Mary the Queen of Heaven
- Thread starter TER
- Start date
erowe1
Member
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2007
- Messages
- 32,183
Of course I believe that the Holy Spirit is not limited to the Bible. And of course I believe that the Church is the pillar and foundation of the faith, and that the Bible is one part of the tradition of the Church. Have I ever said anything to suggest otherwise?
But when some human being (not the Holy Spirit, a human being) claims that they have something that is a tradition of the Church passed down to them from the apostles, they are making a historical claim, and believer in Jesus have the ability, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit who is in them, and not just in some special people called saints, to evaluate that historical claim. And as God is a rational God, we are to do this rationally, using the evidence God has given us, both among the patristic writings and the Bible, but most importantly by far the writings of the apostles themselves and their cohorts, to see if that claim is true. Does such and such a tradition really go back to the apostles? Some human being in the 21st century claiming that it does doesn't make it so.
Again, we cannot trust a person who comes to us today and claims to be an untimely born apostle like Paul, with some new knowledge about what God revealed 2000 years ago in His Son, which was only now revealed to him.
But when some human being (not the Holy Spirit, a human being) claims that they have something that is a tradition of the Church passed down to them from the apostles, they are making a historical claim, and believer in Jesus have the ability, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit who is in them, and not just in some special people called saints, to evaluate that historical claim. And as God is a rational God, we are to do this rationally, using the evidence God has given us, both among the patristic writings and the Bible, but most importantly by far the writings of the apostles themselves and their cohorts, to see if that claim is true. Does such and such a tradition really go back to the apostles? Some human being in the 21st century claiming that it does doesn't make it so.
Again, we cannot trust a person who comes to us today and claims to be an untimely born apostle like Paul, with some new knowledge about what God revealed 2000 years ago in His Son, which was only now revealed to him.
TER
Member
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2008
- Messages
- 17,947
His apostolic ministry was as Bishop of Antioch in the first century, in the line of St. Peter, and by the power of the Holy Spirit of God. He was not one of the Twelve, just as St. Paul wasn't, but he continued the apostolic ministry of spreading the gospel as an appointed episkopos (overseer) through God's grace.
The Biblical Canon is certainly not the only writings considered inspired by the Church. St. Ignatius' letter would be one of them. I think you confuse inspired with canonical. A book must be considered inspired by the Holy Spirit to be canonical, but because it is not part of the small canon of 27 books does not mean they are not considered illuminated and inspired by God.
I am not claiming to take what a person who comes to us today and claims to be an untimely born apostle like Paul with some new knowledge about what God has revealed 2000 years ago in His Son. I am referring to St Ignatius, the first century Bishop of Antioch, who knew the Apostles, lived with them and learned from, shared in the Holy Eucharist with them, and was appointed by them to continue their ministry of defending the truths of Christ.
What I find irrational and illogical is how someone who is 2000 years from Christ can think they know more about the tradition of the Church and the apostolic teachings than St. Ignatius because they have a few selected writings from decades earlier which reveal a mere snippet of the life and ministry of the Apostles and the Church. St. Ignatius was not changing any dogmas regarding Who Christ is. He was fulfilling his ministry appointed to him to protect the flock. How can you possibly be so sure to judge St. Ignatius with such limited information that you have? Have you so little trust in the Holy Spirit? You say that you believe the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth, but by your own words and admissions reveal this is not the case. What you have made the foundation and pillar of truth (indeed, the only source of truth) is the canonized books of the Bible, your mind, and your mind's 'rationalization' while ignoring the Holy Spirit working within the life of the Church.
You say that as rational beings made in the image of God we should look at the evidence. The problem is you are ignoring the works of the Holy Spirit within the saints and the life of the early church, which are indeed evidence. By confining yourself to the canonized books as the only source of apostolic truths, you ignore the other evidence which more fully completes the picture of God's Church. The establishment of the Church, it's guidance under the Holy Spirit, and it's growth as defenders of the truth and guardians of the faith begins in the New Testament but has never let up, and while the dogmas of the gospel remain the same, the structure and approach by the Church in order to preach this gospel has developed in order to face and contend in an ever changing and hostile world. Part of this development is written about in the NT. In time, as the Church grew and faced new challenges and difficulties, it's leaders who were appointed by their predecessors and who were graced by the illuminating and inspiring Holy Spirit of God (the Giver of Truth) in the Holy Mystery of Ordination continued the apostolic ministry of protecting the faith and feeding the flock.
Last edited:
Kevin007
Member
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2014
- Messages
- 1,841
yep, there were 12 Apostles... no more.
Kevin007
Member
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2014
- Messages
- 1,841
Marian Cult
Having gone through this study what do you think of this Marian Litany[13],
The other titles ascribed by Romanists are as follows: Advocate, Helper, Benefactress and Mediatrix;
Now let’s answer the question, is it proper and is it theologically valid to call Mary, as the Mother of God? The answer is no, because:
http://www.thebereans.net/rcc-mariology.shtml
Having gone through this study what do you think of this Marian Litany[13],
Holy Mary, pray for us. Holy Mother of God, pray for us. Holy Virgin of virgins, pray for us. Mother of Christ, pray for us. Mother of divine grace, pray for us. Mother most pure, pray for us. Mother most chaste, pray for us. Mother inviolate, pray for us. Mother undefiled, pray for us. Mother most amiable, pray for us. Mother most admirable, pray for us. Mother of good counsel, pray for us. Mother of our Creator, pray for us. Mother of our Saviour, pray for us. Virgin most prudent, pray for us. Virgin most venerable, pray for us. Virgin most renowned, pray for us. Virgin most powerful, pray for us. Virgin most merciful, pray for us. Virgin most faithful, pray for us. Mirror of justice, pray for us. Seat of wisdom, pray for us. Cause of our joy, pray for us. Spiritual vessel, pray for us. Vessel of honor, pray for us. Singular vessel of devotion, pray for us. Mystical rose, pray for us. Tower of David, pray for us. Tower of ivory, pray for us. House of gold, pray for us. Ark of the covenant, pray for us. Gate of heaven, pray for us Morning star, pray for us. Health of the sick, pray for us. Refuge of sinners, pray for us. Comforter of the afflicted, pray for us. Help of Christians, pray for us. Queen of angels, pray for us. Queen of patriarchs, pray for us. Queen of prophets, pray for us. Queen of apostles, pray for us. Queen of martyrs, pray for us. Queen of confessors, pray for us. Queen of virgins, pray for us. Queen of all saints, pray for us. Queen conceived without original sin, pray for us. Queen assumed into heaven, pray for us. Queen of the most holy rosary, pray for us. Queen of peace, pray for us.
When Jesus taught the disciples how to pray he said,
“When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth.” (Luke 11:2)
As you can see, Jesus did not teach the disciples to pray to a Mother of divine grace, or to a Mother of our Creator, or to a Virgin most powerful, or to a Virgin most merciful. When the Apostle Paul taught the Timothy that,“For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” (1 Tim 2:5)
He did not advice Timothy or us to ask any Mother of divine grace, or any Mother of the Creator, or any Virgin most powerful or any Virgin most merciful to pray or mediate for us. We have a hotline in Jesus Christ. Look, if Mary is the Queen of Peace, why is Jesus only Prince of Peace (Isaiah 9:6)?
The other titles ascribed by Romanists are as follows: Advocate, Helper, Benefactress and Mediatrix;
Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of (3) eternal salvation. Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of (1) Advocate, (2) Helper, (3) Benefactress, and (4) Mediatrix. (Cathechism of The Roman Catholic Church: The Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church, Page 252: (969)) [14]
But according to the Scriptures who is the Helper? Who is the Advocate of the Church? John 14:26,
“But the Comforter (Gk. parakletos, i.e., Advocate[15], Helper[16]) which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.”
The Helper, the Advocate or the Paraclete is not Mary, BUT the Holy Spirit!
Now let’s answer the question, is it proper and is it theologically valid to call Mary, as the Mother of God? The answer is no, because:
Jesus is unique… they don’t match because there is no one like Jesus, having 2 distinct natures, being both God and man. We can’t talk about my body and my soul? I am one, one nature…they are 2 integral part of me, but in Jesus the two natures are distinct. He is God and man and Mary is mother of Jesus only as man to call her “Mother of God” is to go against this.—Anthony Pezzotta, ex-RCC priest.
Conclusions:
- The Roman Catholic dogmas regarding Mary--The Immaculate Conception and The Assumption are unbiblical on two counts: (a) the concepts are not in the Scriptures (b) the concepts are against what is taught by the Scriptures and must be rejected by those who regard themselves as genuine Christians.
- The two dogmas are late additions to the Christian Traditions set forth and admonished to be defended by the Apostles of Christ during the first century.
- The Roman Catholic titles conferred on Mary are far to excessive for one who believe that Christ Jesus is the only mediator between God and man. One of such titles is "Mary Mother of God" derivative of the Greek term theotokos. It is not only logically invalid, but it is also theologically invalid and as such, must be rejected by those who regard themselves as Bible believing and Christ-centered believers.
- Repetitive praying of whatever form to Mary is also unacceptable and must be rejected.
http://www.thebereans.net/rcc-mariology.shtml
Last edited:
erowe1
Member
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2007
- Messages
- 32,183
I know of no evidence for any of that. But even if all of it were true, it would not make him an apostle. He was a bishop. But bishops and apostles are two totally different things. The apostles considered them two totally different things, and so did Ignatius.
Do you have a source that represents the EOC in any kind of authoritative way saying that this really is the EOC's position?
And, if so, does the EOC have a list of all inspired writings anywhere?
Then you're not claiming that the gift of apostleship that was given to Paul and the Twelve can be had by anyone today.
Ignatius never claimed to have done any of those things. Why do you believe he did?
What person 2000 years from Jesus made that claim?
On any point where I've said that Ignatius's position differed from the apostles, did Ignatius himself even claim that his position was that of the apostles?
I am? You base this on what? I'm not ignoring Ignatius, as you can see. What evidence am I ignoring, please show me and I'll stop ignoring it.
But part of considering this evidence will mean that when a human being, such as yourself, claims that something is a work of the Holy Spirit, I will subject that claim to tests, using the evidence. I will not just believe it because some human being says it's so.
Last edited:
heavenlyboy34
Member
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2008
- Messages
- 59,093
I am not RC nor am I a RC apologist. But I can tell you that the author doesn't know what he's talking about or is a terrible liar. The RC's venerate Mary, they do not worship her. I don't know of any Church or ecclesiastical body that has "Mary-worship" as part of its official doctrine, dogma, etc. They probably exist as fringe denominations or cults, but they're exceptions, not rules.
Last edited:
heavenlyboy34
Member
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2008
- Messages
- 59,093
13, technically. The last one hanged himself.
erowe1
Member
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2007
- Messages
- 32,183
The word "worship" does not appear anywhere in the text that you just quoted.
Kevin007
Member
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2014
- Messages
- 1,841
MILLIONS of RC's beg to differ.
Kevin007
Member
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2014
- Messages
- 1,841
Kevin007
Member
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2014
- Messages
- 1,841
heavenlyboy34
Member
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2008
- Messages
- 59,093
The sites you posted don't prove your claim-nor do they quote official RCC dogma, documents, etc (such as the Catechism). You made some very serious claims, kev. Prove them or have the decency to withdraw them.
heavenlyboy34
Member
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2008
- Messages
- 59,093
You forgot to bold the rest of that quote.
I already beat you to it. I can cite examples of MILLIONS of other Christians of varying types practicing heresies if I were so inclined. I just don't see the point in such purposely provocative stuff as you do.
Kevin007
Member
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2014
- Messages
- 1,841
heavenlyboy34
Member
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2008
- Messages
- 59,093
You again link to opinion pieces instead of what the RCC actually says. Low class of you, kev. If what you say is true, you SHOULD be able to quote easily official documents of the RCC. To be very blunt(no offense intended), put up or shut up.
Last edited:
Kevin007
Member
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2014
- Messages
- 1,841
Kevin007
Member
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2014
- Messages
- 1,841
Kevin007
Member
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2014
- Messages
- 1,841
TER
Member
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2008
- Messages
- 17,947
Bishops sit on the thrones of the Apostles having been ordained through their ministry to power and authority given to them as overseers and leaders of the flock. Bishops are the image of the Apostles in this world and continue their ministry to guard the truths, protect the faithful and feed the flock. How? By the Holy Spirit.
No they don't have such a list because there are many considered so and many not even known.
I am not the only one claiming that. That is the teaching of the Church. The Bishops have continued the apostolic ministry initiated by the original twelve.
Later Church Fathers revealed it, the Church has proclaimed it, and I humbly accept theirs word as true knowing that the Church guided by the Holy Spirit is the pillar and foundation for the truths and not my three pound brain.
St. Ignatius did not have to say it for it to be true. It was already a given being that he was appointed by the Apostles (namely St. Peter) to take over the episcopal duties after St. Evdovius passed in 69AD. He was ordained by man and God to be the episcopal authority and top spiritual leader for the Christians in Antioch.
It is not just a human being saying so, it it the communion of baptized Christians inspired and guided by the Holy Spirit which make up the Church which tell you so. You however would rather make yourself using the limited resources you have to be of greater authority than them. I find it amusing that you chose the witness of the Holy Scriptures to be the only source for reliable information when it was the Church you keep doubting which collected them and canonized them in the fourth century. Why is it that you accept their canonized books to be authoritative and not the other teachings they had at the same time they chose those books?
Last edited:
Similar threads
