Whore of Babylon

[lefthand36]

Maccabees:

I was Lutheran (LCMS) for 14 years, and left because of their teaching that the Catholic church was the Whore of Babylon, and they still teach that the Pope is the anti-Christ. I never believed this, and I joined the Catholic church last year.

I did not join out of anger though. So, I don’t think it is right to call Lutherans demons, because then we stoop to their level, and I am not about to do that. I joined because I aways felt something was missing in my religious life, and it was the Catholic church.

However, there are many, many good Christian people in the Lutheran church. As a matter of fact, many protestant religions have a deeper love of Christ than some Catholics do, But that is not to true of all of us Catholics. Many protestant Christian denominations acknowledge reverence in the church as it should be. There are many things that I truly do miss about the Lutheran church. Because I find many many Catholic do not want to talk about their faith. Heck, we can not even get a good Sunday school discussion going in our parish. It seems to always be about church history.

So, I would be very careful in calling others demons, because there are many good Christians in the Lutheran church that don’t accept the idea that the Catholic church is the Whore of Babylon.

If I have misunderstood your post, please forgive me.

Sincerely,

 

[lefthand36]

This is a tradition of man that has been going on 500 years.
I beleive the Wels and LMCS Lutheran denoms still state in their statement of belief that the Pope is the anti-christ.
Hey guys feel free to get out of the middle ages anytime.
500 years is a long time hold a grudge people.Maccabees:

I was Lutheran (LCMS) for 14 years, and left because of their teaching that the Catholic church was the Whore of Babylon, and they still teach that the Pope is the anti-Christ. I never believed this, and I joined the Catholic church last year.

I did not join out of anger though. So, I don’t think it is right to call Lutherans demons, because then we stoop to their level, and I am not about to do that. I joined because I aways felt something was missing in my religious life, and it was the Catholic church.

However, there are many, many good Christian people in the Lutheran church. As a matter of fact, many protestant religions have a deeper love of Christ than some Catholics do, But that is not to true of all of us Catholics. Many protestant Christian denominations acknowledge reverence in the church as it should be. There are many things that I truly do miss about the Lutheran church. Because I find many many Catholic do not want to talk about their faith. Heck, we can not even get a good Sunday school discussion going in our parish. It seems to always be about church history.

So, I would be very careful in calling others demons, because there are many good Christians in the Lutheran church that don’t accept the idea that the Catholic church is the Whore of Babylon.

Sincerely,

 

[lefthand36]

Maccabees:

.
This is a tradition of man that has been going on 500 years.
I beleive the Wels and LMCS Lutheran denoms still state in their statement of belief that the Pope is the anti-christ.

Maccabees:

I just wanted to add one thing. I can truly understand your frustration, though. That is primarily what lead me away from the church. Plus, Lutherans do not believe that we have free will.

I did not want you to misunderstand my post, because I totally understand where you are coming from, but stooping to their level doesn’t make it right for us Catholics, either.

God bless,

 

[Maccabees]

MarkAnthonyCozy:

English is the language used in this part of the world. If we are to evangelize our world then we must use this language as it is.

I never gave it much thought until I heard an apologist on EWTN radio correct himself after saying that Catholics adore Mary. He came back on the radio one week later stating that after being counciled on the subject he made an error in stating that Catholics adore Mary. He stated that adoration is for God and God alone.

This is why I passed it to you.

According to Webster’s dictionary “adore” has three meanings. The first meaning refers to the worship and honor of a diety. The second meaning refers to reverant admiration and devotion. The third refers to extreme fondness.

With this in mind a Catholic can adore God, Mary, or the family pet as long as a qualifying description is given as to which level of adoration is used. Without the qualifier one is left to assume which level of adoration one is referring when using this term.

Hence the wisdom of the EWTN Apologetics Team to reserve the term “adoration” for God and God alone… I’m assuming.

I’m going to go and pray my daily Rosary now.

If EWTN retracts their statement so will I. I really trust those guys. However there is catholic stuff in print that says we adore Mary thus the confussion for the priest and myself. What are we to do with Saint Alfonso Ligouri?
I think what we have a problem with here is the English language and its limitations we do more than just revere or respect Mary but we don’t have a word that captures this type of worship without easily confusing it with worship to God alone.
And yes the term we worship Mary is entirely correct you won’t have backing down on that. I have heard EWTN use this phrase many times sorry I worship Mary go ahead call me a heretic this is catholic teaching. Of course its hyperdulia worhsip which I explained much earlier.

 

[lefthand36]

Maccabees:

Actually it is perfectly right to say we worship and adore Mary.]

Maccabees:

Wow! I totally disagree with this statement. I do not worship Mary! We do venerate her, but worship is to Father, Son, and Holy Spirit Only.

It is these kinds of statements that causes other Christian religions to speak evil of the Catholic church.

This really concerns me.

Blessed be God forever,

 

[lefthand36]

Maccabees:

However the worship and adoration we give Mary is different than what we give to God alone. It is ok because she is our Mediatrix of all Graces and Co-redemptrix.

Someone please tell this recent convert if I am misunderstanding, but I did not realize that the Catholic church claims that Mary is Co-redeemer. Only Christ redeems the lost.

Is my definition of Co-redemptrix wrong? Does it not mean that another party had part in our redeemption?

If I am understanding properly, then, I totally disagree. No where in scripture can this be proven. Yes, Mary, did in fact bring our Redeemer into the world, and in that way she did participate. But she did not save us from our sins.

Could someone clarify this for me.

Puzzled,

 

[ClaireBloodgood]

Maranatha:

Why is it that non-Catholic Christians fill their dogma with hatred toward Catholics but Catholics don’t reciprocate?

Well, not all non-Catholic Christians hate Catholics (just look at the number of mixed marriages ), just as not all Catholics are kind and accepting of non-Catholic Christians.

But if one is Protestant, one must be protesting against something, eh? Since history shows that the Catholic Church is the original Church founded by Christ, they have to show it “fell into apostasy” to justify being separate from it.

-Claire

 

[catholic2]

Benadam:

how about this. the seven hills are the seven continents.

It is a worlwide religion. Idolatry. Unconscious love of things mistakenly attached to people.

And this: Constantinople, the early center of the Eastern Church sits on seven hills just like Rome. Constantine had chosen this city as the new capital of the Roman Empire sometime in the 4th century, I think.

 

[Maccabees]

Just because of protestant misunderstanding we shouldn’t ignore our teachings we pray to Mary and we worship her.

Pray means simply to petition in this sense this does not make her the mediator between God and man this if Jesus alone.
We worship Mary there are levels of worship there is Worship to God alone we don’t make eucharistic sacrifice to Mary but to God alone.
He is the sole salvific sacfifice however in English worship has more than one meaning their is worship of Kings and Queens as well. The church never had a problem with people using this Olde English in reference to King and Queens. As Mary is the Queen of Heaven it is appropriate we worship her.

Prayer has multiple meanings heck we pray to the court of law.

So does worship look at this defintiion

1. 
   *]To honor and love as a deity. (God alone)
   *]To regard with ardent or adoring esteem or devotion. See Synonyms at revere1. (Mary)
   
   There are multiple meanings to words don’t make protestant define traditional catholic terms of love and devotion these are words of piety developed by the church.
   I won’t stop using them to suit your own insecurity as a catholic. Know your faith and define your faith and its language don’t make protestants define your faith.

 

[Maccabees]

lefthand36:

Someone please tell this recent convert if I am misunderstanding, but I did not realize that the Catholic church claims that Mary is Co-redeemer. Only Christ redeems the lost.

Is my definition of Co-redemptrix wrong? Does it not mean that another party had part in our redeemption?

If I am understanding properly, then, I totally disagree. No where in scripture can this be proven. Yes, Mary, did in fact bring our Redeemer into the world, and in that way she did participate. But she did not save us from our sins.

Could someone clarify this for me.

Puzzled,

Yeah you are misunderstanding as you let your protestant mindset define these terms. Saying we worship Mary and she is Co - Reddemer and Mediatrix are all catholic teachings however there are great nuuances between her participation in her role of co-reedmer and mediatrix and the source of our redemption and mediatorship which is Christ. And like I said before there are more than one protestant definition of words like worship and pray their are also catholic definitions of these words. I suggest a good dictionary and a cathechism to clear up these misconceptions

**. . . she is our Mother in the order of grace **

967 By her complete adherence to the Father’s will, to his Son’s redemptive work, and to every prompting of the Holy Spirit, the Virgin Mary is the Church’s model of faith and charity. Thus she is a “preeminent and . . . wholly unique member of the Church”; indeed, she is the “exemplary realization” (typus)510 of the Church.

968 Her role in relation to the Church and to all humanity goes still further. "In a wholly singular way she cooperated by her obedience, faith, hope, and burning charity in the Savior’s work of restoring supernatural life to souls. For this reason she is a mother to us in the order of grace."511

969 "This motherhood of Mary in the order of grace continues uninterruptedly from the consent which she loyally gave at the Annunciation and which she sustained without wavering beneath the cross, until the eternal fulfillment of all the elect. Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation . . . . Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix."512 970 "Mary’s function as mother of men in no way obscures or diminishes this unique mediation of Christ, but rather shows its power. But the Blessed Virgin’s salutary influence on men . . . flows forth from the superabundance of the merits of Christ, rests on his mediation, depends entirely on it, and draws all its power from it."513 "No creature could ever be counted along with the Incarnate Word and Redeemer; but just as the priesthood of Christ is shared in various ways both by his ministers and the faithful, and as the one goodness of God is radiated in different ways among his creatures, so also the unique mediation of the Redeemer does not exclude but rather gives rise to a manifold cooperation which is but a sharing in this one source."514

I retracted the term adore even though it has been used by saints it can be easily misunderstood so I will take my cue from EWTN and won’t use it anymore. But the other terms are used by EWTN and the catholic church. So I will continue to use them unless I am proven wrong. The Cathechism and other church teachings support me.

 

[lefthand36]

Maccabees:

Yeah you are misunderstanding as you let your protestant mindset define these terms. Saying we worship Mary and she is Co - Reddemer and Mediatrix **are all catholic teachings **however there are great nuuances between her participation in her role of co-reedmer and mediatrix and the source of our redemption and mediatorship which is Christ.

Maccabee,

She is in no way co-redeemer. Never has been, never will be. I agree, no one can ever take her place, and I know that she did adhere to God’s will, and that she does intercede for us in prayer, and she is the Mother of all, but she is not co-redeemer in any sense of the word, and to my knowledge Mary being co-redeemer is not Catholic teaching according to my priest. That was one of my question to him during RCIA.

I love her very much, and say the rosary, which happens to be my favorite prayer, but I only have one Savior. And yes, I know that her role is defined in a different sense than Christ’s role by the Church. That difference being that He is the only way.

**. . . she is our Mother in the order of grace **

968 Her role in relation to the Church and to all humanity goes still further. "In a wholly singular way she cooperated by her obedience, faith, hope, and burning charity in the Savior’s work of restoring supernatural life to souls. For this reason she is a mother to us in the order of grace.

Key word here is cooperated, not co-redeemed. We all cooperate, Maccabee, by accepting Christ as our Savior by way of His grace. And yes, her cooperation far exceeded that of any other human being. No one can ever compare to her, but I can not, nor should I, look to her for my salvation, and when you say co-redeemer, that what you are saying.

I too agree that she adhered to the Lord’s call and that she is the Church’s model, but to the best of my knowledge the cathechism does not, and yes I do have a copy of the Cathechism, say that she is co-redeemer. But I have not been Catholic all of my life, so therefore, I have not read the entire book.

And this is not my Protestant mindset that makes me think this way, this is the mindset of God’s infalliable word.

Maccabee, your bite is very ugly sometimes, and I did not come here to be abused. I have noticed in some of your other posts, that if people don’t agree with you, you bite back hard. You can be very unloving in your comments to others. You are very harsh when you choose your words. This is not the way of our Savior. And if this is how people are treated in this forum that come here for answers, especially recent converts, then maybe I don’t need to be a part of it anymore, because you make me feel very unwelcomed, but maybe that is because I am from the south where hospitality is a virtue.

Another thing, I am not insecure in my faith, and I resent you saying that. You don’t even know me, and until you do try to get to know me a little better, don’t make those kind of comments please. I came here to learn, but if you continue to use this type of push-over teaching effect, then I would not want you instructing me.

God bless you,

 

[Benadam]

catholic2:

And this: Constantinople, the early center of the Eastern Church sits on seven hills just like Rome. Constantine had chosen this city as the new capital of the Roman Empire sometime in the 4th century, I think.

Hmmm well, you can probably find visible possibilities that fit the pattern figured in revelation. St Paul, I think it was in Thessaloinians 2, Said the religion of anti-christ isn’t visible. What I scratch my chin over now is how would Satan hide a religion? I think in the unconscious motivations within man that stem from history supressed or repressed. Yep and it keeps on poking it’s big ugly heads out. What is within man he is currently unconscious of that can develope into religious deception?

 

[Church_Militant]

Maccabees, says

It is ok because she is our Mediatrix of all Graces and Co-redemptrix.

I don’t think that these titles have been approved by the church. If not then you may be treading on very thin ice. I do not like either term because they are misleading by their very nature…as is your discussion of the word studies about worship. I understand what all this means and insofar as it goes I essentially agree, but I hope that the terms “Mediatrix of all Graces and Co-redemptrix” are not the terms they choose to define these concepts.

Pax vobiscum

 

[Maccabees]

lefthand36:

Key word here is cooperated, not co-redeemed. We all cooperate, Maccabee, by accepting Christ as our Savior by way of His grace. And yes, her cooperation far exceeded that of any other human being. No one can ever compare to her, but I can not, nor should I, look to her for my salvation, and when you say co-redeemer, that what you are saying.

I too agree that she adhered to the Lord’s call and that she is the Church’s model, but to the best of my knowledge the cathechism does not, and yes I do have a copy of the Cathechism, say that she is co-redeemer. But I have not been Catholic all of my life, so therefore, I have not read the entire book.

And this is not my Protestant mindset that makes me think this way, this is the mindset of God’s infalliable word.

God bless you,

I still don’t think you understand what’s going on here. This is a pretty heady theological concept the concept of cooperation is intertwined with her coredemption like I said before her coredemption does not in any way take away from the only salvific sacrifice of Christ co in this sense is primarily cooperate but not equal to Mary participates in our salvation and therefore the tiltle coredemptrix and Mediatrix is constant in the writings of Vatican 2 and touched upon in the cathechsim to deny that it is so is dishonest and going backward in the church’s understanding of Marian theology I apologize if my honesty has offended you but I do think your protestant formation is blocking you from understanding this teaching. I mean no offense just an observation. Look at your response you deny the church’s clear teaching because your interpretation of his word does not agree.
This is a protestant mindset. Please think about this.
You have been mislead for many years that sola scriptura is true and that Mary plays no role in our salavation this is not your fault.
Read very slowly what the cathechism says also read the complete article on EWTN:
ewtn.com/library/MARY/ORMARIA.HTM

Within the vast and diverse reality of the Church, some circles are asking, with a certain insistence, through the presentation of studies and symposia on the manus salutiferum of Mary, that the Bishop of Rome make a dogmatic definition of the so-called “coredemption”. Reasons are provided for this request: ours is the appropriate time to complete the Marian dogmas; the previous definitions concerned the “person” and not the soteriological and ecclesial “role” of the Mother of Jesus; a definition would further complete the doctrine of the Church; it would foster the piety of the faithful and appreciation for women. Such reasons are not new; all of them have to be weighed by their consequences. They appear similar, with the exception of the one regarding women, to those expressed by a number of Bishops in 1959 in their desiderata for the Council, which were later summarized and registered by the preparatory synthesis of 1960.1
The request also makes use of terminology belonging to pre-conciliar theological manuals: Coredemptrix, coredemption; Mediatrix, mediaton, objective and subjective Redemption; application and distribution of graces; condign and congruous merit…2

It shows, therefore, a certain “under-appreciation” of the Council’s teaching, which is perhaps believed to be not completely adequate to illustrate comprehensively Mary’s co-operation in Christ’s work of Redemption (coredemption) or her association with Christ in applying and distributing salvation to all people through her intercession of grace and mercy (mediation).

From an attentive reading of the theological and Mariological manuals in use before the Second Vatican Council, as well as from an examination of the Marian vota of the Bishops for the Council, it is clear that coredemption and mediation are constant themes. The two are intimately connected: the earthly co-operation of the Blessed Virgin in the salvific work of Christ, or coredemption, is seen as the preamble to her mediation which continues now in heaven. The two doctrinal themes, connected in the one reality of the mystery of salvation, are usually distinguished, as formal object, by theologians,3 although there are some who combine them in the theme of universal motherhood.

 

[MaggieOH]

lefthand36:

Key word here is cooperated, not co-redeemed. We all cooperate, Maccabee, by accepting Christ as our Savior by way of His grace. And yes, her cooperation far exceeded that of any other human being. No one can ever compare to her, but I can not, nor should I, look to her for my salvation, and when you say co-redeemer, that what you are saying.

I too agree that she adhered to the Lord’s call and that she is the Church’s model, but to the best of my knowledge the cathechism does not, and yes I do have a copy of the Cathechism, say that she is co-redeemer. But I have not been Catholic all of my life, so therefore, I have not read the entire book.

And this is not my Protestant mindset that makes me think this way, this is the mindset of God’s infalliable word.

Maccabee, your bite is very ugly sometimes, and I did not come here to be abused. I have noticed in some of your other posts, that if people don’t agree with you, you bite back hard. You can be very unloving in your comments to others. You are very harsh when you choose your words. This is not the way of our Savior. And if this is how people are treated in this forum that come here for answers, especially recent converts, then maybe I don’t need to be a part of it anymore, because you make me feel very unwelcomed, but maybe that is because I am from the south where hospitality is a virtue.

Another thing, I am not insecure in my faith, and I resent you saying that. You don’t even know me, and until you do try to get to know me a little better, don’t make those kind of comments please. I came here to learn, but if you continue to use this type of push-over teaching effect, then I would not want you instructing me.

God bless you,

Hi Brenda,

There is a lot of misunderstanding about stating that Mary is Co-redeemer with Christ and the reason for the misunderstanding is not your Protestant mindset but it is the mindset of those who do not teach the truth about Mary

The de fide doctrine does not put Mary on the same level of Jesus as Redeemer. What it does is recognize the necessity for Mary’s fiat “Let it be done unto me according to thy word”. Without that fiat the Messiah could not come into the world and the Redemption could not have happened.

I hope this helps you to have a little bit better understanding of the meaning of this term.

Maggie

 

[Eric1975]

I just love that cheesy grin! Whore of Babylon huh? Who was it that said that the simplest explanation was the best? Anyway, the ‘whore’ of ‘Babylon’ MUST be understood in the context and thinking of a 1st century Jewish, Greek, or Roman person. I don’t buy into the moronic notion of ‘the Bible is for today,’ abuse that so many seem to utilize in their exegesis. Ah yes, let that be AD, not CE, sigh…that is so very annoying. Anyway, the political power at the time which had reached a height to the point of becoming oppressive, similar to how Antiochus Epiphanes IV oppressed the Maccabees (Mr. Gibson, please let Brendan Frasier play a good JUDAS, lolol) would have been represented by the word ‘Babylon,’ or ‘place of exile,’ as those great ancient brothers and sisters of ours’ would have looked at it. The ‘whore’ and that word usually signifies Israel’s unfaithfulness at times to the Lord Almighty that she (as a nation) was betrothed to, most likely would have signified the Sanhedrin of the time and the extreme and violent reaction they had to early Catholic Christians who were not yet know as Catholic because Saint Ignatius of Antioch (probably my favorite of the Church Fathers) had not yet used the term Catholicus which meant ‘concerning the whole,’ before he was taken to the colesseum. Now, can someone please send an unemployed art student a ENGLISH/LATIN, LATIN/ENGLISH dictionary? PLEASE? I ask this in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.

 

[Maccabees]

Church Militant:

Maccabees, says

I don’t think that these titles have been approved by the church. If not then you may be treading on very thin ice. I do not like either term because they are misleading by their very nature…as is your discussion of the word studies about worship. I understand what all this means and insofar as it goes I essentially agree, but I hope that the terms “Mediatrix of all Graces and Co-redemptrix” are not the terms they choose to define these concepts.

Pax vobiscum

So you have a problem with the documents of Vatican 2 and the current cathechism and the documents written by the Popes of the 20th century including Pope John Paul 2?
These terms have been used to describe our lady in official church documents for some time now. I suggest you read the EWTN article yourself to see where the church is headed on this.
ewtn.com/library/MARY/ORMARIA.HTM

The church likes to use these terms as does our Pope if its good enough for our Pope, the church, our councils why is it not good enough for you?
I think your the one threading on thin ice I agree with Vatican 2, the cathechism and our pope of the 20th century do You?
You are not one of those Vatican 1 catholics are you?

 

[Church_Militant]

Maccabees:

So you have a problem with the documents of Vatican 2 and the current cathechism and the documents written by the Popes of the 20th century including Pope John Paul 2?
These terms have been used to describe our lady in official church documents for some time now. I suggest you read the EWTN article yourself to see where the church is headed on this.
ewtn.com/library/MARY/ORMARIA.HTM

The church likes to use these terms as does our Pope if its good enough for our Pope, the church, our councils why is it not good enough for you?
I think your the one threading on thin ice I agree with Vatican 2, the cathechism and our pope of the 20th century do You?
You are not one of those Vatican 1 catholics are you?

No to most all of your questions.
I could care less who uses what term, but until such time as the church says officially that these are valid titles for the Blessed Virgin I think we should be cautious. Just because His Holiness uses a term does not meant that it is worth poking others with, especially when trying to answer already skittish queries about the faith. It confuses the issues and lends nothing to their understanding of our most holy faith. In fact…most Catholics that I know have about zero clue what these terms mean anyway.

I know that we discussed your propensity for shock tactics before and I frankly would never do things the way you do as it leads to too much hassle and controversy about things which we are not bound by the church to even believe. Namely the very apparitions that these terms came from.

I DO agree with The writer on this: As I said don’t be too hasty.
“It needs to be acknowledged frankly, calmly and beyond any rushed or superficial conclusion that the titles used to substantiate the request for a dogma relative to the role of Mary in the work of Redemption do not clearly, suitably or in a uniform manner express the doctrine that the drafters of the petition wish to maintain.”

Pax tecum,

Never said I didn’t agree- Besides this is off topic.

 

[Maccabees]

Here is a book review by this Rock magazine on some charges that James White uses against the catholic church.
Central to this anti-catholic book is the Catholic teaching of CoRedeemer and Mediatrix.
I ask you catholic who disagree with these teachings why are you agreeing with James White and not Catholic Answers?
Straw Woman

James R. White’s Mary—Another Redeemer? betrays an “either-or” mindset too clumsy to articulate not only the subtleties but even many broad features of the title “co-redeemer.” White frames his complaints about various Catholic teachings—not just the doctrine of co-redemption—in an either-or box, forcing a dichotomy.

For example, according to White, applying “co-redeemer” to the Virgin Mary equates Mary with Jesus or makes her an alternate to him. White faintly acknowledges that “co-” in “co-redeemer” means “with” rather than “equal” or “alternative.” He dismisses this difference, however, asserting that Catholics fail to maintain such distinctions.

White includes “Another” in the book’s title precisely to indicate that, in assigning “co-redeemer” to Mary, the Catholic Church sets Mary as an equal or alternative to Jesus. What rot. Then White sets fire to the straw woman of his own making—the false charges that he attributes to orthodox Catholic teaching or actual Catholic practice.

The book fails biblically, traditionally and logically:

White writes, “Mary as Coredemptrix or Mediatrix [is] completely absent from the Bible and from the early Church” (75). Oh? A splendid passage of St. Irenaeus proves otherwise: “Thus, the knot of Eve’s disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. What the virgin Eve had bound in unbelief, the Virgin Mary loosed through faith” (Against Heresies 180–199). Many other disproofs exist, including Paul’s, “We do share in God’s work” (1 Corinthians 3:9).

White decries “Mediatrix,” another title Catholics and Orthodox give Mary. His protests cite Christ’s unique mediation (1 Timothy 2:5) and properly appeal to the nonexistence of parallel mediation. But those complaints either ignore, or acknowledge and strain to dismiss, the existence of subordinate mediation. White fails to recognize that angels are described as mediators (Job 33:23). He fails to recognize that angels guard us (Psalm 91:11–13), are constantly before the Lord (Matthew 18:10), and offer the prayers of all the saints (Revelation 8:3–5). He fails to disprove that when we pray for each other (as exhorted in 1 Timothy 2:1–4) we are mediators for one another in Jesus, not instead of Jesus. He fails to recognize the role of the woman (John 2:4), Mary, the New Eve, at the wedding at Cana (John 2:1–12), as a mediator subordinate to Jesus, the New Adam, the blessed fruit of her womb, as Jesus gives the first of his signs.

The reader seeking the extensive biblical roots of Catholic teaching about Mary would do wondrously better with Fr. Rene Laurentin’s meticulous A Short Treatise on the Virgin Mary. If reading 391 pages daunts you, consider reading just the first 49 pages. There, Fr. Laurentin discusses Mary merely in the period of the revelation committed to Sacred Scripture. Those “are the fundamental data to which nothing substantially new will be added,” Fr. Laurentin begins. Later he traces the development of the Church’s understanding of those data. I recommend two other works that marvelously unearth the Biblical roots and trace the development of the Church’s understanding of them. One is Fr. Luigi Gambero’s Mary and the Fathers of the Church: The Blessed Virgin Mary in Patristic Thought. The other is Dr. William A. Jurgens’* The Faith of the Early Fathers*, a magnificent three-volume set with an immensely valuable doctrinal index to locate texts pertinent to particular doctrinal points.

I urge reading, with a Bible handy, any of the three works recommended above as a ripost to White’s straw. White should stick his pitchfork in another haystack.

– William Possidento

Mary—Another Redeemer?
By James R. White

 

[nordskoven]

The Whore of Babylon is the European Union with it’s monetary unit, the EURO, featuring the goddess Europa riding Zeus as a red bull. Was that so hard? Look up the Club of Rome, the fulfillment of Daniel’s revived Roman Empire and the mystery of the city on seven hills.