The snare of devotion to Mary.

[MKJ]

Who might they be, and what exactly have they said?



I did say to Albion that in the early Church the Bishop of Rome was recognized as having "universal jurisdictional authority" in settling controversial disputes in matters of doctrine and practice which arose in the churches outside the Roman Patriarchate. The faith professed by the Church at Rome was the standard, so to speak, that all the other churches should follow. I haven't decontextualized anything. I've invited you to explore the historical contexts of these citations among others on your own.

PAX

If you are willing to say that wasn't particularly seen as some kind of binding authority, I might be willing to say that is a reasonable perspective. It was certainly used that way to settle disputes.

But that does not, I think, make it possible to look at the kind of quotes being presented by the Fathers and simply say - they show us the papacy is meant to be what we see today. What they say is much more limited.

To say that leads to what we see now, that is definatly to make a justification on the basis of development of doctrine, which is always going to require a bit of delicacy. And in this case, it is a development that is behind two major divisions in the Church, which IMO makes it even more difficult to justify.

 

[Mary of Bethany]

Absolutely. To hear posters talk as though everyone accepted the Bishop of Rome as undisputed head of the universal church prior to the Great Schism should make every Orthodox Christian on CF interrupt with a "Just a minute there...." but they never seem to.

Perhaps we should, but there aren't many of us around GT, and most of us don't want to spend time in debate. What's the point, anyway? We all believe what we believe.

Mary

 

[Albion]

Perhaps we should, but there aren't many of us around GT, and most of us don't want to spend time in debate. Mary

I can't account for your perception of the postings here, Mary, but I have to say that the EO posters have been anything but few and noncommittal. The exception seems to occur whenever there is any suggestion that the Orthodox churches and the Roman Catholic Church agree on everything. Then, it's crickets.

 

[Mary of Bethany]

I disagree with you on that. But I really think that most Orthodox posters don't want to be caught in the middle of what is usually a Catholic/Protestant fight. I've never gotten the feeling that most GT posters care a whit about Orthodox positions and many don't seem to want to separate Orthodox from Catholic in their arguments. Again, what's the point? Why just throw one more viewpoint out into the fray?

There have been a few times that I've tried to clarify something - to differentiate between the Catholic and Orthodox belief, and have been completely ignored, which just serves to strengthen my conviction that most posters don't care.

The other reason, speaking for myself, is when I'm reading through posts and I have the urge to correct, or debate, or argue, I have to ask myself what my motives are, and is it really spiritually profitable to do so? I can't usually say that it is.

Mary

 

[bbbbbbb]

I can't account for your perception of the postings here, Mary, but I have to say that the EO posters have been anything but few and noncommittal. The exception seems to occur whenever there is any suggestion that the Orthodox churches and the Roman Catholic Church agree on everything. Then, it's crickets.

That has certainly been my perception, as well. When I was growing up in a very Catholic city, my Greek Orthodox friends were more than happy to identify with Protestants and distance themselves from the Catholics. How times have changed!

 

[justinangel]

That IS what I understood you to be saying, but we have to point out that you've been misinformed. That was not at all the case, and there is absolutely no evidence from history that would show your scenario to be accurate.

I addressed some of the specifics of your claim, but I guess you chose not to bother with them.

The Gospel of Matthew 16:17-19 and of John 21:15-27 reveal that Christ appointed Peter to be the supreme head of the Church on earth. The nascent church did regard Peter's office as the principle of stability and unity of faith. He was the 'rock' on which Christ's Church would be built. The word for rock and for Peter in the original Aramaic (Kepha) is one and the same, so the rock refers to the apostle himself, to whom our Lord gives 'the keys of the kingdom' as is proper, since the Father had granted the revelation of Jesus' son-ship exclusively to him on that occasion. Peter's unique commission within the college of the apostles was perceived as a fulfillment of prophecy. The symbol of the keys which were given to Peter and the metaphor of the gates of hell not being able to withstand the Church were envisioned by the prophet Isaiah (22:22): 'And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.' Jesus was believed to have referred to this passage when he spoke to Peter and conferred on him his own divine authority (cf. Isa 28:16; Mt 7:24) to act as his vice regent and supreme head to rule and govern the Church in His place in matters of faith and morals. In Acts, the Council of Jerusalem reached its decision by the indisputable vision Peter had received.

Both Clement of Rome and Ignatius of Antioch understood that the primacy of Peter's office was not merely one of honour, but rather one of supremacy. In the opening of his Letter to the Romans (107 A.D.), Ignatius addresses the Church at Rome as the one "presiding over the brotherhood of love" (prokathemene tes agapes). As Catholic scholars have pointed out, the Greek expression is not "pre-eminent in works of love." In his Epistle to the Corinthians (96 A.D.), over the matter of expelled bishops by a dissenting faction, Clement writes: "If any man", he says, "should be disobedient unto the words spoken by God through us [Clement and Peter], let them understand that they will entangle themselves in no slight transgression and danger" He adds: "render obedience unto the things written by us through the Holy Spirit". Clearly the Bishop of Rome understood very well, as did the church at Corinth, that the prerogatives granted to Peter by our Lord rested also with those men who succeeded him in the divine office (the chair of Peter) of chief shepherd (Jn 21:17; Lk 22:32). The Fathers at the Council of Chalcedon (first convoked at Nicaea and then transferred), in keeping with the Apostolic Tradition, declared in unison after the reading of the Tome of Leo 1: "This is the faith of the fathers! This is the faith of the apostles! So we all believe! Thus the orthodox believe! Anathema to him who does not thus believe! Peter has spoken thus through Leo! . . . This is the true faith! Those of us who are orthodox thus believe! This is the faith of the Fathers!" (Acts of the Council, sesssion 2).

Jesus intended that Peter's supremacy in ruling the Church should extend to his successors in the divine commission so that the gates of hell should not prevail in the wake of heresy and division. Leo's chief aim during his reign was to combat heresy and preserve Church unity, which you won't find in the Church of England with its many rifts in doctrine and practice among separate churches, unlike the 'Church in England'.

The Tome of Leo (Letter 28), which was unanimously adopted by the Council of Chalcedon, is a letter addressed to Flavian, the Bishop of Constantinople, concerning the heretical Christological views of Eutyches, a monastery Superior, who has fallen out of communion with the Church. In this letter we have an admonition:


'But when during your cross-examination Eutyches replied and said, “I confess that our Lord had two natures before the union but after the union I confess but one ,” I am surprised that so absurd and mistaken a statement of his should not have been criticised and rebuked by his judges, and that an utterance which reaches the height of stupidity and blasphemy should be allowed to pass as if nothing offensive had been heard: for the impiety of saying that the Son of God was of two natures before His incarnation is only equalled by the iniquity of asserting that there was but one nature in Him after “the Word became flesh.” And to the end that Eutyches may not think this a right or defensible opinion because it was not contradicted by any expression of yourselves, we warn you beloved brother, to take anxious care that if ever through the inspiration of God's mercy the case is brought to a satisfactory conclusion, his ignorant mind be purged from this pernicious idea as well as others ... Now for the loyal and faithful execution of the whole matter, we have appointed to represent us our brothers Julius Bishop and Renatus priest [of the Title of S. Clement], as well as my son Hilary , deacon. And with them we have associated Dulcitius our notary, whose faith is well approved: being sure that the Divine help will be given us, so that he who had erred may be saved when the wrongness of his view has been condemned. God keep you safe, beloved brother."

“Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod, together with the thrice blessed and all-glorious Peter the apostle, who is the rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith, has stripped him Dioscorus (Patriarch of Alexandria) of the episcopate” [Acts of the Council, session 3]
Council of Chalcedon


PAX

 

[justinangel]

That is precisely my point. There were not denominations then, ergo the idea that one denomination of later times was the church Christ founded--to the exclusion of the others--is just incorrect.

If there weren't any denominations in the apostolic age, then there can't be any now. The Church was intended by our Lord to be one visible body whose members comprise it. What we now have in Christendom are countless bodies. (44,000 independent denominations in Protestantism). Christ cannot be the head of each of them. We read in the NT that he is the head of one body which is the Church. A body is something visibly and hierarchically organized within a centralised network. Members of the Church can disconnect themselves from the body, whether they are clergy or laity, but that's about it.

Of course it was not. So we agree again. The church in England dates back to the Apostolic age.

The Church of England mustn't be confused with the Catholic Church in England since the apostolic age. At that time the Church in England did not affirm the principle that Scripture is the final arbiter in doctrinal matters of faith and morals. Nor did she dismiss or reject the universal doctrine of transubstantiation. Most Anglicans do not believe that the bread and wine in the sacrament of the Eucharist have actually become in substance the body and blood of Christ and are no longer in substance bread and wine. The few who do personally believe that they actually are the flesh and blood of Christ are free to piously do so. But the Church of England officially holds to the doctrine of consubstantiation: there are two substances which co-exist side by side in the Eucharist - the bread and wine and the body and blood of Christ with Jesus spiritually present in the sacrament. And this doctrine, too, has its variations within the Anglican community. In the apostolic age, Catholics believed that the bread and wine in the sacrament actually were the body and blood of Christ in substance. The species did not merely signify that Christ was substantially present in the sacrament spiritually. None of the ECFs bear testimony in their writings to an orthodox belief in consubstantiation.

“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes”
Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]

“We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [i.e., has received baptism] and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus”
Justin Martyr, First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]

“He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?”
Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5:2 [A.D. 189]

I suppose there are many Protestants who regard the Catholic theology of the Eucharist and devotion to the Blessed Sacrament as just another sample of superstitious nonsense along with Marian devotion.

PAX

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

there is a house whose chief cornerstone is peter. it is deceptive and shaky.

there is a house whose chief cornerstone is JESUS. it is true and solid.

one house is big and wide and many get in and like it. it seems right to man.

one house is small and narrow and few get in, and they rejoice in righteousness, joy and peace.

yahveh, yahushua, torah, scripture, the bible all talk about both houses. that's where to find out about them both. not from men. all men lie and love to lie. (thus, the big house(all that is false on earth)).

yahushua (Jesus) tells the truth. so the world rejects Him. only a few accept Him as Master. thus, a small house. (narrow way).

see how many internet users reject Him ? (most, many, "a lot")

same in the whole world - their deeds are evil, so they oppose the light. this is clear in scripture, but only for a few. the rest cannot comprehend, grasp, nor understand.

read scripture and see, if God permits. not too many get in. they lie to God, but God knows it. so He doesn't let them see or know anything. He even lets them watch the holograms around the world used by businesses to get people to 'listen', to accept and to 'obey' their authority, pretending to be true...... they fall for it all hook line and sinker.

 

[Albion]

If there weren't any denominations in the apostolic age, then there can't be any now.

In principle, there aren't. That's why I have been explaining on several of these threads the idea of all true Christian believers being united in what is termed "the invisible church." But we cannot deny that Christianity has always been evolving, changing, so that what was the external situation in the Apostolic Age is certainly not how the church is now--regardless of which denomination we're speaking of.

The Church was intended by our Lord to be one visible body whose members comprise it. What we now have in Christendom are countless bodies. (44,000 independent denominations in Protestantism).

And that same source you have just cited also says that there are over 300 Roman Catholic churches, too, so don't talk as though your denomination (or my denomination, for that matter) isn't part of the same picture. And that says nothing about all the Catholic schisms that came about both before and after the Reformation--the EO, Old Catholics, etc.

The Church of England mustn't be confused with the Catholic Church in England since the apostolic age.

By law and history, the Church of England IS the Catholic Church in England, and it's been there since the Apostolic Age. Don't fool yourself into thinking that there were two throughout British history, side by side, before the Papacy split from the Church of England.

 

[Albion]

“Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod, together with the thrice blessed and all-glorious Peter the apostle, who is the rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith, has stripped him Dioscorus (Patriarch of Alexandria) of the episcopate” [Acts of the Council, session 3]
Council of Chalcedon

Justin, my friend, I have many times pointed out that Matt 16:18 does not say what you want it to say, but worse, you have apparently refused to listen to that other very important point--you cannot prove anything about the Apostolic Church's thinking about church leadership by citing the comments of ECF's or Councils from hundreds of years later in time. That should be obvious to everyone .

 

[Galilee63]

The Early Church "Fathers" were Saint Peter and the Popes/Priests/Bishops/ArchBishops following Jesus Christ our Saviour and Saint Peter's Teachings of whom Jesus Christ our Saviour founded 'His Church' ie upon the rock of Saint Peter.

The other Churches founded were not by Jesus Christ our Saviour's Disciples themselves. Some followers of Jesus Christ our Saviour and His Teachings through others were commenced.

The Anglican Church origins:

The Elizabethan Religious Settlement, which was made during the reign of Elizabeth I, was a response to the religious divisions created in England over the reigns of Henry VIII, Edward VI and Mary I. This response, described as "The Revolution of 1559",[1] was set out in two Acts of the Parliament of England. The Act of Supremacy of 1558 re-established the Church of England's independence from Rome, with Parliament conferring on Elizabeth the title Supreme Governor of the Church of England, while the Act of Uniformity of 1559 outlined what form the English Church should take, including the re-establishment of the Book of Common Prayer.

When Mary died in 1558, Elizabeth succeeded to the throne. One of the most important concerns during Elizabeth's early reign was the question of which form the state religion would take. Communion with the Roman Catholic Church had been reinstated under Mary using the instrument of Royal Supremacy. Elizabeth relied primarily on her chief advisors, Sir William Cecil, as her Secretary of State, and Sir Nicholas Bacon, as Lord Keeper of the Great Seal, for direction on the matter. Many historians believe that William Cecil himself wrote the Church Settlement because it was simply the 1551-1552 version watered down.

Parliament was summoned in 1559 to consider a Reformation Bill and to recreate an independent Church of England. The drafted Reformation Bill defined Holy Communion in terms of Reformed Protestant theology, as opposed to the transubstantiation of the Roman Catholic mass, included abuse of the Pope in the litany,[2][3] and ordered that ministers should not wear the surplice or other Roman Catholic vestments.

Therefore, Anglicans through the English Royalty broke away from the original teachings of Jesus Christ our Saviour's Foundation of His Church - the Roman Catholic Church as a result of the above.

If one looks closely at the history of all the Christian Universal Church, many of these originated from the Roman Catholic Church of Jesus and Saint Peter.

By the way, Jesus Christ our Saviour and The Blessed Virgin Mary Mother of God were both appearing to many many Saints during the years 1214 well before the coming away of Jesus' Roman Catholic Church and creation of the early Churches.

by Saint Louis de Montfort
"The Secret of The Rosary" - Jesus Christ our Saviour to Saint Dominic and Blessed Alan De la Roche to Saint Louis De Montfort:

An Extract from The Secret of The Rosary.

www.catholictradition.org/Classics/secret-rosary.htm

Within this book are contained Jesus Christ our Saviour's Holy Words via His appearances to many of His priests during the years 1214 of which include Saint Dominic and Father Blessed Alan de la Roche 1260. Saint Louis De Montfort learned from Blessed Alan de La Roche from Jesus/God/The Holy Spirit the reasons for wars, historical religious events, why God The Most High gave our Blessed Virgin Mary Her Holy Rosary for mankind to pray with Holy quotations from Jesus Christ our Saviour and our Blessed Virgin Mary to priests for the urgent spreading of The Holy Ros-ary.

FOURTH ROSE: BLESSED ALAN DE LA ROCHE

ALL THINGS, even the holiest, are subject to change, especially when they are dependent on man's free will. It is hardly to be wondered at, then, that the Confraternity of the Holy Rosary only retained its fervor for one century after it was instituted by Saint Dominic. After this, it was like a thing buried and forgotten.

Doubtless, too, the wicked scheming and jealousy of the devil were largely responsible for getting people to neglect the Holy Rosary, and thus block the flow of God's grace which it had drawn down upon the world.

Thus, in 1349, God punished the whole of Europe and sent the most terrible plague that had ever been known into every land. It started first in the east and spread throughout Italy, Germany, France, Poland and Hungary, bringing desolation wherever it came----for out of hundred men hardly one lived to tell the tale. Big towns, little towns, villages and monasteries were almost completely deserted during the three years that the epidemic lasted.

This scourge of God was quickly followed by two others: the heresy of the Flagellantes and a tragic schism in 1376.

Later on when these trials were over, thanks to the mercy of God, Our Lady told Blessed Alan to revive the ancient Confraternity of the Most Holy Rosary. Blessed Alan was one of the Dominican Fathers from the monastery at Dinan, in Brittany. He was an eminent theologian and was famous for his sermons. Our Lady chose him because, since the Confraternity had originally been started in this province, it was most fitting that a Dominican from the very same province should have the honor of re-establishing it.

Priest - Blessed Alan De la Roche - Jesus Christ our Saviour appeared to Father Alan during 1260 to restore The Holy Rosary given by God The Most High to our Blessed Virgin Mary:

Blessed Alan began this great work in 1460 after a special warning from Our Lord. This is how he received His urgent message, as he tells it himself:

One day when he was saying Mass, Our Lord, Who wished to spur him on to preach the Holy Rosary, spoke to him in the Sacred Host:

"How can you crucify Me again so soon?" Jesus said.

"What did You say, Lord?" asked Blessed Alan, horrified.

"You crucified Me once before by your sins," answered Jesus, "and I would willingly be crucified again rather than have My Father offended by the sins you used to commit. You are crucifying Me again now because you have all the learning and understanding that you need to preach My Mother's Rosary, and you are not doing so. If you only did this you could teach many souls the right path and lead them away from sin----but you are not doing it and so you yourself are guilty of the sins that they commit."

This terrible reproach made Blessed Alan solemnly resolve to preach the Rosary unceasingly.

Our Lady too spoke to him one day to inspire him to preach the Holy Rosary more and more:

"You were a great sinner in your youth," she said, "but I obtained the grace of your conversion from my Son. Had such a thing been possible I would have liked to have gone through all kinds of suffering to save you because converted sinners are a glory to me. And I would have done this also to make you worthy of preaching my Rosary far and wide."

Saint Dominic appeared to Blessed Alan as well and told him of the great results of his ministry: he had preached the Holy Rosary unceasingly, his sermons had borne great fruit and many people had been converted during his missions. He said to Blessed Alan:

"See the wonderful results I have had through preaching the Holy Rosary! You and all those who love Our Lady ought to do the same so that, by means of this holy practice of the Rosary, you may draw all people to the real science of the virtues."

Briefly, then, this is the history of how Saint Dominic established the Holy Rosary and of how Blessed Alan de la Roche restored it.


The Lutherans:

For instance Martin Luther was an Augustine Priest of origin through and by Jesus/God/The Holy Spirit up until around 1517 until he decided to challenge the Roman Catholic teachings of which were founded by Jesus Christ our Saviour through Saint Peter and handed down through Rome.

"He confronted indulgence salesman Johann Tetzel, a Dominican friar, with his Ninety-Five Theses in 1517. His refusal to retract all of his writings at the demand of Pope Leo X in 1520 and the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V at the Diet of Worms in 1521 resulted in his excommunication by the Pope and condemnation as an outlaw by the Emperor.".

There is not judgement here, I am just posting the facts.

The Baptist Church originated around 1609:

Historians trace the earliest church labeled "Baptist" back to 1609 in Amsterdam, with English Separatist John Smyth as its pastor.[3] In accordance with his reading of the New Testament, he rejected baptism of infants and instituted baptism only of believing adults.[4] Baptist practice spread to England, where the General Baptists considered Christ's atonement to extend to all people, while the Particular Baptists believed that it extended only to the elect. In 1638, Roger Williams established the first Baptist congregation in the North American colonies. In the mid-18th century, the First Great Awakening increased Baptist growth in both New England and the South.[5] The Second Great Awakening in the South in the early 19th century increased church membership, as did the preachers' lessening of support for abolition and manumission of slavery, which had been part of the 18th-century teachings. Baptist missionaries have spread their church to every continent.[4]

One of the reasons undoubtedly why Jesus Christ our Saviour and The Blessed Virgin Mary Mother of God have primarily appeared to Jesus Christ our Saviour's "religious" throughout the ages (including Saint Dominic, Blessed Alan de la Roche, Saint Bernard, so many of whom were priests and not deacons/ministers of other religions). In all honesty I would be stating this fact regardless of whether or not I had been baptized Catholic. I have relatives of all denominations Protestant, Lutheran, Anglican, Baptist, born again Christians of other faith denominations and its never bothered me. As long as for their own soul good eternally in Jesus/God/The Holy Spirit's Holy Will, they all repent from genuine remorseful hearts to Jesus/God and receive Jesus' Blessed Sacraments being at least Baptism, Holy Communion and repent to Jesus if at least being one on ONE to Jesus.

And this is precisely what Jesus requested in His New Testament to His Disciples and precisely what Jesus has requested within His Divine Mercy Holy messages: turning to Jesus in repentance for sins and receiving His Blessed Sacraments (of Love).

"Repent and believe in The Good News"

"Do this in Remembrance of Me" and/or "Do this in Memory of Me".

and if we all agreed and did this from our hearts daily weekly and/or regularly then the world would be converted to Jesus/God/The Holy Spirit and a much more loving peaceful place through and by Jesus/God/The Holy Spirit.

Any person of whom is encouraging people to turn away from praying to Jesus and our Blessed Virgin Mary and in particular Her Holy Rosary Blessed and provided by God The Most High and delivered by Jesus Christ our Saviour Himself needs to realise that it is in effect going against Jesus/God The Most High (in His Holy Will for I am not anyone's judge) however as one can see, Jesus urgently appeared to many of his priests during those centuries and thereafter at other times, to encourage priests and His followers to pray to our Blessed Virgin Mary Her Holy Rosary.

Love and kindest wishes your Sister in Jesus Christ our Saviour

 

[MKJ]

If there weren't any denominations in the apostolic age, then there can't be any now. The Church was intended by our Lord to be one visible body whose members comprise it. What we now have in Christendom are countless bodies. (44,000 independent denominations in Protestantism). Christ cannot be the head of each of them. We read in the NT that he is the head of one body which is the Church. A body is something visibly and hierarchically organized within a centralised network. Members of the Church can disconnect themselves from the body, whether they are clergy or laity, but that's about it.



The Church of England mustn't be confused with the Catholic Church in England since the apostolic age. At that time the Church in England did not affirm the principle that Scripture is the final arbiter in doctrinal matters of faith and morals. Nor did she dismiss or reject the universal doctrine of transubstantiation. Most Anglicans do not believe that the bread and wine in the sacrament of the Eucharist have actually become in substance the body and blood of Christ and are no longer in substance bread and wine. The few who do personally believe that they actually are the flesh and blood of Christ are free to piously do so. But the Church of England officially holds to the doctrine of consubstantiation: there are two substances which co-exist side by side in the Eucharist - the bread and wine and the body and blood of Christ with Jesus spiritually present in the sacrament. And this doctrine, too, has its variations within the Anglican community. In the apostolic age, Catholics believed that the bread and wine in the sacrament actually were the body and blood of Christ in substance. The species did not merely signify that Christ was substantially present in the sacrament spiritually. None of the ECFs bear testimony in their writings to an orthodox belief in consubstantiation.

“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes”
Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]

“We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [i.e., has received baptism] and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus”
Justin Martyr, First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]

“He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?”
Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5:2 [A.D. 189]

I suppose there are many Protestants who regard the Catholic theology of the Eucharist and devotion to the Blessed Sacrament as just another sample of superstitious nonsense along with Marian devotion.

PAX

No one argues there were denominations, and you are getting caught up with that word. What is aegued is that the Church has always existed in many locations in relationship and in communion with other Churches. The Church in Jerusalem, the Church in England, the Church in Rome. the Church in Russia....

Sometimes, these groups have existed in impaired communion, or in actual schism, and sometimes that sort of thing happens for a while and later goes back to normal. You can see this kind of thing going on throughout history, the big examples being the splits with the OO or the EO which of course are still there. But you don't see Catholics trying to argue that these represented some sort of denominational structure or ideal.

This is very much the sort of situations Anglicans understand was the case with the CofE - a schism based on the same kind of problem that led to the Great Schism, the inappropriate understanding and practice of papal power. Just as it had previously led every other patriarch to sever communion with the papacy, it eventually led to even other western Christians doing so. In the case of England, it was wholesale - bishops and all.

I have no problem if you disagree that this is the sort of situation with the Church of England, that it was similar to that with, say, the EO - there are believable reasons one might argue that. But what I find very odd is that you seem to refuse to understand what we are saying our position is, or to address that claim in any sensible way. Why is it different than, say, the situation with the EO? How can you say it was not a schism on the basis you seem to be - simply on the basis of lacking communion with the pope - when that doesn't apply in other situations? Why do you keep going on about denominations when clearly that has nothing to do with the discussion?

You are seriously on the wrong track with transubstantiation. The fact that some don't believe it personally is totally irrelevant - neither do most western Catholics. You are simply wrong that Anglicanism officially believes in consubstantiation - the most accurate description would be that Anglicanism affirms the Real Presence - much as the East does. But the medieval insistence on defining transubstantiation in Aristotalian terms was in fact part of the problem, and part of the reason Anglicans and the EO have tended to reject it. And I think what is more to the point is the Catholic Church itself no longer claims that holding to those Aristotalian terms is what is meant by affirming transubstantiation. And of course the Eastern Catholics don't particularly like that formulation either.

But you know - just showing a difference between what the CC says, and any other Church says, doesn't do much. The CC understands clearly that it has to accept development of doctrine in order to support its position. As dose Anglicanism. (The EO, on the other hand, say that development of doctrine isn't legitimate, and we Anglicans and Catholics are all outside the Church.)

Both have ways of talking about things that are different than what existed before the break between the CofE and the Roman Church. What you would have to show is that the CC's developments in these things are legitimate, that the Anglican ones are not, and additionally that they are issues that would actually mean that Anglicanism was no longer part of the Church. You couldn't really, for example, claim that the rejection of the IC was enough to do that, since it isn't considered enough in the case of the East.

Much of what you are saying here seems to be arguing in a circle. " The Catholic Church is the true CHurch and the CofE is outside that. We know that because the CofE disagrees with some of the teachings of the CC". That isn't convincing because it begs the question - it starts by assuming what it is trying to prove is already correct. That isn't going to convince anyone who doesn't already assume that Catholic formulations are correct.

 

[Galilee63]

Jesus within His Divine Mercy Holy messages through Saint Sister Faustina during the 1930's while delivering His Divine Mercy Chaplet, has made His Loving Holy comment and note if you please, that Jesus made reference to the term "Food" and that many souls "do not know what this Food is":

Holy Communion - receiving His Blessed Holy Eucharist - His Flesh and Blood:

"My great delight is to unite Myself with souls...when I come to a human heart in Holy Communion My Hands are full of all kinds of Graces which I want to give to that soul.

How painful it is to Me that souls so seldom unite themselves to Me in Holy Communion.

It pains Me very much when religious souls receive the Sacrament of Love merely out of habit as if they do not understand what this Food is. I find neither faith nor love in their hearts. I go to such souls with great reluctance. It would be better if they did not receive...".

Justin Martyr, First Apology 66 [A.D. 151] provided by Justinangel.

“We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [i.e., has received baptism] and is thereby living as Christ enjoined".

 

[xTx]

All praise goes to our Lord Jesus Christ Jesus

 

[xTx]

So we are agreed on that. I hope that you also agree that some people misuse it in devotions to Mary that verge upon worship...which was the point here, not how to say the rosary or how much it means to you personally.

Nope - no matter how you think people have gone on to what you call 'worship' Mother Mary - to me personally - the formula of words said to Mother Mary does not worship Mother Mary but ask her to pray for them.

Therefore, personally, I feel that anyone who uses any of the formula of words/phrases/methods of prayers like the Rosary are only going as far as asking Mother Mary to pray for them.

Frequently Asked Questions
about
CATHOLICS PRAYING TO MARY


Click on the question of your choice to be taken to the answer.
1. Why do Catholics pray to Mary?
2. Is there any Biblical support for the belief of Catholics to call upon Mary to intercede to God on their behalf?


Q. 1. Why do Catholics pray to Mary?

A. 1. A saying that is well known among Catholics is, "To Jesus, through Mary." This does not mean, "To Mary, through Jesus." Nor does it mean, "To Jesus and to Mary." This saying affirms that Catholics do not pray "to" Mary as an equal to God. They pray "through" Mary as an intercessor who prays to God on behalf of mankind.

If Catholics were to pray to Mary, this would imply that they are worshipping her as a god. But Catholics do not perceive Mary as a god. (i) They honour the Blessed Virgin Mary. (ii) The view Mary as the holiest of all the Saints. (iii) The accept the fact that Mary is the most successful Saint at obtaining Divine favours through her intercession.

Frequently Asked Questions: Catholics praying to Mary.

That would require to you to understand that 1) you have misread that verse, and 2) "church" never means a particular denomination only.

During the time of Jesus and Saint Peter - there was only one church.

I was referring to that same 'one' church.

Well, yours, mine, and a number of other churches, too. But this doesn't have anything to do with the misuse of the rosary.

The Rosary can never be misused.

It is devoted people respectfully asking Mother Mary to pray for them.

This is my personal thoughts.

You say "romantic" but do you really mean "superstitious?" Give it some thought.

Nope, I am never superstitious. Superstition is the belief in supernatural causality—that one event causes another without any natural process linking the two events—such as astrology, religion, omens, witchcraft, prophecies, etc., that contradicts natural science. from Google.

My thoughts is based on facts / the teaching of the Holy Roman Catholic Church on the 'The consecrated hands of a priest...' Facts is never superstition.

I do not think if I did something - I will ward off evil by performing the act - however - I am perfectly happy to say that if I prayed my morning and night prayers - God will watch over me together with His host of Saints & Angels.

Is relying on God superstitious? Are prayers superstitious? of Course not.

 

[Albion]

Nope - no matter how you think people have gone on to what you call 'worship' Mother Mary - to me personally - the formula of words said to Mother Mary does not worship Mother Mary but ask her to pray for them.

Perhaps...if we confine ourselves to only the words used in certain prayers.

You want us to overlook the other prayers to Mary in which she is accorded divine and unscriptural powers, the postures, behavior, adornments, intent, and everything else that is part of the picture--exactly the factors that anyone who's taking this subject seriously would consider when deciding if "worship" is going on.

 

[Rhamiel]

Perhaps...if we confine ourselves to only the words used in certain prayers.

You want us to overlook the other prayers to Mary in which she is accorded divine and unscriptural powers, the postures, behavior, adornments, intent, and everything else that is part of the picture--exactly the factors that anyone who's taking this subject seriously would consider when deciding if "worship" is going on.

do you worry that some Protestants worship the Bible?

 

[bbbbbbb]

do you worry that some Protestants worship the Bible?

I will definitely worry about it when I see an altar with the Bible on it and candles burning before it with people kneeling in front of it, asking it to intercede with them to God.

 

[Albion]

I don't know anyone who worships the Bible. Therefore I don't worry about it very much.

However, I do know a lot of people who appear to worship the saints. Their church even calls it a form of "worship" although the church's knee-jerk defenders act as though it's absurd for onlookers to call it by the same word.

In short, THIS seems to be something that is deserving of scrutiny, unlike "Bible worship."

 

[Rhamiel]

it is an ancient Christian practice that can be traced back to the early martyrs

how can you scrutinize that?