Speak lovingly of Mary

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Hm... how so... You better explain some more that I can get enlightened ....

You missed the point...

If one has 10 "eye-witnesses" but their testimony is unconvincing, and another as no 'eye-witnesses' then it can be said that one has a superior position - and yet not be convinced that such is correct. The "problem" for you and your friend, is that you are the one with nothing rebuking the one with significantly more as "inadequate."

Friend, you keep making my point. A statement of fact of the highest level of certainty requires more than "cuz I saz" or "cuz I believe it" or "cuz I'm secure." If you don't accept that from a Mormon (or me), why should I accept that as adequate substantiation from you? If you won't accept MANY eye-witnesses who personally (and well) knew Joseph Smith and wrote in letters we have to this day that all teh things claimed of Smith are true - that's INADEQUATE substantiation (and I wouldn't disagree with you), then why am I to accept that NO ONE who knew Mary or even anyone who knew anyone who ever knew Mary taught this IS adequate substantiation for DOGMA? You need to explain that because it seems to be the whole basis of your evasion to the issue before us, naming, IS IT TRUE? Because if it's not true, it's not loving.




.

 

[Philothei]

Well, centuries later, an individual alludes to it,

I think you live in the twilight zone... Look around you... We do have more than 10 million of believers in Mary's virginity....but that hardly proves anything to you? No...since the mormons are better for having their little story told in the 19th centuray with paper and pencil at hand......LOL that is so funny ....

Also you never answer as to why you think that the Mormons are not true church? You set the straw man and deny to answer now... LOL....

 

[Philothei]

If one has 10 "eye-witnesses" but their testimony is unconvincing, and another as no 'eye-witnesses' then it can be said that one has a superior position - and yet not be convinced that such is correct. The "problem" for you and your friend, is that you are the one with nothing rebuking the one with significantly more as "inadequate."

That is another straw man... It all depends you cannot compair apples with oranges... and in that case you compaire just that...


Can you tell no one else is participating in your witch hunt?

 

[Uphill Battle]

Can you tell no one else is participating in your witch hunt?

um... mostly because you're missing the point over and over again... and there is nothing we can add to it to help you get what CJ is saying.

that, and you seem to be getting a bit hostile.

but use it as proof that nobody but CJ thinks along those lines if you want. Doesn't matter either way.

 

[Philothei]

where excaclty I am hostile with you UB?

 

[Philothei]

The "problem" for you and your friend, is that you are the one with nothing rebuking the one with significantly more as "inadequate."

You maybe want to think abou tthis post as friendly?

 

[Uphill Battle]

where excaclty I am hostile with you UB?

not me. In general.

don't worry about it. Carry on.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

and there is nothing we can add to it to help you get what CJ is saying.

I'm suspect they fully do. But, my Protestant friend, you too are familiar with the RCC/LDS/EO epistemology here. If the denomination speaks, Jesus speaks - and thus it is unaccountable and must be accepted "with docility" (CCC 87, works of LDS Apostle Bruce McConkie). The RCC insists that no substantiation is needed IF the self-same teaches whatever, but it IS necessary, essential and required if ANY OTHER teaches whatever. We are simply observing two of our friends following this rubric. Since I've been very familiar with this since I was 12 years old, I do not expect or desire to "break through" it. It is a perfect circle, they know it, they like it - and they aren't going to set it aside for a second. That, UB, must be accepted.

What I had HOPED is that we'd AT LEAST get them to acknowledge (as most Mormons and Catholics will - eventually) that the view is the unsubstantiated OPINION which they choose to embrace dogmatically (as is their right), just as is the case at times with Mormons, Davidians, etc. AND that they'd acknowledge that jsut because something can't be shown to be false is entirely unrelated to it being correct (much less DOGMA).

Why does this matter? Because the reputation and heart of one we love hangs the balance. I don't care (much, lol) if everyone talks about my sex life BUT I'm here to specifically and confirmably tell you it's okay AND to specifically tell you what that sex life is (PM me if really regard such to an issue of GREATEST and HIGHEST importance - dogma). Mary is not here to give us permission to spread stories about her supremely private marital life and what they involves (or not) OR to tell us what is or is not dogmatically true about that. If this is not true, it's a rumor and thus it is sin. And it is very potentially hurtful, painful and embarrassing to Our Blessed Lady, our Mother - and therefore to Her Son. I would have hoped (that's all - however slightly) that their devotion to Her would be enough to at least consider the point. I was wrong (but then I didn't regard it as at all likely anyway). Protecting that perfect circle of self-authentication, that "it's right cuz it just is" epistemology seems to be MUCH more important than Mary, it seems to me. And that is as I expected.

Ain't like in GT fun? I've missed this place....
And hey, maybe we aren't done.
SOMEONE else may get the point!






.

 

[MamaZ]

So we are to believe that this spoken of Mary by the CC and the EO and the OO because someone said this is the way it is without proof? Where is the proof that this is true about Mary? This is just hand me down tradition that has no proof especially in scripture that contains all the truth we need..

 

[hogndog]

It appears from reading the original post that Mary is worshiped as an equal to Jesus Christ, I'm not very good with words so let me quote from the first post.

Apparitions of the Blessed Virgin

Who is the Blessed Virgin Mary? She is not God! She is the mother of Jesus....the mother of God. She confounds the scientific world and proves God exists. In her many apparitions she has left us with messages from heaven. She urges us all to consecrate ourselves to her Immaculate Heart so that she can be the pathway to Jesus. You will seen that the apparitions are all centered around Jesus. Everything about her represents Jesus. He is the center of our lives. He is the core of our existence. He is the Son of the Eternal Father. He is our hope and the world has no other hope but Jesus Christ! That is what the apparitions show us. The Blessed Virgin draws us to Jesus. She is God's Greatest Evangelist.

Gods "greatest evangelist" she died some 2008 years ago so how in the world did this happen, you are worshiping a dead woman. Sure she was his mother but isn't this taking things a wee bit out of the realm of the Godhead? If you don't believe me at least explain for me if you will in this picture of John Paul II, why does he have his hands up, is he praying to her, asking her for directions, I'm sorry going to Jesus is a one on one experience we don't need a go between, or are you calling her a mediator, now that's a horse of a different color for we have one mediator between God and man, the Man Christ Jesus, the scripture says nothing about two. Anyway here is that picture, see how she has a crown as if to say she is the Queen, then her robes and necklace, Um.... and then there is this..

Our Lady of Fatima, 1917 In 1929, through Lucia of Fatima, Jesus urged all the Bishops of the world to unite with the Pope in consecrating Russia to the Blessed Virgin, so that His whole Church will recognize the conversion of Russia as having been brought about through the Immaculate Heart of Mary and that this devotion would spread throughout the world. In that same year the Blessed Virgin also told Lucia, "There are so many souls that the justice of God condemns for sins committed against me." This statement is easy to understand in light of the many Catholics who become embarrassed when the subject of Our Lady is brought up for discussion. It is sad indeed to think of Catholics being ashamed of their heavenly mother who has endured so much and shown nothing but love for them. At Fatima, Our Lady also said: "More souls go to hell because there is no one to pray for them or make sacrifices for them." She said,: "More souls go to hell for sins of the flesh than any other kind." And: "Pray for priests, priests must be pure, very pure"

 

[Thekla]

Well, if one accepts the Bible as authentic, where is the proof that the NT is authentic ?
What is the extant historical proof that the Gospels printed today are the same as the original 1st century texts ?

 

[katholikos]

It appears from reading the original post that Mary is worshiped as an equal to Jesus Christ...

It does not appear that way. All she said was Speak lovingly of Mary. What is wrong with that? And why are you misrepresenting the OP?

Who is the Blessed Virgin Mary? She is not God!

Thanks for the tip.
.

 

[lionroar0]

It appears from reading the original post that Mary is worshiped as an equal to Jesus Christ, I'm not very good with words so let me quote from the first post.

Apparitions of the Blessed Virgin

Who is the Blessed Virgin Mary? She is not God! She is the mother of Jesus....the mother of God. She confounds the scientific world and proves God exists. In her many apparitions she has left us with messages from heaven. She urges us all to consecrate ourselves to her Immaculate Heart so that she can be the pathway to Jesus. You will seen that the apparitions are all centered around Jesus. Everything about her represents Jesus. He is the center of our lives. He is the core of our existence. He is the Son of the Eternal Father. He is our hope and the world has no other hope but Jesus Christ! That is what the apparitions show us. The Blessed Virgin draws us to Jesus. She is God's Greatest Evangelist.

Gods "greatest evangelist" she died some 2008 years ago so how in the world did this happen, you are worshiping a dead woman. Sure she was his mother but isn't this taking things a wee bit out of the realm of the Godhead? If you don't believe me at least explain for me if you will in this picture of John Paul II, why does he have his hands up, is he praying to her, asking her for directions, I'm sorry going to Jesus is a one on one experience we don't need a go between, or are you calling her a mediator, now that's a horse of a different color for we have one mediator between God and man, the Man Christ Jesus, the scripture says nothing about two. Anyway here is that picture, see how she has a crown as if to say she is the Queen, then her robes and necklace, Um.... and then there is this..

Our Lady of Fatima, 1917 In 1929, through Lucia of Fatima, Jesus urged all the Bishops of the world to unite with the Pope in consecrating Russia to the Blessed Virgin, so that His whole Church will recognize the conversion of Russia as having been brought about through the Immaculate Heart of Mary and that this devotion would spread throughout the world. In that same year the Blessed Virgin also told Lucia, "There are so many souls that the justice of God condemns for sins committed against me." This statement is easy to understand in light of the many Catholics who become embarrassed when the subject of Our Lady is brought up for discussion. It is sad indeed to think of Catholics being ashamed of their heavenly mother who has endured so much and shown nothing but love for them. At Fatima, Our Lady also said: "More souls go to hell because there is no one to pray for them or make sacrifices for them." She said,: "More souls go to hell for sins of the flesh than any other kind." And: "Pray for priests, priests must be pure, very pure"

What it appear and what it is are two completely different things.

As the CC does not teach that Mary is equal to Jesus.

Peace

 

[lionroar0]

... and unfortuantely there are many Non-denominational churches who deny the ressurection never happened

......eeekkk

 

[Rick Otto]

Well, if one accepts the Bible as authentic, where is the proof that the NT is authentic ?
What is the extant historical proof that the Gospels printed today are the same as the original 1st century texts ?

But TWO accept it as authentic, so that is beside the point.
The problem is that not both of the "TWO" accept tradition as legitimately authoritative other than to substantiate it's own existence, & the existence of tradition isn't at issue, it is the content at issue.

And the tradition upholders generaly agree that whatever content tradition holds, it cannot be legitimate or authoritative if it contradicts scripture, yes?

 

[Thekla]

But TWO accept it as authentic, so that is beside the point.
The problem is that not both of the "TWO" accept tradition as legitimately authoritative other than to substantiate it's own existence, & the existence of tradition isn't at issue, it is the content at issue.

And the tradition upholders generaly agree that whatever content tradition holds, it cannot be legitimate or authoritative if it contradicts scripture, yes?

Since when is an agreement evidence of conclusive proof ?

 

[Rick Otto]

Since when does a matter of faith require conclusive proof?
We're not discussing the conclusive authenticity of scripture.
We already agree on it being authentic, so its authenticity is beside the point.
We're not discussing a matter that rests on conclusive proof.
We are discussing a matter that rests on scriptural proof or even any kind of proof that tradition might provide about the acceptability of, as opposed to the mere existence of, the practice of praying to deceased (but still spiritualy alive) saints.

 

[Thekla]

Since when does a matter of faith require conclusive proof?
We're not discussing the conclusive authenticity of scripture.
We already agree on it being authentic, so its authenticity is beside the point.
We're not discussing a matter that rests on conclusive proof.
We are discussing a matter that rests on scriptural proof or even any kind of proof that tradition might provide about the acceptability of, as opposed to the mere existence of, the practice of praying to deceased (but still spiritualy alive) saints.

But we are discussing the authenticity of the EO teaching on the ever-virginity of the Theotokos, and the EO accepts the authenticity of the Bible based on our Tradition - we believe the Bible is authentic as a matter of faith. Likewise the teaching of ever-virginity. We do not hold to the same "measure" (canon) of proof/authenticity that you do. As in Philothei's question, we believe the Resurrection because it has been believed and passed down - not only because of the Bible.

 

[katholikos]

Since when does a matter of faith require conclusive proof?....

Then why do you always ask for proof that the saints in heaven can hear us? Its a matter of faith.

 

[Uphill Battle]

......eeekkk

Hey, I deny the ressurection never happened too.

grammer matters.

Since when is an agreement evidence of conclusive proof ?

ooooh... bad statement for someone who adheres to a system that bases it's dogmas on the fact that people agreed something was true.

Then why do you always ask for proof that the saints in heaven can hear us? Its a matter of faith.

there is a difference in having faith in something, and having NO reason to have faith in it.

for instance, if someone said "I have faith in Gumby." you'd raise an eybrow and say "why? what reason is there for that faith?"

likewise, we questions "why have faith in something that is completely absent from scripture?" Remember this is not about absolute proofs... it's about ANY mention at all. The things that are completely devoid of biblical backing.

I.E. Purgatory, IC, PV, assumption.... so on and so forth.