The view of her as being anything more than what responsible protestants ascribe to her from scripture is a result of non Christian beliefs being syncretized into the gospel. Of course a similar view in itself proves nothing. However, when that view is found nowhere and is in fact contradicted in the thought of the actual writers of scripture and is also readily explained by external influences common to the day, ESPECIALLY when those promoting the view then originated from EXACTLY the cultures where that view was common, it is more reasonable to ascribe that view to those external sources than to attempt to imagine it as having come from within.
I’m sure there’s a name for this fallacy somewhere, but Rome denies by doctrinal declaration what she affirms by long standing devotional practice. She is the man in the image. “WE DO NOT WORSHIP MARY. SHE IS NOT DEIFIED AND NOT IN ANY WAY ASCRIBED ATTRIBUTES OR ACTIONS THAT BELONG ALONE TO GOD. CAN WE MAKE THAT ANY PLAINER?!?!?!? STOP ACCUSING US OF THIS PLEASE.”
And yet I have already quoted an imminently recognized Roman Catholic source (and that’s just one) where she most assuredly IS ascribed attributes and actions belonging only to God. That is just like using a bullhorn to deny your use of bullhorns. The church can say all day long “WE DO NOT TEACH THE WORSHIP OF MARY”. I agree, and am on record here saying so. She sure DOES practice it though.
Tell that to the believers in Rome pat…Yeshua is SIXTH on the list in importance
in a crisis?
Bill Maher is an A-hole like he always is, but I like Priest Reggie Foster…He tells it like it is.
The response I predict will be something along the lines of…‘Father Foster is a heretic, and he’s full
of it and don’t listen to him.’
[quote]Karado wrote:
Tell that to the believers in Rome pat…Yeshua is SIXTH on the list in importance
in a crisis?
Bill Maher is an A-hole like he always is, but I like Priest Reggie Foster…He tells it like it is.
The response I predict will be something along the lines of…‘Father Foster is a heretic, and he’s full
of it and don’t listen to him.’
[/quote]
An atheist propaganda movie? Seriously?
I posted the link to the Catechism. If you want to know the church’s stand on anything, it’s in there and it’s official nothing else is.
No matter how much you want it to be true, it’s not true. So why can’t you get over it an move on?
Do you really believe that if you tell me what my beliefs are that they will be my beliefs? It’s a fiction. There is no deification of Mary, there never was and never will be.
If you have to make stuff up to attack something you don’t like, do you really have a point, or is the problem you?
I don’t feel threatened by Protestantism, it doesn’t bother me, it doesn’t scare me and I don’t have to attack it or make stuff up about it to justify myself. I am rather fond of most protestants actually. I don’t feel the need to make stuff up, or attack it truly or falsely. There is something bigger, something more important than these petty disagreements. I cannot understand obsessing or fixating on them. I certainly don’t understand making false proclamations or accusations (bearing false witness) about it.
No No No pat…you totally bypassed my point here, is your mind open just a little bit here
to what the point of my post was?
It’s a GIVEN that Maher’s movie is trash as a whole, we KNOW that pat, the focus on my post was only Father Reggie’s
rant…but you totaly bypassed a rebuttal on Father Reggie…That’s IT pat, it’s not an ENDORSEMENT
of the whole movie pat…do you get that?
Geez, there’s no talking to you…myopic in the extreme…this conversation is over on my end,
you other guys can waste your time on this kid, he’s not gettin’ it.
[quote]dmaddox wrote:Come on Guys. Pat has answered the questions. [/quote] I WILL give him major props for steadfastness here. We are actually discussing without pounding each other as well. [quote]dmaddox wrote:I would like Brother Chris to chime in about Tirib’s quotes from that book though.[/quote] I have notified dearest Christopher of what’s goin on over here. Not as a challenge at all though. I’m not going to say any more about why he hasn’t commented so far. He can do that if he sees fit, but it has nothing to do with Pat. I will say that. There’s other Catholics. Where’s Cortes and Dixie Dude and Jake and the other guy whose name escapes me at the moment? SLOTH, probably the most knowledgeable Catholic that’s been on this site. I gotta make up with him too =[ (Cortes, I just KNOW you’ve peaked in here.)
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
The view of her as being anything more than what responsible protestants ascribe to her from scripture is a result of non Christian beliefs being syncretized into the gospel. Of course a similar view in itself proves nothing. However, when that view is found nowhere and is in fact contradicted in the thought of the actual writers of scripture and is also readily explained by external influences common to the day, ESPECIALLY when those promoting the view then originated from EXACTLY the cultures where that view was common, it is more reasonable to ascribe that view to those external sources than to attempt to imagine it as having come from within.
I’m sure there’s a name for this fallacy somewhere, but Rome denies by doctrinal declaration what she affirms by long standing devotional practice. She is the man in the image. “WE DO NOT WORSHIP MARY. SHE IS NOT DEIFIED AND NOT IN ANY WAY ASCRIBED ATTRIBUTES OR ACTIONS THAT BELONG ALONE TO GOD. CAN WE MAKE THAT ANY PLAINER?!?!?!? STOP ACCUSING US OF THIS PLEASE.”
And yet I have already quoted an imminently recognized Roman Catholic source (and that’s just one) where she most assuredly IS ascribed attributes and actions belonging only to God. That is just like using a bullhorn to deny your use of bullhorns. The church can say all day long “WE DO NOT TEACH THE WORSHIP OF MARY”. I agree, and am on record here saying so. She sure DOES practice it though. [/quote]
No. Again, the only resource you need is the catechism. There is no deification of Mary, Mary is not prescribed ‘God like attributes’
I cannot help how some people behave and more than you cannot control the Westboro’s of the world. Pointing out that some people don’t act right doesn’t make something a stance or a dogma of the church. It’s simply not so.
We do honor and respect her as the chosen mother of the Messiah. We just happen to believe that role is very significant.
Intercession is not a new concept. In the OT the prophets were often asked to intercede for others to the Lord. They could have gone strait to God themselves, but asked instead for intercession. Saul even going so far as to conjure up a deceased Samuel via a medium.
No No No pat…you totally bypassed my point here, is your mind open just a little bit here
to what the point of my post was?
It’s a GIVEN that Maher’s movie is trash as a whole, we KNOW that pat, the focus on my post was only Father Reggie’s
rant…but you totaly bypassed a rebuttal on Father Reggie…That’s IT pat, it’s not an ENDORSEMENT
of the whole movie pat…do you get that?
Geez, there’s no talking to you…myopic in the extreme…this conversation is over on my end,
you other guys can waste your time on this kid, he’s not gettin’ it.
[/quote]
The point is, you have no point. You’re attempting to make nothing, something using shady sources to boot.
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
Come on Guys. Pat has answered the questions. [/quote]
Thank you d. Like I said the final word on Catholic teaching is the catechism. It doesn’t much matter what one person or another says, if it’s against what the catechism teaches, it’s a false teaching.
If you don’t believe me, then you can look it up here. It’s the final word on Catholic doctrine.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
The view of her as being anything more than what responsible protestants ascribe to her from scripture is a result of non Christian beliefs being syncretized into the gospel. Of course a similar view in itself proves nothing. However, when that view is found nowhere and is in fact contradicted in the thought of the actual writers of scripture and is also readily explained by external influences common to the day, ESPECIALLY when those promoting the view then originated from EXACTLY the cultures where that view was common, it is more reasonable to ascribe that view to those external sources than to attempt to imagine it as having come from within.
I’m sure there’s a name for this fallacy somewhere, but Rome denies by doctrinal declaration what she affirms by long standing devotional practice. She is the man in the image. “WE DO NOT WORSHIP MARY. SHE IS NOT DEIFIED AND NOT IN ANY WAY ASCRIBED ATTRIBUTES OR ACTIONS THAT BELONG ALONE TO GOD. CAN WE MAKE THAT ANY PLAINER?!?!?!? STOP ACCUSING US OF THIS PLEASE.”
And yet I have already quoted an imminently recognized Roman Catholic source (and that’s just one) where she most assuredly IS ascribed attributes and actions belonging only to God. That is just like using a bullhorn to deny your use of bullhorns. The church can say all day long “WE DO NOT TEACH THE WORSHIP OF MARY”. I agree, and am on record here saying so. She sure DOES practice it though. [/quote]
No. Again, the only resource you need is the catechism. There is no deification of Mary, Mary is not prescribed ‘God like attributes’
I cannot help how some people behave and more than you cannot control the Westboro’s of the world. Pointing out that some people don’t act right doesn’t make something a stance or a dogma of the church. It’s simply not so. [/quote]
That’s an absolutely fair point, Pat. I agree with you wholeheartedly - the practices of individual Catholics do not necessarily reflect a deficiency in the church itself or its teachings. Protestants just label their “poor performers” (so to speak) as “false believers” I am sorry if it seemed like people were ganging up on you, and especially the extent to which I contributed to that impression.
In all fairness, I also don’t think you are really understanding the Protestant critique. Well-informed Protestants are not, at any point, arguing that the church as a whole officially deifies Mary, nor would they argue that the practice of a few necessarily reflects on the whole. The real issue at hand, for Protestants, is that if something looks, tastes, and smells like chicken, Protestants not going to call it steak just because an authority structure tells them it’s steak. That’s not a great analogy, but it more or less on point - if certain practices are, from a Scriptural and socio-cultural perspective, equivalent to worship, it doesn’t matter whether the church calls such practices “worship” or “veneration.” Nomenclature, in this instance, does not necessarily equate to a different practice.
Take the veneration of images (icons) for example. I’ll quote the Catechism 2132 - “The Christian veneration of images is not contrary to the first commandment which proscribes idols. Indeed, “the honor rendered to an images passes to its prototype,” and “whoever venerates an image venerates the person portrayed in it.” The honor paid to sacred images is a “respectful veneration,” not the adoration due to God alone.” That distinction sounds fine, until you realize that its EXACTLY the same argument underlying the use of images in pagan worship in the ancient Near East. In other words, if pressed by Moses, Pharaoh would NEVER have said he worshipped images; rather, graven images served as “pointers” or “aids” in the worship of the gods they represented. In spite of this, Yahweh STILL prohibited all the use of images in worship; it didn’t matter to him whether the Israelites used them as “aids” or not.
Thus, even if the church rationalizes a particular practice and calls it something different entirely, Protestants are still going to ask whether certain practices look too much like the exactly the things God prohibits. You may say that there are distinct differences, but these kinds of issues can’t be resolved by appeal to the Catechism. I’m not saying your understanding of such practices is wrong - I am not trying to get back into a debate. I am, however, suggesting that the problem veneration of particular figures poses for Protestants is not a matter of Protestants willfully misunderstanding you.
I absolutely agree with you that Mary’s role was significant. Absolutely; no question about it. But there is a tremendous gulf between “Mary had a significant role in the story of salvation” and “Mary STILL has a significant role in the story of OUR salvation.”
The analogy with the OT prophets doesn’t really fit. First of all, most people COULDN’T have gone “straight to God themselves,” certainly not if they expected to get any answers, and absolutely not if they were Gentiles. The use of mediators was simply a necessity. The priesthood of all believers (and the access to God it entails) is a New Covenant (i.e., post-Jesus) phenomenon.
Secondly, the view of the post-mortem state accepted by Roman Catholics, a view that underlies the notions of veneration and petitioning saints,
is biblically questionable (as I demonstrated awhile back in the discussion on 2 Maccabees). Biblically speaking, it is questionable whether the dead are even conscious right now, so it’s not entirely clear how much petitioning they would be able to do.
Third, the entire notion that Samuel was actually conjured up is a questionable interpretation of the text. There is actually no indication in the text itself that anyone other than the witch “saw” Samuel (and that was characteristically how divination was performed in the ancient Near East), which raises the question of whether she actually “saw” anything, or if she merely spoke with a demon.
This is one of my main problems with Catholicism. The church claims to be the one apostolic arbiter of Christian truth including the interpretation of history and scripture. My question is… WHO interprets the church? The present discussion is a perfect example. The catechism while REALLY pushing it does NOT actually promote the worship of Mary. It accomplishes this balancing act through a fairly complex system of semantic distinctions between the practices appointed for the various objects of honor and homage. There’s one for saints and relics and one for God ALONE. There is also however one specifically for Mary ALONE, that is higher than saints and relics, but it is of a lower nature than that for God. So, technically, Mary is NOT worshiped as God. Fair enough.
However, then we turn to someone like St. Alphonsus De Liguori who is most assuredly NOT alone, but he IS a DOCTOR of the church. I cannot emphasize that enough. There have been 266 popes if you accept the Catholic record and 35 doctors of which most were not popes. It is an elite status of singular elevation. Here we have a book this man wrote that is the most valued manual of Marion devotion around to this day and in it we find language that is simply unmistakable as divine worship being pointed at Mary the mother of Jesus. The attributes, actions and offices of God.
BTW, De Liguori was promoted to doctor of the church 84 YEARS “AFTER” he wrote this famous book which not incidentally also quotes numerous other Catholic saints using the same language of worship toward Mary that sounds like it came right out of the Psalms of David.
So WHO interprets the church? Do we go with the catechism and DOCTOR De Liguori is a heretic? Can’t do that, POPE Pius IX promoted him to DOCTOR after he wrote the book. Of course it’s preposterous to abandon the catechism which IS the canonized dogma of the church. SO. Here we are.
Also NO, I am not ganging up on Pat. I am speaking the truth as best I can discern it. Pat is my friend. I would be saying the same thing no matter who was in this conversation.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
The view of her as being anything more than what responsible protestants ascribe to her from scripture is a result of non Christian beliefs being syncretized into the gospel. Of course a similar view in itself proves nothing. However, when that view is found nowhere and is in fact contradicted in the thought of the actual writers of scripture and is also readily explained by external influences common to the day, ESPECIALLY when those promoting the view then originated from EXACTLY the cultures where that view was common, it is more reasonable to ascribe that view to those external sources than to attempt to imagine it as having come from within.
I’m sure there’s a name for this fallacy somewhere, but Rome denies by doctrinal declaration what she affirms by long standing devotional practice. She is the man in the image. “WE DO NOT WORSHIP MARY. SHE IS NOT DEIFIED AND NOT IN ANY WAY ASCRIBED ATTRIBUTES OR ACTIONS THAT BELONG ALONE TO GOD. CAN WE MAKE THAT ANY PLAINER?!?!?!? STOP ACCUSING US OF THIS PLEASE.”
And yet I have already quoted an imminently recognized Roman Catholic source (and that’s just one) where she most assuredly IS ascribed attributes and actions belonging only to God. That is just like using a bullhorn to deny your use of bullhorns. The church can say all day long “WE DO NOT TEACH THE WORSHIP OF MARY”. I agree, and am on record here saying so. She sure DOES practice it though. [/quote]
No. Again, the only resource you need is the catechism. There is no deification of Mary, Mary is not prescribed ‘God like attributes’
I cannot help how some people behave and more than you cannot control the Westboro’s of the world. Pointing out that some people don’t act right doesn’t make something a stance or a dogma of the church. It’s simply not so. [/quote]
That’s an absolutely fair point, Pat. I agree with you wholeheartedly - the practices of individual Catholics do not necessarily reflect a deficiency in the church itself or its teachings. Protestants just label their “poor performers” (so to speak) as “false believers” I am sorry if it seemed like people were ganging up on you, and especially the extent to which I contributed to that impression.
[/quote]
Impressions are what they are. When you sit on the outside, things may appear differently than they are. Such as a common impression of Southern Baptists is that they are overly legalistic and selective in the reading of scripture. Having known devout Baptists I know at it’s heart that’s not true. Where in impressions of Catholicism, from the outside yield impressions of it, that may not be true. Couple that with a mission of some protestants to not only misunderstand, but deliberately misstate what Catholicism is all about in order to make us appear not just misguided, but flat evil.
The only way for protestants to truly understand what we’re about is to investigate, ask questions and collect accurate information without a preconceived bias or mission to make us appear evil.
It is a practice we do not reciprocate.
Well, yeah that was a terrible analogy, the whole were there is smoke there is fire thing is just not an accurate understanding. Any prayer to a saint or to Mary are always including terms such as ‘by the power of God’ or ‘will of God’ or some such terminology clarifying that it’s only God who has the power and the final say on any and all things.
Also, lest we forget Martin Luther himself was also a very devoted Marianist.
Imagery has long been part of worship. While in the early days, some pagan worship would claim images were representations of their god such as baal or beelzebub , there was also instances of a clear worship of the articles themselves as a god.
Sacred objects in worship also is nothing new. Even Jesus makes reference to this in his woes to the Pharisees. “You blind men! For which is greater, the gift or the altar that makes the gift sacred?”
The appeal to the catechism is an appeal to get it right. The difference between impression and accuracy. I don’t expect yall to believe it necessarily. If you did, you would all become Catholic. The point is, despite what people think we worship God alone.
The larger issue is understanding one another. Despite the differences in the practice of faith, the larger and more important issue is that we are brothers and sisters in Christ. And the point isn’t to convert one another to each other’s practice of faith, but to help each other on our particular faith journeys.
I learn from protestants.
Mary cannot save anybody, only Christ can save us. The point of intercession is to advocate, or raise our prayers before God in ways that man cannot do for himself. Prayer by those who have already been perfected in Christ. Perpetual and perfect prayer by those who are already cleansed from sin and are closer to God than we are. It’s help by the holy.
You can always pray strait to God. No intercession is necessary, but intercession is helpful.
I disagree. They may have believed that, but God heard their prayers. In Exodus God clearly says he heard the cries of his people.
Well, in the story of the transfiguration Jesus is visited by Moses and Elijah, while Elijah technically didn’t die Moses did. In the parable of Lazarus, he is placed at the side of Abraham. The rich man petitioned Abraham for mercy and to send Lazarus to his relatives.
Further, if the intercession of the saints didn’t work it wouldn’t be done. We all know prayer works if it didn’t we would not do it. If intercessory prayer didn’t work we would not do it.
That’s the one thing atheists truly do not understand about us. Prayer works. We continue to do it because it works. If it did not, we wouldn’t continue to do it.
[quote]
Third, the entire notion that Samuel was actually conjured up is a questionable interpretation of the text. There is actually no indication in the text itself that anyone other than the witch “saw” Samuel (and that was characteristically how divination was performed in the ancient Near East), which raises the question of whether she actually “saw” anything, or if she merely spoke with a demon. [/quote]
Well of course we don’t know if Samuel was actually conjured up or not, but the point is that Saul sought the intercession of the dead.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
This is one of my main problems with Catholicism. The church claims to be the one apostolic arbiter of Christian truth including the interpretation of history and scripture. My question is… WHO interprets the church? The present discussion is a perfect example. The catechism while REALLY pushing it does NOT actually promote the worship of Mary. It accomplishes this balancing act through a fairly complex system of semantic distinctions between the practices appointed for the various objects of honor and homage. There’s one for saints and relics and one for God ALONE. There is also however one specifically for Mary ALONE, that is higher than saints and relics, but it is of a lower nature than that for God. So, technically, Mary is NOT worshiped as God. Fair enough.
However, then we turn to someone like St. Alphonsus De Liguori who is most assuredly NOT alone, but he IS a DOCTOR of the church. I cannot emphasize that enough. There have been 266 popes if you accept the Catholic record and 35 doctors of which most were not popes. It is an elite status of singular elevation. Here we have a book this man wrote that is the most valued manual of Marion devotion around to this day and in it we find language that is simply unmistakable as divine worship being pointed at Mary the mother of Jesus. The attributes, actions and offices of God.
BTW, De Liguori was promoted to doctor of the church 84 YEARS “AFTER” he wrote this famous book which not incidentally also quotes numerous other Catholic saints using the same language of worship toward Mary that sounds like it came right out of the Psalms of David.
So WHO interprets the church? Do we go with the catechism and DOCTOR De Liguori is a heretic? Can’t do that, POPE Pius IX promoted him to DOCTOR after he wrote the book. Of course it’s preposterous to abandon the catechism which IS the canonized dogma of the church. SO. Here we are.
Also NO, I am not ganging up on Pat. I am speaking the truth as best I can discern it. Pat is my friend. I would be saying the same thing no matter who was in this conversation.[/quote]
Well, like I said in my response to KK, Martin Luther was also a devoted marionist. Here is a quote from one of his sermons:
“Is Christ only to? be adored? Or is the holy Mother of God rather not to be honoured? This is the woman who crushed the Serpent’s head. Hear us. For your Son denies you nothing.”
(Martin Luther’s Works, English translation edited by J. Pelikan [Concordia: St. Louis], Volume 51, 128-129.)
and another:
“[She is the] highest woman and the noblest gem in Christianity after Christ… She is nobility, wisdom, and holiness personified. We can never honor her enough. Still honor and praise must be given to her in such a way as to injure neither Christ nor the Scriptures.”
(Martin Luther, Christmas Sermon, 1531)
Even John Calvin weighed in say this:
“It cannot be denied that God in choosing and destining Mary to be the Mother of his Son, granted her the highest honor.” ( John Calvin, Calvini Opera [Braunshweig-Berlin, 1863-1900], Volume 45, 348).
Calvin on Mary’s perpetual virginity:
“I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin.” (Zwingli Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Berlin, 1905, v. 1, p. 424.)
So while the impressions of Marion devotions are seemly over the top, near Godly worship, it’s clear that the early reformers held the Blessed Virgin also in high regard. While modern Protestantism distanced itself from Marion devotion, in the early days it was not so. Di Legouri’s proclamations do not sound very different from those of Luther or Calvin (whom I have no love for).
Further, the bottom line is still that despite devotions to the Blessed Virgin, there is still no deitific ascription to her.
One of the disconnects we’re having here is that I am allowed to VEHEMENTLY disagree with my heroes of the faith in some places while humbly sitting at their feet in others. I don’t have a ton of time now, but as I said on the previous page, RC Sproul believes in the perpetual virginity of Mary. Calvin and Luther were not the same here. Luther was way off and held other lingering elements of Catholicism as well. Calvin, as do I, held Mary in very high regard, (Calvin messed up royally in some areas too) but neither of them used anything in the same galaxy of the language of De Liguori. The glories of Mary : Liguori, Alfonso Maria de', Saint, 1696-1787 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
Compare this:[quote]But those who hope in Mary, as Mother of God, who is able to obtain graces and eternal life for them, are truly blessed and acceptable to the heart of God, Who desires to see that greatest of His creatures honored; for she loved and honored Him in this world more than all men and angels put together. And therefore we justly and reasonably call the Blessed Virgin our hope, trusting, as Cardinal Bellarmine says, “that we shall obtain through her intercession that which we should not obtain by our own unaided prayers.” (p.77.)
“Hail, then, O hope of my soul!” exclaims St. Ephrem, addressing this divine Mother; “hail, O certain salvation of Christians; hail, O helper of sinners; hail, fortress of the faithful and salvation of the world!” (p.78.)
“O Mary, thou art all-powerful; for thy divine Son, to honor thee, complies instantly with all thy desires.”
St. Gemanus, recognizing in Mary the source of all our good, and that she delivers us from every evil, thus invokes her: “O my sovereign Lady, thou alone art the one whom God has appointed to be my solace here below; thou art the guide of my pilgrimage, the strength of my weakness, the riches of my poverty, the remedy for the healing of my wounds, the soother of my pains, the end of my captivity, the hope of my salvation! Hear my prayers, have pity on my tears, I conjure thee, O thou who art my queen, my refuge, my love, my help, my hope, and my strength.” (p.80.)[/quote]With what you quote from Calvin and Luther. Like I say, I can copy and paste an eight foot post with language like this from your church even while the Catechism calmly denies her “latria” as if that actually means anything in practice. I have NO hope in Mary. She does NOT obtain eternal life for me. I do NOT hail her, nor is she my CERTAIN SALVATION as St. Ephrem is here quoted as saying by De Ligouri. She is neither “sovereign” nor “ALONE one whom God has appointed to be my solace here below”. She is MOST ASSUREDLY NOT “ALL POWERFUL” nor “the remedy for the healing of my wounds”. There is not the slightest reason to believe that the resurrected, ascended and exalted only begotten Son of the most high God now seated at the right hand of the Father and returning judge of the living and he dead “complies instantly with all her desires”.
This language sounds literally like a psalm of David written to YHWH his Lord and God. Not even the misguided praise of Luther is anywhere close. You must see this Pat.
Since I am not a Roman Catholic, that makes me a Heretic according to the Roman Catholic Church. Since I am a heretic does that mean I will NOT go to heaven and be with Jesus?
Oh Lord help us. You think this has been confusing so far?
EDIT:
The short version for tonight is this:
There is no salvation outside the church, but they will get and keep you inside the church in their minds no matter how outside the church you insist upon being. Getting them to say literally ANYbody is going to hell is something I have never been able to do despite their undying proclamation that there is no salvation outside the church or upon death under the guilt of mortal sin. The New Testament on the other hand is relatively simple. There are those who are in Christ and those who are not and they aren’t usually that tough to tell apart. Usually. If nobody sees you as any different than them? If you think, talk and act no differently from the world? And ESPECIALLY if you have no conviction that you SHOULD be any different? It’s a pretty good bet you have not been supernaturally reborn by the Spirit of the living God.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
One of the disconnects we’re having here is that I am allowed to VEHEMENTLY disagree with my heroes of the faith in some places while humbly sitting at their feet in others. I don’t have a ton of time now, but as I said on the previous page, RC Sproul believes in the perpetual virginity of Mary. Calvin and Luther were not the same here. Luther was way off and held other lingering elements of Catholicism as well. Calvin, as do I, held Mary in very high regard, (Calvin messed up royally in some areas too) but neither of them used anything in the same galaxy of the language of De Liguori. The glories of Mary : Liguori, Alfonso Maria de', Saint, 1696-1787 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
Compare this:[quote]But those who hope in Mary, as Mother of God, who is able to obtain graces and eternal life for them, are truly blessed and acceptable to the heart of God, Who desires to see that greatest of His creatures honored; for she loved and honored Him in this world more than all men and angels put together. And therefore we justly and reasonably call the Blessed Virgin our hope, trusting, as Cardinal Bellarmine says, “that we shall obtain through her intercession that which we should not obtain by our own unaided prayers.” (p.77.)
“Hail, then, O hope of my soul!” exclaims St. Ephrem, addressing this divine Mother; “hail, O certain salvation of Christians; hail, O helper of sinners; hail, fortress of the faithful and salvation of the world!” (p.78.)
“O Mary, thou art all-powerful; for thy divine Son, to honor thee, complies instantly with all thy desires.”
St. Gemanus, recognizing in Mary the source of all our good, and that she delivers us from every evil, thus invokes her: “O my sovereign Lady, thou alone art the one whom God has appointed to be my solace here below; thou art the guide of my pilgrimage, the strength of my weakness, the riches of my poverty, the remedy for the healing of my wounds, the soother of my pains, the end of my captivity, the hope of my salvation! Hear my prayers, have pity on my tears, I conjure thee, O thou who art my queen, my refuge, my love, my help, my hope, and my strength.” (p.80.)[/quote]With what you quote from Calvin and Luther. Like I say, I can copy and paste an eight foot post with language like this from your church even while the Catechism calmly denies her “latria” as if that actually means anything in practice. I have NO hope in Mary. She does NOT obtain eternal life for me. I do NOT hail her, nor is she my CERTAIN SALVATION as St. Ephrem is here quoted as saying by De Ligouri. She is neither “sovereign” nor “ALONE one whom God has appointed to be my solace here below”. She is MOST ASSUREDLY NOT “ALL POWERFUL” nor “the remedy for the healing of my wounds”. There is not the slightest reason to believe that the resurrected, ascended and exalted only begotten Son of the most high God now seated at the right hand of the Father and returning judge of the living and he dead “complies instantly with all her desires”.
This language sounds literally like a psalm of David written to YHWH his Lord and God. Not even the misguided praise of Luther is anywhere close. You must see this Pat.[/quote]
Okay so you don’t agree with St. Alphonsus. No biggie. I don’t agree with all that is written in the quote above. No rule says you have to agree with it. For instance, I am not a huge fan of Augustine. I put him in the ‘overzealous convert’ category. Aphonsus’s claim to fame isn’t the book ‘The Glories of Mary’, it was one of over a hundred he wrote. He was a church reformer and an out spoken critic of the legalism he perceived going on in the church at the time. He was a reformer who got things done. Being a doctor of the church doesn’t make everything they say a church dogma. They may have contributed to church dogma, but that’s not to say that everything they write or say is church dogma.
My only point was that devotion to the Blessed Mother is not a purely Catholic thing. That even the major Protestant reformers held her in high regard. And that’s not a bad thing.
I am sorry if it seemed like people were ganging up on you, and especially the extent to which I contributed to that impression.