God-bearer, certainly, but...
The Confessing Evangelical has also been spending some time reading Ratzinger documents. Read some of his thoughts on John Paul II's dedication of the world to Mary....
Fatima: the other stuff
Right on.
The Confessing Evangelical has also been spending some time reading Ratzinger documents. Read some of his thoughts on John Paul II's dedication of the world to Mary....
Fatima: the other stuff
Right on.
posted by trawlerman at 8:54 PM
2 Comments:
It's private revelation, so I could care less whether Catholics or non-Catholics think its a crock. The important point of the messages from Fatima was for people to repent and return to God.
As far as the consecration is concerned I offer the following I dug up:
"To speak of consecration, that is, of total dedication of the human being with his problems, anxieties, legitimate aspirations and hopes, to another created person, however holy and sublime, may sound like an offence against God and Jesus Christ, and a humiliating loss of our freedom. And this seems even more true when the subject of the consecration is the whole of humanity. Is not God, in fact, the only Being to whom man owes all of himself, both as an individual, or a society, seeing that he is the Author, Guardian and ultimate end of individuals as of the human community? Undoubtedly! Since the total dedication of the human person is reserved to God, One and Three, and to the God-man, it can be extended to a human creature only if and insofar as the latter shares in the divine sovereignty, and is subordinated to the supreme consecration to God. (C. Feckes, The Consecration of the Church and the World to Mary, in 'Mariologia', P. Straeter, III, Page 169). Well, Mary both as Mother of God and as intimate co-operator with the Son in the plan of redemption, shares to a certain degree, even if to a minor extent, and dependent on him, the rights of spiritual sovereignty over all redeemed creatures; and she exerts them not to her own advantage and glory, but in regard to the triumph of the reign of truth, sanctity, love, justice and peace of her Son."
Peter John | 04.25.05 - 8:33 am | #
Would it be seen as a great offense if I consecrated myself to the service of a great and Godly King during the High Middle Ages, and imploring him to my aid? I hope not. If this great and Godly King "shares in the divine sovereignty, and is subordinated to the supreme consecration to God".
How much more then are we allowed to consecrate ourselves to the Blessed Virgin, most elevated and Godliest of all created beings, so intimately connected with her Divine Son in His Redemptive mission.
It gets old hearing implicit or explicit charges of "Mary-worship" or "Mariolotry". If others don't want to involve themselves in hyperdulia to the Blessed Mother or petition for her intercession that's their perogative. But we will do it dammit, because we revel in her Motherhood of the Most High God and all that follows from such a sublime gift.
Peter John | 04.25.05 - 8:47 am | #
Gravatar Pete, I don't have the time or energy to respond just right now, but I do have a response. (of course I do).
Basically, my response would be this, only more in-depth.
If I go to a Godly king and ask him to deliver us from war and famine, I am doing so because I believe that he has the power to do something about war and famine. If his response to my petition is to go to God in prayer (the classic RC intercession of the saints explanation), but not actively, physically, tangibly do something about war and famine in the kindom, then he is not responding to my request for deliverance. It was good of him to go to God in prayer, but he has not satisfied my petition by doing so.
John Paul II was petitioning Mary to deliver us from war and famine, amonst other things. Are you going to tell me that all he meant by this was that he wanted Mary to go to God in prayer about this. Or did he truly seek Mary to be the deliverer?
By saying that Mary can actively participate herself in the affairs of the world, one is saying that the heavenly saints actually do a lot more than prayerful intercession.
If you want to honor Mary and other Saints and want them to pray for you, I can understand that. I don't totally agree with it, as you know, but I can understand it, and don't think that it's an awful, dreadful thing.
If you want Mary or any other Saint to deliver you "from sins ["against the life of man" or "against the Holy Spirit"]," as John Paul II evidenced, then I sure as hell will accuse you of "Mariolotry," no matter how "old" it gets to hear.
(I had to throw in that "hell" to balance out your "dammit") _
Trawlerman | Homepage | 04.25.05 - 11:13 pm | #
>>>If you want Mary or any other Saint to deliver you "from sins ["against the life of man" or "against the Holy Spirit"]," as John Paul II evidenced, then I sure as (censored!) will accuse you of "Mariolotry," no matter how "old" it gets to hear.
I would want to know if you think:
1) Does fervent intercessory prayer by the faithful actually cause any practical effect in the affairs of this life?
2) If yes, do the prayers of the faithful have a greater or lesser effect dependent on their degree of love/obedience ... to Christ or are all individuals prayers equal regardless?
Peter John | 04.27.05 - 8:34 pm | #
Gravatar You've dodged the issue.
(yes, prayer causes effects.
yes, there can be degrees. but back to my last comment...)
If you ask me to deliver you from your financial debts, and I give you $200,000, have I delivered you from your financial debt?
I say yes.
If you ask me to deliver you from your financial debts, and I get down on my knees and pray to God about it, have I delivered you from your financial debt?
I say no.
Besides,
Would it be proper for me to say,
"Peter Johnson, deliver me from my sins"
?
What would you do in that situation? Would you say "no, it is not I that can deliver you, but Christ alone," or would you say, "yes, I shall deliver you, let me do so now through the power of my prayers."
?
Trawlerman | Homepage | 04.27.05 - 9:33 pm | #
Now that you've answered my questions, it makes a response easier.
>>>If you ask me to deliver you from your financial debts, and I get down on my knees and pray to God about it, have I delivered you from your financial debt?
I say no.
If I get down on my knees and pray to God, and you get 200,000 dollars because God responds to my prayer, how is that a "no".
Of course ultimately God gave you the 200,000 dollars (through whatever means He used) that is understood from the outset, that is a given. But His action is the result of my prayers, and He would not have blessed you with that gift without my prayers, I would count that as a "yes".
Peter John | 04.27.05 - 10:43 pm | #
>>>Besides, Would it be proper for me to say, "Peter Johnson, deliver me from my sins"? What would you do in that situation? Would you say "no, it is not I that can deliver you, but Christ alone," or would you say, "yes, I shall deliver you, let me do so now through the power of my prayers."
The problem is when JPII's statements are viewed as if he is speaking about the Virgin Mary in isolation, and speaking to her as if she is the source of Salvation ... ... Catholics always view the Virgin Mary in conjunction with Christ, they are intimitely united and inseparable.
This is a given, it is already assumed, that "Christ alone" can deliver us from our sins. Any role that the Virgin Mary plays (or any of us play) is strictly subordinate and wholly dependent upon God and only as a result of God giving us that role to play. These are all basic Catholic assumptions which make JPII's statements not reek of Mary-worship in the least. He doesn't need to qualify every statement with the above assumptions when they are already assumed and self-evident to the Catholics he is speaking to.
These petitions are framed around the fact that intercessory prayer causes practical effects (on which we are agreed), and those effects aren't restricted to the physical well-being of individuals, but also the spiritual well being of individuals. Therefore, there is a proper sense in which Peter Johnson can deliver from your sins through his prayers. Utimately of course it is Christ alone who delivers, without Him I could pray indefinitely to no avail. But with Him I can have a practical effect on the lives of my brothers and sisters lives around me in the role he has given me to play for that purpose within His Body. And that proper sense I describe is no other than the Catholic teaching.
Peter John | 04.27.05 - 11:03 pm | #
Gravatar Greetings -
It probably isn't wise for me to stick my nose into a family discussion, but I am yet young and foolish my ability to resist the temptation has been overcome.
. . . I'd like to pick up a slightly different angle to this discussion. There has been talk about how John Owen or Pete Johnson views this or that, but what does scripture have to say about the issue at hand?
There is quite a bit of applicable scripture (a study of the complete book of Hebrews would be a good start) but I will offer just a bit so as not to cause a deluge.
In 1 Tim. 2:5-6 it says, "For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all men"
In all of the discussion contained in the previous comments I have wondered how Pete Johnson understood this passage from 1 Tim. It says, "one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus."
I am interested in your understanding of this passage. How is prayer to Mary, or any other person, not a contradiction with this passage of scripture?
Then we also read in Hebrews 7:24-25, "[. . .] because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood. Therefore he is able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them."
Two observations: (1) It is coming to God through Jesus Christ, not someone else. (2) the efficaciousness of his intercession is tied to his living forever. That is, if the intercession of the priests that came previously ceased at the time of their death doesn't this also hold for the rest of us who serve God? In light of this passage from Hebrews how can you say that those now dead can still presently intercede on our behalf? Doesn't such a position contradict this passage of scripture?
These two quotes from scripture only begin to scratch the surface of the issue. However, considering that I am contributing to a discussion uninvited I will stop at this point rather than wear out my welcome any further.
As an aside: I think a contributing problem in this discussion may be errors in understanding the nature and function of prayer. I shall leave it undiscussed at present except to throw out a question: Is prayer like money where the righteous have much and the less righteous little? Does getting God to act simply require getting enough righteous people to pray so that enough "money" is offered to God to fulfill the request? (Any answer to this question can only be found in scripture, but I throw the questions out as something to be considered.)
Rundy Purdy | Homepage | 04.28.05 - 2:44 pm | #
>>>It probably isn't wise for me to stick my nose into a family discussion.
Your nose ain't that big. Come on board.
>>>. . . I'd like to pick up a slightly different angle to this discussion. There has been talk about how John Owen or Pete Johnson views this or that, but what does scripture have to say about the issue at hand?
>>>We are bantering about this broadly. We already understand where each other are coming from to a certain extant, and I don't think either of us gets a great deal of pleasure from dueling Scripture passages alone.
>>>In 1 Tim. 2:5-6 it says, "For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all men"
I am interested in your understanding of this passage. How is prayer to Mary, or any other person, not a contradiction with this passage of scripture?
That our salvation is completely dependent upon that atoning Sacrifice of Christ. "Pray to" the Virgin Mary (or any other Saint) translated from Catholicspeak essentially means asking that Saint to pray for you (and in principle is no different from you requesting Temin [sp.?] or Papa Ivan to pray for you) and in no way diminishes that unique mediatorship of Christ.
>>>(1) It is coming to God through Jesus Christ, not someone else.
As above, it is permissible for others to pray for us.
>>>(2) the efficaciousness of his intercession is tied to his living forever. In light of this passage from Hebrews how can you say that those now dead can still presently intercede on our behalf? Doesn't such a position contradict this passage of scripture?
Christ is our eternal High Priest. We are also a "royal priesthood" (in Him) and part of our priesthood is to offer intercession to Christ for our brothers and sisters in Christ.
As those who have gone before us are not "dead", but "alive in Christ" before His face, they also continue in this priestly function as the Church Triumphant (they don't cease to be members of the Body of Christ when they physically die).
>>>Is prayer like money where the righteous have much and the less righteous little? Does getting God to act simply require getting enough righteous people to pray so that enough "money" is offered to God to fulfill the request? (Any answer to this question can only be found in scripture, but I throw the questions out as something to be considered.)
I don't view prayer that mechanistically, there is a much greater mystery behind each of these
doctrines, so as you say the surface is only scratched on this side of heaven.
Consider James 5:16-20 (I think John will find this interesting as well).
"Confess therefore your sins one to another: and pray one for another, that you may be saved. For the continual prayer of a just man availeth much. 17 Elias was a man passible like unto us: and with prayer he prayed that it might not rain upon the earth, and it rained not for three years and six months
Peter John | 04.28.05 - 6:23 pm | #
(James 5 continued)
"And he prayed again: and the heaven gave rain, and the earth brought forth her fruit. 19 My brethren, if any of you err from the truth, and one convert him: 20 He must know that he who causeth a sinner to be converted from the error of his way, shall save his soul from death, and shall cover a multitude of sins."
Peter John | 04.28.05 - 6:25 pm | #
Gravatar Peter,
I've had James 5 in the back of my head from the very start.
I'm going to stop my end of this conversation here now, simply because I have nine days of school left and a decent amount of work left to do.
I'll probably still find time to make posts here, I just don't have the energy to engage in electronic debate. Hope you don't think that's a cop-out.
Despite all of this work that needs to be done, tonight I am going to relax and watch a movie, I think probably John Huston's faithful adaptation of Hammet's The Maltese Falcon.
Trawlerman | Homepage | 04.28.05 - 8:00 pm | #
You're probably much busier than I. I had a really easy week, and nothing better to do than hang out on your blog for 8-9 hours a day.
Did you see the latest post on my blog yet?
Good luck over the next couple of weeks with school.
Peter John | 04.28.05 - 8:19 pm | #
Gravatar Rundy,
Thanks for stopping by here, and thanks even more for commenting. I also appreciate your wanting to bring things in line with the scriptures. That is commendable.
I hope that you do stop by here often and contribute whenever you feel like it.
I'm ending my side of this discussion here, but feel free to keep up the conversation with Pete if you would like to.
I did want to answer one question of yours, though.
You ask: "Is prayer like money where the righteous have much and the less righteous little?"
I answered "yes" to this question of Peter's, "If yes, do the prayers of the faithful have a greater or lesser effect dependent on their degree of love/obedience ... to Christ or are all individuals prayers equal regardless?"
There are degrees of prayer. As Peter reminded us, "For the continual prayer of a just man availeth much."
Other places in Scripture we find that other prayers can be an abomination. One such example is Proverbs 28:9, "He that turneth away his ear from hearing the law, even his prayer shall be abomination."
The prayers of the righteous man "availeth much." The prayers of the man that has despised God's Law are an "abomination."
So, no, prayer is not like money, but, yes, some prayer is valuable and other prayer is worthless.
As far as your biblical objections to certain Marian practices of the RC church, I am very sympathetic, but as Pete as said, he and I are mostly aware of each other's basic biblical assumptions and interpretations. We both love the Scriptures and we are both aware of passages in 1 Timothy and Hebrews. We both seek to be obedient to the Scriptures, and we both think that the other person is seriously mistaken about what this means.
and so on.
P.S. I've added your blog to my blogroll. You can't hide now!
Trawlerman | Homepage | 04.28.05 - 8:37 pm | #
Gravatar We are bantering about this broadly.
I picked up on the presence of banter . . . I guess my question would be: is there any serious discussion present also or are you just busting each other like brothers are wont (yeah, I've been guilty), with no further productive goal? That's allowed, of course, but in that case I don't really have much to add.
We already understand where each other are coming from to a certain extant
Obviously this is where my sticking my nose in puts me at a disadvantage. I don't really know precisely where either of you are coming from. What I got is only what I've picked up.
I don't think either of us gets a great deal of pleasure from dueling Scripture passages alone.
Neither do I. I think we've all seen those type of arguments . . .
But, at the same time, I perceive that if one is discussing spiritual matters the prerequisite to any kind of mutual understanding is a discussion anchored in scripture. Otherwise isn't it nothing more than people sharing a lot of conjecture and opinion?
I concede the comments of a blog is not exactly the place to properly handle an in-depth study of scripture and as such there is a great tendency to devolve into dueling scripture. So, I don't see this conversation going very far. Still, I don't see that as a reason to not take it as far as possible. If two seemingly contradictory pieces of scripture are presented both parties would be best served to seek and understanding that reconciles the perceived contradiction.
I confess my two reasons for speaking up were:
(1) It seemed both you and John were coming to this discussion with differing presuppositions and so, like two dogs chasing their own tails, the conversation wasn't really getting anywhere. (Of course, if you are doing nothing more than "bantering" that is the nature of the beast.)
(2) I have never previously got a chance to poke a live Catholic. I don't expect I shall change your mind on anything but I am interested to see if I will learn anything new about the twisted nature of the catholic mind by poking you with this sharpened stick . . .
"Pray to" the Virgin Mary (or any other Saint) translated from Catholicspeak essentially means asking that Saint to pray for you (and in principle is no different from you requesting Temin [sp.?] or Papa Ivan to pray for you) and in no way diminishes that unique mediatorship of Christ.
That's Teman . . . you got it pretty close for 10+ years passage of time.
Back on topic . . . my interest is not in Catholicspeak and its translation as such. Rather I am interested in the biblical text and understanding of that text which you see as justifying your position. To say that "Catholics" think or hold to one thing or another really means nothing. At one point "Catholics" were certain the world was flat and were willing to put Galileo on trial for it. But that was a Catholic persuasion that time had shown to be somet
Rundy Purdy | Homepage | 04.28.05 - 10:12 pm | #
Gravatar Ouch. You should put a warning about truncation by this evil commenting system. Thankfully, I wrote my lengthy comment in a different program so all is not lost. Picking back up:
Back on topic . . . my interest is not in Catholicspeak and its translation as such. Rather I am interested in the biblical text and understanding of that text which you see as justifying your position. To say that "Catholics" think or hold to one thing or another really means nothing. At one point "Catholics" were certain the world was flat and were willing to put Galileo on trial for it. But that was a Catholic persuasion that time had shown to be something that came from men, not God. (And of course, one can dig up similar dirt on Protestant sects as well, the point holds for us all.)
In the case at hand I think I can fill in the blank of scripture you see as teaching the particular doctrine you've put forward—namely James 5:16-20.
Putting aside the issue of whether the Catholic church truly puts the prayers of humans in its proper place, I would like to focus on the "nature" of our intercession. That is, you missed the point of what I was getting at in my reference to the passage in Hebrews. Broadly, I was trying to draw attention to the truth contained in scripture that our physical death does bring out a change in our state.
Any Old Testament High Priest that was truly serving God was also alive in Christ insofar as they are now with Christ in heaven along with the rest of the believers. However, the book of Hebrews makes it clear that when OT the high priest died he was no longer able to intercede. The death of the priest's physical body (not his spirit) prevented him from continuing to intercede.
Christ was raised from the dead and he does now intercede for us. But all those who are dead (physically) in Christ have not been raised from the dead, yet. Yes, they are alive in Christ spiritually, but if that were the same as being clothed in a body, why would our bodies need to be raised?
In reading Hebrews do you understand that Christ could have fulfilled his priestly interceding function without the resurrection? Or was the resurrection a necessary part? And if his resurrection was a necessary part, how do you justify your position that the rest of us who have died in the flesh can yet intercede without our resurrection? How can we continue our priestly function without our resurrected bodies if Christ Jesus could not? Is the servant (us) greater than our master?
That is what I was trying to get you to address. Yes, all who have died in Christ are alive spiritually—both those priests and people of the OT and us who are priests of the NT. But for all of them their bodies are presently dead, yet waiting the resurrection. Christ is the first fruits of the resurrection, now before God interceding. The rest are not yet resurrected.
What do you understand Hebrews to be saying?
I have tried to consciously avoid discussing
Rundy Purdy | Homepage | 04.28.05 - 10:14 pm | #
Gravatar Truncaited again:
. . .
I have tried to consciously avoid discussing the actual nature of prayer itself in this post. I put my question as an aside at the bottom of my previous post but I see it as related, but I'm trying to keep my focus concise. If I can find time, and there seems to be interest and profit in the matter, I will give some response to the "prayer question" at a later time. At present it seemed to me the nature of intercession was a block closer to the bottom of the stack, so to speak.
Anyhow, I'm interested in your thoughts.
Rundy Purdy | Homepage | 04.28.05 - 10:15 pm | #
Gravatar John -
Thanks for mentioning that you won't be replying to the thread any longer. I understand completely. It is good to mention to reason because it is easy to think you've made someone mad when there is no response to what you've written.
You're welcome to read my blog. It's not where I write my "religious" material, or much technological related. Mostly the mutterings of a post-homeschooled, now writing, member of a large family.
I'll keep your invitation in mind, but I actually rarely comment on blogs. Partly because I keep busy but also because if I am moved to respond my thoughts are usually more verbose than a comment system can happily handle. I find my communication works best in a slightly different medium.
Rundy Purdy | Homepage | 04.28.05 - 10:26 pm | #
>>>no further productive goal.
No, we both are serious when it comes to matters of faith and the above was meant to be productive.
>>>Otherwise isn't it nothing more than people sharing a lot of conjecture and opinion.
Even many discussions anchored in Scripture are still nothing more than
"people sharing a lot of conjecture and opinion". It's a long story, but one of the reasons I became Catholic was the lack of objectivity of a religion I claimed was based on Divine Revelation (which of its very essence should be objective, and not subjective.)
>>>"would be best served to seek and understanding that reconciles the perceived contradiction".
Agreed.
Peter John | 04.30.05 - 11:26 am | #
>>>"like two dogs chasing their own tails, the conversation wasn't really getting anywhere."
We actually were getting somewhere (in my opinion). I understand where he's coming from a bit clearer.
>>>"I am interested to see if I will learn anything new about the twisted nature of the catholic mind by poking you with this sharpened stick"
Ouch. You may find the Catholic mind to be anything but twisted, and actually a most logical and coherant expression of the Christian faith (although I won't pretend that I am the best example in this regard).
>>>To say that "Catholics" think or hold to one thing or another really means nothing. At one point "Catholics" were certain the world was flat and were willing to put Galileo on trial for it. But that was a Catholic persuasion that time had shown to be something that came from men, not God.
It actually means a great deal. The Galileo affair had nothing to do with dogma. I wrote little bit about it on my blog as well. You should read the article I linked to as well.
http:// animachristi.blogspot.com...ti_archive.html
If that link doesn't work, its in the comments under the post "Why I Have A Love Affair With Dogma" in the November posts.
Peter John | 04.30.05 - 11:42 am | #
>>>"Hebrews makes it clear that when OT the high priest died he was no longer able to intercede. The death of the priest's physical body (not his spirit) prevented him from continuing to intercede."
I think a very important point that needs to be made here is that any Old Covenant High Priest was not "alive in Christ" after he died.
No one was made "alive in Christ" and was present with Him until after His ressurection.
Following the fufillment of the Old Covenant with the coming of Christ, the temporary and inefficatious Priestood of the O.T. was "replaced" with the eternal and life-giving Sacrifice and High Priesthood of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
>>>In reading Hebrews do you understand that Christ could have fulfilled his priestly interceding function without the resurrection? Or was the resurrection a necessary part? And if his resurrection was a necessary part, how do you justify your position that the rest of us who have died in the flesh can yet intercede without our resurrection? How can we continue our priestly function without our resurrected bodies if Christ Jesus could not? Is the servant (us) greater than our master?
I think after me chasing down all those rabbit trails, this seems to be your central question. It is a great question, one that I have never been asked, and have never thought about in those terms. Honestly, I don't have a good answer "off the cuff". Be assured that you will get an answer, though it may take several days. Thanks for making me think. I'll try to keep my answer Scripturally based, as I think that is what you want to see as the basis of my answer, (and should be).
Peter John | 04.30.05 - 12:09 pm | #
I made a mistake, the Galileo thing is under the comments to my November post "This Is The Future" here:
http:// animachristi.blogspot.com...e.html#comments
Peter John | 04.30.05 - 12:15 pm | #
Gravatar I'm in the middle of writing a paper and was foolish enough to look here to see if any new comments had sprouted.
I'm going to go back to my paper, but I just wanted to concur that Rundy's point is an excellent one, and one that I had never thought of either, but it is beautiful in its stress on the resurrection. Bravo, Rundy! I thought so before and should have commented before Pete beat me to it. I should also mention that I am always grateful for Pete's honest, humble "I don't know" answers.
Okay, sorry to rejoin a conversation that I had claimed to be finished with. Carry on.
Trawlerman | Homepage | 04.30.05 - 3:35 pm | #
Gravatar I was not going to get involved in this dissuasion as it is well known that one Purdy is a crowd; two Purdy's is a lynching mob. But a comment of yours interested me. You said…
"It's a long story, but one of the reasons I became Catholic was the lack of objectivity of a religion I claimed was based on Divine Revelation (which of its very essence should be objective, and not subjective.)"
That long story of yours is something I would be interested in.
Since I have opened my big mouth, I think I will poke you a little bit myself. I appreciate you allegiance to scripture, but I think that it is causing you to misrepresent Catholic doctrine in order to make it more defendable in light of scripture. This is slightly pretentious statement coming from a non-catholic, but I am merely comparing what you are saying to what I read in conservative Catholic sources. It is not as though I really care if you are correctly representing Catholic Church or not. I am more interested in what you believe than in the official Catholic position. But since you complain about "It gets old hearing implicit or explicit charges of "Mary-worship" or "Mariolotry". If others don't want to involve themselves in hyperdulia to the Blessed Mother or petition for her intercession that's their perogative. But we will do it dammit, because we revel in her Motherhood of the Most High God and all that follows from such a sublime gift." I thought I would throw in few things that I object to in Catholic teaching. (all my quotes are going to be coming from the Catholic Encyclopedia see http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/ .) For example….
Teman Purdy | 05.01.05 - 8:12 pm | #
Gravatar "Today, the belief in the corporeal assumption of Mary is universal in the East and in the West; according to Benedict XIV (De Festis B.V.M., I, viii, 18 ) it is a probable opinion, which to deny were impious and blasphemous."
To my mind you can only be blasphemous about something that should be worshiped. By the way, if I understand my sources right. Pope Benedict XIV is one of the main authors of the dogma of Mary assumption. See http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/...then/ 02006b.htm for the article that this quote was taken from.
Also this, which does not need commentary,
"By promulgating the Bull Munificentissimus Deus, 1 November, 1950, Pope Pius XII declared infallibly that the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary was a dogma of the Catholic Faith. Likewise, the Second Vatican Council taught in the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium that "the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, when her earthly life was over, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things (n. 59)."
This one has more to do with praying to any of the saints.
According to Catholic doctrine, therefore, the source of indulgences is constituted by the merits of Christ and the saints. This treasury is left to the keeping, not of the individual Christian, but of the Church. Consequently, to make it available for the faithful, there is required an exercise of authority, which alone can determine in what way, on what terms, and to what extent, indulgences may be granted.
See http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/...then/ 07783a.htm for the above.
Teman Purdy | 05.01.05 - 8:14 pm | #
Gravatar Or this
The Council of Constance condemned among the errors of Wyclif the proposition: "It is foolish to believe in the indulgences granted by the pope and the bishops" (Sess. VIII, 4 May, 1415; see Denzinger-Bannwart, "Enchiridion", 622). In the Bull "Exsurge Domine", 15 June, 1520, Leo X condemned Luther's assertions that "Indulgences are pious frauds of the faithful"; and that "Indulgences do not avail those who really gain them for the remission of the penalty due to actual sin in the sight of God's justice" (Enchiridion, 75S, 759), The Council of Trent (Sess, XXV, 3-4, Dec., 1563) declared: "Since the power of granting indulgences has been given to the Church by Christ, and since the Church from the earliest times has made use of this Divinely given power, the holy synod teaches and ordains that the use of indulgences, as most salutary to Christians and as approved by the authority of the councils, shall be retained in the Church; and it further pronounces anathema against those who either declare that indulgences are useless or deny that the Church has the power to grant them (Enchridion, 989). It is therefore of faith (de fide)
• that the Church has received from Christ the power to grant indulgences, and
• that the use of indulgences is salutary for the faithful,
Since the satisfaction of Christ is infinite, it constitutes an inexhaustible fund which is more than sufficient to cover the indebtedness contracted by sin, Besides, there are the satisfactory works of the Blessed Virgin Mary undiminished by any penalty due to sin, and the virtues, penances, and sufferings of the saints vastly exceeding any temporal punishment which these servants of God might have incurred. These are added to the treasury of the Church as a secondary deposit, not independent of, but rather acquired through, the merits of Christ.
Teman Purdy | 05.01.05 - 8:16 pm | #
Gravatar And finally,
During St. Cyprian's time (d. 258 ), the heretic Novatian claimed that none of the lapsi should be readmitted to the Church; others, like Felicissimus, held that such sinners should be received without any penance. Between these extremes, St. Cyprian holds the middle course, insisting that such penitents should be reconciled on the fulfillment of the proper conditions. On the one hand, he condemns the abuses connected with the libellus, in particular the custom of having it made out in blank by the martyrs and filled in by any one who needed it. "To this you should diligently attend ", he writes to the martyrs (Ep. xv), "that you designate by name those to whom you wish peace to be given." On the other hand, he recognizes the value of these memorials: "Those who have received a libellus from the martyrs and with their help can, before the Lord, get relief in their sins, let such, if they be ill and in danger, after confession and the imposition of your hands, depart unto the Lord with the peace promised them by the martyrs " (Ep. xiii, P.L., IV, 261). St. Cyprian, therefore, believed that the merits of the martyrs could be applied to less worthy Christians by way of vicarious satisfaction, and that such satisfaction was acceptable in the eyes of God as well as of the Church.
Teman Purdy | 05.01.05 - 8:19 pm | #
Gravatar Peter -
Even many discussions anchored in Scripture are still nothing more than
"people sharing a lot of conjecture and opinion".
Of course, the easiest thing for people to do is babble. Quoting a lot of scripture doesn't necessarily mean anything. The distinction I was trying to bring out was between those people who talk because there are interested in their opinion, and people who discuss because they are interested in coming to a better understanding of what God is saying. And God has spoken to us preeminently through his word (and his Son) thus my comment.
It's a long story, but one of the reasons I became Catholic was the lack of objectivity of a religion I claimed was based on Divine Revelation (which of its very essence should be objective, and not subjective.)
Ooh, I could have a lot of fun with that loaded statement.
It actually means a great deal. The Galileo affair had nothing to do with dogma. I wrote little bit about it on my blog as well. You should read the article I linked to as well.
I read the article on Galileo, also looked at your post in November. A lot of interesting stuff in the comments . . . won't respond to it here or now as it is not the place.
I think after me chasing down all those rabbit trails, this seems to be your central question.
Yes, at least part of what I was getting at. There is a lot I wanted to develop here, but refrained.
It is a great question, one that I have never been asked, and have never thought about in those terms. Honestly, I don't have a good answer "off the cuff". Be assured that you will get an answer, though it may take several days. Thanks for making me think. I'll try to keep my answer Scripturally based, as I think that is what you want to see as the basis of my answer, (and should be).
Yes, an exposition of scripture is what I am interested in. Actually, you shouldn't feel obligated in coming up with an "answer." Thoughtful examination might bring more questions you would like to put forward instead of answers. That's allowed.
The subject which I have touched on is one with a lot of breadth and depth (I think). I quoted that small bit from Hebrews not because it was all scripture had to offer for insight but because it seems the more lengthy I become the more "rabbit trails" I accidentally create which can lead the talk astray.
I am biting my tongue a bit because I fear that if I go on with more scripture I will simply be dragging the conversation in MY direction. So I shall bide my time and perhaps pick on John over his answer to the prayer question . . .
I will be impressed if you manage to put together a response in a few days, Pete. It would take me weeks. But I am interested if you ever manage.
Rundy Purdy | Homepage | 05.01.05 - 8:32 pm | #
>>>I was not going to get involved in this dissuasion as it is well known that one Purdy is a crowd; two Purdy's is a lynching mob.
Lynch away.
>>>That long story of yours is something I would be interested in.
My e-mail is petefeet@hotmail.com
I'm always open to questions.
>>>Since I have opened my big mouth, I think I will poke you a little bit myself.
Easy with the sticks boys.
>>>I appreciate you allegiance to scripture, but I think that it is causing you to misrepresent Catholic doctrine ...I am merely comparing what you are saying to what I read in conservative Catholic sources.
Then you must show me specifically what I have mis-stated in regards to Marian dogma and how those specifics are at odds with those Catholic sources you consider "conservative" (I think orthodox is a much better term). I think you'll have a great deal of trouble doing so.
>>>It is not as though I really care if you are correctly representing Catholic Church or not. I am more interested in what you believe than in the official Catholic position.
It may not be important to you but it is very important to me. Being Catholic does not mean I have unlimited freedom to pick and choose what I wish to believe off of the Catholic buffet of truth. Many American Catholics do exactly this, and they have really ceased being Catholics, and are essentially neo-Protestants and reformers in their own kind. Quite simply, as a Catholic, I believe what the Catholic Church as the Body of Christ authoritatively teaches in regard to faith and morals.
Peter John | 05.01.05 - 8:37 pm | #
>>>To my mind you can only be blasphemous about something that should be worshiped. By the way, if I understand my sources right. Pope Benedict XIV is one of the main authors of the dogma of Mary assumption.
I agree blasphemy primarily relates to God Himself. However it can in a more general sense be applied to making light or disparaging holy and sacred matters of the faith that relate to Him.
Catechism of the Catholic Church
CCC 2148 "Blasphemy is directly opposed to the second commandment. It consists in uttering against God - inwardly or outwardly - words of hatred, reproach, or defiance; in speaking ill of God; in failing in respect toward him in one's speech; in misusing God's name. St. James condemns those "who blaspheme that honorable name [of Jesus] by which you are called."78 The prohibition of blasphemy extends to language against Christ's Church, the saints, and sacred things. It is also blasphemous to make use of God's name to cover up criminal practices, to reduce peoples to servitude, to torture persons or put them to death. The misuse of God's name to commit a crime can provoke others to repudiate religion.
Blasphemy is contrary to the respect due God and his holy name. It is in itself a grave sin.79"
Regarding the rest of your post relating to indulgences and the Assumption of Mary, I am in complete agreement with the Church, of course. If you disagree with something specific feel free to post.
Peter John | 05.01.05 - 8:52 pm | #
>>>I will be impressed if you manage to put together a response in a few days, Pete. It would take me weeks. But I am interested if you ever manage
I'm on call this week and probably will be quite busy, but I'll try to put it up in the next few days. Don't expect it to be too in-depth (I'm no Scripture scholar nor a theologian), but I do think that charitably discussing Scripture, even opinionated, can be helpful.
Peter John | 05.01.05 - 8:57 pm | #
Gravatar Pete,
I hope I did not offend you when I said that I thought that you misrepresented Catholic teaching. It is just that when you responded to my brother you said…
That our salvation is completely dependent upon that atoning Sacrifice of Christ. "Pray to" the Virgin Mary (or any other Saint) translated from Catholicspeak essentially means asking that Saint to pray for you (and in principle is no different from you requesting Temin [sp.?] or Papa Ivan to pray for you) and in no way diminishes that unique mediatorship of Christ.
It seem clear to me from some of the things that I quoted that praying to Mary or the Saints is not considered that same as asking a fellow believer to pray for you in the Catholic Church. The way I read Catholic teaching, the saints and martyrs and Mary have their own store of righteousness that they can bestow on those who beseech them. That is the thing that you claim that Catholics don't teach when you talk to my brother and John.
Then you must show me specifically what I have mis-stated in regards to Marian dogma and how those specifics are at odds with those Catholic sources you consider "conservative" (I think orthodox is a much better term). I think you'll have a great deal of trouble doing so.
I trust that the Catholic encyclopedia meets your definition of a good source and I agree that orthodox is a better term than conservative.
Teman Purdy | 05.01.05 - 9:44 pm | #
Gravatar My main point about Pope Benedict XIV comments were that he regarded not believing that Mary was assumed is blasphemy. Given all the importance that orthodox Catholics place on the doctrines of Mary, it is hard for me to see how you can compare what she does in catholic doctrine to what we are called to do for one in other in the Bible.
Teman Purdy | 05.01.05 - 10:07 pm | #
Gravatar Peter
A quick one -
In what Teman quoted above it says "the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, when her earthly life was over, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things"
And,
"there are the satisfactory works of the Blessed Virgin Mary undiminished by any penalty due to sin"
How do you square this with Romans 3:23-24 "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus."
Also, Romans 5:12 "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned" (So also 1 Cor. 15:22)
How is there no contradiction?
Secondly, in your comments at http:// animachristi.blogspot.com...e.html#comments you said "There have been many individuals from the beginning of time within the Catholic Church that have promoted heretical doctrines, but not in dogmatic Church teaching. The infamous sale of indulgences for the forgiveness of sins comes to mind, but the Catholic Church never stated that indulgences forgave sins in any official teaching. Trent reiterated the dogma of what the Catholic Church believed regarding indulgences."
But your statement seems contradicted by "In the Bull "Exsurge Domine", 15 June, 1520, Leo X condemned Luther's assertions that "Indulgences are pious frauds of the faithful"; and that "Indulgences do not avail those who really gain them for the remission of the penalty due to actual sin in the sight of God's justice" Here Leo X is condemning Luther's assertion that indulgences do not avail them for the remission of the penalty due to actual sin.
[Continued . . .]
Rundy Purdy | Homepage | 05.01.05 - 10:11 pm | #
Gravatar [Previous continued . . .]
And, in the council of Trent you mention it says "The Council of Trent (Sess, XXV, 3-4, Dec., 1563) declared: "Since the power of granting indulgences has been given to the Church by Christ, and since the Church from the earliest times has made use of this Divinely given power, the holy synod teaches and ordains that the use of indulgences, as most salutary to Christians and as approved by the authority of the councils, shall be retained in the Church; and it further pronounces anathema against those who either declare that indulgences are useless or deny that the Church has the power to grant them (Enchridion, 989)."
The Council of Trent denies that indulgences are useless. Peter, if you think indulgences are not useless, what is their biblical purpose?
I rather suspect I have an idea of how you will try to wiggle out of the council of Trent, but what about Leo X? Luther says indulgences don't bring the remission of the penalty for actual sin, Leo X says they do. What about you?
I realize this is all repeating what Teman posted, but you asked for specifics so I am trying to highlight areas where it what you claim to hold is in contradiction.
I have a feeling you and John have already argued over this many times but I hope you can excuse Teman and I for not having been present at that time. We are rather drowning this comments section, I realize. And not giving you a chance to answer my first thoughts on Hebrews.
Rundy Purdy | Homepage | 05.01.05 - 10:13 pm | #
I don't have a great deal of time to post right now but it seems that most of what both of you posted above was in regards to indulgences and the application of the merits of the Saints to the faithful on earth.
Indulgences are NOT the forgiveness of actual sin. They do NOT justify us before God in any way. They do not keep us from eternal punishment in hell.
Indulgences are as states Leo X (and the Council of Trent)"the remission of the *penalty* due to actual sin in the sight of God's justice". It is the removal of temoral punishment due to sins, not the forgiveness of sins.
For a rather brief and superficial explanation regarding indulgences read this:
http://www.catholic.com/library/ ...Indulgences.asp
If you want to debate with Catholics, there is a discussion board on that site with over 20,000 people signed up. Of course, I'm always fun to poke as well.
Peter John | 05.02.05 - 11:41 am | #
Regarding the Immaculate Conception read this:
http://www.catholic.com/library/ ...n_and_Assum.asp
I'm not trying to dodge questions. I just want you to understand what the Catholic doctrine actually means before asking more specific questions.
After reading about Indulgences/Immaculate Conception if you still have specific questions post them and I'll answer them without referring you to catholic.com
Peter John | 05.02.05 - 11:46 am | #
Gravatar Pete,
I think it is about time to wrap this up. The shortness of the post in the comment section and lack of any kind of prior interaction renders communication between us even more confusing than is normal between mere mortals. And example of this would be…
You say I'm not trying to dodge questions. I just want you to understand what the Catholic doctrine actually means before asking more specific questions.
I think, and I could be wrong, that I have a good understanding of Catholic Doctrine. If go to external links section of Catholic.com you will find the link to web site I was quoting from (New Advent) just a space down from a link to the Vatican. The answers on Catholic.com are just simplified versions of what is on New Advent. New Advent covers all the points that you wanted to bring out about indulgences and then some. If I could have, I would have posted that whole section in New Advent on indulgences so that I would not be accused of misrepresenting Catholic teaching.
Nor is New Advent my only source on Catholic teaching. I have read Witness to Hope which contained a lot of Pope John Paul's theology in his own words. I have read some of Saint Augustine's works. I have read countless other books that touched on the Catholic Faith in one form or another.
My point in dragging in the things that I did was not because I was unaware of the official answers of the Catholic Church to the problems that I thought that those doctrines posed but because I thought that way you where phrasing things misstated those doctrines. This was probably just because I did not understand you. The comments section of some one's blog is not a very good place to carry on a discussion.
It was not entirely in vain, though, because now I know that you are truly an orthodox Catholic with all that it implies
Teman Purdy | 05.02.05 - 8:55 pm | #
>>>"The comments section of some one's blog is not a very good place to carry on a discussion.
It was not entirely in vain, though, because now I know that you are truly an orthodox Catholic with all that it implies."
I agree. John and I were primarily discussing petitioning for the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary, not the merit of the Saints or those merits applied to the faithful through indulgences. It is easy to misunderstand in any event. I wasn't offended in any way by any of your comments. Perhaps you and Rundy have a better grasp of Catholic doctrine than I give you credit for. I am so used to answering to caricatures of Catholic doctrine that so many people hold to.
Please continue to feel free to comment on any of our blogs in the future. Perhaps you could start your own blog, I think we would all be interested in how your Christian life is informed, expressed, lived.
God Bless
Peter John | 05.02.05 - 9:41 pm | #
Gravatar I also agree that we are pretty well killing this comment thread. A lot more could be said, but the very fact that we keep broadening the discussion is drowning the thread. A proper web forum is really a better place to have this much back and forth writing.
John and I were primarily discussing petitioning for the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary
I think Teman and I understood the subject matter. Perhaps contributing to the confusion is that myself and Teman look at arguments/discussions from a different perspective than most people. While the majority of people take only the discussion at hand we look beyond this to the presuppositions that lay behind a position and what conclusions the arguments leads too. So, it sometimes might have seemed we were adrift when in reality we were addressing ourselves to problems in presupposition or conclusion.
Rundy Purdy | Homepage | 05.03.05 - 2:51 pm | #
Gravatar As something of a wrap up for my participation in this comment thread:
My intent had been to bring the whole issue of intercession forward. What is the nature of our intercession? Can humans who have died in the flesh and not yet been resurrected intercede? Obviously the answer to these questions affects the discussion about petitioning Mary and these must be answered before we can address Mary in particular. So, in my case I was trying to take a step backward to deal with some presuppositions behind the whole issue of Mary's intercession (and by no means was I dealing with all the presuppositions in play!)
If I may be so bold as to speak briefly on Teman's behalf . . . I think part of what instigated him to write was what he perceived as your interpretation of "Catholicspeak." I think Teman and myself saw your statement ""Pray to" the Virgin Mary (or any other Saint) translated from Catholicspeak essentially means asking that Saint to pray for you (and in principle is no different from you requesting Temin [sp.?] or Papa Ivan to pray for you)" as a "fudging" of Catholic doctrine so as to make it seem less offensive to those of "Reformed" disposition.
Mary, according to Catholic doctrine is "preserved free from all stain of original sin, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, when her earthly life was over, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things " and also "undiminished by any penalty due to sin" As queen over all things, now present in heaven in her resurrected body (while the rest of believers are not) as free from the corruption of sinful nature (unlike the rest of believers who have lived and died in the corrupted nature of Adam) and as Co-Redeemer--I don't see Mary as "no different" from myself, according to Catholic doctrine.
I think Teman also felt that your statement that there was "no difference" between asking Mary (a sinless Co-Redeemer and Queen of all things) to pray and asking a brother in Christ, was not "orthodox" catholic teaching. His various quotes was (in a perhaps roundabout way) pointing out that according to orthodox Catholicism there is a BIG difference between Mary and the rest of us.
So he wasn't so much as trying to advance the argument as determine (as he just said above) how orthodox you really are.
Anyhow, that wraps up my summarization. I guess if I feel incited to pursue this any further I will do so via e-mail and not lengthen this comment section any further.
Rundy Purdy | Homepage | 05.03.05 - 2:52 pm | #
>>>So he wasn't so much as trying to advance the argument as determine (as he just said above) how orthodox you really are.
Well, now you know. A "heterodox Catholic" is really the greatest oxymoron. To be Catholic in essence is to stubbornly make Christian orthodoxy the center of your life.
The cost of becoming Catholic from my perspective was far too great to make the paradigm shift on any other basis than that I fully believed the claims of the Catholic Church to be true.
There are a lot of different animals in the Ark, and sometimes it can stink pretty bad, and there is a lot of crap that needs to be constantly cleaned up, but it is still the Ark.
Post a Comment
<< Home