Preliminary caution: As you seem to be woefully ignorant of what "Denzinger" is, here is the beginning of the "Translator's preface". "We present herewith an English version of Henry Denzinger's _Enchiridion "Symbolorum, definitiorum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum_, a "handbook of articles of faith and morals. The literal tranlation of the Latin title is "Handbook of professions of faith, definitions and declarations in matters pertaining to faith and morals". That is, your binding ecclesiastical traditions are compiled here into a brief volume. So what I quote from here is, according to the written letter, compulsory for you to believe. You may question my inter- pretation, but please, don't minimize the authority of these quotations. Indeed, you fall under these charges. You may remember having written: *********************************************************** ** :You will have to have Denzinger defend his position. ** *********************************************************** When doing so, you are questioning the pope's authority. And isn't it an inconsistency to profess to be an advocate of the Papal system while being utterly ignorant of the Book of Papal Traditions, and even deeming it suspicious when being acquainted with it?! Remember, you said: ************************************************************************** ** :Who is Deferrari and does he make doctrine for the Catholic Church? ** ************************************************************************** The subtitle of the book is "The Sources of Catholic Dogma". So don't make hasty movements in this august edifice, where you ought to behave rather solemnly and humbly. And that a heretical Protestant has to call your attention that you are in a church - it speaks volumes about your well- groundedness in your faith. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Catholicism: The one true church. From: didde@cyberport.com (Joe Didde) rsy2717@aol.com wrote: >>Yes, she needed a saviour, just like us. But her freedom from original >>sin was a special privilege, >:I sort of agree with Linda here. It was a special privilege but it was >:not given to Mary just because she was Mary. It was given to Mary >:because she was to be the vessel in which God was to be housed for >:approximately nine months. >It wasn't given to Mary. Paul says "All have sinned". :Infants have sinned? Paul says different: :Rom 9:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done :any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might :stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;) :They have done neither good nor evil. How did they sin? An excerpt from my dusty critiques: | The second council of Orange, 529. | | "If anyone asserts that Adam's sin was injurious only to Adam | "and not to his descendants, or if he declares that it was | "only the death of the body which is punishment for sin, | "and not the sin, the death of the soul, that passed from one man | "to all the human race, he attributes an injustice to God and | "contradicts the words of the Apostle: "Through one man sin | "entered into the world and through sin death, and thus death | "has passed into all men because all have sinned. (see Rom 5:12) | | (Denzinger 174) | Quoted from The Church Teaches, TAN Books and Publishers, 1973. | | I don't want to be harsh, but please, open your eyes | and read what the council teaches. It links original sin | with "all have sinned". And now I need to add only that for what I contend against you is exactly the above: that original sin has passed on to everyone - except from Christ, He being the Son of God. :Even when Paul says "all have sinned" is he referring to "all"? :He is quoting from Psalm 14. If you go back and read Psalm 14, :from which Paul is quoting here, you find out that this psalm :does not teach that all of humanity is bound over to sin. But Paul expounds it in this spirit. It's quite understandable that you fight against me - but why do you strive to overthrow the Apostle's exposition, whose aim is exactly to show that everyone has a sinful nature. You keenly lapse into the old filthy heresy called Pelagianism in order to defend your fringe Mariac dogmas. :That psalm draws a distinction between the wicked and the righteous, :between those who are with God and those who are apart from God, and :it is those who are apart from God that the psalmist says are not :righteous. That psalm does not teach that no one in mankind seeks God, :obviously devout Christians seek God all the time; what it teaches :instead is that mankind separated from God does not seek God. :So you see, this passage cannot be used to prove the universal :sinfulness of mankind because it does not have all of mankind :in view. My acute-sighted logician brother, go back to Ps 69, much of which was cited by the NT authors as applying to Christ; and behold, it says: 5 "O God, thou knowest my foolishness; and my sins are not hid from thee. So Christ was foolish and sinful. 8 "I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto my mother's "children. So Mary was NOT forever virgin. (I'd suppose that this argument strikes you more astonishingly than the previous one.) So you deny Paul's evident conclusion (See Romans and the Council of Orange) by interpreting the psalm privately. Go and ask for some additional catechesis - you seem to be quite Pelagian. >>And the Roman Catholic Mariology is one of those false traditions, >>and a recent one at that. :The problem most people have with the doctrines of Mary is that they :think that they glorify Mary. This is really a major misunderstanding :of the truth. Let me see if I can explain them to you if you look at :what they say about Jesus instead of focusing on Mary. You will see :the focus of Marian doctrine is mainly on her son: >We see the opposite. Let's go on. :I know you see the opposite and that is the problem. If you :looked at it in the Catholic POV you wouldn't have a problem. You are defending the Roman point of view with the Roman point of view. In decent circles this is called either an axiom, or a circular argument. But as for an axiom, wouldn't a bit of Scripture useful to establish it as axiom? Thus, it is a circulus vitiosus. Not an impressive result. >: >:The first and most fundamental teaching about Mary is based on her >:relationship with Jesus, that of being his mother. It is on this >:reality that her special dignity is founded, and from it flow all >:her prerogatives. >So even you admit that the pseudo-Mary (further: "Mary") has "prerogatives". >The question to answer now is "how do the epithets given to Mary help us >focus on Jesus Christ?" My papal quotations will puzzle you. :When you understand them you will see. Right now you don't. I would :say that just being chosen to be the mother of Jesus Incarnate was a :prerogative no one else has had. Being chosen to be Grandmother of Christ ditto. One could as well pay "hyperdulia" to Abraham, Forefather of God. :Then, of course, Jesus would probably honor her as His mother. By calling her "woman" ... He suggested the opposite. I don't mean hatred or neglect but the total lack of "Marian devotion". And again you come up with this "probably". Your speculations bear no weight. >:Now Mary is not the Mother of God as such; she was rather the >:mother of God the Son incarnate. >Then the term Mother of God is heresy because it conceals this >vital aspect. :Not when you study the doctrine. You are judging a whole doctine :based on the title of that doctrine. Many papal encyclicals begin with the >title< of that doctrine, and subsequently derive other prerogatives from that >title<. Theological books as well. As you may have not noticed, it is a staggeringly weak justification of one's viewpoint to say first that "We gave Mary the epithet >Mother of God< NOT in order to magnify her" and then go on with "Mary's title >Mother of God< is the BASIS of further epithets and intense Marian devotion". >:United in the one person of Jesus Christ are two natures, divine >:and human. Mary, being the mother of the one person of Christ, is >:in this sense the mother of God. >With this same logic, Abraham is the Forefather of God. And as he >has this title, one can give other ones to him under the mere pretext >of "helping the faithful concentrate on Jesus Christ." :Strawman argument. But true, isn't it? See my Abrahamology post. >: Mary's "Immaculate Conception." >:It is the belief that arose among the early Christians that God had >:preserved Mary from the inheritance of original sin passed on to all >:mankind from our first parents. >These "early Christians" are the products of your splendid imagination. >Origen, Basil the Great, pope Gregory the Great professed that only Christ >was without sin. Further, Paul says something similar. :That the fathers were not unanimous on this doctrine is not surprising to :me. They weren't unanimous on the Trinity until a council was called to :define it. The doctrine concerning the Immaculate Conception was not defined :until much later simply because there was not much controversy concerning :it. I suggest that, if you think I am imagining things, that you read St. :Ephraim, Ambrose of Milan, St. Augustine, St. Fulgence of Ruspe, St. Andrew :of Crete or St. John Damascene. But then, what remained of the "Catholic" faith which, according to St. Vincent of Lerins, (FOR THE ANTIQUITY AND UNIVERSALITY OF THE CATHOLIC FAITH AGAINST THE PROFANE NOVELTIES OF ALL HERESIES) is known by its universal and ancient acceptance? A quotation mey profit you: ` CHAPTER II. ` ` [6.] Moreover, in the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must ` be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, ` always, by all. For that is truly and in the strictest sense ` "Catholic," which, as the name itself and the reason of the thing ` declare, comprehends all universally. This rule we shall observe if we ` follow universality, antiquity, consent. We shall follow universality ` if we confess that one faith to be true, which the whole Church ` throughout the world confesses; antiquity, if we in no wise depart ` from those interpretations which it is manifest were notoriously held ` by our holy ancestors and fathers; consent, in like manner, if in ` antiquity itself we adhere to the consentient definitions and ` determinations of all, or at the least of almost all priests and ` doctors. ` ` CHAPTER IX. ` ` His warning to the Galatians a warning to all. ` ` [24.] But, possibly, this warning was intended for the Galatians only. ` Be it so; then those other exhortations which follow in the same ` Epistle were intended for the Galatians only, such as, "If we live in ` the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit; let us not be desirous of ` vain glory, provoking one another, envying one another," etc.;(1) ` which alternative if it be absurd, and the injunctions were meant ` equally for all, then it follows, that as these injunctions which ` relate to morals, so those war nings which relate to faith are meant ` equally for all; and just as it is unlawful for all to provoke one ` another, or to envy one another, so, likewise, it is unlawful for all ` to receive any other Gospel than that which the Catholic Church ` preaches everywhere. Would you curse as heretics Basil, Gregory, and Paul who believed and explicitly wrote the contrary of your Mariac dogma about sinlessness? You DO have the right to condemn them. In his Apostolic Constitution "Ineffabilis Deus", issued on December 8, 1854, Pope Pius IX decided to do so: # The Immaculate Conception # # Accordingly, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, for the honor of # the Holy and undivided Trinity, for the glory and adornment of the # Virgin Mother of God, for the exaltation of the Catholic Faith, and # for the furtherance of the Catholic religion, by the authority of # Jesus Christ our Lord, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by # our own: "We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which # holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her # conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, # in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, # was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine # revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by # all the faithful." # Hence, if anyone shall dare--which God forbid!--to think otherwise # than as has been defined by us, let him know and understand that he is # condemned by his own judgment; that he has suffered shipwreck in the # faith; that he has separated from the unity of the Church; and that, # furthermore, by his own action he incurs the penalties established by # law if he should are to express in words or writing or by any other # outward means the errors he think in his heart. Now, whom do you choose: Paul or Pius? >:Mary did not have an extraordinary birth, as Jesus did: she had a normal >:human mother and father and was conceived and born in a normal way. The >:doctrine of the "Immaculate Conception" holds that Mary was preserved >:by God from original sin from the moment she was conceived. This was >:God's perfect act of purification to prepare Mary to bear the Son of >:God in her womb. >Allegedly, of course. But with this same logic one has to conclude >that Christ didn't become "in all respects similar to the brethren", >(Heb 2:14-17) except for sin, as although He was born in a shed, >worked, learned, ate, died; but He was allegedly born of a sinless >mother. Which isn't a common lot of humankind. :Bearing the Son of God, Jesus Incarnate isn't common lot of humankind :either. That was the reason for Mary's blessedness above all women. But it is wholly possible without Mary being the Queen of Heaven etc. >And to "prepare Mary to bear Christ" God by no means needed any >"Immaculate Conception". Even Christ's virgin birth wouldn't have >been necessary for Him to be Son of God. Virgin birth was needed >for people's sake: thence they learnt what would be true even >otherwise. For this did Matthew quote "The virgin shall conceive". >To prove before the world that Christ, evidently not having a >human father, is the Son of God. And if the virgin birth had no >other purpose than a function of a sign then what could Roman Catholic >apologists invent in order to support their intolerable novelty >of "immaculate conception"? Perhaps that otherwise Christ would have >been sullied. But such a nefarious reasoning, which demotes Christ >and magnifies Mary by allowing that MARY could escape being born in >original sin with HER mother not being sinless, while denying the >same ability to Christ, is not at all unfamiliar to us. ("Us" is not >royal plural, but the stylistical component of argumentative prose.) :Unsupported attack noted. Uh. Address the question. However, I expect not too much of you, seeing that you have addressed none of my remarks yet but accused me of having the bad point of view, etc. You "sent" me much deletia, and I suppose you'll have even less to say in answer to this post. >Pope Siricius in 392 sent a letter to Anysius, bishop of Thessalonica, >with the following sentences: (Here "We" is papal plural.) >"We surely cannot deny that you were right in correcting the >"doctrine about children of Mary, and Your Holiness was right >"in rejecting the idea that any other offspring should come >"from the same virginal womb from which Christ was born according >"to the flesh. For the Lord Jesus WOULD NOT HAVE CHOSEN TO BE >"BORN OF A VIRGIN IF HE HAD JUDGED THAT SHE WOULD BE SO INCONTINENT >"AS TO TAINT THE BIRTHPLACE OF THE BODY OF THE LORD, THE HOME OF >"THE ETERNAL KING WITH THE SEED OF HUMAN INTERCOURSE. >"Anyone who proposes this is merely proposing the unbelief >"of the Jews saying that Christ could not be born of a virgin. >"For if they accept the doctrine on the authority of the priests >"that Mary had a number of children, then they will strive >"with greater effort to destroy the truths of faith. :I haven't a clue as to what this has to do with the topic at hand. The parallel is between Mary's alleged sinlessness and Mary's alleged perpetual virginity. Just as you slanderously allege that Mary had to be sinless in order for Christ being born of her, the pope mutters that she must have been perpetually virgin for her getting the same role. The pope, in his preposterous speculations, mocks the sexual inter- course in marriage - it is Manicheism. Now what refers to you is that you, when saying that Mary had to be sinless in order for Jesus being able to be born sinless, attribute to a hypothetical sinful mother (to a "Protestant" Mary) the negative power of sullying Christ. And you don't apply the same standard to Mary whom you allege to have been conceived immaculately, although you don't require that her mother be sin- less. So you deem Christ weak to defend Himself from the taint of original sin without His mother being sinless, and consider Mary strong enough to avoid the taint without herself having had an immaculate mother and father. It is so even if you betake yourself to the weak subterfuge that "Mary was given grace to be born and remain sinless" - for undoubtedly in this case you have to profess that Mary was "given" more grace than what Christ ever had as the Son of God. And this would be the turning upside down of sound exegesis, as "kekharitomene" means "graced", this is Mary; "pleres kharito" means "FULL of grace", and this is Christ. >Denzinger reference number: 91. >I repeat for clarity what is the most untenable: >"...TO TAINT THE BIRTHPLACE OF THE BODY OF THE LORD, THE >"HOME OF THE ETERNAL KING WITH THE SEED OF HUMAN INTERCOURSE. :You will have to have Denzinger defend his position. My honey, "Denzinger" is not just a theologian but THE THEOLOGY ! However, even if the devil were to throw calumnies on your pope, your denomination would be bound to refute him, or else the gates of hell could prevail against your denomination, which she, ever having been miserably prone to looking at what is before the eye, fears immensely. >or in Roy Deferrari's translation: > >"...that with the seed of human copulation she would pollute >"that generative chamber of the Lord's body, the palace of >"the eternal king. :Who is Deferrari and does he make doctrine for the Catholic Church? :Doesn't this deal with a whole different topic? Roy Deferrari is the translator of the original Greek and Latin documents. I quoted him for you to perceive the linguistical fullness of the solemn decree of the Manichean pope Siricius. >So the pope presumptuously ventured to declare sex intrinsically defiled, >and virginity innately chaste, at the influence of some ascetic ideal. >It is all the more ridiculous that he meant it not to the period before >Christ's birth but to Mary's whole life. It is Manicheism. But lest we >should dwell too much in such arbitrary lapses of Roman Catholicism, let >us but remark that they are exceedingly prone to exaggerate their own >impressions into divine doctrine. Siricius' case of unhappy memory was >revived only for the sake of this brief retrospection. Now let's see >under what pretexts they try to have their Mariac statements accepted. >:The doctrine of Mary's Immaculate Conception is more of a statement >:about Jesus than about Mary. It proclaims that Jesus was someone so >:unique and holy that God would even prepare his mother for his birth >:by preserving her from sin. >This is staggeringly ridiculous. If one strives to underline Christ's >uniqueness then he ought to make remarks about Him and not about Mary. >Or if you don't accept it then I let you move further: in order to >emphasize Jesus Christ's majesty, give the gift of sinlessness to >His every ancestor. Sure, Jesus was someone >so< unique and holy that >God wouldn't content Himself on giving Him just an immaculate mother >but also immaculate grandparents and so on. :If you read the doctine as defined you would see this. :Strive to understand the subject before belittling it. Oh sir, be it far from me to >belittle< such a majestic doctrine! All I want is to underline and emphasize it even >more< than you. Jesus was someone >so unique< and holy that God wouldn't content Himself on giving Him >just< an immaculate mother but also immaculate grandparents and so on. Why do you chide me for striving to emphasize >Christ's< majesty, going on in your footsteps? >Thus the argument based on "It was fitting" is overthrown, by showing >a "more fitting" solution achieved by this very logic, however, denied >by Roman Catholics. ------------------- >:These are brief but it shows that it is for the glory of Jesus >:that we have these doctrines, not Mary. >Sorry, your pretensions are not convincing. I have copious quantities >of statements produced by popes which explicitly prove the opposite. :I would say that is your problem. I never had a doubt that you would :not be convinced any more than your arguments will convince me. But your arguments are refuted one by one while mine are only deleted. >Some examples: ===================================================================== ~AD CAELI REGINAM ~Encyclical of Pope Pius XII promulgated on October 11, 1954. See Jer 44:17 ~4. It is well known that we have taken advantage of every ~opportunity--through personal audiences and radio broadcasts--to exhort ~Our children in Christ to a strong and tender love, as becomes children, ~for Our most gracious and exalted Mother. On this point it is ~particularly fitting to call to mind the radio message which We addressed ~to the people of Portugal, when the miraculous image of the Virgin Mary ~which is venerated at Fatima was being crowned with a golden diadem.[3] [3. Cf. AAS XXXVIII, 1946, p. 264 sq.] Ugh. But never mind, it will promote the worship due to Christ altogether. ~We Ourselves called this the heralding of the "sovereignty" of Mary.[4] [4. Cf. L'Osservatore Romano, d. 19 Maii, a. 1946.] Oh, then the pseudo-Mary is "sovereign"! Last time I heard of the true Mary as of the "handmaid of the Lord. With me, this dichotomy won't fly at any costs, so I have to conclude that the Mary whom Roman Catholics profess to venerate is not the real Mary. This will suffice as ground for my inserting of "pseudo" at some places. ~10. So it is that St. Ephrem, burning with poetic inspiration, ~represents her as speaking in this way: "Let Heaven sustain me ~in its embrace, because I am honored above it. What a humility! "I'll put my throne over the stars..." Isa 14:13. ~For heaven was not Thy mother, but Thou hast made it Thy throne. ~How much more honorable and venerable than the throne of a king is her `mother."[10] [10. S. Ephraem, Hymni de B Mana (Maybe Maria), ed. Th. J. Lamy, t. II, Mechliniae, 1886, hymn. XIX, p. 624.] Thus, the "Kingdom of Heaven" is inferior to "Kingdom of Mary". This pope keenly disposes of the traditional Jewish usage of heaven: the synonym of God. ~And in another place he thus prays to her: ". . . Majestic and Heavenly ~Maid, Lady, Queen, protect and keep me under your wing lest Satan the ~sower of destruction glory over me, lest my wicked foe be victorious ~against me."[11] [11. Idem, Oratio ad Ssmam Dei Matrem; Opera omnia, Ed. Assemani, t. III (graece), Romae, 1747, pag. 546.] One is reminded of Ps 91:4. Ad maiorem Dei gloriam! ~18. And in another place he (St. Andrew of Crete) speaks of "the Queen ~of the entire human race faithful to the exact meaning of her name, ~who is exalted above all things save only God himself."[20] [20. S. Andreas Cretensis, Homilia III in Dormitionem Ssmae Deiparae: PG XCVII, 1099 A.] Focusing on Christ! Sorry, it's laughable in the light of this blasphemy. ~20. She is called by St. John Damascene: "Queen, ruler, and lady,"[23] ~and also "the Queen of every creature."[24] Another ancient writer of ~the Eastern Church calls her "favored Queen," "the perpetual Queen beside ~the King, her son," whose "snow-white brow is crowned with a golden ~diadem."[25] [23. S. Ioannes Damascenus, Homilia I in Dormitionem B.M.V.: P.G. XCVI, 719 A. 24. Id., De fide orthodoxa, I, IV, c. 14: PG XLIV, 1158 B. 25. De laudibus Mariae (inter opera Venantii Fortunati): PL LXXXVIII, 282 B et 283 A.] Queen beside the King? Why not Goddess beside God? It would more effective- ly impair and subvert (oh, pardon, I wanted to say "emphasize and under- line") the unique glory of Christ if you seated a goddess beside Him. Why do you put up with a mere queen if making her goddess you could steal, pardon, borrow, more glory from God? ~23. The Supreme Shepherds of the Church have considered it their duty to ~promote by eulogy and exhortation the devotion of the Christian people to ~the heavenly Mother and Queen. So they are caught in flagranti. Glorifying Christ is the last thing they intended. ~32. Finally, art which is based upon Christian principles and is animated ~by their spirit as something faithfully interpreting the sincere and ~freely expressed devotion of the faithful, has since the Council of ~Ephesus portrayed Mary as Queen and Empress seated upon a royal throne ~adorned with royal insignia, crowned with the royal diadem and surrounded ~by the host of angels and saints in heaven, and ruling not only over ~nature and its powers but also over the machinations of Satan. What a splendid expression of Christ's majesty! ~36. Now, in the accomplishing of this work of redemption, the Blessed ~Virgin Mary was most closely associated with Christ; and so it is fitting ~to sing in the sacred liturgy: "Near the cross of Our Lord Jesus Christ ~there stood, sorrowful, the Blessed Mary, Queen of Heaven and Queen of ~the World."[46] Hence, as the devout disciple of St. Anselm (Eadmer, ed.) ~wrote in the Middle Ages: "just as . . . God, by making all through His ~power, is Father and Lord of all, so the blessed Mary, by repairing all ~through her merits, [46. Festum septem dolorum B. Mariae Virg., Tractus.] Stop, please! Whose merits? Those of Christ? Is He a She? ~is Mother and Queen of all; for God is the Lord of all things, because ~by His command He establishes each of them in its own nature, and Mary ~is the Queen of all things, because she restores each to its original ~dignity through the grace which she merited.[47] [47. Eadmerus, De excellentia Virginis Mariae, c. 11: PL CLIX, 508 A B.] I can't help concluding that the pseudo-Mary "merited" the grace by which she is not called "full of grace". In what does it promote the devotion to Christ? ~38. From these considerations, the proof develops on these lines: if ~Mary, in taking an active part in the work of salvation, was, by God's ~design, associated with Jesus Christ, the source of salvation itself, An active redemption! Thus she is corredemptrix! Redemptress with the Redeemer! What an eloquent expression of Christ's UNIQUE majesty! ~in a manner comparable to that in which Eve was associated with Adam, the ~source of death, so that it may be stated that the work of our salvation ~was accomplished by a kind of "recapitulation,"[49] in which a virgin was ~instrumental in the salvation of the human race, just as a virgin had ~been closely associated with its death; [49. S. Irenaeus, Adv. haer., V, 19, 1: PG VII, 1175 B.] Note, the woman was the first to eat from the tree, so her punishment was greater. 1Tim 2:14. So applying the above subtle reasoning further, the greater part of the redemption had to be carried out by Mary. What a glorious testimony about Christ's dignity! ~if, moreover, it can likewise be stated that this glorious Lady had been ~chosen Mother of Christ "in order that she might become a partner in the ~redemption of the human race";[50] [50. Pius Xl, epist. Auspicatus profecto: AAS XXV, 1933, p. 80.] Ah, I foretold this "partnership" as something very efficiently expressing Christ's redemptive work. ~and if, in truth, "it was she who, free of the stain of actual and ~original sin, So not needing redemption, as befits a Co-Redemptress, ~and ever most closely bound to her Son, on Golgotha offered ~that Son to the Eternal Father together with the complete sacrifice of ~her maternal rights and maternal love, Getting the greater task: offering up the Son of God as sacrifice, and not just that, but her rights and love as well! How shrewd is this doctrine in deeming the Redeemer a passive agent who was offered by another one! What a kenosis on the side of the King of Kings! He died, and gave His glory to the pseudo-Mary! ~like a new Eve, for all the sons of Adam, stained as they were by his ~lamentable fall,"[51] then it may be legitimately concluded that as Christ, ~the new Adam, must be called a King not merely because He is Son of God, ~but also because He is our Redeemer, so, analogously, the Most Blessed ~Virgin is queen not only because she is Mother of God, but also because, ~as the new Eve, she was associated with the new Adam. [51. Pius XII, litt. enc. Mystici Corporis: AAS XXXV, 1943, p. 247.] Offering Him to God as sacrifice, like an exceptional female priest! ~42. Besides, the Blessed Virgin possessed, after Christ, not only the ~highest degree of excellence and perfection, but also a share in that ~influence by which He, her Son and our Redeemer, is rightly said to reign ~over the minds and wills of men. How great an idea for extolling Christ! ~For if through His Humanity the divine Word performs miracles and gives ~graces, if He uses His Sacraments and Saints as instruments for the ~salvation of men, "...we are useless slaves, performing only what we were commanded to." Oh sure, it doesn't apply to the pseudo-Mary. She was, and is, the Queen of Heaven. ~why should He not make use of the role and work of His most holy Mother ~in imparting to us the fruits of redemption? Because He intended the real Mary to bear Him, nothing more. Your illustrious pope is quick to depose the apostles from their commission, giving the whole to the pseudo-Mary! ~"With a heart that is truly a mother's," to quote again Our Predecessor ~of immortal memory, Pius IX, "does she approach the problem of our salv- ~ation, and is solicitous for the whole human race; ...who is not an high priest who couldn't be moved to compassion by our infirmities... - Pope, where have you hidden our Advocate? ~made Queen of heaven and earth by the Lord, exalted above all choirs of ~angels and saints, and standing at the right hand of her only a Son, Your frivolous icons deny the above. In them it is not the pseudo-Mary who stands at the right of Christ but Christ as an infant sitting in the lap of the mighty pseudo-Mary. ~Jesus Christ our Lord, she intercedes powerfully for us with a mother's ~prayers, obtains what she seeks, and cannot be refused."[56] Sure, even her halo is drawn greater than that of the infant Jesus! ~On this point another of Our Predecessors of happy memory, Leo XIII, ~has said that an "almost immeasurable" power has been given Mary in the ~distribution of graces;[57] St. Pius X adds that she fills this office ~"as by the right of a mother."[58] [57. Leo Xlll, litt. enc. Adiumcem populi: ASS, XXVIIl, 1895-1896,p.130. 58. Pius X, litt enc. Ad diem illum: ASS XXXVI, 1903-1904, p.455.] So she has the keys of heaven! Pope, drop them and tremble! ~48. Let all, therefore, try to approach with greater trust the throne ~of grace and mercy of our Queen and Mother, and beg for strength in ~adversity, light in darkness, consolation in sorrow; A horrid, nefarious blasphemy against God! Stealing from Christ His office, throne, and giving them to this base goddess! Heb 4:15-16. ~above all let them strive to free themselves from the slavery of sin ~and offer an unceasing homage, filled with filial loyalty, to their ~Queenly Mother. "And the twenty-four elders fell down and adored Her who lives forever and ever. Amen. Pardon, Anathema." ~Let her churches be thronged by the faithful, her feast-days honored; ~may the beads of the Rosary be in the hands of all; may Christians gather, ~in small numbers and large, to sing her praises in churches, in homes, in ~hospitals, in prisons. May Mary's name be held in highest reverence, a ~name sweeter than honey and more precious than jewels; There is no other name under hevaen in which we are saved... but that of the pseudo-Mary. ~may none utter blasphemous words, the sign of a defiled soul, against that ~name graced with such dignity and revered for its motherly goodness; let ~no one be so bold as to speak a syllable which lacks the respect due to ~her name. I reserve my indignation against the cursed idol falsely called Mary, to the word of mouth. I believe that she, an eminent angel of Satan, hears and trembles. ------------------------ ~Ineffabilis Deus ~Apostolic Constitution issued by Pope Pius IX on December 8, 1854 ~Hence, just as Christ, the Mediator between God and man, assumed ~human nature, blotted the handwriting of the decree that stood ~against us, and fastened it triumphantly to the cross, so the most ~holy Virgin, united with him by a most intimate and indissoluble ~bond, was, with him and through him, eternally at enmity with the ~evil serpent, and most completely triumphed over him, and thus ~crushed his head with her immaculate foot.[14] Co-redemptress! Isa 63:1-3, indeed, means that God is sufficient for alone carrying out His plan if He has helpers. ~This sublime and singular privilege of the Blessed Virgin, ~together with her most excellent innocence, purity, holiness and ~freedom from every stain of sin, as well as the unspeakable abundance ~and greatness of all heavenly graces, virtues and privileges--these ~the Fathers beheld in that ark of Noah, which was built by divine ~command and escaped entirely safe and sound from the common shipwreck ~of the whole world;[15] in the ladder which Jacob saw reaching from ~the earth to heaven, by whose rungs the angels of God ascended and ~descended, and on whose top the Lord himself leaned'[16] in that bush ~which Moses saw in the holy place burning on all sides, which was not ~consumed or injured in any way but grew green and blossomed ~beautifully;[17] in that impregnable tower before the enemy, from ~which hung a thousand bucklers and all the armor of the strong;[18] ~in that garden enclosed on all sides, which cannot be violated or ~corrupted by any deceitful plots;[19] as in that resplendent city of ~God, which has its foundations on the holy mountains;[20] in that ~most august temple of God, which, radiant with divine splendors, is ~full of the glory of God;[21] and in very many other biblical types ~of this kind. In such allusions the Fathers taught that the exalted ~dignity of the Mother of God, her spotless innocence and her sanctity ~unstained by any fault, had been prophesied in a wonderful manner. Thank you, Highest Augur. You did well in magnifying Christ. ~Hoped-For Results ~Our soul overflows with joy and our tongue with exultation. We ~give, and we shall continue to give, the humblest and deepest thanks ~to Jesus Christ, our Lord, because through his singular grace he has ~granted to us, unworthy though we be, to decree and offer this honor ~and glory and praise to his most holy Mother. All our hope do we ~repose in the most Blessed Virgin--in the all fair and immaculate one ~who has crushed the poisonous head of the most cruel serpent and ~brought salvation to the world: Let's take a breath. If she crushed the head of the serpent then what did Christ do? Observe torpidly? ~in her who is the glory of the ~prophets and apostles, the honor of the martyrs, the crown and joy of ~all the saints; in her who is the safest refuge and the most ~trustworthy helper of all who are in danger; in her who, with her ~only-begotten Son, is the most powerful Mediatrix and Conciliatrix in ~the whole world; in her who is the most excellent glory, ornament, ~and impregnable stronghold of the holy Church; in her who has ~destroyed all heresies and snatched the faithful people and nations ~from all kinds of direst calamities; in her do we hope who has ~delivered us from so many threatening dangers. We have, therefore, a ~very certain hope and complete confidence that the most Blessed ~Virgin will ensure by her most powerful patronage that all ~difficulties be removed and all errors dissipated, so that our Holy ~Mother the Catholic Church may flourish daily more and more ~throughout all the nations and countries, and may reign "from sea to ~sea and from the river to the ends of the earth," and may enjoy ~genuine peace, tranquility and liberty. We are firm in our ~confidence that she will obtain pardon for the sinner, health for the ~sick, strength of heart for the weak, consolation for the afflicted, ~help for those in danger; that she will remove spiritual blindness ~from all who are in error, so that they may return to the path of ~truth and justice, and that here may be one flock and one shepherd. Yikes! What a wondrous hymn about Christ! ================================================================== >~4. It is well known that we have taken advantage of every >~opportunity--through personal audiences and radio broadcasts--to exhort >~Our children in Christ to a strong and tender love, as becomes children, >~for Our most gracious and exalted Mother. On this point it is >~particularly fitting to call to mind the radio message which We addressed >~to the people of Portugal, when the miraculous image of the Virgin Mary >~which is venerated at Fatima was being crowned with a golden diadem.[3] :Nothing to do with the doctrine. Standard evasion. You were speaking about the Mariac dogmas enhancing the devotion to Christ. I here showed that they enhance not the devotion to Christ but the devotion to a cursed idol. And you digress with a general subterfuge that it has "nothing to do with the doctrine". It's not the best way of proving that you are right. :I deleted all of your quotes from the early Church. Because you were terrified by the sheer idolatry which shone from their quotations, and couldn't defend your ridiculous initial proposition that the devotion to the pseudo-Mary serves the devotion to >Christ<. :Remember they are just figments of my imagination. No, I wanted to say that the choir of early Christians singing hymns to Mary was the phantasmagory of your vivid imagination. Origen and Basil came before Ambrose, Augustine, Ephraim, and Damascene. Not to speak about Paul! Your Mariac pope quoted Mariac writers from the fifth century and deemed the earlier patristic and biblical testimonies irrelevant. :It did amaze me that I said the early Christian wrote about all of this :and you made me out to be a liar and then came up with a litany of :statements from early Christians. I can prove with little effort (quotations etc.) that earlier Fathers denied this monstrous heresy, the pseudo-Mary's immaculate conception. You are adoring some Manichean representants of the ascetic and ritual- istic West, and the speculative and supine East as the Church. :When did the Protestants decide to throw out the beliefs of their :founders? They were not our "founders" but the apostles who laid the foundation which is only Christ. You traditionalists mingled Mary into the foundation. Your house is swaying. :From the Reformers: : :1. Commentary on the Hail Mary (Luther's Works, American edition, vol. :43, p. 40 , ed. H. Lehmann, Fortress, 1968)". . . she is full of grace, :proclaimed to be entirely without sin. . . . God's grace fills her with :everything good and makes her devoid of all evil. . . . God is with her, :meaning that all she did or left undone is divine and the action of God in :her. Moreover, God guarded and protected her from all that might be hurtful :to her." : :2. Sermon on John 14. 16: Luther's Works ( (St. Louis, ed. Jaroslav, :Pelican, Concordia. vol. 24. p. 107: ". . . she is rightly called not only :the mother of the man, but also the Mother of God. . . . it is certain that :Mary is the Mother of the real and true God." : :3. On the Gospel of St. John: Luther's Works, vol. 22. p. 23, ed. Jaroslav :Pelican, Concordia, 1957): "Christ our Savior was the real and natural :fruit of Mary's virginal womb. . . . This was without the cooperation of a :man, and she remained a virgin after that." : :4. Commentary on the Magnificat: "Men have crowded all her glory into a :single phrase: The Mother of God. No one can say anything greater of her, :though he had as many tongues as there are leaves on the trees." : :5. Wm. J. Cole, "Was Luther a Devotee of Mary?" in Marian Studies 1970, p. :116: ". . . in the resolutions of the 95 theses Luther rejects every :blasphemy against the Virgin, and thinks that one should ask for pardon for :any evil said or thought against her." : :6. David F. Wright, Chosen by God: Mary in Evangelical Perspecive (London: :Marshall Pickering, 1989, p. 178: "In Luther's Explanation of the :Magnificat in 1521, he begins and ends with an invocation to Mary, which :Wright feels compelled to call 'surprising'". (Cited from Faith & Reason, :Spring 1994, p. 6. : :7. P. Stravinskas in Faith & Reason, Spring, 1994, p. 8: "Most interesting ::of all, perhaps, is the realization that his burial chamber in the ::Wittenberg church, on whose door he had posted his 95 Theses, was adorned ::with the 1521 Peter Vischer sculpture of the Coronation of the Virgin, with :the inscription containing these lines: "Ad summum Regina thronum defertur :in altum. Luther was very slow to reject all heresies of Rome. Eg. he was lenient towards the trans- (he said "con"-) substantiation, images, infant baptism... After all, he had been a monk. Some junk doctrines were left for us to fling into the dustbin. :John Calvin: : It cannot be denied that God in choosing and destining Mary to : be the Mother of his Son, granted her the highest honor. ... : Elizabeth called Mary Mother of the Lord, because the unity of : the person in the two natures of Christ was such that she could : have said that the mortal man engendered in the womb of Mary : was at the same time the eternal God. (Calvini Opera, Corpus : Reformatorum, Braunschweig-Berlin, 1863-1900, v. 45, p. 348, 35.) The least objections I have against Calvin. But he elsewhere wrote about his teaching in general: "If we are proven to be wrong, we are ready, not just to revoke this "doctrine of ours, but also to most vehemently turn against it. I haven't found the source but if you prompt me on it I'll be keen to provide it. In Institutio, Chapter 12. titled "God distinguished from idols, that He may be the exclusive object of worship", he writes about the "veneration" of the saints: \ 1. [...] It may be proper here more particularly to attend to the \ subtleties which superstition employs. In revolting to strange gods, \ it avoids the appearance of abandoning the Supreme God, or reducing \ him to the same rank with others. It gives him the highest place, \ but at the same time surrounds him with a tribe of minor deities, \ among whom it portions out his peculiar offices. In this way, though \ in a dissembling and crafty manner, the glory of the Godhead is \ dissected, and not allowed to remain entire. In the same way the \ people of old, both Jews and Gentiles, placed an immense crowd in \ subordination to the father and ruler of the gods, and gave them, \ according to their rank, to share with the supreme God in the \ government of heaven and earth. In the same way, too, for some ages \ past, departed saints have been exalted to partnership with God, to \ be worshipped, invoked, and lauded in his stead. And yet we do not \ even think that the majesty of God is obscured by this abomination, \ whereas it is in a great measure suppressed and extinguished - all \ that we retain being a frigid opinion of his supreme power. At the \ same time, being deluded by these entanglements, we go astray after \ divers gods. So, the picture is more expressive now. Calvin was not Mariac at all. :On the perpetual virginity of Mary, "Calvin routinely brushes aside the :difficulties sometimes raised from 'first born' and `brothers of the Lord.' :(O'Carroll, M., 1983, Theotokos, M Glazier, Inc.: Wilmington, DE, p. 94.) It's not preconception towards Mariac devotion but simple exegesis: the Hebrew word "bekor", standing behind "firstborn" doesn't indicate further children. "Brothers" are indeed ambiguous. However, there is good reason to suppose that Joseph not in vain took Mary for his wife. So even if no other children were born of Mary then it's an absurdity to think that she refused to lie with her husband. Calvin says in his "Commentary on the Harmony of the Evangelists" (trans. William Pringle, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979. vol. I. p. 41) that _ it would have been a treachery on her part to endure being engaged to _ a husband [despite her alleged virginal vow]; and she could not have _ despised the holy bond of matrimony without mocking God.... However _ cruel tyranny reigned under the Papacy in this respect too, even they _ forbore to allow a married woman to vow to refrain from sex at her will. (Translation from a Hungarian book where it is a referenced quotation) :The Swiss reformer, Ulrich Zwingli (1484-1531), wrote, on the divine :motherhood of Mary, : It was given to her what belongs to no creature, that in the : flesh she should bring forth the Son of God. (Zwingli Opera, : Corpus Reformatorum, Berlin, 1905, in Evang. Luc., Op. compl., : v. 6, I, p. 639.) : :On the perpetual virginity of Mary, Zwingli wrote, : : I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the : gospel as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and : in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, : intact Virgin. (Zwingli Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, : Berlin, 1905, v. 1, p. 424.) : :In another place Zwingli professed, : : I esteem immensely the Mother of God, the ever chaste, : immaculate Virgin Mary ...; Christ ... was born of a most : undefiled Virgin. (Stakemeier, E. in De Mariologia et : Oecumenismo, Balic, K., ed., Rome, 1962, p. 456.) : :And again, : : The more the honor and love for Christ grows among men, the : more esteem and honor for Mary grows, for she brought forth for : us so great, but so compassionate a Lord and Redeemer. (Zwingli : Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Berlin, 1905, v. 1, pp. 427-428.) Zwingli isn't my favourite one, he was too worldly and humanistic rather than a Christian whom we may imitate. True, Calvin at times was also angry and truculent, but his teaching is the purest of all among the 16th century Reformers. A brief note to defuse your quotations: as I have mentioned, we may adapt our doctrines to our improving understanding of the Scriptures - even your denomination does so. Neither Luther nor Calvin professed to be infallible - we simply continue the reformation and reform some of their doctrines. On the other hand, the gradual decay of the true veneration of Mary (which I mean to be reverent thinking and contempl- ation, but nothing like humble prayer and bowing down before her) in Protestantism was due to your denomination which in propagating their beliefs, preached the pseudo-Mary more vigorously than Christ. In Hungary, the unlettered peasants were lured with primitive miracles and weeping pseudo-Mary-statues into the Roman faith. One may mention the great number of Mariac congregations, Mariac pilgrimages, Mariac encyclicals etc. In such an athmosphere it was the most natural of us to have withdrawn from even using the name of Mary in speech. Of course it was one-sided but what gave rise to it (ie. your Mariac hystery) was likewise, if not more maniacal. :Protestants attacks constantly say that the Catholic Church changed :doctrine yet it is abundantly clear that it is the other way around. But we don't profess to be infallible. We say that "ecclesia semper reformanda", the Church has to be constantly reformed. This verdict originates from a pope, if I remember correctly, Gregory the Great. So we can alter our understanding of Scripture without the detriment of our ecclesiastical majesty. You, on the other hand, cannot contradict your predecessors and are often in trouble to explain why you still do so despite of this unwritten obligation. :Go find someone else to play your anti-Catholic games with. It was you to have uttered downright blasphemies on the internet, with your pestilential falsehoods deceiving many. Now I tried to make you realize that your point is gratuitous and indefensible, but I'll be only a little bit sadder to learn that I didn't succeed in this job. By the way, I am corresponding with other Roman Catholics. James Black, for example, presented me with longish snippets from Thomas Aquinas, refuting whom indeed took me much time, effort, and delight. Your weak arguments, pompous but hollow assertions, and frequent digressions didn't make a well-established case for the Roman Catholic Church. I expected you to be more of an apologist than you could make up for this task.