Mariology vs Mariolatry

[Clint Kritzer]

Originally posted by GraceSaves:
Clint,

It's a busy day, and a frustrating one for me (apparently I'm no longer in the Honor's Program here at MSU, and they never told me, and thus I do not get to register for classes today as I thought I should....GRR), so I'm going to be brief, at least for right now.

Which MSU campus? Ann Arbor? I lived in Detroit for many years.

I'm sorry to hear about your health and now your school problems. Life throws some curves, that's for sure. I will be praying for you Grant, in fact, I already have been.

I'm not asking you to agree with my stance. I'm asking that you make the connection that the word worship does not have one meaning for Catholics.

Ah, here is the rub of the discussion, Grant. I already knew that the word "worship" has more than one meaning for Catholics. The real question is: does it have more than one meaning for God?

[ October 31, 2002, 03:07 PM: Message edited by: Clint Kritzer ]

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by GraceSaves:
Clint,

It's a busy day, and a frustrating one for me (apparently I'm no longer in the Honor's Program here at MSU, and they never told me, and thus I do not get to register for classes today as I thought I should....GRR), so I'm going to be brief, at least for right now.

Worship, when talking about God, is ADORATION.
Worship, when talking about Mary, is VENERATION, and the highest form.
Worship, when talking about a saint or angel, is VENERATION, in general.

Just as nearly all words in the English language have more than one meaning (why we have a dictionary), so does worship. The type of worship given to God is like no other, and no one else deserves it. It is adoration. Worship given to people is merely extreme honor. It is veneration.

This is why we have all these nice words (latria, hyperdulia, dulia), because people jump the gun when we just say "worship," because when talking about Mary, we're not talking about the same type of worship.

I'm not asking you to agree with my stance. I'm asking that you make the connection that the word worship does not have one meaning for Catholics.

God bless,

Grant

But, Grant, you broke the first baptist commandment. Thou shalt only answer with a Bible verse.

Notice that Clint refered me to his post with a bunch of questions. You are right, the game here is to ask multiple questions and then either complain that they aren't all answered, or when they are answered, find one weakness in a paragraph upon paragraph answer and focus on that, or simply throw out a whole new list of questions. Last but not least, make the demand that all answers must be in bible verse form.

Of course, no one can defend "sola scriptura" from Scripture. They can't even agree on what it means for that matter.

Ron

[ October 31, 2002, 03:09 PM: Message edited by: trying2understand ]

 

[dumbox1]

Hi Clint,

You wrote:

Thank you for your input. Is there any source available to Catholics that WOULD reflect the modern view and theology of Catholicism that is written in a more updated vernacular? If not, how would a Catholic go about researching their own faith if they sought understanding?

Glad I could help!

To answer your question, there are all sorts of good resources available, depending on the issue being researched and the person doing the researching. The Bible, of course, would be number one. Followed by the Catechism (and the sources cited therein), the Vatican II documents, recent encyclicals, all sorts of good books, etc. etc.

Of course, none of these sources (even the Bible, as you know) is immune to being misunderstood, or mis-paraphrased, or quoted out of context. So, depending on my knowledge of the person and the question, I might refer one person to one source and another person to a different source. The Catechism, for example, requires a strong college-level reading ability, some prior knowledge of Catholic theology and terminology, an ability to understand concepts in their broader context, and the patience to learn that context. For a person lacking any of those skills, a more "popular" level book might be a better starting point.

God bless,

Mark

 

[DHK]

Mark,
The official works of the Catholic Church are all published on-line, and Clint has referred to them.
Newadvent is an official website of the Catholic Church. What is your genuine complaint here?
If is the Catechism of the Church, see the following link:
http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/ccc.html

Go to this site and you will find all kinds of links to good Catholic sites:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/rcc.htm

Go to this site and you will probably learn something about the Catholic Church:
http://www.christiantruth.com/

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by trying2understand:

Of course, no one can defend "sola scriptura" from Scripture. They can't even agree on what it means for that matter.

Ron,
Let's not make false accusations here, and let us keep the subject focused on topic of this thread. Sola Scriptura, defined for you "as the Bible being the final authority in all things pertaining to faith and practice," has been defined, expounded, explained, and thouroughly discussed on other threads. To say that it cannot be defended is false. If you want to discuss it open another thread. Don't make false statements like this one.
DHK

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by GraceSaves:

Remember that attitude I was telling you about? See above.

The only attitude I have with you, is the desire for you to provide evidence that worship of Mary is Biblical. This has nothing to do with attitude, Grant. It is a request. It is a challenge to your own belief system which I was once caught up in. I sincerely hope that through this you can see how thoroughly inconsistent the Catholic position is, and will seriously think of taking the Bible as your authority rather than a man-made authority. It is only then that you will truly be able to see the truth for yourself.
DHK

 

[dumbox1]

Hi DHK,

I don't have a "complaint" per se, I'm just trying to help out where I can if I see any obvious factual confusion (like the misunderstanding about the "newness" of the 1913 Encyclopedia). Since I haven't been following this thread prior to today and don't know where the conversation has already gone, I'm staying out of the opinion side of things.

Incidentally, the New Advent site is not an "official" Catholic site -- it's the personal website of Kevin Knight. (That said, there's some great information available there -- provided one recognizes, as I told Clint, that some of it, such as the Catholic Encyclopedia, was written many decades ago and may be phrased a bit archaically).

The online Catechism at ChristusRex is a very handy tool, which I use fairly frequently. My only concern is that the "search" function brings up individual paragraphs, which can tempt some people to not explore the larger context (which, as I said above, is essential).

The links at religioustolerance.org are generally pretty good ones, although the Vatican website (www.vatican.va) is the only one among those listed that's "official."

At a relatively quick glance, the articles on the "ChristianTruth" website look to be similar to things I've seen before. But if there's one in particular that you think would be news to me, I'd be happy to give it a look when time permits.

God bless,

Mark H.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Mark H.:
Hi DHK,
Incidentally, the New Advent site is not an "official" Catholic site -- it's the personal website of Kevin Knight.

If it is not an official web-site, then I stand to be corrected. It is just that almost every Catholic e-pologist that has come here has either referred to that site, or referred me to that site at one time or another. So I just took it for granted that it was.
DHK

 

[Clint Kritzer]

Grant -

I hope the morning finds you better than your last post indicated.

Again, I want you to know that I respect your willingness to stay on this topic. I saw a marked increase in your debating style on this thread and I think it was a very fruitful venture. I have to admit, when I noticed that you had been abandoned by the other Catholics on this thread who claim so much knowledge all the time, I felt bad for you. They left you alone to debate the likes of DHK, Dualhunter, Colin, Jason and myself. It was not an enviable position to say the least.

However, even at that, I can tell that it stimulated your thought. You knew there was no way out but through the wall and your charge has been valiant. I respect that. I called you to task when I told you to quit crying and start contending for your faith and you rose to the occassion. Kudos, Grant!

I suspect that you would admit that the thread has been very educational. I would venture further to say that it has been educational not because of what you read from us or from the texts you had to open in front of you, but rather it was because it made you THINK about why you believe in this principle of three levels of worship. That is what we refer to as "spiritual growth." Jesus Christ died to free us from our sins. He did not die to free us from our minds.

This thread may continue but I believe the point has been made. I do not hold you to answering the remaining questions on "worship" from me on this topic. If I made you stop and truly examine them, that is all I ask. I think we both know that there are no good answers to them. The concept of the dichotomy of worship IS found in the Scriptures. 2Kings and 2Chronicles are riddled with it. The last good king of Judah, Josiah, tried to stop it. Once he rediscovered the Book of the Law, he destroyed the pagan altars, ridded the country of the pagan priests, he desecrated the pagan "holy" places. He also destroyed the Ashera poles. Ashera was a pagan goddess and the Ashera poles were represenatations of her. As if it wasn't bad enough that they showed up in Jerusalem but they were even in the Temple. The false goddess was placed side by side with God. Do I see a correlation? Yes I do.

The Old Testament is a teacher. Josiah's reforms were shortlived and a mere 23 years after his death, Juresalem fell. It was their own fault. They rediscovered the Book too late and refused to take heed of the warnings that the prophets of God proclaimed. The religious reformation begun by Josiah was too little, too late. You can find this all in 2Kings 22 & 23.

As for the resources on this thread, if necessary in the ensuing debates that will spring from this one, I will cite catechisms, but let's face it, the wording of most of these documents is more antiquated than the Catholic Encyclopedia. This brings to mind an even more intriguing thought for me and that is that if the wording of a resource, even on the internet, is outdated and you can't trust it, then the modern Catholic who seeks answers will never really be able to trust his sources.

Christ told us:

Matthew 7
8 For everyone who asks, receives. Everyone who seeks, finds. And the door is opened to everyone who knocks.

The "great mystery" that surrounds the Church and its teachings is not a Christian principle. It is upon what cults are built. When Christ died and the curtain in the Temple was torn, those who sought the counsel of God were given direct access. When the Holy Spirit came at Pentecost, He descended on each and every one of those that were there. If you want answers, don't just consult a resource or take some other man's word for it, SEEK! Seek it in the word that God preserved for us and seek it in your own mind.

The Ad Hominems will likely ensue after this post and the strawmen will be laid in the path. Anything to disuade this message will be presented. Some of them will probably come from some of those "knowledgable Catholics" who left you to fend for yourself. That's okay. I'm a Baptist Board administrator. If I can't display grace under fire, I don't deserve the job.

So with that said, I thank you for a spirited, lively and intellectually stimulating debate. I only hold you to one last question: which MSU campus?

May God bless you

- Clint

 

[GraceSaves]

Originally posted by Clint Kritzer:
Grant -

I hope the morning finds you better than your last post indicated.

Better, but not recovered. From what I hear, everyone who has this has it for two weeks...and I'm only on day 7. Right now my nose has stopped running, and I'm not coughing up a whole lot, but my throat is very sore, and my right ear is threatening to start hurting. But, by the grace of God, I'm pulling through.

Originally posted by Clint Kritzer:
Again, I want you to know that I respect your willingness to stay on this topic. I saw a marked increase in your debating style on this thread and I think it was a very fruitful venture. I have to admit, when I noticed that you had been abandoned by the other Catholics on this thread who claim so much knowledge all the time, I felt bad for you. They left you alone to debate the likes of DHK, Dualhunter, Colin, Jason and myself. It was not an enviable position to say the least.

I'm currently facing major hurdles with my parents (them being Lutheran, me being Catholic), and my call to the priesthood. Trust me; I spend every ounce of free time studying the Word of God and examining my faith.

I do think the talk about the other Catholics is overly harsh, though. Is Trying2Understand often being sarcastic? Sure. But it's not like he's not getting it on the other end too. I'm not going to name names, because the guilty parties know who they are, and God knows who they are. We could all benefit from mutual attitude adjustments from time to time.

Originally posted by Clint Kritzer:
However, even at that, I can tell that it stimulated your thought. You knew there was no way out but through the wall and your charge has been valiant. I respect that. I called you to task when I told you to quit crying and start contending for your faith and you rose to the occassion. Kudos, Grant!

What saddens me is that some of the other non-Catholics do not share your sentiments. The fact that they "know" I'm wrong makes everything I saw, well, pretty worthless. It gets me down quite a bit. There is a difference in showing someone that they are wrong and then rubbing the other person's nose in it. If I'm guilty of it, I apologize. I wish others would do the same, because I know many who do/will not.

Originally posted by Clint Kritzer:
I suspect that you would admit that the thread has been very educational. I would venture further to say that it has been educational not because of what you read from us or from the texts you had to open in front of you, but rather it was because it made you THINK about why you believe in this principle of three levels of worship. That is what we refer to as "spiritual growth." Jesus Christ died to free us from our sins. He did not die to free us from our minds.

I wouldn't be here if I didn't want to learn. Challenges MAKE us understand what we defend. Of course, while both sides present good arguments (most of the time), through prayer, my Catholic beliefs win out. I do not worship anyone but God as God should be worshipped, for there is no other God but Him. God created the world, originally, as "good." He said so Himself. Those things which he created, and are now in Heaven, have been restored to their perfection, by the saving blood of Jesus Christ. Guess what...that makes them GOOD again. And for me, honoring them, honors He who saved them.

Originally posted by Clint Kritzer:
This thread may continue but I believe the point has been made. I do not hold you to answering the remaining questions on "worship" from me on this topic. If I made you stop and truly examine them, that is all I ask. I think we both know that there are no good answers to them. The concept of the dichotomy of worship IS found in the Scriptures. 2Kings and 2Chronicles are riddled with it. The last good king of Judah, Josiah, tried to stop it. Once he rediscovered the Book of the Law, he destroyed the pagan altars, ridded the country of the pagan priests, he desecrated the pagan "holy" places. He also destroyed the Ashera poles. Ashera was a pagan goddess and the Ashera poles were represenatations of her. As if it wasn't bad enough that they showed up in Jerusalem but they were even in the Temple. The false goddess was placed side by side with God. Do I see a correlation? Yes I do.

I'm sure you mean Mary. But since Mary isn't a goddess, nor has the Church ever proclaimed her as such....

What really bugs me is this:

Most Protestants/Fundamentalists believe that the Catholic Church added the 7 books of the Old Testament that your Bibles don't have. They added them, and these books are not the inspired Word of God. Therefore, the Catholic Church, more or less, "changed" the Word of God. And more than once, I've seen arguments break out about how the Catholic translation has taken things out of the Bible.

If this is the case...why didn't Catholics make it a lot easier on themselves and just throw in a word here or there to make our doctrines we believe in by faith so much easier. Then the Catholic Church could just go, "Hah, those silly Protestants...their Bible is just incomplete, because they took out these words that explicitly show all of our doctrines!"

But the Catholic Church didn't do that. Instead, we're here at BaptistBoard.com defending day and night (literally) these doctrines that we must defend from implicit Scripture sources. If we're wrong, and our Church is a great deceiver...why did it make it so hard for itself?

Originally posted by Clint Kritzer:
As for the resources on this thread, if necessary in the ensuing debates that will spring from this one, I will cite catechisms, but let's face it, the wording of most of these documents is more antiquated than the Catholic Encyclopedia. This brings to mind an even more intriguing thought for me and that is that if the wording of a resource, even on the internet, is outdated and you can't trust it, then the modern Catholic who seeks answers will never really be able to trust his sources.

I read the Catechism regularly, and I honestly have NO problems understanding (95% of the time) what is trying to be said. I'm only 19, and I'm not a brilliant person. I think the truth of the matter is "not" wanting to understand what it says, from within yourself, and making uncomplicated things complicated. Just a thought.

Originally posted by Clint Kritzer:
The "great mystery" that surrounds the Church and its teachings is not a Christian principle. It is upon what cults are built. When Christ died and the curtain in the Temple was torn, those who sought the counsel of God were given direct access. When the Holy Spirit came at Pentecost, He descended on each and every one of those that were there. If you want answers, don't just consult a resource or take some other man's word for it, SEEK! Seek it in the word that God preserved for us and seek it in your own mind.

The Word of God is not limited to pen and paper. Problem solved.

Originally posted by Clint Kritzer:
The Ad Hominems will likely ensue after this post and the strawmen will be laid in the path. Anything to disuade this message will be presented. Some of them will probably come from some of those "knowledgable Catholics" who left you to fend for yourself. That's okay. I'm a Baptist Board administrator. If I can't display grace under fire, I don't deserve the job.

Be fare and don't lay the blame 100% on one side of the fence. Honestly, you know better. We ALL make mistakes, remember?

Originally posted by Clint Kritzer:
So with that said, I thank you for a spirited, lively and intellectually stimulating debate. I only hold you to one last question: which MSU campus?

May God bless you

- Clint

*watches Clint's respect for me go down the drain*

Mississippi State University.

God bless you, and thank you,

Grant

 

[dumbox1]

Originally posted by Clint Kritzer:
As for the resources on this thread, if necessary in the ensuing debates that will spring from this one, I will cite catechisms, but let's face it, the wording of most of these documents is more antiquated than the Catholic Encyclopedia. This brings to mind an even more intriguing thought for me and that is that if the wording of a resource, even on the internet, is outdated and you can't trust it, then the modern Catholic who seeks answers will never really be able to trust his sources.

Hi Clint,

Since I'm in on this thread's discussion of sources (if not the rest of the thread), I thought I might respond to this part of your post.

Frankly, I don't follow your reasoning. You seem to be saying, "Because Kevin Knight, to avoid violating the copyright laws, posted the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia on his website rather than a more current version, then a modern Catholic can never trust any of his sources."

At the risk of sounding ad hominem, this is a non sequitur.

Old sources are, obviously, old. Those reading them have to take that into account -- language is used differently than we use it today, more recent history will not be included, etc.

This should hardly be news to anybody -- and it's certainly not exclusive to Catholics. It's true of the whole world.

In law, for example, if I read a Virginia Supreme Court opinion from a breach of contract case in the early 1900's, I'll encounter terms (like "assumpsit") that are no longer in common usage, even among attorneys. I'll also have to remember changes in the statutory environment since then -- for example, the enactment of the Uniform Commercial Code led to a great change in contract law in many contexts. At the same time, old cases can still have a lot to tell us -- if we read them carefully and with historical awareness.

For that matter, it's relatively uncommon to find anyone today who walks around talking in everyday conversation like the King James Bible. But you can certainly learn a lot from the KJV, especially if you read it with some awareness of the sometimes-unusual vocabulary, etc.

New sources, on the other hand, are new. They will generally be written in current language, except perhaps where they quote from older works. But, depending on the level at which they're written, they may presuppose certain knowledge on the part of the reader. So even new sources -- whether religious, or legal, or whatever in nature -- should also be read carefully and in their context.

I guess the upshot is, if you want to cite the current Catechism of the Catholic Church, feel free, but do so carefully (following what I suggested in the thread yesterday afternoon, up above). If you want to cite "antiquated" catechisms, that's fine, too -- but do so with sensitivity for the additional care that's needed when using old sources.

This would all seem to be fairly commen-sense advice, but perhaps it bears saying anyway. Careless reading, or careless research, tends to lead to wrong conclusions unless you get really lucky.

God bless,

Mark

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Mark H.:

Frankly, I don't follow your reasoning. You seem to be saying, "Because Kevin Knight, to avoid violating the copyright laws, posted the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia on his website rather than a more current version, then a modern Catholic can never trust any of his sources."

At the risk of sounding ad hominem, this is a non sequitur.

Old sources are, obviously, old. Those reading them have to take that into account -- language is used differently than we use it today, more recent history will not be included, etc.

Can you demonstrate by using a more up to date catechism than Kevin Knight that Clint would have come to any different conclusions than he did. If so please feel free to do so.
DHK

 

[BobRyan]

Well needless to say - this thread has taken off considerably faster than I am able to keep up.

However - it does appear that the issue of Mariology - is still a current point of discussion - so I would like to respond to a couple of early posts.

Daniel -
Hi Bob, as a Catholic I have a special place in my heart for Mary. I however do not worship her. Can you show me Catholic dotrine which says we are to worship her? Remember praying is not worshiping it is how we talk to those who are in Heaven since we can not talk face to face. We honor Mary just as Jesus honored her as well. She was good enough for Jesus so she is good enough for me.

As has been noted on the thread "Communion of Saints, Prayers to the Dead" - the practice of simply making statues of the dead and then praying to them - coupled with the use of incense is precisely the "format" used in ancestor worship. Sharing these points in common

1. All agree that the statue simply represents the departed loved one.

2. All agree that in praying to them - there is no need to have an audible or visible manifestation for the session to be considered a success.

3. All agree that the dead can hear and answer prayers - but that does not make them the supreme being of the Universe.

4. All agree that the form of communication "prayer" is to be reserved for the dead - and of course - God.


Posted by Bob:
The question is asked on another thread - how does this differ from ancestor worship and praying to the dead?

Carson Weber
Well, Mary isn't given the adoration due to God alone, so we can't say that idolatry is being comitted, and Mary isn't dead. She's alive with the living God in heaven, interceding for you, her child.

The Catholic traditions regarding the tomb of Mary and even the assumption of Mary - do require that we accept the simple fact that she did die.

However - I am particularly appreciative to Carson in that he quoted each statement that started this thread and showed explicit support for the points made regarding Mary.

Although we may differ on what is truth and what is error - we should at least be able to state the view of the alternative doctrine.

For those Catholics that complain that something is being said to which they object - it is significant to note that the opening statements are in fact well documented Catholic positions.

The thread "Communion of Saints, Prayers to the Dead" - provides a number of arguments that fit in with this thread at this point.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Attempts have been made to show that prayers to the dead - are not Mariology in the case of Mary.

A question for our Catholic bretheren - surely after reading these small samples - you can see how anyone that was not already praying to the dead - or praying specifically to Mary - anyone that was not already Catholic - would have the view that attributing "sinnless, all-powerful" attributes to any sinful human such as Mary - is "worship" and deification.

The following statements "Shed light" on what many see as the all-powerful deification being bestowed upon Mary --


"With equal truth may it be also affirmed that, by the will of God, Mary is the intermediary through whom is distributed unto us this immense treasure of mercies gathered by God, for mercy and truth were created by Jesus Christ, thus as no man goeth to the Father but by the Son, so no man goeth to Christ but by His Mother....How grateful and magnificent a spectacle to see in the cities, and towns, and villages, on land and sea—wherever the Catholic
faith has penetrated—many hundreds of thousands of pious people uniting their praises and prayers with one voice and heart at every moment of the day, saluting Mary, invoking Mary, hoping everything through Mary." - Pope Leo XIII, Octobri Mense


"O Virgin most holy, none abounds in the knowledge of God except through thee; none, O Mother of God, obtains salvation except through thee, none receives a gift from the throne of mercy except through thee." - Pope Leo XIII, Adiutricem Populi


"Mary suffered and, as it were, nearly died with her suffering Son; for the salvation of mankind she renounced her mother's rights and, as far as it depended on her, offered her Son to placate divine justice; so we may well say that she with Christ redeemed mankind." - Pope Benedict XV, Inter Sodalicia


"Mary's suffering [at Calvary], beside the suffering of Jesus, reached an intensity which can hardly be imagined from a human point of view but which was mysteriously and supernaturally fruitful for the Redemption of the world." - Pope John Paul II, Salvifici Doloris, no. 25


"Enraptured by the splendor of your heavenly beauty and impelled by the anxieties of the world, we cast ourselves into your arms, Oh Immaculate Mother of Jesus and our Mother....we adore and praise the peerless richness of the sublime gifts with which God has filled you above every other mere creature, from the moment of conception until the day on which after your assumption into heaven. He crowned you Queen of the Universe. Oh crystal fountain of
faith, bathe our hearts with your heavenly perfume. Oh Conqueress of evil and death, inspire in us a deep horror of sin which makes the soul detestable to God and the slave of hell. Oh well-beloved of God, hear the ardent cries which rise up from every heart in this year dedicated to you. Then tenderly, Oh Mary, cover our aching wound; convert the wicked, dry the tears of the afflicted and the oppressed. Comfort the poor and humble. Quench hatred,
sweeten harshness, safeguard the flower of purity and protect the Holy Church. In your name resounding harmoniously in heaven, may they recognize that all are brothers...Receive, Oh sweet Mother our humble supplications and above all, obtain for us that on that day, happy with you, we may repeat before your throne that hymn which is sung today around your altars. You are beautiful Oh Mary. You are Glory Oh Mary. You are the joy, you are the Honor of
our people." - Pope Pius XII, celebration of the Marian Year in Rome, 1950


"Mary is all powerful with her divine Son who grants all graces to mankind through her" - Pope Benedict XV, Fausto Appetente Die


"All power is given to Thee [Mary] in heaven and on earth that at the command of Mary all obey, even God." - Alphonsus de Liguori, Roman Catholic Cardinal and "saint", from his book The Glories of Mary

In Christ,

Bob

 

[DojoGrant]

Bob,

Let it be stated that the majority of these last quotes do not put Mary in a position above Christ, but rather subordinate, saying that Christ gives her the power to do this or that, or that she delivers graces from Christ.

I will concede that the writings of Alphonsus de Liguori sound extremely blasphemous. I'm going to look more into his book (hopefully my library has a copy) when I get back to school on Monday.

God bless,

Grant

 

[BobRyan]

Grant
Let it be stated that the majority of these last quotes do not put Mary in a position above Christ, but rather subordinate, saying that Christ gives her the power to do this or that, or that she delivers graces from Christ.

I did not mean to say that I felt that the God attributes assigned to Mary by the RCC place her above Christ.

In fact the attributes Christ assigns to the Holy Spirit in John 16 do not place the Holy Spirit above Christ as we see in the following

John 16
12 ""I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now.
13 ""But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come.
14 ""He will glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose it to you.
15 "" All things that the Father has are Mine; therefore I said that He takes of Mine and will disclose it to you.

So assigning a God-ministry and God-qualities that are not in conflict with Christ - and indeed appear subordinate to Christ - does not solve your problem because the real issue is deification such that Mary becomes the "all-powerful" source of salvation and the ONE mediator between God and Man - is the God Man Christ Jesus and the all-powerful mediatrix God Mother - Mary.

When Budhists and Hindus pray to their dead - they do not always give them the "all-powerful" status nor even the god-attribute of the source of salvation and mediation between God and man.

They are content with "lesser gods" than the RCC has made of Mary.

IN Christ,

Bob

 

[CatholicConvert]

Hello Bob and all --

Yes, this has indeed been a very active thread. I haven't had time to do an in depth study of all the posts here (I have had a C*R*A*Z*Y week here) but a few things came to me as I thought upon what I did read.

1. For some reason, Catholic theology is much more liberal in the praises of the Blessed Mother than Orthodox theology. I find myself curious as to why that is. The East has a very nice, but SUBDUED devotion to our Lady compared to the West.

2. The statements by Liguouri are his personal writings and as such, represent just that -- his opinions and feelings. I reject fully and completely any idea that the Blessed Virgin is one who would give orders to God. Ligouri went way over the top with his enthusiam, and unfortunately, given the spirit of the time he wrote in, apparently no one pulled him aside and told him to knock it off!!

3. But the most important thing for me in all this is the following: as a convert to the Faith, I made a conscious decision in which I repudiate my ability to come to any "private interpretation" of the Scriptures and instead have accepted the promise of Christ that He would protect the Church from error. Therefore, I am convinced that when I hear something which I do not understand which is OFFICIAL TEACHING, I am willing to say that I do not know everything and therefore must need further and deeper instruction.

This is not the attitude of Protestantism, nor the attitude I had when I was a Protestant. The overarching thought in Protestantism is that each man has the right to interpret the Scriptures according to his own understanding. With the hundreds of conflicting assemblies out there all teaching different modes of baptism, of receiving salvation, of eschatology, of eclessiology, etc., one can see that this is a dismal failure as an attempt to find truth.

It is therefore an act of FAITH IN CHRIST to submit myself to Him through His Body the Church and believe the He is completely trustworthy to fulfill His promise to protect the Church from error. I rest in His promise, and therefore, when I hear something I cannot "get", I will try to simply submit myself to the teaching and find instruction to help me understand.

Cordially in Christ,

Brother Ed

 

[Clint Kritzer]

originally posted by CatholicConvert: He is completely trustworthy to fulfill His promise to protect the Church from error.

From what source did you hear this?

Never mind, we'll get around to that issue pretty soon.

[ November 02, 2002, 10:19 PM: Message edited by: Clint Kritzer ]

 

[BobRyan]

Ed
3. But the most important thing for me in all this is the following: as a convert to the Faith, I made a conscious decision in which I repudiate my ability to come to any "private interpretation" of the Scriptures

Well - good news.

No scripture claims that Mary is "all Powerful"

No scripture claims that Mary was assumed into heaven after her death.

No scripture says that Mary is co-Mediatrix.

No scripture calls for praying to the dead NOR do we have any examples of it in all of scripture.

The scripture calls the dead "The Dead" in Matt 22 and "The dead in Christ" in 1Thess 4 - so yes - that IS the correct NT term.

No scripture says "NO one comes to Christ except through Mary"

No Scripture says that Mary is in heaven working for the salvation of mankind.

... (etc etc)

Ed

and instead have accepted the promise of Christ that He would protect the Church from error.

Good news and Bad news ed -

No scripture says that errors would NOT come into the church from WITHIN.

We do have scripture (Acts 20 for example) say that "FROM AMONG YOUR OWN SELVES" the grevious wolves would come in drawing desciples after themselves.

We DO have scripture saying that IN the church there was to be a 'Falling away" apostacy of the church was predicted by Paul (2Thess 2:1-5)

We DO have scripture saying that within the church there would be the introduction of doctrines of demons.

And we DO have the example of the ONE true church, the CHOSEN Hebrew NAtion church with the head divinely chosen by God (- Moses the first leader) and his successors (high priests) divinely appointed - and yet that ONE true Church with the LEADer successors AGREED to by both Protestant and Catholic as being such - that one true church fell into error BEFORE the cross as we see in Mark 7:1-11 having their own TRADITION replacing the "commandments of God" - though of course the leaders at that time denied this.

Therefore, I am convinced that when I hear something which I do not understand which is OFFICIAL TEACHING, I am willing to say that I do not know everything and therefore must need further and deeper instruction.

Good news and bad news Ed.

In Acts 17 the saints are "commended" in that they did NOT simply "SWallow" the words of the Apostle Paul but they "STUDIED the scriptures DAILY to see IF those things spoken by Paul were SO". Acts 17:11

That is an avenue of "verification" that the RCC claims is "impossible" since they do not "allow" the saints to "check them out to see IF what they say is SO".

IF they did "allow" such a thing - they could hardly persecute the early Catholic reformers and thereby turn them into "protestants".

In Christ,

Bob.

[ November 02, 2002, 10:52 PM: Message edited by: BobRyan ]

 

[Carson Weber]

Hi Ed,

I ran into Dr. Hahn tonight and he told me that he remembered that it was you who had asked him to say hello to me. He remembered your long beard.

Blessings,

Carson
"Mary's son"