Posted on 08/07/2019 3:20:08 PM PDT by ebb tide
Marian devotion is the cure for heresy and the healing of all heretics. We must turn to her for refuge from the heretical depravity now consuming the Church. Marian devotion is the destruction of error, the fount of humility, and a potent safeguard for orthodox faith.
Mary Is the Destroyer of All Heresies
In True Devotion to Mary, St. Louis de Montfort writes:
The most infallible and indubitable sign by which we may distinguish a heretic, a man of bad doctrine, a reprobate, from one of the predestinate, is that the heretic and the reprobate have nothing but contempt and indifference for our Blessed Lady, endeavoring by their words and examples to diminish the veneration and love of her. (30)
In the Tract for the Mass Salve Sancta Parens, the Church sings, “Rejoice, O Virgin Mary, thou alone hast destroyed all heresies.” From this, Pope St. Pius X invoked her as “Destroyer of Heresies” in Pascendi 58. And again, it was in the context of St. Dominic’s war against heresy that the Holy Rosary, Mary’s psalter, was revealed.
Thus, it is manifest that Our Lady holds a special place in the relationship of Holy Church with heresy and heretics. Why is this? It is because the root cause of heresy is not anger, lust, or sloth, but pride. A formal heretic pridefully and obstinately rejects the authority of the Church and the authority of the Fathers. His whole opinion hinges on an imaginary antiquarianism created by his pride. And it is against the sin of pride that Our Lady most perfectly shows her power. This is why St. Louis says in another place:
[Satan] fears her not only more than all Angels and men, but in some sense more than God Himself … because Satan, being proud, suffers infinitely more from being beaten and punished by a little and humble handmaid of God, and her humility humbles him more than the Divine power. (True Devotion, 52)
Demons and heretics fear her because she threatens to humble them. The latter impiously attack her under the pretense that they are safeguarding the honor due to God. In reality, they know that Mary will destroy their prideful opinions. “Humility is an abomination to the proud ” (Ecclus. 13:24).
How Mary Humbles the Proud
When the Holy Spirit exalted Mary by the mouth of St. Elizabeth, Mary said:
He hath shewed might in his arm: he hath scattered the proud in the conceit of their heart. He hath put down the mighty from their seat and hath exalted the humble. (Lk. 1:51)
Devotion to Mary brings humility to the soul. Just as St. John heard her voice and leaped for joy, and St. Elizabeth immediately humbled herself, saying “Who am I that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” (Lk. 1:43), we too know this humility when we exalt Mary.
Mary humbles us because God wills that Jesus Christ be manifested to the world through her. According to nature, any man is her equal. According to grace and merit, she is “more honorable than the cherubim, and beyond compare more glorious than the Seraphim” [1]. In Mary, our humility is truly tested because she is a human, not God.
Humility toward God is presumed by all, and heretics falsely think themselves humble because they say they submit to God. But their pride is revealed when they refuse to submit to man — both legitimate authority and the sayings of the wise. “The way of a fool is right in his own eyes: but he that is wise hearkeneth unto counsels” (Prov. 12:15).
A humble man may even debase himself before wicked men, as our Lord did. But heretics have no humility toward men. In reality, heretics are attempting to impose their private opinion on all authorities. They have no humility toward any human but are consumed in their own selves. As the history of Protestantism has shown, it is easy to feign humility toward God while exalting yourself over every man. This is the way of all the heretics.
One who is humble toward Mary will be humble toward authority. Mary especially checks the pride of heretics by proclaiming that they cannot have their own private, “personal Jesus,” since our Lord has forever bound Himself to His mother by His incarnation. In the same way that the Incarnation is the foundation of our redemption — without which there can be no Passion or Resurrection — the human person of Jesus Christ cannot exist without the person of Mary [2]. As I have written in another place, true union with Christ will result in love of Mary as our mother, who was also the first natural cause of His appearance to the world.
Marian Devotion is a test for orthodoxy
Since Marian Devotion is the fount of humility, it becomes a powerful test for orthodoxy. For example, when St. John Vianney’s lack of intelligence presented a barrier to his ordination, he was evaluated like this:
The vicar-general asked the superior of the seminary: ‘Is young Vianney pious? Is he devoted to the Blessed Virgin?’ The authorities were able to assure him fully upon these points. ‘Then,’ said the vicar-general, ‘I will receive him. Divine grace will do the rest.’ [3]
And so the Church ordained the future patron of parish priests. Sometimes it is as simple as asking if a man has Marian devotion. If a man is truly devoted to our Lady, he can be no heretic. St. Louis again:
“If you follow her,” says St. Bernard, “you cannot wander from the road.” Fear not, therefore, that a true child of Mary can be deceived by the evil one, or fall into any formal heresy. There where the guidance of Mary is, neither the evil spirit with his illusions, nor the heretics with their subtleties, can ever come — Ipsa tenente, non corruis. (True Devotion, 209) [4]
Thus, it is unsurprising that when we read through Building a Bridge by James Martin, S.J., a book purported to be about mercy and compassion, not a single page mentions the Mother of mercy and compassion. In fact, on page 130, he even erroneously asserts that at the Resurrection, Mary Magdalene was the first Christian, implicitly denying our Lady and the entire tradition of her Saturday memorial in which her sole faithfulness is commemorated. The examples of his warped or deficient Marian piety are only too easy to find [5].
But it is even more disturbing when we read how the Rhine group at Vatican II successfully suppressed the document on the Mother of God, relegating it, by a narrow vote, to the final section in Lumen Gentium (against the protests from Eastern Catholic bishops and others) [6]. When their efforts to suppress Marian devotion were opposed by Paul VI (to his credit), the time became known to them as “Black Week” [7]. Perhaps more alarming, Ratzinger himself admits that his Marian piety was weak in Last Testament and seems to imply the false dichotomy that Marian piety is not Christocentric [8]. Without succumbing to the sin of rash judgment, it is nevertheless suggestive that this lack of Marian piety correlates with an apparent hubris on the part of many Vatican II “reformers.”
Whatever the true state of these and other men with an apparent reluctance to love and honor their own mother, we can be certain that our Blessed Lady is a sure refuge from heresy. As Fr. Ripperger has stated, without a strong intellectual formation, everyone becomes a Modernist in our corrupt society. That is why we must cling to Our Lady for refuge from heretics and heresy in our time.
True devotion to Mary keeps us safe from the excesses of pride. Even more in our day, let us consider: she stood firm, though she witnessed the Passion and death of our Lord. We also must stand firm, even as we are witnessing the passion and death of the Church. Moreover, it seems clear from her frequent apparitions since the 19th century that Our Lord has purposed His mother for a special role in resolving this crisis. Let us pray our daily rosary and make the First Saturdays. Let us abide with Our Lady in the Passion of the Church and never lose hope for the Glorious Resurrection.
[1] Eastern Catholic Marian antiphon
[2] So too the mediation of the Sacraments — through another human — we receive our Lord.
[3] The Life of Saint John Vianney, The Curé of Ars, ch. 1
[4] It should be noted that Marian devotion is not an infallible test for orthodoxy, but merely a general rule against which there can be significant exceptions. Some Protestants, although material heretics, are in fact humble, and some Catholics are orthodox with little or no Marian piety. However, no man can be truly devoted to Our Lady and be a heretic. Moreover, formal heresy is defined as an error in the intellect and an obstinate will. It is particularly the latter from which Mary keeps us safe.
[5] I refuse to expose the reader to any further abuse of Our Lady from James Martin. Suffice it to say I have searched in vain for a substantial treatment or promotion of Marian devotion from Martin, and he admits in My Life with the Saints, p. 345ff., that his Marian devotion, which was shallow in his youth, was formed by the Jesuits as an imitation model, not the traditional, primarily mediatrix role. If his Marian devotion does go beyond sentimentality, let him publicly and explicitly disavow every heresy of which he is accused.
[6] See Rev. Ralph Wiltgen, The Rhine Flows into the Tiber (Augustine, 1979), 90ff.
[7] See Ibid., 234ff. The Rhine group was opposing Paul VI’s honoring of our Lady as “Mother of the Church” as well as his actions regarding collegiality, religious liberty, and ecumenism.
[8] See Benedict XVI, Last Testament, trans. Jacob Phillips (Bloomsbury, 2016), 70ff. As I have read more into Ratzinger, despite his obvious strengths, more of his theology has concerned me. This point was another red flag
So now you are resorting to blaspheming God, Himself.
Quite bold of you.
So whatta ya got, nothing again??? Just accusations???
Heb 2:9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.
Heb 2:16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.
Heb 2:17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.
Heb 2:18 For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.
2Co 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.
We of the Christian church of the bible constantly post the words of God's scripture to show what we know and say is true...Rarely do we get a response to that scripture which I always assumed was because you didn't bother to read it...But now I'm thinking you people just don't care what God says, or it's just jibberish to you...You just don't get it...
If we had a book that was the source of truth without error, you could be competent by reading a book. Unfortunately that book does not exist for medicine. Fortunately that book does exist for Christians.
That idea didn't come from scripture, the book of God...Where did you get that crazy idea???
John sure seemed to think one could understand salvation by "just reading" what he wrote as moved by the Spirit.
13These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life.
14This is the confidence which we have before Him, that, if we ask anything according to His will, He hears us.
15And if we know that He hears us in whatever we ask, we know that we have the requests which we have asked from Him. 1 John 5:13-15 NASB
Not at all. I mean you guys argue with each other what the Scripture means, but ignore the fact God never endorses any of your “conclusions,” so it’s like arguing whose dad is toughest.
And which is just your opinion, or that Rome must be correct, even though they could not recommend one particular version of the Vulgate over others, resulting in the scandal of the . But there are mere opinions, and then there is evidential warrant for "opinions."
As regards Mary being uniquely "Full of Grace," even Keating admits,
John 1:14 says that Jesus was plErEs charitos, which literally means "full of grace." (Those capital Es arepresent etas, so pronounce them like the e in "they"; the word is thus pronounced PLAY-RACE). Luke 1:28 uses kecharitomene, which literally means "one who has been graced" or "woman who has been graced" (since the gender is female). It doesn't literally mean "full of grace," though that is defensible as a free translation. Acts 6:8 refers to Stephen as plErEs charitos, so again it's literally "full of grace" and just the same as the description used of Jesus in John 1:14.
"If it is the latter, (2) does that mean there really isn’t a literal “full of grace” parallel between Luke 1:28 and John 1:14 or can I find that literal parallel somewhere else in the New Testament?" Not that I'm aware of, and I'd almost certainly be aware of it if there were. http://www.jimmyakin.org/2005/10/kecharitomene_q.html(http://www.jimmyakin.org/2005/10/kecharitomene_q.html)
As for Kecharitomene denoting that the state of grace began in past time, even Catholic professor of biblical languages and 11 year vet of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, Joseph Fitzmeyer, S.J. writes in the Anchor Bible (v. 28, pg. 345) “Though the pf. Pass. Ptc. Kecharitomenos is found in the LXX of Sir 18:17 in the sense of ‘gracious man,’ here is rather designates Mary as the recipient of divine favor; it means ‘favored by God,’ another instance of the so-called theological passive (see ZGB § 236). She is favored by God to be the mother of the descendant of David and the Son of the Most High.”
Thus since Sirach 18:17 says , 'is not a word better than a gift? but both are with a gracious [Kecharitomenos] man," than one could also argue, consistent with Cath reasoning, that such men uniquely always were gracious.
As for other technical arguments, once again here is an extensive examination of the basic argument by one who has quite a resume of scholarship, Robert Dean Luginbill, Ph.D. Greek:http://ichthys.com/mail-Mary-full-of-grace.htm
The phrase "hapax legomenon" is applied to the unique occurrence of a word in a corpus. It is not applied to the every specific form a word may take. In Greek, any given verb can potentially have hundreds of different forms (depending upon how one counts these). Therefore in any highly inflected language – like Greek, Hebrew, Latin, and virtually all of the ancient languages – trying to carry this concept which rightly belongs to core words over to individual forms is ludicrous. The word charitoo is not a true "hapax" in the Bible because it occurs more than 'once' (which is what hapax means), and because of the wide variety of forms any verb or substantive in Greek can manifest it makes no sense to apply this term to an individual form of a word and call it a "hapax" (or, alternatively, one can say such a thing, it's just that saying such a thing is meaningless). The point behind identifying a word as a hapax legomenon" (i.e., "mentioned/said only once [in the corpus]") is generally that one has very little information about what the word might mean precisely because it only occurs "once".
If a word is a "hapax" only in a particular author or specialized corpus but appears elsewhere in the language, then the value of this "uniqueness" is greatly reduced. When one has multiple contexts to judge from, one is not in the same position as in the case of a true "hapax" where there is indeed only one single context on which to base one's decision about what a word might mean. As the matter at hand actually stands, moreover, in the case of charitoo, we have an abundance of riches: 1) it occurs elsewhere in the NT; 2) it occurs widely in the literature elsewhere; 3) it is a simple verbal formation on a very well attested noun – so much so as to make its essential meaning so crystal clear that even if this verb only occurred here in all of Greek literature there would still not be any serious doubt as to its meaning.
Your correspondent does not really quibble with the essential meaning of the verb as reflected in every dictionary and every version, namely, "to bestow grace/favor upon". Where you correspondent falls down – and where he over-reaches the Greek scholars he is consulting – is in his attempt to take a simple verb form and make it bear a meaning it cannot bear. You mention that this fellow "really didn't mean that the Greek perfect form here meant that Mary was "perfect", but that is the essence of his argument. His translation is "Having been Graced with all Possible Grace both past present and future." Further he says that the "past" part means that "Mary was saved before ever falling in to sin". Clearly, this person's argument is entirely dependent upon making the perfect tense "magical" in the sense of infusing 'perfection,' even if he is trying to couch this lunacy in grammatical-sounding expressions:
Hi Dr. Luginbill--Once again, I have a question for you about "full of grace". You pointed out that Eph. 1:6 uses the same verb and it doesn't mean "full of grace" there, and therefore, "sinless". A Catholic correspondent has found this by some scholar or other; what do you think of his argument?
This argument is silly. Tense stems in Greek (and there are really only three which matter in such things: aorist, perfect, present) reflect 'aspect', which is something we have in English too (i.e., 'I go' = simple point action akin to the Greek aorist stem, vs. 'I am going' = repetitive action akin to the Greek present stem). These are not "magic", and investing them with layers of meaning invisible to the human eye and untranslatable into English is always a huge mistake (or a deliberate attempt to deceive). The Greek perfect has a meaning very similar to the English perfect, while the Greek aorist is very similar in meaning to the English past. By very similar I mean "essentially indistinguishable in the indicative mood". The only reason this issue of aspect even comes up is because Greek uses the different tense stems in places where we are no longer able to do so in English (i.e., while English users are generally unaware they even use a subjunctive, in Greek we can choose between present and aorist subjunctives in all contingent subordinate clause situations). This person's argument seems to rest entirely upon his quotation of Smyth. However, he misquotes Smyth by leaving out a critical part of the statement.
..If the perfect tense could do all the author claims, then every time it says anything about "knowing" in scripture (for oida is perfective in all of its forms), it would mean "knowing with a perfect knowledge that was conceived in eternity past": such a convention of translation would lead only to utter nonsense (cf. Acts 16:3).
More here , by God's grace.
Akin also admitted “This [kecharitomene] is a Greek term that you could use in that exact grammatical formation for someone else who wasn’t immaculately conceived and the sentence would still make sense.” - http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/2011/05/09/jimmy-akin-the-immaculate-conception-has-to-be-read-into-luke-128/
It is also of note that when Peter said, "If we this day be examined of the good deed done to the impotent man, by what means he is made whole," (Acts 4:9) the later is in the perfect passive tense.
Also,
If the perfect tense denotes completeness with a permanent result, then Paul teaches "once saved always saved" in Ephesians 2:8 since he uses the periphrastic perfect ἐστε σεσῳσμένοι ("you are having been saved"). http://forums.carm.org/vbb/printthread.php?t=219962&pp=10&page=3
And in Acts 4:31, "Were gathered together" (ησαν συνηγμενο). Periphrastic past perfect passive of συναγω.
That said, THAT GOD WOULD MAKE A CARDINAL DOCTRINE DEPENDENT UPON A DISPUTABLE RENDERINGS DUE TO THE INTRICACIES OF GREEK PARTICIPLES IS ABSURD, as is that almighty God required a immaculately conceived and sinlessly preserved vessel in order to be incarnated.
Enough said.
Unfortunately for you, what you think he wrote is not what he actually wrote.
You guys treat Holy Writ like it was a contract.
And WHY, entire, do We do that? Read Acts 17:11. They were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that They (the Bereans)) received THE WORD WITH ALL READINESS OF MIND, and SEARCHED the SCRIPTURES daily, WHETHER THOSE THINGS WERE SO.
They did NOT depend on men. Or traditions
Or doctrines. They depended SOLELY on Scripture to lead them.
Indeed. Those who vainly attempt to actually support the vain tradition of Prayer to created beings in Heaven from Scripture cannot show:
1. Even one example where anyone prayed to anyone in Heaven but the Lord, amid the approx. 200 prayers the Holy Spirit recorded for us in Scripture.
2. Any instruction on prayer to Heaven in which the addressee is anyone God, versus a created being in Heaven.
3. Even one example in which anyone in Heaven but God regularly hear and respond to prayers addressed to them, (elders and angels offering prayers in memorial as a preclude to judgment will not do), versus the Lord Jesus being the only unceasing Heavenly intercessor. (1 Tim. 2:5)
4. One example in which anyone from Heaven but God communicated with those on earth without both being personally present in the same realm.
5. One example in which earthly relations on earth have complete correspondence to those btwn created beings, in contrast to that not being the case.
6. Even one example of a common, necessary, fundamental doctrinal Christian practice for which the Holy Spirit does not provide even one single example, except by pagans in which it is condemned.
7. Even one example in which believers even sought the intercession of Mary on earth.
8. Even one example in which faithful believers kneel before other believers on earth in obeisance in sanctioned.
9. Why Catholics are exempt from the admonition not to think of mortals "above that which is written." (1Co. 4:6)
10. Even one example in which believers kneel before a statue and praise the entity it represented in the unseen world, beseeching such for Heavenly help, and making offerings to them, and giving glory and titles and ascribing attributes to such which are never given in Scripture to created beings (except to false gods), including having the uniquely Divine power and glory to hear and respond to virtually infinite numbers of prayers individually addressed to them
Which manner of adulation,as said, can constitute worship in Scripture , yet Catholics imagine that by playing word games then they can avoid crossing the invisible line between mere "veneration" and worship.
God favored Mary and therefore chose her to bare his son, he did not find favor in just any one.
Mary was special
So you say. Good Luck.
I don’t really care what the Greek words mean as it is translated into english.
“For those with faith no proof is necessary, for those without faith no proof is sufficient.” - St. Thomas Aquinas
I believe of all the ludicrous arguments I have seen Roman Catholics appeal to this one takes the cake.
Congratulations, sir, you have surpassed Catholicanswers in reaching a new low in Roman Catholic apologetics.
You guys treat Holy Writ like it was a contract.
This is really sad....and revealing as well.
IF the Word of God cannot be trusted,....I don't know what to say to that.
I hope you come to a saving knowledge of Christ, and only Christ.
Wow....just....wow.
Attaboy, put that head in the sand.
No, Protestantism itself is not "real" Christianity since Protestantism entails such a broadbrush that you could land a Unitarian Scientology, Swedenborgian Mormon A380 on it, for anything apart from Rome befits the name Protestantism.
But within Protestantism there are overall true churches, at least close to those the Lord addressed as churches in Rv. 2+3, and within Catholicism there are a relative few true born again believers (I was one while still a weekly Mass-going RC and lector, and CCD teacher) of simple pious faith.
However, only the mystical body of Christ is the one true church, since it alone always and only consists 100% of true believers, whereas the visible orgs that they may I.D. with invariably become admixtures of true and false believers and teachings.
And it is Catholicism and the church of Rome in particular (as the church taking up the most space on the broad way to destruction) that is most manifest as standing in critical and overall contrast to the NT church.
With distinctive Catholic teachings that are not manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (including how they understood the OT and gospels), which is Scripture, especially Acts thru Revelation.
Thank You; I hope the same for you!
Bro, I already have....since age 12.
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.