Praying to Mary

hinault

Leroy42 wrote: »

So in short, you think that he did a good thing by questioning the faith preached to him, by opening up to other interpretations he was led down a different path.

Yet you seem to think that questions from others is a waste of time!

you still haven't answered the question raised by your statement that Mary was without sin, as otherwise Jesus, being God and so without sin, couldn't have been borne to her and the logical following from that that her parents, and their parents, and their parents etc etc would then also need to be sinless.

And why would Mary not get the original sin like every other person in the world?

Having been given the entire truth, there is no other truth that I or any other Catholic can possibly obtain from any other system of belief.

These are the facts.

In respect of Mary, the absurd point made earlier and to which you refer was answered earlier in this thread by me.

Do you carry the sins of your parents, grandparents and all the rest of your forefathers? Of course you don't.

Leroy42

hinault wrote: »

Do you carry the sins of your parents, grandparents and all the rest of your forefathers? Of course you don't.

Sorry, am I to understand that you do not believe in the concept of original sin? If Mary did not have original sin, then how come, and on what basis, apart from your own imaginings, is that based on? She is full of grace? That is all you have proffered so far.

hinault wrote: »

Mary was conceived without sin. The Bible states that Mary is "full of grace".
What grace? Sanctifying grace.

Mary gave birth to God Incarnate Jesus Christ.
Would He who is without sin be borne by someone who was touched with even a trace of sin?

Jesus Christ is the very antithesis of sin.

It is literally inconceivable that God would select a sinful human woman to conceive and give birth to He who redeems the world.

You raised the issue of Mary being sinless, and stated as fact that Jesus could not be borne to any person connected with sin as the basis for Mary being without sin yet you have failed to give any actual evidence to your opinion.

Leroy42

hinault wrote: »

Having been given the entire truth, there is no other truth that I or any other Catholic can possibly obtain from any other system of belief.

These are the facts.

But Hann thought exactly the same before he started to read and question. Everyone thinks their religion is the one truth, that all others are simply misguided. Arrogance is a sin and for someone to state that their truth is fact, based on nothing more than belief is a curious position to take.

keano_afc

hinault wrote: »

Having been given the entire truth, there is no other truth that I or any other Catholic can possibly obtain from any other system of belief.

These are the facts.

In respect of Mary, the absurd point made earlier and to which you refer was answered earlier in this thread by me.

Do you carry the sins of your parents, grandparents and all the rest of your forefathers? Of course you don't.

That isn't an answer to the question though.

You opine that Mary has to be sinless in order to carry the sinless Saviour. Nick Park quite reasonably asks why the same scenario would not apply to Mary's previous generations if she is sinless. You have failed to respond to this. Can you not answer?

The point was also made about Mary's need for a Saviour which she herself states. Why, in your opinion, would a sinless being need a Saviour? Yet again you have not answered.

As I previously said, your presence in this forum seems to be a complete waste of time. I cant say what I would like to due to the charter, but perhaps you need to evaluate exactly why you post here.

hinault

Leroy42 wrote: »

Sorry, am I to understand that you do not believe in the concept of original sin?

Your understanding is incorrect.

I do believe in Original Sin.
I accept too Church teaching that Mary was born without Original Sin.

Leroy42 wrote: »

If Mary did not have original sin, then how come, and on what basis, apart from your own imaginings, is that based on?

So I imagine the Church's teaching upon Mary being born without Sin?

Church teaching upon Mary being born without Original Sin is centuries old.
In fact this teaching goes back to the gospels.

Mary's cousin Elizabeth refers to Mary as "the mother of my Lord" in the gospel of St.Luke (that's assuming that you read and accept what the Bible teaches).

The Angel Gabriel greets Mary's and refers to Mary saying that she is full of Grace, in the gospel of St.Luke.

The gospel further recounts that Mary herself says "henceforth all generations shall call me blessed"

Leroy42 wrote: »

You raised the issue of Mary being sinless, and stated as fact that Jesus could not be borne to any person connected with sin as the basis for Mary being without sin yet you have failed to give any actual evidence to your opinion.

If you accept the gospel, you accept that God Incarnate was born by Mary.
Presumably you accept this?

Assuming that you do accept this, you accept to that Jesus Christ mission was to redeem the world. Therefore Mary's role as the human mother of Jesus is central to the ministry which redeems the world.

It is not suggested for one second that her role is superior in that mission, because no one can be superior to God.
What is argued is that her role is central as is the role played by St.Joseph.
Mary and Joseph submitted their obedience to the Divine Will of God, through raising Jesus the person, who went on to fulfill his mission.

Could He have entered the world to complete his mission in another way? For sure He could.
But that's not the focus in this regard. The focus in this regard is how an individual submitted themselves to His will, rather than His will being imposed on people.

One final point, Jesus fulfilled the commandments.
One of those commandments is Honour your father and mother.
The Church following that commandment honour Mary and Joseph, in the same way that Jesus honoured both of them during his ministry on Earth.

Postscript: this link to the Catechismal teaching about Mary is a good summation
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p122a3p2.htm

hinault

Leroy42 wrote: »

But Hann thought exactly the same before he started to read and question. Everyone thinks their religion is the one truth, that all others are simply misguided. Arrogance is a sin and for someone to state that their truth is fact, based on nothing more than belief is a curious position to take.

Hahn did not possess the full truth. His conversion is authentic testimony to that.

Hahn's description of presbyterian sermons validate the view that the entire premise of prebyterianism is based not on what it proposes, but on what it opposes namely the Catholic Church.

By the grace of God, Hahn's intellectual curiosity was the catalyst which would eventually bring him home spiritually.

Saying that ones possesses the full truth isn't arrogance. It is a statement of fact.

Leroy42

hinault wrote: »

Hahn did not possess the full truth. His conversion is authentic testimony to that.

Hahn's description of presbyterian sermons validate the view that the entire premise of prebyterianism is based not on what it proposes, but on what it opposes namely the Catholic Church.

By the grace of God, Hahn's intellectual curiosity was the catalyst which would eventually bring him home spiritually.

Saying that ones possesses the full truth isn't arrogance. It is a statement of fact.

It is a statement of fact according to you. You have nothing to actually base that fact on, part from your belief in that fact. I'm not questioning your belief, I'm not even questioning if it could be right, but to claim it as the only truth, doesn't that remove the need for faith.

You have no more access to the truth than anyone else, you have not seen heaven, you have not seen God. You may well be right, but even if there is a God, why would there only be one? Why not two, or ten, or the magic 12 number so beloved of Jesus.

History is full of people claiming to be gods, but you think that your book is the real one, the only one

Hann thought he had the truth, until he looked elsewhere. Are you really saying that you just happened to be born into a society that already had the truth and therefore there is no need to look any further. And you don't think that is arrogant?

uck51js9zml2yt

hinault wrote: »

Having been given the entire truth, there is no other truth that I or any other Catholic can possibly obtain from any other system of belief.

These are the facts.

In respect of Mary, the absurd point made earlier and to which you refer was answered earlier in this thread by me.

Do you carry the sins of your parents, grandparents and all the rest of your forefathers? Of course you don't.

Hinault wont see this, so maybe someone who isnt on ignore can ask it .

The bit in bold is contradiction of an earlier comment he made about Mary needing to be sinless to prevent sin being passed to Jesus.

If he accepts that we dont carry the sins of our parents etc how can Jesus have been contaminated with the sin of Mary?

If there was an emoji to show a head banging off a wall I'd use it here:rolleyes:

hinault

Leroy42 wrote: »

It is a statement of fact according to you. You have nothing to actually base that fact on, part from your belief in that fact. I'm not questioning your belief, I'm not even questioning if it could be right, but to claim it as the only truth, doesn't that remove the need for faith.

You have no more access to the truth than anyone else, you have not seen heaven, you have not seen God. You may well be right, but even if there is a God, why would there only be one? Why not two, or ten, or the magic 12 number so beloved of Jesus.

OK, Let's cut to the chase here.
Which system of believe is the Truth?

If as you claim Catholicism isn't the Truth, tell me which other system of belief is the Truth.

There can only be one Truth - if that Ttruth is not Catholicism, tell me which system belief is the Truth.

hinault

Leroy42 wrote: »

I
Hann thought he had the truth, until he looked elsewhere. Are you really saying that you just happened to be born into a society that already had the truth and therefore there is no need to look any further. And you don't think that is arrogant?

Hahn realised that what he had believed in, was not the Truth because he subsequently received the Truth through Catholicism.

Leroy42

hinault wrote: »

OK, Let's cut to the chase here.
Which system of believe is the Truth?

If as you claim Catholicism isn't the Truth, tell me which other system of belief is the Truth.

There can only be one Truth - if that Ttruth is not Catholicism, tell me which system belief is the Truth.

I have no idea. I don't claim that Catholicism isn't the truth it may very well be. How would I know?

But you don't know either. You think you know, you base your belief on certain belief's, such as the message in the bible, but nobody, well except God I suppose, really knows the truth.

And therein lies the difference. Religions people, of all hues, claim that their belief is the truth and all others, based on no more evidence that their belief, are wrong.

I fully accept their right to hold that belief, and fully acknowledge that their belief is based on real convictions, but that does not make it true.

What makes it even more odd it that many of the tenants of their belief is based on their own interpretations of the bible. They don't take the words at face value but have to try to put interpretations on each passage that helps it fit with their belief.

So Mary is considered born without sin because in St Lukes gospel states that the angel Gabriel said she was full of grace. But Luke wasn't there, we don't even have the original document and some of the earliest versions we do have have differences in them. But even if the angel did say that, why not just say she was born without sin. It requires firstly a belief in the actual story, then an acceptance of the verbatim recording even though in many cases the people writing them were not there, and even after that it requires a great deal of interpretation to come to any truth as you see it.

Leroy42

hinault wrote: »

Hahn realised that what he had believed in, was not the Truth because he subsequently received the Truth through Catholicism.

Until he reads something else which sounds more like the truth he seeks!

hinault

Leroy42 wrote: »

I have no idea. I don't claim that Catholicism isn't the truth it may very well be. How would I know?

But you don't know either.

You don't know :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

OK, you don't know who possesses the Truth.

Do you accept that there is the Truth?

hinault

Leroy42 wrote: »

I fully accept their right to hold that belief, and fully acknowledge that their belief is based on real convictions, but that does not make it true.

What you fully accept and what you fully acknowledge is meaningless and not worth anything to anyone else - except you.

hinault

Leroy42 wrote: »

So Mary is considered born without sin because in St Lukes gospel states that the angel Gabriel said she was full of grace. But Luke wasn't there, we don't even have the original document and some of the earliest versions we do have have differences in them. But even if the angel did say that, why not just say she was born without sin. It requires firstly a belief in the actual story, then an acceptance of the verbatim recording even though in many cases the people writing them were not there, and even after that it requires a great deal of interpretation to come to any truth as you see it.

You don't accept the NT account given in St.Lukes gospel?

Can we cut to the chase here - are you an atheist/agnostic?

Leroy42

hinault wrote: »

What you fully accept and what you fully acknowledge is meaningless and not worth anything to anyone else - except you.

Exactly, glad you finally agree with me

hinault

Leroy42 wrote: »

Until he reads something else which sounds more like the truth he seeks!

You don't accept Dr.Scott Hahn's testimony?

hinault

Leroy42 wrote: »

Exactly, glad you finally agree with me

I don't agree with you because you appear to think that your acknowledging anyone else's right to belief in something, has some value.
It doesn't. It's meaningless.

Leroy42

hinault wrote: »

You don't know :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

OK, you don't know who possesses the Truth.

Do you accept that there is the Truth?

Yes, I accept that there is A truth, there is an answer. I have no idea what that answer is. Either do you. You think you do, you are convinced you do, but any logical look at it means that you cannot possibly know. The whole of religion is even based on faith.

hinault wrote: »

You don't accept the NT account given in St.Lukes gospel?

Can we cut to the chase here - are you an atheist/agnostic?

What difference does it make what I believe. That doesn't change anything. I am free to question, just as Hann questioned, and I am merely asking you to provide evidence of your belief. If I am Jewish does that in some way demote my questioning. Are only true believers allowed to question, but of course a true believer doesn't question they simply accept the statements from the church.

If by accepting you mean without question, then I guess I don't accept it. I have never thought of it like that until now though.

As I said in other threads I do accept the beliefs, but am open enough to question them. My belief does not rely on a fixed, never moving and never questioned belief in what others have told me.

When I am asking a question about 'facts' someone has raised and their answer to me is to question my motives for the question rather than providing evidence then I deem that 'fact' to be their belief, not a fact.

I certainly do not believe that God wants us to simply forsake our freewill in subservience of him, if he did he would simply take away freewill. I believe he wants us to follow him because we have arrived at that point where it makes sense to do so, not because the church told us too, or deemed a certain interpretation to be the truth. I believe that it is this ability to think that separates us from other living things and that God gave us that ability on purpose.

Leroy42

hinault wrote: »

You don't accept Dr.Scott Hahn's testimony?

I don't personally know the man, I can only go on the things that he says, which I take at face value. I have no reason to no accept them.

However, you seem to fully accept that this man, who so firmly believed what he was told before, but then changed his mind when presented with a new truth, would be incapable of changing his mind again if presented with something else.

Leroy42

hinault wrote: »

I don't agree with you because you appear to think that your acknowledging anyone else's right to belief in something, has some value.
It doesn't. It's meaningless.

Ah,I get you now. Yes, I suppose it is meaningless to anybody else but me.

hinault

Leroy42 wrote: »

Yes, I accept that there is A truth, there is an answer. I have no idea what that answer is.

So how do you know there is "a Truth", if you don't know what that Truth is?

hinault

Leroy42 wrote: »

What difference does it make what I believe.

Because it cuts to the chase.

So are you atheist/agnostic?

Manach

Well, AFAIR from reading academic writers of diverse backgrounds such as Henry Chapman and D’Ambrosio, the veneration & honour that the Church holds Mary in is a reflection of the earliest Church fathers. This was in part to her role in the mixture of the human and divine and as well due to the respect for the larger role of the family in that era. Hence the Marian devotion since the the beginnings of the Christian community was a strong element of the faith.

lazybones32

Asaiah wrote: »

Hi all,

I have one major issue with the Catholic church and that is devotion to Mary. Now as a Christian I love and respect Mary, she is the most honoured woman in history as she was chosen to carry the messiah, the son of God. The word of God made flesh Jesus Christ.

You've only one issue with the RCC?!!:eek:

From the Catechism: Devotion to the Blessed Virgin
971 "This very special devotion differs essentially from the adoration which is given to the incarnate Word and equally to the Father and the Holy Spirit, and greatly fosters this devotion"...The liturgical feasts dedicated to the Mother of God and Marian prayer, such as the Rosary, an epitome of the whole Gospel, express this devotion to the Virgin Mary.

The Church doesn't worship or adore Mary and doesn't encourage its' members to do so either. So your major issue isn't based on what the Church teaches or practices.

Asaiah wrote: »

Jesus said that he is the only mediator between man and the Father.

Yup. The RCC has being saying the same thing for nigh on 2,000 years. All grace comes from the Father through Jesus. Scripture gives evidence that others have the power of mediators/intercessors too and I can supply the references if you want.

Asaiah wrote: »

Is devotion and prayer to Mary an essential part of Catholicism? Is Mary the queen of heaven and/or the co-redemptrix?

Devotion is intrinsic but Marian prayer doesn't see Mary as a goddess or a power in her own right. The RCC doesn't deify Mary but sees her as a very important figure; as a Woman created by God for special purposes beyond being the chosen vessel for bringing the GodMan onto Earth.
The Church has about 80 official titles for Mary and at least twice that number that aren't officially declared.

Asaiah wrote: »

Christains of all flavours, What are your thoughts on the Mary?

I think she is a powerful intercessor.

This video might help explain some things...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUdYeYy3NQA

There is a shorter video which is better-made and has better music -imo - but I can't find it. This is 11 mins long.

uck51js9zml2yt

The fact that there are Marian shrines attests to the worship of Mary.

As for the Truth.!

We know from the Bible that God is Truth and His Word is Truth.
We also know that there is a curse on anyone who would add or take away from what He caused to be written in Scripture.

My theology is based on what I find in the Bible. Any other source is questionable.

Leroy42

Leia Nutritious Murk wrote: »

As for the Truth.!

We know from the Bible that God is Truth and His Word is Truth.
We also know that there is a curse on anyone who would add or take away from what He caused to be written in Scripture.

My theology is based on what I find in the Bible. Any other source is questionable.

We don't know, we think we know. We believe, we have faith. We cannot know. Every source is questionable, even the bible. To accept without question is to be little more than an animal. Questioning does not reduce faith, if anything if you can question and still believe then your faith becomes stronger.

There have been multiple 'bible' type books, multiple 'messiah' type people. What makes you think that you know that your version is the truth? Without question. But that all others are therefore false.

Yes, but which part of the bible is your theology based? IS it the OT, with its vengeful, merciless God, or the NT with its caring, loving God?

1123heavy

Catholics idol worship, there is no other word for bowing in worship before a statue in the hope that doing so brings you good. Have we forgotten Abraham pbuh and him smashing his father's statues? ... then telling the people to ask the statues who did it if they are indeed Gods. Just because this is mary and not a pagan God it doesnt make any difference, the point that Abraham was making about statues applies to every statue, that they are forbidden and powerless and do not deserve any worship, whether it is of Mary or not.

It's also rather convenient how the Catholic Church have changed the second commandment.

I do not mean to offend anyone whatsoever, but, it should be of little surprise as after all, it is the "Roman" CC ... exactly as described ... "Roman".

1123heavy

You don't accept the NT account given in St.Lukes gospel?

hinault wrote: »

I'm quite stunned people still believe all 4 gospels are correct and set in stone. Simply because it has been proven over and over again, that is is logically impossible (that is to say it defies logic) for all 4 Gospels of the NT to be correct, why? Because they contradict each other in ways that simply cannot be reconciled.

If I said today is Tuesday, then 10 minutes later said tomorrow is Friday, would you take both statements as being correct? I would hope not, yet you fail to see that this is exactly what you are doing by believing all 4 Gospels to be bulletproof.

hinault

1123heavy wrote: »

I'm quite stunned people still believe all 4 gospels are correct and set in stone. Simply because it has been proven over and over again, that is is logically impossible (that is to say it defies logic) for all 4 Gospels of the NT to be correct, why? Because they contradict each other in ways that simply cannot be reconciled.

If I said today is Tuesday, then 10 minutes later said tomorrow is Friday, would you take both statements as being correct? I would hope not, yet you fail to see that this is exactly what you are doing by believing all 4 Gospels to be bulletproof.

Which denomination of non-Catholic are you?

Where do the gospels contradict each other? Gospel and verse.