Testimony of a Former Irish Priest

BereanBeacon.Org ^ | Richard Peter Bennett

[Quix]

Why do you think I have to wear sound canceling headphones to tolerate the loud music volume at church?

[trisham]

LOL! I was wondering about that. :)

[Deo volente]

Here's an excellent book that shows very clearly the consistency of Catholic doctrine with Scripture. I know the author personally. He's a former Jehovah's Witness who saw the light and became Catholic.



You can order it here:

http://www.stjosephradio.com/pages/books/apologetics/catholicism-in-scripture.htm

[small voice in the wilderness]

...so if you believe it, it is truth, and if I print it out, it is the gospel of hatred?

How does that make any sense to you?

[small voice in the wilderness]

I would love to see an answer for that, too.

[Quix]

LOL.

Have a blessed Monday.

[Iscool]

Well, many folks do think that the Bible was written in King James English......

And why not??? The early church fathers quoted from the same manuscripts that were used to create the KJV...

[trisham]

You too!

[Quix]

THX THX.

[Iscool]

If you read the Entire encyclical you will see where he comes up with this statement -- from Biblical sources.

You need to come up with the biblical sources that back up your post...

We bible believers know there is nothing in the scriptures to even hint at what you posted...

Sadly, Catholics will eat it up; believe it and even repeat it just because it comes from your religion...And it is false...

So I challenge you to prove it with scripture...

[Mad Dawg]

Well, yeah, but, uh, he didn’t really mean it.

Actually thanks for this. I don’t have “True Devotion” in my head yet.

[Mad Dawg]

Poison the well a little?

[Quix]

Maybe a little . . . around the edges . . . LOL.

[Mad Dawg]

Dear Quix, Don't you see that this is exactly like a Stalinist trial? If De Montfort says something you disagree with, that's vicious. If he says something you might be able to agree with, that's rationalization and weasel words -- and vicious.

He's damned if he agrees with you that Mary is an atom or less compared to God and damned if he doesn't.

Can't you entertain the possibility of something like this: HE explains clearly "Mary, being a mere creature fashioned by the hands of God is, compared to his infinite majesty, less than an atom, or rather is simply nothing, since he alone can say, “I am he who is”." Then, based on our notion, in her words, that He puts down the mighty from their seats and lifts up the lowly, de Montfort rejoices in her being lifted up.

There really is a schizophrenogenic double-bind here: If I say, as I have, that Mary is a living eschatological sign of the fulfillment of all that God offers all the saints, I am strangely accused of hedging or backing and filling. The clearest articulation I can make of my take on our doctrine is dismissed as dishonest -- but no evidence or argument is brought forward to support that charge.

It SEEMS that whatever we say, it will tend to be met with scorn and abuse merely because we said it. If that's the case, then -- as I have suggested before -- this is not a debate or a discussion. It is a false pretense of a debate in order to draw Catholics out so they can be more conveniently abused.

IF, when an original source is brought forward to make clear one of our contentions, it is met with "rationalization and weasel words," then your side has no grounds to complain about the abusive trangressions of our side, because abuse is the only coin your side will permit in this realm - abuse or capitulation.

IS that how it has to be?

[Lera]

According to the Catholic Church: “The Catholic Church has always and with justice put all her hope and trust in the Mother of God. She who is associated with him in the work of man’s salvation has favor and power with her Son greater than any other human or angelic creature has ever obtained or ever can obtain.”-Supreme Apostolatus. Pope Leo XIII.

This is idolitry .

We are told over and over in the scriptures in whom we are to put our trust , in whom we are to seek shelter , who is our refuge . Not once are we told to seek it in Mary.

Following this teaching and not that of scripture is following the teachings of men. Putting the teachings of men above the WORD of God is idolitry.

[don-o]

Preach!

[OLD REGGIE]

” St. Louis de Montfort does it all. “

For those who worship him, maybe. For true Catholics, not so much. You really are having a hard time understanding a basic truth, Catholic’s believe the Dogmatic truthes taught by the Church. We have shared with you and the UFO cultists and other assorted apostates, heretics and random sinners the FACT that we Catholics worship the Triune God and NO ONE and NOTHING else.

That you persist in telling us, and others, LIES about what we believe and what we have told you again and again what we believe removes any chance of a benign or charitable explanation for your conduct. For the sake of your own soul, stop telling those lies. Beg Our Lord for forgiveness, He is a Merciful God, I will join my prayers with yours on your behalf.

Please refrain from personalizing your vitriolic responses. I have not said anything concerning what you believe.

I have posted snippets of what what Bishop Alphonse de Ligouri has written, St. Louis de Montfort has written, and Pope Paul VI has written concerning the worship of Mary. If you wish to deny their beliefs, or to deny they are true Catholics, it is up to you.

As an afterthought, JPII's motto "Totus Tuus" to Mary doesn't leave much room for Jesus does it?

BTW do you have any idea how many "true Catholics" there are in this world? That is, those "true Catholics" who believe and practice their Catholicism according to your standards?

[metmom]

you DO believe that it was through God that she conceived, right?

I am aware of what it takes for one to become pregnant under normal circumstances.

Time devoted to Mary is time taken away from God.

Every adoration directed towards Mary is adoration taken away from God.

Every prayer to Mary is one less prayer to God.

You can't add Mary to the mix without diminishing that which rightly belongs to God.

Catholics want to worship/venerate/adore/ whatever Mary? That is their right. Even God isn't going to stop them. But there's no point in pretending that it somehow doesn't adversely affect one's relationship to God Himself because it has to. You can't divide your time or worship both at once.

[Mad Dawg]

As I have said before, the hospitals with the sickest patients are often the best hospitals. That there are heterodox Catholics does not necessarily say a bad thing about the Catholic Church. It might, in fact, say a good thing.

As an afterthought, JPII's motto "Totus Tuus" to Mary doesn't leave much room for Jesus does it?

This is never going to fly with y'all, but while I give all to Mary, I give the giving to Jesus (from whom I understand it to come.)

You guys need to do more transfinite math and expand your metaphor base from zero sum finite arithmetic to win/win transfinite arithmetic.

Whhatever we can imagine God might do for us in Love, our imagination is insufficient. Once one accepts this, devotional language becomes almost inevitably excessive, since grace is not only shaken down and pressed together, but is also running over.

[OLD REGGIE]

I've discovered something interesting regarding the Catholic Church's teaching of Mary: Latria-the highest form of adoration. The Church teaches the faithful to worship God alone in this manner.

Hyperdulia- Hyperdulia is one step below latria worship. It is the highest degree of veneration that can be given to a CREATED BEING. THE CHURCH TEACHES THAT MARY ALONE DESERVES THIS HONOR.

IOW, the reason Mary is 'venerated' and not 'worshipped' seems solely because she is a created being. Sooooo, they create a spot SOLELY for her and her alone.

Seems like the argument that "we don't worship Mary" is ONLY a matter of semantics.

"Hyperdulia" was a "smoke" distinction invented by Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, A.D. 1270, to define the distinction between the "worship" of Jesus and the "worship" of Mary.

It is interesting that the distinction was developed in 1270 and we are to accept that is was a practice and belief from the time of the Apostles. So much for "TRADITION".