In Jesus’ earthly ministry Mary was in the background.
Where’s the LOVE Hisalone? You complain constantly about the Anti-Protestism on this board, but have you taken a look in that mirror of yours today?
Please take a look at the threads I have started.
Who has the blinders on when they cant see the constant barrage from this one individual, enough already.
I believe Hisalone there is an ignore button somewhere that you are more than welcome to use if you get so cantankerous (as you have politely stated) by this OP.
Who are “they”? You already said that you love Mary too. Are you one of “they”?
Do you think there is no difference in making artwork to glorify God, and making graven images for the purpose of idolatry?
Do you really think it is possible to “take away” glory from Jesus?
I believe the context of this passage is worshipping a creature, rather than the Creator. Since Catholics don’t worship any creatures, how does this apply?
Actually, the verse in Revelation refers to the book of Revelation only, and not to the entire canon. However, it is fair to say that the Catholic Church determined which books belonged in the NT, and therefore, which ones are Scripture. It is all so fair to say that Catholics “add to scripture” since Catholics wrote all the books in the NT, and after Catholics added them, they were considered by all to be scripture.
Hm! I took a little time off to focus on other pressing projects.
This "don't you get it" somehow doesn't come across as the answer to my inquiries.
For example, the fact that St. Paul never once mentions Mary in all those letters. That doesn't seem to trouble you at all. Fine. Everybody to his/her own opinion. I simply want the right to (1) ask questions without being castigated, and (2) hold views that don't necessarily go along with official Church positions.
I guess that's my main problem when all else is said. I guess I have difficulty squelching my own brain and its inquiring nature. The idea that I must accept without question the doctrines of the Church without ever challenging them runs contrary to my simple desire to think through and then weigh certain doctrines I'm supposed to accept because I'm told to accept them. If I hesitate, it becomes my problem (pride etc) rather than the Church's.
Somehow it seems to me that the Church should permit honest discussion without accusations of heresy and the rest of it. Maybe I've been too influenced by American democracy, where we can debate issues freely and not feel like we're outcasts. Maybe I need a church with a more democratic spirit, which doesn't silence scholars and others who come up with new and different ideas or interpretations.
I love Mary - of course. But in all honesty I think that far too many Catholics have succumbed (innocently and sincerely) to a form of pious and primitive paganism represented by excessive Mariology. All these apparitions - Fatima, Lourdes, Beauraing. Banneux, La Sallette, Guadalupe, Medjugorje, Mary's image on a pizza, Mary's image on a mushroom, Mary's image on a tree, etc. etc. - give me a break! And Catholics rush to such sites. Non-Catholics laugh at such simplemindedness, and with good reason. Such wierd and backward aspects of Catholicism demean the faith and run counter to science, reason, and ordinary common sense. Maybe most people would accept them 500 and more years ago, but no longer.…i guess i am one of those simple minded children Jesus spoke of "…accept the kindgom of God like a child…
What do you think of this prayer to Mary?
Roy -
A couple of quick points.
(1) I am fairly well read in scripture and the principal Church Fathers: Tertullian, Iranaeus, Augustine of Hippo, Clement of Alexandria, Anselm, Aquinas, Abelard, some Popes, etc. - though I confess to forgetting much of what I've read over the years. Frankly, much of what those doctors and scholars of the Church wrote was insightful, even brilliant for their times, but some of it was primordial by modern standards. But they had neither a decent telescope nor microscope, they believed in demons and ghosts, knew nothing of germs as causes of disease, thought the world was flat, and much more that makes some of what they wrote wrong and/or irrelevant. So I don't look to them to substantiate doctrine. Aquinas, for example, was very learned and extremely systematic, but many of his arguments are weak. As for human rights, he said heretics should be delivered by the Church to the civic authorities to be executed! Not very tolerant, I would suggest. I have visited Aquino in Italy, by the way. At one point in earlier years I studied Thomas Aquinas quite seriously.
(2) If I thought the Holy Spirit were guiding the Church so that it would be errorless that would be one thing. But the Church has lost its way on various occasions - as during the Crusades and Inquisition. I believe it was Abelard who wrote Sic et Non, showing how different Popes had contradicted one another. And Catholic countries were often brutal in repressing freedom. It makes it difficult to discuss dogma if one claims says that their side was delivered by God through an infallible Pope on matters of doctrine or ethics. That rather stifles any conversation.
(3) I do not believe our salvation depends on belonging to any one church or accepting any one set of doctrines. My God is just and full of mercy and would hardly punish anyone for embracing a different religion. I expect heaven to be full of Hindus, Buddhists, Indian medicine men, and good people of every faith and nation, race and tongue. The idea that there is One True Church and those outside that Church are somehow second-class citizens spiritually repulses me. It certainly has been a cause of much persecution and suffering over the centuries.
(4) True, Jesus said we should be like little children, which some people interpret to mean that we should not think 'theologically' for ourselves but accept without question whatever our Church teaches. I interpret it to mean that we should have the faith of little children. Golly gee, I have an abundance of faith in Christ. I live securely under the Providence of Almighty God. No doubts there. But that does mean that I have to accept such dubious dogmae as the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary. Parenthetically, we're not even sure who the mother of Mary was. There are plenty of apocryphal stories about Anna, Mary's alleged mom, but there is not a thread of evidence in scripture that she was Mary's mom. Yet, probably thousands of churches and even a major Quebec shrine are named after her.I think the prayer makes reference to the fact that Mary brought Jesus into the world, thereby becoming the conduit of all grace. Jesus is full of Grace and Truth. He came to us through Mary. None of us can do anything for God without His grace and His power. Mary received all that He had to give her. The prayers of the righteous person are powerful, and Mary’s intercession is sought by Christians because she is completely conformed to the Father’s will. Jesus has allowed her to participate in His ministry of advocacy for the human race. This is what she means when she says “He has raised up the lowly”.
You are free to say whatever you want! No, it is not worship. It is intercession. It is praise of Mary’s qualities (that God gave her). This is what it is talking about in Col when it says “whatever is praiseworthy, think on these things”.
To the extent that all these graces come from Jesus, and she “dispensed” Jesus to the world, yes.
For some reason you imagine that Mary is separated from Jesus, but Scripture says that nothing can separate the believer from the Love of God, not even death.
**Well, I guess you’ll have to learn the hard way, then **
Roy -
i’m in shock. 99% of the time i usually get insulted Thank you for the compliment:thumbsup:
Hello Hisalone,
You say it so very well Justasking4 Where does this prayer come from?
If you google “O Mother of Perpetual Help” you can find the website for this.
Amen— Nothing more is needed—