Did You Help the Saints of Old to Become Holy?

Archdiocese of Washington ^ | 02-05-20 | Msgr. Charles Pope

[Mrs. Don-o]

"You might want to read all three accounts."

I did.

[MHGinTN]

You asserted: "Spiritual" necessarily means timeless, because the body now is constricted and bounded up in time and space, earthly; but the spirit has a spiritual nature, heavenly: not bound by time and pace, which are material things.

Is the spirit of you IN the Universe God has created? You and I were born with a spirit void of true Life, the Life God breathed into the spirit of Adam. When Adam rebelled against God the Life that was in his spirit left him and all his descendants have a same type of spirit void of Life.

You have a dead soul until God births one from above. The Roman Catholic Church Organization cannot birth your dead spirit into Life, only God can do that.

Once the spirit is alive it is alive forever more, as explained in 1 John 3:9.

So I ask you, teacher, is the spirit IN the Universe God has created?

[Mrs. Don-o]

Please search FR to locate the several dozen times the God-pleasing honor of Mary has been explained in the Religion Forum already. An overall internet search site might help if you use the proper key words, although Google is not as helpful as it used to be :o(

They've really buried "Free Republic" and my username, "Mrs Don-o" deep into the Memory Hole. Permit me a Grrrr.

But here's a different angle:

We would all would agree, I think, that the Pachamama stunt at the Vatican was a shameful example of actual idolatry--- or at the very least, a devious bait-and-switch. So this comparison may help. Let's contrast the proper dulia (non-adoration, but a holy honor) for Mary and the other Saints and the Angels, with something that really IS idolatry, such as the latria (divine honors) so scandalously given to the Pachmama Amazonian entity.

Relation to God the Father
Mary: created, as are all humankind, in the image and likeness of God, historic human person, mortal, creature, handmaid
Pachamama: credited with being a creator, if not The Creator,of the world. A flagrantly blasphemous claim.

Relation to Jesus Christ Our Lord
Mary: His mother; one who was saved by His saving power
Pachamama: no known relation. Neither His handmaid, nor His mother, perhaps not even His creation (on the assumption that "she" is actually nonexistent.)

Understanding of what "prayer" would mean:
Mary: it is always to be understood that this is intercessory prayer by a highly graced creature, a faithful woman who is praying alongside ll of the faithful. One must not offer sacrifices to Mary or ask her for anything outside of her humility, her subordinate human relation with Jesus Christ our Lord. The grace gratuitously given her by God Alone, defines her as a "blessed".
Pachamama: she is seen as having direct divine powers as a "goddess"; sacrifices are made to her/it; she is, in the formal sense, prostrated to and propitiated as either an independent force in the supposed spirit world,or a force of nature. That defines her as an idol.

IDK, but I anticipate that you might respond with the Litany of Loreto or some of the devotional writings of Louis de Montfort, the great 17th century proponent of devotion to Mary the Mother of the Lord, as if this constituted a rebuttal.

If you wish to strive for understanding, I would urge you to read these in their own context. A Litany, for instance, always begins or ends with the Lord's Prayer the Gloria Patri, and numerous short prayers which emphasize the Trinity. They make it clear that Mary is no goddess or demigoddess, but handmaid and disciple, who worships God but is not worshiped herself.

Louis de Montfort took as his personal motto "God Alone," and repeated this priority in all of his books, over 150 times total, as the key to Marian devotion. God Alone.

If this is not firmly impressed in a person's mind, it is likely they will badly misunderstand almost every line he wrote. Context is a deep literary hermeneutic, but more: it is a whole culture, attenuated almost to the point of disappearance in this, an ignorant and corrupted age.

[MHGinTN]

You asserted, They make it clear that Mary is no goddess or demigoddess, but handmaid and disciple, who worships God but is not worshiped herself.

How many prayers to Mary would she have to field every minute to fulfill the imagined coredemtrix role your own religion has touted for the blessed Mother of Jesus? Fancy wording doesn't erase heresy when it is a part of the org dogma.

[ealgeone]

We would all would agree, I think, that the Pachamama stunt at the Vatican was a shameful example of actual idolatry--- or at the very least, a devious bait-and-switch. So this comparison may help. Let's contrast the proper dulia (non-adoration, but a holy honor) for Mary and the other Saints and the Angels, with something that really IS idolatry, such as the latria (divine honors) so scandalously given to the Pachmama Amazonian entity.

Mrs.D....you'd not make a good lawyer. You're all over the board with your positions.

In one post you say, "If by "prayer" you mean "adoration," yes it must be directed to God alone.", and now here you try to switch the meaning.

What the Roman Catholic cannot defend though is the same behavior directed toward Pachamama is directed toward Mary.

Both have an idol representing them.

Both are prayed to.

Both are adored.

Both are bowed before.

Both are attributed divine powers.

How on this last one?

Mary is somehow given the ability to hear, understand and answer the prayer of every Roman Catholic on the planet.

That ability is attributed to the Spirit in Scripture.

How is that not divine?

*****

Yes, the Litany of Loreto is but one rebuttal. There's a whole lot more.

IF you wanted to we could discuss the 15 promises of the Rosary.

Now, if you want we can discuss Montfort who wrote:

A Treatise on the True Devotion to the Blessed Virgin.

Don't forget that Montfort has been canonized by Rome (July 20, 1947 by Pius XII)

[Mrs. Don-o]

A person whose intent is comprehension, will pay close attention to the definition of words. On the other hand, ignoring definitions will will destroy the possibility of accurate understanding--- and that's the problem here.

As long as you refuse to make distinctions between different usages --- definitions --- you are going to have an insoluble comprehension problem. And there's nothing I can do about that.

I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you.

[ealgeone]

A person whose intent is comprehension, will pay close attention to the definition of words. On the other hand, ignoring definitions will will destroy the possibility of accurate understanding--- and that's the problem here.

As long as you refuse to make distinctions between different usages --- definitions --- you are going to have an insoluble comprehension problem. And there's nothing I can do about that.

It's very cult-like to have to redefine words from their actual meanings. As it is cult-like to say actions RCs do aren't the same as those of others.

When I observe what Roman Catholics do with Mary and then how they contort the language to "justify" their idolatry on this issue I can only come to one conclusion.....it's a false belief system.

The bottom line is Rome has gone way beyond Scripture on this issue, among others, and has introduced a lot of false theology which has mislead its members.

[annalex]

Read the Holy Scripture every once in a while and your holiness will increase.

apart from us they should not be made perfect

Clear as a bell.

[ealgeone]

Read the passage in CONTEXT once in a while and your understanding will be clearer.

[ealgeone]

39And all these, having gained approval through their faith, did not receive what was promised, 40because God had provided something better for us, so that apart from us they would not be made perfect. Hebrews 11:39-40 NASB

[Mrs. Don-o]

It's downright ornery to enter a discourse that's engaged many profound thinkers since before you were born, and insist that the more seasoned people in the seminar change their definitions to suit you.

You're like a supremely confident 8th grader who jumps into physicists' discussion on "light" and refuses to attend to their distinction between "particle" and "wave".

[ealgeone]

It's downright ornery to enter a discourse that's engaged many profound thinkers since before you were born, and insist that the more seasoned people in the seminar change their definitions to suit you.

It's downright ornery to suggest someone cannot enter a discussion that's engaged many profound thinkers.

I observe Roman Catholicism from the outside without pre-conceived notions. I do the same regarding Mormonism and Islam.

I compare their views to Scripture and find them wanting.

If Roman Catholics cannot handle the debate, and it seems a great number on FR cannot, they should retreat to their caucus threads. There they can argue amongst themselves. Some of ya'll can't even agree with your own denomination.

Now, I've always enjoyed our discussions, Mrs.D....and hope we can continue to have those. But you need to get off that high horse of yours you hop on from time to time.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"It's downright ornery to suggest someone cannot enter a discussion that's engaged many profound thinkers."

That's not what I said!

You left off the business end of the sentence: "...and insist that the more seasoned people in the seminar change their definitions to suit you."

I don't know why I let things get this far past pointless.

SMH.

Bye!

[ealgeone]

>>"It's downright ornery to suggest someone cannot enter a discussion that's engaged many profound thinkers."<<

That's not what I said!

Oh?

It's downright ornery to enter a discourse that's engaged many profound thinkers since before you were born, and insist that the more seasoned people in the seminar change their definitions to suit you.

I wasn't quoting you. I was expressing my view on your statement.

Your implication was my thoughts on this matter are immaterial and have no place in the discussion. That's an argument the Left attempts to use to silence those in disagreement with their positions.

I categorically reject that premise.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"Your implication was my thoughts on this matter are immaterial and have no place in the discussion."

There you go again!

I did not say that, and did not imply it.

My point is that in any discussion, you have to take time to understand the vocabulary. This you don't do, and thus you take as a given, preemptively, the very point that supposedly is to be proved. (In the most recent case, that prayer is always adoration.)

This is assuming the point that is being raised in the question, called in logic a "circular argument" or more formally petitio principii. This guarantees a whole lot of wasted time and keyboard energy.

Bye!

[ealgeone]

>>"Your implication was my thoughts on this matter are immaterial and have no place in the discussion."<<

There you go again!

I did not say that, and did not imply it.

I can only see one way to understand this statement from you.

It's downright ornery to enter a discourse that's engaged many profound thinkers since before you were born, and insist that the more seasoned people in the seminar change their definitions to suit you.

*****

My point is that in any discussion, you have to take time to understand the vocabulary. This you don't do, and thus you take as a given, preemptively, the very point that supposedly is to be proved. (In the most recent case, that prayer is always adoration.)

I DO understand Rome's position on this issue believe it or not.

YOU said prayer was adoration and should only be given to God.

If by "prayer" you mean "adoration," yes it must be directed to God alone.

The Roman Catholic cannot say they don't pray TO Mary. The Roman Catholic cannot say they don't adore Mary.

By your statement Roman Catholics are doing what you say must only be directed to God alone.

[Mrs. Don-o]

I was not objecting to you being in the discussion, per se. What I was objecting to--- and you can find that in the very sentence you quoted ---is "...insist[ing] that the more seasoned people in the seminar change their definitions."

You don't get to do that preemptively. You can only do that if you prove, with evidence and reasonable inferences from the evidence, that the definitions are wrong. You have to do that first. You can't do it in advance. Though you try every time you put your fingers to the keyboard.

That's why this discussion is such a fail.

[ealgeone]

You don't get to do that preemptively. You can only do that if you prove, with evidence and reasonable inferences from the evidence, that the definitions are wrong. You have to do that first. You can't do it in advance. Though you try every time you put your fingers to the keyboard.

Well, yes I have offered evidence.

There are no prayers in the NT to created beings.

All worship is directed to God and all prayers are directed to God.

Worship of created beings is a no-no. And in those two examples created beings are kneeling before other created beings...one human, one angel.

If prayer and kneeling are parts of worship as demonstrated in the NT then it is the Roman Catholic, not me, who has re-written the definition in order to justify the RC worship of Mary.

I have also offered evidence of how Rome has appropriated the various titles/duties noted to the Spirit or Christ and has attributed them to Mary.

Offered again below for those reading the thread.

Second Vatican Council (Lumen gentium ## 61-62) For this reason, the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of:	New Testament
Advocate	My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; 2and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world. 1 John 2:1-2 NASB
Auxiliatrix [Latin for helper, aide]	"But the Helper [paraklétos, GR, (a) an advocate, intercessor, (b) a consoler, comforter, helper, (c) Paraclete.], the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you. John 14:26 NASB
Mediatrix [earliest reference is 4th century as applied to Mary]	5For there is one God, and one mediator [mesités, GR, properly, an arbitrator ("mediator"), guaranteeing the performance of all the terms stipulated in a covenant (agreement). In the NT this is only applied to Christ] also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony given at the proper time. 1 Timothy 2:5-6 NASB

Bible quotes from NASB

RCC position on Mary from https://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/marya4.htm In August 1996, a Mariological Congress was held in Częstochowa, Poland, where a commission was established in response to a request of the Holy See. The congress sought the opinion of scholars present there regarding the possibility of proposing a fifth Marian dogma on Mary as Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix, and Advocate.

The commission unanimously declared that it was not opportune, voting 23-0 against the proposed dogma.[23][24] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-Redemptrix

*****

I've offered these from official dogmatic statements of Rome and from the various "doctors" of the church the later you seemingly and casually attempt to dismiss. EX: your comment on Montfort.

I have consistently argued this position pretty much since joining FR in 2009.

[annalex]

Yes. What Msgr. Pope said.
You think verse 39 somehow negates verse 40?

[rwa265]

Now, if you want we can discuss Montfort who wrote:

---

Have you ever read what Montfort wrote about Jesus?

61. Jesus, our Saviour, true God and true man must be the ultimate end of all our other devotions; otherwise they would be false and misleading. He is the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and end of everything. “We labour,” says St. Paul, “only to make all men perfect in Jesus Christ.” For in him alone dwells the entire fullness of the divinity and the complete fullness of grace, virtue and perfection. In him alone we have been blessed with every spiritual blessing; he is the only teacher from whom we must learn; the only Lord on whom we should depend; the only Head to whom we should be united and the only model that we should imitate. He is the only Physician that can heal us; the only Shepherd that can feed us; the only Way that can lead us; the only Truth that we can believe; the only Life that can animate us. He alone is everything to us and he alone can satisfy all our desires. We are given no other name under heaven by which we can be saved. God has laid no other foundation for our salvation, perfection and glory than Jesus. Every edifice which is not built on that firm rock, is founded upon shifting sands and will certainly fall sooner or later. Through him, with him and in him, we can do all things and render all honour and glory to the Father in the unity of the Holy Spirit; we can make ourselves perfect and be for our neighbour a fragrance of eternal life.