MARIOLATRY

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Priscilla' date='Apr 14 2005, 05:42 PM'] You could be right - yet we're told by our Lord that our righteousness must exceed that of the Scribes and Pharisees if we want to get into the Kingdom, and there's no way they would have paid homage to a picture or graven image. [/quote]
The pharisees also wouldn't worship Jesus. Perhaps their [i]not[/i] doing something they should is what's unholy...

[thessalonian]

[quote name='Priscilla' date='Apr 14 2005, 04:29 PM'] True - but bowing to dead people to me is just pure unctiousness. [/quote]
Let me let you in on a little secret. They're not dead. God is not the God of the dead but of the living.

[jezic]

[quote] Let me let you in on a little secret. They're not dead. God is not the God of the dead but of the living.[/quote]

[Donna]

[quote]QUOTE 

Could the Son of God really be associated in any way - the Sinless One come to take away ALL sins of the world- with sin in His very flesh, in taking on the sinful flesh of His mother? 



This is a very important point: I believe that Christ did take on human nature from His mother - yet He was without sin. He could not have overcome sin and death without doing it in the weakness of human flesh.

To say that Christ did not have sinful nature is to say that He was somehow different from us - He shared our nature: otherwise there would be no hope for the world if He was of some different nature?[/quote]

You misunderstand me here. What I'm saying is that it would be impossible for the Sinless One to take corrupted -fallen- flesh. It would be like purporting that God could lie - or flatter (to do something wrong in order to attain a better end).

He could in no way be in His person, or in His natures, intimately associated with sin. His Precious blood -the instrument by which the sins of the whole world are kaput- could never have touched sin. Her flesh was immaculate.

[quote]We don't need any 'Mediatrix of all graces'. The salutation from the Angel Gabriel in fact shows that favour/grace was BESTOWED upon her. It was not something she held inherently.[/quote]


Never in Catholic doctrine ever will it be said that Mary was "inherently" graced, as if she didn't need grace. Of [i]course[/i] God bestowed it upon her! That's why we love and venerate her so; because He who is holy [i]has done great things to her, [/i]and holy is His name. But [b]He[/b] done 'em, not a Pope, nor any human person.

Genesis: God said to the serpent: Because you have done this, I will put emnities between thee and the woman...she shall crush your head. What is "emnity" if not "opposite"? It is that passage which explains Mary being immaculate. Maybe your argument is really with God. "[i]I [/i]will put emnities", the Scriptures say.

[quote]I don't like the word Trinity. though I believe that the Lord Jesus is God and the Holy Spirit is God - but not three Gods: but One. The word "trinity" It is unbiblical and reduces God. There are the seven Spirits of God, and the "Elohim" ("mighty ones"). The doctrine of the trinity is a reactionary doctrine against blasphemers who were unitarian or believed Jesus to be a good man or something like that.[/quote]

Catholics believe there is one God in three persons. That the Trinity explains this, is pregnant in the bible. There are not seven Spirits of God, if you mean 7 spirits comprising God. Catholicism would say there are seven spirits who stand at the throne of God (scholars, am I remembering rightly that Archangel Raphael identified himself as one of the 7 in the book of Tobit?).

Ppl don't have a problem with many (lowercase) "trinities"...where does "3D" come from but nature: we live in a tri-dimensional world. Electricity: heat, motion, light. That doesn't mean there are three electricites, but one. There's three's everywhere, it's God's little letters to us in nature, pointing back to the Author.

[color=red]***OK, the rest of this post is inverted: that is, the quoted parts are me answering Priscilla. I give up; me and the quote thang is a bummer***[/color]

[/quote]I am a montheist so I do not believe in a separate deity of supernatural evil (ie: the devil as a supernatural evil being). [quote]

Neither do Catholics believe in a separate [i]deity[/i] of any sort. Satan is not the opposite of God, but an angelic person, a creature of His. How you cannot believe the devil "prowleth about like a lion, seeking whom to devour (Peter), and say you read the Bible is a mysetery to me.

[/quote]How do I know they're not fake?[quote]

How did Peter and the rest know that the water had been turned to wine? It ain't rocket science. This is very sad. Mark this, everyone, for this is what post modern thought does to us all, and it's in the very air that we breathe. It was perfectly reasonable for Peter to make the connection that the water had changed to wine - that a miracle had occured. But the deterioration of common sense and good will -or scrupulosity, OR the influence of the evil one, or A through D, can get us to a state where we wouldn't recongnize a miracle if it bit us in the face.

Suppose those at Cana said, "How can I know that water is water? How do I know that wine is wine? I can't know..." God made human reason, and He expects us to use it. It too, is one of his gifts. Faith and reason cannot be incompatible.

[/quote]That's what all churches say. How do I know what is truth? One church says "this is turth" another says "No, this is truth" yet another says "No, this is truth".

I no longer know what is truth - except the Lord Jesus: He is the Way, the Truth and the Life. I have to cling to that, or there's nothing.[quote]

Most churches I know of these days, say go where you're comfy.

What non-Catholics don't seem to understand is that to live Catholic is to be permeated with Jesus, who is the way, the truth and the life. But when the Good Samaritan cared for the poor wretch who fell among robbers, he didn't hand him a book (as sacred as the Scriptures are) and say, "be fed, be cared for". The Good Samaritan brought him to the inn (the Church) and got him a doctor (Pontiff) and paid the price of his care!

But I was quoting from 2 Thess. ..."because they receive not the love of the truth that they might be saved, therefore God shall send them the operation of error, to believe a lie..." Again, God will do this, if we don't pray/try/to recive the love of the truth. We needn't be concerned about the "how" of finding the truth. God will show us, once we are willing to love the truth.

This is not as easy as it sounds.

[quote]She would want all the glory to go to her Son: when men honour the Son, then the Father is honoured.[/quote]

And [i]"Where she is queen He is King".[/i]

Where did the Magi find the Lord? With His mother.

Maybe it's not OK then, to need one's husband? He's only a creature. Maybe not OK to love the sunset, the trees, to need beauty, because the sun and moon and nature is the creature, and loving them takes glory away from God.

Of course she wants all the glory to go to her Son, because she's the most humble human person ever. She only bears Jesus, that's all she does, and that's why she's the Mediatrix of all graces: Because Jesus - aka "All Graces" - came through her.

Edited April 15, 2005 by Donna

[Donna]

[quote]This is a very important point: I believe that Christ did take on human nature from His mother - yet He was without sin. He could not have overcome sin and death without doing it in the weakness of human flesh.

To say that Christ did not have sinful nature is to say that He was somehow different from us - He shared our nature: otherwise there would be no hope for the world if He was of some different nature?[/quote]

OK, there's the great divide, it's why I think you're Jewish, too.

You don't believe Jesus is God.

You won't understannd what we're talking about until you do.

[Priscilla]

[quote name='Donna' date='Apr 15 2005, 03:24 AM']
OK, there's the great divide, it's why I think you're Jewish, too.

You don't believe Jesus is God.

You won't understannd what we're talking about until you do. [/quote]
No I am not Jewish. I am a Gentile: my father is a lapsed Catholic (and has always been a lapsed Catholic) and my mother isn't any denomination.

My ancestors are from Yorkshire, Wales and Ireland. To my knowledge I have no Jewish blood in me - but who knows? YOU might have Jewish blood in your ancestry - no-one really knows unless you do your family tree, and I'm not really into genealogies.

I do believe the the Lord Jesus is God: but He also shared our human nature.

And yes it is the big divide, because if you do not believe that Christ shared our human nautre then He didn't overcome: He cannot be our great High Priest who intercedes for us because He was "tempted in all points as we are".

By sharing our human nature He also destroyed the works of the devil: which is the flesh.

I haven't time just yet to read and address your previous long post: thank you for doing it: I will read it, but time is against me just now! More later. Thanks!

[Priscilla]

I've read you long post now Donna - thanks. I really admire your zeal and they way you've answered my questions. We'll have to agree to disagree on some points: but you've helped me to see Mary in a different light - a more positive one. But I still believe she's awaiting the resurrection, just like every other believer.

It's difficult to come back as your bits which are quotes won't show up. Yes - quoting tags can be a tricky business!!

JUst one point about the miracles: it was obvious that the water changed into wine BECAUSE THEY TASTED IT. The master of the wedding said "You have saved the best wine till last".

There was no doubt.

But as for Catholic miracles: I just wonder sometimes. Could someone be playing a trick? Anyone could make statues cry and hands bleed if they've got a bit of ingenuity!

[Brother Adam]

"But as for Catholic miracles: I just wonder sometimes. Could someone be playing a trick? Anyone could make statues cry and hands bleed if they've got a bit of ingenuity!"

Sure. I'm very skeptical about any miracles. I think it is healthy to be skeptical. But I'll admit I've seen things that are quite inexplainable too. No one is required to believe in private revelation or any alleged miracles.

[Priscilla]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='Apr 17 2005, 01:28 PM'] "But as for Catholic miracles: I just wonder sometimes. Could someone be playing a trick? Anyone could make statues cry and hands bleed if they've got a bit of ingenuity!"

Sure. I'm very skeptical about any miracles. I think it is healthy to be skeptical. But I'll admit I've seen things that are quite inexplainable too. No one is required to believe in private revelation or any alleged miracles. [/quote]
Oh - I didn't know that. So there's more freedom in the Catholic church about these things than I thought then? That's good. I'm pleased to hear that.

With your Creationist views and your skepticism about the miracles I'm quite impressed.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Priscilla' date='Apr 17 2005, 02:05 PM'] But as for Catholic miracles: I just wonder sometimes. Could someone be playing a trick? Anyone could make statues cry and hands bleed if they've got a bit of ingenuity! [/quote]
There are undoubtedly some tricks and frauds, but there are also things which no one could pull as a hoax. The blood of St. Januarius, for instance, which liquifies (its normally dried blood) several times a year...almost like clockwork...the only 8 or so times it hasn't, some terrible disaster hit Italy shortly thereafter.

There are also whole books on Eucharistic miracles...scientifically verified pieces of living flesh...

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Priscilla' date='Apr 17 2005, 02:39 PM'] Oh - I didn't know that. So there's more freedom in the Catholic church about these things than I thought then? That's good. I'm pleased to hear that. [/quote]
Yes, we are not required to believe any extra-Biblical miracles or matters of private revelation. The Church pretty much says, "this is reliable" or "this won't cause scandal to believe" or "this will cause scandal and the faithful should steer clear," but never says, "you must believe this miracle or revelation."

This does not take away from our obligation to follow the Magisterial teachings, which are a separate matter.

[Priscilla]

[quote name='Raphael' date='Apr 17 2005, 01:41 PM'] Yes, we are not required to believe any extra-Biblical miracles or matters of private revelation. The Church pretty much says, "this is reliable" or "this won't cause scandal to believe" or "this will cause scandal and the faithful should steer clear," but never says, "you must believe this miracle or revelation."

This does not take away from our obligation to follow the Magisterial teachings, which are a separate matter. [/quote]
I've never heard of "Magisterial teachings". What are they?

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Priscilla' date='Apr 18 2005, 09:20 AM'] I've never heard of "Magisterial teachings". What are they? [/quote]
Church doctrine

[musturde]

[quote name='Priscilla' date='Apr 17 2005, 01:39 PM']

With your Creationist views and your skepticism about the miracles I'm quite impressed. [/quote]
Actually, we're one of the few Churches that doesn't believe its neccisary to take the Genesis account literally.

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='Raphael' date='Apr 18 2005, 09:26 AM'] Church doctrine [/quote]
Magisterium is a fancy name for those that lead the Church as a collective whole.

[Priscilla]

[quote name='musturde' date='Apr 18 2005, 04:44 PM'] Actually, we're one of the few Churches that doesn't believe its neccisary to take the Genesis account literally. [/quote]
It was a personal post about Brother Adam. Not about the Catholic Church in general.

Out of all those who post on this forum, Brother Adam is the one I identify the most with.

Was he a prot once or something? If so, perhaps its that which I sense a kindred spirit in.

[Priscilla]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='Apr 18 2005, 05:00 PM'] Magisterium is a fancy name for those that lead the Church as a collective whole. [/quote]
Oh - so it's not Church doctrine then? I'm confused now.

Is the veneration of Mary and the saints "Magisterium" teaching - or not?

[Brother Adam]

Magisterium is defined as the living teaching office of teh Church, whose task it is to give as authentic interpretation of the word of God, whether in its written form (Sacred Scripture) or in the form of Tradition. the Magisterium ensures the Churche's fidelity to the teaching of the Apostles in matters of faith and morals. - Catechism of the Catholic Church.

The Communion of the Saints is doctrine, a doctrine which is proclaimed by the Magisterium, so it is binding for all Catholics to believe it.

Private devotions to Mary or to any of the saints is not required for a Catholic to take part of, just as no Catholic must believe in any private revelation. Only those doctrines and dogmas which have been declared and set forth by the Church must be believed.

Do you have a Catechism of the Catholic Church? I'd be happy to send you one free of charge along with a resource cd with a whole ton of resources. I was raised Lutheran and spent many years as a fundamental Baptist to answer your question. I'm here to answer any questions you have if you ever want to email me any of them as I am not always on the debate table.

At times I do not agree with even my Catholic brothers and sisters as even now I am on a constant search for truth. It is good to know though that I am a full member of the bride of Christ, and fully consent to the teachings of the Church.

[Donna]

Hi, Priscilla.

Hard to keep up w/ you, and more difficult to keep up w/ myself, hence such a long time between my posts!

My apologies, if I assumed something, and am wrong. When I said I think you're Jewish, I did not mean ethnically, but as far as beliefs (more or less). Way back in this thread I somehow got the impression you thought The Father was greatest, and therefore, Jesus inferior to Him. And the way you worded the post about Jesus taking on human nature (Page 7), also made me think the same. I am still curious about this, and am wondering, do you consider the New Testament to be as valid/inerrant (no error) as the Old?

Anyway: no one can truly be Catholic if they don't believe Jesus had (and has!) a human nature...[i]like us in all things but sin.[/i] If you keep being around Catholic literature, you'll see that the Incarnation is a HUGE deal for Catholics. In fact, John 1, like the first 17 or so verses, which culminates in the Incarnation - [b]"And THE WORD WAS MADE FLESH, and dwelt among us...", [/b]is actually an exorcism-ish prayer, and is called [i]The Last Gospel[/i] At the precise part "The Word was made flesh", all genuflect...it is this "last gospel" which is recited after every low mass (in the Latin Rite).

As a side note, I think it is this fact which makes for some of the varied devotion to Our Lord. People can glom onto whatever point in time they wish w/ Jesus, like they can feel closest to Him as a tiny baby...or a toddler, pre-schooler, young child....maybe some folks feel the greatest affinity to the teen-age Jesus, the young man, or the flower of manhood Lord.

As far as miracles, you maybe miss the point. Those at Cana could well have said, if they were modern thinkers, that their sense of taste could not be trusted, nor their reason: HOW can they KNOW the water was water, the wine was wine? [i]That's[/i] the tack they could've taken. It's a way to not aknowledge the truth of the miracle.

There are certainly false apparitions, like Medjgorie, etc; It's good to be prudent, even skeptical. Our Lord knows you don't want to be duped - NOR an adulterous harlot. The point is, there's a difference between prudence, and not being willing to consider, or believe no matter what the evidence. I suspect you haven't yet seen much of this kind of evidence (nor had time to look for it, busy poster that you are!) But it will be important, at some point. Miracles are a proof of the veracity of what the Catholic Church claims.

I'm sure Our Lord loves a good skeptic; ask away every question, [i]if [/i]we really want to consider or hear the answers.

Thanks for reading my post about Our Lady.

[scardella]

Sorry, but last I checked, Medjugorje was not condemned, just not approved at this point in time. It's my understanding that there's one person who's still getting messages from Our Lady and it cannot be approved until that stops.

I agree with your point though.