"The personal revelation of someone, even a saint, is not an Article of Faith for the Catholic. Just because St. Maximillian Colbe explains things this way does not make it a binding belief upon Catholics. A faithful Catholic MAY see things this way - but it is not necessary." [source]
Romanists are allowed to "see things" how they wish when it comes to certain aspects of Mariolatry. They are unified enough to have disunity. According to the CathApol blog, A Romanist is free to "see" the following:
"We can affirm that she is, in a certain sense, the 'incarnation' of the Holy Spirit"
and:
"The union between the Immaculata and the Holy Spirit is so inexpressible, yet so perfect, that the Holy Spirit acts only by the Most Blessed Virgin, his Spouse. This is why she is the mediatrix of all graces given by the Holy Spirit. And since every grace is a gift of God the Father through the Son and by the Holy Spirit, it follows that there is no grace which Mary cannot dispose of as her own, which is not given to her for this purpose."
Posts
27 comments:
Ask any Roman Catholic apologist, individual Catholics have engaged in every sin known to God and man EXCEPT for an excessive and inappropriate devotion to or worship of Mary.
YIKES!
Swan posits:
According to the CathApol blog, A Romanist is free to "see" the following:
"We can affirm that she is, in a certain sense, the 'incarnation' of the Holy Spirit"
Yes, that is on my blog - and as cathmom5 over there pointed out quite sufficiently... that and the other quote you provided were both out-of-context quotes from St. Maximillian Kolbe and I was quoting from the aomin blog, verbatim.
Scott-
I'd like to thank you for your blog entry, particularly the clarity of your blog post. I hadn't visited your blog in quite a while. I simply reposted what you wrote, and provided a link back to your blog to prove it.
It has been my experience that those on your side of the Tiber run the gamut on Mary.
The only follow up question I would have you for you is, where are the guidelines for the way Romanists "see things" about Mary?
The rest of Scott's entry reads:
"The underlying TRUTH here is that the Blessed Virgin Mary was impregnated by the Holy Ghost - that would make her the spouse of the Holy Ghost. Protestants seem to overreact to such a concept - but it IS quite scriptural! "And she conceived by the Holy Ghost..." is not a verse they can deny! Now, speculation that this may be why she dispenses graces - take it or leave it - it is a private revelation."
Anything goes.
Ask any Roman Catholic apologist, individual Catholics have engaged in every sin known to God and man EXCEPT for an excessive and inappropriate devotion to or worship of Mary.
Yes, you can never worship Mary too much, it appears. I don't recall who brought up this point a few weeks ago- perhaps it was you, or maybe Carrie.
My day just got a little darker. Scott, this is just disgusting. May the Lord help you, idolater.
Yes, you can never worship Mary too much, it appears. I don't recall who brought up this point a few weeks ago- perhaps it was you, or maybe Carrie.
Not me, I think it was EA.
The observation is astute enough to warrant repeating, that is for sure.
"Not me, I think it was EA."
Yes, it was I. And thank you for the compliment.
Yes, thx EA.
Scott's comments reminded me of Carrie's recent blog posts on Mary.
I don't post these sort of things to make fun of Romanists.
Rather, there's more than just the big doctrinal problems with Romanist Mariology.
Sure we can quibble back and forth over the small handful of verses that mention Mary, but the reason why we (at least I) do defend the scriptures on Mary, is because Romanist errors lead to the type of Mariolatry we've highlighted on this blog.
I do appreciate Scott's blog entry. At least he'll admit that the comments from St. Maximillian Colbe have a place within Romanism.
individual Catholics have engaged in every sin known to God and man EXCEPT for an excessive and inappropriate devotion to or worship of Mary
That is because of the diligence of the IM to guard the fallible flock from error, and clearly define what the limits are, and rebuke those who think of men (and women) above what is written.
The problem is not that God could not make Mary a heavenly dispensary, though asserting that "the Holy Spirit acts only by the Most Blessed Virgin, his Spouse" is another level, the problem is where is the warrant for all this, and where does sanctioning teachings based upon (what is seen) as an absence of prohibition but no real warrant and substantive corroboration from Scripture stop?
Mormons think Jesus appeared to the American Indians and preached the gospel descendants of the (very) lost tribes of Israel, and that the (LDS) saints will have their own planets (and choir and record label perhaps), and they say the Bible does not disallow it, while RCs say the same as regards such things as praying to Mary, although praying to anyone in heaven but the Lord has zero precedent in Scripture, except among pagans, and is contrary to what the Scriptures say about who to pray to in Heaven("our father,", etc.) and the immediate access they have into the holy of holies in Christ, and of His sufficiency and availability as the High Priest.
All in all, this practice does not rest upon warrant and corroboration from Scripture, but upon sola ecclesia and its autocratic IM, which Rome joins the Mormons in invoking.
Here's a recent excommunication of a sect of Catholics who had run afoul of Rome's definition of acceptable Marian devotion.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/army_mary.htm
Apparently, they had received episcopal approval in 1971.
Sounds like a lot more than just Marian issues going on there.
Sounds like a lot more than just Marian issues going on there.
February 29, 2000: When Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith addressed the matter of the Army of Mary in a correspondence to Bishop Gerald Wiesner, the President of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, he said that the Army of Mary lost its status as a Catholic association in 1987 because of "gravely erroneous" publications that suggested its founder, Marie-Paule Guigère, is a living reincarnation of the Virgin Mary.
In 1978 Guigère began to introduce herself as the mystical incarnation of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
The latter can a type of the incarnation of God, but the former cannot be of Mary. http://www.catholicdoors.com/isit/isit11.htm
It is much the case of a lesser than Mary thinking of herself above what it written, dong what Rome has done to Mary.
One web site which reproves them, http://www.inquisition.ca/en/serm/general_armee.htm, states, "Even the Virgin Mary snaps to attention when the Pope speaks. Do we?"
Another page (http://www.inquisition.ca/en/serm/ouellet_giguere.htm) also posts an unofficial translation of the complete text of Cardinal Marc Ouellet's letter concerning the Army of Mary, dated April 4, 2005, which states claims that resulted in the excommunication,
They lead the faithful astray when they claim, for example, as does Marc Bosquart: In fact, according to what follows from everything we've seen (and from everthing we'll have the opportunity of seeing again), Marie-Paule is no more nor no less than the Co-Redeemer. The Co-Redeemer in person! - i.e. the "feminine equivalent" of the Redeemer.
...They also lead the faithful astray when they claim that: The Immaculate is Coeternal to the Eternal God.[3] And when they also exalt a founder which is perhaps sincere, but insubordinate to the Church: Therefore, yes, let us believe it, let us proclaim it: in the Kingdom of the Spirit, in this Kingdom which is coming, in this Kingdom which has already started, everywhere, side by side, there will always be Jesus Christ and Marie-Paule, the Redeemer and the Co-Redeemer of all of Mankind![4]
Also,
Father Erik Pohlmeier, former chaplain for the six nuns excommunicated in Hot Springs, said the average Catholic who met the nuns would not recognize anything different about their beliefs, but the prayer they often say at Mass to Our Lady of All Nations concerned many local laypeople. In the prayer, they pray to "the Immaculate," who "once was Mary."
"They believe Mary existed before she was even Mary," Father Pohlmeier said. "This person (the Immaculate) already existed and took on the flesh of Mary and is known today as Marie-Paul."
-----------------------------
Also,
It is believed the worldwide association has between 20,000 to 25,000 members, including an order of priests.
Father Pohlmeier said the ordination of the six priests was setting the stage for the members to break away completely and they likely would not consider themselves Catholic anymore.
"They are declaring their own church," he said. "When you ordain priests without permission and not with a bishop, it's an invalid ordination." http://www.rickross.com/reference/armyofmary/armyofmary7.html
More:http://www.rickross.com/groups/armyofmary.html
Thees join a list of other Catholic splinter groups such as Caritas of Birmingham, William Kamm known as the “Little Pebble,” His Community/Christ Covenant Ministries, Four Winds Commune, Friends of the Eucharist and the Magnificat Meal Movement, etc.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/army
EA, your link didn't work.
James, you didn't copy the whole URL which is: (and I have "linked" it too)
http://www.religioustolerance.org/army_mary.htm
EA, thanks for showing that NOT "anything goes" with Mariology. This cult believes in some sort of reincarnation of Mary and they have been excommunicated.
"EA, thanks for showing that NOT "anything goes" with Mariology."
The Army of Mary appears to be an especially easy target to hit; a fairly large cult that believes in reincarnation. Both Catholics and Protestants regard reincarnation as being beyond the pale of orthodoxy.
I'm having a difficult time finding official corrections on Marian Worship (Mariolatry).
Catholics will probably view that as evidence that Mariolatry doesn't exist. I view it as evidence that the RCC doesn't object to it.
That's odd- the link was incomplete in IE, but when I read the blog using Firefox it was complete. Odd.
That's odd- the link was incomplete in IE, but when I read the blog using Firefox it was complete
Well, my fallible opinion is that IE is more government issue, comparative minimal customization or community interaction in the browser dept., while Firefox is more churchy, at least evangelically, with far more input on the "laity" level, showing the unique aspects of individuals while working together despite such.
Can't press that analogy too far, but since i usually have around 70 tab opens that i want to go back to quickly or finish reading (which i tend not to do if bookmarked), and with the TabMixPlus extension i can choose multiple tab rows, and the width of tabs, resulting in 21 fairly identifiable tabs per row across my 19'' monitor (with the btfl PitchDark theme), with Colorful Tabs further enhancing/enchanting appearance, and Session Manager allowing the saving of multiple sessions, then these, plus other options add on enable makes Firefox the browser for me. Thank God for all useful gifts.
Also, in FF5, with text urls (as below, but not in comboxes) you can just select them and choose open in new tab.
New quote: "The Holy Eucharist is the Bread that comes from our Heavenly Mother. It is Bread produced by Mary from the flour of Her immaculate flesh, kneaded into dough with her virginal milk." http://www.cuttingedge.org/articles/rc142.htm
It is Bread produced by Mary from the flour of Her immaculate flesh, kneaded into dough with her virginal milk
Is it bad that this turns my stomach a bit?
Is it bad that this turns my stomach a bit?
It does not say how the RCs get the milk, but its shows extrapolation is not a prolbem for RCs due to their rejection of the supremacy and sufficiency of Scripture, which materially provides o teachers who are not to think of men above what is written, so that a Berean could find it so.
And it does not stop with the quote at issue, there, but with further extrapolation:
Finally, in the eternal generation of the Word in the bosom of the Trinity, the Father gives Himself wholly to the Son, Who is "Mirror of the Father", similarly in the temporal generation of the same Word in the bosom of humanity, the Mother of God gives herself wholly to the Son, to her Jesus, "the virginal Flower of the Virgin Mother" (Pius XII). And the Son in His turn gives Himself wholly to the Mother, making Himself similar to her and making her "fully Godlike" (St. Peter Damian). http://www.catholictradition.org/Mary/virgin-eucharist.htm
Note: the captcha word below is quite fittingly, "hyperse," which to me means hyper sola ecclesia
Alan writes: It is Bread produced by Mary from the flour of Her immaculate flesh, kneaded into dough with her virginal milk
Is it bad that this turns my stomach a bit?
Scott replies: Since you appear not to understand or at least respect the fact that the Blessed Virgin Mary is indeed the Mother of Jesus Christ, our God and Savior, then I would not call your feeling here "bad" - I would call it ignorance. It was through Mary's flesh that the Holy Ghost imparted Divinity into Flesh - and thus the Incarnation of God. Jesus IS the Bread of Life and since His Flesh came through Mary's submission to His Will - and bread comes from flour, the symbolism is quite accurate. Why would this glorious gift of motherhood turn your stomach? All humanity is "kneaded" in such a way, and Christ is truly Human while at the same time Divine.
That being said, you provide another example of context jumping! What you have quoted comes from Fr. Stefano Minelli's Jesus, Our Eucharistic Love. who uses that phrase as an introduction to St. Augustine saying:
‘Jesus took His Flesh from the flesh of Mary’. We know, too, that united to the Divinity in the Eucharist there is Jesus' Body and Blood taken from the body and blood of the Blessed Virgin. Therefore at every Holy Communion we receive, it would be quite correct, and a very beautiful thing, to TAKE NOTICE OF OUR HOLY MOTHER’S SWEET AND MYSTERIOUS PRESENCE, INSEPARABLY UNITED WITH JESUS IN THIS HOST. Jesus is always the Son She adores.'
The context HERE has been the two out-of-context quotes from St. Maximillian Kolbe quoted on my blog which is a verbatim quote from aomin's blog - and then specifically Swan's assertion (which has since been proven false) that "anything goes."
Why would this glorious gift of motherhood turn your stomach?
I think that the virginal milk thing was supererogation that really put it over the top, and the making a vessel God used to incarnate Himself into something believers literally consume.
And which is another example of the overall extrapolative exaltation of holy Mary into a demi-goddess (born, lived sinless, made herself a type of sin offering, and gave us her flesh to eat, both in the person of Christ, and ascended to heaven which he was crowned and enthroned, and later appearing unto many from heaven, having many more things to tell her disciples, leading souls into more truth, and commanding them, and for whom she ever liveth to make intercession for the saints, processing infinite amounts of prayer, with seemingly infinite knowledge and unlimited power, and acting as the dispenser of all grace, etc.).
Bernard of Clairvaux (for what it is worth) protests against such over honoring of the vessel due to its use, stating,
"But what would one say if anyone for the same reason should demand the same kind of veneration of the father and mother of Holy Mary? One might equally demand the same for Her grandparents and great-grandparents, to infinity." (of course, he also thought sin had to occur in sexual relations,)
And since Mary came from Jewish parents, then by the same logic Israel, whom God was married to, is the mother of God, co-redeemer, etc. and believers are literally eating her flesh and blood.
And as God "breathed" His pure word thru men, then they must have been sinless.
While one can assert some justification for such of these things, yet the Holy Spirit in inspiring Scripture, is neither given to extreme extrapolation, while He also makes important exceptions evident. Thus Christ's sinlessness is stated thrice, but not that of anyone who can sin. And the virgin birth of Christ is evident, but not perpetual virginity, which would be the the only recorded marriage of able-bodied souls in Scripture in which there never was any "cleaving," as per the description the Lord affirmed. (Gn. 2:24; Mt. 19:5)
In addition, the doctrine of transubstantiation is a basic example of poor exegesis, and perpetuating error which was the result of it, or a lack of light.
Swan's assertion (which has since been proven false) that "anything goes."
I think we all understood that as hyperbole, which conveyed there is little restraint.
And if you are referring to the Army of Mary" censure, then it reveals that you are exaggerating what little restraint there is for exalting Mary above that which is written in Scripture.
For from what i found, outside making "the Immaculate Coeternal to the Eternal God" (if Mary was meant), the excom and censure was was more due to Marie-Paule making herself "the Redeemer and the Co-Redeemer of all of Mankind" and such like, doing to herself what Rome does to Mary, and ordaining priests, etc.
Scott,
I guess in terms of metaphor, the quote probably connects properly, it just sounds gross and almost sexual. And it doesn't seem to me like this gross near-sexualization of Mary is all that uncommon. People always talking about her pure and spotless womb and immaculate flesh and virginal milk... it's more than a little weird.
I mean, would you want a group of people always talking your mother's reproductive organs and mammary functions? I wouldn't.
It is a purely emotional reaction and I apologize if it offends, but my reaction is to have my stomach turned. It's gross because it describes human flesh and mother's milk going in to food stuff, and it's gross because of the sexual focus of the woman's flesh and mother's milk, and it's gross because of what all of this implies about the condition of the heart in setting up Mary as equal to God.
I apologize if this is demeaning or anything, but anytime I read Mariology excerpts like this, it really make me very uncomfortable, in the same way as if there were a dead body in the room.
At the least, can you see, apart from ignorance, why the description of Mary's flesh as the flour that makes the Eucharist and her virginal milk as kneading the dough might put someone off their appetite? It just doesn't sound very hygienic.
If this is all supposed to be a flowery way of saying "Mary gave birth to Jesus and gave him his human nature", can't you guys just say that without this sort of bizarre prose? It sounds like something more than the relationship between Christ's humanity and Mary is being expressed in this.
Trying very hard to be respectful, I know that I failed and I ask your forgiveness for having failed.
In Christ,
JL
John,
With all due respect, the quotes from Maximillian Kolbe have nothing to do with what you're asking about (and Alan raised that topic initially).
The fact is, Swan's hyperbole was proven not only to be hyperbolic, but false.
Scott<<<
Some small signals about the Lady of All Nations
http://to-chihiro.blogspot.com/2012/02/prayer-card-of-lady-of-all-nations.html
Post a Comment