Why is it wrong to love Mary?

[guanophore]

WHY DID ST. PAUL IGNORE MARY?

 If Catholics want to venerate Mary, fine. But I am satisfied to worship God through Christ and leave it at that.  This does not mean I don't have the highest respect for Mary. Obviously she played a major role in the coming of Christ. But I can't pray to her or the saints. Seems too much like polytheism to me. Sorry about that.

Paul does write about Mary, when he speaks about the incarnation.

But no one has given an answer to the question: if Mary should be so central in Christian theology why did St. Paul write all those scriptural letters to the first churches with instructions to early Christians - and containing

basic doctrines - but not once mention Mary?

I think that is because Mary is really not central to Christian Theology. The central tenets are in the creed. She has an important place, but not central.

And, of course, re-read John 2:4 and Luke 8:19-21
and explain how that supports such notions as the Immaculate Conception (1854) and the Assumption (1950)?

Since this has been covered thoroughly on other threads, I will not respond to that here. However, you can search these words and find them easily.

 Catholicism seems to be in conflict over whether to advance into the modern era or retain various medieval characteristics that need to be jettisoned if intelligent and thinking people in the world today are going to stay with it..

Perhaps this is an item for a new thread too? Do you think it is “medieval” to love Mary?

Was it yesterday (Feb 12) that I read in the paper about the new emphasis on exorcism in the Catholic Church? Give me a break. This is as wild as some of those Protestant evangelists who claim to cast out devils and have people falling all over the floor.

Well, if you have not experienced this, then perhaps your personal encounters are limited. However, I can assure you that the demonic world is alive and well, and that more exorcism is needed very badly. It is when we start thinking that demons no longer exist that we are in most danger. As a participant in charismatic activities, I encounter these things frequently. I would also like to say that Mary is a staunch help of Christians, and has her foot on Satan’s head.

 

[guanophore]

I’m just stirring the waters a bit here. I don’t agree with this, however, keeping in line with the thread; many Protestants (or so I am told) believe that the veneration of Mary is a pagan hold over in the orthodox churches (Eastern and Catholic). That this heralds back to Isis and Horis, and goddess worship common in many cultures. Just ask a Wiccan. (It’s my mischievious side coming out)

This is absolutely a common myth. A “Catholic” (Pagan) friend of mine recently told me that Our Lady of Guadalupe is actually an incarnation of the Goddess. She and her pagan friends celebrate with passion on the feast of OLOG.

 

[guanophore]

Your right in one sense. It is dangerous because those that study it can then compare its teaching with what the catholic church teaches and see many differences.

The danger does not lie in reading and comparing. The danger lies in the lack of knowledge in the process. Most fundamentalists that see “differences” are ignorant of their own family history, have never read the Fathers, and do not know that the NT was produced by the Church, and that is why there are no contradications. Reading the NT outside of the Teachings of the Catholic Church is reading it out of context. Anytime the scripture is read out of context, it is dangerous.

This is why many non-Catholics find it impossible to love Mary. They are in a sort of vacuum, not connected with the Church of which she was a part, and do not see that it was her careful teaching that grounded Jesus for His earthly ministry. She taught Him about love, from the time He was conceived in her.

 

[guanophore]

No doubt many lost their lives. Many lost protestants lost their lives also at the hands of the catholic church. John Huss, a reformer was burned at the stake by the catholic church. The church that is supposedly the church that Jesus established and is led by the Holy Spirit.

This really has nothing to do with love of Mary. If you wish to find fault with the Catholic Church, why don’t you start a new thread on John Hus?

I have realized for some time that part of your issues with the Catholic church are unresolved personal problems with authority from childhood. Perhaps this is an opportunity for you to get some healing? Do you believe that God can heal psychic wounds?

God has ordained that Mary would reveal the thoughts of many hearts, and on every Mary thread, the thoughts of yours manifest themselves. I don’t think this is an accident!

Healing could start for you if you will be willing to be obedient to the forum rules. There is an authority over all of us members here, and one of the rules is not to derail the thread. If you were to embrace this rule in obedience, God’s grace would enter into your authority wound and begin some healing.

Peace

guan

 

[sambos671]

Guanophore,
I know its a myth however it is probably accurate to what most protestants believe. On the other hand I’m more conserned about the questions I pose in post 726 of this thread. Maybe you can help me out?

 

[guanophore]

I read this post, but skipped it because I thought you would get a better reply from another member. At your request, I will attempt…

This is where I come up with difficulty towards the Catholic Church’s view of Mary. This is what the Chatechism says:

Christ, the Son of God made man, is the Father’s one, perfect, and unsurpassable Word. In him he has said everything there will be no other word than this one. St. John of the Cross, amoung others, commented strikingly on Hebrews 1:1-2:
In giving us his Son, his only Word (for he possesses no other), he spoke everything to us at once in this sole Word - and he has no more to say

I am going to guess at what troubles you. You know that the message was delivered once, for all time:

“…the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints…” Jude 3-4

So you are wondering, how is it that we seem to be having “new” revelation?

The Marian doctrines are not “new” but have always been present in the Church. The proclaimation of them is new, but not their revelation. The problem is not the efficacy of the revelation, but our (human) limited ability to grasp it all. this is the principle behind the “development of doctrine”. Although the deposit of faith was made “once and for all”, we continually understand it better over time. For example, it used to be believed that the sun revolved around the earth, and science has discovered that this is not the case. Does this discovery change that scripture says “the sun stood still in the sky”? No, but we might understand it differently.

If you explore our family history, you will find that the nature of Christ (hypostatic union) and the Trinity took some time to “develop” and explain. It also took three centuries to establish the New Testament. The Holy Writings were inspired the moment they came out of the pen. However, it was a long time before these were distinguished from many other writings of the time that were floating about, and even read in the Churches.

and again

The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive Covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ…it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries

Yet much of what is believed about Mary comes from Oral Tradition.

This is true, and it has been confirmed in private revelations, such as Fatima and Lourdes. This week is the 150 anniversary of Lourdes, where Mary appeared, and introduced herself as “the Immaculate Conception”.

Strangely enough, no mention of the immaculate conception, assumption, perpetual virginity of Mary. He does state that Mary was a virgin so to fulfill the redemtion of man because he came initially from virgin soil.

Frankly, I am mystified. It does not seem to impact my salvation either way, if Mary had other children, or not. However, this is the teaching we have from the Apostles, so in spite of the scanty NT record, I accept it.

It may be among those things that the disciples were not ready to hear?

“I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. 14 He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. 15 All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you.”
John 16:12-15

 

[guanophore]

Also Eusibius mentions Jesus brothers “according to the flesh”. Natural brothers?

Very close relations, no doubt. They are sons of Mary and Alphaeus, who are related either to Mary or Joseph. It seems that they all grew up together like siblings in Nazareth.

So the Oral Tradition handed down is the Gospels and to interpret the Old Testiment though the revelation of Jesus. To know the Trinity and to understand there is one God. The Church officially started to teach the immaculate conseption due to Lourdes and St. Teresia.

No, not at all. This doctrine started in the fourth century, in response to the Gnostics. There were heretics that said that Jesus was not “fully human”. That he somehow passed through a person (Mary) to enter the world, but did not take His flesh of her flesh. But this was not the teaching of the Apostles, who affirmed that Jesus was “born of Mary”, being created in her womb, flesh of her flesh, and bone of her bone. All the human genes He had were from Mary. The rest were from God! As such, being Holy, He could not take His flesh from flesh that had been tainted by original sin. That is why the truth emerged to the Church that God must have preserved Mary from original sin, so that Jesus could take from her flesh. Does that make sense? This is very old doctrine.

The Church has not recognized officially Our Lady of Guadolupe.  And again Theotokos is about Jesus not Mary.

ALL of the Marian doctrines are about Jesus. The only reason we have Marian doctrines at all is because the Church found it necessary to define the nature of Jesus. The Marian doctrines just work backwards from Jesus.

Jesus is God therefore Mary is the mother of God.  There were those teaching at the time that Jesus was a common man (not God) and that his father could have been a Roman Soldier (sound familiar?) or some other persons illigitimate child.  So is this a new revelation?

One of the reasons that I did not respond to your post when I first read it is that I agree with you. This is not “new revelation”. We have received from the Apostles that Jesus was born of Mary, after the Annuciation of the Angel Gabriel. Divine revelation shows us that He was not the product of anyone but God, who overshadowed Mary.

The scriptures obviously don’t speak of these particular issues. Has the Church gone beyond the original revelation handed down by the apostles?

No, the Church has not. But revelation for Catholics has never been restricted to scripture. I think the Marian doctrines were not so much needed at the time of the early church, but they are now!

Clearly, the thoughts of many hearts need to be revealed.

Mary should be honored. I believe she prays for the church as do all others who are with God. But does she pray specifically for my prayers? Or yours? Does she even know my life? Or does she converse of behalf of mankind and look forward to the return of our Lord like all the others beseeching God when all would be fulfilled as spoken of in Revelations?

My questions of these maters

Luke 2:35
35(and a sword will pierce through your own soul also),
that thoughts out of many hearts may be revealed."

For reasons known only to Himself, God has ordained that Mary should be the conduit through whom the “thoughts of many hearts may be revealed.” I don’t claim to understand the implications of this prophesy, but I can see clearly that many stumble over the role of Mary.

Mary cannot know any hearts other than those that are revealed to her by the Holy Spirit. For myself, I believe that she is present at the Divine Liturgy (Revelation) and that she intercedes for all the saints. When Jesus gave her to “the beloved disciple” at the foot of the cross, I believe that He gave her to all of us. He has grafted us into Himself, as brothers and adopted sons of the Father. She is our mother. And you know how mothers are!

 

[sambos671]

Guanophore,

Your argument is very cogent. Thank you. I left the church when I was rather young seeking Jesus. And I got to know him through the reading of scripture. However, now as I’ve studied even further I’ve come up against problems with Sola Scriptura and the understanding of it in Protestant Churches. Keep in mind there are a lot of things Protestants believe that are their modern oral tradition. Oral tradition by the Jews (Talmud) is how they exegete scriptures. The New Testiment is also a reflection of how the Apostles exegete Old Testiment Scriptures primarily from the Septuigent (My reply to many independents baptist that only use the King James and feel other translations are diminished). Protestant writings are in similar fashion how they exegete both OT and NT writings. Sola Scriptura requires an honest look at scripture to include context. Since, Jesus lived 2000 years ago, our modern understanding of the culture then is faulted. Relating scripture exegete to modern understanding causes problems and therefore honest protestants have difficulty with scriptures such as John 6. Many protestants offer understanding of scripture that is very western rather than Jewish. Ask protestant church members of they understand scriptures. The same verses will come out that applys to their denomination and other verses that are difficult for them will be excluded from their knowledge of how to interpret. Baptist mostly (since there are many denominations of this branch) can be very Calvanistic but not to an extreme and Pentecostals are very Armenianistic and particularily close to Weslianism. But these are modern Oral traditions. Many protestants don’t even understand Judaism. How can they understand Jesus with out a basic understanding of their teaching. I agree the Apocrypha is inacurate and fictional like the book of Tobit and Judith (Though Clement quotes from both these books). However, most protestants are cluesless of what happened during the Maccabean revolt and how it is society became what it was in Jesus day. I always wondered what happened after the return and Jesus being born. Society changed a lot. You would be suprised how many pastors are clueless about the writings of the early fathers and can’t keep them staight. I had always thought Seminary would take care of that. However, as I was studying on my own many questions I had were left unanswere. I’m on a tangent. Sorry.

 

[sambos671]

What I wanted to say was this: You said

ALL of the Marian doctrines are about Jesus. The only reason we have Marian doctrines at all is because the Church found it necessary to define the nature of Jesus. The Marian doctrines just work backwards from Jesus.

I believe this is true but is it possible as with arguments that an extreme reaction or back-lash to the gnostics caused the the veiw of Mary to become more significant? In other words.

Gnostics are saying Jesus was human not God. Therefore, Mary is the mother of God (theotokos). To ensure the faithful keep this in mind and not be lead off believing as the gnostics do; Mary then must be venerated, sinless, and resemble Jesus in every other way such as the Assumption? This way there is no doubt Jesus was God. Or is it similar to what the Pharisees were doing when it came to the Law. Interpret it in such a way that there is no chance you would break it because you were keeping stricter requirements.

Just a thought.

 

[Tomster]

The danger does not lie in reading and comparing. The danger lies in the lack of knowledge in the process. Most fundamentalists that see “differences” are ignorant of their own family history, have never read the Fathers, and do not know that the NT was produced by the Church, and that is why there are no contradications. Reading the NT outside of the Teachings of the Catholic Church is reading it out of context. Anytime the scripture is read out of context, it is dangerous.

This is why many non-Catholics find it impossible to love Mary. They are in a sort of vacuum, not connected with the Church of which she was a part, and do not see that it was her careful teaching that grounded Jesus for His earthly ministry. She taught Him about love, from the time He was conceived in her.

Exactly !

 

[Tomster]

Your right in one sense. It is dangerous because those that study it can then compare its teaching with what the catholic church teaches and see many differences.

Luther’s dogmas contradicted Holy Scripture, and he knew it. Johann Dietenberger, a Bible expert and a contemporary of Luther’s, wrote: “Although Luther constantly appeals to Scriptures, yet there is no one who takes away from and adds to it more than he. Of the Bible he rejects and adds what he pleases in order to establish his errors.” Of Luther’s translation, Hieronymous Emser, publisher of a German translation of the New Testament, said: " He [Luther] has in many places confuses, stultified and perverted the old trustworthy text of the Christian Church to its great disadvantage, and also poisoned it with heretical glosses and prefaces . . . He almost everywhere forces the Scriptures on the question of faith and works, even when neither faith nor works are thought of."

Emser noted 1,400 inaccuracies, while Bunson, a Protestant scholar tabulated 3,000 errors in Luther’s Bible.

 

[guanophore]

\ You would be suprised how many pastors are clueless about the writings of the early fathers and can’t keep them staight. I had always thought Seminary would take care of that. However, as I was studying on my own many questions I had were left unanswere. I’m on a tangent. Sorry.

But what a happy tangent! I spent about 20 years in Protestant circles, and it was 3 years in a Protestant Seminary that brought be back to the Catholic Church. It has only been recently that I have begun to appreciate Mary and the role that Jesus has designed for her. In fact, it is this thread and some other threads on Mary that have finally helped me to understand the prophesy of Simeon concerning her, that through her pain, the thoughts of many hearts would be revealed. When I see how so many become oppositional to the Church her Son founded because of her, I am sure that it is like a sword going through her.

Luke 2:35
35(and a sword will pierce through your own soul also),
that thoughts out of many hearts may be revealed."

Her role in the Church reveals the thoughts of many hearts, and the doctrines about her seem to constellate those who are in rebellion against the authority that Jesus appointed to lead His Church.

 

[guanophore]

What I wanted to say was this:

Gnostics are saying Jesus was human not God. Therefore, Mary is the mother of God (theotokos). To ensure the faithful keep this in mind and not be lead off believing as the gnostics do; Mary then must be venerated, sinless, and resemble Jesus in every other way such as the Assumption? This way there is no doubt Jesus was God. Or is it similar to what the Pharisees were doing when it came to the Law. Interpret it in such a way that there is no chance you would break it because you were keeping stricter requirements.

Just a thought.

I don’t think many of the ministries of Mary were evident to the early Church. I think they were not able to understand her role at the time, and that is why it has taken so long. There is no church requirement, and never has been, that Mary be venerated. It is a custom, but is not required of the faithful. It is required to accept the Church doctrine, but a person can be a Catholic without a personal relationship with Mary. I do think it truncates one’s experience of the faith, but some have the readers digest version and get by. Mary does not “resemble Jesus” in the Assumption. There is a qualitative and important difference. Jesus ascended into heaven, but Mary cannot. She is a creature, and must be assumed (taken up by Jesus). What she experienced is what God has in mind for all of us, and we will all (if we persevere) be united to our bodies and taken into heaven when the time comes.

 

[Roy5]

CHRISTIANS CAN LOVE MARY AND NOT VENERATE HER

 There seems to be a determined effort in this thread to imply that if someone doesn't pray to Mary s/he somehow doesn't love Mary.  All the Protestants I know honor Mary.  True, some may have gone too far in dismissing her as a backlash. 

  On the other hand, far to many Roman Catholics have gone too far in the other direction. They not only have adopted the "Hail Mary" as their most popular prayer, but they create statues of her, crown those statues, give her all kinds of titles such as Queen of the Universe, the Airways, etc. The Popes have issued new dogmae proclaiming the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption, neither found in scripture. Some even seem to want to make her co-Redeemer. 

   Frankly - and no offense intended - this appears to be a wholesale invasion of pre-Christian paganism into Catholicism. There is a prominent place in Christianity for Mary as the mother of Christ. But for various reasons - historical, psychological, etc. - she had been elevated by much of Catholicism well beyond where she would want to be. I can hear her pleading for us to cut back on our adoration of her, the adulation we give her, and focus on following the teachings and example of her Son. 

  When Jesus was asked how to inherit everlasting life, he said nothing about such doctrines that litter of Christian landscape (both Catholic and Protestant) but told us to love God and love one another. This silly doctrinal squabbling may be mind-tickling, but it has very little to do with the core of the Christian faith or eternal salvation.

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;3314548]
Originally Posted by justasking4
Your right in one sense. It is dangerous because those that study it can then compare its teaching with what the catholic church teaches and see many differences.

guanophore
The danger does not lie in reading and comparing. The danger lies in the lack of knowledge in the process. Most fundamentalists that see “differences” are ignorant of their own family history, have never read the Fathers, and do not know that the NT was produced by the Church,

Proper exegesis of the Scriptures i.e. understanding what the authors meant on a particular issue has nothing to do with fathers. It may help to know what they thought but they are not essential to understanding Scripture. You are greatly mistaken on this point.

and that is why there are no contradications.

There are some contradictions between what your church teaches and what the Scriptures teach.

Reading the NT outside of the Teachings of the Catholic Church is reading it out of context.

This is purely arbritary and not workable. For one the catholic church has interpreted the scriptures different ways throughout its history. Secondly, there are not many if any that know all the catholic has taught in its documents through time. By these 2 facts no catholic could live up to the criteria you claim here.

Anytime the scripture is read out of context, it is dangerous.

This is why many non-Catholics find it impossible to love Mary. They are in a sort of vacuum, not connected with the Church of which she was a part, and do not see that it was her careful teaching that grounded Jesus for His earthly ministry. She taught Him about love, from the time He was conceived in her.

 

[peary]

CHRISTIANS CAN LOVE MARY AND NOT VENERATE HER

  On the other hand, far to many Roman Catholics have gone too far in the other direction. They not only have adopted the "Hail Mary" as their most popular prayer, but they create statues of her, crown those statues, give her all kinds of titles such as Queen of the Universe, the Airways, etc. The Popes have issued new dogmae proclaiming the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption, neither found in scripture. Some even seem to want to make her co-Redeemer. 

   Frankly - and no offense intended - this appears to be a wholesale invasion of pre-Christian paganism into Catholicism. There is a prominent place in Christianity for Mary as the mother of Christ. But for various reasons - historical, psychological, etc. - she had been elevated by much of Catholicism well beyond where she would want to be. I can hear her pleading for us to cut back on our adoration of her, the adulation we give her, and focus on following the teachings and example of her Son. 

  When Jesus was asked how to inherit everlasting life, he said nothing about such doctrines that litter of Christian landscape (both Catholic and Protestant) but told us to love God and love one another. This silly doctrinal squabbling may be mind-tickling, but it has very little to do with the core of the Christian faith or eternal salvation.

**In my experiences with protestantism (quite a bit, actually) throughout my life, I have yet to have any one of any denomination say to me that they ‘honor’ Mary. To the vast majority of protestants, Mary is “just there” - she birthed the Savior, no more, no less. And that is the extent of her influence.

Catholic Christians who hold the Mother of God close to their hearts do not worship her. They ‘venerate’ her, and you might as well lump the Eastern Orthodox in with the Catholic Church as they honor and venerate her even more than the Catholic Church does.

For Catholic Christians, yes, the “Our Father” the “Hail Mary” the Apostles Creed, the “Hail Holy Queen,” the “Memorare,” the “Fatima Prayer,” the “Prayer to Saint Michael” have all become important prayers in our life. There is nothing wrong with such prayers. And the first three are rooted deeply in Scripture. Yes, we have statues of her, but we also have statues of the saints who are in Heaven with God - our brothers and sisters in Christ, the Church Triumphant. Eastern churches have icons of same.

Mary’s titles also stem from an understanding of Scripture balancing both Old and New testaments regarding her role in salvation history. As in Genesis, God placed a woman in the center of our downfall, in the New Testament, God placed a woman at the center of our salvation and redemption.

The Marian doctrines of the Church have to do with Christ and our redemption. They do not have to do with anything Mary may do by or of herself. To make such comments without knowing what you are talking about allows you to appear quite unlearned. In fact, until you understand your Faith, it is best that you leave the subject of Catholic teaching and Marian veneration alone.**

 

[justasking4]

**In my experiences with protestantism (quite a bit, actually) throughout my life, I have yet to have any one of any denomination say to me that they ‘honor’ Mary. To the vast majority of protestants, Mary is “just there” - she birthed the Savior, no more, no less. And that is the extent of her influence.

Catholic Christians who hold the Mother of God close to their hearts do not worship her. They ‘venerate’ her, and you might as well lump the Eastern Orthodox in with the Catholic Church as they honor and venerate her even more than the Catholic Church does.

For Catholic Christians, yes, the “Our Father” the “Hail Mary” the Apostles Creed, the “Hail Holy Queen,” the “Memorare,” the “Fatima Prayer,” the “Prayer to Saint Michael” have all become important prayers in our life. There is nothing wrong with such prayers. And the first three are rooted deeply in Scripture. Yes, we have statues of her, but we also have statues of the saints who are in Heaven with God - our brothers and sisters in Christ, the Church Triumphant. Eastern churches have icons of same.

Mary’s titles also stem from an understanding of Scripture balancing both Old and New testaments regarding her role in salvation history. As in Genesis, God placed a woman in the center of our downfall, in the New Testament, God placed a woman at the center of our salvation and redemption.

The Marian doctrines of the Church have to do with Christ and our redemption. They do not have to do with anything Mary may do by or of herself. To make such comments without knowing what you are talking about allows you to appear quite unlearned. In fact, until you understand your Faith, it is best that you leave the subject of Catholic teaching and Marian veneration alone.**

Do you the following hymn to Mary is the proper way to honor her?

**Daily, Daily, Sing to Mary **

Verse 1
Daily, daily sing to Mary,
Sing, my soul, her praises due.
All her feasts, her actions worship
With the heart’s devotion true.
Lost in wond’ring contemplation,
Be her Majesty confess’d.
Call her Mother, call her Virgin,
Happy Mother, Virgin blest.

Verse 2
She is mighty to deliver.
Call her, trust her lovingly.
When the tempest rages round thee,
She will calm the troubled sea.
Gifts of heaven she has given,
Noble Lady, to our race.
She, the Queen, who decks her subjects
With the light of God’s own grace.

Verse 3
Sing, my tongue, the Virgin’s trophies
Who for us her Maker bore.
For the curse of old inflicted,
Peace and blessing to restore.
Sing in songs of peace unending,
Sing the world’s majestic Queen.
Weary not nor faint in telling.
All the gifts she gives to men.

 

[guanophore]

Do you the following hymn to Mary is the proper way to honor her?

**Daily, Daily, Sing to Mary **

Verse 1
Daily, daily sing to Mary,
Sing, my soul, her praises due.
All her feasts, her actions worship
With the heart’s devotion true.
Lost in wond’ring contemplation,
Be her Majesty confess’d.
Call her Mother, call her Virgin,
Happy Mother, Virgin blest.

Verse 2
She is mighty to deliver.
Call her, trust her lovingly.
When the tempest rages round thee,
She will calm the troubled sea.
Gifts of heaven she has given,
Noble Lady, to our race.
She, the Queen, who decks her subjects
With the light of God’s own grace.

Verse 3
Sing, my tongue, the Virgin’s trophies
Who for us her Maker bore.
For the curse of old inflicted,
Peace and blessing to restore.
Sing in songs of peace unending,
Sing the world’s majestic Queen.
Weary not nor faint in telling.
All the gifts she gives to men.

I suppose that some find it proper. Do you not believe that Jesus empowers us to do the things that are bolded here? What do you think He meant, when He said “greater things than I do, will you do, because I go to the Father”?

 

[guanophore]

Proper exegesis of the Scriptures i.e. understanding what the authors meant on a particular issue has nothing to do with fathers. It may help to know what they thought but they are not essential to understanding Scripture. You are greatly mistaken on this point.

I wouldn’t say that it is dependent upon the fathers, but the early writings help us to better understand what the writers meant, because they were closer to the authors. Some of the ECF’s knew the apostles personally.

There are some contradictions between what your church teaches and what the Scriptures teach.

I know it may seem that way, but it is because the reader does not understand one or the other.

This is purely arbritary and not workable. For one the catholic church has interpreted the scriptures different ways throughout its history. Secondly, there are not many if any that know all the catholic has taught in its documents through time. By these 2 facts no catholic could live up to the criteria you claim here.

I agree that there are more Catholic documents than any one person could grasp in a lifetime. But one does not have to access all the documents to interpret the Bible in the light of Apostolic Teaching.

The “danger” happens when the scriptures are removed from the Sacred Tradition which produced them.

 

[Roy5]

**]peary - maybe you have the answer?/**B]

 You seem to have all answers. Then answer this one. St. Paul established many of the earliest churches of Christendom and he wrote a large part of the New Testament, mostly letters to these churches.

  Why is it, if Mary is so central in our faith, does he not once make reference to her in all those letters? He writes the churches about all sorts of doctrines and ethical standards, but never mentions Mary. That seems to suggest that he didn't feel that veneration of Mary had a central place in Christian worship and theology.

  I suggest that Mary adulation was borrowed from competing religions of that time, several of which had Virgin goddesses who possessed enormous power.

  But, if many Catholics want to venerate her, okay with me. I don't condemn the ancient Babylonians or Egyptians or the modern Hindus and Buddhists with their goddesses, too. It's just that Mary veneration is not found in scripture (unless stretched beyond recognition) and it is contrary to my monotheism to venerate Mary or any of the countless saints, many of them legendary or embellished wildly by legends. Yet, I know how hard it is for ardent followers of any faith to admit their mistakes - or to be objective. Their faith serves as an important source of comfort - and as shield in this huge and precarious and mysterious world. 

     So, embrace whatever form of Christianity suits your mind. As for me, I like to think for myself and not feel the need to follow any ancient creed or modern Pope or preacher. God gave us a brain to use and surely he will not punish us if we don't figure everything out correctly. "Now we know in part" said St. Paul, and that's the best we can do. I can wait until heaven to find out the fuller truth. I expect to meet millions of Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, etc. there. Eternal salvation certainly is not won by correct theology. We all are ignorant of so much. Some people accept this. Others must believe that they belong to the one, true church. Vatican II helped move us from that vain and silly assertion.