Catholic Caucus: Mary, The Power of Her Name [The Most Holy Name of the Blessed Virgin Mary]

Holy Wounds Apostolate ^ | unknown | Holy Wounds Apostolate

[biblewonk]

The Church teaches it, she who is the fountainhead and wellspring of the Bible--its author, its compiler, its editor, its publisher, and its official interpreter.

So the bible doesn't teach it. It's not in there at all. I certainly don't see the bible saying that the Church is it's author. That's like saying Mary created God.

I think you've been around these threads long enough to know that we entirely reject the notion that every single article of the faith *must be explicitly taught* in the Bible. "The pillar and foundation of all truth" for the Christian is not Holy Scripture, it is the Church, as 1st Timothy says.

So you can teach whatever you want as long as it has a stamp on it from Rome? I don't see that idea in the bible at all either.

[armydoc]

It appears that you skipped the first two paragraphs: Richard of St. Laurence states "there is not such powerful help in any name, nor is there any other name given to men, after that of Jesus, from which so much salvation is poured forth upon men as from the name of Mary." He continues, "that the devout invocation of this sweet and holy name leads to the acquisition of superabundant graces in this life, and a very high degree of glory in the next." After the most sacred name of Jesus, the name of Mary is so rich in every good thing, that on earth and in heaven there is no other from which devout souls receive so much grace, hope, and sweetness.

So why would Richard of St. Laurence contradict himself by clearly saying in the third paragraph that Mary's name ALONE will suffice to cure sinners of all their evils?

[murphE]

Oh, so it is a sin now to compare Mary to gift wrapping?

Do you think it pleases Our Lord to insult His mother?

Seriously if you are sincere in wanting to love and serve Our Lord, what have you got to lose by asking Him to give you His heart with which to love His mother? If you ask sincerely I am sure that He would not deny you that grace.

[Claud]

I certainly don't see the bible saying that the Church is it's author.

I gotta dumb question for you. Who wrote the New Testament?

[armydoc]

Where does Richard of St. Laurence say that Christ's name won't do something that Mary's name will?

Where he says, in the third paragraph, "because it (Mary's name) alone will suffice to cure them of all their evils". It seems to me that "alone" is quite intentional.

[Claud]

So you can teach whatever you want as long as it has a stamp on it from Rome? I don't see that idea in the bible at all either.

That one is. Rome through Peter: "what you bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven.". Gates of hell not prevailing and all that.

You've been on these threads long enough, you know the drill. :)

[biblewonk]

I gotta dumb question for you. Who wrote the New Testament?

God.

[Pyro7480]

Who determined it was divinely-inspired?

[Pyro7480]

That doesn't answer my question.

[biblewonk]

Who determined it was divinely-inspired?

God knew it was when He wrote it and said so within it.

[Pyro7480]

I mean, the individual books. There were a lot of "Gospels" and epistles being circulated in the early years of Christianity. How did Christians determine what was divinely-inspired and what wasn't?

[biblewonk]

I mean, the individual books. There were a lot of "Gospels" and epistles being circulated in the early years of Christianity. How did Christians determine what was divinely-inspired and what wasn't?

The Bible/Word of God was written by God, period. There is no over arching authority over God's Word.

[armydoc]

That doesn't answer my question.

a·lone
adj. Being apart from others; solitary. Being without anyone or anything else; only. Considered separately from all others of the same class. Being without equal; unique.
adv. Without others: sang alone while the choir listened. Without help: carried the suitcases alone. Exclusively; only: The burden of proof rests on the prosecution alone.

In the present example, the possibilities are that Mary's name is sufficient without the help of Christ or that her name exclusively performs that function; no other name is capable. Do you have another interpretation?

[Claud]

Of course God wrote it ultimately. But who physically *wrote out* God's words, in Greek, out on the parchments that got copied, recopied and passed around in the ancient Christian world?

[ArrogantBustard]

Claud: I gotta dumb question for you. Who wrote the New Testament?
BW: God.

That's a mohammedan, or mormon approach to scripture.

It is not at all Christian (or even Jewish). There's a huge world of difference between "God wrote it" and "God inspired human authors when they wrote it". With the exception of the commandments on Mt. Sinai, the Bible was written by a variety of human authors, all enlightened and protected from error by God.

[biblewonk]

It is not at all Christian (or even Jewish). There's a huge world of difference between "God wrote it" and "God inspired human authors when they wrote it". With the exception of the commandments on Mt. Sinai, the Bible was written by a variety of human authors, all enlightened and protected from error by God.

Semantics.

[Claud]

Where he says, in the third paragraph, "because it (Mary's name) alone will suffice to cure them of all their evils". It seems to me that "alone" is quite intentional.

That may be a bad translation, but even if it isn't, it's clear that Richard of St. Laurence didn't hold to that "alone" in any absolute sense. Otherwise why would he say this is paragraph 1:

"there is not such powerful help in any name, nor is there any other name given to men, after that of Jesus."

You could add "the Holy Ghost" and "God" as well. Assuming the "alone" not a bad translation, I would just say that Richard's pen got ahead of his brain on this one. Anyone who claims that Mary's glory is in any way higher than Christ's is a heretic, plain and simple. Even Catholic theologians would make mincemeat out of such a statement.

[ArrogantBustard]

Hardly.

[biblewonk]

Totally.

[ArrogantBustard]

I seriously hope that you are not claiming, for example, that God picked up a pen and parchment, wrote a letter to the Romans, and signed Paul's name to it.

I seriously hope that you are not claiming, for example, that one day in the First Century AD God miraculously caused Bibles, fully bound, to appear on every Christian's living-room table.

Such claims directly contradict the epistles and Gospels. Somebody (human) wrote all those histories, prophecies, letters, and visions. Somebody else (human) went through a process of vetting them, sorting out what was Divinely Inspired and what was not. That various human somebodies had Divine guidance and protection in their endeavours doesn't negate that the human somebodies were involved.

I suppose I shouldn't find your odd disinterest in the origins of the Bible surprising (you've made it clear in the past) but it's still sad.