Tuesday, October 28, 2008

We still don't know to whom to turn

The fun continues in the "...we will not know to whom to turn" combox. Thanks to GeneMBridges who has stepped in to provide some timely thoughts. Here are mine in regard to the last two Romanist comments.

TheDude,

I'd like you to imagine a context in which the declaration to Mary: "If you will not help us because we are ungrateful and unworthy children of your protection, we will not know to whom to turn" would be comparable to a Reformed pastor saying "Christ died for all men". Limited Atonement is not a necessary article of faith to be saved, and besides that I don't think a seriously Reformed pastor would ever say that anyway. But recourse to CHRIST for forgiveness of sin IS a necessary article of faith, at least biblically. Apparently not in modern RC theology.
So make it as rosy and sunny as you can for your position. Create a scenario in which:
1) the Pope would actually be presenting Christ as the Savior, and
2) this statement would fit and make sense.

Similarly for de Liguori - in what kind of scenario is it permissible to ask for recourse to someone else to rescue you from Jesus? Let's make this a little more practical, more hands-on.

All this sounds suspiciously like you are trying to insert your individual interpretations in place of actual statements from a Pope and from a doctor of the church. It's very Protestant of you. Are you sure you don't want to visit my church this week?

I pray to all three persons of the Trinity, depending. What I don't do is tell a human that I have no hope if I disappoint that human.

Daniel Montoro said a few interesting things. Unfortunately, in none of them did he provide any evidence of an attack on his church in the post. I'm usually happy enough to attack the RCC, but I didn't do so in the post.
Montoro, ironically enough, attacks the church well enough in his acting like a Protestant all thru his comment. What an example for all Prots and Romanists alike to follow! If you don't like what the Magisterium says, just reinterpret it. Of course, isn't that what we Prots get accused of all the time, with regard to the Scr and patristic writings?

She leads people to Christ. Period.

Then why didn't the Pope say that? You sound like a Protestant too.
I'm not quite certain that the Pope would appreciate you correcting him. It appears to be the Protestants here who are taking the Pope at his word, and the Romanists who hasten to change his words.


Now you have to have a disgusting hatred of Mary, and in turn Jesus

B/c I speak up when someone says that there is no recourse if she is no recourse, I hate Mary?
May I honestly recommend you read Svenden's Who Is My Mother?
The short answer is that you are full of it - we don't hate Mary but rather love her and more pointedly her Son enough to want to keep them both in their proper places - Mary as a worshiper and disciple, Jesus as the only true God and Savior. What a disgusting thing to say!


these satanic comments

Nice.


You seem to me to be just like those holocaust deniers over there in Jersey.

Your blood be on your own hands, man.



still believe that Jesus will let you into Heaven?

Let's grant your point for a second. Where does Scr define demotion of Mary as a damnable offense? Where does Scr define mortal sin? How dare you judge my sin as mortal? How do you know that I have sufficient knowledge of the situation to make it a mortal sin, rather than a venial?


What about honoring your father and mother?

I thought Jesus didn't have any siblings. Mary is not my mother.


I think that this is what it means for you to be a separated brethern

Yes, that's what we need - a profane Roman layman to tell us what the Magisterium meant when it called Prots "separated brethren". I think I'll let the Catechism and the Pope do the talking, thank you.

31 comments:

Kepha said...

Rhology,

Out of love for neighbor, you should keep in mind that Catholics have a familial relationship with the Blessed Mother, so obviously they are going to get upset if you do not address marian issues respectfully.

On another note, since such language about Mary is not something that has to be used by Catholics, as it lies in the realm of piety, wouldn't it better to encourage Catholics to continue following the Resourcement Movement begun in their Church the 20th century and return to the sources. Helping Catholics return to the sources would help purge much of this marian language that dominates Catholic piety.

Rhology said...

Kepha,

Where have I denigrated Mary?

Also, was it not a Romanist who:
1) used profanity (abundantly) in his comment?
2) accused us of satanic comments?
3) compared us to Holocaust deniers?

What am *I* doing wrong here?

Kepha said...

Rhology,

I do not mean to come across as justifying or excusing the actions of Catholics in this area, specifically the one you've mentioned. I simply meant that you know, as does everyone else, that Mary is someone very dear to a Catholic's heart, so it would be wise when criticizing their beliefs about her to be as cautious as possible, not only because you are commanded to love your neighbor but also because it would be more fruitful in terms of dialogue.

Rhology said...

Noted; the Pope wasn't very cautious about his words, was he?
I cannot but speak when the only recourse mentioned by the leader of a "church" that takes the name of Christ fails to mention Him in such a way. The indignity done to the name of the Savior I love is far greater than the offense I may have rendered.

GeneMBridges said...

Love your neighbor...

Notice what Kepha (and for that matter a lot of folks leave out of that statement). Jesus, in accordance with Jewish tradition, cited part of the text to refer folks to the ENTIRE text.

One wonders if anybody who cites "love your neighbor" has bothered to read the rest of the text:

Here is the whole thing:

You (shall not hate your fellow countryman in your heart; you may surely reprove your neighbor, but shall not incur sin because of him.

18'You shall not take vengeance nor bear any grudge against the sons of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself; I am the LORD.

The text says not a word about being careful because people have strong beliefs that are dear to them or that we shouldn't upset them. It says you shall not incur sin when you reprove your neighbor or take vengeance upon him. Moreover, it has special reference to the covenant community itself. Your neighbor is not your enemy. Your neighbor is a member of the covenant community. Your neighbor isn't your enemy...but in preaching a false gospel and elevating Mary to a status she does not hold-and eliminating Christ's presence as the Pope himself did (and one more time, Rho just quoted him. How is that attacking anybody? What could more more "cautious" than quoting the Pope's own words?) is making yourself an enemy of the Gospel. Agreeing and defending that position is just as bad. Remember it was Jesus who held the Jewish leaders accountable when they bragged about building the tombs of the prophets - and thereby they became complicit to their murder by their forefathers.

And Jesus was addressing the misuse of this text by the Jewish leaders who added to it thusly: You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.

Now, unless Kepha can show that Rhology or we others are hating our enemies when reproving them, he hasn't a leg upon which to stand here.

The Dude said...

Hi Rhology,
My comment about the Reformed/Lutheran pastors was to highlight the fact that isolated statements here and there from a religious leader addressing his church should be (giving the benefit of the doubt at first) interpreted within that church's faith and official teaching. Once again, do you think the perspective you are offering on these comments gels with official RC teaching - does the RC teaching of intercession preclude Christ as Savior? Do you think that *maybe* the Pope's statement is to be taken in the context of intercession? I cite part of one of Anselm's prayers (I thought Protestants kind of liked Anselm and some of the other medievals who have similar prayers to Mary) that might shed some light on the sentiment behind the Pope's words:

"When I have sinned against the son,
I have alienated the mother,
nor can I offend the mother without hurting the son.
What will you do, then, sinner?
Where will you flee?
Who can reconcile me to the Son if the mother is my enemy,
or who will make my peace with the mother
if I have angered the Son?
Surely if I have offended you both equally
you will both also be merciful?
So the accused flees from the just God
to the good mother of the merciful God.
The accused finds refuge from the mother he has offended
in the good Son of the kind mother.
The accused is carried from one to the other
and throws himself between
the good Son and the good mother.

Dear Lord, spare the servant of your mother;
dear Lady, spare the servant of your Son.
Good Son, make your servant’s peace with your mother;
good mother, reconcile your Son to your servant.
When I throw myself between two
of such unbounded goodness
I shall not fall under the severity of their power.
Good son, good mother,
do not let me confess this truth about you in vain,
lest I blush for hoping in your goodness.
I love the truth I confess about you,
and I beg for that goodness which I hope for from you.

Tell me, judge of the world, whom you will spare,
tell me, reconciler of the world, whom you will reconcile,
if you, Lord, condemn, and you, Lady, turn away
your goodness and love from this little man
who confesses his sin with sorrow?
Saviour of each one, tell me whom you will save,
mother of salvation, tell me for whom you will pray.
...
God, who was made the Son of a woman out of mercy;
woman, who was made mother of God out of mercy;
have mercy upon this wretch,
you forgiving, you interceding,
or show the unhappy man to whom he may flee for safety
and point out in whose power he may more certainly confide."

Do you see how Christ is always assumed here in the relationship with Mary? Do you see how Anselm's words share a lot with the Pope's statement, and yet he is still mentioning Christ as Savior? There's a divide between Christ and Mary you are appropriating to the Pope's words which I don't think is necessarily valid *when you take into account the faith/teachings of the RCC*.

"All this sounds suspiciously like you are trying to insert your individual interpretations in place of actual statements from a Pope"

Well, considering only a couple of sentences were provided, not much we can do sadly. Maybe you can find some more evidence of this Pope not really thinking Christ is Savior and just pushing people to Mary by herself outside of an intercessory role that would support your perspective? Can you actually provide me a link with the full text of this speech? I've been unable to find it - I was able to find a report on the homily/mass he presided over (I believe the homily was separate from the statement you/TF quote) from that same day which said the Angelus was sung, which closes with:

"V. Pray for us, O Holy Mother of God.
R. That we may be made worthy of the promises of Christ.
We beseech thee, O Lord, pour thy grace into our hearts, that as we have known the Incarnation of thy Son Jesus Christ by the message of an angel, so by His Cross and Passion we may be brought unto the glory of His Resurrection; through the same Christ our Lord. Amen."

But maybe the Pope also didn't have the sentiments expressed there in mind when he made his statement.

"I pray to all three persons of the Trinity, depending."
Do you usually pray to the Father or to Christ for forgiveness?

Btw, I myself am not comfortable with some of the Marian devotion and piety, but am just trying to shed some light on how the Pope's words could very well be intended (unless we posit that he is somehow going beyond/against RC teaching which I think should be a last resort in interpreting him).

Carrie said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Rhology said...

TheDude,

The Pope didn't just say "Mary, intercede for us".
And what the heck kind of saintly intercession is it if the favor of the saint be lost, "we would not know to whom to turn"? There's always Jesus, isn't there? Not according to what the Pope said.

An aside: I don't know if I'm very precise in my prayers when I pray for forgiveness; I'm quite sure I'm 'guilty' of addressing both Father and Son.

The Dude said...

Hi Rhology,
No, he did not say 'Mary, intercede for us', though he did in the Angelus that same day, but maybe he's just inconsistent in his thought on a daily basis. But what's more plausible - he's elevating Mary above and against Christ to goddess-level beyond and against RC teaching or that he means his words to be understood in an orthodox manner? But again, I just don't see how the divide you are putting on his words between Christ and Mary is warranted when you consider the teachings and faith of the RCC within which his words should be interpreted.

"what the heck kind of saintly intercession is it if the favor of the saint be lost, "we would not know to whom to turn"?"

Marian intercession is of a different sort than 'normal' saintly intercession ("among the holy ones the most holy after God" as Anselm says). The thought behind the Pope's statement sounds very similar to Anselm's which I already cited:

"When I have sinned against the son,
I have alienated the mother,
nor can I offend the mother without hurting the son.
What will you do, then, sinner?
Where will you flee?
Who can reconcile me to the Son if the mother is my enemy,
or who will make my peace with the mother
if I have angered the Son?"

I'm still not sure how you keep putting this divide between Christ and Mary in the Pope's statement when the two are always intimately linked in Marian devotion; Christ is always presumed, any 'mercy' she shows is from grace and sourced from Christ. As if there's a battle of the wills between Christ and Mary in heaven or something, it just makes no sense within RCism.

Rhology said...

Fine, but again, why say "We don't know to whom to turn" if Mary won't help us?

What about Jesus?

The Dude said...

Hi Rhology,
We may be reaching an impasse.

"why say "We don't know to whom to turn" if Mary won't help us?
What about Jesus?"

Again, there is none of this separation or division (or even opposition of wills) between Christ and Mary your question keeps presupposing, Christ is always presumed - mary and Christ are intimately linked. Not being able to turn to Mary implies not being able to turn to Christ, not being able to turn to Christ implies not being able to turn to Mary. The connection is all laid out there in Anselm's prayer.

Do you think the Pope really means people shouldn't or can't turn to Christ or views Him as just an afterthought ("What about Jesus" - yes the Pope must think Jesus is unimportant relative to Mary) and has never exhorted people to Christ in his writings or preaching as either pope or cardinal/theologian? I mean, seriously. You're taking this one sentence addressed to RCs (I highly doubt he would use such wording with Protestants as this discussion is showing), imposing this foreign view on it, and totally ignoring the rest of the man's work as well as the teachings/faith of the RCC which should be used in trying to figure out his thought. We don't even have the full text of the speech for crying out loud.

But anyways I feel we may be repeating ourselves but I'll continue on if you have more questions or thoughts.

Rhology said...

between Christ and Mary your question keeps presupposing

No, not what MY question keeps presupposing. It's what the Pope's statement said.


Do you think the Pope really means people shouldn't or can't turn to Christ or views Him as just an afterthought

Either he thinks that there is no recourse if Mary will not come to our rescue, or he is confused, or he speaks contradictions. What other option is there FOR THIS STATEMENT?


imposing this foreign view on it

Let the reader judge whether I have imposed ANYthing on it. I don't know what you're talking about.
Words have meaning, you know.

Daniel Montoro said...

Rhology, you are just acting like an ignorant fool by asking that question. I've read some of Pope Benedict's writings. Everyone who isn't a liar and scumbag trying to attack Christ's church understands that the pope has taught that Jesus is THE savior, and that we can turn to him. I think that the word to describe the prayer is hyperbole. You might be able to pull a fast one on some of your retarded friends, but I can spot your satanic lies a mile away.

The Dude said...

Hi Rhology,

"Either he thinks that there is no recourse if Mary will not come to our rescue, or he is confused, or he speaks contradictions. What other option is there FOR THIS STATEMENT?"

If Christ does not come to our rescue, Mary does not come to our rescue. The problem I think comes from you thinking the Pope is saying Mary is somehow a separate force that wrestles with Christ (hence the "contradiction" -how can he say turn to Christ when he also says we have no one to turn to if we can't turn to Mary?). We have recourse to Christ, then we have recourse to Mary. We have recourse to Mary, then we have recourse to Christ. Again, you need to think of 2 wills operating in harmony, not this battle of the wills.

Daniel Montoro said...

"Yes, that's what we need - a profane Roman layman to tell us what the Magisterium meant when it called Prots "separated brethren". I think I'll let the Catechism and the Pope do the talking, thank you."

Okay Rhology, but you will have a profane psychopath like Martin Luther to tell you what the bible means, right? Hypocrite!

You expect me to believe that you will let the catechism and pope speak for themselves? Yea, right. You haven't before. You like to inject your insanity into what they are saying and ignore the facts like you've been doing all along. I don't buy into your crap for a minute.

Rhology said...

Daniel,

Your behavior gives you away. I'd suggest toning it down, for the sake of your own credibility. No one likes a playground bully.
Martin Luther was profane, but not a psychopath. But of course, our situations are disanalogous - Martin Luther is not a Pope, doesn't claim infallibility. Your church's Magisterium DOES, and calls into question the individual's authority/ability to interpret the Scripture or church history correctly. So when what you say is different from what they say, I'm going with them. Does your priest know that you've been spinning papal statements to separated brethren on the Internet, and then calling said separated brethren nasty and profane names, including "retarded" and "satanic"? I'm serious.

TheDude,

That would be a possible way out, yes, except he didn't say that. He didn't mention Jesus at all. That's most of the problem right there, actually.

Daniel Montoro said...

Rhology, you really expect me to believe your lies? I might not be as slick as you bible college heretics are, but I do have a lot of common sense. As a New Yorker, I can smell a rat a mile away. How about you trying to explain to me how my understanding of your separated brethern status as being any different from the teachings of the church? Instead of yapping at the mouth, how about you start backing it up with something? You use nothin but empty rhetoric. EMPTY!

Yea, you accuse the pope of teaching that we can't turn to christ, and that we worship mary, and all of that other bs, but when I explain to you that the pope was using hyperbole in the prayer you ignore my comment and just want to focus on me and my profanity. Then I bring up the fact that you excuse Martin "SATAN'S MINION" Luther's profanity and you excuse it again. You are a hypocritical SATANIC LIAR!!!

How about you try doing something different for a change? How about you try being honest for a change?

You lie about the pope.
You lie about mary.
You lie about catholics.
How are you not satanical?

Jesus is the truth and you have no truth in you.

Rhology said...

Prove I'm lying. Be specific.
Or is proof another one of those things that only Bible-college heretics know about?
(And I don't have any formal theological education, just FYI.)

And your opinion of separated brethren - you've been calling me 'satanic' and Luther 'Satan's minion'.
You know, "brethren" means something, doesn't it? It's the plural of "brother". That is not the same thing as "minion of Satan".
At any rate, even if Romanism is correct, I'm still in good shape b/c I'm a separated brother, your protestations to the contrary notwithstanding. You're not in the Magisterium. You're acting like a Protestant. I can recommend a good Presbyterian church in the NY area, if you'd like to keep indulging in your predilection to live by your own interpretations.

Daniel Montoro said...

Rhology, you said that, "keep them both in their proper places - Mary as a worshiper and disciple, Jesus as the only true God and Savior".

Catholics believe this. You are using this statement to try to contrast it with my faith. This is a lie. A LIE! Where does the church say any different? Where does the church say that Jesus isn't the only true God and Savior? Where does the church say that Mary isn't a worshiper and disciple? YOU are the one who is disgusting. YOU are the one who make these satanic lies.

Why do you feel the need to lie about my church in order to attack it? I know why, and it is because your pathetic hate is incapable of seeing the truth.

That's the point, Rhology, bible college heretics are not concerned with the truth. They only want to promote their propaganda and hate speech like Jack Chick and James White. I have family who have studied in college and a couple have law degrees. They have mentioned to me that most of these bible college heretics can't even go to the same schools as my family because of their poor education, and that is only if they actually went to a credible school. I will admit that I don't have a college education. And I admit that I have a very limited understanding of things. So you won't catch me skipping around acting as if I'm some kind of scholar like your kind does.

Rhology, you dishonest hypocrite this is what I wrote on separated brethern, "My cousin Mikey's brother Tony got into a huge fight with my uncle Mike. He was caught stealing from him. There is no way in hell my uncle will allow him to come back for the holidays and enjoy the family until Tony apologizes and at least attempts to return the money as much as he can. My uncle is a generous man, but he isn't a fool. He will not allow Tony to abuse him. Tony must ask for forgiveness and start living like a good son. I think that this is what it means for you to be a separated brethern. You are not going to be able to enjoy the family until you begin to act like a member of it."

How is that any different than what the catholic church teaches? Stop evading the question!

I live in Atlanta now, where I get attacked regularly by a bunch of bible "christian" hate mongers. I miss the Bronx. We don't tolerate that crap up there.

GeneMBridges said...

If Christ does not come to our rescue, Mary does not come to our rescue.

Why should we believe that Christ and Mary are linked together in such a way? Anselm isn't our rule of faith.

To date, no Roman Catholic commenter here has given us a nonarbitrary biblical warrant for this assertion.

Which means this: Why should we believe that Mary even has the power to rescue anybody? Why bother with Mary when you can go directly to Christ? That's the big issue the Romanists keep missing. Why settle for anything less than Christ alone. What makes Christ + Mary better than Christ Himself, all by Himself?


Rhology, you dishonest hypocrite this is what I wrote on separated brethern, "My cousin Mikey's brother Tony got into a huge fight with my uncle Mike. He was caught stealing from him. There is no way in hell my uncle will allow him to come back for the holidays and enjoy the family until Tony apologizes and at least attempts to return the money as much as he can. My uncle is a generous man, but he isn't a fool. He will not allow Tony to abuse him. Tony must ask for forgiveness and start living like a good son. I think that this is what it means for you to be a separated brethern. You are not going to be able to enjoy the family until you begin to act like a member of it."


Actually, you prefaced that statement with a question about whether Jesus would let any such person into heaven.

So are you saying that disparaging Mary is a mortal sin? If it's venial, so what? According to Catholicism don't we go to Purgatory? Aren't you heading there too? Do you presume that Jesus is going to let you into heaven? What does Trent call that? I do believe it calls that the sin of presumption.

Additionally, you've made no case as yet that Mary is being "denigrated." In order to do that, you need to establish that praying to the saints is a valid practice. You need also to make the case for the veneration of Mary. That's just for starters. You'll also need to make a case for the treasury of merit.

So, here's your chance, Daniel. Go for it.

Daniel Montoro said...

Being a heretic will send you to Hell. You do not follow the correct teachings of christianity. You are worse than a pagan. My church came before yours. It wasn't until that satanic psychopath Martin Luther arrived on the scene that your bible alone heresy started a heretical movement. So I'm sorry, moron, but you have to prove to me that your faith is the right one. Scripture warns of punks like you. It tells us that false teachers will try to take us away from the true faith. Well you are not going to have me.

Tell me, where does it say in the bible that I have to prove to you from the bible? You disgrace the bible by puting words in it that aren't there. You disgrace the bible by interpreting it in ways that God did not intend.

If you were such a knowledgeable guy, such a high and mighty scholar, you would know what the catholic church teaches about mortal and venial sin, wouldn't you? As it stands, you don't know your rectum from your elbow. So I'm supposed to believe that you have the right doctrines as opposed to the catholic church when you can't even figure out what mortal sin is?

Grave matter.
Full knowledge.
Deliberate intent.

Denigrating the mother of God, who according to Jesus is also your mother, is grave matter. "Honor your Father and Mother". You know that it is sinful to denigrate the mother of God, and if you don't then you are worthless as a christian. And you are intending to denigrate Mary.

Praying to the saints is valid, it is in accordance with the Kingdom of God, Revelation, and the historical practice of the church. If you don't know this then you don't know christian history. But who can blame you, heaven knows what they brainwash you with in bible college.

Venerating Mary is venerating God's good work. Why is this so hard to understand? Meanwhile you spit at God's good work by asking us to ignore it. God did a great thing in Mary. And we should honor her who said yes to God. "Every generation shall call me blessed". Does that not mean anything to you? Its in the bible isn't it? Oh how convenient to overlook that passage, just as you overlook John 6. You spit on the bible with your heresy. Isn't calling her blessed venerating her? What's the difference genius? We are venerating God's work. Scripture venerates her, so why don't we you also venerate her? Satan also refuses to venerate her. You shall know them by the company they keep. Think about it.

Daniel Montoro said...

By the way Rhology, Cain was Able's brother too and he was the son of the devil. Just as your heretical lies are! So don't try to bring that brotherly crap up to me. You should know your bible better, no wonder you admit that you have zero theological training. You seriously believe that you can slip by me with these Luther inspired lies?

Shawn said...

I'm just a causal observer, I have been for some time now.

Rhology, you said:

"TheDude,

That would be a possible way out, yes, except he didn't say that. He didn't mention Jesus at all. That's most of the problem right there, actually."

Ah, not so fast. You're changing the rules of your game. "Imagine any scenario." You've actually admitted defeat on this one.

You can disagree (based on whichever criteria you choose) with the churches doctrine here, but in my humble opinion it is ludicrous to assert either a)the Pope is ignorant of the churches teaching or b)is willfully abandoning the churches teaching.

The Dude clearly got the better of you on this one.

Matthew said...

The intimate connection between Our Lord and Our Lady is quite simple to explain. All orthodox Christians confess the hypostatic union, i.e., Christ had two natures, divine and human, and both perfectly. The divine nature is the Second Person of the Trinity, Who was with the Father in the beginning and through Whom He created the world. The human nature of Christ came from the Virgin Mary of Nazareth, who assented to bear her Maker in her whom (thus the ancient term Theotokos), a grace granted by God's gratuitous election of her. All of the human flesh of the Christ, Jesus of Nazareth, was shared with the source of that flesh, Mary Most Holy, and as the Paschal Mystery of Christ reversed the sin of Adam the first man, so too was the sin of Eve the first woman reversed by the joyful assent to the Divine plan given by Mary at the Annunciation.

Without Mary, there would have been no Incarnation. Without an Incarnation, Christ would not have a human nature, and we would be unable to know God. Thus, we, in accord with the ancient church, venerate Mary more highly than any other created being, for, full of God's grace, she brought our Creator into His creation for the sake of our redemption. If that does not qualify one to be praised and honoured as Co-Redemptrix, I don't know what does.

Rhology said...

Daniel Montoro,

You're a lot of fun, man. If anyone needed a further reminder of the value of the Reformation on this Reformation Day, they have but to read your postings.

From everyone, I'm hearing a lot of "we don't believe that" but not a lot of "here's how to fit the Pope's actual statement in with the reality of what we say we believe about Jesus' and Mary's respective roles in redemption".

The Dude said...

Hi Gene,
"Anselm isn't our rule of faith."

Sure, but I was just using him to show how the Pope's words could be understood in an orthodox manner which was the thrust of the OP, not to defend the whole doctrine of intercession/veneration.

"Why should we believe that Mary even has the power to rescue anybody?"

Why do Catholics/EO believe priests have the power (not of their own) to forgive sins? Incarnation changes things up.

"Why bother with Mary when you can go directly to Christ?"

Why bother asking for any intercessory prayer from anyone (even only those living on earth) on our behalf?

Rhology said...

As if asking a living person for prayer is analogous to asking a dead person for prayer.

bkaycee said...

Why would anyone need to plead with Mary to save them FROM Jesus(soften His heart, etc...)

AND why is this misguided piety not addressed by the Pope or anyone for that matter?

Matthew said...

I would believe my previous comment was a direct answer to your question regarding the role of Mary in redemption, referred to in the Holy Father's comments; did it elude, you, Rhology? Thus, I'll restate it somewhat differently. The redemption of mankind was wrought by the incarnate God's paschal suffering and death. God took His humanity of Mary, who willing assented to bear God to the world: "Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it done to me according to Thy word." The incarnate Christ was hypostatically both God and man completely--His Godhead being in that He is eternally begotten from the Father, and His manhood in his virgin birth from Mary. To deny Mary's role as ancilla Domini is to deny Christ's humanity, and thus to deny the Incarnation, and it is heresy. To deny her role as Mother of God is to deny Christ's divinity, and that is also heresy.

Rhology said...

I missed all that in what the Pope said.
More Protestantising from the Romanists in the combox. Why can't you just take the man at his word?

Matthew said...

Firstly, the words are not the Pope's; he is citing Bl. Bartolo Longo. Second, I have not addressed the statement so much as the context of Catholic Marian devotion, theology, and spirituality, without which Longo's statement would be incomprehesible.

We are taking the man at his word, and I am not intending in this to offer an apology for his statement. Christ incarnate is profoundly presupposed in any Marian statement. Pray tell, sir, exactly what is your question?