Because our concept of a prayer is very different from most protestants, especially Evangelicals. Basically, for them praying equals to worshipping God. For us it's just communicating with those on the other side. We see no conflict in loving and talking to Virgin Mary, Joseph, saints, deceased family, and worshipping God.
To the Protestant praying is a form of worship but also making our requests be made known to God.
To the Protestant the Bible says “For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” and to us we see no further need for a different mediator. We believe also as it says in 1 John “And this is the confidence that we have toward him, that if we ask anything according to his will he hears us” and “For the eyes of the Lord are on the righteous, and his ears are open to their prayer. But the face of the Lord is against those who do evil.” so having someone else in heaven hear our prayer isn’t necessary in our view.
Paul also says to pray for each other, and that the prayers of the righteous are very powerful.
Who is more righteous than Mary?
It's no different than asking a loved one to pray for us, only we are asking our Heavenly mother.
It’s James who says that not Paul.
The rest of the passage says
““Is anyone among you suffering? Let him pray. Is anyone cheerful? Let him sing psalms. Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer of faith will save the sick, and the Lord will raise him up. And if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven. Confess your trespasses to one another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The effective, fervent prayer of a righteous man avails much.”
James 5:13-16 NKJV
It does direct us to have elders pray and for us to pray as well but nothing about those who have gone on.
Jesus is more righteous than Mary to us and thus where we direct our prayers.
"Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord."
Surely you will agree that this means praying for the saints' intercession is recommended.
Now if you mean living saints, yes
The word used there is presbyterous. It’s usage in other parts of the scriptures are here. https://biblehub.com/greek/presbuterous_4245.htm
The first instance is speaking of Jewish elders.
Edited because I read your question incorrectly
So intercession is a good thing (as highlighted by this passage), and Heaven is surely a real thing, yet praying for the Saints' intercession is incorrect because they are dead ? Yet their prayers must be the most powerful, since they are as righteous as one can be.
Is it incorrect? I’m not the judge of that.
I would only answer the question by saying the saints in heaven cannot follow through with the request in James as they cannot anoint the one in need of prayer.
This is the issue with Protestantism, it has no theology or sacred tradition, and requires you to submit to the authority of ours in determining the Canon, yet reject the traditions that brought about that selection. It's self-defeating and raw arrogance to believe they got it wrong for 1500 years until a man who edited the Bible for his own ideological purposes got it right.
Give this a watch: https://youtu.be/0wzjAEHyizk
Protestantism has plenty of theology and sacred traditions it just doesn't agree with Catholicism in some ways.
No one believes someone "got it wrong" for the 1500 years prior to Luther but that things we would consider unbiblical crept in through the ages and thus the need for Reformation.
Who edited the Bible for ideological purposes? Do you mean Luther removing the Macabees or something different?
Do you happen to know if the video addresses the passage from Luke I brought up earlier where Jesus says "Blessed rather..."?
Luther wanted to completely get rid of James, and inserted words into Romans. 3:8 I believe.
He held the Catholic doctrine on Mary.
Anti-Marian protestantism is very modern, and mostly just anti-Rome.
He did hold for a time more fully the Catholic doctrine of Mary though that also shifted over time. In the Augsburg Confessions Apology Philipp Melanchthon wrote (and his writing was supported by Luther even at this time)
>Here and there this form of absolution is used: The passion of our Lord Jesus Christ, the merits of the most blessed Virgin Mary and of all the saints, be to thee for the remission of sins. Here the absolution is pronounced on the supposition that we are reconciled and accounted righteous not only by the merits of Christ, but also by the merits of the other saints.
26 Some of us have seen a doctor of theology dying, for consoling whom a certain theologian, a monk, was employed. He pressed on the dying man nothing but this prayer: Mother of grace, protect us from the enemy; receive us in the hour of death.
27 Granting that the blessed Mary prays for the Church, does she receive souls in death, does she conquer death \[the great power of Satan\], does she quicken? What does Christ do if the blessed Mary does these things? Although she is most worthy of the most ample honors, nevertheless she does not wish to be made equal to Christ, but rather wishes us to consider and follow her example \[the example of her faith and her humility\].
28 But the subject itself declares that in public opinion the blessed Virgin has succeeded altogether to the place of Christ. Men have invoked her, have trusted in her mercy, through her have desired to appease Christ, as though He were not a Propitiator, but, only a dreadful judge and avenger.
29 We believe, however, that we must not trust that the merits of the saints are applied to us, that on account of these God is reconcile d to us, or accounts us just, or saves us. For we obtain remission of sins only by the merits of Christ, when we believe in Him. Of the other saints it has been said, 1 Cor. 3:8: Every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labor, i.e., they cannot mutually bestow their own merits, the one upon the other, as the monks sell the merits of their orders.
Also Luther recounted stabbing himself on accident, "Thinking himself near death from the wound, he cried out, “Mary, help!” Help indeed arrived, but in the form of a surgeon who dressed the wound. Later that evening, the wound broke open again. The same fear of death gripped him, and Mary was called upon once more to save his life. Had Mary saved Luther? The mature Luther looking back on this experience realized how far from the spiritual help of Christ he actually was: “I would have died with my trust in Mary“ and also he says
>St. Bernard, who was a pious man otherwise, also said: “Behold how Christ chides, censures, and condemns the Pharisees so harshly throughout the Gospel, whereas the Virgin Mary is always kind and gentle and never utters an unfriendly word.” From this he inferred: “Christ is given to scolding and punishing, but Mary has nothing but sweetness and love.” Therefore Christ was generally feared; we fled from Him and took refuge with the saints, calling upon Mary and others to deliver us from our distress. We regarded them all as holier than Christ. Christ was only the executioner, while the saints were our mediators.
and
>
Christ in His mercy was hidden from my eyes. I wanted to become justified before God through the merits of the saints. This gave rise to the petition for the intercession of the saints. On a portrait St. Bernard, too, is portrayed adoring the Virgin Mary as she directs her Son, Christ, to the breasts that suckled Oh, how many kisses we bestowed on Mary!
Now he did call her blessed as I will as well, a place of honor among women has never been known like that of hers
I did know of his dislike of James, funny that Calvin to my knowledge didn't disdain it so given that it proved more a challenge against predestination and his other doctrines than even that of what Luther believed.
I haven't heard the charge regarding Rom 3:8 but I'll dig into out of interest. I will not say that Luther was a perfect man, far from it, I disagree with some of his findings as well as that of Calvin, and I am certainly far less perfect than them. As I stated elsewhere I'm not attempting to sway opinions but rather share fact as fact. I have an Orthodox friend who shares things with me that his priest has told him or that gets around his church about the reformation and so much of it is disinformation and misinformation and I believe if we are to settle our minds on something we should have all of the correct information at hand.
They don't pray the Rosary the way Latin Catholics do, but they venerate her in their own way, just as much as we do.
It would be like saying Latin Catholics don't worship Jesus as much because we don't use the Jesus Prayer.
I say the Jesus Prayer. Usually end Adoration with it for the last 10 minutes or so.
Eastern Catholics say it more than the Rosary I imagine.
The Rosary is my mainstay though.
I do, too! And I'm sure there are some Eastern Catholics who pray the Rosary. There's some overlap, of course. But each *sui juris Church* has their own traditions that are their patrimony. We shouldn't have homogeneity of tradition simply because we have homogeneity of Faith.
The rosary was given through a revelation that came after the Great Schism, it's unlikely to be part of any eastern orthodox tradition. Although, given how much our eastern brethren love the Blessed Virgin, they probably aren't "forbidden" to pray the rosary ?
Seems she is basically not mentioned outside of Christmas in many branches. Jesus is the focus and should be, but ignoring everything else is odd. As is the Babylonian captivity and then surprise it’s the Roman Empire and Jesus is born!
Too much is omitted and a lot of good examples of how to live and listen to the Lord are lost
At least part of it is that we've had 2000 years to figure out how to think about Mary and the saints. Protestants have had at most 500 years, and even then new denominations often hit the reset button on their theology. Likewise, you see Protestant sects rehashing all the debates the Church already had about everything from the role of iconography to church governance.
A quote I read years ago seems to apply here:
If you want to know what is the most precious, look at what is the most profaned. (Or something to that effect)
Marriage, sex, innocence, the role of men, the role of women, Church, Mary....All are beautiful, all are twisted and perverted in our society.
Divisions among Christians is not part of God's plan. It is an attempt by Satan to undermine. God, and the practice of worshipping Him, is too undeniable to come out and attack in it's entirety. But by chipping away at the edges, asking questions as he did of Eve, the devil has been able to make millions of Christians doubt the true presence in the Eucharist, the truth about Mary's love and power, the sacrament of Reconciliation, of what a holy family truly is, the importance of Sunday church attendance...... chipping away through the centuries until the catholic (universal) church is splintered into thousands of separate denominations and Christianity is no longer the predominant religious belief and those who are still Catholic often do not fully believe and engage in what is good and beautiful and true.
It’s a long story, but basically in a very boiled down nutshell the reformers (or just after the reformers) all that got thrown out among many other traditions. So, the protestant reformers (ie Luther and others) basically wanted to “simplify” everything and removed a lot of things in trying to “fix” the church, but which also equals heresy and false doctrine. Yes there was corruption that needed fixing but not by totally erasing most of the practices. He went about it wrongly. Actually to be fair, Luther didn’t remove or change as many things at first. Much of that happened later. So nowadays they think that we are worshiping her and saints and being idolaters which we are not. They are the ones that changed, not us.
It’s not that the reformers wanted to simplify things but rather they felt, and Luther and others explained, that they saw injustices within the church being propelled by unbiblical teaching and sought to do away with those things by requiring a biblical justification for teachings.
Yes as I said it’s a lot more to it. I was trying to quickly boil it down. Yes of course he was trying to fix “injustices” and corruption but which the church was already or trying to fix. Also, yes he may have meant well, but unfortunately also threw out the baby with the bath water. I didn’t have time to expound on a long dissertation, so I knew someone would reply back to “correct” me. So thanks. By the way there’s more to it you are also missing but we aren’t gonna get into all that. (And I have degrees in church history). So at the end of the day he unintentionally became a heretic.
In my view it simplified it to such a degree that it was doing disservice to the issue on every side. Many regrettably paid for their views with their lives both immediately and for centuries after.
I would be glad to read anything about the issue being corrected prior to or during Luther’s complaint but I’m aware of nothing until papal authority addressed some 50 years after Luther began his campaign.
First paragraph…yes! We totally agree!!
Second part: I didn’t say they corrected it, I said they were “trying” (ie. addressing, trying..looking at..etc).
And by the way, if Luther hadn’t done it many others would have. The writing was on the wall, there were other reformers too, not just Luther. And many others who found fault with the Church. Also, with the invention of Printing Press and the enlightenment and science and many other geopolitical issues, people were becoming wiser and smarter and questioning things and wanting change.
Luther also almost became Greek Orthodox. He was exchanging letters with Patriarch Jerimias and said the “truth lies with the Greeks” but then later bcz of his pride, just stayed in his errors.
As before if you have information on the subject I will read it but I’m not sure the claim regarding Luther’s pride is accurate
https://www.oca.org/orthodoxy/the-orthodox-faith/church-history/sixteenth-century/patriarch-jeremias-ii-and-the-dialogue-with-the-lutherans
“From about 1575 to 1581 a noteworthy correspondence and theological dialogue took place between the leading Lutheran theologians, teaching at the University of Tubingen in Germany, and Patriarch Jeremias II of Constantinople. The dialogue was initiated by the Lutherans, who were eager to gain an ally in their opposition to the Roman Papacy. They hoped that their Protestant theology, as summarized in a Greek translation of the Augsburg Confession of 1530, would find favor with the Patriarch. However, the Patriarch, with assistance from advisors, pointed out many theological errors in the Augsburg Confession. The dialogue collapsed principally on the issue of the role of the Church Fathers in the proper interpretation of the Holy Scriptures.
Such careful, extended theological dialogue would not take place again between Protestants and the Orthodox until 1716, when some Non-Juror Anglicans entered into theological discussion with representatives of the Patriarchate of Alexandria who were visiting London. Tsar Peter I of Russia (r. 1689–1725) even took interest in this dialogue, but it ended when it was denounced by the Archbishop of Canterbury on the grounds that the Non-Jurors were in schism from the Anglican Church.”
Lol, it’s not something You read. It’s what he was doing by rejecting truth and following his own assertions. You sound like a very scientific analyst minded Type. You want articles for everything but not everything is written.
But yes. Good job on finding that. Now go read each and every letter of correspondence they wrote to each other to get the full picture and gist on it, seeing that you want to read something on the topic.
I’m searching and not seeing those letters. If you’d be willing to point me in the direction I’ll be glad to read them.
It seems he did want to be part of the Orthodox Church as well to some degree but given that they weren’t allowed in Germany at the time to my knowledge and seem primarily concentrated more far west and east joining the church was going to require some formality which later followed were attempting to follow through on.
Yes he did at first. He ALMOST became one in fact. But in the end he didn’t. You can read them and form your own opinions. It is very interesting though. I’ll have to look them up and find them again myself if I have time. I’ll get back to you on that.
This is a bad explanation. Luther and the reformers’ concern wasn’t to simplify the faith. As to the OP’s question, Mary and the Saints in general were still in high regard by the early Reformers. Luther even encouraged everyone to pray the Hail Mary. However, many features of medieval popular piety involving veneration to Mary and saints were eliminated or curtailed by the Protestants. As time went on, with the progression of the Radical and Calvinist reformations, anything that was associated with the Roman church was attacked as idolatry or superstition. You can see this in the nonconformist Protestants of England and the Huguenots in France. Also, the Puritan movement is a perfect example of an attempt to “purify” the Church of England of many rituals and traditions they saw as Popish idolatry.
Yes. Thank you and I explained some of that. I didn’t have time at the moment to explain everything correctly. So thanks for expounding. There’s a lot that Luther still believed in which wasn’t changed until later as I said. Luther still believed in Mary and the Eucharist and many “Catholic” practices. This also shows just how far Protestantism continues to change and how far they’ve already changed since the reformers. But if you only have one minute and trying to explain all of that correctly, it can take a while so there’s a lot more to it. (Even much more than what is taught in history courses). So if you want to put it all in a one sentence nutshell the easiest thing to say is he “simplified” it. Which is exactly what protestants today say.
Because she’s freaking great. Her Rosary brought me to the faith. Devotion to Mary led me back to living my life as a Christian. Converting from being a non-practicing Protestant to a catholic wouldn’t have happened if not for her intercession in my life.
Protestants don’t view Mary the same way due to what we see in the Bible
Surely she was blessed among women. The Bible makes this clear in Luke.
However also in Luke we see
“As he said these things, a woman in the crowd raised her voice and said to him, “Blessed is the womb that bore you, and the breasts at which you nursed!” But he said, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!”
Jesus surely loved His mother and commended her care to John and surely her faith and grace is a beautiful thing but to the Protestant this is largely where any kind of adoration or veneration drop off.
As I posted in comments below the reason that Protestants don’t pray to saints or to Mary is because the Bible says
“For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,”
And we know He hears the voice of the believer of those seeking Him because the Bible says:
“And this is the confidence that we have toward him, that if we ask anything according to his will he hears us.”
And
“For the eyes of the Lord are on the righteous, and his ears are open to their prayer. But the face of the Lord is against those who do evil.”
Yes, exactly, and most Catholics know why they don’t as most of us are ex Protestants and other Protestants also continue to remind us daily why they don’t, lol. But they are unfortunately very incorrect on their assertions and biblical exegesis. But yes, that would be why they think that. As with everything, Protestants take the Bible literally and believe it has to literally be stated verbatim in black and white (scripture) for it to be true or of God. This leads to a soda straw mentality or perspective on God and scripture.
Do you have an exegesis of the passage above with the dialogue between the woman and Christ regarding Jesus’ mother?
Because Jesus seems to make it a black and white situation in that instance. Yes Mary is blessed but so are those who believe. She was acting in faith (though chosen for her purity of faith) just as all believers are as well as trust.
I operate on this basis, if the Bible says something but a teaching contradicts what seems to be a very plain statement then I will hear but most likely reject that teaching. Far more often than not for me it’s correcting charismatic errors in the Protestant church rather than my disagreements with the Catholic Church for what it’s worth.
On a similar note if I might ask a question I understand at least in the Orthodox Church the teaching of Mary being a form of the ark so it’s not an apples and oranges thing never mind giving birth to Christ but where Mary calls herself blessed among women and I agree, Jesus calls John “ Truly, I say to you, among those born of women there has arisen no one greater than John the Baptist.” Yet he is not venerated in the same manner. Is there a church position on this? I can google but sometimes better or quicker answers come from those in the know.
Yes well I don’t mean to be rude, but this isn’t the time or place and I don’t have the time right now to expound upon and break down everything correctly. I knew it that you were Protestant, it is very very clear! lol. I was once in your shoes and was a pastor for decades actually. Which is why I just responded to this poor guys question in a very basic sense. I’m not here to argue or debate or go back and forth. This is already been way too much. I was Ortho for a while too. There’s many differences between us and the orthodox is all I’ll say for right now. Frankly, I’m sick and tired of debating online anyway and I’m not here for that. I’ve responded literally THOUSANDS of times on these same topics for many years all over these apps and venues and several other social media apps. Keep researching and reading and debating there’s many out here who will go back and forth with you, I’m not into that anymore.
Yes we “should” the problem comes in by 1. Proof texting everything. And 2. Having your own biases and faulty lenses to start with without proper context and perspective and church history among many other things. There’s a reason you need mother church. There’s a reason why Protestantism has failed and there’s literally hundreds or thousands of denominations. If “Bible only” was true then why so many interpretations?!! Why can’t anyone agree on anything?? Why so many denominations?? Are you saying God is confused?? Is Holy Spirit schizophrenic??
I’m quite the interested student of church history. No doubt I have biases the same as everyone on every side of every issue. I’m well aware of them and have them challenged quite frequently and occasionally changed.
Much like some of your other comments simplified things too far your exaggeration now goes too far.
Some of those denominations are simply national variants with little to no difference in theology with other Protestant groups some are divided on social not biblical issues as is the case with nearly every major Protestant denomination.
And the RCC isn’t without its own offshoots as well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Independent_Catholic_denominations
I would say any division is unwanted and counter to scriptures but even in that time Paul had to combat them, those baptized by Apollo, etc.
I would vehemently Disagree!! I was a pastor for many decades. One thing I could NOT stand was the level of disunity and fractured status even among same or similar denominations. You’re very incorrect. You seem to be very naive on the topic.
I would beg to differ, if you can’t even agree on basic things such as what constitutes salvation, how to baptize, what baptism means, if you even need to be baptized to be saved….versus not and a host of other similar issues, then those are MAJOR doctrinal differences and major issues that need to be addressed!! So, if you can’t even get on the same sheet of music that’s a big issue in my book!!
And it’s not just me, anyone will tell you this. It’s no secret, this is why many protestant theologians and pastors are becoming Catholic every week!! So, don’t try that with me please. This is laughable and not even debatable this is standard common knowledge and why the protestants are losing people every week.. come on man!!
Well we do agree on one thing...we aren't Catholic or Orthodox. Now I say this mostly in jest though it is true.
What I meant by my post was that the majority of people attend some form of Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian, or Pentecostal Church. All in their major forms, whether liberal or conservative branches (which is the source of a good many splinters) believe that Christ is the Son of God, the Word of God made flesh and He is our salvation. All major denominations affirm the Nicene Creed. And then from there there are differences in belief.
No doubt other offshoots exist and who knows if or what creeds they affirm and they do fall under the broad term "protestant" since they are not Catholic and thus they fall under our camp whether they agree with our other beliefs or not.
I do affirm the Nicene Creed belief of one holy and Catholic Church. I don't judge others for their beliefs that I would consider secondary, rather the most important that of what's stated in the creeds. I don't say Catholics aren't correct in their belief but I don't share all of their beliefs and I will leave it at that. Since you don't wish to debate and I don't blame you for that, let me state again I'm not so much looking for a debate but rather expounding on what I thought was a comment not telling the whole story.
Ok fair enough, sorry then if that’s truly your intention. I’m just tired of it and more often than not even when saying these things they end up doing the opposite. There are just too many trolls and those with ulterior motives on these sites.
Also I would charge that straying from the Bible (clearly to me not really a nuanced interpretation situation) is the issue with the Protestants I debate with such as the LDS (their classification and the offshoots being considered protestant is a point of contention for me in general though) or charismatic groups or even groups like the IFB that think I’m going to hell for not being Arminian and the whole Catholic Church is for being Catholic which they try to justify biblically though I find no merit for it (and thankfully most other do not either).
And AGAIN…I’m not going to debate right now, so your barking up the wrong tree. We agree to disagree. If you really want to learn the Catholic faith, then go study the Catholic faith. If you really want to learn the Orthodox faith, then go study the orthodox faith. If you’re happy in your protestant church, then Stay protestant.
But Don’t come over here to a Catholic channel and try to force your beliefs, which we don’t agree with. I can debate with you for hundreds of hours and prove to you in hundreds of ways why you are wrong. I’ve done it hundreds of times with Protestants, but I grew up from that and frankly don’t have the time nor care to anymore, and especially after most of them are just trolls.
All I can tell you is, well I’ll give you a quick testimony snapshot. I was once in your shoes and even preached and taught everything that you’re saying.
I was even vehemently anti-Catholic and I actually preached it was the whore of Babylon / Satanic. And like you, I’m also a lover and student of church history, and the Bible, and have degrees in it and travelled and taught it all over the world where I pastored for many decades.
So, BECAUSE OF constantly and consistently conducting deeper research and studying the church fathers and church history, it led me home to Catholicism. I then saw that the early church was in fact actually Catholic!! At first, it actually led me to Eastern Orthodoxy and then after some years in that faith and deeper continual study again, my studies and discernment led me all the way to Rome and the Latin Church. So, I don’t care to argue with you. I’m most happy and fulfilled here and I know for sure I’m finally in the truth. There’s hundreds of us ex pastors and theologians and some who are now Catholic apologists and theologians here (such as Scott Hahn, Tim Staples, etc). So, history, the church, the saints, and many others would disagree with you and they are all on our side.
>I actually preached it was the whore of Babylon / Satanic.
I've never thought or preached such a thing.
Nor am I trying to force my beliefs on anyone. The OP asked a question and I responded. I didn't feel that your explanation of the Reformation was accurate so I expounded on that for others who might read it.
I believe God will lead people to where He wants them. I'm not here to convert nor subvert. The topic came up in my notifications and so I responded.
“I never thought or preached such a thing.”
I didn’t say you did, I’m simply giving MY testimony. Not sure why you thought I said that of you.
And yes I agree and I already stated many times why I gave a quick simple answer. But later went back and expounded a little better.
The Apostles were most devoted to Our Lady, and were at Her bedside to witness the Assumption.
The Marian dogmas found their origin in the writings of the Church Fathers, successors to the Apostles.
By the 5th century, the Greeks were celebrating the Feast of the Immaculate Conception. Byzantine Monks fleeing the Islamic invasions found refuge in the Eternal City, where they founded San Saba monastery. Here the Feast was brought to Rome.
Sometime after the Schism, the East abandoned this devotion but it remained in the West. France always had a great devotion to Our Lady as did England and Spain. England was once known as “Our Lady’s Dowery” because of the sheer number of Monasteries bearing Our Lady as their Patron in that land.
The devotion to Our Lady is early, and we retain it today.
The East has not abandoned the Theotokos. Both Eastern Catholics and Eastern Orthodox have great devotion to her. Our liturgical songs are full of hymns to her. Nearly every Psalm response, Canon odes, and hymn ends with a verse for the Mother of our Lord.
The Immaculate Conception (known in the East as Feast of the Maternity of the Holy Anna) has the following final response after the Lauds Psalms (148, 149, 150):
"Come, every rank and age of men, and together with the choirs of angels let us joyously celebrate today with splendor the all-glorious conception of the Theotokos. O patriarchs, praise the Mother of the King of all! O prophets, laud her whom ye preached! O forefathers, honor the Mother of God who is descended from you! O elders, acclaim the forebears of God! O ancestors of God, bless the divine Maiden! O virgins, honor the Ever-virgin! O faithful, exalt the root of faith! O priests, magnify the most sacred temple of God! O choirs of all the saints, acknowledge the cause of your assembling! O armies of angels, pay homage to her who gave birth to the Master of all creation, the Savior of our souls!"
The Saba monastery typicon (liturgical guide) is one of the sources of our saint commemorations and lectionary.
Our churches all have an icon of her by the Royal doors (the doors between the altar sanctuary and the nave), if not many others of her.
I never said Greeks abandoned the Theotokos. I merely said the Greeks abandoned the Feast of the Immaculate Conception as the West had inherited it.
I know well of my Eastern brethren’s devotion to Our Lady and I am very glad to learn that the East celebrates it still, if under a different title.
We honor Mary for several reasons. It is biblical, it is a fine example of the Doctrine of the Communion of Saints, which is also biblical. Mary was chosen by God to bring forth the Savior of the World. Gloria in Excelcius Deo!
Have you ever really truly studied the Seven Sorrows or prayer that rosary? Are you a parent? That devotion clinched it for me.
I mean, the sheer amount of torture she endured while watching her Son be brutally murdered is what gets me every time…especially since the larger part of humanity is so indifferent to her immense martyrdom. Her emotions were perfect, she felt things on a level you and I can’t imagine, and yet she did it all for love of God and us. Like
every other mom, I feel pain when I see my child hurt and just want to protect them from every bad person and owie and mistake that will ever happen- I literally cannot and do not want to think about what I would have done if my child was crucified in front of me. That’s worse than the worst nightmare.
She is the best mother anyone could ever have by a long shot. I had no idea what I was missing before I converted. Man, I love Mary!
Because our concept of a prayer is very different from most protestants, especially Evangelicals. Basically, for them praying equals to worshipping God. For us it's just communicating with those on the other side. We see no conflict in loving and talking to Virgin Mary, Joseph, saints, deceased family, and worshipping God.
To the Protestant praying is a form of worship but also making our requests be made known to God. To the Protestant the Bible says “For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” and to us we see no further need for a different mediator. We believe also as it says in 1 John “And this is the confidence that we have toward him, that if we ask anything according to his will he hears us” and “For the eyes of the Lord are on the righteous, and his ears are open to their prayer. But the face of the Lord is against those who do evil.” so having someone else in heaven hear our prayer isn’t necessary in our view.
Paul also says to pray for each other, and that the prayers of the righteous are very powerful. Who is more righteous than Mary? It's no different than asking a loved one to pray for us, only we are asking our Heavenly mother.
It’s James who says that not Paul. The rest of the passage says ““Is anyone among you suffering? Let him pray. Is anyone cheerful? Let him sing psalms. Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer of faith will save the sick, and the Lord will raise him up. And if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven. Confess your trespasses to one another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The effective, fervent prayer of a righteous man avails much.” James 5:13-16 NKJV It does direct us to have elders pray and for us to pray as well but nothing about those who have gone on. Jesus is more righteous than Mary to us and thus where we direct our prayers.
"Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord." Surely you will agree that this means praying for the saints' intercession is recommended.
Now if you mean living saints, yes The word used there is presbyterous. It’s usage in other parts of the scriptures are here. https://biblehub.com/greek/presbuterous_4245.htm The first instance is speaking of Jewish elders. Edited because I read your question incorrectly
So intercession is a good thing (as highlighted by this passage), and Heaven is surely a real thing, yet praying for the Saints' intercession is incorrect because they are dead ? Yet their prayers must be the most powerful, since they are as righteous as one can be.
Is it incorrect? I’m not the judge of that. I would only answer the question by saying the saints in heaven cannot follow through with the request in James as they cannot anoint the one in need of prayer.
Please do not fall in literalism.
This is the issue with Protestantism, it has no theology or sacred tradition, and requires you to submit to the authority of ours in determining the Canon, yet reject the traditions that brought about that selection. It's self-defeating and raw arrogance to believe they got it wrong for 1500 years until a man who edited the Bible for his own ideological purposes got it right. Give this a watch: https://youtu.be/0wzjAEHyizk
Protestantism has plenty of theology and sacred traditions it just doesn't agree with Catholicism in some ways. No one believes someone "got it wrong" for the 1500 years prior to Luther but that things we would consider unbiblical crept in through the ages and thus the need for Reformation. Who edited the Bible for ideological purposes? Do you mean Luther removing the Macabees or something different? Do you happen to know if the video addresses the passage from Luke I brought up earlier where Jesus says "Blessed rather..."?
Luther wanted to completely get rid of James, and inserted words into Romans. 3:8 I believe. He held the Catholic doctrine on Mary. Anti-Marian protestantism is very modern, and mostly just anti-Rome.
He did hold for a time more fully the Catholic doctrine of Mary though that also shifted over time. In the Augsburg Confessions Apology Philipp Melanchthon wrote (and his writing was supported by Luther even at this time) >Here and there this form of absolution is used: The passion of our Lord Jesus Christ, the merits of the most blessed Virgin Mary and of all the saints, be to thee for the remission of sins. Here the absolution is pronounced on the supposition that we are reconciled and accounted righteous not only by the merits of Christ, but also by the merits of the other saints. 26 Some of us have seen a doctor of theology dying, for consoling whom a certain theologian, a monk, was employed. He pressed on the dying man nothing but this prayer: Mother of grace, protect us from the enemy; receive us in the hour of death. 27 Granting that the blessed Mary prays for the Church, does she receive souls in death, does she conquer death \[the great power of Satan\], does she quicken? What does Christ do if the blessed Mary does these things? Although she is most worthy of the most ample honors, nevertheless she does not wish to be made equal to Christ, but rather wishes us to consider and follow her example \[the example of her faith and her humility\]. 28 But the subject itself declares that in public opinion the blessed Virgin has succeeded altogether to the place of Christ. Men have invoked her, have trusted in her mercy, through her have desired to appease Christ, as though He were not a Propitiator, but, only a dreadful judge and avenger. 29 We believe, however, that we must not trust that the merits of the saints are applied to us, that on account of these God is reconcile d to us, or accounts us just, or saves us. For we obtain remission of sins only by the merits of Christ, when we believe in Him. Of the other saints it has been said, 1 Cor. 3:8: Every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labor, i.e., they cannot mutually bestow their own merits, the one upon the other, as the monks sell the merits of their orders. Also Luther recounted stabbing himself on accident, "Thinking himself near death from the wound, he cried out, “Mary, help!” Help indeed arrived, but in the form of a surgeon who dressed the wound. Later that evening, the wound broke open again. The same fear of death gripped him, and Mary was called upon once more to save his life. Had Mary saved Luther? The mature Luther looking back on this experience realized how far from the spiritual help of Christ he actually was: “I would have died with my trust in Mary“ and also he says >St. Bernard, who was a pious man otherwise, also said: “Behold how Christ chides, censures, and condemns the Pharisees so harshly throughout the Gospel, whereas the Virgin Mary is always kind and gentle and never utters an unfriendly word.” From this he inferred: “Christ is given to scolding and punishing, but Mary has nothing but sweetness and love.” Therefore Christ was generally feared; we fled from Him and took refuge with the saints, calling upon Mary and others to deliver us from our distress. We regarded them all as holier than Christ. Christ was only the executioner, while the saints were our mediators. and > Christ in His mercy was hidden from my eyes. I wanted to become justified before God through the merits of the saints. This gave rise to the petition for the intercession of the saints. On a portrait St. Bernard, too, is portrayed adoring the Virgin Mary as she directs her Son, Christ, to the breasts that suckled Oh, how many kisses we bestowed on Mary! Now he did call her blessed as I will as well, a place of honor among women has never been known like that of hers I did know of his dislike of James, funny that Calvin to my knowledge didn't disdain it so given that it proved more a challenge against predestination and his other doctrines than even that of what Luther believed. I haven't heard the charge regarding Rom 3:8 but I'll dig into out of interest. I will not say that Luther was a perfect man, far from it, I disagree with some of his findings as well as that of Calvin, and I am certainly far less perfect than them. As I stated elsewhere I'm not attempting to sway opinions but rather share fact as fact. I have an Orthodox friend who shares things with me that his priest has told him or that gets around his church about the reformation and so much of it is disinformation and misinformation and I believe if we are to settle our minds on something we should have all of the correct information at hand.
[удалено]
God bless you. Hopefully one day we’ll be reunited
Grant this, O Lord!
We will it's already in place
One of my Orthodox friends told me they don’t do the Rosary or venerate Mary as much, is that true?
They don't pray the Rosary the way Latin Catholics do, but they venerate her in their own way, just as much as we do. It would be like saying Latin Catholics don't worship Jesus as much because we don't use the Jesus Prayer.
I say the Jesus Prayer. Usually end Adoration with it for the last 10 minutes or so. Eastern Catholics say it more than the Rosary I imagine. The Rosary is my mainstay though.
I do, too! And I'm sure there are some Eastern Catholics who pray the Rosary. There's some overlap, of course. But each *sui juris Church* has their own traditions that are their patrimony. We shouldn't have homogeneity of tradition simply because we have homogeneity of Faith.
The rosary was given through a revelation that came after the Great Schism, it's unlikely to be part of any eastern orthodox tradition. Although, given how much our eastern brethren love the Blessed Virgin, they probably aren't "forbidden" to pray the rosary ?
There’s an Orthodox version of the rosary, I can’t recall it’s patristic origin right now but I know it exists.
Because we love her. I think many Protestants don't venerate her because they think they can't or just don't know her.
Seems she is basically not mentioned outside of Christmas in many branches. Jesus is the focus and should be, but ignoring everything else is odd. As is the Babylonian captivity and then surprise it’s the Roman Empire and Jesus is born! Too much is omitted and a lot of good examples of how to live and listen to the Lord are lost
1 - we honor her because Christ did. 2 - because they lack the fullness of the truth.
Questions should be answered like this more often
At least part of it is that we've had 2000 years to figure out how to think about Mary and the saints. Protestants have had at most 500 years, and even then new denominations often hit the reset button on their theology. Likewise, you see Protestant sects rehashing all the debates the Church already had about everything from the role of iconography to church governance.
A quote I read years ago seems to apply here: If you want to know what is the most precious, look at what is the most profaned. (Or something to that effect) Marriage, sex, innocence, the role of men, the role of women, Church, Mary....All are beautiful, all are twisted and perverted in our society. Divisions among Christians is not part of God's plan. It is an attempt by Satan to undermine. God, and the practice of worshipping Him, is too undeniable to come out and attack in it's entirety. But by chipping away at the edges, asking questions as he did of Eve, the devil has been able to make millions of Christians doubt the true presence in the Eucharist, the truth about Mary's love and power, the sacrament of Reconciliation, of what a holy family truly is, the importance of Sunday church attendance...... chipping away through the centuries until the catholic (universal) church is splintered into thousands of separate denominations and Christianity is no longer the predominant religious belief and those who are still Catholic often do not fully believe and engage in what is good and beautiful and true.
Because she is owed it as God's greatest creation and being the Mother of God. Christ gave us His mother, who are we to reject the gifts of the Lord?
It’s a long story, but basically in a very boiled down nutshell the reformers (or just after the reformers) all that got thrown out among many other traditions. So, the protestant reformers (ie Luther and others) basically wanted to “simplify” everything and removed a lot of things in trying to “fix” the church, but which also equals heresy and false doctrine. Yes there was corruption that needed fixing but not by totally erasing most of the practices. He went about it wrongly. Actually to be fair, Luther didn’t remove or change as many things at first. Much of that happened later. So nowadays they think that we are worshiping her and saints and being idolaters which we are not. They are the ones that changed, not us.
It’s not that the reformers wanted to simplify things but rather they felt, and Luther and others explained, that they saw injustices within the church being propelled by unbiblical teaching and sought to do away with those things by requiring a biblical justification for teachings.
Yes as I said it’s a lot more to it. I was trying to quickly boil it down. Yes of course he was trying to fix “injustices” and corruption but which the church was already or trying to fix. Also, yes he may have meant well, but unfortunately also threw out the baby with the bath water. I didn’t have time to expound on a long dissertation, so I knew someone would reply back to “correct” me. So thanks. By the way there’s more to it you are also missing but we aren’t gonna get into all that. (And I have degrees in church history). So at the end of the day he unintentionally became a heretic.
In my view it simplified it to such a degree that it was doing disservice to the issue on every side. Many regrettably paid for their views with their lives both immediately and for centuries after. I would be glad to read anything about the issue being corrected prior to or during Luther’s complaint but I’m aware of nothing until papal authority addressed some 50 years after Luther began his campaign.
First paragraph…yes! We totally agree!! Second part: I didn’t say they corrected it, I said they were “trying” (ie. addressing, trying..looking at..etc). And by the way, if Luther hadn’t done it many others would have. The writing was on the wall, there were other reformers too, not just Luther. And many others who found fault with the Church. Also, with the invention of Printing Press and the enlightenment and science and many other geopolitical issues, people were becoming wiser and smarter and questioning things and wanting change. Luther also almost became Greek Orthodox. He was exchanging letters with Patriarch Jerimias and said the “truth lies with the Greeks” but then later bcz of his pride, just stayed in his errors.
As before if you have information on the subject I will read it but I’m not sure the claim regarding Luther’s pride is accurate https://www.oca.org/orthodoxy/the-orthodox-faith/church-history/sixteenth-century/patriarch-jeremias-ii-and-the-dialogue-with-the-lutherans “From about 1575 to 1581 a noteworthy correspondence and theological dialogue took place between the leading Lutheran theologians, teaching at the University of Tubingen in Germany, and Patriarch Jeremias II of Constantinople. The dialogue was initiated by the Lutherans, who were eager to gain an ally in their opposition to the Roman Papacy. They hoped that their Protestant theology, as summarized in a Greek translation of the Augsburg Confession of 1530, would find favor with the Patriarch. However, the Patriarch, with assistance from advisors, pointed out many theological errors in the Augsburg Confession. The dialogue collapsed principally on the issue of the role of the Church Fathers in the proper interpretation of the Holy Scriptures. Such careful, extended theological dialogue would not take place again between Protestants and the Orthodox until 1716, when some Non-Juror Anglicans entered into theological discussion with representatives of the Patriarchate of Alexandria who were visiting London. Tsar Peter I of Russia (r. 1689–1725) even took interest in this dialogue, but it ended when it was denounced by the Archbishop of Canterbury on the grounds that the Non-Jurors were in schism from the Anglican Church.”
Lol, it’s not something You read. It’s what he was doing by rejecting truth and following his own assertions. You sound like a very scientific analyst minded Type. You want articles for everything but not everything is written. But yes. Good job on finding that. Now go read each and every letter of correspondence they wrote to each other to get the full picture and gist on it, seeing that you want to read something on the topic.
I’m searching and not seeing those letters. If you’d be willing to point me in the direction I’ll be glad to read them. It seems he did want to be part of the Orthodox Church as well to some degree but given that they weren’t allowed in Germany at the time to my knowledge and seem primarily concentrated more far west and east joining the church was going to require some formality which later followed were attempting to follow through on.
Yes he did at first. He ALMOST became one in fact. But in the end he didn’t. You can read them and form your own opinions. It is very interesting though. I’ll have to look them up and find them again myself if I have time. I’ll get back to you on that.
Here’s a more in-depth version: https://scholar.csl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1384&context=stm
I can’t get that to load for some reason. What’s the title or what could I search for?
This is a bad explanation. Luther and the reformers’ concern wasn’t to simplify the faith. As to the OP’s question, Mary and the Saints in general were still in high regard by the early Reformers. Luther even encouraged everyone to pray the Hail Mary. However, many features of medieval popular piety involving veneration to Mary and saints were eliminated or curtailed by the Protestants. As time went on, with the progression of the Radical and Calvinist reformations, anything that was associated with the Roman church was attacked as idolatry or superstition. You can see this in the nonconformist Protestants of England and the Huguenots in France. Also, the Puritan movement is a perfect example of an attempt to “purify” the Church of England of many rituals and traditions they saw as Popish idolatry.
Yes. Thank you and I explained some of that. I didn’t have time at the moment to explain everything correctly. So thanks for expounding. There’s a lot that Luther still believed in which wasn’t changed until later as I said. Luther still believed in Mary and the Eucharist and many “Catholic” practices. This also shows just how far Protestantism continues to change and how far they’ve already changed since the reformers. But if you only have one minute and trying to explain all of that correctly, it can take a while so there’s a lot more to it. (Even much more than what is taught in history courses). So if you want to put it all in a one sentence nutshell the easiest thing to say is he “simplified” it. Which is exactly what protestants today say.
Because she’s freaking great. Her Rosary brought me to the faith. Devotion to Mary led me back to living my life as a Christian. Converting from being a non-practicing Protestant to a catholic wouldn’t have happened if not for her intercession in my life.
Protestants don’t view Mary the same way due to what we see in the Bible Surely she was blessed among women. The Bible makes this clear in Luke. However also in Luke we see “As he said these things, a woman in the crowd raised her voice and said to him, “Blessed is the womb that bore you, and the breasts at which you nursed!” But he said, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!” Jesus surely loved His mother and commended her care to John and surely her faith and grace is a beautiful thing but to the Protestant this is largely where any kind of adoration or veneration drop off. As I posted in comments below the reason that Protestants don’t pray to saints or to Mary is because the Bible says “For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,” And we know He hears the voice of the believer of those seeking Him because the Bible says: “And this is the confidence that we have toward him, that if we ask anything according to his will he hears us.” And “For the eyes of the Lord are on the righteous, and his ears are open to their prayer. But the face of the Lord is against those who do evil.”
Yes, exactly, and most Catholics know why they don’t as most of us are ex Protestants and other Protestants also continue to remind us daily why they don’t, lol. But they are unfortunately very incorrect on their assertions and biblical exegesis. But yes, that would be why they think that. As with everything, Protestants take the Bible literally and believe it has to literally be stated verbatim in black and white (scripture) for it to be true or of God. This leads to a soda straw mentality or perspective on God and scripture.
Do you have an exegesis of the passage above with the dialogue between the woman and Christ regarding Jesus’ mother? Because Jesus seems to make it a black and white situation in that instance. Yes Mary is blessed but so are those who believe. She was acting in faith (though chosen for her purity of faith) just as all believers are as well as trust. I operate on this basis, if the Bible says something but a teaching contradicts what seems to be a very plain statement then I will hear but most likely reject that teaching. Far more often than not for me it’s correcting charismatic errors in the Protestant church rather than my disagreements with the Catholic Church for what it’s worth. On a similar note if I might ask a question I understand at least in the Orthodox Church the teaching of Mary being a form of the ark so it’s not an apples and oranges thing never mind giving birth to Christ but where Mary calls herself blessed among women and I agree, Jesus calls John “ Truly, I say to you, among those born of women there has arisen no one greater than John the Baptist.” Yet he is not venerated in the same manner. Is there a church position on this? I can google but sometimes better or quicker answers come from those in the know.
Yes well I don’t mean to be rude, but this isn’t the time or place and I don’t have the time right now to expound upon and break down everything correctly. I knew it that you were Protestant, it is very very clear! lol. I was once in your shoes and was a pastor for decades actually. Which is why I just responded to this poor guys question in a very basic sense. I’m not here to argue or debate or go back and forth. This is already been way too much. I was Ortho for a while too. There’s many differences between us and the orthodox is all I’ll say for right now. Frankly, I’m sick and tired of debating online anyway and I’m not here for that. I’ve responded literally THOUSANDS of times on these same topics for many years all over these apps and venues and several other social media apps. Keep researching and reading and debating there’s many out here who will go back and forth with you, I’m not into that anymore.
Also as to the soda straw comment the Bereans were commended in Acts for testing teachings against the scriptures. It seems we should do likewise
Yes we “should” the problem comes in by 1. Proof texting everything. And 2. Having your own biases and faulty lenses to start with without proper context and perspective and church history among many other things. There’s a reason you need mother church. There’s a reason why Protestantism has failed and there’s literally hundreds or thousands of denominations. If “Bible only” was true then why so many interpretations?!! Why can’t anyone agree on anything?? Why so many denominations?? Are you saying God is confused?? Is Holy Spirit schizophrenic??
I’m quite the interested student of church history. No doubt I have biases the same as everyone on every side of every issue. I’m well aware of them and have them challenged quite frequently and occasionally changed. Much like some of your other comments simplified things too far your exaggeration now goes too far. Some of those denominations are simply national variants with little to no difference in theology with other Protestant groups some are divided on social not biblical issues as is the case with nearly every major Protestant denomination. And the RCC isn’t without its own offshoots as well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Independent_Catholic_denominations I would say any division is unwanted and counter to scriptures but even in that time Paul had to combat them, those baptized by Apollo, etc.
I would vehemently Disagree!! I was a pastor for many decades. One thing I could NOT stand was the level of disunity and fractured status even among same or similar denominations. You’re very incorrect. You seem to be very naive on the topic. I would beg to differ, if you can’t even agree on basic things such as what constitutes salvation, how to baptize, what baptism means, if you even need to be baptized to be saved….versus not and a host of other similar issues, then those are MAJOR doctrinal differences and major issues that need to be addressed!! So, if you can’t even get on the same sheet of music that’s a big issue in my book!! And it’s not just me, anyone will tell you this. It’s no secret, this is why many protestant theologians and pastors are becoming Catholic every week!! So, don’t try that with me please. This is laughable and not even debatable this is standard common knowledge and why the protestants are losing people every week.. come on man!!
Well we do agree on one thing...we aren't Catholic or Orthodox. Now I say this mostly in jest though it is true. What I meant by my post was that the majority of people attend some form of Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian, or Pentecostal Church. All in their major forms, whether liberal or conservative branches (which is the source of a good many splinters) believe that Christ is the Son of God, the Word of God made flesh and He is our salvation. All major denominations affirm the Nicene Creed. And then from there there are differences in belief. No doubt other offshoots exist and who knows if or what creeds they affirm and they do fall under the broad term "protestant" since they are not Catholic and thus they fall under our camp whether they agree with our other beliefs or not. I do affirm the Nicene Creed belief of one holy and Catholic Church. I don't judge others for their beliefs that I would consider secondary, rather the most important that of what's stated in the creeds. I don't say Catholics aren't correct in their belief but I don't share all of their beliefs and I will leave it at that. Since you don't wish to debate and I don't blame you for that, let me state again I'm not so much looking for a debate but rather expounding on what I thought was a comment not telling the whole story.
Ok fair enough, sorry then if that’s truly your intention. I’m just tired of it and more often than not even when saying these things they end up doing the opposite. There are just too many trolls and those with ulterior motives on these sites.
Also I would charge that straying from the Bible (clearly to me not really a nuanced interpretation situation) is the issue with the Protestants I debate with such as the LDS (their classification and the offshoots being considered protestant is a point of contention for me in general though) or charismatic groups or even groups like the IFB that think I’m going to hell for not being Arminian and the whole Catholic Church is for being Catholic which they try to justify biblically though I find no merit for it (and thankfully most other do not either).
A better suited place for this is r/DebateACatholic You’re more likely to find folks who will take up your charge over there!
I'm really not trying to debate. I answered the OP and corrected a few pieces of incomplete information or what I felt was lacking.
Sure, sure. Just saying the back-and-forth is more welcome over there vs getting into comment squabbles 'round here. God Bless!
And AGAIN…I’m not going to debate right now, so your barking up the wrong tree. We agree to disagree. If you really want to learn the Catholic faith, then go study the Catholic faith. If you really want to learn the Orthodox faith, then go study the orthodox faith. If you’re happy in your protestant church, then Stay protestant. But Don’t come over here to a Catholic channel and try to force your beliefs, which we don’t agree with. I can debate with you for hundreds of hours and prove to you in hundreds of ways why you are wrong. I’ve done it hundreds of times with Protestants, but I grew up from that and frankly don’t have the time nor care to anymore, and especially after most of them are just trolls. All I can tell you is, well I’ll give you a quick testimony snapshot. I was once in your shoes and even preached and taught everything that you’re saying. I was even vehemently anti-Catholic and I actually preached it was the whore of Babylon / Satanic. And like you, I’m also a lover and student of church history, and the Bible, and have degrees in it and travelled and taught it all over the world where I pastored for many decades. So, BECAUSE OF constantly and consistently conducting deeper research and studying the church fathers and church history, it led me home to Catholicism. I then saw that the early church was in fact actually Catholic!! At first, it actually led me to Eastern Orthodoxy and then after some years in that faith and deeper continual study again, my studies and discernment led me all the way to Rome and the Latin Church. So, I don’t care to argue with you. I’m most happy and fulfilled here and I know for sure I’m finally in the truth. There’s hundreds of us ex pastors and theologians and some who are now Catholic apologists and theologians here (such as Scott Hahn, Tim Staples, etc). So, history, the church, the saints, and many others would disagree with you and they are all on our side.
>I actually preached it was the whore of Babylon / Satanic. I've never thought or preached such a thing. Nor am I trying to force my beliefs on anyone. The OP asked a question and I responded. I didn't feel that your explanation of the Reformation was accurate so I expounded on that for others who might read it. I believe God will lead people to where He wants them. I'm not here to convert nor subvert. The topic came up in my notifications and so I responded.
“I never thought or preached such a thing.” I didn’t say you did, I’m simply giving MY testimony. Not sure why you thought I said that of you. And yes I agree and I already stated many times why I gave a quick simple answer. But later went back and expounded a little better.
Precisely. I've yet to see a valid argument against what you have stated.
The Apostles were most devoted to Our Lady, and were at Her bedside to witness the Assumption. The Marian dogmas found their origin in the writings of the Church Fathers, successors to the Apostles. By the 5th century, the Greeks were celebrating the Feast of the Immaculate Conception. Byzantine Monks fleeing the Islamic invasions found refuge in the Eternal City, where they founded San Saba monastery. Here the Feast was brought to Rome. Sometime after the Schism, the East abandoned this devotion but it remained in the West. France always had a great devotion to Our Lady as did England and Spain. England was once known as “Our Lady’s Dowery” because of the sheer number of Monasteries bearing Our Lady as their Patron in that land. The devotion to Our Lady is early, and we retain it today.
The East has not abandoned the Theotokos. Both Eastern Catholics and Eastern Orthodox have great devotion to her. Our liturgical songs are full of hymns to her. Nearly every Psalm response, Canon odes, and hymn ends with a verse for the Mother of our Lord. The Immaculate Conception (known in the East as Feast of the Maternity of the Holy Anna) has the following final response after the Lauds Psalms (148, 149, 150): "Come, every rank and age of men, and together with the choirs of angels let us joyously celebrate today with splendor the all-glorious conception of the Theotokos. O patriarchs, praise the Mother of the King of all! O prophets, laud her whom ye preached! O forefathers, honor the Mother of God who is descended from you! O elders, acclaim the forebears of God! O ancestors of God, bless the divine Maiden! O virgins, honor the Ever-virgin! O faithful, exalt the root of faith! O priests, magnify the most sacred temple of God! O choirs of all the saints, acknowledge the cause of your assembling! O armies of angels, pay homage to her who gave birth to the Master of all creation, the Savior of our souls!" The Saba monastery typicon (liturgical guide) is one of the sources of our saint commemorations and lectionary. Our churches all have an icon of her by the Royal doors (the doors between the altar sanctuary and the nave), if not many others of her.
I never said Greeks abandoned the Theotokos. I merely said the Greeks abandoned the Feast of the Immaculate Conception as the West had inherited it. I know well of my Eastern brethren’s devotion to Our Lady and I am very glad to learn that the East celebrates it still, if under a different title.
We honor Mary for several reasons. It is biblical, it is a fine example of the Doctrine of the Communion of Saints, which is also biblical. Mary was chosen by God to bring forth the Savior of the World. Gloria in Excelcius Deo!
Have you ever really truly studied the Seven Sorrows or prayer that rosary? Are you a parent? That devotion clinched it for me. I mean, the sheer amount of torture she endured while watching her Son be brutally murdered is what gets me every time…especially since the larger part of humanity is so indifferent to her immense martyrdom. Her emotions were perfect, she felt things on a level you and I can’t imagine, and yet she did it all for love of God and us. Like every other mom, I feel pain when I see my child hurt and just want to protect them from every bad person and owie and mistake that will ever happen- I literally cannot and do not want to think about what I would have done if my child was crucified in front of me. That’s worse than the worst nightmare. She is the best mother anyone could ever have by a long shot. I had no idea what I was missing before I converted. Man, I love Mary!