Not much to say, actually...
With the words of Bartolo, the Pontiff turned to Mary, saying: "If you will not help us because we are ungrateful and unworthy children of your protection, we will not know to whom to turn."
No wonder he should say that:
...For, if Thou protect me, dear Mother, I fear nothing; not from my sins because Thou wilt obtain for me the pardon of them; nor from the devils, because Thou art more powerful than all hell together; nor even from Jesus, my Judge, because by one prayer from Thee, He will be appeased. But one thing I fear, that in the hour of temptation, I may through negligence fail to have recourse to Thee and thus perish miserably...(Alphonsus de Liguori, Our Lady of Perpetual Help)
My gracious, it is so sad.
Act 16:29 And he called for lights and rushed in, and trembling with fear he fell down before Paul and Silas,
Act 16:30 and after he brought them out, he said, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?"
Act 16:31 They said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household."
Posts
26 comments:
Very sad, indeed.
Makes me wonder how much support this would lend to Mary's Co-Redemptrix status. It certainly *sounds* like that.
I tried Roman Catholcism and it was this kind of thing that God used to wake me up and call me out of there. Well, that and James White.
I anticipate additional "Ex Cathedra" Marian doctrines in the future once those collecting signatures to elevate Mary to a higher position have enough voices to get the popes attention.
I wonder where all the Catholics are on this one? You seem to get a lot of comments from RCs, but no one appears to be all that eager to defend the idea that without Mary "we will not know to whom to turn".
Andrew,
A couple have responded to me directly. One response was just an incoherent insult, but the other was a bit more nuanced. God willing, I hope to respond to the more nuanced one within a few weeks.
-TurretinFan
You look like a stupid jackass Andrew, so why don't you just shut the hell up! The fact of the matter is that you retards are incapable of making intelligent distinctions. MARY LEADS CHRISTIANS TO JESUS, PERIOD!!! If she lead us anywhere else then she would be demonic. And you, the retarded dumbass that you are, cannot get this through your incestuously formed skull. Am I mad? Absolutely! You are not only insulting me, but also my God and the woman he decided to enter the world through. You are lucky that as a peaceful catholic I won't beat the shit out of you.
Well, I let my temper get a little away from me, but the fact remains, you need to end your mocking of Christ. As I recently learned, God will not be mocked as written in the sacred scripture.
Daniel - Charity, courtesy, and civility should characterize our behavior online no less than in real life.
RdP
You're right, but the thing is that I feel like not only my God is being attacked, but my family as well. I'm still learning to separate how I used to act growing up on the streets in the Bronx, and what God is calling me to now. But isn't the Old Testament, and Christian history filled with holy wars? This is a process. It is one thing to be critical, it is another thing to be unfairly abusive. These people here are unfairly abusive by attacking my church inaccuartely.
In what way have we "attacked your church?
In what way was the "attack" inaccurate?
And if what you say is true, why didn't the Pope hasten to make that very thing clear? It happens all the time, actually - Romanists hold events and pray prayers that are designed to glorify Mary, and Jesus is absent. When you're called on it, sure, you talk a good line about how Mariolatry exalts Jesus, but how can it when Jesus is absent?
And lest anyone think that Mr. Montoro's plentiful use of profanity and rough speech is unique among Roman apologists, I recommend James White's debate with Vinney Lewis.
Oh yeah, and this clown.
Mary leads Christians to Jesus?
1. No one comes to me unless the Father who sent me draws him...
Tell us, where does Scripture teach that Mary does this?
2. Is Mary demonic? No, but the Marian dogmas certainly qualify. Tell us, to take just one example, where Scripture teaches Mary is to be venerated. Tell us, to take another, that teaches the Assumption of the BVM. Surely, sir, you can do that.
3. How is quoting the Pope an attack on your God and Mary? Rhology offered little commentary. TF provided some, but nowhere, not one time did anybody attack Mary. Rather, they commented on prayers offered to her.
4. You'll have to demonstrate, not assert that folks have attacked your church in this citation.
Daniel Montoro,
It's funny because you haven't actually defended the Pope's statement. You just melted down in print. Think about it; if the absence of Mary's help leaves us with nowhere to turn, what does that say about Christ? Please, if you are going to get angry and profane because I pointed out that no one seemed willing to defend the notion that w/o Mary we have no one to turn to, then at least defend it while being profane.
Rhology, in a catholic's prayers for Mary's intercession the point of it is to lead us to Jesus. MAry helps us because Jesus has given her the grace to help us by leading us to himself. If you can't understand this fact then you are retarded or an evil demon who acts on behalf of Satan attempting to pervert our minds with your lies. By saying Jesus is absent, you are attacking the insturment he decided to use. You're not god, Jesus is. You're nothing more than a mindless follower of some psychotic lunatics named Martin "psycho depressed" Luther and John "legalistic Jew hater" Calvin. Basically, to say that Jesus is absent speaks more to your lack of intelligence and hate for God then it does of catholic theology.
Gem Bridge, How about looking at the Wedding Feast at Cana. This shows how weak your bogus argument is. You really need to end your hatred of the only church you can attain your salvation through. Hopefully you are just ignorant for your sake.
Andrew, by reading above I'm sure that in your heart you now know that any argument following the same line of knuckleheaded responses will fail.
You guys should not abuse God's truth lest you find yourselves in hell.
I have no fear of Hell b/c I am in Jesus' hands. And I know where to turn if Mary doesn't help me. I'll turn to Jesus.
I ask again - where in the Pope's comments here is Jesus the One to Whom Mary is leading Romanists? You can say it all you want NOW, but the fact remains that a great deal of the time Mariolatrous practices lead to MARY, not to Jesus. Did you even read the prayer I posted in the post?
Rhology,
Do you think the perspective you are offering through this post/comments reflects Catholic teaching on Mary/intercession? What I mean is that when the Pope makes these remarks, he is obviously intending them to be understood within the fuller context of Catholic teaching (indeed the comments come from a homily to RCs, not to Protestants, so the audience needs to be factored in as well). Likewise with your citation of Liguori; he adds more context and qualifications in Glories of Mary that have to be kept in mind (and are assumed by him obviously) when one is focusing just on a couple of sentences here and there. Obviously you disagree with official RC teaching on Mary/intercession and that's fine, but do you think your citations as you see them (Christ unnecessary, Mary not leading to Christ, Mary essentially replaces His role, etc. etc.) go beyond (and even against?) official RC teaching, and if so, maybe that should give you pause as to whether you are interpreting them within the same framework the authors presume.
Hi TheDude,
I actually offered very little commentary in the post. Where did the Pope make the connection that you and Daniel Montoro are making?
Besides, see what I said above: where in the Pope's comments here is Jesus the One to Whom Mary is leading Romanists? You can say it all you want NOW, but the fact remains that a great deal of the time Mariolatrous practices lead to MARY, not to Jesus.
As for Liguori, I've read the whole prayer. What context outside of that prayer would mitigate the force of the statement requesting of Mary protection FROM JESUS? FROM JESUS. Think about it for just a second.
"No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God’s seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God. By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother. For this is the message that you have heard from the beginning, that we should love one another. We should not be like Cain, who was of the evil one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his own deeds were evil and his brother’s righteous. Do not be surprised, brothers, that the world hates you. We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brothers. Whoever does not love abides in death. Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him. . . . If anyone says, 'I love God,' and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen. And this commandment we have from him: whoever loves God must also love his brother."
- I John 3:9-15, 4:20-21
Hi Rhology,
I have not read the Pope's whole message - presumably you have and can provide a link? As for the connection, I just think it's obvious that a Pope's words will be intended to be understood within the fuller context of the teachings of the RC faith, even moreso if the words are addressed to an RC audience. If I stroll by a Calvinist preaching to his congregation "Christ died for all men", but don't realize he's Reformed, my first reaction would be hey this guy must be an Arminian or something. Or hearing a Lutheran pastor presenting the Lord's supper and thinking "whoa, these guys are cannibals". I need to read the whole Liguori prayer, but my point was that a fuller interpretation of his thought can be gathered from his other writings; usually his Glories of Mary is harped on by RC opponents for its flowery language, but citations sometimes ignore the qualifiers he presents elsewhere in that work.
Again, the reason I stress this is that it is fine for someone to disagree with veneration/intercession. But often these types of citations are presented in such a manner as to imply that they even go beyond and against official RC teaching. The charitable/commonsense interpretation is to give the author the benefit of the doubt and assume his words are not in conflict with official teaching and that he is operating under that assumption (as these devotional materials are often meant for RCs). That's why I asked you if you think the perspective you are offering here as to the impact/meaning of these comments gel with official RC teaching or not.
I also wonder if you only ever pray to Christ, or if you only ever pray to the Father, or only the HS, and why you don't always pray to the Father directly (if you don't).
Gem Bridge, How about looking at the Wedding Feast at Cana. This shows how weak your bogus argument is. You really need to end your hatred of the only church you can attain your salvation through. Hopefully you are just ignorant for your sake.
1. Note carefully that Daniel has given us no actual argument from the narrative in question.
This is a clear example of "take Marian devotion for granted, read a passage in which Mary gives people instructions concerning Jesus, then use this passage to support Marian devotion."
2. But this story does no such thing.
The point of the story according to the text itself, isn't to illustrate Marian devotion. Rather, it is to begin talking about Jesus ministry with the first miracle he did.
Since this period of His ministry is at an end, why do we require Mary to lead anybody to Christ? His identity is fully known, thanks to Scripture. Indeed Mary isn't doing anything in this text than anybody who knows who Christ is can do.
This passage has nothing to do with Marian devotion.
And, just in case Daniel has forgotten, I don't require his church to attain salvation.
1. According to Scripture, I only require the Gospel, faith, and hte work of the Holy Spirit.
2. According to his church, I, as a Protestant, am already saved, since it refers to Protestants as separated brethren. Ergo, I don't need to be Roman Catholic to be saved.
3. And the Bible never designates the one true holy apostolic church by which salvation is dispensed as the Roman Catholic Church, or, for that matter the Orthodox Church.
4. And who, exactly, is Daniel to speak for his church or interpret Scripture in its name? Is he a member of the Magisterium?
5. Has the Magisterium infallibly determined that this passage is about Marian devotion? If so, where I can find the exegesis of it?
6. And who is Daniel to be making pronouncements about my or anybody's eternal salvation? Roman Catholicism says that nobody can be certain he is saved, not even Daniel.
It's a pity Romanists like Daniel who cry about the "attacks" on their "church," can't even act like consistent Catholics by following its own teachings. Indeed, I don't need to post strings of ad homineum invective to bolster an argument when addressing false teachers like Daniel who can't seem to muster the self control needed to interact over the internet.
Gem you can talk directly to me instead of talking about me as if I don't exist.
I pointed out that scripture story because it gives a perfect example of Mary's participation in the Kindom of God. She leads people to Christ. Period. The story does not say that she told them to go to Jesus, but she listened to their needs and knew that her son could help them, so she took their "prayers" and brought them to her son. This is a fact. Now you have to have a disgusting hatred of Mary, and in turn Jesus, to say that anyone who asked her for help would be taken anywhere else than to Jesus. Do you think that you can slap Mary in the face by these satanic comments and still believe that Jesus will let you into Heaven? Didn't Jesus tell us to follow the commandments? What about honoring your father and mother? I know I'm not God, but if you dishonored my mother you would be in a world of hurt. I don't think Jesus would be too happy with you dishonoring her, thinking that she would lead you to Satan.
According to scripture, you are required to be baptized, eat Christ's flesh, and persevere to the end, not stab Jesus in the back by insulting his mother and the church he established. I don't recall those heretics Luther and Calvin being told that they would receive the keys, and I don't recall them being given apostolic succession. It appears to me that they are phonys and posers.
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.
First of all, I didn't know that you had the power to tell God what he must and must not put into the bible. Secondly, its there. Peter and the keys. God isn't dumb enough to have given us a bible with no means of knowing how to use it.
I don't claim to speak for the church, the church does a good enough job doing that for itself. I'm just a simple construction guy who grew up in the greatest city in the world.
Gem, yes I lack self control at times, but that is because it can be a tough thing growing up in the city and dealing with punks like yourself. At least I am honest, and make an honest living, and would give the shirt of my back for anyone who is in need. The one thing that I don't do, is tolerate people who make it their mission to lie, cheat, and steal. Your arguments, your lies would not work in a court of law. Your scumbag tatics where you intentionally seek to lie about the catholic church, and set up websites intentionally promoting those lies is far worse than my lack of self control. You seem to me to be just like those holocaust deniers over there in Jersey.
Gem you can talk directly to me instead of talking about me as if I don't exist.
Yes, I can, but I am also writing to the readers of this blog. If you don't like the mode of address, here's a suggestion: get over it.
I pointed out that scripture story because it gives a perfect example of Mary's participation in the Kindom of God.
Protestants do not deny that Mary "participated" in the kingdom of God, but she's not depicted as doing something that any other Christian can't also do.
I guess you missed that. John the Baptist also pointed people to Christ in John's Gospel, he even answered their "prayers"...but you don't venerate John the Baptist the way you do Mary.
So, this story doesn't get you where you want to go.
The story does not say that she told them to go to Jesus, but she listened to their needs and knew that her son could help them, so she took their "prayers" and brought them to her son.
Nowhere in this story does anybody pray to Mary. Indeed, where does anybody actually go to Mary and "pray" to her. Perhaps you need a refresher on this text.
Perhaps before writing such demonstrably false statements you should read the text.
When the wine ran out, the mother of Jesus said to Him, "They have no wine."
4And Jesus said to her, "Woman, hat does that have to do with us? My hour has not yet come."
5His mother said to the servants, "Whatever He says to you, do it."
Nowhere, not one time, did anybody offer a prayer to or through Mary.
You're also overlooking the obvious. Jesus time has since come. So, tell us why anybody would need to pray to or through Mary to get to Jesus. In fact, after this part of the narrative, Mary isn't mentioned again. The text's focus is Christ, not Jesus. Thanks for proving to us that Romanists such as yourself will see a focus on Mary when no such focus exist. The more you write, the more you prove our point.
Now you have to have a disgusting hatred of Mary, and in turn Jesus, to say that anyone who asked her for help would be taken anywhere else than to Jesus.
Several problems here. I never said that...that's just your tentenious characterization of what I've written. What we have a problem with is prayers addressed to Mary. Since the Bible nowhere licenses them, all you're doing is praying to the wrong person. Why would I need Mary to get to Christ at all? And if I don't need her, then for I know praying to Mary could be no better that praying to Ashtarte.
And, yes, the Bible does say such things. The Israelites in Gideon's day prostituted themselves before items that "led people to God" in times past, and God punished them for it. Just because Mary "led somebody to Christ" when she was alive, it does not therefore follow, except by your tortured logic that this licenses us to do it today.
Do you think that you can slap Mary in the face by these satanic comments and still believe that Jesus will let you into Heaven?
According to Trent, you have no basis to ask this question, since if I say "No" I'd be labeled antinomian, and if I say "Yes" I'd be labeled as full of pride, for nobody has a right to claim security of their salvation.
Didn't Jesus tell us to follow the commandments?
The Decalogue does not select for following the Roman Catholic Church.
What about honoring your father and mother?
What about it?
I don't think Jesus would be too happy with you dishonoring her, thinking that she would lead you to Satan.
Just because you pray to Mary, it does not therefore follow that Mary even hears you. You've offered no supporting argument for that. Indeed, if you're going to pray to Mary, you may as well pray to Ashtarte. Mary is dead. Praying to the dead is verboten. You may as well pray to Baal.
According to scripture, you are required to be baptized, eat Christ's flesh, and persevere to the end, not stab Jesus in the back by insulting his mother and the church he established.
According to Scripture, I am justified by faith, not sacramentalism.
And I do partake of the Lord's Table. I've been baptized. Assuming I persevere to the end, what's the problem, exactly. If you're right, insulting Mary is worthy of Purgatory.
I guess that sort of namby pamby soteriology is what you get when you get your Jesus in a wafer and your regeneration by a water ceremony.
I don't recall those heretics Luther and Calvin being told that they would receive the keys, and I don't recall them being given apostolic succession. It appears to me that they are phonys and posers.
I don't recall claiming Luther and Calvin had the keys. (Oh, and I'm not Lutheran or Presbyterian). I don't recall the bishops of Rome being given apostolic succession. In fact, you've made no attempt to justify apostolic succession. We at Triablogue have gone over that many times. Tell you what, why don't you head over there and we'll see how well you fare.
First of all, I didn't know that you had the power to tell God what he must and must not put into the bible.
I never claimed such power, but if you think there are things that are necessary to believe and practice that aren't found there, perhaps you'd like to document them for us here. We've been waiting on that for quite some time.
Secondly, its there. Peter and the keys.
The Early Church Fathers don't all agree. So much for what's been taught always, everywhere, and by all.
You're also changing the subject to the keys...a good sign you know you can't sustain the discussion on Marian devotion. Nice try, but it won't work on me. My blog has nearly 4000 articles, including those on Peter and the keys. I don't need to reproduce here material there, when you can go to Triablogue and read.
God isn't dumb enough to have given us a bible with no means of knowing how to use it.
Protestants don't make the claim that we have no means of knowing how to use it.
You've begged the question of whether we need a Magisterium to interpret the Bible.
And you yourself have undermined your own case by belittling the issue of infallible guidance by referring us and interpreting Scripture in this thread. If the Magisterium offers us fallible interpretations of Scripture, then how is that supposed to confer any advantage over fallible individual interpretations?
I don't claim to speak for the church, the church does a good enough job doing that for itself.
I don't think that's the case at all. If it does such a good job, then why can't you find the Magisterium, according to Cardinal Dulles?
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/08/magisterial-cat-and-mouse-game.html
Gem, yes I lack self control at times, but that is because it can be a tough thing growing up in the city and dealing with punks like yourself.
Now you're excusing your impertient behavior and cloaking it in false piety.
Your scumbag tatics where you intentionally seek to lie about the catholic church,
Yes, and this gets us back to my first post to you:
How is quoting the Pope an attack on your God and Mary? Rhology offered little commentary. TF provided some, but nowhere, not one time did anybody attack Mary. Rather, they commented on prayers offered to her.
You'll have to demonstrate, not assert that folks have attacked your church in this citation.
My comments are here.
While this conversation is interesting (not withstanding Daniel's rhetoric) I do think that Marian devotion needs to be assessed within the framework of the Catholic understanding of the Communion of Saints. Since none here show knowledge of this facet, I would invite you to drop by my blog, read my post on the subject, and join with me in discussing it. It is within the framework of the 'COmmunion of Saints' that the invoking of the Saints needs to assessed. So drop by.
http://kakistokrat.wordpress.com
The post is called 'The Communion of the Saints...'
Post a Comment