Ultimate Blasphemy?

[IamAdopted]

Ok so you are saying two thousand years of Church Doctrine is wrong? I think not.

As for the intercession mary plays here is what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says :



((again all the quotes I will be using comes from the catechism of the catholic church))





I hope that sheds some light upon this issue.

If the tradition does not line up with scripture then yup I say it is wrong.

 

[Hentenza]

As for the intercession mary plays here is what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says :

2618 The Gospel reveals to us how Mary prays and intercedes in faith. At Cana, the mother of Jesus asks her son for the needs of a wedding feast; this is the sign of another feast - that of the wedding of the Lamb where he gives his body and blood at the request of the Church, his Bride. It is at the hour of the New Covenant, at the foot of the cross, that Mary is heard as the Woman, the new Eve, the true "Mother of all the living."

That Mary can pray and interceed is inferred from the gospels. Here is the passage that is refered in 2618.
John 2:3-4
3And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine. 4Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come.


Notice how Jesus answeres his mother's request. These passages should be read in context and not symbolically.

2674 Mary gave her consent in faith at the Annunciation and maintained it without hesitation at the foot of the Cross. Ever since, her motherhood has extended to the brothers and sisters of her Son "who still journey on earth surrounded by dangers and difficulties." Jesus, the only mediator, is the way of our prayer; Mary, his mother and ours, is wholly transparent to him: she "shows the way" (hodigitria), and is herself "the Sign" of the way, according to the traditional iconography of East and West.

This is not biblical and therefore, legend.

501 Jesus is Mary's only son, but her spiritual motherhood extends to all men whom indeed he came to save: "The Son whom she brought forth is he whom God placed as the first-born among many brethren, that is, the faithful in whose generation and formation she co-operates with a mother's love."

Again, this is not biblical. The bible talks about Jesus brothers and sisters. To opine differently is to force scripture to conform with legend.

I hope that sheds some light upon this issue.

It really doesn't.

 

[Oblio]

This is not biblical and therefore, legend.

You do realize the fallacy of this statement ?

 

[Trento]

I find this to be the ultimate blasphemy, having all this Mary Spirit interaction at Communion, Mary was not even at the Last Supper and Communion is specifically for remembering the Body and Blood of Jesus and His Crucifixion!

.............'the more you let Mary act in your Communion the more Jesus will be glorified. The more you humble yourself and listen to Jesus and Mary in peace and silence - with no desire to see, taste or feel - then the more freedom you will give to Mary to act in Jesus' name and the more Jesus will act in Mary'

http://www.fisheaters.com/totalconsecrationbook9.html


I had to have a cry when i read this one. Very sad.

The Ultimate Blasphemy
is misleading christians here by using a non official so called catholic site to smear Catholic christians. If you want to know official Catholic teaching go to the CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.

 

[aspirine]

Sounds like smear vs smear. People from the RCC are often quoting nonofficail, so called masonic sites to smear that fraternity. I like your admonition that people should check on the sited sources.

 

[Hentenza]

You do realize the fallacy of this statement ?

Do you realize the truth of that statement?

 

[Oblio]

All that is not recorded in the Bible is legend.

Right, gotcha

#30,004

 

[Hentenza]

All that is not recorded in the Bible is legend.

Right, gotcha

#30,004

No, if it is not consistent with scriptures is myth or legend. Let me ask you a rhetorical question. If Jesus was to come back during our lifetime, how would you discrern the false teachers? Would you compare their teachings to tradition or to the scriptures?

 

[Nimrauko]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iollain
I find this to be the ultimate blasphemy, having all this Mary Spirit interaction at Communion, Mary was not even at the Last Supper and Communion is specifically for remembering the Body and Blood of Jesus and His Crucifixion!

.............'the more you let Mary act in your Communion the more Jesus will be glorified. The more you humble yourself and listen to Jesus and Mary in peace and silence - with no desire to see, taste or feel - then the more freedom you will give to Mary to act in Jesus' name and the more Jesus will act in Mary'

http://www.fisheaters.com/totalconsecrationbook9.html


I had to have a cry when i read this one. Very sad.


The Ultimate Blasphemy
is misleading christians here by using a non official so called catholic site to smear Catholic christians. If you want to know official Catholic teaching go to the CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.

I must agree. But I fear it wont work. I quote things from the Catechism, and they dispute the validity. You cant make those who dont wish to see, see.

Sounds like smear vs smear. People from the RCC are often quoting nonofficail, so called masonic sites to smear that fraternity. I like your admonition that people should check on the sited sources.

I have not read in this where any Roman Catholic has smeared Masonic Jews. Smear? And if one did, does that make it right for a masonic jew to smear the Roman Catholic Church? Two wrongs dont make a right. Period.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nimrauko
As for the intercession mary plays here is what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says :

2618 The Gospel reveals to us how Mary prays and intercedes in faith. At Cana, the mother of Jesus asks her son for the needs of a wedding feast; this is the sign of another feast - that of the wedding of the Lamb where he gives his body and blood at the request of the Church, his Bride. It is at the hour of the New Covenant, at the foot of the cross, that Mary is heard as the Woman, the new Eve, the true "Mother of all the living."

That Mary can pray and interceed is inferred from the gospels. Here is the passage that is refered in 2618.
John 2:3-4
3And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine. 4Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come.


Notice how Jesus answeres his mother's request. These passages should be read in context and not symbolically.

Quote:
2674 Mary gave her consent in faith at the Annunciation and maintained it without hesitation at the foot of the Cross. Ever since, her motherhood has extended to the brothers and sisters of her Son "who still journey on earth surrounded by dangers and difficulties." Jesus, the only mediator, is the way of our prayer; Mary, his mother and ours, is wholly transparent to him: she "shows the way" (hodigitria), and is herself "the Sign" of the way, according to the traditional iconography of East and West.
This is not biblical and therefore, legend.

Quote:
501 Jesus is Mary's only son, but her spiritual motherhood extends to all men whom indeed he came to save: "The Son whom she brought forth is he whom God placed as the first-born among many brethren, that is, the faithful in whose generation and formation she co-operates with a mother's love."
Again, this is not biblical. The bible talks about Jesus brothers and sisters. To opine differently is to force scripture to conform with legend.



Quote:
I hope that sheds some light upon this issue.
It really doesn't.

Ok you claim people pick appart the scripture, well you didnt read the whole.

1On (A)the third day there was a wedding in (B)Cana of Galilee, and the (C)mother of Jesus was there; 2and both Jesus and His (D)disciples were invited to the wedding.
3When the wine ran out, the mother of Jesus said to Him, "They have no wine."
4And Jesus said to her, "(E)Woman, (F)what does that have to do with us? (G)My hour has not yet come."
5His (H)mother said to the servants, "Whatever He says to you, do it."
6Now there were six stone waterpots set there (I)for the Jewish custom of purification, containing twenty or thirty gallons each.
7Jesus said to them, "Fill the waterpots with water." So they filled them up to the brim.
8And He said to them, "Draw some out now and take it to the [a]headwaiter." So they took it to him.
9When the headwaiter tasted the water (J)which had become wine, and did not know where it came from (but the servants who had drawn the water knew), the headwaiter called the bridegroom,
10and said to him, "Every man serves the good wine first, and when the people (K)have drunk freely, then he serves the poorer wine; but you have kept the good wine until now."
11This beginning of His (L)signs Jesus did in Cana of (M)Galilee, and manifested His (N)glory, and His disciples believed in Him.

That states that he fulfilled the request. Mary said they had no wine. Jesus turned water into wine.


As for the rest, I could bring out a thousand different sources, but it wouldnt please you. So I will allow someone else to take the reins on this for a bit.

 

[IamAdopted]

I must agree. But I fear it wont work. I quote things from the Catechism, and they dispute the validity. You cant make those who dont wish to see, see.



I have not read in this where any Roman Catholic has smeared Masonic Jews. Smear? And if one did, does that make it right for a masonic jew to smear the Roman Catholic Church? Two wrongs dont make a right. Period.



Ok you claim people pick appart the scripture, well you didnt read the whole.

That states that he fulfilled the request. Mary said they had no wine. Jesus turned water into wine.


As for the rest, I could bring out a thousand different sources, but it wouldnt please you. So I will allow someone else to take the reins on this for a bit.

The scripture that you want to use to have Mary to be seen as anything other than a mother asking her son for a favor astounds me. For you need to read that when He said what has this to do with us He was speaking of Him and His disciples and not Him and Mary. Read the beginning of this whole passage. Jesus did not even come to the wedding with Mary. Now look at why this was even done. Not to glorify Mary by any means but to start His ministry on earth.

 

[Hentenza]

Ok you claim people pick appart the scripture, well you didnt read the whole.

That states that he fulfilled the request. Mary said they had no wine. Jesus turned water into wine.

I am sure that Jesus obeyed his mother throughout his life and Jesus did do what Mary wanted in this passage. There is nothing in this passage that allows you extrapollate that Mary has any "clout" with Jesus in heaven or that she can interceed for us in heaven.
I didn't pick apart the passage but merely read it in context.

 

[Oblio]

Tradition is Scripture rightly interpreted by the Church. It is no less than the testimony of the life of the Holy Spirit manifested through the Church. False prophets are tested against Tradition, if they do not line up with Holy Tradition, they are counterfeit.

 

[Oblio]

No, if it is not consistent with scriptures is myth or legend.

The statement for which you make this fallacious claim is not inconsistent with Scripture.

Only if something contradicts rightly interpreted Scripture or other Church Tradition, is it false or a myth. There is no requirement that something be consistent with Scripture for it to be true. Scripture even states this. c.f. the end of the Gospel of St. John.

 

[Hentenza]

Tradition is Scripture rightly interpreted by the Church. It is no less than the testimony of the life of the Holy Spirit manifested through the Church. False prophets are tested against Tradition, if they do not line up with Holy Tradition, they are counterfeit.

Ok, I think I'll stick with the scriptures.

 

[Hentenza]

The statement for which you make this fallacious claim is not inconsistent with Scripture.

Only if something contradicts rightly interpreted Scripture or other Church Tradition, is it false or a myth. There is no requirement that something be consistent with Scripture for it to be true. Scripture even states this. c.f. the end of the Gospel of St. John.

John 21:24-25
24This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true. 25And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.



I don't see where it reads to beleive man made tradition that is not consistent with scripture. I don't see where it reads that tradition is equal to scripture. What I do see is where it reads that his testimony is true.

 

[Nimrauko]

John 21:24-25
24This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true. 25And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.



I don't see where it reads to beleive man made tradition that is not consistent with scripture. I don't see where it reads that tradition is equal to scripture. What I do see is where it reads that his testimony is true.

I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written.

That is self explanitory. The Scriptures could not contain all the books that should be written. There are the scriptures and there are Oral Laws (which give forth to tradition) , and each are equal, and always have been.

 

[Hentenza]

That is self explanitory. The Scriptures could not contain all the books that should be written. There are the scriptures and there are Oral Laws (which give forth to tradition) , and each are equal, and always have been.

That's right. The bible could not and does not hold everything that Jesus said or did. John said in his gospel that his testimony was true, but what he does not say is that "oral" traditions are equal to scripture. All "oral" traditions must be compared to scripture to assertain its validity. The Word of God will ALWAYS superceed the traditions of man.

 

[IamAdopted]

Tradition is Scripture rightly interpreted by the Church. It is no less than the testimony of the life of the Holy Spirit manifested through the Church. False prophets are tested against Tradition, if they do not line up with Holy Tradition, they are counterfeit.

I see this as false. For We are to test everything with scripture and not a church teaching. We are never directed to rely on the Church. Paul admonishes us to stick to the scripture that is taught. Jesus tells us that Gods word is Truth. We also see when Jesus rose from the dead that He opened the eyes of His followers to understand the scriptures. NOt the church.

 

[IamAdopted]

That's right. The bible could not and does not hold everything that Jesus said or did. John said in his gospel that his testimony was true, but what he does not say is that "oral" traditions are equal to scripture. All "oral" traditions must be compared to scripture to assertain its validity. The Word of God will ALWAYS superceed the traditions of man.

Amen and also what we need is all contained in the scriptures. For they have to power of salvation and sanctification.

 

[Oblio]

I don't see where it reads to beleive man made tradition that is not consistent with scripture. I don't see where it reads that tradition is equal to scripture. What I do see is where it reads that his testimony is true.

It plainly states that Jesus did many things not recorded in ('consistent with' in YOUR definition) Scripture. So, are these things that Jesus did and said outside of Scripture myth and fable ? By your definition they are.