Posted on 11/19/2001 6:09:34 AM PST by Notwithstanding
In 1998, Ramerman and two priests, the Rev. James Callan and the Rev. Enrique Cadena, as well as many parishioners, split from Corpus Christi in Rochester. It resulted in the formation of Spiritus Christi, a 1,500-person congregation independent of the diocese that celebrates Sunday Mass at Hochstein Music School downtown. Ramerman's first Mass as a priest is 8 a.m. today. While she is considered an Old Catholic priest, Spiritus Christi remains an independent church. The auburn-haired mother of three now goes by the title of the Rev. Mary Ramerman. Parishioners need not call her "father," the traditional name associated with Roman Catholic priests. Rather, just call her "Mary," she said.
Yes, you're right. I believe all the popes from the first (constantine actually) to the current one (J2P2) are false teachers because so much of cathlolicism's major doctrines are either not supported in any way by the Holy Bible or are specifically and completely anti-Biblical. The same applies to others who claim to be Christians but have written their own books because their beliefs are at odds with Gods' written word, such as mormons and jehovah witness.
The best example is the practice of idolatry, I have repeatedly asked catholics where did Jesus or any of the Apostles teach anyone to "venerate images" and I can't get an answer, because catholics know the only true answer is that it is a violation of the Second Commandment.
And this is in the Bible where?
There you go again, Josh, denying what is plainly written in the Bible. (Really, do you ever open the thing? LOL!) So only God can forgive sin? He seems to disagree with you, witness:
John 20:22-23
22 And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit.
23 If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."
Ex-Catholic, eh? I'm an ex-Protestant. Let me guess -- you never heard the Gospel all the time you were serving Mass, huh? (PS: Joking and jesting aside, it's altar with an "A" -- no insult intended, it just really peeves me to see it misspelled so often.)
Oh yeah, one other thing: I don't get EWTN. I had cable TV pulled out because I didn't want it spewing evil into my home where my wife and I are trying to raise children. (Not that EWTN itself was evil, mind you.)
Here's another thing, Josh. You might want to check out what those early Church Fathers (hey -- what happened to the "call no man, Father", shtick?) had to say about things like the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist and devotion to Mary. It just might surprise you.
WHY are the cardinals' three-cornered hats, or birettas, red?
The red color reserved for cardinals represents the challenge the pope presents them with when he bestowed it: "Be ready to spill blood if need be to spread the faith."
When it had the political power rome was never shy about murdering those who refused its false doctrines, thanks for the reminder.
There is no mention of Mary in the Bible after ACTS 1:14 because other than being a tool that God used she was no greater than any other human.
I mention this because in the early Christian centuries relics of saints were jealously guarded, highly prized. The bones of those martyred in the Coliseum, for instance, were quickly gathered up and preserved; there are many accounts of this in the biographies of those who gave their lives for the faith. Yet here was Mary, certainly the most privileged all the saints, certainly the most saintly, but we have no record of her bodily remains being venerated anywhere.
Where is there any mention in the Holy Bible of anyones dead body being "venerated"?
LEVITICUS 21:10 ¶ And [he that is] the high priest among his brethren, upon whose head the anointing oil was poured, and that is consecrated to put on the garments, shall not uncover his head, nor rend his clothes;
LEVITICUS 21:11 Neither shall he go in to any dead body, nor defile himself for his father, or for his mother;
NUMBERS 6:1 ¶ And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
NUMBERS 6:2 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When either man or woman shall separate [themselves] to vow a vow of a Nazarite, to separate [themselves] unto the LORD:
NUMBERS 6:3 He shall separate [himself] from wine and strong drink, and shall drink no vinegar of wine, or vinegar of strong drink, neither shall he drink any liquor of grapes, nor eat moist grapes, or dried.
NUMBERS 6:4 All the days of his separation shall he eat nothing that is made of the vine tree, from the kernels even to the husk.
NUMBERS 6:5 All the days of the vow of his separation there shall no razor come upon his head: until the days be fulfilled, in the which he separateth [himself] unto the LORD, he shall be holy, [and] shall let the locks of the hair of his head grow.
NUMBERS 6:6 All the days that he separateth [himself] unto the LORD he shall come at no dead body.
NUMBERS 19:11 ¶ He that toucheth the dead body of any man shall be unclean seven days.
NUMBERS 19:12 He shall purify himself with it on the third day, and on the seventh day he shall be clean: but if he purify not himself the third day, then the seventh day he shall not be clean.
NUMBERS 19:13 Whosoever toucheth the dead body of any man that is dead, and purifieth not himself, defileth the tabernacle of the LORD; and that soul shall be cut off from Israel: because the water of separation was not sprinkled upon him, he shall be unclean; his uncleanness [is] yet upon him.
NUMBERS 19:14 This [is] the law, when a man dieth in a tent: all that come into the tent, and all that [is] in the tent, shall be unclean seven days.
NUMBERS 19:15 And every open vessel, which hath no covering bound upon it, [is] unclean.
NUMBERS 19:16 And whosoever toucheth one that is slain with a sword in the open fields, or a dead body, or a bone of a man, or a grave, shall be unclean seven days.
NUMBERS 19:17 And for an unclean [person] they shall take of the ashes of the burnt heifer of purification for sin, and running water shall be put thereto in a vessel:
NUMBERS 19:18 And a clean person shall take hyssop, and dip [it] in the water, and sprinkle [it] upon the tent, and upon all the vessels, and upon the persons that were there, and upon him that touched a bone, or one slain, or one dead, or a grave:
NUMBERS 19:19 And the clean [person] shall sprinkle upon the unclean on the third day, and on the seventh day: and on the seventh day he shall purify himself, and wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and shall be clean at even.
NUMBERS 19:20 But the man that shall be unclean, and shall not purify himself, that soul shall be cut off from among the congregation, because he hath defiled the sanctuary of the LORD: the water of separation hath not been sprinkled upon him; he [is] unclean.
NUMBERS 19:21 And it shall be a perpetual statute unto them, that he that sprinkleth the water of separation shall wash his clothes; and he that toucheth the water of separation shall be unclean until even.
NUMBERS 19:22 And whatsoever the unclean [person] toucheth shall be unclean; and the soul that toucheth [it] shall be unclean until even.
The evidence for the of the Assumption, as understood and explained over the centuries by the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, concern not so much scriptural references (there are none that speak even indirectly to the matter of Mary's Assumption, and only a few that deal with the subject of assumptions in general), but rather the fittingness of the privilege. The speculative grounds considered include Mary's freedom from sin, her Motherhood of God, her perpetual virginity, and--the key--her participation in the salvific work of Christ. It seems most fitting that she should attain the full fruit of the Redemption, which is the glorification of the soul and body.
Like the pharisees, rome has put aside Gods' word and has chosen to follow man-made doctrines.
No freedom from sin.
LUKE 1:46 And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord,
LUKE 1:47 And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.
No Perpetual virginity.
MATTHEW 1:24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
MATTHEW 1:25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
I have no clue what you mean by "her participation in the salvific work of Christ"
"hey -- what happened to the "call no man, Father", shtick?) "
Are you trying to say that this statement forbids me from calling anyone "Father"? Are you serious? This statement and there was another that you made, that I refuse to waste time looking for, really show ignorance. If you want to debate ideas, fine. Don't make statements that put you on the level of a catholic Jack Chick
Your believing doesn't make it so. For instance which parts of the Nicene Creed do you reject, as they represent a summary of basic Catholic dogma? Particularly Catholic doctrine such as the papal supremacy and the Real Presence, Protestants reject simply on the basis of a different interpretation of Scripture. As for images, this is no more than Protestant iconaclasm,which uses the 2nd commandment as a proof text In England, Radical supporters of the Royal Divorce like Hugh Latimer, Cranmer and Cromwell used it as a justification for suppression of popular religious practices by linking them to Rome. The reform of the calender. the suppression of "image worship"and Pilgrimages and the monastaries by the government of Henry VIII were accompanied by acts that remind me of the spoilation of synagogues by Nazi thugs. A popular uprising was avoided only by the linkage of these reforms to the Royal Supremacy, which made resistance a form of treason and, ironically, by the resistance of conservative bishops, who muted the reforms and gave Catholics the hope that might be reversed. Things got worse, of course, under the boy-king Edward, who was completely under the thumb of the Protestants.
Thanks. I'll take that last part as your acknowledgement that the early church fathers' writings support the Catholic positions.
"hey -- what happened to the "call no man, Father", shtick?) "
Are you trying to say that this statement forbids me from calling anyone "Father"? Are you serious? This statement and there was another that you made, that I refuse to waste time looking for, really show ignorance. If you want to debate ideas, fine. Don't make statements that put you on the level of a catholic Jack Chick.
Get a grip, Josh. I'm just ribbing you re: the usual Protestant protestations about these things. You really ought to develop of sense of humor. God loves you, Josh. (But I bet He's kinda pissed at your rejection of His church.) Happy Thanksgiving, brother.
Are you using these verses as proof apostles had the power to forgive sin?
(For it to be spelled with "A" it would have to have some association with God. I consider your altr a heresy so I spell it as it should be. My pet peeve is to see it capitilized. Sorry if this offends you)
I do have a sense of humor. That is why I debate Catholics..:)
I say that trying to show a Catholic the truth is like trying to get jello to stick to the ceiling. My wife won't let me have my fun, she says it makes a mess , so i'm here with you...Happy Thanksgiving to you too Brother..
There is a book by Cardinal and Saint Alphonsus de Liguori. The title is "The Glories of Mary" It's an old book so you might have to dig for it.Not too hard. It’s still sold. It is probably the most flowery book on Mary ever written, but it is hardly Catholic doctrine. There are parts of it even Liguori doesn’t quite seem willing to insist are accurate, preferring to cite other people for the statement.
Let me quote from this great saints book for you.Can you give me the edition, section, and page numbers for your quotes? Given the elipses and the general nature of this discussion I would love to check them. If you can’t, I hope you will understand my lack of trust in their veracity. It probably doesn’t really matter, as the book isn’t Catholic doctrine.
These are direct quotes from this book from a respected saint of the Catholic churchI notice not a single one indicates that she is divine. The most flowery language produced by any Catholic author on Mary in 2000 years, and yet not a word says she is divine. The most extreme of Catholics in his devotion to Mary, and yet you can’t find a single word that says she is God. Moreover, even the quotes you have selected, the best for your cause, if they are even accurate, and they clearly differentiate between Mary and God. “God will not save us without the intercession of Mary. God saves. This book places more emphasis on Mary then any Catholic I know would, on her intercession, but yet even this is plain that she cannot save, but God does. This is your proof we consider her divine! Pathetic, and yet you too will go on claiming we worship her. You will go on bearing false witness, claiming you know our faith better then we, on such flimsy evidence as this. The book doesn’t even prove Ligouri considered her divine, and given that none of it is Catholic doctrine that is all it could prove. What does the Church really teach?
CANON I.-If any one saith, that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema.And specifically on the subject of relics, saints, and prayer to saints:
The holy Synod enjoins on all bishops, and others who sustain the office and charge of teaching, that, agreeably to the usage of the Catholic and Apostolic Church, received from the primitive times of the Christian religion, and agreeably to the consent of the holy Fathers, and to the decrees of sacred Councils, they especially instruct the faithful diligently concerning the intercession and invocation of saints; the honour (paid) to [Page 234] relics; and the legitimate use of images: teaching them, that the saints, who reign together with Christ, offer up their own prayers to God for men; that it is good and useful suppliantly to invoke them, and to have recourse to their prayers, aid, (and) help for obtaining benefits from God, through His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, who is our alone Redeemer and Saviour; but that they think impiously, who deny that the saints, who enjoy eternal happiness in heaven, are to be invocated; or who assert either that they do not pray for men; or, that the invocation of them to pray for each of us even in particular, is idolatry; or, that it is repugnant to the word of God; and is opposed to the honour of the one mediator of God and men, Christ Jesus; or, that it is foolish to supplicate, vocally, or mentally, those who reign in heaven. Also, that the holy bodies of holy martyrs, and of others now living with Christ,-which bodies were the living members of Christ, and the temple of the Holy Ghost, and which are by Him to be raised unto eternal life, and to be glorified,--are to be venerated by the faithful; through which (bodies) many benefits are bestowed by God on men; so that they who affirm that veneration and honour are not due to the relics of saints; or, that these, and other sacred monuments, are uselessly honoured by the faithful; and that the places dedicated to the memories of the saints are in vain visited with the view of obtaining their aid; are wholly to be condemned, as the Church has already long since condemned, and now also condemns them.Quotes from the Ecumenical Council of Trent, 6th and 25th Sessions. Look, I don’t care if you don’t agree with our doctrine. I don’t care if you think it contrary to the Bible, and if you believe that our faith is satanic. I would just appreciate it if you would so believe based on what we actually believe, not a Jack Chick caricature of our faith. You can hate Catholicism based on what we actually are if you like, but it is entirely dishonest to hate it based on what you think one Catholic author said when that isn’t even remotely close to what the Church teaches.Moreover, that the images of Christ, of the Virgin Mother of God, and of the other saints, are to be had and retained particularly in temples, and that due honour and veneration are to be given them; not that any divinity, or virtue, is believed to be in them, on account of which they are to be worshipped; or that anything is to be asked of them; or, that trust is to be reposed in images, as was of old done by the Gentiles who placed [Page 235] their hope in idols; but because the honour which is shown them is referred to the prototypes which those images represent; in such wise that by the images which we kiss, and before which we uncover the head, and prostrate ourselves, we adore Christ; and we venerate the saints, whose similitude they bear: as, by the decrees of Councils, and especially of the second Synod of Nicaea, has been defined against the opponents of images.
And the bishops shall carefully teach this,-that, by means of the histories of the mysteries of our Redemption, portrayed by paintings or other representations, the people is instructed, and confirmed in (the habit of) remembering, and continually revolving in mind the articles of faith; as also that great profit is derived from all sacred images, not only because the people are thereby admonished of the benefits and gifts bestowed upon them by Christ, but also because the miracles which God has performed by means of the saints, and their salutary examples, are set before the eyes of the faithful; that so they may give God thanks for those things; may order their own lives and manners in imitation of the saints; and may be excited to adore and love God, and to cultivate piety. But if any one shall teach, or entertain sentiments, contrary to these decrees; let him be anathema.
Care to explain these quotes from this great saint? If the Catholic church has refuted this book please let me know.Why would it refute it? Does the Church somehow have to refute every book out there? Of course not, whether it teaches the same thing or not is the question. You cannot assume that just because he is a saint that the Church agrees with everything he believed. That isn’t true for any saint, or any Pope. That is plain silly, our saints do not set doctrine, the Magisterium does.
patent +AMDG
Nowhere in the scripture are the following found:1. Sola Fide
2. Sola Scriptura
3. Etc.
1.The POPESt. Peter as the Rock (Matthew 16:18)
2. The worship of graven images (when you pray to "something" its a worship).Ignorance is bliss, no? Go down to court and file a prayer for relief. Does this mean you are worshiping the clerk you file it with or the judge you are asking for help from? No, that would be absurd. A prayer is a request, nothing more. When you request things only God can do, it becomes worship. When you ask a human, such as a saint, your neighbor, a judge, etc., it is merely another word for a request.
Prayer is a petition. It is a request. One definition is that it is worship:
1a: a solemn and humble approach to Divinity in word or thought.It can also simply be a request to someone:
b: an earnest request to someone for something.(Definitions from Webster’s Third International Dictionary). When we pray to saints, we do not worship them, we ask them for something, their intercession:
2683 The witnesses who have preceded us into the kingdom,[41] especially those whom the Church recognizes as saints, share in the living tradition of prayer by the example of their lives, the transmission of their writings, and their prayer today. They contemplate God, praise him and constantly care for those whom they have left on earth. When they entered into the joy of their Master, they were "put in charge of many things."[42] Their intercession is their most exalted service to God's plan. We can and should ask them to intercede for us and for the whole world.Remember, our God is not the God of the dead, but of the living:
3.The "forgiveness and absolution of sin" by man.It is not a man that forgives them, but God. Anyway, the Scripture: The Keys of the Kingdom (Matthew 16:19)
4. The diety of Mary and the "satints" (anyone whom is "prayed to" is put in the position of diety"BS. When you file any complaint with a court you include a section called the prayer for relief. You do not thereby put the court in a position of diety, nor do you worship it. Why is it that you non-Catholics know what we believe so much better then you do. If I start telling you you worship your TV, does that make it so? It is every bit as true as claiming I or any other Catholic worships Mary.
5.The belief that only a special selective group may enter heaven (Catholics).Not a Catholic doctrine. That you enter Heaven, if you do so, through the Sacrifice of our Lord Jesus Christ, and through the Grace He pours into this world through His Church, yes we teach that.
The Word Christian is symbloic of those who follow Christ and his teaching. The Catholic Church does not follow the teachings of Jesus Christ. Nowhere are your pagan rituals, confession of sin to a man in a black robe, the worship of Mary and your selective salvation plan, saints by appointment, no meat on Fridays (oh, that's been changed, by the GOD that changeth not,)...found in the bible.neither are your lies.
The Catholic Church destroyed entire civilizations in the Americas for not accepting the Catholic faith. Is that "Christian" ? is challanging the Catholic lie being a bigot...then just call me "BIGOT", right along with Christian (something your NOT)I would have a hard time calling someone who spews so much hate a Christian. Bigot is much more fitting.
patent +AMDG
Don't make statements that put you on the level of a catholic Jack ChickYou make that statement after making the prototypical Jack Chick style claim that we think Mary is divine? Give me a break, you make Jack Chick statements and then complain about someone else doing it?
patent +AMDG
A book of quotes from your saints down through the ages claiming salvation through Mary you call Flowery?. We call it heresy
"Can you give me the edition, section, and page numbers for your quotes? "
No I can't. I threw the book out years ago. I can give you some quotes I kept in notes from the book.
there is no one, most holy Mary, who can be saved but through you. (St. Germanus) Salvation is from God through his Son Jesus. Germanus says no one can be saved "but through you" (Mary). If salvation is from God and we can't get there without Mary, she has to be divine.
As we have access to the Eternal Father only through Jesus Christ, so have we access to Christ only through Mary. By thee we have access to the Son, o blessed finder of grace,bearer of life, mother of salvation. (St. Bernard) Here again we have a different "saint" claiming the only way to God is through Mary. She has to be divine
JPII, the Vicar of Christ on earth, in the eyes of Catholicism,entrusted the world to Mary at Earth Day several years back. Not to Christ, to Mary.
"“God will not save us without the intercession of Mary. God saves."
You make my point. God saves but He has to go through Mary. she must be divine.
"This book places more emphasis on Mary then any Catholic I know would, on her intercession, but yet even this is plain that she cannot save, but God does."
This book is a compedium of what the saints of the Catholic church have said down through the centuries. These quotes make it "plain" that man needs Mary to get to God.
". This is your proof we consider her divine! Pathetic, and yet you too will go on claiming we worship her. You will go on bearing false witness, claiming you know our faith better then we, on such flimsy evidence as this. "
Mary hears the prayers of millions of Catholics from around the world daily. She hears these prayers in all languages.to accomplish this she has to be all-knowing and all-understanding, attributes given to God alone. You can call them "special powers " to cover this heresy,but they are still powers only God has. She must be divine.
Now all this means nothing to the faithful because the Catholic church covers it's heresies. You are a prime example.
I give you quotes from your Saints, your Pope, your Theologians, and you tell me that is not Church doctrine. It doesn't matter what the leaders preach, it's not what we teach. If we ask how can the true church that was entrusted to interpret scripture have it's saints beliefs different from the doctrine of the church?
Your answer is man is not infallible. To put this simply. The Catholic Church is the only one able to translate scripture but they can always be wrong except if it is spoken Ex-Cathedra, man is fallible.
A look back through the centuries finds that Ex-Cathdra was used 3 times. This means that we can be sure of 3 proclamations from the "true Church", the rest are given by fallible man. And you call me pathetic?
"our saints do not set doctrine, the Magisterium does. "
To those on this thread who don't know who the Magisterium is they are the fallible men talked about above.
"Why would it refute it? Does the Church somehow have to refute every book out there? Of course not, whether it teaches the same thing or not is the question. You cannot assume that just because he is a saint that the Church agrees with everything he believed. "
They set doctrine that the saints don't have to follow patent verifies with this statement
Catholicism
Heresies = flowery language
Heritics=Saints
Omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscent = Attributes of God only, Special heavenly powers when speaking of Mary
Salvation = only from God, through Jesus, through Mary.
Church doctrine = Core beliefs of the church that it's saints and Popes don't need to follow.
Anyone who questions this doctrine = Pathetic, haters, Catholic bashers.
With all due respect. I'm impressed with your lenghty posts and your ability to cut and paste Catholic doctrine. However this doesn't hide you invincible ignorance of the truth.
While debating can be fun the bible clearly states that if someone doesn't hear you words shake the dust from your feet and leave. While I will keep you in my prayers I find it useless to respond to your foolish attempts to justify your Churches Maryolotry.
The word foolish is not meant to demean you but I can think of no other way to express how your defense of this heresy comes across to anyone who doesn't believe it. May the Holy Spirit open your eyes.
I'm impressed with your lenghty posts and your ability to cut and paste Catholic doctrine.Which you utterly ignore. Incredible! In a discussion of what the Church teaches you aren’t willing to even address the Church’s actual words. As we discuss Church doctrine you ignore things the entire assembly of Catholic Bishops pondered over at great length, debated the wording of nearly forever, and solemnly voted on and approved as Church doctrine. These things then had to be solemnly approved by the Pope as Church doctrine. You prefer to ignore that, and instead claim that Catholics believe what one man, writing on his own, claimed. This is incredible!
The equivalent would be ignoring the United States Constitution and reading Thomas Jefferson’s commentary on Monetary Policy as the law of the land. This would be absurd, of course. The Constitutional Congress did not consider and vote on any and all works by Jefferson. The states did not approve his words wherever they appeared. Rather, a single document, the Constitution, was solemnly prepared, voted on, submitted to and approved by the states. This is the law of the land, not some book by Jefferson or any of our other founding fathers. The same is true for the Church. No book by any saint is doctrine. They are only doctrine to the extent they mirror what was formally approved by the Magisterium. You cannot point to any such doctrine by the Church here, as there simply are none. But you prefer to ignore official Church teaching, which I have cited to you, in favor of a little book by an individual saint. Beyond silly.
I give you quotes from your Saints, your Pope, your Theologians, and you tell me that is not Church doctrine.Actually you’ve given me quotes you can’t verify from one saint. And you are surprised when I claim its not Church doctrine? LOL. Can I ask what sort of Christian you consider yourself? Who do you consider the first one like you? (if its you, that is fine, tell me that) Let us consider this person, in the text below “Joshua Prime.” Question for you. Would you contend that every word uttered by Luther, or by Calvin, or by Joshua prime was and is doctrine for Lutherans, or Calvinists, or Joshua Current? You make this statement about Catholics here. “Quotes from your saints, your Pope, your Theologians” [and actually just from one Bishop] [is] Church doctrine. Would you make this statement about Lutherans? For if you make that claim, that every word Martin Luther uttered is Lutheran doctrine, then there is no point in further discussion. You are a blatant and pathetic liar. Could you even assume that about yourself? That every statement you have ever uttered is your current doctrine, and is ever set in stone, you must obey it?
Whatever else is true of you, for the sake of this discussion I am going to assume you are not that blatant of a liar. I do expect an answer to that question though. Please provide one, do you claim every quote from Luther is Lutheran doctrine, or even that every quote from you, limiting even to quotes on the faith, is your doctrine. (In other words, that you have never changed doctrine, ever. You were born believing just what you believe now.)
But, making the assumption you are not that blatant a liar about Lutherans, you do make that claim for Catholics. Every theological word uttered by every saint is now Catholic doctrine? Either you become honest, and admit that is not true, or your position is beyond a Jack Chick parody. You could also go read some of St. Augustine’s words and come to the conclusion that the Calvinists have predestination right, but you would be an outright fool to claim that was Catholic doctrine. I assume you know full well it is not, since I assume you also accuse us of teaching salvation by works, two completely incompatible doctrines.
There are thousands of examples like this. Things this saint or that saint believed, but the Church either never taught, and never will, or outright rejected. There is one thing that makes it even more absurd to make this claim about Catholics then it is to make this claim about Lutherans. The Catholic Church has a Magisterium that formally defines Catholic doctrine. We are very easy to understand if you wish to take the time to look. Every formal Catholic doctrine has been defined by an Ecumenical Council or by a Pope. Almost every single one of these documents are online. Most of the doctrines are contained inside the Catholic Catechism, which is freely available online. Unlike most Christian denominations, which do not help the believer figure out precisely what it is they believe, and for good reason, we put it right out front. No spin, no B.S. Want to know what the Church teaches? Read the Catechism. Heck, they even make it searchable!
The Church is quite clear that only formally defined teachings are what Catholics believe. No Pope, Council, or anyone else has said: “Should anyone doubt that any word in Ligouri’s Glories of Mary is true, let him be an anathema.” It simply is not Church doctrine, nor is everything JPII has said doctrine, nor is everything even Vatican II said required of Catholics.
A book of quotes from your saints down through the ages claiming salvation through Mary you call Flowery?. We call it heresy(1) Yes, I call it flowery.
(2) Even your quote, if accurate, does not claim she saves, but that salvation is through her, not the same thing.
(2) I cited you official words from official Church teaching that “God, through His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, who is our alone Redeemer and Saviour” and yet you fail to acknowledge that. This Ligouri quote is not Church teaching, that you can’t understand that demonstrates either dishonesty or a lack of mental facilities. Can you cite to a single Church teaching that echoes this? An Ecumenical Council? Heck, any council? A catechism, the current one or any in the past? No, you can’t. And the reason is that it isn’t Church teaching. Not a hard concept. Prove to me that the Church teaches what this saint supposedly said. You can’t.
No I can't. I threw the book out years ago. I can give you some quotes I kept in notes from the book.Then you will forgive me if I presume your quotes inaccurate.
there is no one, most holy Mary, who can be saved but through you. (St. Germanus) Salvation is from God through his Son Jesus. Germanus says no one can be saved "but through you" (Mary). If salvation is from God and we can't get there without Mary, she has to be divineWhich part of this is your quote and which part is your words? The way you have presented it is very misleading, was that intentional? The saint did not say she was divine, that is your gloss. Apparently if you can’t find words that back you up, you just add them as you like.
To address the point you deceptively try to make, saying salvation is through someone does not mean that that person is the God that grants salvation. Example, you buy an airline ticket. You buy it from Northwest, that is who grants you your flight. But you have to go through an airport to get to that airplane. Does that make the airport your airline? No. It is a logical fallacy to assume that having to go through someone to start your trip makes that entity the thing you received the trip from.
As we have access to the Eternal Father only through Jesus Christ, so have we access to Christ only through Mary. By thee we have access to the Son, o blessed finder of grace,bearer of life, mother of salvation. (St. Bernard) Here again we have a different "saint" claiming the only way to God is through Mary. She has to be divineIf she was divine why didn’t they just plainly state that? If you believe X is a God, would you not state that clearly? Again, your logical fallacy is not only weak on the logic, but devoid of common sense. You don’t gain salvation from your God by not admitting it is a God, by denying its divinity.
JPII, the Vicar of Christ on earth, in the eyes of Catholicism,entrusted the world to Mary at Earth Day several years back. Not to Christ, to Mary.Which proves what? Nothing, but it sounds good right?
Logical fallacy. An airport is not an airline just because you have to go through it to get to one."“God will not save us without the intercession of Mary. God saves."You make my point. God saves but He has to go through Mary. she must be divine.
The quotes you have given, if even accurate, fail to evidence that any saint but Ligouri believed what was written. At most it is a compendium of what some saints of the Church have said. The quotes make it plain that one saint thought that man went through Mary to get to God. To go back to St. Augustine’s words and the Calvinist doctrine of predestination. You would be an outright fool to claim that predestination was Catholic doctrine just because one or more Catholic saints taught it. It was condemned by the Church. Yet here you are."This book places more emphasis on Mary then any Catholic I know would, on her intercession, but yet even this is plain that she cannot save, but God does."This book is a compedium of what the saints of the Catholic church have said down through the centuries. These quotes make it "plain" that man needs Mary to get to God.
Mary hears the prayers of millions of Catholics from around the world daily. She hears these prayers in all languages.to accomplish this she has to be all-knowing and all-understanding, attributes given to God alone. You can call them "special powers " to cover this heresy,but they are still powers only God has. She must be divine.LOL. What is your contention here. If you can hear more then one person at a time, and understand more then one language at a time, you must be divine? If not, at hearing how many people do you become divine? 5? 100? 1000? 100,000? 1,000,000? What is the precise point you contend that one must be divine to hear all those people?
In addition, you are making another logical fallacy here. Hearing Millions does not make one all-knowing and all-understanding. Hearing everyone doesn’t make one either of those. Hearing is not knowing. It is also not understanding. Do you see the difference between these? Do you know everything about everything you hear? No, of course not. Another simple logical error.
I hear an awful lot from my wife during the day. I will guarantee you I don’t always understand. That doesn’t always stop me from honoring the request. In fact there have been literally hundreds of requests she has made that I have heard, not understood in the least, and honored anyway. These are different concepts.
It is quite possible that there are intermediates between the earthly ability to hear or understand a couple people; and being God. We do not know precisely what happens to us when we get to heaven, but the Catholic view is that we exist in our Glorified bodies. These are capable of far more then we are now. Regardless of that you make a simple logical error when you assume hearing a million people makes you all-knowing. A million aren’t all, and hearing is not knowing.
They set doctrine that the saints don't have to follow patent verifies with this statementI would like to respond to this but it was incomprehensible.
Church doctrine = Core beliefs of the church that it's saints and Popes don't need to follow.The Church sets doctrines the saints don’t have to follow? What a silly statement, and one utterly without basis. The saints aren’t a special class with some dispensation to ignore Church doctrine. As usual you make a silly, illogical statement without anything to support it.
The word foolish is not meant to demean you but I can think of no other way to express how your defense of this heresy comes across to anyone who doesn't believe it. May the Holy Spirit open your eyes.Speaking of opening eyes, can you not understand that I don’t defend worshiping Mary? I do not defend anyone who believes Mary is divine, as I don’t believe that and the Church does not teach it. May you stop this nonsense.
patent +AMDG
Catholic doctrine is as good as the paper it's written on if the punishment for going against it is sainthood.
The quotes were exact from notes I kept. If you don't believe me look them up.
I would not make quotes that could be proven false.
Your explanation is the worse I have ever heard.
All you Catholics out there.... Patent says Mary can hear your prayers but that doesn't mean she knows what you are talking about. Patents words, not mine."Hearing Millions does not make one all-knowing and all-understanding. Hearing everyone doesn’t make one either of those. Hearing is not knowing. It is also not understanding. Do you see the difference between these? Do you know everything about everything you hear? No, of course not. Another simple logical error. "
After this response I think anyone reading this thread would admit you've gone beyond logical.
"The equivalent would be ignoring the United States Constitution and reading Thomas Jefferson’s commentary on Monetary Policy as the law of the land. This would be absurd, of course. The Constitutional Congress did not consider and vote on any and all works by Jefferson. The states did not approve his words wherever they appeared"
We don't find Separation of church and State in the Constitution. It was in Jeffersons writing. It is now the law of the land. (I would scrap this analogy in future debates if I were you.)
The rest of your post doesn't merit a response.
I stand by my statement of invincable ignorance and I will not respond to anymore of your posts nor will I take the time to read them.
This has gone from a discussion of different beliefs to a game of silly semantics. This is as foolish as Clintons "it depends on what is means."
Peace.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.