Marian Devotion

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='Damiano' date='05 June 2010 - 02:03 AM' timestamp='1275717818' post='2124001']
*["Did you know that the 'founding fathers' of Protestantism believed in Marian devotion?"]

***Hello Lady:

Some did indeed. For instance, Martin Luther was very attached to Mary. Too, Martin held onto many of the practices he rebelled against. Tis often said that Martin came out of the Catholic Church...but the Catholic Church never came completely out of Martin. How's that for a summary of the great reformer?

Damiano
[/quote]

Interesting way to put it. The reason why I made that comment was to emphasize the subjectivity of Protestantism, and how easy it is for any Christian to pick their own interpretation of certain Scriptural verses. The Catholic Church has existed for over two thousands years and has given us the proper guidelines of how to interpret Scripture. We must read the Scriptures in the light of the Catholic Church, otherwise we risk diluting or misreading the Word of God. The Catholic Church was created by Christ Himself. If you ever visit St. Paul's which is just outside of Rome, you will see portraits running along the top of the Church that begin with Peter and end with Benedict XVI. If you ever visit St. Peter's and pass through the doors to the corridor that leads you to the sacristy, you will see a large slab on the wall listing Peter through John Paul II (they inscribe the Pope after his death). The Church is very much about history, history solidifies the Scriptures and illuminates the Christian. Christianity did not cease after the Gospels and start up again during the Reformation (or "Rebellion") - in fact, much of the compilation of teachings of the Catholic Church were in effect before the Holy Scriptures were compiled. Yes, teachings of the Catholic Church existed before the actual Bible was complete. This history and tradition enriches Christianity and aids us when we defend and explain our faith. We have faith and reason; we approach faith logically and with much documentation that only heightens the importance and sacredness of the Bible.

[Archaeology cat]

Because I tend to mistrust quotes that use ellipses until I've seen more of the context, I did a google search of what Damiano posted of quotes from Liguori's work. And I came across [url="http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2004/02/does-st-alphonsus-de-liguori-in-glories.html"]this site[/url] that goes through the quotes and provides the context and the missing words from the ellipses. It's rather long, so I'm not copying the entire thing here. But I will post an excerpt: [quote]#1 Mary (alone) is given the place belonging to Christ.

That is not true, as just shown. The crucial distinctions -- ones which Protestants would wholeheartedly accept, are found throughout the book, in dozens of places.

"And she is truly a mediatress of peace between sinners and God. Sinners receive pardon by . . . Mary alone" (pp. 82-83).

Now we see already, right from the start, how Len misinterprets and even quotes incorrectly, the text he is critiquing. The reader will observe that this becomes a distressingly regular occurrence, as we proceed. He is using the same reprint of the book that I have before me. But my copy has the word "made" between "truly" and "a" -- which makes a big difference: Mary is not who she is intrinsically, but because God chose to make her so. In context, the mediatorship of Mary is shown to be "the powerful help of the intercession of Mary" (p. 82); which is a far different thing from dying on the cross and atoning for our sins, as our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ did. But by eliminating the contextual reference to intercession, the impression is left that Catholicism is trying to place Mary in Jesus' unique position.

The second sentence in Len's "quotation" is on the next page; it isn't the next sentence. The words he has deleted (from St. John Chrysostom) are: "the intercession of." Why are they eliminated? The result is that one might mistakenly think that Mary is granting the forgiveness or the grace which makes it possible. Yet in the very next sentence, St. Alphonsus states: "our Lord dispenses all grace." What a difference context and refusal to engage in highly selective citation makes . . .In fact, a mere three pages before this "citation," St. Alphonsus makes it very clear Who forgives and who merely intercedes:

"Either pity me," will I say with the devout St. Anselm, "O my Jesus, and forgive me, and do thou pity me, my Mother Mary, by interceding for me" . . . my Jesus, forgive me; My Mother Mary, help me. (p. 79)[/quote]

God bless

[Norseman82]

[quote name='Damiano' date='04 June 2010 - 06:01 AM' timestamp='1275645681' post='2123564']
*["...Mary is the Mother of God..."]

***You are mistaken. The phrase "Mother of God" originated in the Council of Ephesus, in the year 431. It occurs in the creed of Chalcedon...which was adopted by the council which met in that city in 451, and in regard to the person of Christ it declared that He was: "born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God ACCORDING TO THE MANHOOD...which latter term means---according to the FLESH OF HUMAN NATURE! The purpose of the expression as used by the Council of Ephesus was NOT to glorify Mary...but to emphasize the DEITY of Christ over against those who DENIED His EQUALITY with the Father and the Holy Spirit. A heretical sect, the Nestorians, separated the TWO NATURES in Christ to such an extent that they held Him to be TWO persons...or rather a DUAL person formed by the union between the divine logos and the human person Jesus of Nazareth. They were accused of teaching that the Logos only inhabited the MAN Jesus, from which it was inferred that they held that the person born of Mary was only a MAN. It was therefore ONLY to emphasize the fact that the "person" born to Mary was truly DIVINE that she was called "the Mother of God."

So then...the term today has come to have a far different meaning from that intended by the early church. It no longer has reference to the orthodox doctrine concerning the person of Christ...but instead is used to exalt Mary to a supernatural status of "Queen of Heaven"..."Queen of Angels"...etc., so that because of her assumed position of prominence in heaven, she is able to approach her Son effectively and to secure for her followers whatever favors they ask through her. When we say that a woman is the mother of a person we mean that she gave birth to that person. But Mary certainly did NOT give birth to God...nor to Jesus Christ as the eternal Son of God. She was NOT the mother of our Lord's DIVINITY---but ONLY of His HUMANITY!! Instead, Jesus Christ, the second person of the Trinity, has existed from ALL ETERNITY and was Mary's CREATOR. Hence the term as used in the present Catholic Church must be rejected.

Hence, in the Catholic Church, Mary is to her WORSHIPPERS what Christ is to true believers. She is the object of all religious affections, and the source from whence all the blessings of salvation are sought and expected. The Bible calls her the "mother of Jesus," but gives her no other title. All that the Catholic church has to substantiate her worship is a sheaf of traditions entirely outside the Bible telling of her appearances to certain monks, nuns and others venerated as "saints."

*["...Why anyone could be troubled that someone looks to Mary with affection shown to a mother is beyond me..."]

***Christians are not troubled by the fact that people have affection for Mary as a mother...for we ALL have mothers that we love. What Christians are troubled with are the UNSCRIPTURAL claims by the Catholic Church which are attributed to Mary--->which claims belong ONLY to Jesus Christ (her CREATOR)!

Damiano
[/quote]

"41 And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:

42 And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.

43 And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?"


Luke 2:41-43 (KJV; from www.awmach.org)

[Norseman82]

[quote name='Damiano' date='04 June 2010 - 10:23 AM' timestamp='1275661404' post='2123606']
***Mary was a born SINNER as was the ENTIRETY of the human race: "For ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" [Romans 3:23]...and again "As it is written, there is NONE righteous, no NOT ONE: There is NONE that understandeth, there is NONE that seeketh after God" [Romans 3:10-11]. ONLY the Lord Jesus Christ was born WITHOUT sin: "For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet WITHOUT SIN" [Hebrews 4:15]. Now compare what the Scriptures say about Mary---who was NOT sinless and ACKNOWLEDGED her SINFULNESS and NEED of a SAVIOUR: "And Mary said, 'My soul doth magnify the Lord, and my spirit hath rejoiced in God MY SAVIOUR. For he hath regarded the LOW ESTATE of his handmaiden (i.e., bondservant): for, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed. For he that is mighty hath done great things; and holy is his name" [Luke 1:46-49]. NOTE...ONLY sinners NEED a SAVIOUR! If Mary rejoiced in God her SAVIOUR [Luke 1:47]...she was a SINNER and, as such, is NOT a dispenser of ANY graces.

[/quote]

1) How could Mary have been saved if Christ's salvific act had not yet taken place? (please let Damiano answer this one)

2) If there are no righteous men, then why did Christ say "For verily I say unto you, That many prophets and righteous men have desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them; and to hear those things which ye hear, and have not heard them." (Matthew 13:17, KJV; courtesy www.awmach.org).