This Protestant Researched Marian Miracles, & What He Learned Blew His Mind

A Pentecostal huh? From one error they go deeper into others.

I visited a Pentecostal church at the invitation of a friend. The preacher seemed offended that I remained silent when the congregation was “loud in the spirit.”

I don’t doubt their sincerity; however, some of the antics seemed a bit “forced.”

Luther seems (to me) to have no problem with extremely high praise for the Virgin Mary, yet he seems wary of placing Mary into Christ's place. I was raised a Catholic, and I actually empathize with some of that. I think that veneration of the Mother of God is right and proper - it seems that Luther thought the same. I certainly think that a hymn to the Mother of God is a good thing at every mass, for example. But like any good thing it can be taken to extremes.

I believe in the miracles of Lourdes. I see no problem with God honoring the Virgin Mary with miracles of healing. After all, Christ changed water into wine at Mary's request.

You seem to labor under the misguided error that some of us “venerate” Martin Luther as you “venerate” Mary and other humans.

Turn all of your worship to Jesus. He alone is worthy of praise.

In the Koran Jesus is referred to as the Son of Mary 23 times.

This is a title given by muslims to note His humanity and mortality.

The Bible only records this once in Mark 6:3. In this passage He was in His hometown and was teaching in the synagogue. His detractors could not believe He had such wisdom and was able to do the miracles He did.

As the muslims later on, they did not recognize Who Jesus really was.

Why would a prot even degrade the Mother of Jesus Christ?

That’s the question.

Quite to the contrary. I certainly don't think you venerate Luther. Why would you, after all? :0))

Biblically, it seems clear to me (Scott Hahn has a great book on the topic) that the Virgin Mary is the New Testament personification of the Ark of the Covenant. Thus, it would seem clear that whatever liturgical significance the Ark had in the OT would apply full bore to Mary.

The prots have been making up crap ever since Luther apostatized.

Like this one, in use for longer than the history of America:

The Pseudo-Isidorean Decretals (or False Decretals) are a set of extensive and influential medieval forgeries, written by a scholar or group of scholars known as Pseudo-Isidore. The authors, who worked under the pseudonym Isidore Mercator, were probably a group of Frankish clerics writing in the second quarter of the ninth century. They aimed to defend the position of bishops against metropolitans and secular authorities by creating false documents purportedly authored by early popes, together with interpolated conciliar documents.

The Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals, along with certain fictitious letters ascribed to early popes, from Clement to Gregory the Great, were incorporated in a ninth-century collection of canons purporting to have been made by the pseudonymous Isidore Mercator. Collections of canons were commonly made by adding new matter to old; the forger of the Pseudo-Isidore collection took as the basis of his work a quite genuine collection, Hispana Gallica Augustodunensis, and interpolated his forgeries among the genuine material that supplied credibility by association. The official Liber pontificalis was used as a historical guide and furnished some of the subject matter.

For approximately 150 to 200 years, the forgeries met with only moderate success. Although a relatively large number of manuscripts dating from the ninth or tenth century is known—altogether about 100 more or less complete manuscripts of the False Decretals dating from the ninth to the 16th century have been preserved—the canonical collections took but little note of the False Decretals until the early 11th century.

During the 11th century, the situation changed rapidly under the impetus of the Gregorian reforms and the Investiture Controversy. Under the impetus of monastic reform movements and the efforts of some Holy Roman Emperors, a group of cardinals and a series of successive popes strove to cleanse the church of abuses and free the papacy from its Imperial patronage, which had recently freed it from the influence of the Roman nobles. The reformers' efforts soon conflicted with temporal power. The bishops of the Holy Roman Empire were crucial to the Emperor's power and were the backbone of his administrative structure. Thus, the emperors were keen to maintain their say on who was promoted bishop and who was not. This intermingling of spiritual and temporal power constituted a deadly sin in most reformers' eyes. After all, St. Peter himself had already condemned the magician Simon Magus (the "Simon" of simony), who tried to buy spiritual power.

Given this situation, the alleged letters from some of the most venerable Roman bishops fabricated by the forgers' workshop came as a godsend. The close interaction of bishops and pope was a welcome proof that the emperors' practice was in blatant contradiction with the oldest traditions of the church. Collections of canon law rediscovered the False Decretals—some were largely extracts from the forgeries. The forgers' intentions, however, were turned around. They had used Rome's power to maintain the independence of the bishops; now the texts were being used to bring the bishops under close scrutiny and to make them dependents of the Bishop of Rome.

This tendency continued to prevail until around 1140, when the learned canonist Gratian published his Concordia discordantium canonum, which increasingly replaced the older collections and was soon regarded as authoritative. Gratian, too, made use of texts from the forgers' arsenal, although, for the most part, probably in indirect ways. With Gratian's work, the immediate influence of the False Decretals had come to an end. As intended, the texts had become an important basis for procedural law, but the outcome was nearly the opposite of what the forgers had intended in the mid-ninth century. The bishops' independence was increasingly restricted by the power of the Church of Rome.

During the Middle Ages, there was little doubt as to the genuineness of the alleged papal letters, but this changed during the fifteenth century. Humanist scholars of Latin, such as Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa, noticed bizarre anachronisms, such as the claim that the martyr-pope Clement I had founded the pre-eminence of certain local churches on the fact that the pagans had their high priests in the same localities. During the sixteenth century, Protestant ecclesiastical historians such as the Centuriatores Magdeburgienses (the Magdeburg Centuriators) criticized the forgeries in a more systematic way, although they did not yet recognize the forgeries as one whole interconnected complex. The final proof was provided by the Calvinist preacher David Blondel, who discovered that the alleged popes from the first centuries quoted extensively from authors of a much later time. In 1628, he published his findings (Pseudoisidorus et Turrianus vapulantes). Some Catholic theologians first tried to defend the genuineness of at least some of the material, but, since the nineteenth century, no serious theologian or historian has denied the falsification. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudo-Isidorian_Decretals

The Pseudo-Isidorian collection also includes the earlier (non-Pseudo-Isidorian) forgery, the Donation of Constantine.

The Donation of Constantine (Latin, Donatio Constantini) is a forged Roman imperial decree by which the emperor Constantine I supposedly transferred authority over Rome and the western part of the Roman Empire to the Pope. Composed probably in the 8th century, it was used, especially in the 13th century, in support of claims of political authority by the papacy.[1]

The text, purportedly a decree of Roman Emperor Constantine I dated 30 March, in a year mistakenly said to be both that of his fourth consulate (315) and that of the consulate of Gallicanus (317), contains a detailed profession of Christian faith and a recounting of how the emperor, seeking a cure of his leprosy, was converted and baptized by Pope Sylvester I. In gratitude, he determined to bestow on the see of Peter "power, and dignity of glory, and vigour, and honour imperial", and "supremacy as well over the four principal sees, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Constantinople, as also over all the churches of God in the whole earth". For the upkeep of the church of Saint Peter and that of Saint Paul, he gave landed estates "in Judea, Greece, Asia, Thrace, Africa, Italy and the various islands". To Sylvester and his successors he also granted imperial insignia, the tiara, and "the city of Rome, and all the provinces, places and cities of Italy and the western regions".[4][5]

What may perhaps be the earliest known allusion to the Donation is in a letter of 778, in which Pope Hadrian I exhorts Charlemagne, whose father, Pepin the Younger, had initiated the sovereignty of the Popes over the Papal States, to follow Constantine's example and endow the Roman church.

The first pope to directly invoke the decree was Pope Leo IX, in a letter sent in 1054 to Michael I Cerularius, Patriarch of Constantinople.[3] He cited a large portion of the document, believing it genuine,[6][7] furthering the debate that would ultimately lead to the East–West Schism. In the 11th and 12th centuries, the Donation was often cited in the investiture conflicts between the papacy and the secular powers in the West.[3]

During the Middle Ages, the Donation was widely accepted as authentic, although the Emperor Otto III did possibly raise suspicions of the document "in letters of gold" as a forgery, in making a gift to the See of Rome.[9] It was not until the mid-15th century, with the revival of Classical scholarship and textual criticism, that humanists, and eventually the papal bureaucracy, began to realize that the document could not possibly be genuine. Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa declared it to be a forgery[10][11] and spoke of it as an apocryphal work. Later, the Catholic priest Lorenzo Valla, in De falso credita et ementita Constantini donatione declamatio, proved the forgery with certainty.[12] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donation_of_Constantine

There are many eminent Roman Catholic historians who have testified to that fact as well as to the importance of the forgeries, especially those of Pseudo-Isidore. One such historian is Johann Joseph Ignaz von Döllinger. He was the most renowned Roman Catholic historian of the last century, who taught Church history for 47 years as a Roman Catholic. He makes these important comments:

In the middle of the ninth century—about 845—there arose the huge fabrication of the Isidorian decretals...About a hundred pretended decrees of the earliest Popes, together with certain spurious writings of other Church dignitaries and acts of Synods, were then fabricated in the west of Gaul, and eagerly seized upon Pope Nicholas I at Rome, to be used as genuine documents in support of the new claims put forward by himself and his successors.
That the pseudo–Isidorian principles eventually revolutionized the whole constitution of the Church, and introduced a new system in place of the old—on that point there can be no controversy among candid historians.
The most potent instrument of the new Papal system was Gratian’s Decretum, which issued about the middle of the twelfth century from the first school of Law in Europe, the juristic teacher of the whole of Western Christendom, Bologna. In this work the Isidorian forgeries were combined with those of the other Gregorian (Gregory VII) writers...and with Gratia’s own additions. His work displaced all the older collections of canon law, and became the manual and repertory, not for canonists only, but for the scholastic theologians, who, for the most part, derived all their knowledge of Fathers and Councils from it. No book has ever come near it in its influence in the Church, although there is scarcely another so chokeful of gross errors, both intentional and unintentional (Johann Joseph Ignaz von Döllinger, The Pope and the Council (Boston: Roberts, 1870), pp. 76-77, 79, 115-116).
In addition to the Pseudo Isidorian Decretals there were other forgeries which were successfully used for the promotion of the doctrine of papal primacy. One famous instance is that of Thomas Aquinas. In 1264 A.D. Thomas authored a work entitled Against the Errors of the Greeks. This work deals with the issues of theological debate between the Greek and Roman Churches in that day on such subjects as the Trinity, the Procession of the Holy Spirit, Purgatory and the Papacy. In his defense of the papacy Thomas bases practically his entire argument on forged quotations of Church fathers. Under the names of the eminent Greek fathers such as Cyril of Jerusalem, John Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria and Maximus the Abbott, a Latin forger had compiled a catena of quotations interspersing a number that were genuine with many that were forged which was subsequently submitted to Pope Urban IV. This work became known as the Thesaurus of Greek Fathers or Thesaurus Graecorum Patrum. In addition the Latin author also included spurious canons from early Ecumenical Councils. Pope Urban in turn submitted the work to Thomas Aquinas who used many of the forged passages in his work Against the Errors of the Greeks mistakenly thinking they were genuine. These spurious quotations had enormous influence on many Western theologians in succeeding centuries. The following is a sample of Thomas’ argumentation for the papacy using the spurious quotations from the Thesaurus: - http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/forgeries.html
Paul Johnson, educated at the Jesuit independent school Stonyhurst College, and at Magdalen College, Oxford, author of over 40 books and a popular historian, finds,

Eusebius presents the lists as evidence that orthodoxy had a continuous tradition from the earliest times in all the great Episcopal sees and that all the heretical movements were subsequent aberrations from the mainline of Christianity.
Looking behind the lists, however, a different picture emerges. In Edessa, on the edge of the Syrian desert, the proofs of the early establishment of Christianity were forgeries, almost certainly manufactured under Bishop Kune, the first orthodox Bishop, and actually a contemporary of Eusebius...
Orthodoxy was not established [In Egypt] until the time of Bishop Demetrius, 189-231, who set up a number of other sees and manufactured a genealogical tree for his own bishopric of Alexandria, which traces the foundation through ten mythical predecessors back to Mark, and so to Peter and Jesus...
Even in Antioch, where both Peter and Paul had been active, there seems to have been confusion until the end of the second century. Antioch completely lost their list...When Eusebius’s chief source for his Episcopal lists, Julius Africanus, tried to compile one for Antioch, he found only six names to cover the same period of time as twelve in Rome and ten in Alexandria. (“A History of Christianity,” pgs 53ff;
And then we have the,
The Symmachean forgeries are a sheaf of forged documents produced in the papal curia of Pope Symmachus (498—514) in the beginning of the sixth century, in the same cycle that produced the Liber Pontificalis.[1] In the context of the conflict between partisans of Symmachus and Antipope Laurentius the purpose of these libelli was to further papal pretensions of the independence of the Bishops of Rome from criticisms and judgment of any ecclesiastical tribunal, putting them above law clerical and secular by supplying spurious documents supposedly of an earlier age. "During the dispute between Pope St. Symmachus and the anti-pope Laurentius," the Catholic Encyclopedia reports, "the adherents of Symmachus drew up four apocryphal writings called the 'Symmachian Forgeries'. ... The object of these forgeries was to produce alleged instances from earlier times to support the whole procedure of the adherents of Symmachus, and, in particular, the position that the Roman bishop could not be judged by any court composed of other bishops."[2]
The most important in this group of forgeries was Silvestri constitutum, a report of a fictitious synod convoked by Pope Sylvester, giving twenty promulgated canons, among which was a prohibition of bringing a solitary accusation upon an ecclesiastic of a degree higher than the accuser's: a bishop might only be accused by seventy-two, and a pope could not be accused by anyone. Silvestri constitutum was also an early instance of the fable that Sylvester had cured Constantine the Great of leprosy with the waters of baptism, incurring the Emperor's abject gratitude, which was elaborated and credited to the point that, in greeting Pope Stephen II in 753, Pepin II dismounted to lead the Pope's horse to his palace on foot, as Constantine would have done.[4]
The second, somewhat later group centers on the figure of Sylvester, who accepts the decree of the First Council of Nicaea on the date of Easter. One of these forgeries reports a fictitious synod convoking 275 bishops in the Baths of Trajan; several canons exalt the position of the cleric.[5] -
The Symmachan forgeries reinterpreted some of the more embarrassing episodes in papal history, both real and imaginary. … How convincing these forged texts seemed in the early sixth century is unknown, but when rediscovered in later centuries, they were regarded as authentic records with unequivocal legal authority. … (Collins, “Keepers of the Keys of Heaven,” pgs 80-82).
Certainly Protestant history has some historical fiction about Rome, such as exaggerations about how many souls the RCC murdered as heretics, but Rome has their egregious forgeries which were depended upon, along with her unScriptural sword of men, to gain and maintain her position and power.

Today, Mexico is a country that is not too far removed from pile of you know what status. It’s Catholicity has only led to its perpetual stagnation, the dominance of superstition, authoritarian/statist ideologies leading into leftist ideologies, and finally the inevitable breakdown of law and order.

If you like the pagan goddess mary you’ll love santa muerte!

I agree with that. It's a question of balance. I posted a bunch of stuff from Luther above. Luther had the deepest respect for the Virgin Mary, calling her the Mother of God, and all sorts of other wonderful things. He believed in the assumption of the Virgin Mary. He did, however, seem wary of taking veneration of Mary so far that Christians lose the focus on Christ as Redeemer. I was raised a Catholic and I really think that's pretty close to the truth.

So, I question whether Catholics who want to declare Mary "Co-Redemtrix" are not in fact taking matters to an improper extreme.

At the same time, I really question the sanity of those Protestants who, in an attempt to distance themselves from the Catholic position, refer to the Mother of God as just another schlepp like the rest of us. That's really insulting to Our Lord, IMHO. Mary was "full of grace." Meditate on that. I shudder when I think on it.

So, I say keep some sort of balance on the question. It's far too easy to run to extremes.

Where’d you get all that crap? Twelve years of Catholic school I never heard such nonsense.

You mean what i quoted from Scripture, or the adulation of Mary which i "got" from Catholics (who else?), which i linked to the sources for? Filed under " not to think of men above that which is written..." (1 Corinthians 4:6)

Just because you never read such, or RCs will not click on links to material that exposes the errors of Rome does not mean they are not taught by Catholics.

Catholic ascriptions to Mary (More can be seen at this link (The up mark ^ points to the last referenced source.).

We must never adore her; that is for God alone. But otherwise we cannot honor her to excess, because it is not possible to overestimate the privileges God gave her in making her His own Mother. “What the church teaches,” by Monsignor J.D. Conway/ Imprimatur of Ralph L. Hayes,, New York; Harper and Brothers; 1962 (He also states, “It seems manifest that Christians simply adapted the art of pagan Rome to their religious needs:” p. 218)

Pope Pius XII asserts in an address on the Queenship of Mary, “after your assumption into heaven, he crowned you Queen of the Universe....In your name, resounding harmoniously in heaven, may they recognise that they are all brothers. Receive, O most sweet mother, our humble supplication above all obtained for us, that on that day, happy with you, we may repeat before your throne that hymn which is sung today around your altars. You are all beautiful, O Mary, you are the glory, you are the joy, you are the honour of our people.’ Catholic Culture, Prayer of Pope Pius XII, Composed for the Marian Year, 1954

“The power thus put into her (Mary’s) hands is all but unlimited. How unerringly right, then, are Christian souls when they turn to Mary for help...How rightly, too, has every nation and every liturgy without exception acclaimed her great renown, which has grown greater with the voice of each succeeding century. Among her many other titles we find her hailed as ‘our Lady, our Mediatrix,’ — (St. Tharasius, Orat. in Praesentatione) ‘the Dispenser of all heavenly gifts.’ (On Off. Graec., 8 Dec.).” Pope Leo XIII, in Adiutricem (On the Rosary), Encyclical promulgated on September 5, 1895, #8. http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13adiut.htm

When therefore we read in the writings of Saint Bernard, Saint Bernardine, Saint Bonaventure, and others that all in heaven and on earth, even God himself, is subject to the Blessed Virgin, they mean that the authority which God was pleased to give her is so great that she seems to have the same power as God. Her prayers and requests are so powerful with him that he accepts them as commands in the sense that he never resists his dear mother’s prayer because it is always humble and conformed to his will.... — St. Louis de Montfort, in Treatise on True Devotion to the Blessed Virgin, #27, 246. http://www.ewtn.com/library/Montfort/TRUEDEVO.HTM

Mary can be declared by the Church to be not only the “helpmate” of that Second Divine Person — Co-Redemptrix in Salvation, Mediatrix in grace — but actually “like unto Him.”...when she acts, it is also He who acts; and that if her intervention be not accepted, neither is His.... Her position as "the first of all creatures, the most acceptable child of God, the nearest and dearest to him," (Cardinal Newman); As Mother of God, says Lepicier, Mary contracts a certain affinity with the Father; · The pre-eminent resemblance which she bears to the Father, which has fitted her to pour out into the world the everlasting light which issues from that loving Father.... He has no children but by her, and communicates no graces but by her...and through her alone does He dispense His favours and His gifts. A Marian Synthesis; http://www.catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/general/msynthesis.htm

Mary is the sealed fountain and the faithful spouse of the Holy Spirit where only he may enter...She is the sanctuary and resting-place of the Blessed Trinity...the holy City of God, the greatness of the power which she wields over one who is God cannot be conceived...her prayers and requests are so powerful with him that he accepts them as commands...because it is always humble and conformed to his will, the dispenser of all he possesses...What immeasurable greatness...Mary has authority over the angels and the blessed in heaven...God gave her the power and the mission of assigning to saints the thrones made vacant by the apostate angels who fell away through pride....all the angels in heaven unceasingly call out to her...They greet her countless times each day with the angelic greeting, "Hail, Mary", while prostrating themselves before her, begging her as a favour to honour them with one of her requests...The whole world is filled with her glory,... Moreover, we should repeat after the Holy Spirit, "All the glory of the king's daughter is within".... Whatever desires the patriarchs may have cherished, whatever entreaties the prophets and saints of the Old Law may have had for 4,000 years to obtain that treasure, it was Mary alone who merited it and found grace before God by the power of her prayers and the perfection of her virtues." — St. Louis de Montfort, in Treatise on True Devotion to the Blessed Virgin, miscl. http://www.legionofmarytidewater.com/docs/true.doc

According to Eadmer (A.D. 1060–1124), an English monk and student of Anselm, “sometimes salvation is quicker if we remember Mary's name then if we invoked the name of the Lord Jesus...[who] does not at once, answer anyone who invokes him, but only does so after just judgment. But if the name of his mother Mary is invoked, her merits intercede so that he is answered even if the merits of him who invoked her do not deserve it.” Through her “the elements are renewed, the netherworld is healed, the demons are trodden underfoot, men are saved and angels are restored.” — Andrew Taylor, “Three medieval manuscripts and their readers,” University of Pennsylvania press; page 173 >In "Glories of Mary" by Liguori, whose writings were declared free from anything meriting censure by Pope Gregory XVI (1839) in the bull of his canonization, he teaches,

Beware, chosen soul, of thinking that it is more perfect to direct your work and intention straight to Jesus or straight to God. Without Mary, your work and your intention will be of little value. But if you go to God through Mary, your work will become Mary's work, and consequently will be most noble and most worthy of God. - THE SECRET OF MARY, St. Louis de Montfort; http://www.ewtn.com/library/Montfort/SECRET.HTM

“He who is under the protection of Mary will be saved; he who is not will be lost . . . O immaculate Virgin, we are under thy protection, and therefore we have recourse, to thee alone, and we beseech thee to prevent thy beloved Son, who is irritated by our sins, from abandoning us to the power of the devil. - . . Thou (Mary) art my only hope. . . . Lady in heaven, we have but one advocate, and that is thyself, and thou alone art truly loving and solicitous for our salvation ... My Queen and my Advocate with thy Son, whom I dare not approach “ (From Judge Fairly, p. 5).

Richard of St. Laurence encourages sinners to have recourse to this great name, "because it alone will suffice to cure them of all their evils;" and "there is no disorder, however malignant, that does not immediately yield to the power of the name of Mary." — St. Alphonsus de Liguori http://www.doctorsofthecatholicchurch.com/AL.html

The recourse we have to Mary in prayer follows upon the office she continuously fills by the side of the throne of God as Mediatrix of Divine grace; being by worthiness and by merit most acceptable to Him, and, therefore, surpassing in power all the angels and saints in Heaven. — Iucunda Semper Expectatione, Pope Leo XIII, 1894

But by her compassion for her Divine Son she had to suffer, as He did, all the consequences of sin. It was not only during the Passion that Jesus and Mary suffered for our sins, for all their lives that heartrending vision was before them in every detail, and never for a moment forgotten. — The Reign of Mary, Vol. 40; Issue 48

"We were condemned through the fault of one woman; we are saved through the merits of another woman. Just as Eve was the root of death for everyone, so Mary was the source of life for everyone. — Ten Series of Meditations on the Mystery of the Rosary,” by John Ferraro, Nihil Obstat John C. Hogan, Diocesan Censor; Imprimatur (1) - Richard Cardinal Cushing Daughters of St.Paul, 1964).

"After God, it is impossible to think of anything greater than His Mother." p. 83^

..to her, Jesus owes His Precious Blood...Next to God, she deserves the highest praise....no creature, can ever be compared to her:"To what shall I compare thee, or to whom shall I liken thee, O daughter of Jerusalem." (Lam. 2:13) [another verse taken out of context, as it refers to the affliction of Jewish mothers in general due to the judgment upon Jerusalem.] —http://www.salvemariaregina.info/SalveMariaRegina/SMR-098.html

...all graces of the Precious Blood come through Mary. — http://www.catholictradition.org/Mary/virgin-eucharist.htm

"O Christian who comest full of faith to receive the Bread of life, eat It worthily, and remember that It was fashioned out of Mary's pure blood." Mary can quite rightfully beckon to us and speak to us in the words of the inspired prophet, "Come and eat my bread, drink the wine I have prepared" (Prov. 9:5).

"The union between the Immaculata and the Holy Spirit is so inexpressible, yet so perfect, that the Holy Spirit acts only by the Most Blessed Virgin, his Spouse. This is why she is the mediatrix of all graces given by the Holy Spirit. And since every grace is a gift of God the Father through the Son and by the Holy Spirit, it follows that there is no grace which Mary cannot dispose of as her own, which is not given to her for this purpose." — Manteau-Bonamy, Immaculate Conception, 91; F.X. Durrwell, The Holy Spirit of God (Cincinnati: Servant Books, 2006), 183-185.

..."Limitless is the difference between God's servants and His Mother...Your honor and dignity surpass the whole of creation; your greatness places you above the angels...from her union with Christ she attains a radiant eminence transcending that of any other creature; from her union with Christ she receives the royal right to dispose of the treasures of the Divine Redeemer's Kingdom;... she intercedes powerfully for us with a mother's prayers, obtains what she seeks, and cannot be refused....Theologians and preachers...must beware of unfounded opinions and exaggerated expressions which go beyond the truth." [an in-credible injunction if Scripture is to be held as the Truth, as going beyond the Truth us exactly what Pope Pius XII is doing. But Scripture is not the supreme authority for Rome, but is made into a servant for her purposes, and Truth to Rome can be whatever she autocratically declares.] — Ad Caeli Reginam, Encyclical of Pope Pius XII; http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_11101954_ad-caeli-reginam_en.html

..."she is Mother of her Creator...through Whom the Holy Trinity is sanctified." "...she mediates between God and men." " "Run through all creation in your thought and see if there be one equal or superior to the Holy Virgin, Mother of God." (Works taken from "Letter to the Rev. E. B. Pusey" contained in Newman's "Difficulties of Anglicans" Volume II); http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/newman-mary.asp

The “forgers” all were/became protestants.

For some it has changed their ideas. How would you know?

I was just looking for that quote!

Some things never change.

At whose intercession did Jesus turn water into wine at Cana?

Who possessed the power and authority to perform the miracle of transforming water to wine?

Could Mary do it?

.
The “apostles creed” is nothing but human tomfoolery.

It is not based in the word of God, and makes a mockery of much of it.
.

The “apostles creed” is nothing but human tomfoolery.

This is interesting! What parts of the Creed do you deny?

Care to post your church's "creed"?

bkmk

What part of “intercession” do you not understand?

Biblically, it seems clear to me (Scott Hahn has a great book on the topic) that the Virgin Mary is the New Testament personification of the Ark of the Covenant. Thus, it would seem clear that whatever liturgical significance the Ark had in the OT would apply full bore to Mary. '

But in contrast to what RCs extrapolate what they desire out of Scripture, the Holy Spirit never get the memo from Rome. For very little is said about Mary, while the Holy Spirit gives far far more press to Paul's sacrificial labour in birthing and caring for souls, such as Caths can only wish such was said about Mary.

And also note that hat the Holy Spirit characteristically mentions exceptions to the norm among notable persons, from great age (Methuselah), to excess size, fingers (Goliath), strength (Samson), devotion (Anna), diet (John the Baptist), to the supernatural transport of Phillip, the singleness of Paul and Barnabas, and uncharacteristic duplicity of Peter, and the surpassing labor and suffering of Paul, etc., etc. to John the Baptist "being" Elijah, and Christ being sinless and the prophesied Messiah and Divine.

But Mary is nowhere presented as being a sinless perpetual virgin and highest created being in virtue, titled the mother of God and bodily assumed into Heaven and crowned as its Queen, with authority over angels, and hearing virtually infinite amounts of prayer from earth addressed to her, etc. .

Why do Caths have to "think of men above that which is written," (1 Corinthians 4:6) contrary to what is written against doing so?

That is more pagan than Christian.

As for the word that thou hast spoken unto us in the name of the Lord, we will not hearken unto thee. But we will certainly do whatsoever thing goeth forth out of our own mouth, to burn incense unto the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, as we have done, we, and our fathers, our kings, and our princes... (Jeremiah 44:16-17)

Care to post your church's "creed"?

It's called the Word of God.