Mary 'can only bring us to God,' expert says as entrustment nears

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com ^ | October 11, 2013 | Elise Harris

[NKP_Vet]

Vatican City, Oct 11, 2013 / 07:25 am (CNA/EWTN News).- Anticipating Pope Francis' entrustment of the world to the Immaculate Heart of Mary on Oct. 13, a specialist in Marian apparitions reflected on how the Blessed Mother serves to bring people to Jesus.

“It is necessary to have recourse to the Virgin because she can only bring you to God. That's her whole mission. She has nothing of self in it at all. She lives only for God and to bring you to God,” said Marian expert Tim Tindal-Robertson during an Oct. 10 interview with CNA.

Tindal-Robertson is currently the national president in England of the World Apostolate of Fatima, an international association of the faithful which was erected by the Pontifical Council for the Laity in 2010.

Speaking of the significance of Pope Francis’ decision to entrust the world to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, Tindal-Robertson said that “the Pope has judged that in the year of faith this is a very appropriate moment” to focus on Mary’s presence in the Church.

[CynicalBear]

>> Once more, the gentle, humble, warm countenance of charity shines through.<<

You’re preaching another gospel than the one contained in scripture. Here is what is said about treating those who “preach another gospel”.

“But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.” Galatians 1:8-9

[verga]

LOL! I don’t suppose you’ve heard about this new pope the RCC has? Talk about synthesis of all heresies. Watch as the RCC embraces all religions

I find it odd that supposed conservatives will not the MSM word on anything unless it is anti-Catholic.

[narses]

But Catholics say He is wrong and that is the flesh that profits.

Nope. Like much of the tripe you post, false.

[narses]

You’re preaching another gospel than the one contained in scripture.

Nope, more tripe.

[narses]

“Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, but they died;
this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die.
I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.”
The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?”
Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.
Whoever eats 19 my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.
For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.
Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.
This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever.”
These things he said while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum
Then many of his disciples who were listening said, “This saying is hard; who can accept it?”
Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them, “Does this shock you?
What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?
It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
But there are some of you who do not believe.” Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him.
And he said, “For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father.”
As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him
Jesus then said to the Twelve, “Do you also want to leave?”
Simon Peter answered him, “Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.
We have come to believe and are convinced that you are the Holy One of God.”
Jesus answered them, “Did I not choose you twelve? Yet is not one of you a devil?”
He was referring to Judas, son of Simon the Iscariot; it was he who would betray him, one of the Twelve.” [John 6: 49-71]

[CynicalBear]

>>I find it odd that supposed conservatives will not the MSM word on anything unless it is anti-Catholic.<<

This is the MSM?

CCC841 The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day.<<

Or perhaps this is what you would term MSM?

"If in coming face to face with God we accept Him in our lives, then we are converting. We become a better Hindu, a better Muslim, a better Catholic, a better whatever we are. ... What God is in your mind you must accept" (from Mother Teresa: Her People and Her Work , by Desmond Doig, p. 156, as quoted by Dave Hunt, Global Peace and the Rise of Antichrist , p. 149).

Or perhaps it’s this you were referencing?

1260 "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery." Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.

Which MSM was It that you were presuming I was listening to?

[BlueDragon]

It certainly is tiresome having the same people denigrating the Mother of Jesus every time she is mentioned in any news article. You’d think they’d have better things to do—like reading the Bible, or praying, or something.

Excuse me sir, but this;

Speaking of the significance of Pope Francis’ decision to entrust the world to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, Tindal-Robertson said...

isn't just some mention of "The Mother of Jesus" in a news article, due to it's theological implications (and please remember too, this site is FreeRepublic--- not "catholic culture") while it is also fair to point out that many others (yourself included?) could also "have better things to do" than either post this Roman Catholic irritation-of-the-day, comment upon it, and even more specifically, comment upon those who don't care for the ongoing deification of Mary process, for theological reasons.

All this Mary-hating came into Protestantism at a later time, I’m not sure why.

It is not that Mary herself is hated (and I resent that characterization -- it is a false accusation in more than a few instances, I am sure) but what Catholicism has done with her which is despised. Stuff like --->http://www.ewtn.com/library/montfort/truedevo.htm and this where it is declared that Mary is now "seated at the right hand of Jesus", while also speaking of her as "neck" to the head of the church (Christ) from which all must flow from Him, through her, etc.

Those are "Gospels" significantly different than Paul and the Apostles taught, even as by the sycretism employed, they still contain elements of the original Gospel, with all of it as well blended as can be. But it is a phony blend, conjured from the darkened minds of fearful men --- not to be confused with the Gospel itself, as was abundantly warned would occur, even within "the church".

You may not agree with my own synopsis, or Christian theology which does not rely upon Mary to be "font from whom all blessings flow" and the like -- that's your choice.

You said you were "not sure why" Mary-hating Hyper-Marianism is opposed...?

Now you have some beginnings of "why". Need I go on? Or do we both have "better things to do"?

[Steelfish]

The crap is yours.

Like God will allow the Mother of God to rot in the earth like other mortals.

[BlueDragon]

Oh dear me. Logically, you just called what Arthur McGowan was saying to CB over the span of a few comments;

Nope, more tripe.

for CB had just said to McGowan, and you highlighted in reply this quote from CB;

You’re preaching another gospel than the one contained in scripture.

Now I don't know precisely what CB is speaking of in that regard, as conversations become dragged out, and interspersed with much else --- but the "hyper" of the "dulia" (veneration) accorded to Mary, is plainly enough theological invention, even though the roots of it do run deep. Just not deep enough to make it back to the first couple of generations of witness and "apostle" following Christ, and the original disciples.

When did this discipling oneself "to Mary" actually take hold, anyway? The "veneration" appears to be without but the mildest of restraints, having assigned unto her powers more akin to the Holy Spirit, than to any spoken of in the Word of God, other than Christ Himself, who still speaks to us, together with the Father, through the Spirit.

Christ never said, "pray to my momma", or to even himself, but to pray to the Father in His (Christ's) name.

You may need to excuse myself and others for sticking with the more basic of instructions in this.

Or not. Whatever blows your skirts up...

[huldah1776]

Ah, so that is where the argument for Israel comes from. In verse 17 of Rev. 12 it says the rest of her offspring, who keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus. Is that Israel? I am not sure of my stand on this so chill a little.

[redleghunter]

You are partially correct. The “holy Mary mother of God” does not appear in scriptures. Not even in the RC NAB, DRV nor Jerusalem Bible. I believe that was the point.

[redleghunter]

Pyro made the claim. See the Star Trek gif.

[redleghunter]

"Where in the Bible does it say that ONLY the Bible is a source of religious truth?"

An interesting question even if a bit misleading. The Canon contains a list of authoritative scriptures. These Scriptures did not become authoritative by being in the canon. Now what better source do we have of Truth other than the Bible? That is a better question. In the Bible we find God's Law, His Words, His Holiness and His Plan for us. What better source indeed. Every other source is window dressing.

[huldah1776]

LOL I heard that when two Jews talk about theology there are three opinions. We love theology and I believe there are seven churches. I hope you read the Bible cover to cover and ask God to reveal His love for you. It is an amazing experience. His lovingkindness is everlasting.

[Rashputin]

Luke1:43 And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me ?

So, was Elizabeth not talking about Jesus Christ as God or is Luke a liar which would mean Luke isn't inspired by the Holy Spirit?

[redleghunter]

Arthur I have not seen bashing...yet. Thus far I have seen Gospel quotes to refute the article’s claim.

[redleghunter]

"It is an exercise in futility to quote the Bible to Catholics, as THEY DO NOT BELIEVE THE BIBLE. So I’ve been told by R.C. friends. They think some of the Bible is true, but everything the Pope says is true."

I think that is a broad generalization. I grew up in a Catholic Bible thumping family.

[redleghunter]

Sir your logic is flawed. The relic keeping did not appear until roughly the 4th Century. When Jesus ascended to the Right Hand of The Father it was witnessed and recorded. That is evidence...eyewitness testimony on a large scale. Not having evidence of relics of Mary is not evidence of her assumption. If we had eyewitness testimony of her assumption and it was recorded then that would be evidence. From what I know we do not have that so no one can claim either way. The Bible is silent on the matter so I don’t lose sleep over it.

If Mary was assumed for the Glory of God, my hunch would be one of the apostles would have mentioned it. That’s my opinion.

[Arthur McGowan]

Why do we know where the tombs of Peter and Paul are? They weren’t Fourth Century.