Than? Perhaps you intended to use the word then?
Where is that little grammar nazi when duty calls, anyway?
Is he on a coffee break or something?
When he gets back, allow me to introduce the two of you to one another.
Grammar nazi, meet spelin' nazi.
Spelin' nazi, meet grammar polizia.
Penalties offset, but play does not go over (loss of down).
As far as "worshiping Mary" goes however, regardless of the restraint of some, perhaps even many Roman Catholics in regards of their own imaginations (speaking of imaginations) towards Mary, there is plentiful evidence in writing (speaking of words meaning something) that the "hyper" regard for this "Mary" entity being so much like worship any real difference is often more a matter of semantics (and denial of the truth of the matter) for in reality and practice "Mary" has been so widely given place only slightly lesser than the Trinitarian God (apparently, in the imaginations of many) as for her abilities to hear prayers and even perform miracles from on High --- she has been for all effects promoted into being something of a goddess, if but a demi-goddess for whom it is alleged, is only and always in the service of Jesus...
In RCC theology Mary has become identified as co-redemtrix, and not "a" one of those, but even "The" co-redeemer...in all but most official finality, of which those such as the Blue Army still presses and agitates to be done, (to include that description of "Mary" as being dogmatic).
Jesus promised that the Father would send the Spirit of truth -- but did not there name 'Him' Mary.
15 “If you love Me, keep[d] My commandments. 16 And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever— 17 the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you. 18 I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you.Was it not enough for those of the Church of Rome to have insisted upon changing the Filioque to include the phrase "and the Son" in regards to where precisely it should be said the Spirit proceeds (or comes from), but that such persons as DeMontfort and an apparition of "St. Dominic" be believed when those make it out to be that "Mary" is as a governess of the (Holy) Spirit also?Footnotes
d. John 14:15 NU-Text reads you will keep.
From the supplied link to "Blue Army", there speaking of themselves, their cause and of "Mary";
and speaking of even the Eucharist itself, which is said to be central to true worship (not mere 'veneration');
This suggests nothing less than being "born into intimate union with" Jesus by way of having consecrated themselves to "Mary" while mixing all of that with taking communion also. Yet Catholics cannot see the problems in that sort of conceptualization which makes of Mary a heavenly shepherd of God Himself condescending to men of low estate by Himself bodily becoming the bread & the wine?
Such a subtle (Christian religious) confusion that is, by way of a fuzziness and blurring of distinct roles and identity.
Repeat after me; "The Holy Spirit is not Mary. Mary is not the Holy Spirit". Mary, nor anyone else (other than God) is fully part of the tripartite Godhead which is One...and [ahem] perhaps..."thou shalt not confuse nor conflate the two"?
Exodus 20:1-6 reviewed again in full in Deuteronomy 5:6-10
And God spoke all these words, saying:2 “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
3 “You shall have no other gods before Me.
4 “You shall not make for yourself a carved image—any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; 5 you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, 6 but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.
Yet the great Marionist wrote in his "Secret of Mary" under sub-heading A TRUE DEVOTION TO THE BLESSED VIRGIN IS INDISPENSABLE;
23. "...It is very true that God, who is absolute Master, can give the graces which he now ordinarily dispenses through Mary, directly. It would be rash to deny that not only can he dispense his grace directly but he always did so in the past, and he also sometimes does so now. For example, God directly illumined the Magi, the wise men from the east. So too did he directly sanctify all the saints of the old testament; especially Moses, St. John the Baptist, and St. Joseph. However, St. Thomas assures us that now, a new order of dispensation of grace has been established by the divine Wisdom for the Church, which is the mystical body of Christ. Now, God ordinarily imparts his graces to men through Mary.
Can you see what is going on in that writing, those "words that mean things"? There and elsewhere throughout that so-called 'saint's' writings Mary is [rhetorically] made into being the conduit of the Holy Spirit, or else there be some other "grace" which DeMontfort is speaking of ? -- yet what could that be, if it be the same which "illumined the Magi" and directly sanctified all the saints of the old testament -- especially Moses.
Where was Mary when the Spirit descended upon Jesus as a doveas Jesus suffered John the Baptist to baptize himself -- and as the spirit of the Lord(?) had previously conveyed to that Baptist ‘Upon whom you see the Spirit descending, and remaining on Him, this is He who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.’
Shall we focus upon the difference between the word "grace" and what we identify as the Holy Spirit? Should we do that, giving Mary an 'out' so to speak, for I am turning to these passages as test and comparison of Scripture with DeMontfort's written theology regarding Mary, and of "grace".
How strenuous will be the protection of Mariolotry be today, I do wonder...
Even then, if we were to forget about how DeMontfort's own descriptions just previously tended by default (due to other solid enough theology regarding the interaction of the Spirit with men) towards identifying the Spirit being that grace he wrote of, or conveyance of grace as was experienced in old testament era, and narrow our focus upon the word differences here, in light of what DeMontfort claims is Mary's role for "grace" (font of all graces, generally speaking) then how did the Spirit proceed from the Father -- without flowing through "Mary" -- first, if we are to be consistent in application of DeMontfort's theology, that is...
Setting those tangles momentarily aside;
As Paul more and less conceptually conveyed; that to die is to be "with Christ" the Scripture passages 2 Corinthians 5:6-9 , Philippians 1:21-23, Romans 14:8-9 alone are enough to allow us to confidently assume that Mary herself (God bless her soul) is now present with Christ, and therefor "with the Lord".
How then can the advice of DeMonfort (whom the RCC has declared be a "saint") over-ride OT teachings? And seemingly bypass Paul's own singular emphasis upon principle that each and every soul within the ekklesia (the Church) focus directly upon the Christ, looking to Him and none other as the means of our own salvation?
Does Christ no longer baptize with the Spirit? According to the insistence of the RCC, the Son does have a hand in it, so to speak -- just ask the Orthodox?
DeMontfort appears to be, in all his imaginative expansion of an ongoing, now heavenly(?) role of "Mary" in regards to our salvation, to ignore also the words of Peter, (that fisher of men, as Christ referred that He would make Simon Peter into being) Peter being attributed in the book of Acts 4 a verse 12 to have said of the one whom we know as Jesus;
But now...after centuries of doctrinal development (and then some) there is "Mary" along with Christ, coupled with Him rather inseparably, another name by which we are saved -- also? Oh, that's right, only in conjunction with Jesus, and only for her to Point towards Him, and those of the Roman Catholic ecclesiastical body merely asking "her" to "pray for us", etc., or at least that's the sort of excuse making that comes to the fore whenever Mariolatry is exposed -- for what it is -- which quite frankly is some other Gospel.
Is Mary not now in the heavens above?
What then of making images of that which is in the heavens above --- which it has been prohibited from times of old to bow down to, nor which should be served (even without 'bowing', I take it)
A few selections from DeMontfort;
The Church says of Mary: "You alone have destroyed every heresy in the whole world."
13. (7) In the new dispensation of grace, the Holy Spirit continues to produce every day, in a mysterious but very real manner, the souls of the elect in her and through her. These souls make up the mystical body of Christ.
14. (8) Mary received from God a unique dominion over souls which enables her to nourish them and make them more and more godlike. St. Augustine went so far as to say that even in this world all the elect are enclosed in the womb of Mary, and that their real birthday is when this good mother brings them forth to eternal life.
Whoa. time-out. stop everything.
He said that "Mary" has "a unique dominion over souls" and the it is she who "nourish(es) them" to "make them more and more godlike."??? And then DeMontfort alleges that Augustine said that it was "Mary" who brings people [forth] to eternal life? As for that last part, the Augustine quote, perhaps that man was speaking esoterically, and poetically (as an RCC apologist on this thread #3633 also suggested be the case). I would take it that way, while also arguing that DeMontfort was presenting that as more literal in support of his own gnosticism in regards to"Mary"
Excuse me, but Mary herself, regardless of what praises may legitimately be heaped upon her, was and is herself a mere created being, herself like our own selves being born a human being in every sense of the word/phrase, not sired from on high as was her own son Jesus was, but herself, as does every human being who has ever lived (that we know of) have earthly parentage on both her mother and father's side --- or else --- Jesus Christ is not the Only Begotten Son of God (unless we are to now be squeezing in a daughter to have been born of God, in manner similar to how Jesus was conceived within the womb of the virgin, Mary?).
Going back to DeMontfort's breathless promotion of Mary to status of Divinity (but without openly admitting to doing so, even as he does so);
Yet somehow this sort of talk does not equate with Mary herself sharing top billing (and worship) with God the Father, even though she is said to be "administrator and dispenser of all [His] graces". All this worshipful talk concerning Mary -- but -- no Roman Catholic actual worships her, if only right alongside Jesus, Himself.
I do not believe that. To insult persons on this forum, calling them "ignorant" and accusing them of merely imagining that at least *some* Roman Catholics, such as DeMontfort do not in actuality worship what they conceive in their own imaginations to be "Mary", is to show your own ignorance.
All the bluff and bluster (and denials) in the world cannot change the truth of the wider overall situation --- that yes, some Catholics do worship Mary, in all but exact-word open confession of committing that precise prohibited-by-the-Creator error.
Ha! ...and I have but to barely scratch the surface of the available evidences towards the existence of Mariolatry with Roman Catholicism. But you shoot out the lip and jeer about "overly active imaginations" and ignorance? pffft.
26. The second consists in entertaining for our Lady deeper feelings of esteem and love, of confidence and veneration. This devotion inspires us to join the confraternities of the Holy Rosary and the Scapular, to say the five or fifteen decades of the Rosary, to venerate our Lady's pictures and shrines, to make her known to others, and to enroll in her sodalities.
... ... ... 65. The fifth is the wearing of a blessed Medal around the neck. The Miraculous Medal given to St. Catherine Laboure, also called the Medal of the Immaculate Conception, is most suitable for this purpose. Our Lady herself promised great graces to those who would wear it. It is the first sacramental given to the Church to have ever been granted extraordinary promises of both sanctifying and actual grace from heaven.
"Blessed medals" alleged by "Mary" herself to have extraordinary promises, or --- both sanctifying and actual grace? Really?
The grace of God being first -- funneled through "Mary", from her on or to "inside/within" talisman-like charms? Is that not how pagans have long gone about their own religious affairs? Yet somehow that type of semi-idolatrous practice is not only okey-dokey as a choice, a way to be or become ever yet more "spiritual" and in tune with God -- this type of thing has been periodically, highly recommended from highest levels of the RCC too.
But it's all right since it has seemingly "Christian" sounding themes associated with the attitudes & practices, nevermind those attitudes and practices are otherwise forbidden, lead away from, alternatives towards have been provided in Scripture as it is written, such as John 3:5, with that being 'born from above' (as you have in the past insisted it must be translated as) requires one whom herself was and yet still is a created being herself.
How did Mary 'bring forth' the rebirth from above that the first Apostles (should not we assume?) had themselves undergone/experienced while she was yet living upon the earth? How come no one noticed such things? Did Mary give birth (from above) to the Apostle Paul also? Paul wrote of Jesus being as "new Adam", yet he wrote not one word about "Mary" being a new Eve. Was Paul (along with the rest whom gave Mary no such 'heavenly' credit or role) a son ungrateful to his own "spirit" mother? That would have to be the case if things such as DeMontfort (the "Mary" worshiper) were much at all true.
I'll stick with Paul, who himself enjoyed truly Apostolic approval and ratification.
If one declares that they (Catholics, and some Orthodox too -- when they 'venerate' icons) are not bowing down to or serving the image or object itself which is representative of the entity/object of the devotions, pagans the world over can and do say the same for their own representative 'art objects' which are looked upon as mere image or likeness of whichever spirit being they are directing their worship towards...thus the objects/images are not the "thing" itself which is being worshiped.
So-- so much for those kind of excuses also -- which serve as deflection of sorts towards speaking of the images (or statues) themselves, as if the 1st commandment was only about the images themselves --- instead of being about the entities having veneration & worship directed towards themselves, or else it would be OK to worship things or entities in the heavens above and the earth below, as long as a graven image was not associated with the devotions.
The end results of focusing prayer/veneration and yes -- even worship (of a sort) towards "Mary" and others perceived to be now in heavenly spirit realms can smack so directly reminiscent of pagan notions and imaginings of there being a pantheon (multiple gods and goddesses), and primitive ancestor worship also, that regardless of this result being [rhetorically] barely contained by notions that somehow these [now] celestial beings whom are not the One God, act only in full accord and agreement with Him --- still leaves the imagined results be that heavenly realms are now occupied by various spirit entities who can; receive unto themselves "veneration" and high praise, and can or will act on their accord to interact with those of us still living in this earthly realm...
The problem here is not that there are not angelic beings and such, or even that there is not now presently (from our own time-perspectives) those whom were not themselves created as human beings (rather than 'angels') yet having passed on from this earthly realm to the next, and are most likely now (so we hope) in some fashion abiding with Him in heavenly 'spirit' realms, but that humans here on earth are being directed to direct their own prayers towards anyone other than the Creator, Himself.
If He so desires, and it be according to His own holy intents for any of these lesser & created beings, be they once previous have been men (or woman) who had once walked the earth, or angels whom are more widely perceived as being not having been once 'human beings' themselves, to be sent to any now upon the earth, then so be it.
Yet if He would desire for them to be sent to interact with those of us still remaining here upon earth --- then they better not be preaching some other Gospel than the one Paul wrote to the Galatians that he himself had preached to them previous, or else Paul is no real Apostle much at all, and would himself be something more of a false prophet.
As Paul wrote;
"But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed."So aah, go jump in the river, the two-sies of ya'?And take all your assembled hatreds, insults and condemnation for
ProtestantsEvangelicals, along with actual Mary worshipers the likes of the so-called "Saint" Louis DeMonfort with you.If one would provide for themselves some water-wings, and/or strap an outboard across their own backsides...then maybe...just maybe one could make it across the Tiber so to speak, reach the other side, and clamber onto terra firma rather than the shifty sands of ongoing Romish supported identity confusion crises.
Speaking of the real world, and words that mean things...
I'm glad you mentioned that. Thanks.
Cut this down to two or three paragraphs if you really want time to read it. Your posts meander too much for me to waste my time on.
I don't want to get into a fully entangled debate with you or anyone but the portions below leaped out at me (not literally of course) and perhaps if not helping you it may help another:
First you quote extensively from St. DeMontfort, particularly his "Secret of Mary". I wonder though if you took his advice in paragraph 2.
2. "Before you read any further, kneel down and devoutly say a prayer. Ask God to help you understand and appreciate this secret, which is really given by him. You must prepare your soul if you would profit from this secret. You may certainly pray that God deliver you from any deception, and that he illumine your mind with a spirit of discernment. Any illumination that comes from God always has a good effect upon the soul. Pray that God give you the grace of discernment, that you may understand what I am about to teach you."
Did you read that, BD? Did you do as he suggested, in a pious and genuine manner? In a way not seeking guidance from God to help you prove your case, but guidance from Him to discover the truth, wherever that leads you? Did you do that before reading the Saint's writjngs?
I ask not to put you on the spot but to stress the importance of what he said here as it's also found (in other words) in my post that you later provided. If not said more charitably and helpfully by the Saint.
This is not the stuff of cut and paste in other words. You can't even read his entire work there, without preparing yourself as he describes, and expect any result other than perhaps the one you have obtained. If you wish to study the work of a Saint you have to live as he lived, or at least do as he did as described in paragraph 2.
Just a point to consider.
Secondly, you ask: Yet somehow this sort of talk does not equate with Mary herself sharing top billing (and worship) with God the Father, even though she is said to be "administrator and dispenser of all [His] graces".
This is the portion of your post that I found particularly striking. Striking because in the question itself, a quote is present thst answers that very question.
"All His Graces". "All His Graces". "All His Graces".
The last word is yours because again, I do not seek debate with you or anyone anymore. I leave that to the more even tempered here.