Whore of Babylon

  • Thread starter Thread starter mark_a
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
MaggieOH:
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
Click to expand...
Maggie,

This is a very good point. As many times as I have read that scripture, I never really thought about it that way.

Thanks,
 
40.png
lefthand36:
Maggie,

This is a very good point. As many times as I have read that scripture, I never really thought about it that way.

Thanks,
Click to expand...
hi lefthand,

I thought I might be able to help you conceptualize what is meant by those difficult terms Co-redemptrix and Mediatrix.
I f you break down the metaphysical realities as they flowed from the Trinity to man you can mak a picture in your mind of what is meant for Mary’s role.

The trinity is entirely divine untill the Word becomes human. The Person of the Word expresses the form of the Father’s will. Yet His person is formed by Mary. She has cooperated through Grace in the very task for the New creation that the Word accomplished alone in the first. Everything made was made ‘through’ the Word. When the Word becomes flesh the Second person of the Trinity whom everything is made through is Himself made through Mary. The world recieves the Word made man ‘through’ Mary. See, they are doing the same thing but Mary on an entirely natural human level and her Son on the divine level.
I hope this helps . I would write more on the subject but I will be late for Mass if I do. If this helped I would be glad to write more.

God Bless 👍
 
40.png
MaggieOH:
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
Click to expand...
But Ive heard Fr Martin say the same thing —out of his mouth,
Kathleen Keating would back Him up.
But it is relevant.
 
40.png
MaggieOH:
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
Click to expand...
I could not be more correct in this matter.
The religion I practice was started by Christ.
 
40.png
Benadam:
hi lefthand,

I thought I might be able to help you conceptualize what is meant by those difficult terms Co-redemptrix and Mediatrix.
I f you break down the metaphysical realities as they flowed from the Trinity to man you can mak a picture in your mind of what is meant for Mary’s role.

The trinity is entirely divine untill the Word becomes human. The Person of the Word expresses the form of the Father’s will. Yet His person is formed by Mary. She has cooperated through Grace in the very task for the New creation that the Word accomplished alone in the first. Everything made was made ‘through’ the Word. When the Word becomes flesh the Second person of the Trinity whom everything is made through is Himself made through Mary. The world recieves the Word made man ‘through’ Mary. See, they are doing the same thing but Mary on an entirely natural human level and her Son on the divine level.
I hope this helps . I would write more on the subject but I will be late for Mass if I do. If this helped I would be glad to write more.

God Bless 👍
Click to expand...
Benadam,

Very good. That does help. Maggie’s point early when she spoke of the book of Genesis really helped, too. Thank you both.
 
40.png
Xavier:
I could not be more correct in this matter.
The religion I practice was started by Christ.
Click to expand...
The response is off topic as you once again try to hijack the thread for your own agenda. So why not start another thread and prove what you are saying.

MaggieOH
 
40.png
Maccabees:
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.
Click to expand...
Maccabees,

I own a copy of Ott’s book, and he defined it as De Fide - a doctrine, but it is not a dogma that has been defined per se.

When you are dealing with Protestants and new converts who do not understand a De Fide doctrine, you do need to exercise caution in how you are going to explain the doctrine so that any of the confusing things that they have been led to believe will be blown away.

When you take a stance that says “Well it is in the Catechism” or whatever, then you can do more harm to the person than if you take an opposite approach of trying to find the best way to explain a doctrine of the Church.

When we get involved in apologetics we have to learn to deal with all sorts of bigotted statements. In the time that I have been active on the Internet I have seen a lot of this kind of thing. There is only one way to combat it and that is to become a well informed Christian Catholic.

Now please, if you want to continue along this line can you open a new thread because this has nothing to do with the Whore of Babylon which is the name of the thread.

Maggie
 
40.png
Xavier:
But Ive heard Fr Martin say the same thing —out of his mouth,
Kathleen Keating would back Him up.
But it is relevant.
Click to expand...
Who is Fr. Martin? I do not know anything about the man. Who is Kathleen Keating? I have never heard of her.

Maggie
 
40.png
Benadam:
hi lefthand,

I thought I might be able to help you conceptualize what is meant by those difficult terms Co-redemptrix and Mediatrix.
I f you break down the metaphysical realities as they flowed from the Trinity to man you can mak a picture in your mind of what is meant for Mary’s role.

The trinity is entirely divine untill the Word becomes human. The Person of the Word expresses the form of the Father’s will. Yet His person is formed by Mary. She has cooperated through Grace in the very task for the New creation that the Word accomplished alone in the first. Everything made was made ‘through’ the Word. When the Word becomes flesh the Second person of the Trinity whom everything is made through is Himself made through Mary. The world recieves the Word made man ‘through’ Mary. See, they are doing the same thing but Mary on an entirely natural human level and her Son on the divine level.
I hope this helps . I would write more on the subject but I will be late for Mass if I do. If this helped I would be glad to write more.

God Bless 👍
Click to expand...
Yes please, I want to hear more. This is a brilliant explanation. At least it is not as wild as my tennis analogy 😃

Maggie
 
Xavier said:
starharbor.com/fr_martin/index1.html

kathleenkeating.com/site/modules/tinycontent/index.php?id=1
Click to expand...

These are not what I would consider to be sources that can be taken seriously. Malachi Martin was a disaffected priest who wrote some books that contain some wildly inaccurate information.

Kathleen Keating is a relatively unknown person with a rather dubious background.

Neither source is infallible and neither source speaks for the Church.

As I said: Who is Fr. Martin? The answer is : A NOBODY

Maggie
 
40.png
Xavier:
But Ive heard Fr Martin say the same thing —out of his mouth,
Kathleen Keating would back Him up.
But it is relevant.
Click to expand...
Just because some rebel ex-priest says something about the church…(of course he makes his living off this stuff now doesn’t he?) doesn’t mean he’s telling the truth, ALSO this just proves one of my ongoing points about you…you won’t read our stuff…won’t listen to what REAL Catholics tell you, but you’ll take as gospel some clown who left the church and feeds your anti-Catholic rhetoric for pay now.
As I’ve said before…guys like you are not honest seekers and come in here with an agenda to attack the Catholic Church. Don’t you realize that you have been DUPED?
Open your eyes and listen to real Catholics, or at least go after a real cult and quit wasting your time here with us. The devil must be laughing his head off at you and all your friends who could be out winning souls instead of in here hassling us.
Agnus Dei, qui tollis peccata mundi. miserare nobis.
 
Church Militant:
Just because some rebel ex-priest says something about the church…(of course he makes his living off this stuff now doesn’t he?) doesn’t mean he’s telling the truth, ALSO this just proves one of my ongoing points about you…you won’t read our stuff…won’t listen to what REAL Catholics tell you, but you’ll take as gospel some clown who left the church and feeds your anti-Catholic rhetoric for pay now.
As I’ve said before…guys like you are not honest seekers and come in here with an agenda to attack the Catholic Church. Don’t you realize that you have been DUPED?
Open your eyes and listen to real Catholics, or at least go after a real cult and quit wasting your time here with us. The devil must be laughing his head off at you and all your friends who could be out winning souls instead of in here hassling us.
Agnus Dei, qui tollis peccata mundi. miserare nobis.
Click to expand...
Gotta agree with CM. An honest seeker will seek answers without bias to the answer found. The truth is just that, **the truth. **You don’t have to like that it is found in the Catholic Church, I didn’t at first either, but you have to earnestly, prayerfully seek the truth with no blinders on.

Blessings
 
40.png
Xavier:
But Ive heard Fr Martin say the same thing —out of his mouth,
Kathleen Keating would back Him up.
But it is relevant.
Click to expand...
jesus-is-lord.com/anti9.htm

This guy is an outright LIAR! I have a copy of the CCC right here and I checked his opening reference to the Catechism and it says NO SUCH THING! As I said before Xavier…you have been LIED to and DUPED by a con artist.

Here’s the REAL statement at # 1597 of the CCC. “1597 The sacrament of Holy Orders is conferred by the laying on of hands followed by a solemn prayer of consecration asking God to grant the ordinand the graces of the Holy Spirit required for his ministry. Ordination imprints an indelible sacramental character.” :eek:
 
Church Militant:
Just because some rebel ex-priest says something about the church…(of course he makes his living off this stuff now doesn’t he?) doesn’t mean he’s telling the truth, ALSO this just proves one of my ongoing points about you…you won’t read our stuff…won’t listen to what REAL Catholics tell you, but you’ll take as gospel some clown who left the church and feeds your anti-Catholic rhetoric for pay now.
As I’ve said before…guys like you are not honest seekers and come in here with an agenda to attack the Catholic Church. Don’t you realize that you have been DUPED?
Open your eyes and listen to real Catholics, or at least go after a real cult and quit wasting your time here with us. The devil must be laughing his head off at you and all your friends who could be out winning souls instead of in here hassling us.
Agnus Dei, qui tollis peccata mundi. miserare nobis.
Click to expand...
Malachi Martin wrote fictional novels and some claim that what he wrote was true. When he returned from Rome he was an embittered man. The truth in his novels is comparative to the Da Vinci Code.

I cannot understand why people read that kind of thing and claim it to be true. It is like my friend who spoke to me about this book called the Da Vinci Code, claiming that it was a true story because a Jesuit said it was true. Really?

MaggieOH
 
40.png
MaggieOH:
Yes please, I want to hear more. This is a brilliant explanation. At least it is not as wild as my tennis analogy 😃

Maggie
Click to expand...
Maggie, thank you, coming from you, that makes me feel very honored. So much so, I may have to initiate ego deflation exercises.

I have a couple of ways to express the intimate character of Mary’s relationship to Christ and how it’s intimacy inherently applies to her participation in His salvific work that may be of use to you.

The one already explained relates to her participation in the act of creation with the Word’s particiapation with the Father.

Another relates to her participation in the divine bond through her maternal bond with the Word. It’s a bit more lengthy than the first but that may be due to inflated egoitis and I aplogize for that.

This way of conceptualizing Mary’s role is dependent on the understanding of how bonds between persons are the structural supports of Heaven.

It’s the nature of the bond between persons and the tension, if any, with the perception of that bond that make relations function of disfunction. There is a place called heaven because there are persons who’s relationships are lived in accordance with the proper order of the bond between them.

The Creator’s relationship with the Word functions properly within the order inherent in a bond between father and son. Spiritual bonds exclude gender so the order of the parental bond between the Father and Son is no different than the order of the parental bond between Mary and Jesus. The order is the same between fathers of persons and mothers of persons in that it’s order is parental.

There is a difference in dignity between the bonds of divine persons and the bonds between human persons, but in Jesus their dignity is equalized. The wedding at Cana demostrates that. Revealing the dignity of Mary’s maternal bond was at the heart of Jesus’s comment " Woman what has this to do with you and I?" Somehow I can imagine what her face expressed. It surely reminded Him of the proper order of and perhaps questioned the dignity of their bond. In lay terms it said " Cuz I’m your Mother! Does that change because you are divine?" I don’t believe Jesus said this out of his need for the answer or to test His mothers understanding or authority, I think He was acting out of His Love for her by making sure that the dignity of her bond with Him as mother was recognized as one that shared equally in the dignity of His bond with his divine Father. She was making managerial decision here. The management of which was quite exclusive, that of the Father’s plan.

It puts the warmest feeling in my heart of the Love between family members I can imagine when the Divine Father and Son treat Mary this way. That warmth can be felt because and only because she is my mother too.

So that demonstrates how parental bond between persons transcend gender and nature in dignity. Mary is the only human who shares a bond with the Trinity equal in dignity with the bond between the Persons of the Trinity. This is the metaphysical cause of her function as dispenser of all Graces.

When Christ made her our mother he shared that bond with it’s divine dignity through Mary to the rest of man. That parental bond is the metapysical conduit of Grace to mankind. This also explains how bonds between persons are the structural supports of heaven and why Mary is called Queen of Heaven.
 
40.png
MaggieOH:
Maccabees,

I own a copy of Ott’s book, and he defined it as De Fide - a doctrine, but it is not a dogma that has been defined per se.

When you are dealing with Protestants and new converts who do not understand a De Fide doctrine, you do need to exercise caution in how you are going to explain the doctrine so that any of the confusing things that they have been led to believe will be blown away.

When you take a stance that says “Well it is in the Catechism” or whatever, then you can do more harm to the person than if you take an opposite approach of trying to find the best way to explain a doctrine of the Church.

When we get involved in apologetics we have to learn to deal with all sorts of bigotted statements. In the time that I have been active on the Internet I have seen a lot of this kind of thing. There is only one way to combat it and that is to become a well informed Christian Catholic.

Now please, if you want to continue along this line can you open a new thread because this has nothing to do with the Whore of Babylon which is the name of the thread.

Maggie
Click to expand...
OTT says that nothing stands in the way of dogmatic defintion concerning Mary as Mediatrix. This is not simply another doctrine it is a future dogma that is waiting to have papal defintion or else it would be in the cathechism we don’t simply list all out optional beliefs in the cathechism only thos doctrines which the church feels are essential are listed therin. You won’t find limbo in the cathechism for example. Its a matter of time the church is clearly preparing the faithful for the defintion by its inclusion in the cathechims and we should prepare our fellow catholics for this soon to be defined dogma. Instead of explaining it away as something that you don’t have to believe in. Remember when Ott published his book it was before the doctrine was included in the cathechism. Much has been affirmed since 1954 Ott’s ranking of this belief would no doubt have been upgraded over his pre-vatican 2 and pre-cathechism inclusion of this belief. I just don’t want new catholics to be shocked that they walke up one morning and find they have a papal dogma which they have been resisting and once thought optional. Because it will happen as this movement has as much momentum as the dogma of the Assumption if not more.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top