"Cult of Mary"

December 5th, 2014 at 5:19:06 AM permalink
boymimbo
Member since: Mar 25, 2013
Threads: 5
Posts: 615
Let's be fair about a few things.

First is the Catholic notion that Mary as well was subject to the Immaculate Conception which differs from most of the rest of Christianity. There is no biblical evidence that Mary' conception was also immaculate. It's due to some kind of Catholic reasoning that if Jesus was pure, so must Mary.

Then there's the Assumption of Mary as well, which is a Catholic belief only based on Gen 3:15 and 1 Cor 15:54 which in my opinion is flimsy at best. This Assumption didn't occur until 1950.

These are the two doctrines where Mary is held to a much higher esteem than the rest of Christianity.

Joseph was going to divorce Mary until an angel told him that all was fine.

And there's no point really arguing this. These are declarations by the pope, and therefore as a Catholic priet must be believed. To me the bible doesn't really support these two notions. Certainly Mary was special. And Bob and others can argue that she was held in higher esteeem to convert others into the faith.
December 5th, 2014 at 6:22:00 AM permalink
FrGamble
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 44
Posts: 4980
Quote: boymimbo
Geez FR, are you proud of that number, 4%. i would hope that the odds of my child being molested in a church setting to be ABSOLUTE ZERO.


I promise to get back to our regularly scheduled broadcast very soon, but I just wanted to say that no one should be proud of any numbers here. Regardless of what Bob wants to read into things, I have never said we should be content with anything less than zero! In numerous posts I said we should have the highest standard for priests and everyone, which is no cases ever of child abuse. Even then we should not be "proud" of that zero number because that is just what we should do.

Also I have no problem talking about these things (maybe in a different thread would be nice) because it is in talking about these things and raising awareness that the problem gets addressed. More people know more about the scourge of child sexual abuse now than ever before. In the Church and in society we kept trying to sweep the stinking mess under the rug until it stunk to heaven and exploded. Good! Now not only are there excellent training and prevention courses required of every single employee and volunteer in every Catholic Church, there is also a heightened awareness in seminary training, and society in general has taken a hard look and realized the problem is huge in our school systems and in our homes. I think most importantly these victims of sexual abuse as a minor now realize they are not alone and have the courage to speak out and come forward for healing and justice.
December 5th, 2014 at 6:30:51 AM permalink
FrGamble
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 44
Posts: 4980
Quote: Pacomartin


AFAIK, prayers to Mary specifically did not exist in the first two centuries of Christianity. Many protestants are taught that Mary is respected in the gospels as the mother of Jesus, but not an object of veneration in her own right.


The first written prayer calling upon Mary's intercession is indeed from 300AD, it is called the Sub tuum Praesidium and it goes like this:

We turn to you for protection,
Holy Mother of God.
Listen to our prayers
and help us in our needs.
Save us from every danger,
glorious and blessed Virgin.

Of course we can also point out that the beginning of the most famous Marian prayer, The Hail Mary, is just two quotes from Luke's Gospel:

"Hail, favored one! The Lord is with you." (Lk. 1:28) "Most blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb." (Lk. 1:42)

So this would put acclimations about Mary in the late-middle of the First century.
December 5th, 2014 at 6:44:16 AM permalink
FrGamble
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 44
Posts: 4980
Quote: boymimbo
Let's be fair about a few things.

First is the Catholic notion that Mary as well was subject to the Immaculate Conception which differs from most of the rest of Christianity. There is no biblical evidence that Mary' conception was also immaculate. It's due to some kind of Catholic reasoning that if Jesus was pure, so must Mary.

Then there's the Assumption of Mary as well, which is a Catholic belief only based on Gen 3:15 and 1 Cor 15:54 which in my opinion is flimsy at best. This Assumption didn't occur until 1950.

These are the two doctrines where Mary is held to a much higher esteem than the rest of Christianity.

Joseph was going to divorce Mary until an angel told him that all was fine.

And there's no point really arguing this. These are declarations by the pope, and therefore as a Catholic priet must be believed. To me the bible doesn't really support these two notions. Certainly Mary was special. And Bob and others can argue that she was held in higher esteeem to convert others into the faith.


This very good post by boymimbo and the following comment by paco are starting to bring into focus for me what might be the real question:
Quote: Pacomartin

The question is difficult to answer as one of the mantra's of much of Protestant denominations is that all belief systems must be traceable to the bible alone. Personally, I believe that is a bit idealistic, because no one can divorce themselves from centuries of interpretation.


We have still not seen how any of the teachings of the Catholic Church are against the Bible, nor will we see that. We also can move the argument forward by granting that you aren't going to see in the Bible the definition of the Immaculate Conception or Assumption laid out in great detail. Therefore I wonder, is the real question about the role of the Bible as the only source for everything we believe as Christians or rather is it the guarantee and final arbiter of correct doctrine and teachings about Christianity? What I mean to say is are some things like the belief in the Trinity, Communion of Saints, Purgatory, Eucharist, and the unique role of Mary to be thrown out because they are not precisely laid out in the Scriptures as we understand them today? They are not against the Bible and the fact is for the first 1,500 years of the Church they were believed by all who called themselves Christian starting from the Apostles themselves. All of this leads me to conclude they are true authentic teachings, grounded in Biblical truth and grown through the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
December 5th, 2014 at 11:42:21 AM permalink
Nareed
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 312
Posts: 10511
Quote: FrGamble
In the Church and in society we kept trying to sweep the stinking mess under the rug until it stunk to heaven and exploded. Good!


That's exactly the problem.

When the scandal involving child abuse by priests first broke, several years ago, the subsequent reports on how the church dealt with things really caused the outrage. In many cases, church officials did not cooperate with police investigations, Many of the priests involved kept on working for the church, and many were not even kept away from children.

I read the church saw this as a moral problem, to be dealt with through confession, penance, etc. I don't object to this, but only in addition to other measures. Anyone who abuses a child should go to jail, priest or no priest. I won't say they should all be fired, but keeping them away from children is a no-brainer.
If Trump where half as smart as he thinks he is, he'd be twice as smart as he really is.
December 5th, 2014 at 12:11:32 PM permalink
Evenbob
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 106
Posts: 10696
Quote: FrGamble
In the Church and in society we kept trying to sweep the stinking mess under the rug until it stunk to heaven and exploded.


Just like everything else in the Church, they
didn't stop sweeping on their own, they
stopped when public opinion forced them
to. They changed when they had to or go
out of business.

That's the history of the Church. They ran pope
blessed Inquisitions for 600 years and would
still be running them today if public opinion
hadn't forced them to stop. The Holy See
doesn't seem to have the ability to understand
that the morality that applies to us, also applies
to the Church. The sheer arrogance of the Church
in the past is breathtaking and frightening in
its scope. At the higher levels, much of that
arrogance is still there today.
If you take a risk, you may lose. If you never take a risk, you will always lose.
December 5th, 2014 at 1:17:30 PM permalink
FrGamble
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 44
Posts: 4980
I don't want to derail this thread any further by trying to separate myth from historical fact in regards to the Inquisitions, especially because an important question about the role of the Bible is on the table, but nevertheless let just say that historians point to three main and distinct inquisitions ranging from 1184 to 1542. These were not continuous through all those years and in the case of the infamous Spanish Inquisition the Church pulled away from it precisely because of its abuses. Listen Bob if you want to use the inquisitions to show the Church has made horrible mistakes and is made up of sinful people save your breath, we all know that as well as we know 15 minutes can save you up to 15% in car insurance. The problem is you seem to want to stretch these events to say that this type of activity is fundamental to the Church, that we would just continue to do these things if no one was watching, that the Church is immoral and arrogant from the top down. Your opinion and these historical atrocities do not make these things so.

Quote: Evenbob

The sheer arrogance of the Church
in the past is breathtaking and frightening in
its scope. At the higher levels, much of that
arrogance is still there today.


Have you heard about this Pope Francis guy, he's kind of a big deal. How about that Saint Francis guy? He is even more awesome!
December 5th, 2014 at 2:14:10 PM permalink
Evenbob
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 106
Posts: 10696
Quote: FrGamble
if you want to use the inquisitions to show the Church has made horrible mistakes and is made up of sinful people save your breath, we all know that as well


I cannot separate the Church from it's
past, why should I. Just like I can't
separate John Rockefeller from his past,
he has to looked at as a whole. He was
the worlds greatest philanthropist, he
built hospitals and universities. He gave
away his money at an astounding rate.

But he broke every rule in getting that
money. He was ruthless, he destroyed
peoples lives and livelihoods. He was an
evil tyrant in his business, while on Sundays
he sat in the front row of his Baptist church
and never drank, swore or smoked in his
entire life.

So I look at today's Church as a whole entity,
and look at its past as being equal to its
present. The ends do not justify the means.
You're a stand up guy to try and defend it,
but it's like Rockefeller defending his past
by doing good deeds for the last 40 years
of his life. It doesn't erase what was done,
it doesn't make it go away. Nothing can make
it go away. Nothing can make the Churches
past go away. You're stuck with it, like it or
not.
If you take a risk, you may lose. If you never take a risk, you will always lose.
December 5th, 2014 at 3:13:10 PM permalink
Face
Administrator
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 61
Posts: 3089
Quote: Evenbob
Just like everything else in the Church, they
didn't stop sweeping on their own, they
stopped when public opinion forced them
to.


It's almost like morality is determined by the populace, and is not some universal truth ;)
Be bold and risk defeat, or be cautious and encourage it.
December 5th, 2014 at 4:29:09 PM permalink
FrGamble
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 44
Posts: 4980
Quote: Face
It's almost like morality is determined by the populace, and is not some universal truth ;)


You're right I wish Evenbob believed morality was determined by the populace because he would get off my back and realize you can't criticize the Church for doing this because it happened to be labeled "good" at the time. He's treating child sexual abuse as if it is a universal truth that it is bad no matter what, come on it's almost like its an objective moral truth ;)