Posted on 09/15/2006 7:50:37 AM PDT by murphE
This is a sermon by Saint Alphonsus Liguori...http://olrl.org/snt_docs/means.shtml...
You may familiar with the fella...I'm not...He says salvation outside of the Catholic church is impossible...
He also says salvation is thru Mary...Apparenty this good Catholic figures you have to pray to Mary to get salvation FROM HER...I believe that's contrary to what you are saying...
I know it's certainly contrary to God...
~~~I don't see where it's semantics being the problem...~~~
Thus as no man goeth to the Father but by the Son, so no man goeth to Christ but by His Mother...
"It is a great thing in any saint to have grace sufficient for the salvation of many souls; but to have enough to suffice for the salvation of everybody in the world is the greatest of all; and this is found in Christ and in the Blessed Virgin."[1]Source: AD DIEM ILLUM LAETISSIMUM (On the Immaculate Conception), Encyclical of Pope Pius X, February 2, 1904.
Among her many other titles we find her hailed as "our Lady, our Mediatrix,"[3] "the Reparatrix of the whole world,"[4] "the Dispenser of all heavenly gifts."[5]
O Virgin most holy, none abounds in the knowledge of God except through thee; none, O Mother of God, attains salvation except through thee; none receives a gift from the throne of mercy except through thee."[7]
Those, alas! furnish us by their conduct with a peremptory proof of it, who seduced by the wiles of the demon or deceived by false doctrines think they can do without the help of the Virgin. Hapless are they who neglect Mary under pretext of the honor to be paid to Jesus Christ! ...
The role of Mary in Christ's redeeming sacrifice is developed by Pope Benedict XV (1914-22) in his apostolic letter Inter Sodalicia, March 22, 1918.
As she suffered and almost died together with her suffering and dying Son, so she surrendered her mother's rights over her Son for the salvation of the human race. And to satisfy the justice of God she sacrificed her Son, as well as she could, so that it may justly be said that she together with Christ has redeemed the human race.
We must never go to Our Lord except through Mary, through her intercession and her influence with Him. We must never be without Mary when we pray to Jesus.
50. Beware, predestinate soul, of believing that it is more perfect to go straight to Jesus, straight to God. Without Mary, your action and your intention will be of little value; but if you go to God through Mary, your work will be Mary's work, and consequently it will be sublime and most worthy of God.
From here:http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/mary.htm
~~~If you don't worship Mary, you'd better start...According to your church, you don't have a chance without her...SHE is your salvation...~~~
So you believe the flesh is evil? The gnostic charge stands then.
Well, that's what the Apostle Paul said...And he even emphasized 'in his flesh' so no one could mis-understand...
So I'm a gnostic, eh???
The Bogomils and Albigensians way back in the 10-12th centuries refused to bow down to the Pope...They didn't pray to Mary, they didn't believe in infant baptism but they did understand the redemption of the corrupt body...
These people were labled as heretics and gnostics and persecuted by your church...
If that's your view of a gnostic, I'll be proud to wear the lable of a gnostic...
Bogomils believed all physical matter was evil, they denied the miracles that Jesus performed, including the multiplication of the loaves and the physical healing ministry. They rejected the Old Testament and gave priority to the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles. They rejected infant baptism, not because of some complex justification and grace theology, but because they denied all water baptism (water, being a physical substance, was evil).
Albigensian taught that Christ was an angel with a phantom body who, consequently, did not suffer or rise again, and whose redemptive work consisted only in teaching mankind that gnostic doctrine.
No. Jesus chose to come in to the world through Mary, that is what Ligouri is speaking about. We venerate Mary, we do not worship or adore her. We call her blessed, like the Bible says.
My bible has 31,102 verses...No wonder your church has all those 'strange doctrines'...
Randomly quoting one or two here or there out of context does not make one a scholar.
The bible wasn't written to, or for, scholars...
You are entitled to your religious preference. However, consider this. It is true that when the scripture was written it was not meant to be a scholarly text. On the other hand, it was meant to be read in a church setting, and, naturally, commented upon by the reader and other people of authority. This is how the Jewish worship was organized, and it is a natural way to go about it in a society where few could read. So, scholarly or not, it was meant to be read by someone also capable of commenting on it. The early record of the church worship confirms that (St. Justin Martyr's Apology comes to mind, where it is described how the congregation would listen to the Gospel readings after the Eucharist).
Now, that was when patristic Greek was the common language. There was no linguistic barrier or a cultural barrier. Things changed since then. It is true that the basic Christian message can be picked up from reading the Christian scripture, but when finer points of theology come into play, -- like, What to think about our physical flesh? -- you need to see what the early church Fathers thought about the scripture, because that gives you the linguistic and historical context. This is not the matter of Catholic authority, it is a plain ruile of how any historical document is to be read: in its linguistic, cultural and historical context. The Church provides the context.
If you don't want to agree with the Catholic (or Orthodox) Church on the veneration of relics, fine, -- it's a free country. But don't fool yourself thinking that in the 2000 years of Church history you are the first one who reads these verses that you cite and relates them to the veneration of relics critically.
Entitled? No. Permitted yes.
Hm... I'd say, entitled. "Entitled" speaks of a political right, which a heretic has per the U.S. Constitution. "Permitted" suggest a more organic right, one coming from a natural authority, such as the Church. No one has a permission to fall into heresy.
God's permissive will allows people to reject him yes, although it most certainly is not an entitlement.
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.