uninterruptedly throughout her earthly life.

Even now, amid the joyful songs of the heavenly Jerusalem, the reasons for her thanksgiving and praise remain unchanged. They inspire her maternal concern for the pilgrim Church, in which she continues to relate her personal account of the Gospel. Mary constantly sets before the faithful the “mysteries” of her Son, with the desire that the contemplation of those mysteries will release all their saving power. In the recitation of the Rosary, the Christian community enters into contact with the memories and the contemplative gaze of Mary.* see: ROSARIUM VIRGINIS MARIAE

I’ve been posting this same article again and again to this forum and enemies of Marian devotion, but not a single person has a response. The reason why? There is no response you can make.

You cannot understand the intimate Personal Relationship of Loving exchange between Jesus Christ of the Nativity, the Annunciation, the Crucifixion, etc., BUT BY MARY.

She is the Theotokas.

 

[OriginalJS]

Well, some Catholics do worship Mary and will testify to that just as some have done on this thread. A few years ago there was a concerted effort to have the Church proclaim that Mary was the co-redemptrix. The folks pushing that issue testified to the works Mary had done for them. In older Catholic churches you will see candles lighted for Mary and for Jesus. Most of the time far more candles are lighted for Mary than Jesus. In reciting the Rosary Catholics sound like they are praying to Mary. Of course, some Catholics pray to Saints as well and have a list of saints that will tell you which saint to pray to if you have, for example, a toothache. It seems to me the issue here is that there is a distinct difference between church law and practices of Catholics.

 

[Angels_Unaware]

I’m well aware that sola scriptura is a term, that was the point I was making. **You label folks as taking that position any time they refute what you profess to be truth **and you are totally off base in doing so. It doesn’t matter if a person is in agreement with sola scriptura or not (I am not), the Bible disproves that your church contains all truth.

What you’re saying is really confused and convuluted. First, a person cannot be “labeled” with the term “sola scriptura”. That is not how the word works. People choose to ascribe to it or not, a label is entirely incidental, not an accusation in the face of a great argument. Second, “the Bible disproves that your church contains all truth”, as I said before is circular reasoning unless there is a church appointed by God to interpret Scripture. With this kind of confused thinking, I understand your religious affiliation.

Well, some Catholics do worship Mary and will testify to that just as some have done on this thread. A few years ago there was a concerted effort to have the Church proclaim that Mary was the co-redemptrix. The folks pushing that issue testified to the works Mary had done for them. In older Catholic churches you will see candles lighted for Mary and for Jesus. Most of the time far more candles are lighted for Mary than Jesus. In reciting the Rosary Catholics sound like they are praying to Mary. Of course, some Catholics pray to Saints as well and have a list of saints that will tell you which saint to pray to if you have, for example, a toothache. It seems to me the issue here is that there is a distinct difference between church law and practices of Catholics.

You don’t sound Catholic at all. What candles are you talking about? When are there ever candles lit for Jesus? We don’t light candles for Jesus in Church, we pray before the Blessed Sacrament. A lamp is already perpetually lit for Him. Are you sure you’ve actually gone to Mass before? The candles are lit when we ask for intercessions from the saints, including the Blessed Mother.

As for Co-Redemptrix, if you think it implies worship you just don’t understand it. It’s a theological insight into how Mary represents what we are to become in Christ, and how she cooperated with our salvation plan. It is a sign to us that we are active participants in our salvation. This is actually the fundamental difference between Catholics and Protestants. Protestants see salvation as totally passive, and as a form of acquittal, whereas they are allowed into heaven unworthily due to Christ’s death on the cross. Catholics see that it is more than this, and we are not just acquitted, but made sons, and made part of the family of God. Therefore, we actively participate with out will and cooperate with God in our salvation, as Mary did.

catholicsource.net/articles/coredemptrix.html

As for the rosary, what??? The Hail Mary is scriptural, and the rosary is a meditative prayer where we focus on Jesus. So, the Scripture is worshipping Mary? What is not scriptural is this, “Pray for sinners, now and at the hour of our death.” Is that worship? It is a request for prayer.

 

[CentralFLJames]

Great post Goodfella.

As they say, to be a Protestant is to be ignorant of church history. As soon as anyone shows a Protestant the writings of the early church fathers from the first 2 or so centuries it becomes unassailably clear that the early church was as Catholic then as it is today and the bible was a fruit of the Catholic Church. The Church begot the Bible. The Bible did not beget the Church. Therefor its only logical that The Catholic Church is the ONLY authority on the bible - everyone else is an illigitimate pretender with no authority whatsoever to teach the teacher.

The whole “bible war” thing where Protestants come in 1,400 years late to try to hijack the bible and say its “their baby” reminds me oh so much of the story in 1 Kings 3:16-28. This is the account of Solomon’s difficult case of judging who’s baby belongs to which mother - the true mother or the impostor mother.

As it relates to the OP we have various and assorted false mothers here trying to make the baby (the Bible) speak a new dialect to condemn the real mother as an impostor. But what these all fail to account for is the simple fact that there is a Father in all of this too and the Father has been with the mother from the very beginning and also knows His own child. It should be no surprise then that The Judge also happens to be the Father and in His wrath at discovering the impostor has drawn his sword to cleave the impostor into 30,000 or more pieces and left the baby whole. Such is the fate of all who would attempt to usurp the authority of The Church - its unbelievably arrogant as well as suicidal.

James

 

[Angels_Unaware]

I’ve always found the following two constructions to be more along the lines of circular reasoning.

1. The Catholic interpretation of the Bible teaches that only the Catholic church may interpret the Bible properly.
2. The Catholic church teaches that the Catholic church possesses the teaching of the Apostles.

In either case the Church’s authority is used to prove the Church’s authority. Which seems like circular reasoning to me.

Perhaps you could propose a different way of looking at it?

Really? You think that is circular reasoning? Perhaps to a materialist who is asking for proof that they Bible is “true”.

In this case, we are addressing authoritative claims to the correct interpretation of Scripture. A Protestant has no basis to make any. Their arguments will always rest on the premise, “I think this is what the Bible says.” Therefore, their premise is circular. A Catholic will interpret Scripture, and when challenged, point to the teaching authority and historical record of the Church. It will be considered infallible because it has been preserved by Christ.

So, far from being “circular reasoning”, the Catholic intepretation of Scripture is based on religious authority.

You may certainly choose to reject it, and say, “well, why should I believe you”, but there is no circular reasoning involved. The reasoning of authority ends with the claim of authority and the succession of authority back to the time of Christ.

That is not enough for a materialist or an agnostic, but it is what a Catholic places their faith in. The Protestant would say, “my claim of authority rests with the Bible”, but once again, if the meaning is not apparent then it it doesn’t rest with the Bible. It rests with Biblical interpretation.

 

[CentralFLJames]

Well, some Catholics do worship Mary and will testify to that just as some have done on this thread.

I have seen no Catholic in this thread admit that anyone worships Mary at a level above veneration and honor. And your opinion is unsubstantiated. Present your evidence and proof to back up your opinon or just admit its random speculation.

A few years ago there was a concerted effort to have the Church proclaim that Mary was the co-redemptrix. The folks pushing that issue testified to the works Mary had done for them. In older Catholic churches you will see candles lighted for Mary and for Jesus. Most of the time far more candles are lighted for Mary than Jesus. In reciting the Rosary Catholics sound like they are praying to Mary. Of course, some Catholics pray to Saints as well and have a list of saints that will tell you which saint to pray to if you have, for example, a toothache. It seems to me the issue here is that there is a distinct difference between church law and practices of Catholics.

You seem fixated on accounting prayers like a bean counter. Do you not recollect the widow who gave her mite/penny to God and how Jesus judged that of more merit than those who offered up much more? So. can you show from the bible a theological principal where more prayers made to the saints or departed equates to worship AND as well to superior worship to God? Hint - you can’t so why do you invent this false doctrine?

Catholics venerate the saints through prayers and worship God through the sacrifice of the Mass and the associated liturgical prayers. We see this pairing of veneration and worship as a complete obedience to Charity - which is Loving God with all our Hearts and Neighbor as ourselves. Protestants have yet to answer my prior question and prove that you even worship God at all. It appears that all you do is venerate God.

So again I want to ask - prove that Protestants do anything more than venerate God in their gospel readings, singing, hand-clapping and exhortations. Again I point you to the story of Cain and Abel where the brother Cain did not present an acceptable sacrifice of worship to God but brother Abel did. Clearly “the bible tells us” (your vernacular) that not all worship is acceptable to God (especially if offered up from an insincere or malformed faith). So what sacrifice do Protestants give up to God to form an acceptable worship? It’s a rhetorical question since we all know Protestants do not have a priesthood and are therefor unable to offer a proper sacrifice to God (which is Christ Himself) that He finds pleasing.

It seems to me that the real issue here is that Protestants can’t distinguish the difference between “veneration” and “worship” and lacking any formal acquaintance with what is acceptable worship to God are afraid Catholic veneration surpasses what they substitute as worship for God. It’s the old Cain and Abel story all over again and Protestants sure sound jealous…

James

 

[Roy5]

A WORD ABOUT THE EARLY CHURCH FATHERS

I have read many of the early Church Fathers, among them St. Clement, Origen, Tertullian, Augustine, and a variety of others. This was a long time ago, frankly, so much has vacated my brain. I wrote a master's thesis on "Democratic Elements in the Political Thought of St. Thomas Aquinas". I mention all this not to boast but since these Fathers seem so authoratative to so many posters.

Even then, when I was more 'orthodox' in my thinking, I found that many things they wrote were okay for that age but quite primitive when one considers all we know now that they didn't know then. They saw the world in three tiers. Some believed in all sorts of demons and demonic forces that would, for example, cause disease (they didn't know about germs, etc.). They also knew nothing about the - what? - millions, maybe even billions, of stars as big or bigger than our sun, or even solar systems that number in millions or billions. They depicted heaven, purgatory and hell in specific language that sounds archaic today. Many of them were very intolerant, ready to kill off heretics. Few of them focused as much on love, the central theme of Christ, as they did on apologetics, doctrinal correctness. 

  I believe that religion must adapt to new knowledge. We can learn things from the Fathers, of course, as they had incisive minds, and I'm glad I studied them. But they didn't shine much light on the need for a Christianity that evolves as knowledge increases. The Galileo story if an illustration. Finally, 400+ years late, the Vatican has apologized.

  Sadly, Mariology has evolved - in some circles - into something of a semi-cult with Catholicism. I have a friend who goes to Mary for comfort and consolation rather than to God and Christ. "She is so beautiful and motherly and kind" - his point of view. Personally, I have a problem with that. But he remains a good friend and we have amiable conversations on faith. There is no need to make fun of him and his viewpoint - or of me, and my viewpoint. "Think and let think" - another quote from John Wesley.  

   There is a faction with Catholicism, as well as among Protestant fundamentalists, which is both sincere and intolerant of other opinions. They rely on the Church or on their particular interpretation of certain Bible passages for their views, and everybody else is in serious error. That is the sort of attitude that is responsible for much of the evil in the world today: religious self-righteousness and bigotry.

   As fellow Christians, whatever our affiliation, let us seek to express love. When Christ was asked how to gain eternal life, he didn't answer with a creed. He gave the parable of the Good Samaritan and told us to go and do likewise. Creeds were codified to exclude people. Our responsibility as Christians is to invite in people of different views who want to worship God and serve Christ and His Kingdom.

 

[CentralFLJames]

A WORD ABOUT THE EARLY CHURCH FATHERS
…

Roy, why is it that every time I read your posts it sounds like someone pontificating personal opinion as a sort of universal dogma? Do you have a compendium, or a link to The Gospel According to Roy you can point me to so I can read it off line and not keep getting off OP? And can you offer any insight on why I get a recurring mental picture of you as some old die-hard grey bearded and barefooted hippie laying at the top of the mountain amidst the wild clover and peyote in faded bell bottom jeans with a wrinkled t-shirt bearing the caption: “can’t we just give peace a chance”? Am I far off? I thought society outgrew the flower-power experiment of the 1960’s long ago just as you claim the Early Church Father’s have been rendered obsolete? Do we still have anything important to learn from that failed experiment that has left us so many social-evils that still haunt us? Is evil passé’ too?

I think before you toss out the ECFs you should reconsider that there just might be an equivalence between the timeless principals of wisdom and the notion of unchanging objective knowledge – not to mention the historical record that proves The Early Church was Catholic.

At any rate, I keep getting mixed messages from you. Your system of thinking seems to be a mix of anachronistic and sentimental thinking taken together with a strong rush of progressive moral-relativism. Though I can’t agree with it I can certainly see how such a system would permit you to replace what you consider outmoded ways of thinking that makes exceptions to any which had a historical conflict with The Church (e.g. Galileo & Hippies was cool but Aquinas and Augustine are passé’?). Or do you just have a personal sentimentality and preference for anyone who had a conflict with the church? What did the church do to you personally?

Yes, “some believed in all sorts of demons and demonic forces that would, for example, cause disease (they didn’t know about germs, etc.).” We know now that those demonic forces just expose one to the natural evils present in an infected Creation (the flower0power folks taught us all about STDs, illegitimate children, and the moral cost to society of irresponsible living). And I will admit that some “were very intolerant, ready to kill off heretics” – but of course we can’t say this of the 11 million early Christians who all went to their deaths as martyrs for their faith can we? You make it sound like The Roman and Jewish persecutions were angels. But you know what Roy? Jesus himself warned us in the same “archaic” language you bemoan that there are distinct moral boundaries which we must love by (see Matthew 13:41 below). The ECF’s did not make the same mistake as the flower-power generation. They saw centrality in Charity - Love of God and Neighbor. But they had the ancient wisdom to equate love with the authentic Christian love closer to the Greek norms of Agape, Philia and Storge (genuine affection, dispassionate virtuous love, friendship and parent-child-brother-sister love ) – not the sensual self-pleasuring Eros sort of love that the flower-power generation became fixated with. Do you know the difference?

Matthew 13:41-43
The Son of Man will send forth His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all stumbling blocks, and those who commit lawlessness, and will throw them into the furnace of fire; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. “Then THE RIGHTEOUS WILL SHINE FORTH AS THE SUN in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear.

And I must differ with you that Jesus and the apostles could not differentiate sickness, from demons from mental illness because the scriptures show they clearly made that distinction – there are dozens more.

Matthew 4:24: “…they brought unto him [Jesus] all sick people that were taken with divers diseases and torments, and those which were possessed with devils, and those which were lunatic, and those that had the palsy…”

[ed: it seems clear to me that the apostle can distinguish from diseases, mental illness and demons to me??]

You “believe that religion must adapt to new knowledge”? I disagree – the bible is not a science book and its truths are objective truths – they are not formed on science and do not stand on physical knowledge but rather on fundamental universal axioms that are timeless.

[continued]

James

 

[CentralFLJames]

[continued from prior]
You say without evidence that “Mariology has evolved - in some circles - into something of a semi-cult with Catholicism”. I suppose that the Jews though the same thing of the Christians too? Saul certainly had an issue with those practicing “The Way”. Consider that Mariology is a valid but subordinate component of the greater whole – in that context why is it a problem to you? You “have a friend who goes to Mary for comfort and consolation rather than to God and Christ." Do you find the same objection in going to one’s mother for advise as long as they also worship God at Sunday Mass (oops I forgot – you don’t worship God you just love him up on your moutain right? ).

“Think and let think” - another quote from John Wesley? Are you idolizing a man teaching mere human precepts here? Don’t tell me you are one of those Wesley cultists?

Another of Wesley’s quotes made at the age of 63, in a letter to his brother before he died:
"I do not love God. I never did. Therefore I never believed, in the Christian sense of the word. Therefore I am only an honest heathen…And yet, to be so employed of God!”

The problem with Wesley of course is that he was a heretic and stood solidly against the true Catholic faith. Like so many “well meaning” heretics he had a some partial truths but completely misses other important truths – like the necessity of being obedient to divinely appointed authority. Wesley was a man full of self doubt and internal fears who compensated by counseling other’s how best to manage their spiritual lives. We have no way to access what damage his false teachings have caused.

No, “when Christ was asked how to gain eternal life, he didn’t answer with a creed”. He gave us His life example and the handed down teaching to His apostles from which comes our creed – just one of many prayers and traditions we Catholics continue to this day. You assert the speculation that “Creeds were codified to exclude people”. This is a pessimistic view. A Creed is a simple testament of common belief. Are you suggesting we should not have beliefs so we do not exclude those with different beliefs? Are we all to be mindless robots? How do we do that Roy? Do we smoke a little weed or draw on a water pipe to make our minds numb to the reality that there are objective truths and true differences between good and evil? Our responsibility as Christians is to invite people into the truth that can lead them to properly worship and love God in truth so that we can help establish His kingdom on earth and be forever in His eternal company.

James

 

[Roy5]

CHARLES, CHARLES, CHARLES!

Are you ready for the Superbowl? I'm not and must make this short.

You have written so much that should be answered, but let me simply say that I have never been a hippie. In fact, I am very bourgeois - did I spell that right? I even vote GOP often - from a family one wing of which has been voting Republican since 1856! That's the Protestant wing. The Catholic wing came to the USA from Quebec well after that tragic Civil War was over. Having two such wings, I came to respect relatives of different affiliations and feel that most religious prejudice is sad. It has been the source of so much pain. I recall when Catholics could not even enter a Protestant Church and what hard feelings that created when our local high school held its bacculaurate service annually, rotating from church to church. And mixed-religion couples were not permitted to marry in the church. And the Church even condemned membership in the YMCA. Thank God for Vatican II which some posters seem to disparage. Overnight 'sins' of the past became acceptable. Makes you wonder.

 No, I was even alienated by some of the hippies - those who went wild in their rebellion. On the other hand, I must confess that I did oppose the Vietnam War just as I (and the Pope) opposed the tragic invasion of Iraq. What a diversion from our real enemy in Afghanistan, and a war that has cost so much in blood and dollars, divided Americans, alienated allies, strengthened Iran, further infuriated Muslims - and we could go on. But that's not what this thread is about. Although I'm sure Mary would be a strong peace advocate, too.

  To make this posting relevant to the thread, let me reiterate. I honor Mary as the mother of Jesus, of course, but all the extra baggage added to her seems overdoing it. No need going over all the same territory, but no one seems to answer this question which has disturbed me over the years: if Mary is so central to our faith how could St. Paul write all those epistles to early Christians, letters steeped in theology and practice, and never once even mention her name??? And I am equally uncomfortable that it took until 1854 to declare the Immaculate Conception (why was that vital to Christianity?) and until 1950 to declare her Assumption. I suspect that when we get to heaven Mary is going to scold those who took this wonderful young Jewish girl and turned her into a goddess. Yes, a goddess. How else could she be Our Lady of this and that, patroness of the USA, and so much more.

  Hope your football team wins. I don't have a favorite this year. Yes, and I do wish that we all could get along and stop this silly theological bickering. None of us knows very much about this vast and mysterious universe. There's a book by a clergyman called "The Christian Agnostic". Worth reading. He says he's a devoted Christian and earnestly seeks to follow Christ, but he also knows that he has only a worm's eye when it comes to understanding the ultimate reality of existence. We are like ants trying to figure out a piano.  

   Do you smile? If so, keep smiling.

 

[CentralFLJames]

…no one seems to answer this question which has disturbed me over the years: if Mary is so central to our faith how could St. Paul write all those epistles to early Christians, letters steeped in theology and practice, and never once even mention her name??? And I am equally uncomfortable that it took until 1854 to declare the Immaculate Conception (why was that vital to Christianity?) and until 1950 to declare her Assumption.

Paul does actually allude to his in his epistles. He made the clear connection that Christ was the new Adam. It would be inconceivable for him not to also make the connection of Mary as the new Eve. I will link you to more info on this in a moment. Note too that Paul does not have the benefit of a holistic NT - it does not exist until after John writes his Book of Revelation and The Church brings it all together into one cohesive bible 300 years later. If Paul had known ahead of time that John was to write the Book of Revelation and use the imagery of the crowned Queen in Heaven he probably would have been more explicit. But I really think Paul made the conscious decision to center his teaching on Christ Risen rather than introducing more complex and integrated teaching of Mary since: 1) She might very well still have been alive and with the apostolic church and 2) there was a risk of causing more divisions and factions if too much was revealed too soon.

Besides the early Christians thought Christ’s return was eminent so there is simply no compelling need to develop an entire framework of theology and the priority is to just get the “good news” out. Note the Trinity and Christology concepts do not come to us till much later - even though they are all formed from the gospel.

Read the following article that describes how Paul reveals Mary’s role as New Eve without explicitly saying it:
How Can You Say That Mary Is the ‘New Eve’?

James

 

[Roy5]

CHARLES!

Half time. I remember when Springsteen married and Fr. Andrew Greeley wrote in a boastful manner that it was an ideal Catholic marriage. Then, of course, Springsteen and his wife were divorced. I wonder what Fr. Greeley had to say then. This church divorce ('annulment') is so much nonsense. I have a good friend who started out with a great marriage. They both changed ('grew'?) and after the first eight years sought an amicable divorce. When he came to remarry, he had to provide evidence that there was something wrong with the first marriage. Guess what? He and his second wife went to a mainline Protestant minister and now they are very active in that church. How come the Church doesn't forgive what may or may not have been mistakes without hassling good folks so much?

 Let's see. That got me off the track and I forget what I was going to say re your last post. I'll recheck what you said and may be back soon.