Why the hostility toward Mary?

[GreggAlvarez]

What does Mary have to do with the sacraments?
Baptism–no role
Eucharist–no role
Confession–zip
Confirmation–nope
Marriage–no
Holy Orders–nope
Last Rites–oh, maybe, as a Saint to whom one might pray (same as all the other sacraments, but, really, you can pray to Mary or not–it’s not required.)

I mean, the Church doesn’t even give any official status to Mary’s appearances (Fatima, Lourdes, etc). The Queen of Heaven speaks to the faithful over the centuries, with dire warnings, and the Church declares these to be “worthy of belief”.

This is how the Church treats the Mother of Christ, whose Perpetual Virginity, Perpetual Sinlessness and Assumption have been enshrined in dogma over these many centuries. They’ll make the ex-Cathedra statements on theological matters, but they’re remarkably–unfathomably–silent on the simple truth of what Mary said on this occasion or that.

I believe it’s called “private revelation”, and as such, is not required to be believed by the faithful. I would venture to suggest that much of the Book of Revelation would fit into the category of “private revelation”, yet the faithful are bound by it, absolutely, every word of it.

Here’s the problem with Mary: what to do with her and her “pronouncements”. If we can’t take her words seriously (as in, enshrine them as we have the person), we are left with a feel-good, platitudinous, mother-knows-best type of saint, who means virtually nothing beyond your rosary beads.

You can’t expect anyone else to take Mary seriously if we don’t.

I have never seen a Catholic this mistaken in Marian dogma ever! And I was atheist, unfortunately. I have seen them not very knowledgeable but my goodness, never this mistaken.
The sacraments I can understand except for your false deductive reasoning (which you may think is true) on Eucharist and the Baptism. The others I have not read on (Confession, Holy Orders, etc… With Mary’s involvement in them). The Divine Body at Communion comes from the flesh of His Mother. Ripley’s Believe It or Not seems to come to mind. When Job says, “How can something clean come from something unclean?” Again Mary’s dogma of the Immaculate Conception is Christ-centered (this sentence is for non-Catholics). The reason why SHE was clean was because she was to be involved with God’s plan for our salvation. Another dogma is her Co-redemptrix but only because she was directly involved in bringing Christ to the world which leads to salvation. Immaculate Ark of the Covenant comes to mind. People were saved by Noah’s Ark, which was a pre-figurement of Baptism. Maybe this is an indirect involvement but still involved nonetheless. Again Christ-centered. Remember though that these are roles, NOT as one might think, from her own power, which is from God. I am not bashing you my friend. I am just inserting that maybe you should know that you are oblivious to the teachings of the Church. Popes are not silent on Mary. Read encyclicals or better yet, just read. Please. This is why Catholics are almost at the bottom of the list of religious knowledge.

I am not sure what “virtual” world you live in where Mary means nothing beyond the rosary beads but I can assure you that you are quite mistaken again. If you do not want to pray to Mary, then do not pray to Mary. You are absolutely right with statement. But unless you are completely aware of what the Church teaches beyond your seemingly pithy analysis, please refrain from posting what you think the Church teaches. Argument among Christians is hostile enough. We do not need to spread this hostility amongst ourselves. I sincerely apologize if this offends you. Any non-Catholics reading this, know that these are what the Church believes. Although I certainly believe every bit of them, I am only stating what we believe, not intended for arguments. I am not rubbing them in anybody’s face

 

[Ginger2]

Sorry Ginger, but you don’t understand the Church and her doctrines.

I have called yo on MANY things you believe to be true because "that’s what you were told by Catholics."

Hence, what you’ve "learned" from these people is little more than idle gossip.

I went through Catholic Catechism in the Catholic Chucrh was confirmed and r4eceived 1st Holy Communion. I learned from the Catholic Church and a couple times in this forum I had Catholics join me in correct another Catholic who was spouting error at me. If I don’t understand the Catholic faith how is it that a whole thread of Catholics said I was right in my response to one other Catholic who stated we don’t need Jesus to be saved?

 

[Nicea325]

I went through Catholic Catechism in the Catholic Chucrh was confirmed and r4eceived 1st Holy Communion. I learned from the Catholic Church and a couple times in this forum I had Catholics join me in correct another Catholic who was spouting error at me. If I don’t understand the Catholic faith how is it that a whole thread of Catholics said I was right in my response to one other Catholic who stated we don’t need Jesus to be saved?

Okay,but correcting another Catholic does not mean you as well may be ignorant of many other Catholic teachings. Attending catechism does not make one an expert. Following God and learning about God is a life-time process,not a one time event. That is always an observation I noticed from ex-Catholics,they attend catechism and receive the sacraments,hence they are experts and know-it-all about Catholicism. I do not think so.

 

[Ginger2]

Right here (bold mine). No NT in those books.

Jesus said, He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.” Luke 24:44.

LOL The quote is from the New Testament!!!

The Old Testament prophecy is realized in the New Testament. I gave Old Tesatment verses and their companion New Testament verses.

You’re really grasping at straws to deny what is obvious. What was written in the OT is happening in the NT and both the prophecy and the actual events are recorded in Scriptures.

The Bereans “searched” the OT to see if the events that had just happened were indeed the fulfillment of OT prophecy.

The tenets are prophecied in the OT and fulfilled in the NT…

… how can it be any clearer?

 

[PRmerger]

That is always an observation I noticed from ex-Catholics,they attend catechism and receive the sacraments,hence they are experts and know-it-all about Catholicism. I do not think so.

You are soooo right, Nicea.

See my post here.

 

[Ginger2]

Okay,but correcting another Catholic does not mean you as well may be ignorant of many other Catholic teachings. Attending catechism does not make one an expert. Following God and learning about God is a life-time process,not a one time event. That is always an observation I noticed from ex-Catholics,they attend catechism and receive the sacraments,hence they are experts and know-it-all about Catholicism. I do not think so.

I was accused of learning from second hand sources of flawed people. I pointed out I learned directly from the CC. I never claimed to be an expert on Catholicism

What good is the “ability to correctly interpret scriptures” if you cant’t use that “ability” to provide and understanding within the people?

 

[PRmerger]

LOL The quote is from the New Testament!!!

Fair enough. But the quote says that everything about Jesus can be found in the Laws of Moses, Psalms and the Prophets. But not the Pauline epistles?

The Old Testament prophecy is realized in the New Testament.

Amen!

I gave Old Tesatment verses and their companion New Testament verses.

Indeed you did. Thank you. :tiphat:

What was written in the OT is happening in the NT and both the prophecy and the actual events are recorded in Scriptures.

The Bereans “searched” the OT to see if the events that had just happened were indeed the fulfillment of OT prophecy.

The tenets are prophecied in the OT and fulfilled in the NT…

Very Catholic of you to say that, Ginger!

… how can it be any clearer?

 

[PRmerger]

I was accused of learning from second hand sources of flawed people. I pointed out I learned directly from the CC. I never claimed to be an expert on Catholicism

Fine. You’re not an expert on Catholicism (that much has been made obvious ) but you do claim to know the faith you left.

So, could you please answer, missing typing fingers notwithstanding, the question I posed about Scripture and the Mass?

And I trust your integrity that you will answer from your own knowledge of Catholicism and not seek refuge in Fr. Google.

 

[Ginger2]

Fair enough. But the quote says that everything about Jesus can be found in the Laws of Moses, Psalms and the Prophets. But not the Pauline epistles?

It certainly does, but it was not clear the meaning until these things were fulfilled in the NT. In fact, with the power of the HolY Spirit any one book can be enough to bring complete understanding…or no book at all as was the case with Paul!!!

Amen!

Indeed you did. Thank you. :tiphat:

Very Catholic of you to say that, Ginger!

I think this is a good place for me to Just fade away.

 

[elvisman]

Fair enough.

Do you celebrate Christmas on Dec 25?

That’s pretty man-made.

Do you use a wedding ring?

That’s not in the bible either.

Have you ever been to an outdoor wedding?

That’s pretty man-made!

I’m just sayin’

The CC does not dismiss man-made traditions. Only those which contradict the Word of God.

So ar “altar calls” and the “sinner’s prayer” for that matter . . .

As a matter of fact - “altar calls” in most protestant churches is an oxymoron since there is no altar.

 

[PRmerger]

I think this is a good place for me to Just fade away.

Oh! I hope I didn’t insult you with my reference to your missing fingers! :doh2:

(After I sent that I went back and re-read your original post about not having all your fingers. I assumed you meant from an injury. But if it’s a congenital condition then I feel awful making reference to it!)

 

[Nicea325]

I was accused of learning from second hand sources of flawed people. I pointed out I learned directly from the CC. I never claimed to be an expert on Catholicism

What good is the “ability to correctly interpret scriptures” if you cant’t use that “ability” to provide and understanding within the people?

Are you claiming you can interpret scripture correctly? Based on what? What certitude do you have your interpretation is infallible? We are talking about our salvation here,so how are the people to trust your ‘ability’ to interpret correctly?

That is one of many errors of many non-Catholics belief the Holy Spirit guides them,yet there exists tens of thousands of different churches,sects,etc. Apparently the Bible-Alone is not the sole rule of faith.

 

[elvisman]

I think this is a good place for me to Just fade away.

Ginger -
I’m sorry to see that once again, you’ve chosen to leave a thread becuase the going got too tough. Given the comments you’ve made - there is still much to discuss.

As Ricky said to Lucy - "You’ve got some 'splainin’ to do."

 

[Nicea325]

**Ginger **-
I’m sorry to see that once again, you’ve chosen to leave a thread becuase the going got too tough. Given the comments you’ve made - there is still much to discuss.

As Ricky said to Lucy - "You’ve got some 'splainin’ to do."

elvisman,

She did say things which were incorrect or simply poor understanding.

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

And I trust your integrity that you will answer from your own knowledge of Catholicism and not seek refuge in Fr. Google.

 

[Ginger2]

Present history from a Catholic perspective? It is presented in light with what the early Christians and church taught,not what they perceived. So what other perspective did the early church present? A Baptist perspective? A Methodist perspective? A Mormon perspective?

You have read entire translations of original documents as opposed to excerpts by Catholics? LOL! Sorry to rain on your parade,but the Catholic Church has read,studied, and analyzed scores of original documents for CENTURIES long before ANY Protestant church existed.

You have misunderstood what I am saying.

When a Catholic or a Protestant makes a claim to convince me of something and using a quote to do so, I look up the original document (if there is an English translation available) and read it to see if the quote to see if it was accurately portrayed or if it was taken out of content.

For example: Catholics claim Martin Luther said Faith is all that is needed for salvation and works mean nothing. But when I read Luther’s writings I discovered that is a false assumption.

1st Luther taught, “…Thus, it is just as impossible to separate faith and works as it is to separate heat and light from fire!”
“An Introduction to St. Paul’s Letter to the Romans,”
Luther’s German Bible of 1522
by Martin Luther, 1483-1546

2nd, Catholics say Luther added a word to the Bible to create a new doctrine
If this were true, why don’t Protestant Bibles contain that “added” word?

• because he didn’t add a word. Translating from one language to another in a coherent matter requires using appropriate grammar for that specific language.

While Catholics use a snippet of sarcasm to prove their point, the entire letter from Luther explains that he 1. didn’;t feel he owed the papists an answer and 2. he explained the need for the word “alone” only in the German as it was appropriate usage.

SEE BELOW Luther’s letter in context:
“I wanted to speak German since it was German I had spoken in
translation - not Latin or Greek. But it is the nature of our
language that in speaking about two things, one which is affirmed,
the other denied, we use the word “solum” only along with the word
“not” (nicht) or “no” (kein). For example, we say “the farmer
brings only (allein) grain and no money”; or “No, I really have no
money, but only (allein) grain”; I have only eaten and not yet
drunk”; “Did you write it only and not read it over?” There are a
vast number of such everyday cases…

   In all these phrases, this is a German usage, even though it is
   not the Latin or Greek usage.  It is the nature of the German
   tongue to add "allein" in order that "nicht" or "kein" may be
   clearer and more complete.  ....

   We do not have to ask about the literal Latin or how we are to
   speak German - as these asses do.  Rather we must ask the mother
   in the home, the children on the street, the common person in the
   market about this.  We must be guided by their tongue, the manner
   of their speech, and do our translating accordingly.  Then they
   will understand it and recognize that we are speaking German to
   them.

    .... So, as the traitor Judas says in Matthew 26: "Ut quid perditio
   haec?" and in Mark 14: "Ut quid perditio iste unguenti facta est?"
   Subsequently, for these literalist asses I would have to translate
   it: "Why has this loss of salve occurred?"  But what kind of
   German is this?  What German says "loss of salve occurred"?  And
   if he does understand it at all, he would think that the salve is
   lost and must be looked for and found again; even though that is
   still obscure and uncertain.     .....  But a German would say "Ut quid, etc.." as "Why this
   waste?" or "Why this extravagance?" Even "it is a shame about the
   ointment" - these are good German, in which one can understand
   that Magdalene had wasted the salve she poured out and had done
   wrong.  That was what Judas meant as he thought he could have used
   it better." - Martin Luther

Following this reasoning, the word “only” is appropriate in the German, but would not be appropriate in English translations - which it is not.

Since Protestant Bibles do not use the word “alone” in the English translations of Protestant Bibles, the whole argument is mute.

now, on to your next point and then I really must say goodbye altho it is difficult…

 

[Ginger2]

I seem to have lost my place and can’t find the other question I wanted to respond to,…

But I did find something on this page:

It just so happens I have a life away from my PC. I need to work to pay my bills and simply can’t spend all my talking with Catholics.

Once I have made my point there really isn’t anything more for me to say.

I do thank those of you who share new information now and then (as opposed to repeating the same misguided remarks over and over after they have been disproven) I enjoy learning new things and just to brighten your day will tell you that I have learned from my discousre here over that last several years and even changed my mind about one or two things when I was given new (and accurate ) information

For that I am thankful

 

[PRmerger]

I seem to have lost my place and can’t find the other question I wanted to respond to,…

It seems you care not to answer the question about Scripture in the Mass?

One is left to wonder if this is because you were indeed poorly catechized about your faith?

 

[JonNC]

Well, then, Jon, that’s very Catholic of you to say that!

I do, of course, take that as a compliment.
Thanks,
Jon

 

[PRmerger]

I do, of course, take that as a compliment.
Thanks,
Jon

Of course. It could only be meant as one, coming from a Catholic, eh?