St.Mary Doctrine

wolfsbane

santing said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Can any Catholic here confirm this is official Catholic teaching? I'm very busy at the moment, otherwise I would check it out myself.

And if you would like to offer your own opinion on the 15 promises, that would help us all.
Cf. http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/jo...mariae_en.html (emphasis mine)
Quote:
At the start of the twenty-fifth year of my Pontificate, I entrust this Apostolic Letter to the loving hands of the Virgin Mary, prostrating myself in spirit before her image in the splendid Shrine built for her by Blessed Bartolo Longo, the apostle of the Rosary. I willingly make my own the touching words with which he concluded his well-known Supplication to the Queen of the Holy Rosary: “O Blessed Rosary of Mary, sweet chain which unites us to God, bond of love which unites us to the angels, tower of salvation against the assaults of Hell, safe port in our universal shipwreck, we will never abandon you. You will be our comfort in the hour of death: yours our final kiss as life ebbs away. And the last word from our lips will be your sweet name, O Queen of the Rosary of Pompei, O dearest Mother, O Refuge of Sinners, O Sovereign Consoler of the Afflicted. May you be everywhere blessed, today and always, on earth and in heaven”.
From the Vatican, on the 16th day of October in the year 2002, the beginning of the twenty- fifth year of my Pontificate.
JOHN PAUL II

Do we need more proof of the depth of this idolatry?

Unquestionable. Tragic reading.

I hope every Christian here notes what real Catholicism teaches - it is not the fuzzy stuff that often looks like evangelical teaching. No doubt many Catholics hold evangelical truth and reject the gross superstitions of their Church, but they too need to note the distinction.

If they call themselves our brothers, let them openly cleave to the truth and repudiate all idolatry. I have been told of Catholics in Dublin who reject the doctrine of the Mass and hold to evangelical beliefs. I'm sure they are not the only true Christians in the RCC.

antiskeptic

Wolfbanes post wrote:

(The fact that the Roman Catholic Church has to attempt to build such a complex theology on the form of a participle in a greeting should say a great deal in and of itself.)

What understatement. The notion that you can rest such a doctrine on so paltry a foundation beggers belief.

santing

antiskeptic wrote: »

Originally Posted by Wolfbanes post
(The fact that the Roman Catholic Church has to attempt to build such a complex theology on the form of a participle in a greeting should say a great deal in and of itself.)

What understatement. The notion that you can rest such a doctrine on so paltry a foundation beggers belief.

Well, I think to their credit a word that was only used once in the Bible suddenly gets a lot of reference. The poor word might otherwise have been forgotten.

antiskeptic

It reminds me of the manner in which the doctrine of (Calvinistic) presdestination is constructed. The word is barely mentioned in the Bible, yet this massive doctrine rests on it

You're not a Calvinist I hope?

santing

antiskeptic wrote: »

It reminds me of the manner in which the doctrine of (Calvinistic) presdestination is constructed. The word is barely mentioned in the Bible, yet this massive doctrine rests on it

You're not a Calvinist I hope?

Barely in this case is at least 10 times:

• Acts 2:23, 4:28
• Rom 8:29,30, 11:2
• 1 Co 2:7
• Eph 1:5, 11
• 1Pe 1:2, 20

No, I am not a follower of calin, I am a follower of Christ

antiskeptic

santing wrote: »

Barely in this case is at least 10 times:

• Acts 2:23, 4:28
• Rom 8:29,30, 11:2
• 1 Co 2:7
• Eph 1:5, 11
• 1Pe 1:2, 20

No, I am not a follower of calin, I am a follower of Christ

Acts 2:23This man was handed over to you by God's set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross

I'm not sure the Calvinist would use the sense of predestination here (the word predestination doesn't actually appear here either, and is barely mentioned in the Bible) in support of their doctrine of Predestination (which concludes God predestining some to be saved and some to be not).

Stephentlig

wolfsbane wrote: »

Stephentlig said:

So she did not redeem us at all? Co-Redemptrix has nothing to do with redemption, just being an agent that allowed redemption to occur? Are you sure that is official Catholic teaching?


Let's hear what the Catholic scholar Raymond Edward Brown says. See pages 127-128:
Mary in the New Testament
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ML1mnUBwmhcC&pg=PA130&lpg=PA130&dq=kecharitomene+in+secular+greek&source=bl&ots=S9ABj7Lq0G&sig=ywLYZ3_UmPQiaYatAkLzWXgcvCg&hl=en&ei=nlFPS7mWMJ_-0gTGufinCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CBAQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=kecharitomene%20in%20secular%20greek&f=true

And this is helpful:
Luke 1:28 and kecaritwme,nh
Karl Keating alleged:
The newer translations leave out something the Greek conveys, something the older translation conveys, which is that this grace (and the core of the word kecharitomene is charis, after all) is at once permanent and of a singular kind. The Greek indicates a perfection of grace. A perfection must be perfect not only intensively, but extensively. The grace Mary enjoyed must not only have been as "full" or strong or complete as possible at any given time, but it must have extended over the whole of her life, from conception. That is, she must have been in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of her existence to have been called "full of grace" or to have been filled with divine favor in a singular way. This is just what the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception holds. . . . (Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1988), p. 269.)

The above quotation goes far beyond anything a serious exegete of the passage in Greek could possibly say. This can be seen by examining the term in question, the perfect passive participle "kecharitomene."
First, let's look at the lexical meaning of the root of the term, that being the Greek word "caritoo"(carito,w) Bauer's A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (edited by Gingrich and Danker) defines the usage of "caritoo" at Luke 1:28, "favored one (in the sight of God)." No lexical source that we have found gives as a meaning of "caritoo" "sinlessness." The term refers to favor, in the case of Luke 1:28, divine favor, that is, God's grace. The only other occurrence of "caritoo" is at Ephesians 1:6, "…to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved." If the bare term "caritoo" means "sinlessness," then it follows that the elect of God, throughout their lives, have been sinless as well.
However, if we look at Mr. Keating's presentation, it seems clear that he is basing his interpretation not primarily upon the lexical meaning of the word "caritoo", but upon the form it takes in Luke 1:28, that being the perfect passive participle, "kecharitomene". Note that Keating alleges that the "Greek indicates a perfection of grace." He seems to be playing on the perfect tense of the participle. But, as anyone trained in Greek is aware, there is no way to jump from the perfect tense of a participle to the idea that the Greek "indicates a perfection of grace." First, participles derive their time element from the main verb of the sentence. In this case, however, we have a vocative participle, and no main verb in what is in actuality simply a greeting. (The fact that the Roman Catholic Church has to attempt to build such a complex theology on the form of a participle in a greeting should say a great deal in and of itself.) The main emphasis of a participle is found in its aspect, a present participle providing the idea of continuing action, the aorist undefined action, and the perfect completed action with abiding results to the present. What are we to do with the perfect tense of the participle, then? We might take it as an intensive perfect, one that emphatically states that something is, but most likely it is simply emphasizing the certainty of the favor given, just as the perfect passive participle in Matthew 25:34 ("Come, you who are blessed by my Father . . ."), 1 Thessalonians 1:4 ("knowing, brethren beloved by God . . ."), and 2 Thessalonians 2:13 ("But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord . . .") emphasizes the completedness of the action as well. No one would argue that in Matthew 25:34, Jesus means to tell us that the righteous have a "perfection of blessedness that indicates that they had this perfection throughout their life, for a perfection must be perfect not only intensively, but extensively" (to borrow from Mr. Keating's presentation). The application of Keating's thoughts to any of the above passages results in foolishness. Hence, it is obvious that when Keating says that the Greek indicates that Mary "must have been in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of her existence to have been called `full of grace' or to have been filled with divine favor in a singular way," he is, in point of fact, not deriving this from the Greek at all, but from his own theology, which he then reads back into the text. There is simply nothing in the Greek to support the pretentious interpretation put forward by Keating and Madrid. Therefore, Madrid's statement, "This is a recognition of her sinless state," falls for lack of support. The angel addressed Mary as "highly favored," for, as he himself said, "Do not be afraid, Mary; for you have found favor with God" (Luke 1:30).
From:
http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=1455


Let me point out that your ancient 'experts' are not arguing the meaning of the word, just giving their theology. Do you have any quotes of them discussing the word and its meaning?

But as to no support from the Early Fathers for my position, this from a Catholic site:
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/a115.htm

The Anglican historian JND Kelly (in Early Christian Doctrines) does refer to Origen, then Basil and John Chrysostom as doubting the sinlessness of Mary, but also notes that St. Ephraem in Syria did believe her "free from every stain, like her Son." Let's examine the fuller evidence from the Fathers and Doctors. First, the Catholic Encyclopedia states:

"But these Greek writers [who doubted Mary's sinlessness] cannot be said to express an Apostolic tradition, when they express their private and singular opinions. Scripture and tradition agree in ascribing to Mary the greatest personal sanctity; She is conceived without the stain of original sin; she shows the greatest humility and patience in her daily life (Luke 1:38,48); she exhibits an heroic patience under the most trying circumstances (Luke 2:7,35,48; John 19:25-27). When there is question of sin, Mary must always be excepted." (Catholic Encyclopedia [1913], on "Blessed Virgin Mary")
So it is acknowledged that some Fathers doubted Mary's sinlessness - but they are dismissed as private opinions.

However, regardless of who among them held to Mary's sinlessness, it should be remembered that even majority opinion is not proof of it being Biblical doctrine. The RCC makes the assertion that it is the deposit of apostolic truth, but that is to beg the question.

Protestantism points out that doctrines like Mary's Immaculate Conception, Assumption, etc. are rather proof that the RCC long ago departed from the faith handed down by the apostles. Error was creeping into the Church even in the time of the apostles, and they had to constantly root it out. Paul reminded the Ephesian elders:
Acts 20:29 For I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock. 30 Also from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after themselves.

And Timothy:
1 Timothy 4:1 Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, 2 speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, 3 forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.

2 Timothy 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; 4 and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables.

Paul also reminded the Thessalonians that the mystery of lawlessness was already at work:
2 Thessalonians 2:1 Now, brethren, concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, we ask you, 2 not to be soon shaken in mind or troubled, either by spirit or by word or by letter, as if from us, as though the day of Christ had come. 3 Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, 4 who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.
5 Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things? 6 And now you know what is restraining, that he may be revealed in his own time. 7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only He who now restrains will do so until He is taken out of the way. 8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will consume with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming. 9 The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, 10 and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11 And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, 12 that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

It is no surprise then that grave distortions and plain fiction has been peddled even from the early days. But we have the Scriptures for our doctrine and the Holy Spirit to keep us from fatal error - so we all are without excuse if we give heed to such tales.

hi wolfsbane, I havnt been on in a few days, having problems with the water being off amongst other things. I will get back to your post within the next few days, but for now I just wanna say that althpugh Origen doubted Marys sinlessness it was dismissed as private opinion because his opinion didnt follow the tradition he was given.

"This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God, is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one." Origen, Homily 1(A.D. 244).

The problem is Wolfsbane is that not one church father deviated from the Catholic interpretation of the Greek word in luke:1:28. just give me those qoutes from church fathers who have.

Your problem is that you cannot find one early Christian prior to the reformation that agrees with you on your interpretation or that has ever deviated from tradition, this means that your protestant theology was invented and thus dismissed by the Catholic Church as Heresy.

I've demonstrated how the two words differ, and any modern or recent Catholic scholar who trys to deviate from Tradition and claim Mary as being sinful is not Catholic and his opinions are dismissed as private ones.

I hope to come back again soon and give a little more discussion but my hands are tied at the moment and time is just not on my side.

God bless and take care.

Stephen

wolfsbane

antiskeptic said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by santing
Barely in this case is at least 10 times:
Acts 2:23, 4:28
Rom 8:29,30, 11:2
1 Co 2:7
Eph 1:5, 11
1Pe 1:2, 20
No, I am not a follower of calin, I am a follower of Christ

Quote:
Acts 2:23This man was handed over to you by God's set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross
I'm not sure the Calvinist would use the sense of predestination here (the word predestination doesn't actually appear here either, and is barely mentioned in the Bible) in support of their doctrine of Predestination (which concludes God predestining some to be saved and some to be not).

Yes, we would see this as the same predestination as that which chooses the elect. This is telling us that God determines the end - the salvation of His elect - and the means, the atoning death of His Son.

The doctrine of predestination is not built only on the word itself, but on all the words that support it - election, chose, etc. God's choice of His sheep for salvation is declared throughout Scripture again and again.

If the doctrine depended on a peculiar interpretation of one word, I would be the first to abandon it.

Piano man

Hi again!

I just thought I would remind everyone that Catholics don't believe in Sola Scriptura but rely also on the teachings of the Early Church Fathers according to apostolic succession, so it is incorrect to say that any doctrine is founded on an interpretation of a particular word.
Also, this doctrine is not something that came up more recently in the history of Catholicism - it has always been held by the faithful.
Pope Pius IX saw fit to enshrine it as dogma in 1854, however this was to protect the truth from people who challenged it.

Stephen, you're doing a great job, I've learnt a lot reading here - I'm no Greek scholar so can't help you:D
Wolfsbane, I read your post and I found it interesting, especially the response to the Greek word 'kecharitomene'.
I find it even more interesting that the author of that book, which I haven't read, is Fr Raymond Edward Brown. (I have read the pages you referenced however.)
Does it not speak volumes that Fr Brown, who has been described as 'the premier Johannine scholar in the English-speaking world' and has been complimented by the Pope himself, was a Catholic priest and remained faithful to the Catholic church all his life?
That means he believed in the Immaculate Conception, despite the thorough probing into historical linguistics that he performed more so than anyone else.

Also thank you for that reference. I think I will do a bit of reading on Fr Brown - he seems reliable.

God bless:)

PDN

Piano man wrote: »

Does it not speak volumes that Fr Brown, who has been described as 'the premier Johannine scholar in the English-speaking world' and has been complimented by the Pope himself, was a Catholic priest and remained faithful to the Catholic church all his life?
That means he believed in the Immaculate Conception, despite the thorough probing into historical linguistics that he performed more so than anyone else.

Dr Brown believed that the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was not actually found in Scripture, but rather was developed later. Thus his belief in the doctrine is a bit irrelevant to his undoubted expertise in biblical studies.

But, as you say, in the end it comes to where we see authority as resting. If we take Scripture as our guide, then we have no reason to accept the idea of the Immaculate Conception. If we take the Church as our guide, then we have to accept whatever the Church teaches.

antiskeptic

Piano man wrote: »

I just thought I would remind everyone that Catholics don't believe in Sola Scriptura but rely also on the teachings of the Early Church Fathers according to apostolic succession, so it is incorrect to say that any doctrine is founded on an interpretation of a particular word.

There are few here that would be troubled by the notion of Immaculate Conception being founded on the notions held by the RC church regarding it's supposed apostolic succession. That Immaculate Conception be founded on an equally problematic doctrine (Apostolic Succession has as much trouble establishing itself scripturally as does Immaculate Conception) only causes the discussion to retreat to Apostolic Succession.

Your comment "also relies" is a disingenuous in this case. So far we have no scriptural basis presented for Immaculate Conception. All hinges on a word. A word! Wolfsbane (and plain common sense) have demolished the notion that a doctrine can be pulled from this particular hat.

That the earliest Church (ie: those who report in Scripture) fail to make any mention of the doctrine whatsoever (whilst going to great and repeated lengths to explain others) is more than telling.

Stephen, you're doing a great job, I've learnt a lot reading here - I'm no Greek scholar so can't help you:D

With respect, Stephen hasn't made any case that hasn't been thouroughly (and easily) diluted. If relying on a single word, in a single instance - shored up with "logic and rational" about what this must lead us to conclude (ie: Immaculate Conception) then that weak position will never be strengthened. Reading your doctrine into the Bible is never acceptable.

homer911

This is an oil and water discussion guys!

Down through the ages this issue has been debated many times I'm sure.

I doubt if this thread will achieve anything other than both sides claiming victory

I'm going to keep out of it and suggest that it would be better to agree to disagree.

wolfsbane

homer911 wrote: »

This is an oil and water discussion guys!

Down through the ages this issue has been debated many times I'm sure.

I doubt if this thread will achieve anything other than both sides claiming victory

I'm going to keep out of it and suggest that it would be better to agree to disagree.

I don't want to flog a dead horse either. I'm happy if everyone is aware of the arguments used to defend the RCC doctrine on Mary and the arguments used to refute it.

If anyone wants to continue the debate, I'm happy to do so, but if all think we have learned enough to think it through ourselves, I'm equally happy.

santing

There is a bit more to be said about the perception of the early Church. The early Christians started (wrongly - but that is not the subject here) to pray for the dead and we have many examples such as the following one from Chrystostom:

We offer to thee this reasonable service for those that are absent in the faith — our forefathers, fathers, patriarchs, prophets and apostles, preachers, evangelists, martyrs, confessors, religious persons, and every spirit perfected in the faith, but especially for all-holy, spotless, over-and-above-blessed, God-bearing, and ever-Virgin Mary.

It should be noted that this prayer for the dead included Mary. If they believed in the immaculate conception or in the assumption of Mary this prayer would not have included her! The source I read on this indicates that several of these prayers changed from prayers for to prayers to as it was deemed unappropriate to say prayers for a Saint.

Untill the time the Pope create the dogma, the Dominicans - one of the oldest and biggest RC groups - resisted the concept of immaculate conception, so it is illogic to state that the Church always believed this...

On the idea of worshipping Mary, I read the following prayer St. Alphonsus Liguori's Prayer for a Visit to the Blessed Virgin in a book published by the RC Church in New York (1859), with a "Nili Obstat" etc. in place:

Most holy immaculate Virgin and my Mother
Mary, to thee who art the Mother of my Lord,
the Queen of the world, the advocate, the hope,
the refuge of sinners, I have recourse today, — I,
who am the most miserable of all. I worship
thee, great Queen, and I thank thee for all the
graces which thou hast hitherto granted ine; and
especially I thank thee for having 'delivered me
from hell, which I have so often deserved. I love
thee, most amiable Lady ; and for the love which
I bear thee, I promise always to serve thee, and to
do all that I can that thou mayest also be loved
by others, I place all my hopes in thee, and I
confide my salvation to thy care ; accept me for
thy servant, and receive me under thy mantle, O
Mother of Mercy. And since thou art so power-
ful with God, do thou deliver me from all tempta-
tions, or rather obtain me strength to triumph
over them until death. Of thee I ask the true love
of Jesus Christ ; through thee I hope to die a good'
death. My Mother, by the love which thou bear-
est to God, I beseech thee to lielp me always but
especially at the last moment of my life ; leave
me not until thou seest me safe in heaven, bless-
ing thee and singing thy mercies to all eternity.

As it seems to be inappriate to say teh word "blasphemy", I would argue that this has nothing to do with Christianity, these are left overs from paganism.

Piano man

Dear Santing,

Your quotation from St John Chrysostom does not contradict either the Immaculate Conception or the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Firstly, the prayer describes Mary as 'all-holy, spotless, over-and-above-blessed,'. What is this if not an endorsement of her Immaculate Conception?

Secondly, on the Assumption. Here is a quotation from the following source http://www.catholic.com/library/Immaculate_Conception_and_Assum.asp

The doctrine of the Assumption says that at the end of her life on earth Mary was assumed, body and soul, into heaven, just as Enoch, Elijah, and perhaps others had been before her. It’s also necessary to keep in mind what the Assumption is not. Some people think Catholics believe Mary "ascended" into heaven. That’s not correct. Christ, by his own power, ascended into heaven. Mary was assumed or taken up into heaven by God. She didn’t do it under her own power.

The Church has never formally defined whether she died or not, and the integrity of the doctrine of the Assumption would not be impaired if she did not in fact die, but the almost universal consensus is that she did die. Pope Pius XII, in Munificentissimus Deus (1950), defined that Mary, "after the completion of her earthly life" (note the silence regarding her death), "was assumed body and soul into the glory of heaven."

Thirdly, you are correct in saying that many Dominicans did not accept the teaching of the Immaculate Conception until it was declared to be a doctrine in the Council of Basle in 1441.
This was due to the Dominicans being bound to the doctrines of St Thomas Aquinas, and the common conclusion was that St Thomas opposed the Immaculate Conception. This however is a source of much controversy; as you can read here http://www.the-pope.com/stThomas.html

But while St. Thomas thus held back from the essential point of the doctrine, he himself laid down the principles which, after they had been drawn together and worked out, enabled other minds to furnish the true solution of this difficulty from his own premises."

As an addendum to this point, it might be noted that neither St Thomas Aquinas nor the Dominican assertions had the privilege of infallibility, however the doctrine and the dogma do.

On your final point, the prayer to St Alphonsus Liguori, I will hold back from explaining it and let you read St Alphonsus' own explanation here
http://www.catholictradition.org/Mary/glories.htm
It is lengthy, but until you have read it, there are no grounds for calling it contrary to Christianity. And in all you read, ask the Holy Spirit to be your guide. That way you will never be fooled by false teaching but learn to accept the truth, even if it does turn out to be contrary to your own fallible interpretation.

And to finish, here is a quote from the second source I referenced

...I submit that the average layman, if presented with this, would assert that it was a perfect summation of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. If nothing else it proves that we should hold our unfounded opinions in check, knowing that far greater men have puzzled over this question and not succeeded it solving it.

God bless:)

postcynical

homer911 wrote: »

This is an oil and water discussion guys!

Down through the ages this issue has been debated many times I'm sure.

I doubt if this thread will achieve anything other than both sides claiming victory

I'm going to keep out of it and suggest that it would be better to agree to disagree.

I'm not contributing but do check in from time to time. Even if greater minds have discussed this before, this discussion is at my level that I can follow and I'm learning a lot from it. Rather than two sides trying to claim victory I see it as Christians trying to establish the truth, or at least to clarify the basis for our differing beliefs on these (peripheral) issues.

postcynical

A non-scholarly input, from a Catholic perspective. PDN made a very good post on another thread, explaining how an unbeliever might come to faith - describing one of the possible ways which God might nudge one of His children towards the light.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=63870345&postcount=6

Now consider somebody whose encounters with Christianity are in a Catholic setting. This person has evidence that Mary intercedes with God - time has shown that prayers to God through Mary are effective. This does not steal the limelight from her son; she is never elevated above being a saint, a person. Prayers to and through Mary are a path to God, a tried and trusted path which works.

The Mass reading today was the wedding feast of Cana, and Mary's role in this was minor but central - she was the one who asked her son to intercede and save the party. She prompted all that followed.

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

LordSutch

Plowman wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

As a Protestant I find this whole topic totally alien (yet fascinating too), for we are all Christians, (Roman Catholic & Protestant alike), with so many similarities, but yet the thought of actually praying to Mary seems somewhat sacriligious (we pray to God alone), and as for this term "Co-redemptrix" > never heard of it before today and I am a Christian over the age of forty!

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

postcynical

santing wrote: »

On the idea of worshipping Mary, I read the following prayer St. Alphonsus Liguori's Prayer for a Visit to the Blessed Virgin in a book published by the RC Church in New York (1859), with a "Nili Obstat" etc. in place:

Most holy immaculate Virgin and my Mother
Mary, to thee who art the Mother of my Lord,
the Queen of the world, the advocate, the hope,
the refuge of sinners, I have recourse today, — I,
who am the most miserable of all. I worship
thee, great Queen, and I thank thee for all the
graces which thou hast hitherto granted ine; and
especially I thank thee for having 'delivered me
from hell, which I have so often deserved. I love
thee, most amiable Lady ; and for the love which
I bear thee, I promise always to serve thee, and to
do all that I can that thou mayest also be loved
by others, I place all my hopes in thee, and I
confide my salvation to thy care ; accept me for
thy servant, and receive me under thy mantle, O
Mother of Mercy. And since thou art so power-
ful with God, do thou deliver me from all tempta-
tions, or rather obtain me strength to triumph
over them until death. Of thee I ask the true love
of Jesus Christ ; through thee I hope to die a good'
death. My Mother, by the love which thou bear-
est to God, I beseech thee to lielp me always but
especially at the last moment of my life ; leave
me not until thou seest me safe in heaven, bless-
ing thee and singing thy mercies to all eternity.

As it seems to be inappriate to say teh word "blasphemy", I would argue that this has nothing to do with Christianity, these are left overs from paganism.

Hi Santing,

I followed Pianoman's link and the version of this prayer is slightly different. Do you have a source for the older version or did you type it out from the 1859 copy? I wonder if words like 'worship' were used in an informal sense rather than in the strict sense that we would use them? Surely though you can see that these prayers are addressed to God through Mary - is it not implicit that it is God who acts through her intercession? For a vulgar analogy, if a politician does you a favour and gets your land rezoned or whatever, then it's valid to say that the politician is the one delivering even though it is understood that somebody else is actually wielding the power (government).

Here's the version from Pianoman's link (http://www.catholictradition.org/Mary/glories11.htm#CONFIDENCE)

Most Holy, Immaculate Virgin and my Mother Mary! To thee who art the Mother of my Lord, the Queen of the world, the Advocate, the Hope, and the Refuge of sinners, I have recourse today, I who am the most miserable of all.
I render thee my most humble homage, O great Queen, and I thank thee for all the graces thou hast conferred on me until now, especially for having delivered me from Hell, which I have so often deserved. I love thee, O most amiable Lady; and for the love which I bear thee, I promise to serve thee always and to do all in my power to make others love thee also. I place in thee all my hopes; I confide my salvation to thy care.
Accept me for thy servant and receive me under thy mantle, O Mother of Mercy. And since thou art so powerful with God, deliver me from all temptations; or rather, obtain for me the strength to triumph over them until death. Of thee I ask a perfect love for Jesus Christ. Through thee I hope to die a good death. O my Mother, by the love which thou bearest to God, I beseech thee to help me at all times, but especially at the last moment of my life. Leave me not, I beseech thee, until thou seest me safe in Heaven, blessing thee and singing thy mercies for all eternity. Amen. Thus, I hope. Thus, may it be.

Do you still see prayers to Mary as blasphemous having read Pianoman's link? It's a much stronger claim than saying that praying to Mary is unnecessary or pointless.

santing

postcynical wrote: »

Hi Santing,

I followed Pianoman's link and the version of this prayer is slightly different. Do you have a source for the older version or did you type it out from the 1859 copy?

Yes, you can find it at:
Author: Catholic Church
Publisher: T.W. Strong
Year: 1856
Possible copyright status: NOT_IN_COPYRIGHT
Language: English
Digitizing sponsor: Google
Book from the collections of: University of Michigan
Collection: americana
Page 890
http://www.archive.org/details/stjohnsmanualag00churgoog

postcynical wrote: »

I wonder if words like 'worship' were used in an informal sense rather than in the strict sense that we would use them? Surely though you can see that these prayers are addressed to God through Mary - is it not implicit that it is God who acts through her intercession? For a vulgar analogy, if a politician does you a favour and gets your land rezoned or whatever, then it's valid to say that the politician is the one delivering even though it is understood that somebody else is actually wielding the power (government).

No, I fail to see how you can pray to Mary and mean to pray to God... The concept is foreign to me. If you want to talk to me and I am standing next to my wife, you must be nuts to talk to me through my wife... These prayers - and there are plenty (and worse examples) in Pianoman's link have noting to do with Mary, the virgin mother of the Lord Jesus. Apparitions of "Mary" imho are demonic from origin.

postcynical wrote: »

Here's the version from Pianoman's link (http://www.catholictradition.org/Mary/glories11.htm#CONFIDENCE)
Do you still see prayers to Mary as blasphemous having read Pianoman's link? It's a much stronger claim than saying that praying to Mary is unnecessary or pointless.

That's right. If you believe that praying to Mary (or Saints) has any effect, those effects are not from a Christian origin.

antiskeptic

Piano man wrote: »

Your quotation from St John Chrysostom..

Secondly, on the Assumption. Here is a quotation from the following source http://www.catholic.com/library/Immaculate_Conception_and_Assum.asp..

Thirdly, you are correct in saying that many Dominicans did not accept the teaching of the Immaculate Conception until it was declared to be a doctrine in the Council of Basle in 1441...


the privilege of infallibility..

On your final point, the prayer to St Alphonsus Liguori, I will hold back from explaining it and let you read St Alphonsus' own explanation here...

Given the above non-scripturally based argumentation...

It is lengthy, but until you have read it, there are no grounds for calling it contrary to Christianity.

..could agreement be found were one to suggest that there are grounds for calling it contrary to scripturally-based Christianity? I mean, whatever about what the 'early' church is supposed to have thought, the scriptural basis presented thus far for eg: Mary's supposed Immaculate Conception, doesn't rise to the status of even wafer-thin.

If this were agreed, then both sides might find themselves content to retire the discussion.

Piano man

Personally, I don't understand what you mean by 'scripturally-based Christianity'. I take it you mean the modern idea of reading the Bible and interpreting everything individually for guidance.
In fact, Christianity is not based on Scripture, per se. It is based fundamentally on the fulfillment of the Old Covenant by Jesus, and the institution of the New Covenant to last until the end of time.
The fact that the Bible was not compiled until the fourth century by the Catholic Church is proof enough that Christianity is not based on Scripture. For the first four centuries of its existence, Christianity relied on Apostolic Tradition http://www.catholic.com/library/Apostolic_Tradition.asp , and continues to do so, in tandem with the Bible.

There are many different facets to Christianity: the Church, the Bible, prayer, the Eucharist, personal holiness, charity, the list could go on endlessly. They all exist in a beautifully profound symbiosis, nourishing each other, and we won't reach full knowledge of it until we arrive in heaven, by the grace of God. But to isolate one or two aspects of it, ie the Bible as in Sola Scriptura, is like sitting down to a multicourse meal in a fancy restaurant and then only eating the starter. Think of the depth of goodness you are missing out on!

So, considering the idea of 'scripturally-based Christianity' is foreign to me, I'm hardly going to agree with something that fundamentally makes no sense.

I suppose there's a whole other debate here on the other aspects of the Catholic Church - Sacred Tradition, Apostolic Succession, the Holy Eucharist and the other Sacraments, and if anyone wants to continue querying these, I'm more than happy to keep explaining - I've actually learnt a lot because of all the reading I've been doing.

God bless:)

antiskeptic

Piano man wrote: »

Personally, I don't understand what you mean by 'scripturally-based Christianity'.

Let me outline the idea for you.

In fact, Christianity is not based on Scripture, per se. It is based fundamentally on the fulfillment of the Old Covenant by Jesus, and the institution of the New Covenant to last until the end of time.

These fundamentals are reported in primary fashion in Scripture. Hence the term scripturally-based Christianity.

The fact that the Bible was not compiled until the fourth century by the Catholic Church is proof enough that Christianity is not based on Scripture.

The word used is scripturally-based - not Bible-based. The scriptures existing before their compilation into the Bible.

There are many different facets to Christianity: the Church, the Bible, prayer, the Eucharist, personal holiness, charity, the list could go on endlessly.

Indeed.

The definition of what constitutes the "church" can be found in scripure or it can be found elsewhere (the elsewhere possibly incorporating, but not limiting itself to what scripture says). Thus scripturally-defined church vs. other-defined church.

Similarily, what constitutes prayer, the breaking of bread, personal holiness, charity etc. can be scripturally or other defined. Hence the term; scripturally-based Christianity.

They all exist in a beautifully profound symbiosis, nourishing each other, and we won't reach full knowledge of it until we arrive in heaven, by the grace of God.

Agreed

But to isolate one or two aspects of it, ie the Bible as in Sola Scriptura, is like sitting down to a multicourse meal in a fancy restaurant and then only eating the starter. Think of the depth of goodness you are missing out on!

How it is you've missed the mark in supposing scriptural-Christianity to be in any way ignoring the elements that go to make up Christianity should now be clear. And so my point that if we can agree that the doctrine of Immaculate Conception isn't one that can be sustained scripturally we can end the discussion in agreement with each other.

Piano man

Ok thanks for that description. For me, 'Scripture' incorporates both Old and New Testament, but say for now we confine it to the Old Testament.
I still am unable to agree, my reasons for which can be found in the Scott Hahn article I referenced in Post 55. Here it is again http://www.catholic-pages.com/bvm/hahn.asp

Happy Christian Unity Week, guys!

God bless:)

Slav

If anyone is interested in Orthodox views on veneration of Theotokos then I can recommend this essay by John Maximovich:

The Orthodox Veneration of Mary the Birthgiver of God

It has some historical background on the subject as well as polemic against Roman doctrine of Immaculate Conception.

antiskeptic

Piano man wrote: »

For me, 'Scripture' incorporates both Old and New Testament, but say for now we confine it to the Old Testament.

Fair enough - but given the tendency for the OT to describe in veiled terms that which is revealed with greater clarity in the NT the extent of your reaching can only be expected to increase. For instance..

I still am unable to agree, my reasons for which can be found in the Scott Hahn article I referenced in Post 55.

Scott writes in a brisk, cheerful way. But his conclusions seem to be pulled out of the thinnest of air. The text is littered with the kinds of speculation exampled in the underlining below for which scripture gives utterly insufficient warrant. Brutally intimidated? Let the text show it. Her concluding she'd die if she didn't obey the serpent? Let the text show it. The text highlighted in orange lays the error out straight: Scott is filling silences with his own theories.

Scott Hahn wrote:

So she is being confronted and brutally intimidated by a dragon who is intent upon producing disobedience, come hell or high water. So in the cross-examination, in the interrogation that goes back and forth, Satan uses the truth in a clever, deceptive, but intimidating way to kind of force this woman to see, in effect, that if she doesn't eat that fruit, she will die, at least in the biological, physical sense because Satan will see to it.

The question, then, as you read through this narrative is not based upon anything that is explicitly stated, but rather that which is so conspicuously unstated, and that is, where the heck is Adam in all this? By the end of the narrative you discover that he's right by the woman because she just turns and gives him the fruit to eat; but the question is, where was he all along? This loving covenant head, this loving covenant partner who is to show the great love that he's willing to lay down his life for his beloved? Well, he was probably rationalizing his silence by saying, "Well, if I oppose such a serpentile monster as this, I stand no chance."

Personally, I'd prefer if you'd argue the case in your own words - using supporting links and relevent extracts of text from same if necessary. Assuming you're interested in making a case for your position that is.

santing

Piano man wrote: »

The fact that the Bible was not compiled until the fourth century by the Catholic Church

Please get your facts right...
1. The Bible was acknowledged in the 4th century, in the 1st century Peter already pointed to its existince in his writings.
2. It all dependes on how you define "Catholic Church," but if you mean the RC Church, than that wasn't around yet.
3. For the RC Church the Bible was only compiled at the concily of Trente since they added a few books to it at that time.

Stephentlig

Please get your facts right...
1. The Bible was acknowledged in the 4th century, in the 1st century Peter already pointed to its existince in his writings.
2. It all dependes on how you define "Catholic Church," but if you mean the RC Church, than that wasn't around yet.

“For it is evident that those men lived not so long ago,--in the reign of Antoninus for the most part,--and that they at first were believers in the doctrine of the Catholic Church, in the church of Rome under the episcopate of the blessed Eleutherus, until on account of their ever restless curiosity, with which they even infected the brethren, they were more than once expelled.” Tertullian, On the Prescription Against Heretics, 22,30 (A.D. 200).

The roman Catholic church has been around since Christ founded it upon the rock of Peter, but you see the title ''Roman Catholic'' was developed only since Peter stationed it in Rome, it has nothing to do with Peter not being the Authority on earth or the church being catholic, which anglicans beleive in but reject the authority of pope.

3. For the RC Church the Bible was only compiled at the concily of Trente since they added a few books to it at that time.

the bible was not compiled at the council of trent, the council of trent was only a definition of the original canon not an addition to it. the original canon was determined by the Catholic church at the councils of Hippo and Carthage etc etc... the council of trent only released an infallible declaration which confirmed the original canon decided at such councils.

what even puts the protestant sola scriptura position in greater contradiction is the fact that the Bible does not contain an inspired table of contents, which forces the protestant to look outside of scripture to see how its canon was determined, this smashes the protestant theory of ''Bible alone'' theology.

whats even more contradictory of the protestant position of sola scriptura is that they try to qoute from the early church fathers and twist what they say in order to prove their protestant doctrine, yet they are not permitted to do so according to their ''Bible alone'' theology which only permits them to teach us about their protestant doctrine from the bible alone and not from any other source.