Whore of Babylon

[lefthand36]

Maccabees:

Your are wild Maggie Oh

To me it comes down to this its been taught the entire 20 th century in many church documents, cathechism, popes, Theologian Ludwig Ott is ok with it, Bishop Sheen was Ok with it, Catholic Answers is ok with it, EWTN is ok with it, all the Popes in the 20th century are ok with it, Respected and Orthodox Father Most is ok with it, etc etc. But a brand new catholic is not ok with this?
I think I will choose the church who knows what she is talking about over a neophite catholic who is in denial that she has protestant barriers that are blocking her understanding of catholcism.

Just look who attacks this doctrine using the cathechism James White, Dave Hunt and all same anti-catholic apologist who hate the church. These guys are never right so I will go against them if your on their side and your catholic I ask you why are you agreeing with these folks?

Maccabees,

There you go again. Your choice of words when speaking to someone is of a very rude nature, and I will not play your childish games any more. Somehow, we have totally gotten off subject anyway. So, let’s just drop it.

Again, I **do **agree that Mary fulfilled a significant role. My only problem is the use of the terminology. Take a few notes from Maggie. She seems to have a better way of trying to teach people. You don’t have to be so harsh. Your harsh words make you appear to be a very angry person.

And no where in the Catechism have I found these terms used to describe Our Blessed Mother (meaning co-reedmer).

Macabees, why don’t you use your energy to bring Christ into light. You keep accusing me of untruthful things. Again, no one knows more than me what role Mary played, but I will not use these terms to refer to her role, because I think that takes away from what Christ did for us.

I’ll pray for your attitude. If you could calm down just a little bit, maybe you could be of great help to me.

God bless,

 

[maryj]

O.K. I have read through the entire thread, I joined this forum in hopes of finding some answers for a dear friend. I am catholic, I was raised catholic, and I went to catholic schools. that does not imply in any manner that I know all there is to know about the catholic faith and teachings. Like I said I came here looking for help and answers that I did not have or could not express myself. This friend has recently left the catholic church and is now worshipping at a non-denominational church. The reason he left the catholic church is this… he was given a tape from a protestant minister that is entitled, Messages from heaven, in a nut shell what the tape said was that the apparitions of the blessed virgin( Mejugorie, Fatima, Lourdes Etc.) are of evil not good. It quotes many bible passages such as 1 theologians 5:20-21, 1 Timothy 5:2-3, 1 Timothy 2:5, 1 John 2:1, Isaiah 47:4 and Many more. Basically my understanding of the whole thing was saying that the appartions are the anti-christ and that Catholics are not following the bible and it’s teachings. Not being a sholar by any means myself I have spent many hours of Bible study and researching an anwers for him about this. Much of it found here on this web site, especially in The Rock. I have prayed for guidance, I have even brought this tape to my Priest and have him watching it so I can approach this subject with my friend with the knowledge that I need to show him the way back to the catholic church. I gave praise when I found this thread(which was in my in box in my e-mail since I am a recent forum member) I beleive I am close to showing him the truth and pray for him to return to the church. Lefthand36- welcome to the true church. I have also felt very unwelcome on this site. Seems to me there is a lot of knowledgeable people here, with some who have no idea that people are looking for answers to very hard questions, not looking to pick a fight or have themselves insulted. We are all Children of the Lord, no matter what our levels of knowledge. Just wanted you to know I understand questioning and it is required of us no matter what. I truly pray you find your answers (the truth as my priest would say!!) and may you grow in faith each and every day. To you maccabees I say this… Obviously the Lord has blessed you with Knowledge, it is how you use that knowledge that offends me. Making others feel less about themselves by making yourself look more knowledgeable is an out and out sin. Maybe you should try to use your GOD GIVEN knowledge to answer those who are searching for the truth instead of making them feel as though they are an advisary. I’m surely thankful that I never had you as a teacher and had to ask a hard question, I’;m fairly sure I would have been humiliated in front of the whole class. You will be included in my prayers this Sunday at Mass, I will pray for humility for you so that you can use your knowledge to help others not make them feel less!! I shall not wait for your reply since I will now unsubscribe from this forum. Thank you to those who have helped in a generous manner, with kindness and thoughtfulness, May the Lord continue to bless you all.

As for me and My house we shall serve the Lord. Amen

 

[lefthand36]

Maryj,

Thank you very much for your kind words. They touched my heart immensely. I am about to unsubscribe, too. This is not acceptable behavior to me from any Christian.

I will pray for your friend.

God bless,

 

[MaggieOH]

Maccabees:

Your are wild Maggie Oh

To me it comes down to this its been taught the entire 20 th century in many church documents, cathechism, popes, Theologian Ludwig Ott is ok with it, Bishop Sheen was Ok with it, Catholic Answers is ok with it, EWTN is ok with it, all the Popes in the 20th century are ok with it, Respected and Orthodox Father Most is ok with it, etc etc. But a brand new catholic is not ok with this?
I think I will choose the church who knows what she is talking about over a neophite catholic who is in denial that she has protestant barriers that are blocking her understanding of catholcism.

Just look who attacks this doctrine using the cathechism James White, Dave Hunt and all same anti-catholic apologist who hate the church. These guys are never right so I will go against them if your on their side and your catholic I ask you why are you agreeing with these folks?

Maccabees,

newly converted Catholics are still like children when it comes to their understanding of the Catholic faith. Not all of them are like Scott Hahn and others who were theologians when they converted to the Catholic Church. They have not put in the study of all of these “strange” doctrines. The way I see it, since they are new converts, they are the ones who have been exposed to James White, James Hunt and Eric Svendsen on such a scale that they remain confused about the little details.

It is true, for these people there are roadblocks to understanding. That is why we should be helping them to understand what to them is something that is incomprehensible. Rather than having a go at a person who is trying to understand something like Mary as co-redemptrix, especially having been brought up hearing the Christ alone type speeches, one needs to find a way of explaining a de fide doctrine so that it is simple and can be comprehended.

My wild analogy is just that, it is an attempt to find a way for Brenda to come to terms with a doctrine that she finds hard to understand because of her background.

Since I am in Australia I do not have access to EWTN but it does not matter because I cannot understand the prevailing attitude that if it is said by someone at EWTN it must be right.

Maggie

 

[Benadam]

A little more babble for mark a’s amusement about the whore of babylon.

The Evil spirit uses the natural forces attached to human bonds to maintain the distortions of reality established and continually reenforced age to age. Adam and Eve having never encountered a distortion of reality had no defense, no power of the soul to not believe the first lie. Having been seperated from the source of ‘gift’ which is God they became subject to nature and the view of each other as objects to use. According to John Paul II’s theology of the body they first became aware of this in the experience of their body. One of the shifts in perception that experience caused is the body became subject to nature and consequently an object to use. When that object is the image of God the end it becomes a means for is an idol. Adam’s gender was revealed and given purpose as gift when he recieved and united with Eve. This definition of self is at the core of desire and purpose man shares with the beasts. It was the profound importance of this definition of self for Adam as gift to Eve that was at stake. Since Adam wasn’t tempted except in union with Eve his desire to not lose his identity as a gift and hers as gift to him manifested the first act of the whore riding the beast. She is entertaining an Idol by looking at the tree and making her own judgement " good for wisdom and food" this scandal gives reason for Adam to serve the desires that are driven by the purpose of gender which in man is gift but in animal is exclusively for the maintenance of species. Adam’s immortality is also at stake when he values his meaning as gift to eve over his meaning as son of God. The source of the meaning of his body’s gender is that, in it, he becomes gift to Eve. Gender and it’s purposes are a reality about man that is shared with beasts and for this reason Adam becomes more closely defined as, and united with, the beasts in that what his existence means to him finds it’s source in the same reality shared with beasts, namely, gender. Eve isn’t tempted by desires driven by gender but desire for what defines the meaning of self exclusive to Adam and that Adam lost when he ate the apple with her. His union with God. The evil tree looked like it was ‘good’ for ‘wisdom’ and for ‘food’.

 

[Maccabees]

lefthand36:

Maccabees,

There you go again. Your choice of words when speaking to someone is of a very rude nature, and I will not play your childish games any more. Somehow, we have totally gotten off subject anyway. So, let’s just drop it.

Again, I **do **agree that Mary fulfilled a significant role. My only problem is the use of the terminology. Take a few notes from Maggie. She seems to have a better way of trying to teach people. You don’t have to be so harsh. Your harsh words make you appear to be a very angry person.

And no where in the Catechism have I found these terms used to describe Our Blessed Mother (meaning co-reedmer).

Macabees, why don’t you use your energy to bring Christ into light. You keep accusing me of untruthful things. Again, no one knows more than me what role Mary played, but I will not use these terms to refer to her role, because I think that takes away from what Christ did for us.

I’ll pray for your attitude. If you could calm down just a little bit, maybe you could be of great help to me.

God bless,

I provided the articles for you to read that explain the articles and cathechsim and how they relate to Mary being Mediatrix and CoRedemptrix if you disagree with the solid sources I gave you are mighty sure of yourself as a new catholic you know more than the Pope and other clergy and their interpretation of the cathechism? IF you don’t trust me Catholic Answers says this teaching is in the cathechsim. Do you know more than all these people. Your arrogance is amazing.
Look the cathechism and many other documents support these teachings the cathechism can be a lot like the Bible it can be interpreted wrongly especially with protestant eyes.
Its amazing to me a new catholic would not seek guidance but seek to guide the church herself. I speak only the truth.
The truth offends so don’t shoot the messenger.

 

[MaggieOH]

Maccabees:

Your are wild Maggie Oh

To me it comes down to this its been taught the entire 20 th century in many church documents, cathechism, popes, Theologian Ludwig Ott is ok with it, Bishop Sheen was Ok with it, Catholic Answers is ok with it, EWTN is ok with it, all the Popes in the 20th century are ok with it, Respected and Orthodox Father Most is ok with it, etc etc. But a brand new catholic is not ok with this?
I think I will choose the church who knows what she is talking about over a neophite catholic who is in denial that she has protestant barriers that are blocking her understanding of catholcism.

Just look who attacks this doctrine using the cathechism James White, Dave Hunt and all same anti-catholic apologist who hate the church. These guys are never right so I will go against them if your on their side and your catholic I ask you why are you agreeing with these folks?

Maccabees

most of what you have said here does not make sense to me. You mention people that have no direct influence on my beliefs. I do not live in America and I am under no obligation to believe what any American theologian believes.

If, from my attempted explanation of Mary as Co-Redemptrix you have come to the conclusion that I support the likes of James White or Dave Hunt, then I suggest to you that you are wrong and you did not bother to read what I wrote, neither did you take time to digest what I said. My explaination for Brenda, that is by using an analogy of mixed doubles in tennis was merely to point out how one co-operates with the other.

At no point did I say or even intimate that I do not believe in what is de fide, that Mary is co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix of all Graces and Advocate. These ideas are already de fide doctrines, but they are not declared as dogma because for the time being they are not required.

It seems to me that the whole point has been missed. A new convert needed help in having something explained to her. Instead of getting out your copy of Ott (mine has legs and has taken off again), and posting the very good explanation that is in that book, you chose to have a go at the convert as well as myself, and I was only trying to help her see the meaning of the doctrine.

Please refrain from posting until you have digested what people are saying so that you can avoid making false assumptions.

God Bless
MaggieOH

 

[Maccabees]

You misunderstood my post.

My point is that denying the teachings of Mary as Mediatrix catholics who take that stance align themselves with the enemies of the catholic church and those who accept it align themselves with the Catholic Church.
That wouldn’t be you.

 

[Maccabees]

You misunderstood my post.

My point is that denying the teachings of Mary as Mediatrix catholics who take that stance align themselves with the enemies of the catholic church and those who accept it align themselves with the Catholic Church.
You understand the teaching so my critque wouldn’t include you.
Sorry you didn’t understand the direction of the post it was rambling sorry.

 

[MaggieOH]

Maccabees:

You misunderstood my post.

My point is that denying the teachings of Mary as Mediatrix catholics who take that stance align themselves with the enemies of the catholic church and those who accept it align themselves with the Catholic Church.
You understand the teaching so my critque wouldn’t include you.
Sorry you didn’t understand the direction of the post it was rambling sorry.

However, all Brenda did was say that she did not understand the teaching. That is why there is sometimes a need to use parables or analogies that put the teaching into terms that people can understand.

There are many who would be converts to the Catholic faith if they understood what the Catholic Church teaches. They are becoming confused because the listen to their pastors who give the same message to them week after week.

There are also Catholic converts who have not been taught these doctrines but they have been taught to believe something that is in fact contrary to the Scripture (although they do not kow that).

Sometimes it just takes time to get through to someone who has doubts. This notion of Mary as Co-Redemptrix is not easy for a lot of people to digest. For most of them, it is because the de fide doctrine has not be adequately explained. It sounds like something that is new. To most Protestants, because of indoctrination, if the Church makes this dogma then that means that she is turning Mary into a god.

I have been combatting this issue with Fundamentalists for several years. I wish I had access to some of my posts on the subject. However, that rather wild thought that I had does contain a way to try and explain the concept to someone who does not understand, simply because it has never been adequately addressed.

It is worth the effort trying to figure out which people are hostile and those who are not. Please back off if you are misreading people.

MaggieOH

 

[Maccabees]

I have not qualms with the approach you took anaology and such.

I agree with almost everything you said my contention is that Brenda did not leave it at not understanding the doctrine She stated she did not accept the terms of the doctrine. That requires a catholic rebuttal which I provided many catholic sources she did not provide one catholic source for rebuttal but her mere opinion yet she does not see this inconcisistent with catholcism.

 

[Church_Militant]

Maccabees:

I have not qualms with the approach you took anaology and such.

I agree with almost everything you said my contention is that Brenda did not leave it at not understanding the doctrine She stated she did not accept the terms of the doctrine. That requires a catholic rebuttal which I provided many catholic sources she did not provide one catholic source for rebuttal but her mere opinion yet she does not see this inconcisistent with catholcism.

It requires nothing…except charity and prayer…

 

[MaggieOH]

Maccabees:

I have not qualms with the approach you took anaology and such.

I agree with almost everything you said my contention is that Brenda did not leave it at not understanding the doctrine She stated she did not accept the terms of the doctrine. That requires a catholic rebuttal which I provided many catholic sources she did not provide one catholic source for rebuttal but her mere opinion yet she does not see this inconcisistent with catholcism.

However, it is not dogma and that makes a difference. You are dealing with someone who has come from a background where she had been told that only Jesus can be Redeemer.

It is hard getting through to people who been brought up with this incorrect teaching. Brenda is a new Catholic and therefore an exercise in patience and quiet teaching is the only way to help someone overcome the hurders to discovering this truth about Mary as co-Redemptrix.

Maggie

 

[Xavier]

romano:

Hey guys! My Bible says BABYLON. It doesn’t say ROME. It says BABYLON. Get it?

Babylon is the source of all folase religions.

 

[lefthand36]

Maggie and Church Mil.,

Analogies do wonders for me. I really get a great grasp of understanding from using analogies. Thank you both for being so understanding and helpful.

It means a lot to this new Catholic that is trying to grasp everything. Somehow I get a better picture from using analogies, and your examples have really helped me, Maggie.

Thank you for the support.

God Bless,

 

[MaggieOH]

Xavier:

Did anyone read this page?

jesus-is-lord.com/anti3.htm

Quotes Catholic sources

it is a well known anti-Catholic site. It is renowned for taking quotes out of context. It is not in the slightest bit reliable. It is full of hatred towards Catholics.

Also it is not relevant to the topic.

Maggie

 

[MaggieOH]

lefthand36:

Maggie and Church Mil.,

Analogies do wonders for me. I really get a great grasp of understanding from using analogies. Thank you both for being so understanding and helpful.

It means a lot to this new Catholic that is trying to grasp everything. Somehow I get a better picture from using analogies, and your examples have really helped me, Maggie.

Thank you for the support.

God Bless,

Brenda,
I am happy to see that you have decided to stick around. I can only do my best to try and help you come to grips with what can be a very thorny doctrine to believe. I do understand that there is a need to overcome what was previously taught. The tennis analogy was the best I could come up with as a spur of the moment thought.

Take care and do ask if something bothers you.

Maggie

 

[MaggieOH]

Xavier:

Babylon is the source of all folase religions.

Xavier,

it goes to show that when you belong to an apostate religion you do tend to get things wrong. That is why once again the comments that you make have shown up how little is known by some of those who fall under the fundamentalist evangelical banner.

You are of course totally wrong because you have not understood the psyche of the people in that early time of Christianity. Babylon does not stand for a false religion.

The key to understanding the use of Babylon as a code-word is tied up with the fact that the audience for Peter’s letter was in exile in Rome. It was a time of remembering the previous exile in Babylon. At the same time the new Christians were in fact comparing the hedonism of the pagan Romans with that of the Babylonians.

The early Christians understood the meaning of Babylon in this context. However, it appears that the present crop of “Christians” simply have no idea what the context of the statement happens to be. That is why so many get it so wrong.

Maggie

 

[MaggieOH]

lefthand36:

Maggie,

I agree with this statement, and that does help a lot. But the Messiah would and could come into this world without anyone’s help, if He chose to do so, but He gives us a choice. Human cooperation and our free will means that God forces nothing on us. God can move mountains, but I do not believe that He forces His teachings upon us, so I am thankful that God did choose a person so worthy of such a great honor. And thank goodness, that she, with the guiding of the Holy Spirit, so willingly accepted the invitation.

The Lutheran church does not believe that we have free will. I begin to strongly disagree with this, because I believe that God has given us the choice of deciding if we are to believe in Him or not. Thank goodness I am a believer.

Thanks,

Hi Brenda,

it is interesting how far the present Lutheran Church has deviated from its founder, Martin Luther. At no time did he ever teach that Jesus could come into this world without the co-operation of another. Never mind, I do think that you are grasping the errors that have crept in amongs the Lutherans.

It seems to me that one of the problems that you have is that you have been feed a number of lines that have not come from the Lutherans (especially Luther himself) but from other neo-heretical sources. These sources deny what is written in the Scripture, especially that of Genesis 3:14-15. It was in those verses that God promised both the Messiah and the Woman who was to bear the Messiah.

The evidence is in the wording of Genesis, for it says that there will be enmity between the Woman and Satan, and also between her “seed” and the “seed of Satan”. When you think about it, there is some interesting terminology here. It is the only place where “seed” is mentioned in relation to a woman.

There are some ancient heresies, and you might not be aware of them that involve dualism. The dualists are those who believed that God was both good and evil. At the same time they believed that all matter is evil, including all humans, therefore it is not possible for God to have been born as an infant, hence another reason to deny the birth of Christ and Mary’s role in that birth.

This is why we need to study Mary, not for the sake of Marian doctrine alone but in the light of who Jesus is

Maggie

 

[Maccabees]

MaggieOH:

However, it is not dogma and that makes a difference. You are dealing with someone who has come from a background where she had been told that only Jesus can be Redeemer.

It is hard getting through to people who been brought up with this incorrect teaching. Brenda is a new Catholic and therefore an exercise in patience and quiet teaching is the only way to help someone overcome the hurders to discovering this truth about Mary as co-Redemptrix.

Maggie

Well it is dogma if its in the Cathechism and in the fundamentals of catholic dogma by Ludwig Ott their is more patristic evidence and agreement on Mary as Mediatrix than either the Immaculate Conception or the Assumption heck I think there is more Biblical evidence for such a teaching than those as well.
The difference here is a Papal defintion it does not mean it is not dogma there are things in the cathechism that are the regular fide but have no papal defintion not everything gets one and some are of recently defined terms such as the Assumption that doesn’t mean it was just made up in 1950 that was regular fide since the its inclusion in the liturgical calender in the 5th century.
There are two types of Dogma. Papaly defined Dogma and the Rule of Faith Dogma Mary as Mediatrix is the later.
WE don’t want this to be reduced to cafeteria catholcism.
Some people are still waiting for the bann on contraception to be Papaly defined infailliably never mind the fact this is regular fide and in the cathechsim. When we play the Papal Dogma card many things become optional in catholcism and we become protestants.