Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Bump Topic Topic Closed RSS Feed
134 Pages « < 61 62 63 64 65 > » Bottom

Outline · [ Standard ] · Linear+

 LYN Catholic Fellowship V01 (Group), For Catholics (Roman or Eastern)

views
     
khool
post Apr 23 2016, 03:17 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
225 posts

Joined: Mar 2008


¡Viva Cristo Rey!
The Cristeros versus the Mexican Revolution
Source: Christopher Check

Imagine going to confession on a Saturday afternoon only to find no priest available. You drive to nearby—or even distant—churches and encounter only frustrated parishioners facing the same situation. A couple with a new baby cannot find a priest to baptize him. The last time anyone in the group attended Mass was months ago. This nightmare gives some sense of the profound evil that gripped Mexico nearly a century ago.

Socialist historians from Mexico and Russia have argued that the Cristeros were superstitious peasants manipulated by elites who felt threatened by the revolution’s promise of progress and justice. To make such arguments they had to ignore the facts of the story (the wealthy of Mexico, including practicing Catholics, opposed the uprising), as well as the eleven centuries of Catholic militancy that informed it. Seduced by Marxist errors and Masonic superstitions, revolutionaries declared war on the Catholic Church. They seized control of the government and, in 1917, wrote a socialist constitution packed with anticlerical articles with the goal of marginalizing the Church’s influence—if not driving her from Mexico altogether.

Backed by the full force of federal law, the Revolutionary Government confiscated all Church property, including hospitals, monasteries, convents, and schools. Priests were forbidden to wear clerics in public. They were not allowed to express opinions on politics, even in private conversation. They could not seek justice in the Mexican courts. To take a religious vow became a criminal act. All foreign clergy were deported.

In 1926, the president of Mexico, Plutarco Elias Calles, added teeth to the persecution with additions to the penal code. The "Calles Law," as it came to be known, called for uniform enforcement throughout the country of the Constitution’s anticlerical articles. It threatened severe sanctions for violations and for government officials who failed to enforce them. "As long as I am President of the Republic, the Constitution of 1917 will be obeyed," he vowed, saying he would not be moved by the "wailing of sacristans or the pujidos (groans) of the over-pious" (David C. Bailey, ¡Viva Cristo Rey!: The Cristero Rebellion, and the Church-State Conflict in Mexico, 65).

Self-Proclaimed Enemies of God
Calles was, in one sense, just another anticlerical revolutionary in a century-old series of anticlerical revolutionaries. For him the Church represented a past he wished to see liquidated.

Unable to operate under these conditions, the Mexican bishops, after agonized deliberations and consultation with the Holy See, suspended public worship on July 31, 1926. Three bishops went into hiding; the rest left the country in exile. The next day, for the first time in more than four hundred years, no priest in Mexico ascended ad altare Dei to offer the holy sacrifice of the Mass.

Priests who remained in Mexico faced two choices: cooperation with the government or a life on the run. Those who cooperated were forced to abandon their parishes, to move to urban areas, and to register with their state governments—which now had the power to set clerical quotas. In the state of Tobasco, for example, Governor Tomás Canabal restricted the number of priests in his state to six, one for every thirty thousand citizens. He demanded these six take wives. In true Marxist fashion, he renamed his capital city, San Juan Bautista (St. John the Baptist), to Villa Hermosa (beautiful villa), and named his children Lenin, Lucifer, and Satan. His business card identified him as "The Personal Enemy of God."

A courageous minority of priests refused to register. They went into hiding and roamed Mexico by night and in disguise, doing their best to bring the sacraments to the faithful. If caught, they were arrested, fined, jailed, and sometimes tortured and executed.

Following the suspension of public worship, the National League for the Defense of Religious Liberty, an organization formed by middle-class Catholic intellectuals, circulated a petition signed by two million Mexicans demanding constitutional reform. Their cries were ignored; the government went so far as to deny the petition existed. The people responded with a nationwide boycott of government transportation services, energy, and entertainment. The boycott failed because Mexico’s wealthy—including many practicing Catholics—felt the sting of the boycott and complained to the government. Federal police were sent in to break up picket lines. By January 1927, many of the faithful concluded that they had exhausted all peaceful means of protest. The Mexican landowning peasant class in the rural west took up arms.

Bishops: Fight or Flight?
Was this the effect that the bishops had desired? In the case of a few, perhaps, yes. Bishop Leopoldo Lara y Torres of Tacambaro wrote to Calles telling him that the bishops were prepared to seal their protest "in blood." The fiery tactics of Bishop Francisco Orozco y Jiménez of Guadalajara made Rome nervous; he endured three exiles for his public opposition to the government. Bishop José de Jesús Manríquez y Zárate of Huejulta had been arrested once already for circulating tracts condemning Calles and for using his pulpit to denounce his administration. Bishop Zárate would later help supply the Cristeros, and he even considered taking the field with them. For most of the bishops, however, suspension of public worship was a non-violent protest designed to bring popular pressure on the government.

The non-violent view was shared by Jose Anacleto Gonzáles Flores, the heroic scholar and founder of the Catholic-action organization the Unión Popular. As street demonstrations devolved into street violence, however, Flores reluctantly joined forces with the National League’s René Capistrán Garza in a nationwide call to arms. Flores told his followers that they were headed for Calvary.

QUOTE
    If one of you should ask me what sacrifice I am asking of you in order to seal the pact we are going to celebrate, I will tell you in two words: your blood. If you want to proceed, stop dreaming of places of honor, military triumphs, braid, luster, victories, and authority over others. Mexico needs a tradition of blood in order to cement its free life of tomorrow. For that work my life is available, and for that tradition I ask yours. (Bailey, ¡Viva Cristo Rey! , 110)
Flores was martyred after an ordeal of brutal torture during which he was hung by his thumbs while federal soldiers skinned the soles of his feet. Before he died, he accomplished much more than organizing a military uprising. He and the leaders of the Unión Popular operated catechesis programs for children and adults and relief efforts for the poor. Flores understood that a military victory would be hollow if there were no Catholic Mexico to replace Revolutionary Mexico. He was beatified in 1999 by Pope John Paul II.

No Support from Northern Neighbors
When the Cristeros took up arms in January 1927, they had very few arms to take up, only their battle cry, "¡ Viva Cristo Rey!" The uprising occurred almost simultaneously in small towns and villages in a dozen western states including Zacatecas, Jalisco, Guanajuato, Durango, Michoacán, and Colima. Hundreds of small, poorly organized bands of sharecroppers and rancheros bearing machetes and a few rifles took over local municipalities by disarming the garrisons at federal outposts, as well as local police and militia units.

Lack of a long-term plan, however, took some of the steam out of these initial victories. Capistrán Garza had been a great one for creating pious fervor, but he was not the man to organize an armed rebellion. His job, as he saw it, was to cross the border and stir up sympathy for the Cristero cause among U.S. Catholics, sympathy that would translate into large gifts of cash with which to buy desperately needed ammunition. Garza knew that American support would dictate the outcome of the war, but the U.S. bishops were reluctant to give any sign of supporting an armed rebellion against a government recognized by the United States. Meanwhile, most of the Mexican bishops were looking for a negotiated settlement. Garza’s northern sojourn yielded almost no fruit.

Knowing nothing of the diplomatic bargaining that their uprising had generated, the Cristeros pressed ahead with their war for the soul of Mexico. In some regions they were clearly winning; in others, at least they were holding their own. Taking over one rural village at a time, they began not only better to organize their army, but also to organize alternate governments in the territories they had liberated. They controlled a wide swath of towns and cities in the state of Zacatecas. The region of Coalcomán in western Michoacán sent Calles formal notification of its succession from Mexico.

Municipal governments under Cristero control collected taxes for the war effort but also discharged the ordinary functions of civil government, such as school administration. Deeply conscious of the Christian nature of their movement, Cristero lawmakers took a hard line on moral behavior. Unmarried couples were required to marry or separate. Prostitution, gambling, and public drunkenness were severely punished, and rape could draw a sentence of death. Catholic social justice informed Cristero economic policy, which forbade speculation in corn and other crops afflicted by shortages resulting from the war.

Women Wage War of Secrecy
The war raged for thirty months. The federal government attempted to deny Cristero victories, but in fact—and in spite of severe shortages of ammunition—Catholic soldiers defeated federal units in operations ranging from large cavalry engagements on the plains of Jalisco to guerilla operations in the mountains of Durango. The American military attaché described the "remarkable tenacity" of the Cristeros and the general disorder of the federal army.

The Cristeros lived by a strict moral code, one that stood in strict contrast to the behavior of federal troops, who were frequently drunk or stoned and who terrorized the civilian population with pillage and rape. Consequently, public sympathy for the Cristeros was strong. For example, there was an extensive logistics network run by the Feminine Brigades of St. Joan of Arc, a Catholic women’s organization affiliated with the Unión Popular. These women devised creative and clandestine ways to keep soldiers supplied: special vests for smuggling ammunition out of federal factories and secret workshops for the production of homemade explosives, such as grenades made out of jelly tins. These courageous twenty-five thousand ladies also carried messages—written on silk and hidden within the soles of shoes—between units. All of their activities were carried out under an oath of secrecy. No evidence indicates that the oath was ever broken.

The heroic efforts of the Joan of Arc Brigades notwithstanding, the Cristero army never had enough ammunition to win a decisive victory. Too often, in the heat of battle, they had to disengage so as to live to fight another day. On several occasions they were reduced to rolling boulders (called "Hail Marys" and "Our Fathers") down a hill on advancing federal troops. Although the federal army was badly led and plagued by high rates of desertion, they were never short of arms and ammunition—supplied by the U.S. government. In at least one battle, American pilots provided air support for the federal army. Stalemate, albeit one that could last for years, seemed to be the best for which the Cristeros could hope.

"Animated by a Spirit of Good Will"
Plutarco Calles felt threatened nonetheless. The war was costing the government ninety-six million pesos a year, more than a third of its annual budget. This figure did not include the harm to his economy in reduced agricultural production (for which Calles’ scorched-earth policy was to blame). Worse perhaps, his policy of relocating some 30 percent of the rural population of Mexico to urban areas in an effort to eliminate the Cristero support network was only provoking widespread resentment. Half a million Mexicans left the country, forming California’s first wave of Mexican immigration. By the end of the fighting, military deaths approached one hundred thousand, 60 percent of which were federal troops.

Although Calles continued to call the shots, he turned over the presidency to his hand-picked successor, Emilio Portes Gil. Whether it was Portes Gil’s more moderate positions on religious questions or Calles’ growing fear that the Cristeros would never be defeated ("they are annihilating us," he told Gil), the Mexican government at last came to the bargaining table.

The man who negotiated the settlement was the U.S. ambassador to Mexico, Dwight Morrow (whose daughter Anne married Charles Lindbergh). Calles and Portes Gil knew that if the Mexican bishops restored public worship, the armed resistance would fade. Pope Pius XI would permit the restoration of public worship only if he believed that the persecution of the Church would abate and that Church property would be restored. Calles and Portes Gil had no plans to change the constitution, but they were willing to hint that enforcement could be relaxed.

On June 21, 1929, Mexico City’s Archbishop Pascual Díaz and Archbishop Ruiz y Flores, the Apostolic Delegate, along with Portes Gil, issued statements to the press. The Mexican episcopal statement was brief, citing the spirit of good will in which negotiations had taken place and a desire that the restoration of public worship would "lead the Mexican people, animated by a spirit of good will, to cooperate in all moral efforts undertaken for the welfare of all the people of the country" (Bailey, ¡Viva Cristo Rey! , 312).

Portes Gil assured the people of Mexico that the Constitution did not intend "to destroy the identity of the Catholic Church" nor "to intervene in any way with its spiritual functions" and that he was prepared to listen to "any complaints . . . regarding injustices . . . committed by undue application of the laws" (Bailey, ¡Viva Cristo Rey! , 312). He clarified that the registration of clergy did not mean that the government could register clergy not appointed by ecclesiastical authority. He added that religious instruction could take place within the confines of a church, but not in schools, and that any law of Mexico was subject to appeal by one of her citizens.

On these two noncommittal statements, los arreglos (agreements) were brokered. Ruiz y Flores and Díaz had given the most generous interpretation possible to Pius XI’s demand that Church property be restored: "In so far as could reasonably be expected," they told Morrow. Portes Gil told them that Church property not being used by the government would be returned immediately, but that the Church could give the government time to vacate buildings currently occupied. Gil also ordered a total amnesty for all Cristeros, including free rail passes to return to their homes. Officers were permitted to keep their sidearms and horses.

At the conclusion of the meeting, the two bishops drove directly to the Basilica of Our Lady of Guadalupe and knelt at the high altar in thanksgiving. Public worship was restored. The faithful packed the churches. Word came from Pius XI to the Cristeros asking them to lay down their arms. Over the next three months, in obedience to the Holy Father, some more reluctantly than others, that is exactly what they did.

Betrayal, Persecution, and Mass Executions
But within a few months of the arreglos, signs emerged that all was not well. A significant number of churches, schools, and rectories remained in government hands. Ruiz y Flores and Díaz attempted to meet with the president but were ignored. When they at last met with Portes Gil’s successor, Pascual Ortiz Rubio (also hand-picked by Calles) and asked him to honor his predecessor’s promises, they were told that Portes Gil had promised nothing.

Meanwhile, the Cristeros who were not willing to move out of their states were taken prisoner and executed. The "annihilation of Catholic militants after the 1929 agreement" (Bailey, ¡Viva Cristo Rey! , 294) lasted for several years. There were mass executions in Jalisco, and reports of Cristero veterans being hunted down and killed lasted until the 1950s. It is not known how many thousands of them lost their lives after the war had been declared over.

The worst years for the Church in Mexico were 1934 and 1935. In this period Graham Greene set his novel The Power and the Glory, in which a "whiskey priest" fights persecution and his own weaknesses.

Most state governments closed the churches. Priests practically vanished, as they were again on the run. Less than a tenth of those who had served the faithful in 1925 were permitted to operate a decade later. In truth, the number was fewer, since those who wanted to practice legally had to marry. In 1934 there were 334 registered priests for fifteen million Mexicans.

Schoolteachers in Yucatán and Michoacán were required to take a public oath of atheism and to promise to teach against the Catholic religion. Archbishop Díaz’s episcopal palace was never returned. He was thrown in jail for a time and then forced to rent rooms where he could find them. Fearing to lose their property, few were willing to rent to the aged priest. He died hated by the Mexican government and not altogether loved by Catholic militants who felt he had betrayed their cause.

Doubtless it was Díaz’s voice that at last convinced Pius XI to call for an end to the Cristero uprising. However, we can render no just judgment on the members of the hierarchy who sought an end to the Cristiada without bearing in mind that the Church is not a political movement. It is an institution for the care of souls. We may wish ever to see the Church triumph over her enemies, but her path must be the path of her founder, a steady march to Calvary. Pius XI and his bishops needed first and foremost to restore the sacraments to the Mexican faithful, even if the circumstances under which they were to be dispensed were trying. They negotiated in good faith, which is more than can be said for anyone else at the bargaining table.

The Seed of the Church
The Mexican Church’s climb out of the hell of the Revolution has been slow, and it is not finished. Mexican schoolchildren, to the extent that they even hear the story of the Cristeros, are as likely as not to get the socialist spin. Well into the 1970s, Catholic schools received regular inspections to ensure use of government textbooks. Religion could not be taught—only "values." Not until the 1980s were the anticlerical articles repealed. Not until the late 1990s, with the beatifications and canonizations of the Martyrs of the Mexican Revolution by John Paul II and, in 2005, Benedict XVI, did a sympathetic public awareness of the Cristeros resurface.

Nonetheless, the Calles Law may be off the books, but anticlerical sentiment remains, especially in the popular media, which fumed about "opening old wounds" when last summer Miss Mexico wore a dress honoring the Cristeros. When bishops in Mexico spoke against new laws permitting abortion, the press behaved as if they had no business commenting on a "political" matter.

"The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church." After Tertullian wrote those words a century would pass before the Edict of Milan. How and when God will perfect the sacrifices of the Mexican Martyrs is up to him. For our part we can contemplate the ferocity with which the Church was persecuted not long ago in our own backyard, and the zeal of the faithful who defended her with Catholic hearts forged in centuries of fighting the enemies of Jesus Christ.

SIDEBARS
Mexico’s Tarcisius: José Sánchez del Río

In 1913, in the state of Michoacán, a boy was born to Macario and Maria Sánchez del Río. They called him José. Macario and Maria were cattle ranchers who loved Jesus Christ with all their hearts and who reared their four children, of whom José was the third, to do the same. José cultivated a strong devotion to the Blessed Virgin of Guadalupe and said his rosary each day with great care. He instructed the other young children of his town in the Catholic faith, and encouraged them to make holy hours before the Blessed Sacrament. José loved to play marbles with his companions, and he learned to ride and care for horses. When José was thirteen, his older brothers, Macario and Miguel, left home to join the Cristeros. José desired to join them, but his mother forbade it. For a year he begged her to let him go. "Mother," he said, "Will you deny me the chance to go to heaven, and so soon?"

At last his mother relented, and with tears in her eyes watched her youngest son ride off to join the crusade. The Cristero commander in José’s town refused the boy’s appeal to enlist, so he made his way some twenty or thirty miles to the next town, Cotija, where he presented himself to the Cristero commander, Prudencio Mendoza.

"What contribution can so small a boy make to our army?"

"I ride well. I know how to tend horses, clean weapons and spurs, and how to fry beans and tortillas."

Mendoza was inspired by the boy’s grit, so he made him the aide of the Cristero General Rubén Guízar Morfin. Impressed by José’s service, Morfin promoted him to bugler. His job was to ride alongside the general in combat, carrying his battle standard and delivering the general’s orders with his horn. The soldiers of José’s regiment, inspired by his piety and fervor, nicknamed him Tarcisius after the Roman altar boy who died protecting the Blessed Sacrament from a pagan mob.

On February 6, 1928, the Cristero army was overwhelmed by the federal army in fierce and bloody combat outside of Cotija. General Morfin’s horse was shot, and it looked as if he would soon be captured by the federal troops. José leapt off of his horse.

"General!" he shouted. "Take my mount and escape to safety. You are of far greater importance to the Cristero cause than I am."

Helping Morfin up into the saddle, José delivered a hard swat across the backside of the horse and sent it galloping away. He then took his rifle and bandolier and, taking cover behind a rock, began shooting the federal soldiers closing around him. At last the boy ran out of ammunition, and standing up shouted to the enemy, "I have not surrendered. I have only stopped shooting you because I am out of cartridges."

When the federal soldiers saw that they had been fired upon by a boy, they seized him in a fury. They put José in irons and dragged him off to the local church, which they had converted into a jail, a stable for their horses, and a coop for roosters they used in cockfights. These they had leashed to the church’s monstrance. Jose scolded the soldiers for desecrating a holy place.

"Now we will see, hombrecito, how tough you are!" they sneered.

To test his resolve, they forced José to watch as they took another captured Cristero, tortured him, and hanged him from a telegraph pole. Instead of looking away, José encouraged the prisoner, telling him that they would soon meet up in heaven. For two days, José was locked in the sacristy of the church, during which time he wrote to his mother, telling her that he had no fear, that he had welcomed the will of God and looked forward to dying in the light of our Lord.

The captain of the guard offered José his freedom in exchange for information about the Cristeros, including the names of the people who were supplying them. José refused, so they pinned him down and cut the skin off the soles of his feet. At eleven at night, they marched José to the cemetery on the edge of town, all the while telling him that if he would deny Jesus Christ they would spare his life.

"¡ Viva Cristo Rey!" shouted José, the rallying cry of the Cristeros. "¡ Viva Cristo Rey!" over and over as he limped in his bloodied feet over the gravel and twigs. "Long Live Christ the King! Long Live the Virgin of Guadalupe!" At the graveyard, José was pushed into a shallow grave. Struggling to his feet he again shouted, "¡ Viva Cristo Rey!" To avoid the sound of gunfire, the commander of the firing squad ordered his men to stab the boy with their bayonets. "¡ Viva Cristo Rey!" Again the bayonet into his side. "¡ Viva Santa Maria de Guadalupe!"

"Say ‘Death to Christ the King’ and save your life!" demanded the captain of the guard.

"¡ Viva Cristo Rey!"

The captain lost all patience and drew his own pistol. The first bullet struck José in the head, knocking him to the ground. As blood pooled next to his face, José, in a final act of defiance against the enemies of Jesus Christ who had taken over his country, dipped his hand in his blood and with it drew a cross in the dirt, then touched his lips to the cross. Six more bullets at point-blank range sent the martyr into the arms of his Savior.

Torture and Death
While Cristeros often spared the lives of captured federal soldiers, the reverse was not true. Cristeros who were captured in battle were executed after undergoing torture designed to force the Catholic soldiers to reveal military secrets and to deny the faith. Electric shock, burning with blow torches, hanging by thumbs, and broken bones were common. It was also common to drag prisoners behind a horse and then quarter them alive. A widespread form of torture was to flay the soles of the feet and force the victim to walk on rock salt. Nonetheless, many Cristero prisoners died bravely, and the accounts of their deaths inspired their brothers-in-arms.

Priests captured by the Mexican government, whether they were actively serving with the Cristeros or had simply refused to register with the government, were hanged or shot. Among them was the sixty-two year old Fr. Mateo Correa Magallanes, who refused to tell federal officers what Cristero prisoners had told him in confession. Most famous of the martyred priests is Bl. Miguel Pro, unjustly implicated in a failed assassination attempt on Calles’ successor, Álvaro Obregón. Pro died before a firing squad with his arms outstretched like our Lord crucified, shouting "¡ Viva Cristo Rey!" Calles ordered the execution photographed, hoping that the grisly images would discourage Catholics supporting the Cristeros. But the photos had the opposite effect, and soon Calles was forbidding papers to print them. Although Fr. Pro himself was not part of any armed rebellion, his martyrdom inspired others to take up arms in support of the Cristeros.

Source: Christopher Check

TSyeeck
post Apr 23 2016, 04:09 PM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
3,576 posts

Joined: Apr 2006


State Department
Human Rights Report Condemns “Forced Abortions” in China


By Steven W. Mosher


In the mid-eighties I met with Elliot Abrams, who was then serving as Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights, to call his attention to the victims of China’s one-child policy. I told him that massive numbers of forced abortions and forced sterilizations had occurred in China over the past few years as the Communist Party sought to control childbearing under a state plan. Abrams included my evidence in his next annual State Department Report on Human Rights, and subsequent reports down to the present day have never failed to include a section on such abuses.

Last year the Party leadership announced an end to the one-child-per-family restriction. Some observers naïvely thought that the move to a two-child-per-family policy would spell an end to coercion and put China’s millions of population control police out of work. In fact, Stanford University has even proudly announced an ambitious program to retrain these now “superfluous” population police as “child development experts.”

They should have asked me first. This is a very bad idea on several accounts.

First of all, the men and women of China’s population police are roundly hated in China. These are the shock troops of the one-child policy after all, the ones who for decades have been harassing and arresting, imprisoning and aborting the babies of mothers pregnant without government permission.

To think that couples would voluntarily invite these thugs into their homes, offering them tea and almond cookies while politely listening to them dispense advice on how to raise little Ah Ling is ludicrous. Not to mention that these same posers many have been responsible for the untimely death of Ah Ling’s younger brother or sister a few days before. They would be about as welcome as a businessman at a Bernie Sanders rally.

Second, as everyone in China knows, these same thugs are still storming the homes of couples suspected of conceiving an illegal third child. As this year’s State Department report confirms, China is still enforcing “a coercive birth-limitation policy that, despite the lifting of one-child-per-family restrictions, in some cases resulted in forced abortion (sometimes at advanced stages of pregnancy).”[1]

The number of abortions performed each year in China may be more than even I had thought. China’s National Health Population and Planned Birth Commission reports that 13 million unplanned pregnancies are terminated annually. But this year’s State Department report adds that “at least an additional 10 million chemically induced abortions were performed in nongovernment facilities.” This brings the total number of unborn children killed annually in China to 23 million, a truly staggering number.[2]

How many of these abortions were forced on women? “Government statistics on the percentage of all abortions that were non-elective was not available,” reports the State Department.[3] I doubt if the humorless bureaucrats who drafted the report intended this sentence to be read tongue in cheek, but it made me laugh out loud anyway. Of course that Chinese government is not going to admit to committing even one forced abortion, much less to the millions that it actually carried out.

On a more sobering note, the World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that there are 40-50 million abortions performed worldwide each year. With 23 million of these abortions occurring in China, it would seem that the PRC, with only 20 percent of the world’s population, accounts for roughly 50 percent of the world’s abortions.

Such reckless disregard for the sanctity of human life, such wanton destruction of tens of millions of unborn children, must be counted as one of the costs of China’s continuing Planned Birth policy. Even if they didn't force each and every one of those 23 million women to have an abortion, they certainly encouraged them to.



[1] U.S. Department of State: Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, “China (Includes Tibet, Hong Kong, and Macau) 2015 Human Rights Report,” in Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2015, (U.S. Department of State, 2016), 54.

[2] Ibid., 55.

[3] Ibid.
TSyeeck
post Apr 23 2016, 10:00 PM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
3,576 posts

Joined: Apr 2006




Rejoice, O Bethany!
Rejoice, rejoice, O Bethany!
On this day God came to thee,
And in Him the dead are made alive,
As it is right for He is the Life.

When Martha went to receive Him,
Grieving loudly with bitter tears,
She poured out the sorrow of her heart to Him
With great sadness, wailing her lament.

She at once cried out unto Him:
“My most compassionate Lord, my Lord,
At the great loss of my brother Lazarus
My heart is broken, help me.”

Jesus said to her, “Cease your weeping,
Cease your grieving and sad lament;
For your brother, My most beloved friend, Lazarus,
Very soon will live again.”

Then He, the faithful Redeemer,
Made His way unto the tomb,
Where he cried unto him who was buried four days,
Calling him forth, saying “Lazarus, arise.”

Come with haste, ye two sisters,
And behold a wondrous thing,
For your brother from the tomb has returned to life.
To the beloved Redeemer now give thanks.

To Thee, O Lord of creation,
We kneel down in reverence profound,
For all we who are dead in sin,
In Thee, O Jesus, are made alive.

– A Koinonikon for Lazarus Saturday,
Composed in Arabic by Metropolitan Athanasios Attallah of Homs, and Translated and arranged by Bishop +Basil (Essey)
khool
post Apr 24 2016, 03:43 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
225 posts

Joined: Mar 2008


Bless me ... errr ... father (???), for I have sinned???? ... biggrin.gif

user posted image

SUSsylar111
post Apr 24 2016, 11:39 PM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
2,547 posts

Joined: Jun 2008
From: KL


QUOTE(DRBS @ Apr 22 2016, 11:24 PM)
QUOTE(DRBS @ Apr 21 2016, 02:00 AM)
You are right, Sylar111. All of God's servants humble themselves, including Mary "He looks upon his handmaid in her nothingness......". The Catholic view is that acknowledging, being inspired by and venerating those whom God has honored takes nothing away from God Himself. Much like a wise Professor who does not sulk when his students receive accolades for their own achievements, knowing that whatever recognition they receive, enhances his standing even more. 
In term of volume of references to Mary in the bible, i would readily admit that she pales in comparison to Paul and in fact many other biblical characters like Abraham, Moses, King David or even the apostles. You may be surprised however to find that Catholics see references to Mary right from the book of Genesis to Revelation and those references to her, speak of her unique role in the history of Salvation and how God chose and worked through this lowly human maiden to bring his great plan of Salvation to fruition.

>>The problem is, based on the scripture which I provided, even Paul advises that we should not be giving accolades towards him. In the new testament, only the 4 Gospels speaks of Mary. And it's very scant. There's hardly any accolades being given to her after that. In the old testament, the only verse that talks about Mary is Genesis 3:15. The other verses probably come from the apocrypha which are not recognize by the Jews by the way. I know that the Catholic Church has a low view of Jews but dun forget this
Romans 3
3 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? 2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.

>>> I believe the scripture passage that you referred to was actually Paul correcting the people about jealousy and in-fighting among the themselves and how they should not be taking the camps of the leaders to elevate their status. The verse before this passage would confirm that.
I strongly agree with you that Paul exhorts us to humble ourselves before God. However, I am sure Paul does not means we should not give praise others, but only God. God has created many heroes who have gone before us and I believe it is only fitting that we give them praise and that this takes nothing away from God. That's what Catholics do with Mary and the Saints - we praise them. we imitate their faith and we ask them to pray for us. 
>>>Catholics see Mary being referred to in the book of Isaiah, the most important book of the Scriptures to Jews. Also in the Psalms and The Book of Revelation. However I agree with you, this proves nothing.

>>>>At the same time, Paul is also highlighting that all of the glory should go to God. Of course we should admire Paul but I do not think Paul wants to receive the praise officially which you guys are doing.
>>>>>Not sure what is meant by praising officially. Do you mean praising in writing? In prayer? When complimenting someone other than God? By calling them saints?
>>>>>>I am pretty sure you know what I mean. It's not good to just "pretend" to not know what I mean. If you got nothing to hide, you dun have to do this. Anyway when you venerate say Paul, it's not just mentioning him in passing or having a strong opinion about him or a study about him. You have special ceremonies, special holidays and maybe even special prayers for him. I think you know what I mean but then it seems that you are evading like the other person has been doing.



And unfortunately as you know, Catholics are not bound purely by Biblical references but also by centuries of inflection and study of theology (right from the earliest days of the church) to fully understand Christ role in our Salvation and the role played by Mary in it.
I do not expect a non catholic to call Mary "Queen of Heaven". This only comes after a fuller understanding and appreciation of how Catholics see Mary. In fact, we don't just call her Queen of Heaven. She is much more often and affectionately termed as "Mother of God", which I am sure you would agree, supersedes her title of Queen of Heaven.
>>Maybe you do not realize the implication of calling Mary the Mother of God. It puts Mary on par or even above Jesus. Of course right now, you deny that you are worshiping Mary but then it's not surprising that many others are worshiping her because by putting Mary on par with Jesus and therefore God, there should be no problem worshiping her. Calling Mary the Mother of God also means that Mary should be compared with God the Father. You are probably going to deny this again but then think about it. That's the implication. Maybe openly, the catholic church denies Mary worship, but then in actual fact, attributing Mother of God to Mary actually elevates her position to God. Words do mean something especially when it comes to religion.

>>>If Jesus is truly God and Mary is his mother, then she is the Mother of God, no? God chose for it to be like that. God our Father chose for Jesus to have a human mother, the Mother of God.

>>>>Well, so now you admit that the Catholic Church actually worships Mary. Notice that Jesus never referred to Mary as Mother. Should have given you a clue. In other words, position wise, Mary should not really be considered Jesus Mother even though physically she is.  So all this while, what you said about just venerating Mary is not true. You are actually worshiping Mary. As I have demonstrated earlier. The Catholic church has not been upfront in it's declaration. It talks about salvation through God's grace alone. But in actual fact. Individual works are still required. And now, it makes the claim that it only venerates Mary, but now you admit that Mary is at the position of God. So therefore in Catholic theology, there is nothing wrong in worshiping Mary. If there's nothing to hide, why do this?
>>>>>Sorry to keep harping on about this point, Sylar111. I am not sure what you mean by "Mary should not really be considered Jesus Mother even though physically she is". Is she Jesus's Mother?
>>>>>Not sure how it is concluded that calling Mary the Mother of God means we worship her, or that she is in the position of God. Do you mean to say that Mother of God is the same as God? I doubt any of us will say our mothers are the same as us. 
>>>>>Is it OK to call Mary "the mother of our Lord"? Is it OK to call Mary "the mother of Jesus"? Is Jesus truly God? If so, I am not sure how we can be wrong to say Mary "is the mother of God".
>>>>>Sorry, but for the sake of clarity, I will not go into the theology of Salvation here as it is another lengthy topic and that has also been discussed at length previously.
>>>>>Not sure what the Church is being accused of hiding. As mentioned earlier, the Catholic church consistently and persistently condemns any person that claims Mary is God. Those that followed the heresy of Collyridians were ex-communicated.
>>>>>As mentioned earlier,  if you come across any Catholics who worship Mary, by all means correct them.
>>>>>>Well.. Not really. A surrogate mother of a child is not really the real mother of a child. I think it's pretty clear that the holy spirit was directly involved in the virgin birth of Mary. It means that the DNA does not really come from Mary. Of course, as I mentioned physically wise, Mary could be considered a mother because physically she brought Jesus to the world physically. But then being a mother also means Mary should precede Jesus. Jesus has existed since the beginning of time. Let's say your uncle happens to be younger then you or about the same age as you. You will not treat him with the same kind of respect that that you would have to an uncle older then you right?most people would have understood where I am coming from but then if you are insistent that calling mary the Mother of God does not elevate her to a position comparable to God, then I guess very little things will get into your head. I know you are not that naive but the catholic church seems to have casted a spell on you.



As has been discussed at length before, Catholics do not view sacred tradition as conflicting with sacred scripture. In fact it is seen as being very complementary. It has to be since it was the church that compiled the bible. Catholics would go as far to say as reading the Bible as one would read an ordinary book without learning more about the history, context, language and culture in which it originated from can give rise to many false teachings and beliefs. This can surely be seen in that there are so many different interpretations even of singular verses of the Bible.
>>There are actually quite a few traditions that you practiced that contradict the scripture. But let's just discuss the examples above.

>>>Sure.

An example would be the verses from Luke 8:19-21 which you alluded to. One way some people have looked at it has been that Jesus is rebuking /  belittling his mother and brethren in front of a crowd. This might of course seem out of keeping with Jesus. Another view is that Jesus was trying to teach us that even though we might not be his blood relative, we do not have to dismay for he considers all who do the will of His Father as His own. A third interpretation of these verses (which might not come across at first glance) actually sees Jesus as praising Mary. For who is it who has done the will of God to perfection? Luke 1:38 - Mary "May it be done to me according to Thy will". So Jesus is telling the crowd that Mary is not just my mother by virtue of being my biological mother but also spiritually because "She does the will of my Father".
>> I would not say that Jesus is belittling his mother. He is just stating facts thats all. I would say it's a combination of 1 and 2. He was not being disrespectful. He is just recognizing his actual position as compared to Mary that's all. Physically, she brought Jesus to the world. Spiritually, Mary was just another virtuous woman that's all.  Mary still has to submit to Jesus even though she bore him. The same cannot be the same for our mothers right?

>>>You are right. Mary is a mere human being, nothing compared to God. But she was raised to be above all women, not just another virtuous woman. Mary submits to Jesus but as Her will and the will of the Father are so in sync with each other, there is no contradiction.

There is also another verse from Luke that at first glance might appear that Jesus is belittling Mary. Luke 11:27-28: While He was speaking, a woman from the crowd called out and said to Him, “Blessed is the womb that carried you and the breasts at which you nursed.” He replied, “Rather, blessed are those who hear the word of God and observe it.”  Again it can be viewed in different ways. Negative or positive.
>>It's pretty clear what this means. The focus should not be on Mary.

>>>Sorry. Actually I wanted this verse to be contrasted with the greeting from Elizabeth below. Similar, is it not? Yet, again Mary is called the Blessed among all women.
>>>Do you think Elizabeth's greeting to Mary is over the top? An exaggerated sycophantic cry of an over-excited cousin?

>>>>Question. Did Eliezabeth only greeted Mary this way after Mary was pregnant or before? Mary wasn't always so "blessed" until she gave birth to Jesus. I think we ourselves should not get too excited over this. When say one of our kids got accepted to a prestigious university, I am pretty sure that praises like "Kid is very smart". "Kid has a great future". "God really blessed you. Kid is very blessed to have a dad to support you. Etc. Of course after graduation, those kids could be considered more bless then those who did not receive a proper university education. This kid is mostly blessed afterwards as well. Just giving an example here. Giving birth to Jesus is obviously an incident of the magnitude of the highest order. She will be remembered for this incident forever. Its just the same as say Albert Einstein being remembered for a very long time for his theory of relativity. Albert Einstein could also be considered one of the greatest scientist for his theory of relativity.  But let's not get carried away with this. She carried Jesus. Jesus has already existed since the beginning of time. Jesus did not owe his existence to Mary. She should be blessed because she brought Jesus to the world that's all.  Notice that you even used " Her will and the will of the Father". In other words, even though you are denying this, you are putting Mary to the position of God subconsciously. No wonder so many catholics are worshiping her. By saying that it's wrong to worship Mary, you are actually acting hypocritically since Jesus never denied worship due to his position as being Equal to God.
>>>>>You are absolutely right. Mary is only blessed among all women because of her having the privilege of bearing, nursing and raising Jesus up. Without Him, she is nothing and might not even make it into the bible. But because of this great privilege, she is blessed among all women and occupy a very special place in the legion of saints. Mary's contribution to this is that she acceded to the Will of God so whole heartedly. God or Jesus does not owe her anything. She is but their lowly creature. However the plan of God required the free will of a Holy Receptacle. And God found that in Mary. That is why we copy her and call her our mother.
So you agree that she is to be called Blessed then? More than all other women? Full of Grace?
>>>>>Whether Mary was blessed by God before or after conceiving Jesus is another point. I am sure you noticed that she was called by Full of Grace and Blessed among all women before she even conceived. 
>>>>> biggrin.gif Let's not read too much into typos, ya? I am sure you we would like to keep this as civil as possible and not resort to accusations of idolatry and hypocrisy. If i am hypocritical in my heart or misled on this point, I sincerely seek God's forgiveness. If I am not though, it might be regarded as bringing false witness against another.   :thumbsup:   
>>>>>>And I have already indicated Stephen who was called in a similar way. Trust me. I am already controlling myself because I notice that you are starting to display the same kind of spirit as Yeeck whereby you are just conveniently ignoring things that I have said and pretending to not know where I am coming from. I am not reading much into typo but from what you type I already know that you put the position of mary as the same as God. in Christian circles we only reserve capitalized characters for someone in the position of God. I know you are trying to refrain yourself from doing so. I have already explained why. Unfortunately jesus who was the actual "son" of mary did not refer her to his mother. So whose example should we follow? Also, if mary was sinless, Elizabeth would have no problems calling mary blessed one even before she had jesus. You seem to miss the point.


You might also want to compare these verses with Luke 1:41-45 - When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the infant leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth, filled with the Holy Spirit, cried out in a loud voice and said, “Most blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb. How does this happen to me, that the Mother of my Lord should come to me? For at the moment the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the infant in my womb leaped for joy. Blessed are you who believed that what was spoken to you by the Lord would be fulfilled.”
Similar exhortations by different women, but notice who is called the Blessed.
>>Look at the following verses
28 And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. 29 And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be. 30 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. 31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.
Note the statement " Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God" and also "And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be." It's pretty clear that the concept of immaculate conception cannot be true because if that was true, Mary would not have been troubled as she would have known her sinless state. Also the statement, you have found favour with God shows clearly that she was just a normal person before the Angel visited her.

>>> It should be noted that throughout the bible, the Angel of God appears several times. However, it is only to Mary, that the greeting of "Hail, full of Grace! The Lord is with Thee. Blessed are thou among women" is bestowed.
>>>If this was the first time a mere human was ever addressed by God this way (not even Abraham, Moses or Elijah was addressed this way by the angels of God), wouldn't any one, whether sinless or not, be stunned or troubled? I would say, maybe only those who were very arrogant wouldn't be troubled. Humility should not be mistaken for sinfulness. Jesus was humble yet, even to accepting his cross. I am sure it is agreed that he was sinless. So while this does not prove the Immaculate Conception (which requires a much deeper reading and appreciation of bible and sacred tradition), it certainly does not disprove it, no?  
>>> As mentioned above, none of the heroes of the Old testament was ever greeted as being full of Grace and blessed among all women. I would suggest that that certainly does not make Mary "Normal". If she was just happened to be the lucky girl who picked up the lucky ticket, why was Joseph and Elizabeth not greeted in the same was by the angel?
Regarding the Miracle at Cana - somehow I don't agree that Jesus was under any obligation to perform His first public miracle. There were many other instances in the Gospels where His disciples had asked him to do something but He disagreed and did not do so. eg: Matt 14:15 "send them away to the villages to eat"; Luke 9:49-50 - "Master, we saw someone casting out demons in Your name; and we tried to prevent him because he does not follow along with us." But Jesus said to him, "Do not hinder him; for he who is not against you is for you."; Luke 9:54-56 "Lord, do You want us to command fire to come down from heaven and consume them?" But He turned and rebuked them, and said, "You do not know what kind of spirit you are of; for the Son of Man did not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them." I don't think the scale of the miracle matters - it was still a Divine intervention and sign.
>>>>How about Stephen then. Are we to venerate him?
8 And Stephen, full of faith and power, did great wonders and miracles among the people. In other versions "full of grace and power" are being used by the way
>>>>>Yup. He is known as St Stephen. We celebrate His feast day 27th December. Considered as the first martyr.
>>>>>>At least this is consistent. But then Stephen isn't regarded as highly as Mary I guess.

The point of the matter is, by carrying Jesus, Mary has done the most incredible thing ever as a human. So as stated, you are just trying to exaggerate something more then it should be.
Jesus was addressed in a similar way many times. Even though he was God, he was man as well. Did he get shocked? If say I knew of my piano skills. I know for sure that my piano skills are better then others. No one praised me of my piano skills for some person. A person come along praising my piano skills. Would I be shocked? No. Because I know that my piano skills are of a certain standard. But I could be humble and not get too occupied by the praises. If Mary was sinless, she would have an inkling of the state that she is in and it would not have shocked her.
>>>>>Mary was deeply troubled. Does that prove she was not sinless?
Jesus was troubled now and again - does that mean He was anything less than God? Does that mean He doubted His Father in Heaven? Wouldn't He have known that troubles were coming his way?
>>>>>>Did I ever implied that Mary sinned because she was troubled? You are falsely accusing me like the other guy. I think you should think more before you reply because if you reread what I wrote, I never said that Mary sinned because she was deeply troubled. You are just repeating the standard answer your church gives you that's all. And that''s why you are answering my concerns wrongly.

First of all, those heroes are mostly man. Secondly, I would admit that Mary did the most incredible thing ever. Dun mean to be rude. How can you compare Jesus with John the Baptist. Also you do realize that it was not Mary virtue alone that determines whether she carried Jesus. Jesus has to come from a genealogy which ends with Joseph and mary and started of with David. So it was not really her virtousness that is the determining factor but also her lineage and that of Joseph. So it's not really a lottery ticket as per say but the timing and also her heritage as well. Her virtuousness probably play a role but then I would argue that if say there's another woman who was just as virtous or even more virtous then Mary, she would not also get to carry Jesus because of her lineage. No matter how you slice it, you really cannot use that passage as an example of Mary ability to intercede for us. In fact, it's pretty clear that Jesus even told Mary politely that her request was not going to give him any glory and he fulfilled the request in a way that gave him the glory. To use this passage to justify your claims makes you and by proxy the catholic church looks very uncredible. Tell any non christians out there that Mary should be interceeding for us based on that passage and they will probably mock you even more. I admit that immaculation conception is catholic tradition and the catholic church will do anything to defend this even though it's clearly wrong.
>>>>>As mentioned above, Mary is venerated by virtue of God. No more, no less. All the praises given to her are meant to glorify God. All the dogmas attached to her are to demonstrate the power, glory and love of God, who raised a lowly vessel to work such marvels for her.
Mary's only doing in this whole picture of Salvation is her whole hearted, unconditional and eternal "yes" to the will of God.
>>>>>Thanks for being so concerned about us. Don't worry. We are being mocked all the time. God never promised us an easy ride, even though He did promise that the Gates of Hell would never hold out against His church. And if what you say is true, then we deserve that mocking.
>>>>>>You still do not get the point. What I was trying to say is that this passage is a very weak case to use to support the case of Mary interceeding for us. Just like in Science, when you want to assert something, you better make sure you have a stronger case before you do so. Otherwise, you lose all credibility. Being mocked because of preaching the truth is different from being mocked because of lack of credibility. I am pretty sure you know that.
>> Those examples you gave are not very great. The thing is, are they asking in accordance to God's will.  I am not trying to imply that every prayer will be answered. But God do listen to all of our prayers.

>>> Agreed. Those were not good examples but it was to point out that we should not underestimate the significance of Jesus responding to Mary even though He felt that His time had not come yet.
7 Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: 8 for every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened. 9 Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone? 10 Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent? 11 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?

God do listen to our prayers and will answer them if it is in accordance to his will. As for Mary, it's clear that when Jesus performed the miracle, He was glorified in the end as well.
"Jesus did this, the first of his signs, in Cana of Galilee and it revealed his glory and his disciples believed in him". Similarly, I could also say that Jesus was not obligated to bless the Canaanite woman as well. So are we to now venerate the Canaanite woman?

>>>Regarding Canaanite woman, yes, we should praise her for Jesus praised her. She might not have a name or position but her faith is a model for us all.

>>>>She did not become as venerated as Mary did she? And what do you mean by praised. Keep in mind that she is still a sinner like the rest of us. Now, I dun think praising someone is an issue but venerating someone is going too overboard dun you think? After all, she is still a sinner.
>>>>>Veneration are for those heroes of faith, those who suffered for the sake of Christ, those who did God's will despite having a sword pierce their hearts, those who kept through till the end. Yes, we praise them. We imitate them. We venerate them. We ask them to pray for us. 
>>>>>>The fact is that they are still sinners. But then by doing that, you are elevating them to something more then they are. I really do not know how you are not able to see that.

We certainly will be able to debate the length and breath of the bible and Catholic beliefs in these pages. And as you can see, often, there is more than one side of the coin. However hopefully this discussion has shown you that Catholic practices definitely have biblical roots (and, sorry to repeat again, roots in Sacred Tradition) and that we are definitely not some "whore of Babylon" or "the anti-Christ" as some might gleefully claim.
>>That's still a subject for debate.

Lastly, I can't promise to reply to all further inquiries after this as it is time consuming. Unless it is a very short and precise concern and can be answered quickly.
*
This post has been edited by sylar111: Apr 25 2016, 12:16 AM
TSyeeck
post Apr 25 2016, 01:24 AM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
3,576 posts

Joined: Apr 2006



TSyeeck
post Apr 25 2016, 01:38 AM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
3,576 posts

Joined: Apr 2006



DRBS
post Apr 25 2016, 03:13 AM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
110 posts

Joined: Sep 2012


QUOTE(sylar111 @ Apr 24 2016, 11:39 PM)

*
QUOTE(DRBS @ Apr 21 2016, 02:00 AM)
You are right, Sylar111. All of God's servants humble themselves, including Mary "He looks upon his handmaid in her nothingness......". The Catholic view is that acknowledging, being inspired by and venerating those whom God has honored takes nothing away from God Himself. Much like a wise Professor who does not sulk when his students receive accolades for their own achievements, knowing that whatever recognition they receive, enhances his standing even more.
In term of volume of references to Mary in the bible, i would readily admit that she pales in comparison to Paul and in fact many other biblical characters like Abraham, Moses, King David or even the apostles. You may be surprised however to find that Catholics see references to Mary right from the book of Genesis to Revelation and those references to her, speak of her unique role in the history of Salvation and how God chose and worked through this lowly human maiden to bring his great plan of Salvation to fruition.

>>The problem is, based on the scripture which I provided, even Paul advises that we should not be giving accolades towards him. In the new testament, only the 4 Gospels speaks of Mary. And it's very scant. There's hardly any accolades being given to her after that. In the old testament, the only verse that talks about Mary is Genesis 3:15. The other verses probably come from the apocrypha which are not recognize by the Jews by the way. I know that the Catholic Church has a low view of Jews but dun forget this
Romans 3
3 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? 2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.

>>> I believe the scripture passage that you referred to was actually Paul correcting the people about jealousy and in-fighting among the themselves and how they should not be taking the camps of the leaders to elevate their status. The verse before this passage would confirm that.
I strongly agree with you that Paul exhorts us to humble ourselves before God. However, I am sure Paul does not means we should not give praise others, but only God. God has created many heroes who have gone before us and I believe it is only fitting that we give them praise and that this takes nothing away from God. That's what Catholics do with Mary and the Saints - we praise them. we imitate their faith and we ask them to pray for us.
>>>Catholics see Mary being referred to in the book of Isaiah, the most important book of the Scriptures to Jews. Also in the Psalms and The Book of Revelation. However I agree with you, this proves nothing.

>>>>At the same time, Paul is also highlighting that all of the glory should go to God. Of course we should admire Paul but I do not think Paul wants to receive the praise officially which you guys are doing.
>>>>>Not sure what is meant by praising officially. Do you mean praising in writing? In prayer? When complimenting someone other than God? By calling them saints?
>>>>>>I am pretty sure you know what I mean. It's not good to just "pretend" to not know what I mean. If you got nothing to hide, you dun have to do this. Anyway when you venerate say Paul, it's not just mentioning him in passing or having a strong opinion about him or a study about him. You have special ceremonies, special holidays and maybe even special prayers for him. I think you know what I mean but then it seems that you are evading like the other person has been doing.

>>>>>>>Haha! Looks like we are heading nowhere with this. Much as the Catholic Church consistently insists that we do not worship Saints, we are constantly being told that we are. I am sure I will not be able to convince those who have decided otherwise that we differentiate veneration from worship. Looks like God will have to judge us, don't you think? Impasse!
Just for knowledge purposes, we do celebrate Feast Days for those who are in full communion with God, Saints. St Paul's feast day is celebrated with St Peter.
Nope we don't have prayers for Paul. He is already in heaven in full communion with God. He prays for us.


And unfortunately as you know, Catholics are not bound purely by Biblical references but also by centuries of inflection and study of theology (right from the earliest days of the church) to fully understand Christ role in our Salvation and the role played by Mary in it.
I do not expect a non catholic to call Mary "Queen of Heaven". This only comes after a fuller understanding and appreciation of how Catholics see Mary. In fact, we don't just call her Queen of Heaven. She is much more often and affectionately termed as "Mother of God", which I am sure you would agree, supersedes her title of Queen of Heaven.
>>Maybe you do not realize the implication of calling Mary the Mother of God. It puts Mary on par or even above Jesus. Of course right now, you deny that you are worshiping Mary but then it's not surprising that many others are worshiping her because by putting Mary on par with Jesus and therefore God, there should be no problem worshiping her. Calling Mary the Mother of God also means that Mary should be compared with God the Father. You are probably going to deny this again but then think about it. That's the implication. Maybe openly, the catholic church denies Mary worship, but then in actual fact, attributing Mother of God to Mary actually elevates her position to God. Words do mean something especially when it comes to religion.

>>>If Jesus is truly God and Mary is his mother, then she is the Mother of God, no? God chose for it to be like that. God our Father chose for Jesus to have a human mother, the Mother of God.

>>>>Well, so now you admit that the Catholic Church actually worships Mary. Notice that Jesus never referred to Mary as Mother. Should have given you a clue. In other words, position wise, Mary should not really be considered Jesus Mother even though physically she is. So all this while, what you said about just venerating Mary is not true. You are actually worshiping Mary. As I have demonstrated earlier. The Catholic church has not been upfront in it's declaration. It talks about salvation through God's grace alone. But in actual fact. Individual works are still required. And now, it makes the claim that it only venerates Mary, but now you admit that Mary is at the position of God. So therefore in Catholic theology, there is nothing wrong in worshiping Mary. If there's nothing to hide, why do this?
>>>>>Sorry to keep harping on about this point, Sylar111. I am not sure what you mean by "Mary should not really be considered Jesus Mother even though physically she is". Is she Jesus's Mother?
>>>>>Not sure how it is concluded that calling Mary the Mother of God means we worship her, or that she is in the position of God. Do you mean to say that Mother of God is the same as God? I doubt any of us will say our mothers are the same as us.
>>>>>Is it OK to call Mary "the mother of our Lord"? Is it OK to call Mary "the mother of Jesus"? Is Jesus truly God? If so, I am not sure how we can be wrong to say Mary "is the mother of God".
>>>>>Sorry, but for the sake of clarity, I will not go into the theology of Salvation here as it is another lengthy topic and that has also been discussed at length previously.
>>>>>Not sure what the Church is being accused of hiding. As mentioned earlier, the Catholic church consistently and persistently condemns any person that claims Mary is God. Those that followed the heresy of Collyridians were ex-communicated.
>>>>>As mentioned earlier, if you come across any Catholics who worship Mary, by all means correct them.
>>>>>>Well.. Not really. A surrogate mother of a child is not really the real mother of a child. I think it's pretty clear that the holy spirit was directly involved in the virgin birth of Mary. It means that the DNA does not really come from Mary. Of course, as I mentioned physically wise, Mary could be considered a mother because physically she brought Jesus to the world physically. But then being a mother also means Mary should precede Jesus. Jesus has existed since the beginning of time. Let's say your uncle happens to be younger then you or about the same age as you. You will not treat him with the same kind of respect that that you would have to an uncle older then you right?most people would have understood where I am coming from but then if you are insistent that calling mary the Mother of God does not elevate her to a position comparable to God, then I guess very little things will get into your head. I know you are not that naive but the catholic church seems to have casted a spell on you.


>>>>>>>Major, major disagreement. Mary is a surrogate mother of Jesus? That would suggest that Jesus is not human, for He did not take flesh from His mother. Surely not biblical. Strongly disagree.
If Mary was just a surrogate mother, Genesis 3 would not be accurate.
>>>>>>>I am sure everyone agrees that God is not bound with time. Jesus being there since the beginning is in no way contrary to the belief that He became man in our time, taking on human flesh.
>>>>>>>So is it offensive to call Mary "the mother of our Lord"? Is it offensive to call Mary "the mother of Jesus"? Is Jesus truly God?
>>>>>>>Sorry but maybe we Catholics are just so thick skinned that we are so confident that God our Father, who close for Jesus to be born of a woman, would in no way be offended that we call Mary, as the mother of God, to recognize that her son was truly God.


As has been discussed at length before, Catholics do not view sacred tradition as conflicting with sacred scripture. In fact it is seen as being very complementary. It has to be since it was the church that compiled the bible. Catholics would go as far to say as reading the Bible as one would read an ordinary book without learning more about the history, context, language and culture in which it originated from can give rise to many false teachings and beliefs. This can surely be seen in that there are so many different interpretations even of singular verses of the Bible.
>>There are actually quite a few traditions that you practiced that contradict the scripture. But let's just discuss the examples above.

>>>Sure.

An example would be the verses from Luke 8:19-21 which you alluded to. One way some people have looked at it has been that Jesus is rebuking / belittling his mother and brethren in front of a crowd. This might of course seem out of keeping with Jesus. Another view is that Jesus was trying to teach us that even though we might not be his blood relative, we do not have to dismay for he considers all who do the will of His Father as His own. A third interpretation of these verses (which might not come across at first glance) actually sees Jesus as praising Mary. For who is it who has done the will of God to perfection? Luke 1:38 - Mary "May it be done to me according to Thy will". So Jesus is telling the crowd that Mary is not just my mother by virtue of being my biological mother but also spiritually because "She does the will of my Father".
>> I would not say that Jesus is belittling his mother. He is just stating facts thats all. I would say it's a combination of 1 and 2. He was not being disrespectful. He is just recognizing his actual position as compared to Mary that's all. Physically, she brought Jesus to the world. Spiritually, Mary was just another virtuous woman that's all. Mary still has to submit to Jesus even though she bore him. The same cannot be the same for our mothers right?

>>>You are right. Mary is a mere human being, nothing compared to God. But she was raised to be above all women, not just another virtuous woman. Mary submits to Jesus but as Her will and the will of the Father are so in sync with each other, there is no contradiction.

There is also another verse from Luke that at first glance might appear that Jesus is belittling Mary. Luke 11:27-28: While He was speaking, a woman from the crowd called out and said to Him, “Blessed is the womb that carried you and the breasts at which you nursed.” He replied, “Rather, blessed are those who hear the word of God and observe it.” Again it can be viewed in different ways. Negative or positive.
>>It's pretty clear what this means. The focus should not be on Mary.

>>>Sorry. Actually I wanted this verse to be contrasted with the greeting from Elizabeth below. Similar, is it not? Yet, again Mary is called the Blessed among all women.
>>>Do you think Elizabeth's greeting to Mary is over the top? An exaggerated sycophantic cry of an over-excited cousin?

>>>>Question. Did Eliezabeth only greeted Mary this way after Mary was pregnant or before? Mary wasn't always so "blessed" until she gave birth to Jesus. I think we ourselves should not get too excited over this. When say one of our kids got accepted to a prestigious university, I am pretty sure that praises like "Kid is very smart". "Kid has a great future". "God really blessed you. Kid is very blessed to have a dad to support you. Etc. Of course after graduation, those kids could be considered more bless then those who did not receive a proper university education. This kid is mostly blessed afterwards as well. Just giving an example here. Giving birth to Jesus is obviously an incident of the magnitude of the highest order. She will be remembered for this incident forever. Its just the same as say Albert Einstein being remembered for a very long time for his theory of relativity. Albert Einstein could also be considered one of the greatest scientist for his theory of relativity. But let's not get carried away with this. She carried Jesus. Jesus has already existed since the beginning of time. Jesus did not owe his existence to Mary. She should be blessed because she brought Jesus to the world that's all. Notice that you even used " Her will and the will of the Father". In other words, even though you are denying this, you are putting Mary to the position of God subconsciously. No wonder so many catholics are worshiping her. By saying that it's wrong to worship Mary, you are actually acting hypocritically since Jesus never denied worship due to his position as being Equal to God.
>>>>>You are absolutely right. Mary is only blessed among all women because of her having the privilege of bearing, nursing and raising Jesus up. Without Him, she is nothing and might not even make it into the bible. But because of this great privilege, she is blessed among all women and occupy a very special place in the legion of saints. Mary's contribution to this is that she acceded to the Will of God so whole heartedly. God or Jesus does not owe her anything. She is but their lowly creature. However the plan of God required the free will of a Holy Receptacle. And God found that in Mary. That is why we copy her and call her our mother.
So you agree that she is to be called Blessed then? More than all other women? Full of Grace?
>>>>>Whether Mary was blessed by God before or after conceiving Jesus is another point. I am sure you noticed that she was called by Full of Grace and Blessed among all women before she even conceived.
>>>>> biggrin.gif Let's not read too much into typos, ya? I am sure you we would like to keep this as civil as possible and not resort to accusations of idolatry and hypocrisy. If i am hypocritical in my heart or misled on this point, I sincerely seek God's forgiveness. If I am not though, it might be regarded as bringing false witness against another. thumbsup.gif
>>>>>>And I have already indicated Stephen who was called in a similar way. Trust me. I am already controlling myself because I notice that you are starting to display the same kind of spirit as Yeeck whereby you are just conveniently ignoring things that I have said and pretending to not know where I am coming from. I am not reading much into typo but from what you type I already know that you put the position of mary as the same as God. in Christian circles we only reserve capitalized characters for someone in the position of God. I know you are trying to refrain yourself from doing so. I have already explained why. Unfortunately jesus who was the actual "son" of mary did not refer her to his mother. So whose example should we follow? Also, if mary was sinless, Elizabeth would have no problems calling mary blessed one even before she had jesus. You seem to miss the point.

>>>>>>>Stephen was described by Luke as being full of grace. Mary was called by the Angel of the Lord, Gabriel "Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee; blessed art thou among women". "Full of Grace" was her title. And just for the record (if it really matters) , she was not pregnant then.
>>>>>>>After your recent entry, I will refrain from talking about when to use capital letters. Hope it is mutual.


You might also want to compare these verses with Luke 1:41-45 - When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the infant leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth, filled with the Holy Spirit, cried out in a loud voice and said, “Most blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb. How does this happen to me, that the Mother of my Lord should come to me? For at the moment the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the infant in my womb leaped for joy. Blessed are you who believed that what was spoken to you by the Lord would be fulfilled.”
Similar exhortations by different women, but notice who is called the Blessed.
>>Look at the following verses
28 And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. 29 And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be. 30 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. 31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.
Note the statement " Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God" and also "And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be." It's pretty clear that the concept of immaculate conception cannot be true because if that was true, Mary would not have been troubled as she would have known her sinless state. Also the statement, you have found favour with God shows clearly that she was just a normal person before the Angel visited her.

>>> It should be noted that throughout the bible, the Angel of God appears several times. However, it is only to Mary, that the greeting of "Hail, full of Grace! The Lord is with Thee. Blessed are thou among women" is bestowed.
>>>If this was the first time a mere human was ever addressed by God this way (not even Abraham, Moses or Elijah was addressed this way by the angels of God), wouldn't any one, whether sinless or not, be stunned or troubled? I would say, maybe only those who were very arrogant wouldn't be troubled. Humility should not be mistaken for sinfulness. Jesus was humble yet, even to accepting his cross. I am sure it is agreed that he was sinless. So while this does not prove the Immaculate Conception (which requires a much deeper reading and appreciation of bible and sacred tradition), it certainly does not disprove it, no?
>>> As mentioned above, none of the heroes of the Old testament was ever greeted as being full of Grace and blessed among all women. I would suggest that that certainly does not make Mary "Normal". If she was just happened to be the lucky girl who picked up the lucky ticket, why was Joseph and Elizabeth not greeted in the same was by the angel?
Regarding the Miracle at Cana - somehow I don't agree that Jesus was under any obligation to perform His first public miracle. There were many other instances in the Gospels where His disciples had asked him to do something but He disagreed and did not do so. eg: Matt 14:15 "send them away to the villages to eat"; Luke 9:49-50 - "Master, we saw someone casting out demons in Your name; and we tried to prevent him because he does not follow along with us." But Jesus said to him, "Do not hinder him; for he who is not against you is for you."; Luke 9:54-56 "Lord, do You want us to command fire to come down from heaven and consume them?" But He turned and rebuked them, and said, "You do not know what kind of spirit you are of; for the Son of Man did not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them." I don't think the scale of the miracle matters - it was still a Divine intervention and sign.
>>>>How about Stephen then. Are we to venerate him?
8 And Stephen, full of faith and power, did great wonders and miracles among the people. In other versions "full of grace and power" are being used by the way
>>>>>Yup. He is known as St Stephen. We celebrate His feast day 27th December. Considered as the first martyr.
>>>>>>At least this is consistent. But then Stephen isn't regarded as highly as Mary I guess.

>>>>>>>Nope. None of the saints are.


The point of the matter is, by carrying Jesus, Mary has done the most incredible thing ever as a human. So as stated, you are just trying to exaggerate something more then it should be.
Jesus was addressed in a similar way many times. Even though he was God, he was man as well. Did he get shocked? If say I knew of my piano skills. I know for sure that my piano skills are better then others. No one praised me of my piano skills for some person. A person come along praising my piano skills. Would I be shocked? No. Because I know that my piano skills are of a certain standard. But I could be humble and not get too occupied by the praises. If Mary was sinless, she would have an inkling of the state that she is in and it would not have shocked her.
>>>>>Mary was deeply troubled. Does that prove she was not sinless?
Jesus was troubled now and again - does that mean He was anything less than God? Does that mean He doubted His Father in Heaven? Wouldn't He have known that troubles were coming his way?
>>>>>>Did I ever implied that Mary sinned because she was troubled? You are falsely accusing me like the other guy. I think you should think more before you reply because if you reread what I wrote, I never said that Mary sinned because she was deeply troubled. You are just repeating the standard answer your church gives you that's all. And that''s why you are answering my concerns wrongly.

>>>>>>>My apologies. From your comment "If Mary was sinless, she would have an inkling of the state that she is in and it would not have shocked her.", I assumed you were.
I guess also better for us not to assume as to why Mary was shocked/troubled. Too many interpretations with no proof.


First of all, those heroes are mostly man. Secondly, I would admit that Mary did the most incredible thing ever. Dun mean to be rude. How can you compare Jesus with John the Baptist. Also you do realize that it was not Mary virtue alone that determines whether she carried Jesus. Jesus has to come from a genealogy which ends with Joseph and mary and started of with David. So it was not really her virtousness that is the determining factor but also her lineage and that of Joseph. So it's not really a lottery ticket as per say but the timing and also her heritage as well. Her virtuousness probably play a role but then I would argue that if say there's another woman who was just as virtous or even more virtous then Mary, she would not also get to carry Jesus because of her lineage. No matter how you slice it, you really cannot use that passage as an example of Mary ability to intercede for us. In fact, it's pretty clear that Jesus even told Mary politely that her request was not going to give him any glory and he fulfilled the request in a way that gave him the glory. To use this passage to justify your claims makes you and by proxy the catholic church looks very uncredible. Tell any non christians out there that Mary should be interceeding for us based on that passage and they will probably mock you even more. I admit that immaculation conception is catholic tradition and the catholic church will do anything to defend this even though it's clearly wrong.
>>>>>As mentioned above, Mary is venerated by virtue of God. No more, no less. All the praises given to her are meant to glorify God. All the dogmas attached to her are to demonstrate the power, glory and love of God, who raised a lowly vessel to work such marvels for her.
Mary's only doing in this whole picture of Salvation is her whole hearted, unconditional and eternal "yes" to the will of God.
>>>>>Thanks for being so concerned about us. Don't worry. We are being mocked all the time. God never promised us an easy ride, even though He did promise that the Gates of Hell would never hold out against His church. And if what you say is true, then we deserve that mocking.
>>>>>>You still do not get the point. What I was trying to say is that this passage is a very weak case to use to support the case of Mary interceeding for us. Just like in Science, when you want to assert something, you better make sure you have a stronger case before you do so. Otherwise, you lose all credibility. Being mocked because of preaching the truth is different from being mocked because of lack of credibility. I am pretty sure you know that.
>> Those examples you gave are not very great. The thing is, are they asking in accordance to God's will. I am not trying to imply that every prayer will be answered. But God do listen to all of our prayers.

>>> Agreed. Those were not good examples but it was to point out that we should not underestimate the significance of Jesus responding to Mary even though He felt that His time had not come yet.
7 Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: 8 for every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened. 9 Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone? 10 Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent? 11 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?

God do listen to our prayers and will answer them if it is in accordance to his will. As for Mary, it's clear that when Jesus performed the miracle, He was glorified in the end as well.
"Jesus did this, the first of his signs, in Cana of Galilee and it revealed his glory and his disciples believed in him". Similarly, I could also say that Jesus was not obligated to bless the Canaanite woman as well. So are we to now venerate the Canaanite woman?

>>>Regarding Canaanite woman, yes, we should praise her for Jesus praised her. She might not have a name or position but her faith is a model for us all.

>>>>She did not become as venerated as Mary did she? And what do you mean by praised. Keep in mind that she is still a sinner like the rest of us. Now, I dun think praising someone is an issue but venerating someone is going too overboard dun you think? After all, she is still a sinner.
>>>>>Veneration are for those heroes of faith, those who suffered for the sake of Christ, those who did God's will despite having a sword pierce their hearts, those who kept through till the end. Yes, we praise them. We imitate them. We venerate them. We ask them to pray for us.
>>>>>>The fact is that they are still sinners. But then by doing that, you are elevating them to something more then they are. I really do not know how you are not able to see that.

>>>>>>>Again, something we will never agree on. Going nowhere, yeah?

By the way, since you are very interested in what Catholics belief in, I must ask you, have you read the Catechism of the Catholic Faith? Have you ever been to a Mass, the Eucharistic celebration?
I hope so because every now and again, Catholics come across people who mean well but who have a very confused idea about what the Catholic church teaches and what Catholics do. I would be the first to admit, there are even Catholics who are confused. Unfortunately sometimes people start questioning Catholics based on what they hear, on what they read on the internet forums or worst still, from avowed anti-Catholic literature (eg Chick's tracts and the like) or even ex-catholics who have a bone to pick.
Want to know the truth about the Catholic faith? Read the Catechism and come for a Holy Eucharist celebration and find out the meaning of the mass.
Otherwise if just concerned, pray for Catholics. And we will pray for you.



We certainly will be able to debate the length and breath of the bible and Catholic beliefs in these pages. And as you can see, often, there is more than one side of the coin. However hopefully this discussion has shown you that Catholic practices definitely have biblical roots (and, sorry to repeat again, roots in Sacred Tradition) and that we are definitely not some "whore of Babylon" or "the anti-Christ" as some might gleefully claim.
>>That's still a subject for debate.

Lastly, I can't promise to reply to all further inquiries after this as it is time consuming. Unless it is a very short and precise concern and can be answered quickly.
khool
post Apr 25 2016, 07:56 AM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
225 posts

Joined: Mar 2008


Regina Caeli / Queen of Heaven (Prayer for Eastertide)

user posted image

(In Latin)
V. Regina cæli, lætare, alleluia:
R. Quia quem meruisti portare, alleluia,
V. Resurrexit, sicut dixit, alleluia,
R. Ora pro nobis Deum, alleluia.
V. Gaude et lætare, Virgo Maria, alleluia.
R. Quia surrexit Dominus vere, alleluia.

Oremus.
Deus, qui per resurrectionem Filii tui, Domini nostri Iesu Christi,
mundum lætificare dignatus es:
præsta, quæsumus, ut per eius Genitricem Virginem Mariam,
perpetuæ capiamus gaudia vitæ.
Per eundem Christum Dominum nostrum.
R. Amen.

(In English)
V. Queen of Heaven, rejoice, alleluia.
R. For He whom you did merit to bear, alleluia.
V. Has risen, as he said, alleluia.
R. Pray for us to God, alleluia.
V. Rejoice and be glad, O Virgin Mary, alleluia.
R. For the Lord has truly risen, alleluia.

Let us pray.
O God, who gave joy to the world through the resurrection of Thy Son, our Lord Jesus Christ,
grant we beseech Thee,
that through the intercession of the Virgin Mary, His Mother,
we may obtain the joys of everlasting life. Through the same Christ our Lord.
R. Amen.

khool
post Apr 25 2016, 08:39 AM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
225 posts

Joined: Mar 2008


user posted image

SUSsylar111
post Apr 25 2016, 10:09 AM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
2,547 posts

Joined: Jun 2008
From: KL


QUOTE(DRBS @ Apr 25 2016, 03:13 AM)
QUOTE(DRBS @ Apr 21 2016, 02:00 AM)
You are right, Sylar111. All of God's servants humble themselves, including Mary "He looks upon his handmaid in her nothingness......". The Catholic view is that acknowledging, being inspired by and venerating those whom God has honored takes nothing away from God Himself. Much like a wise Professor who does not sulk when his students receive accolades for their own achievements, knowing that whatever recognition they receive, enhances his standing even more.
In term of volume of references to Mary in the bible, i would readily admit that she pales in comparison to Paul and in fact many other biblical characters like Abraham, Moses, King David or even the apostles. You may be surprised however to find that Catholics see references to Mary right from the book of Genesis to Revelation and those references to her, speak of her unique role in the history of Salvation and how God chose and worked through this lowly human maiden to bring his great plan of Salvation to fruition.

>>The problem is, based on the scripture which I provided, even Paul advises that we should not be giving accolades towards him. In the new testament, only the 4 Gospels speaks of Mary. And it's very scant. There's hardly any accolades being given to her after that. In the old testament, the only verse that talks about Mary is Genesis 3:15. The other verses probably come from the apocrypha which are not recognize by the Jews by the way. I know that the Catholic Church has a low view of Jews but dun forget this
Romans 3
3 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? 2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.

>>> I believe the scripture passage that you referred to was actually Paul correcting the people about jealousy and in-fighting among the themselves and how they should not be taking the camps of the leaders to elevate their status. The verse before this passage would confirm that.
I strongly agree with you that Paul exhorts us to humble ourselves before God. However, I am sure Paul does not means we should not give praise others, but only God. God has created many heroes who have gone before us and I believe it is only fitting that we give them praise and that this takes nothing away from God. That's what Catholics do with Mary and the Saints - we praise them. we imitate their faith and we ask them to pray for us.
>>>Catholics see Mary being referred to in the book of Isaiah, the most important book of the Scriptures to Jews. Also in the Psalms and The Book of Revelation. However I agree with you, this proves nothing.

>>>>At the same time, Paul is also highlighting that all of the glory should go to God. Of course we should admire Paul but I do not think Paul wants to receive the praise officially which you guys are doing.
>>>>>Not sure what is meant by praising officially. Do you mean praising in writing? In prayer? When complimenting someone other than God? By calling them saints?
>>>>>>I am pretty sure you know what I mean. It's not good to just "pretend" to not know what I mean. If you got nothing to hide, you dun have to do this. Anyway when you venerate say Paul, it's not just mentioning him in passing or having a strong opinion about him or a study about him. You have special ceremonies, special holidays and maybe even special prayers for him. I think you know what I mean but then it seems that you are evading like the other person has been doing.

>>>>>>>Haha! Looks like we are heading nowhere with this. Much as the Catholic Church consistently insists that we do not worship Saints, we are constantly being told that we are. I am sure I will not be able to convince those who have decided otherwise that we differentiate veneration from worship. Looks like God will have to judge us, don't you think? Impasse!
Just for knowledge purposes, we do celebrate Feast Days for those who are in full communion with God, Saints. St Paul's feast day is celebrated with St Peter.
Nope we don't have prayers for Paul. He is already in heaven in full communion with God. He prays for us.
>>>>>>>>Unfortunately this is not what Paul wants us to do. He does not want to receive the kind of praises that you are giving him through special Feast days. 1 Corinthians 3 is pretty clear that Paul does not want us to regard him more then what we ought to.

And unfortunately as you know, Catholics are not bound purely by Biblical references but also by centuries of inflection and study of theology (right from the earliest days of the church) to fully understand Christ role in our Salvation and the role played by Mary in it.
I do not expect a non catholic to call Mary "Queen of Heaven". This only comes after a fuller understanding and appreciation of how Catholics see Mary. In fact, we don't just call her Queen of Heaven. She is much more often and affectionately termed as "Mother of God", which I am sure you would agree, supersedes her title of Queen of Heaven.
>>Maybe you do not realize the implication of calling Mary the Mother of God. It puts Mary on par or even above Jesus. Of course right now, you deny that you are worshiping Mary but then it's not surprising that many others are worshiping her because by putting Mary on par with Jesus and therefore God, there should be no problem worshiping her. Calling Mary the Mother of God also means that Mary should be compared with God the Father. You are probably going to deny this again but then think about it. That's the implication. Maybe openly, the catholic church denies Mary worship, but then in actual fact, attributing Mother of God to Mary actually elevates her position to God. Words do mean something especially when it comes to religion.

>>>If Jesus is truly God and Mary is his mother, then she is the Mother of God, no? God chose for it to be like that. God our Father chose for Jesus to have a human mother, the Mother of God.

>>>>Well, so now you admit that the Catholic Church actually worships Mary. Notice that Jesus never referred to Mary as Mother. Should have given you a clue. In other words, position wise, Mary should not really be considered Jesus Mother even though physically she is.  So all this while, what you said about just venerating Mary is not true. You are actually worshiping Mary. As I have demonstrated earlier. The Catholic church has not been upfront in it's declaration. It talks about salvation through God's grace alone. But in actual fact. Individual works are still required. And now, it makes the claim that it only venerates Mary, but now you admit that Mary is at the position of God. So therefore in Catholic theology, there is nothing wrong in worshiping Mary. If there's nothing to hide, why do this?
>>>>>Sorry to keep harping on about this point, Sylar111. I am not sure what you mean by "Mary should not really be considered Jesus Mother even though physically she is". Is she Jesus's Mother?
>>>>>Not sure how it is concluded that calling Mary the Mother of God means we worship her, or that she is in the position of God. Do you mean to say that Mother of God is the same as God? I doubt any of us will say our mothers are the same as us.
>>>>>Is it OK to call Mary "the mother of our Lord"? Is it OK to call Mary "the mother of Jesus"? Is Jesus truly God? If so, I am not sure how we can be wrong to say Mary "is the mother of God".
>>>>>Sorry, but for the sake of clarity, I will not go into the theology of Salvation here as it is another lengthy topic and that has also been discussed at length previously.
>>>>>Not sure what the Church is being accused of hiding. As mentioned earlier, the Catholic church consistently and persistently condemns any person that claims Mary is God. Those that followed the heresy of Collyridians were ex-communicated.
>>>>>As mentioned earlier,  if you come across any Catholics who worship Mary, by all means correct them.
>>>>>>Well.. Not really. A surrogate mother of a child is not really the real mother of a child. I think it's pretty clear that the holy spirit was directly involved in the virgin birth of Mary. It means that the DNA does not really come from Mary. Of course, as I mentioned physically wise, Mary could be considered a mother because physically she brought Jesus to the world physically. But then being a mother also means Mary should precede Jesus. Jesus has existed since the beginning of time. Let's say your uncle happens to be younger then you or about the same age as you. You will not treat him with the same kind of respect that that you would have to an uncle older then you right?most people would have understood where I am coming from but then if you are insistent that calling mary the Mother of God does not elevate her to a position comparable to God, then I guess very little things will get into your head. I know you are not that naive but the catholic church seems to have casted a spell on you.
>>>>>>>Major, major disagreement. Mary is a surrogate mother of Jesus? That would suggest that Jesus is not human, for He did not take flesh from His mother. Surely not biblical. Strongly disagree.
If Mary was just a surrogate mother, Genesis  3 would not be accurate.
>>>>>>>I am sure everyone agrees that God is not bound with time. Jesus being there since the beginning is in no way contrary to the belief that He became man in our time, taking on human flesh.
>>>>>>>So is it offensive to call Mary "the mother of our Lord"? Is it offensive to call Mary "the mother of Jesus"? Is Jesus truly God?
>>>>>>>Sorry but maybe we Catholics are just so thick skinned that we are so confident that God our Father, who close for Jesus to be born of a  woman, would in no way be offended that we call Mary, as the mother of God, to recognize that her son was truly God.
As has been discussed at length before, Catholics do not view sacred tradition as conflicting with sacred scripture. In fact it is seen as being very complementary. It has to be since it was the church that compiled the bible. Catholics would go as far to say as reading the Bible as one would read an ordinary book without learning more about the history, context, language and culture in which it originated from can give rise to many false teachings and beliefs. This can surely be seen in that there are so many different interpretations even of singular verses of the Bible.
>>There are actually quite a few traditions that you practiced that contradict the scripture. But let's just discuss the examples above.

>>>Sure.

An example would be the verses from Luke 8:19-21 which you alluded to. One way some people have looked at it has been that Jesus is rebuking /  belittling his mother and brethren in front of a crowd. This might of course seem out of keeping with Jesus. Another view is that Jesus was trying to teach us that even though we might not be his blood relative, we do not have to dismay for he considers all who do the will of His Father as His own. A third interpretation of these verses (which might not come across at first glance) actually sees Jesus as praising Mary. For who is it who has done the will of God to perfection? Luke 1:38 - Mary "May it be done to me according to Thy will". So Jesus is telling the crowd that Mary is not just my mother by virtue of being my biological mother but also spiritually because "She does the will of my Father".
>> I would not say that Jesus is belittling his mother. He is just stating facts thats all. I would say it's a combination of 1 and 2. He was not being disrespectful. He is just recognizing his actual position as compared to Mary that's all. Physically, she brought Jesus to the world. Spiritually, Mary was just another virtuous woman that's all.  Mary still has to submit to Jesus even though she bore him. The same cannot be the same for our mothers right?

>>>You are right. Mary is a mere human being, nothing compared to God. But she was raised to be above all women, not just another virtuous woman. Mary submits to Jesus but as Her will and the will of the Father are so in sync with each other, there is no contradiction.

There is also another verse from Luke that at first glance might appear that Jesus is belittling Mary. Luke 11:27-28: While He was speaking, a woman from the crowd called out and said to Him, “Blessed is the womb that carried you and the breasts at which you nursed.” He replied, “Rather, blessed are those who hear the word of God and observe it.”  Again it can be viewed in different ways. Negative or positive.
>>It's pretty clear what this means. The focus should not be on Mary.

>>>Sorry. Actually I wanted this verse to be contrasted with the greeting from Elizabeth below. Similar, is it not? Yet, again Mary is called the Blessed among all women.
>>>Do you think Elizabeth's greeting to Mary is over the top? An exaggerated sycophantic cry of an over-excited cousin?

>>>>Question. Did Eliezabeth only greeted Mary this way after Mary was pregnant or before? Mary wasn't always so "blessed" until she gave birth to Jesus. I think we ourselves should not get too excited over this. When say one of our kids got accepted to a prestigious university, I am pretty sure that praises like "Kid is very smart". "Kid has a great future". "God really blessed you. Kid is very blessed to have a dad to support you. Etc. Of course after graduation, those kids could be considered more bless then those who did not receive a proper university education. This kid is mostly blessed afterwards as well. Just giving an example here. Giving birth to Jesus is obviously an incident of the magnitude of the highest order. She will be remembered for this incident forever. Its just the same as say Albert Einstein being remembered for a very long time for his theory of relativity. Albert Einstein could also be considered one of the greatest scientist for his theory of relativity.  But let's not get carried away with this. She carried Jesus. Jesus has already existed since the beginning of time. Jesus did not owe his existence to Mary. She should be blessed because she brought Jesus to the world that's all.  Notice that you even used " Her will and the will of the Father". In other words, even though you are denying this, you are putting Mary to the position of God subconsciously. No wonder so many catholics are worshiping her. By saying that it's wrong to worship Mary, you are actually acting hypocritically since Jesus never denied worship due to his position as being Equal to God.
>>>>>You are absolutely right. Mary is only blessed among all women because of her having the privilege of bearing, nursing and raising Jesus up. Without Him, she is nothing and might not even make it into the bible. But because of this great privilege, she is blessed among all women and occupy a very special place in the legion of saints. Mary's contribution to this is that she acceded to the Will of God so whole heartedly. God or Jesus does not owe her anything. She is but their lowly creature. However the plan of God required the free will of a Holy Receptacle. And God found that in Mary. That is why we copy her and call her our mother.
So you agree that she is to be called Blessed then? More than all other women? Full of Grace?
>>>>>Whether Mary was blessed by God before or after conceiving Jesus is another point. I am sure you noticed that she was called by Full of Grace and Blessed among all women before she even conceived.
>>>>> biggrin.gif Let's not read too much into typos, ya? I am sure you we would like to keep this as civil as possible and not resort to accusations of idolatry and hypocrisy. If i am hypocritical in my heart or misled on this point, I sincerely seek God's forgiveness. If I am not though, it might be regarded as bringing false witness against another.  thumbsup.gif 
>>>>>>And I have already indicated Stephen who was called in a similar way. Trust me. I am already controlling myself because I notice that you are starting to display the same kind of spirit as Yeeck whereby you are just conveniently ignoring things that I have said and pretending to not know where I am coming from. I am not reading much into typo but from what you type I already know that you put the position of mary as the same as God. in Christian circles we only reserve capitalized characters for someone in the position of God. I know you are trying to refrain yourself from doing so. I have already explained why. Unfortunately jesus who was the actual "son" of mary did not refer her to his mother. So whose example should we follow? Also, if mary was sinless, Elizabeth would have no problems calling mary blessed one even before she had jesus. You seem to miss the point.

>>>>>>>Stephen was described by Luke as being full of grace. Mary was called by the Angel of the Lord, Gabriel "Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee; blessed art thou among women". "Full of Grace" was her title. And just for the record (if it really matters) , she was not pregnant then.
>>>>>>>After your recent entry, I will refrain from talking about when to use capital letters. Hope it is mutual.
You might also want to compare these verses with Luke 1:41-45 - When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the infant leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth, filled with the Holy Spirit, cried out in a loud voice and said, “Most blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb. How does this happen to me, that the Mother of my Lord should come to me? For at the moment the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the infant in my womb leaped for joy. Blessed are you who believed that what was spoken to you by the Lord would be fulfilled.”
Similar exhortations by different women, but notice who is called the Blessed.
>>Look at the following verses
28 And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. 29 And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be. 30 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. 31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.
Note the statement " Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God" and also "And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be." It's pretty clear that the concept of immaculate conception cannot be true because if that was true, Mary would not have been troubled as she would have known her sinless state. Also the statement, you have found favour with God shows clearly that she was just a normal person before the Angel visited her.

>>> It should be noted that throughout the bible, the Angel of God appears several times. However, it is only to Mary, that the greeting of "Hail, full of Grace! The Lord is with Thee. Blessed are thou among women" is bestowed.
>>>If this was the first time a mere human was ever addressed by God this way (not even Abraham, Moses or Elijah was addressed this way by the angels of God), wouldn't any one, whether sinless or not, be stunned or troubled? I would say, maybe only those who were very arrogant wouldn't be troubled. Humility should not be mistaken for sinfulness. Jesus was humble yet, even to accepting his cross. I am sure it is agreed that he was sinless. So while this does not prove the Immaculate Conception (which requires a much deeper reading and appreciation of bible and sacred tradition), it certainly does not disprove it, no? 
>>> As mentioned above, none of the heroes of the Old testament was ever greeted as being full of Grace and blessed among all women. I would suggest that that certainly does not make Mary "Normal". If she was just happened to be the lucky girl who picked up the lucky ticket, why was Joseph and Elizabeth not greeted in the same was by the angel?
Regarding the Miracle at Cana - somehow I don't agree that Jesus was under any obligation to perform His first public miracle. There were many other instances in the Gospels where His disciples had asked him to do something but He disagreed and did not do so. eg: Matt 14:15 "send them away to the villages to eat"; Luke 9:49-50 - "Master, we saw someone casting out demons in Your name; and we tried to prevent him because he does not follow along with us." But Jesus said to him, "Do not hinder him; for he who is not against you is for you."; Luke 9:54-56 "Lord, do You want us to command fire to come down from heaven and consume them?" But He turned and rebuked them, and said, "You do not know what kind of spirit you are of; for the Son of Man did not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them." I don't think the scale of the miracle matters - it was still a Divine intervention and sign.
>>>>How about Stephen then. Are we to venerate him?
8 And Stephen, full of faith and power, did great wonders and miracles among the people. In other versions "full of grace and power" are being used by the way
>>>>>Yup. He is known as St Stephen. We celebrate His feast day 27th December. Considered as the first martyr.
>>>>>>At least this is consistent. But then Stephen isn't regarded as highly as Mary I guess.

>>>>>>>Nope. None of the saints are.
The point of the matter is, by carrying Jesus, Mary has done the most incredible thing ever as a human. So as stated, you are just trying to exaggerate something more then it should be.
Jesus was addressed in a similar way many times. Even though he was God, he was man as well. Did he get shocked? If say I knew of my piano skills. I know for sure that my piano skills are better then others. No one praised me of my piano skills for some person. A person come along praising my piano skills. Would I be shocked? No. Because I know that my piano skills are of a certain standard. But I could be humble and not get too occupied by the praises. If Mary was sinless, she would have an inkling of the state that she is in and it would not have shocked her.
>>>>>Mary was deeply troubled. Does that prove she was not sinless?
Jesus was troubled now and again - does that mean He was anything less than God? Does that mean He doubted His Father in Heaven? Wouldn't He have known that troubles were coming his way?
>>>>>>Did I ever implied that Mary sinned because she was troubled? You are falsely accusing me like the other guy. I think you should think more before you reply because if you reread what I wrote, I never said that Mary sinned because she was deeply troubled. You are just repeating the standard answer your church gives you that's all. And that''s why you are answering my concerns wrongly.

>>>>>>>My apologies. From your comment "If Mary was sinless, she would have an inkling of the state that she is in and it would not have shocked her.", I assumed you were.
I guess also better for us not to assume as to why Mary was shocked/troubled. Too many interpretations with no proof. 
First of all, those heroes are mostly man. Secondly, I would admit that Mary did the most incredible thing ever. Dun mean to be rude. How can you compare Jesus with John the Baptist. Also you do realize that it was not Mary virtue alone that determines whether she carried Jesus. Jesus has to come from a genealogy which ends with Joseph and mary and started of with David. So it was not really her virtousness that is the determining factor but also her lineage and that of Joseph. So it's not really a lottery ticket as per say but the timing and also her heritage as well. Her virtuousness probably play a role but then I would argue that if say there's another woman who was just as virtous or even more virtous then Mary, she would not also get to carry Jesus because of her lineage. No matter how you slice it, you really cannot use that passage as an example of Mary ability to intercede for us. In fact, it's pretty clear that Jesus even told Mary politely that her request was not going to give him any glory and he fulfilled the request in a way that gave him the glory. To use this passage to justify your claims makes you and by proxy the catholic church looks very uncredible. Tell any non christians out there that Mary should be interceeding for us based on that passage and they will probably mock you even more. I admit that immaculation conception is catholic tradition and the catholic church will do anything to defend this even though it's clearly wrong.
>>>>>As mentioned above, Mary is venerated by virtue of God. No more, no less. All the praises given to her are meant to glorify God. All the dogmas attached to her are to demonstrate the power, glory and love of God, who raised a lowly vessel to work such marvels for her.
Mary's only doing in this whole picture of Salvation is her whole hearted, unconditional and eternal "yes" to the will of God.
>>>>>Thanks for being so concerned about us. Don't worry. We are being mocked all the time. God never promised us an easy ride, even though He did promise that the Gates of Hell would never hold out against His church. And if what you say is true, then we deserve that mocking.
>>>>>>You still do not get the point. What I was trying to say is that this passage is a very weak case to use to support the case of Mary interceeding for us. Just like in Science, when you want to assert something, you better make sure you have a stronger case before you do so. Otherwise, you lose all credibility. Being mocked because of preaching the truth is different from being mocked because of lack of credibility. I am pretty sure you know that.
>> Those examples you gave are not very great. The thing is, are they asking in accordance to God's will.  I am not trying to imply that every prayer will be answered. But God do listen to all of our prayers.

>>> Agreed. Those were not good examples but it was to point out that we should not underestimate the significance of Jesus responding to Mary even though He felt that His time had not come yet.
7 Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: 8 for every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened. 9 Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone? 10 Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent? 11 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?

God do listen to our prayers and will answer them if it is in accordance to his will. As for Mary, it's clear that when Jesus performed the miracle, He was glorified in the end as well.
"Jesus did this, the first of his signs, in Cana of Galilee and it revealed his glory and his disciples believed in him". Similarly, I could also say that Jesus was not obligated to bless the Canaanite woman as well. So are we to now venerate the Canaanite woman?

>>>Regarding Canaanite woman, yes, we should praise her for Jesus praised her. She might not have a name or position but her faith is a model for us all.

>>>>She did not become as venerated as Mary did she? And what do you mean by praised. Keep in mind that she is still a sinner like the rest of us. Now, I dun think praising someone is an issue but venerating someone is going too overboard dun you think? After all, she is still a sinner.
>>>>>Veneration are for those heroes of faith, those who suffered for the sake of Christ, those who did God's will despite having a sword pierce their hearts, those who kept through till the end. Yes, we praise them. We imitate them. We venerate them. We ask them to pray for us.
>>>>>>The fact is that they are still sinners. But then by doing that, you are elevating them to something more then they are. I really do not know how you are not able to see that.

>>>>>>>Again, something we will never agree on. Going nowhere, yeah?

By the way, since you are very interested in what Catholics belief in, I must ask you, have you read the Catechism of the Catholic Faith? Have you ever been to a Mass, the Eucharistic celebration?
I hope so because every now and again, Catholics come across people who mean well but who have a very confused idea about what the Catholic church teaches and what Catholics do. I would be the first to admit, there are even Catholics who are confused. Unfortunately sometimes people start questioning Catholics based on what they hear, on what they read on the internet forums or worst still, from avowed anti-Catholic literature (eg Chick's tracts and the like) or even ex-catholics who have a bone to pick.
Want to know the truth about the Catholic faith? Read the Catechism and come for a Holy Eucharist celebration and find out the meaning of the mass.
Otherwise if just concerned, pray for Catholics. And we will pray for you.
 
We certainly will be able to debate the length and breath of the bible and Catholic beliefs in these pages. And as you can see, often, there is more than one side of the coin. However hopefully this discussion has shown you that Catholic practices definitely have biblical roots (and, sorry to repeat again, roots in Sacred Tradition) and that we are definitely not some "whore of Babylon" or "the anti-Christ" as some might gleefully claim.
>>That's still a subject for debate.

Lastly, I can't promise to reply to all further inquiries after this as it is time consuming. Unless it is a very short and precise concern and can be answered quickly.
*
TSyeeck
post Apr 25 2016, 11:34 AM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
3,576 posts

Joined: Apr 2006


Appreciate that you guys reformat your responses properly so that we can see clearly who wrote what.
SUSsylar111
post Apr 25 2016, 02:11 PM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
2,547 posts

Joined: Jun 2008
From: KL


QUOTE(sylar111 @ Apr 25 2016, 10:09 AM)

*
Unfortunately this is not what Paul wants us to do. He does not want to receive the kind of praises that you are giving him through special Feast days. 1 Corinthians 3 is pretty clear that Paul does not want us to regard him more then what we ought to. I would think Paul wants us to pray directly to Jesus instead of relying on him to pray for us. God already provided the holy spirit to pray for us. God also provided our fellow brothers and sisters to pray for us. Even though Paul is alive in heaven, he is dead on earth. Since he is already dead from our current perspective, what more do you expect from him Why are you relying on someone who is already dead to pray for us. It's as absurd as expecting our dead ancestors to bless us from heaven. You do know how absurd this is right? I think if it's our dead ancestors, your religion will probably say you shouldn't ask the dead to pray for you but if it's say "saint paul", it suddenly becomes ok. Double standards right?

Ok I agree wth you. The sead of Mary means that the birth cannot be compared to a surrogate birth. But somehow, even then, Jesus never address her directly as mother. It's pretty strange dun you think? I dunno. Physically, I cannot really say much. I am not involved in medical science. But then, it's pretty significant that Jesus never addressed her as mother.

Just ask any common people what is their impression of someone being called the Mother of God. Whether this entity is being compared to God. It just showed how far you have gone. I will not even bother to address this.

I never implied that just because he came upon as a man means that he cannot be God. The fact of the matter is, when you call Mary the Mother of God, you are now implying that Jesus preceded Mary. If Jesus preceded Mary, how can he be God? This is our natural understanding to what Mother is. I have repeated this and yet you still cannot get it. It's pitiful actually.

Again you conveniently ignore the fact that Jesus never addresses Mary as Mother. Fascinating. You seem to have very, very selective memory.

She was called that when the Angel announce to Mary that she was going to give birth to Jesus. Do you want me to be totally specific with you in everything because it seems that you are picky in things that do not matter and not bothering to answer the actual questions being asked.

Actually there is not much evidence or proof for most of your traditions. They are just traditions derived from your church and your church just justify those traditions by using verses to support their claims even though those verse are very weak actually when it comes to supporting those claims. But then you really have no choice. You probably got attracted by the traditions, history and organization but you never compare those things with the scripture.

For example, you can never answer the reason why Jesus never addressed Mary as his mother. You just conveniently bypass this fact. I have repeated this many times and you never address this.

BTW, her title was not full of grace. Please look into other versions, it is pretty clear.
TSyeeck
post Apr 25 2016, 04:36 PM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
3,576 posts

Joined: Apr 2006


If our ancestors were Catholic, we definitely asked them to pray for us, and at the same time pray for them. When it comes to a canonized saint, then it is the infallible teaching of the Church which tells us that so and so is a model of faith worthy of imitation and is definitely in Heaven, as per the keys of binding and loosing given by Christ Himself.

Jesus does refer to Mary as Mother. On the cross, He said, "Woman, behold, your son!." And then He told John, "Behold, your mother!."

Nope it is your misunderstanding regarding the term Mother of God. The Church taught this very clearly that Mary is a creature but is truly the mother of the second Person of the Blessed Trinity (true God and true Man). There are other examples from Scripture.

" The Lord said to my Lord: Sit thou at my right hand: Until I make thy enemies thy footstool." - Ps 110:1.

Does that verse means we have more than one Lord God, as accused by the Muslims? Did you ever wonder also why did Jesus called Himself "Son of Man". If He is God as you claimed to believe, does it mean Man preceded Him? smile.gif

You said that is your natural understanding of Mother. Ah, but Christians must not only look at the natural perspective but also the supernatural perspective of the mysteries of Christianity.

As for Tradition/Scripture, instead of going in circles over and over, just show us where is Bible alone taught. Simple as that.
shioks
post Apr 25 2016, 04:40 PM

On my way
****
Senior Member
627 posts

Joined: Jun 2009
To me, what you are saying is sounded like typical Chinese Taoist praying to and/or praying through their ancestor.
TSyeeck
post Apr 25 2016, 06:20 PM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
3,576 posts

Joined: Apr 2006


QUOTE(shioks @ Apr 25 2016, 04:40 PM)
To me, what you are saying is sounded like typical Chinese Taoist praying to and/or praying through their ancestor.
*
We still honour our ancestors as they are our family members, as it is natural to do so. But there is a difference between the Taoist way which believes the spirit resides in the spirit tablet and the Christian way (in their images). Taoists offer food to their ancestors. Christians are forbidden to do so. Basically, when it comes to the departed, we pray for the repose of their souls. But when it comes to a person recognized by the Church as saint which means the Church recognizes their heroic virtues and is in Heaven, then we can confidently ask for their prayers and intercession. I've mentioned before that asking our departed family members to pray for us is not peculiar to Catholicism.

Just because there are apparent similarities doesn't mean it is the same.
DRBS
post Apr 25 2016, 08:54 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
110 posts

Joined: Sep 2012


QUOTE(sylar111 @ Apr 25 2016, 02:11 PM)
Unfortunately this is not what Paul wants us to do. He does not want to receive the kind of praises that you are giving him through special Feast days. 1 Corinthians 3 is pretty clear that Paul does not want us to regard him more then what we ought to. I would think Paul wants us to pray directly to Jesus instead of relying on him to pray for us. God already provided the holy spirit to pray for us. God also provided our fellow brothers and sisters to pray for us. Even though Paul is alive in heaven, he is dead on earth. Since he is already dead from our current perspective, what more do you expect from him Why are you relying on someone who is already dead to pray for us. It's as absurd as expecting our dead ancestors to bless us from heaven. You do know how absurd this is right? I think if it's our dead ancestors, your religion will probably say you shouldn't ask the dead to pray for you but if it's say "saint paul", it suddenly becomes ok. Double standards right?

Sorry. Repeating what I wrote in previous entry.
Yes, of course one can go directly to God. But being humans, we also like to ask others to pray for us. Especially for the times when we are not able to pray for ourselves (too busy, asleep, sick, dying etc).
And it makes a lot of sense to ask those who have gone before us, those who have fought the good fight and run the good race and who are living in communion with our Heavenly Father, to be our main cheer leaders in running the race. You might recall, even the rich man in the story of Lazarus, who was condemned, wanted to intercede for his remaining family who were still on earth. How much more must is be for our brothers and sisters in Christ who are now with God.


The catholic church looks upon it all as a giant family. The church is also divided into the Church militant (Us), the church suffering (those who have died) and the Church triumphant (those who are Saints). Those who have gone before us to heaven is the church triumphant. We are in communion with them in worshiping our Heavenly Father. We believe that they are even more fully alive than us. Who better to pray for us than those who are closest (in being and in state) to God. See Revelations 5:8


Ok I agree wth you. The sead of Mary means that the birth cannot be compared to a surrogate birth. But somehow, even then, Jesus never address her directly as mother. It's pretty strange dun you think? I dunno. Physically, I cannot really say much. I am not involved in medical science. But then, it's pretty significant that Jesus never addressed her as mother.

About Jesus addressing His mother as woman, there is a very important explanation at the bottom.

Just ask any common people what is their impression of someone being called the Mother of God. Whether this entity is being compared to God. It just showed how far you have gone. I will not even bother to address this.

So is it offensive to call Mary "the mother of our Lord"? Is it offensive to call Mary "the mother of Jesus"? Is Jesus truly God?
UK had a Queen and a Queen mother at the same time. Just language, my friend.


I never implied that just because he came upon as a man means that he cannot be God. The fact of the matter is, when you call Mary the Mother of God, you are now implying that Jesus preceded Mary. If Jesus preceded Mary, how can he be God? This is our natural understanding to what Mother is. I have repeated this and yet you still cannot get it. It's pitiful actually.

You might be interested to know that the main reason the title of Mary, mother of God was used was to respond to a heresy in the early  past denying that Jesus was truly God and that He was just a man. 

Again you conveniently ignore the fact that Jesus never addresses Mary as Mother. Fascinating. You seem to have very, very selective memory.

About Jesus addressing His mother as woman, see explanation at the bottom

She was called that when the Angel announce to Mary that she was going to give birth to Jesus. Do you want me to be totally specific with you in everything because it seems that you are picky in things that do not matter and not bothering to answer the actual questions being asked.

Apologies. I thought you were mentioning that Elizabeth only called Mary "Blessed" after she was pregnant. I only wanted to point out the the Angle of the Lord called her the same thing even before she was pregnant. No big deal

Actually there is not much evidence or proof for most of your traditions. They are just traditions derived from your church and your church just justify those traditions by using verses to support their claims even though those verse are very weak actually when it comes to supporting those claims. But then you really have no choice. You probably got attracted by the traditions, history and organization but you never compare those things with the scripture.
For example, you can never answer the reason why Jesus never addressed Mary as his mother. You just conveniently bypass this fact. I have repeated this many times and you never address this.

Catholics see in the Wedding of Cana much more that just Mary saying "Do as He tells you". There is a strong biblical reason why Mary is referred to as Woman, and it has nothing to do with disrespect.
If you really, really want to understand the Wedding of Cana in John 1, pray and open up your mind to God. Then read this commentary
https://stpaulcenter.com/studies/lesson/les...-garden-in-eden


BTW, her title was not full of grace. Please look into other versions, it is pretty clear.
*


[COLOR=red]By the way, since you are very interested in what Catholics belief in, I must ask you, have you read the Catechism of the Catholic Faith? Have you ever been to a Mass, the Eucharistic celebration, which is the pinnacle of Catholic prayer and worship?
I hope so because every now and again, Catholics come across people who mean well but who have a very confused idea about what the Catholic church teaches and what Catholics do. I would be the first to admit, there are even Catholics who are confused. Unfortunately sometimes people start questioning Catholics based on what they hear, on what they read on the internet forums or worst still, from avowed anti-Catholic literature (eg Chick's tracts and the like) or even ex-catholics who have a bone to pick.
Want to know the truth about the Catholic faith? Read the Catechism and come for a Holy Eucharist celebration and find out the meaning of the mass.
Otherwise if just concerned, pray for Catholics. And we will pray for you.

SUSsylar111
post Apr 25 2016, 10:37 PM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
2,547 posts

Joined: Jun 2008
From: KL


QUOTE(yeeck @ Apr 25 2016, 04:36 PM)
If our ancestors were Catholic, we definitely asked them to pray for us, and at the same time pray for them. When it comes to a canonized saint, then it is the infallible teaching of the Church which tells us that so and so is a model of faith worthy of imitation and is definitely in Heaven, as per the keys of binding and loosing given by Christ Himself.

Jesus does refer to Mary as Mother. On the cross, He said, "Woman, behold, your son!." And then He told John, "Behold, your mother!."

Nope it is your misunderstanding regarding the term Mother of God. The Church taught this very clearly that Mary is a creature but is truly the mother of the second Person of the Blessed Trinity (true God and true Man). There are other examples from Scripture.

" The Lord said to my Lord: Sit thou at my right hand: Until I make thy enemies thy footstool." - Ps 110:1.

Does that verse means we have more than one Lord God, as accused by the Muslims? Did you ever wonder also why did Jesus called Himself "Son of Man". If He is God as you claimed to believe, does it mean Man preceded Him? smile.gif

You said that is your natural understanding of Mother. Ah, but Christians must not only look at the natural perspective but also the supernatural perspective of the mysteries of Christianity.

As for Tradition/Scripture, instead of going in circles over and over, just show us where is Bible alone taught. Simple as that.
*
Your interpretation of Woman, behold your son is totally off. Did your church actually teach that to you? If your church taught that to you, all I can say is your church is a no hopper.
Enough said.

There are other examples from scriptures and yet you have to quote from your traditions and your traditions from your church that I disagree with.Rather pathetic dun you think.

Of course if there are scriptures whereby Jesus gave the same kind of respect to Mary as you guys, it would have been more acceptable.

Using the wrong verse trying to justify your claims.

Son of man is to establish his human identity. Maybe the other thing to consider is, why is it that Jesus was never titled as son of mary.
As I said earlier, I am ok with acknowledging that Mary is the mother of Jesus but then to call her the Mother of Jesus is a different issue. Only the Catholic church fails to understand the significance of this. But then they adapt from other pagan religions after all.

Haha, now you are villifying me. Typical cultish behavior. You are just following your church example that's all. Villifying everyone that disagrees with you. But same church. Same spirit I guess,

I meant to say Jesus preceded Mary. But if you read my argument, it's obvious.



Yeah, so I have to follow your pathetic church in order to have a spiritual understanding of Mary. ok. When I was talking about natural order, I was demonstrating something. Learn something instead of your pathetic traditions will you?

I wasn't even teaching about scripture alone. You really need to see a doctor.

This post has been edited by sylar111: Apr 25 2016, 11:13 PM
SUSsylar111
post Apr 25 2016, 10:50 PM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
2,547 posts

Joined: Jun 2008
From: KL


QUOTE(yeeck @ Apr 25 2016, 06:20 PM)
We still honour our ancestors as they are our family members, as it is natural to do so. But there is a difference between the Taoist way which believes the spirit resides in the spirit tablet and the Christian way (in their images). Taoists offer food to their ancestors. Christians are forbidden to do so. Basically, when it comes to the departed, we pray for the repose of their souls. But when it comes to a person recognized by the Church as saint which means the Church recognizes their heroic virtues and is in Heaven, then we can confidently ask for their prayers and intercession. I've mentioned before that asking our departed family members to pray for us is not peculiar to Catholicism.

Just because there are apparent similarities doesn't mean it is the same.
*
You confirmed it. No one is saying it is the same. But the intention is still the same.

But I guess you do not know how to differentiate between intention and same.

Ok.
TSyeeck
post Apr 25 2016, 10:55 PM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
3,576 posts

Joined: Apr 2006


QUOTE(sylar111 @ Apr 25 2016, 10:50 PM)
You confirmed it. No one is saying it is the same. But the intention is still the same.

But I guess you do not know how to differentiate between intention and same.

Ok.
*
Intention? Honour them. It is not a sin to honour God's friends.

You made it sound like, since pagans use incense, we can't use incense....lol.

134 Pages « < 61 62 63 64 65 > » Top
Topic ClosedOptions
 

Change to:
| Lo-Fi Version
0.0403sec    0.40    6 queries    GZIP Disabled
Time is now: 5th December 2025 - 11:37 PM