I’m not even a Christian (though I’m exploring it in RCIA) and my Catholic and Orthodox friends are always ragging on me for being a Gnostic.  Guess it goes with being a transhumanist/sci-fi girl.

Leah,

Keep exploring.  You’ll hit gold eventually.  RCIA is only a drop in the bucket, and the well is bottomless!  :)

It’s funny, I remember as I was researching some of the more knotty aspects of Catholicism (like the Incarnation) I would go through various stages of heresy. “Oh, now I understand the substance of Jesus is different from the Father.” and then, I’d keep reading and the text would more or less say, “Sorry, we debunked that at the first Council of Nicea.”
Oh, and Leah, that post you wrote about the Trinity a few weeks ago? Thanks. I really enjoyed researching it, ‘cause I was reading and I realized that I didn’t know the answers to your questions.

Speaking of heresies and the lack of authority: When I first started taking Christianity seriously again, before becoming Catholic, I was attending a quirky little Presbyterian church with a great Bible study. A woman who was also attending the study had started going to the church as a result of AA (or some other 12 step program) and was pretty enthusiastic about it. One day, we happened to start talking about the doctrine of the Trinity, and her eyes just got bigger and bigger. Apparently no one had told her about this, and I think we pretty much blew her mind. I don’t recall seeing her again after that.

Good point.  It’s amazing how easy it is to be “blown about by every wind of doctrine”.  That was a big attraction of the church for me as well, the fact that she has been in place since the time of Christ and has not been silent on all these pressing issues that can be so confusing.  As a Protestant I was told that if you have Jesus in your heart that is enough to lead you into all truth, and I hope that is true for the sake of so many, but it must indeed be a somewhat slow leading along the path because I have met many who seem so sincere in their faiths and have some very very odd beliefs!  I have even heard of those who want to re-establish stoning and the old law.  And the old heresies never quite die do they!

There are some in The Episcopal Church USA who want to give Pelagius a second hearing.

If you prayerfully keep looking and discerning, you will find God. I am Catholic by faith, chosen by God!

This is an interesting article. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I do not see a direct connection between your being Catholic and avoiding those errors. One could avoid those errors by simply taking a class on heresies as many have done. Harold O. J. Brown has a good book on the subject literally called “Heresies.”  Individual Catholic Churches can/have/will at times fall into error. In other words it is not necessary to be Catholic to avoid those errors. Plus, if it were true that one should be Catholic to avoid these heresies (which it is not) it would not mean that they could not fall into other errors. I think logically speaking if this is used as an argument for the truth of Catholicism it falls short. I do appreciate your thoughts though. God Bless and keep thinking!

Great story by the way! I am so glad you made it out of Atheism. I actually spend a lot of time working with atheists convincing them of the truth claims of Christianity. I sense a calling in this (apologetics). So, it is good to see how the truth of Christ has been shown in your heart and brought you from no God, to Yahweh.

Isaac, I am not familiar with these classes you speak of and am curious, who offers them?  What is their affiliation?  Certainly not people who believe these things, or they wouldn’t be calling them heresies…
Also, it’s harder as an adult to let your individual church lead you into error if you are paying attention to Rome.

Many Seminaries offer them. Harold O. J. Brown was a teacher at Evangelical Divinity School himself but I have seen classes taught on Heresies verses Christian Truth offered at many seminaries. For the local church there are in depth and amazing teachings from groups like Christian Life Educators Network which also teaches a class on this subject. These are of course Evangelical or Pentecostal groups. My only point with my post above was to point out that it would not necessarily follow that all are protected from heresies by becoming Catholic, they might just have been as well protected by becoming Evangelical or Orthodox. I mean this from a logical perspective though. It was a fine story how she herself was protected from the heresies but it would not follow that all would be. Thanks for the question!

I happen to be teaching just such a class right now in a large Lutheran church is suburban Pittsburgh. We are looking at all the heresies listed above and more, how the Church Fathers responded to them, and how they came to understand the Rule of Faith and Christian orthodoxy even before the teaching magisterium of the Catholic Church was officially established. I’m sure I must not be the only one teaching such a course. Just be careful to find one in a church which is committed to that Truth which is both Catholic and catholic (that is, universal for all Christians.)

Very nice Keith! I agree with you. I have met Wesleyan, Lutheran, and Pentecostal, and Roman Catholic Christians that love the early Church Fathers and are grateful for the work that they have done. You surely are not the only one teaching such a course, we just had one at our local non-denominational church. The rule of Faith as seen in Irenaeus and others is something all Christian branches can rejoice in. N.T. Wright talks about this in his book Scripture and the Authority of God as well and he is Anglican. Keep up the good work for Christ!

I once had someone (not Catholic but Christian) tell me (I’m Catholic) that belief that belief that Mary was without sin (hence, is of whom we speak when we talk about immaculate conception - as Catholics) was a heresy. It seemed odd to me to have a fellow Christian tell me that this particular belief of the Catholic Church out of which her Church was formed nearly 2000 years later (her Church was founded within the last 50 years or so… its a new denomination) was a heresy. She also told me that praying a rosary was wrong because I was praying ‘to’ Mary. When I explained to her that I was not praying ‘to’ Mary, but asking Mary to pray on my behalf as an intercessor (even going back to the Old Testament to explain the idea of asking the mother of the King for favour with the King as a tradition long held by earthly Kings because they didn’t have a single ‘Queen’) as she held a special favour with her son. She then asked why I wouldn’t just go straight to God or to Jesus. I then pointed out that she would often call or email me and ask for me to pray on her behalf, and asked why she would bother to do so if she could simply go straight to Jesus or God herself? She’s never complained to me again about Mary since that discussion. My point here isn’t to show that she was ‘wrong’ per se, but how her misunderstanding of the teachings of the Catholic Church had led her to mistakenly believe things that weren’t necessarily true and she had formed her opinions on false information.

I’d really want to add Nestorianism to this list as well. Many Protestants are Nestorian and do not realize it just as many are Pelagian or Sabellian.

Growing up Protestant I never understood the stigma of calling Mary the Mother of God. Calling her immaculate or sounded risque and calling her ever-virgin seemed presumptious but not evil. Calling her the Mother of God was like calling Jesus God. I felt uncomfortable with how uncomfortable people were with that title.

When they explained the idea that she was not His mother in the sense that He was God, only that He was human, I didn’t feel comfortable with that. It felt like He was two different things, when I thought He was both God and Man, not God coincidentally having a human body. If that wasn’t case, did He ever die or just suffer death’s pain?

Then when I heard about Nestorianism I nearly exploded in anger against all my Protestant brethren for doubting Christ’s love that He would have a human relationship while not losing his Godhood. That God would be one of us to the point that He would have a mother that He would love as His own personal mother. I thought, “Why not? You can’t command God what He can and cannot do just because it seems unfair to you. Mary may not have been loved by God more than you. But I guarantee she knew Him better. Who can speak for Heaven? We shall all know Him in paradise. But the Bible has spoken for her on Earth. And she saw Him grow up. She carried Him in her arms.”

Thank you for this article.  If you don’t mind, I would like encourage you and your readers to read my book titled

“The Judas Syndrome: Seven Ancient Heresies return to Betray Christ Anew” published by Saint Benedict Press.

In it I discuss the history and theology of the heresies that fought against the early Church and show how each is reappearing in our age.  It is especially helpful for people looking to see a connection between the Catholic faith and culture today, and for those who want a deeper understanding of the development of what we believe.

The book can be found through all the major book sites online, as well as www.saintbenedictpress.com.

My only objection is that you really couldn’t fall simultaneously into the Sabellian and Arian heresies.  Maybe you would oscillate between them?  One way or the other, they are at opposite ends of a spectrum—sort of like Islam and Mormonism.

“I happen to be teaching just such a class right now in a large Lutheran church is suburban Pittsburgh. We are looking at all the heresies listed above and more, how the Church Fathers responded to them, and how they came to understand the Rule of Faith and Christian orthodoxy even before the teaching magisterium of the Catholic Church was officially established.”

With all due respect, I would just like to offer a correction.  The teaching magisterium of the Catholic Church was officially established when Jesus gave his Apostles (the first Bishops) the authority to bind and to loose, and it was empowered when the Holy Spirit anointed them at Pentecost.  The Magisterium has existed from the very beginning of the church, and the Church Fathers, as faithful Catholics, acted in accord with it and under it’s guidance.

Thanks, and God bless.

What I find interesting is that the Rule of Faith at least expressed by Irenaeus is explicitly catholic in that all churches that are true churches are in accord with it, but not explicitly Catholic in what would be considered Roman Catholic Teaching. What I mean is that no Protestant would have any problem with the Rule of Faith back then, nor would any Catholic. What is absent from the Rule of Faith is the particulars that Protestants and Catholics disagree on. Areas of Purgatory, Asking Mary for Prayer, The assumption and Immaculate Conception, Infallibility issues and more. These would not be considered then the Rule of Faith, for they were not located in it. Irenaeus 1:10:1-2 Thanks for the discussion!

Dear Isaac, I don’t want to offend you, but you may want to read this. It contains nothing more than quotes from St.Irenaeus, yet I think it would be harsh to modern non-Catholic ears. God bless you.

http://www.thecatholictreasurechest.com/irenaeus.htm

DB or anyone, What I don’t understand about praying to the rosary to Mary is that Mary is no longer with us, so it’s not the same thing as asking someone to pray for you.  The second commandment asks us not to make images of things in heaven and bow down to them.  No Catholic has been able to explain this to me except to say “we don’t take the bible literally”, but I feel as though Catholics do.

@mrsceecee : Catholics consider Mary is “with us”, like every other people in Heaven because they are with God, who is the only source of life and existence. The saints, and Mary especially, since she has been chosen amongst every women (Lc, 1, 42), are not dead, they are alive because they are with Jesus, who is the Life (Mary more so than all the other saints because she is in Heaven with her soul and her body). As a result, it makes sense for Catholics (and Eastern Orthodox) to pray Mary (and the other saints) to pray for us : they are right there with Jesus, God the Son, and with God the Father, in the unity of God the Holy Spirit, they are filled with the Love of the Trinity, and, just like the Trinity, they desire only one thing : the Salvation of every human being.

There is nothing wrong with asking your friend to pray for you, but you have to admit that he, and you, and me are way less alive and close to God than Mary and the other saints in Heaven and, therefore, our prayer is much less likely to be pure and oriented to God than the prayer of Mary and the other saints.

Then, you ask a completely different question : why do Catholics (and Eastern Orthodox) “make images of things in Heaven (Jesus, Mary, the saints, the angels) and bow down to them” when the Bible commands us not to do so. Implicitly you ask : “aren’t Catholics (and Eastern Orthodox) engaging in idolatry” ?
By this Commandment, God wanted the Israelites (and all men) to stop worshiping anything and anyone that is not God. One must emphasize, then, that Catholics (and Eastern Orthodox, who do exactly the same things) do no violate this Commandment : they worship the Trinitarian God (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) and only Him. They do not worship Mary, nor the angels, nor the saints, and even less the images or statues of Jesus or the saints and Mary. When Catholics (and Eastern Orthodox) bow before the image of Jesus, they are not worshipping this image of Jesus, they are expressing their worship of Jesus. When they bow before the image of Mary or the saints or the angels, they are worshipping neither those images, nor those persons, they are expressing their love for those persons and their worship of God who is directly with those persons in Heaven, right now.
By this Commandment, God did not mean to forbid all representation of the things in Heaven since in the same book he commanded the Israelites to sculpt images of 2 cherubim (angels (Exodus, 25:22)) on the Ark of the Covenant.

Hope that well, but you should know that I am merely and badly (this isn’t my native language) paraphrasing informations that you could easily find in about a billion other places on the Internet alone.

Some English etiquette books from as late as the 19th century describe the gentleman’s bow or the lady’s curtsey as the proper way to offer “worship” to members of the gentry or the aristocracy. And didn’t the old Anglican wedding promises include the phrases, “with my body, I thee worship” addressed by the groom to his bride, and to the bride, her husband?

Honestly, if only people would stop being hung up on vague English words like “worship”, and learn to use the correct, theologically precise Greek terms: Latria (Greek, latreia) means the worship properly given to our Creator God and reserved for Him alone, while dulia (Greek, doulia) is the theological term signifying the honour paid to the saints whom God created, while hyperdulia is the veneration we offer to the Blessed Virgin Mary, also a creature, but chosen and set apart in a special way.

English can be nastily imprecise, can’t it? Although I suppose we could use the (Latin derived) venerate and adore to distinguish somewhat.

I was a protestant (anti- catholic) I too going to RCIA classes and I find myself having a tremendous respect for catholics. So symbolic and such reverence for the Most High. Learning so much about the catholic creed. Like Bobbyspen said, “I’m catholic by faith and chosen by God.” I enjoying it and finding myself again.

Thanks for the article Nishant. I am familiar with Irenaeus and Tertullian and Clement and many others. Most of these quotes are a non-issue for me. I am a Christian. I thank God for working through the early theologians and leaders of the church.

In regard to the Mary issues. There is a practical situation that many Catholics need to deal with. Theologically the wording is very careful in the Catechism to distinguish worship and veneration. That being said I find many Catholics unaware of the distinction themselves. It is an apologetic move that takes into consideration high theology that most laity in my observation are not aware of. In Catholic churches this should be pushed more so than Catholic Apologetics to Protestants. I have had Father Rocky on Relevant Radio Agree with me on this point that there are many almost folk Catholics or Catholics that are not aware of this.

I often chuckle over what I read some non-Catholics believe about us.

“Well, let’s see, first off, they believe Mary and the saints are all gods. They eat their young; then, they offer the sacrifice of small animals in the lobbies of their churches on their way in to services. And in the basement of their church buildings is an arsenal containing military equipment and ammunition so that when the Pope of Rome gives the signal the Catholics can arm themselves and take over the world.”

As the Spanish-speakers on Youtube sometimes post, “Ja-ja-ja-ja!” (pronounced “Ha-ha-ha-ha!” or, in the more theologically pecise idiom, LOL!)

Also there is the delay of this practice being found in the early church. I wrote this for a class. “First, Phillip Schaff (1997) is an authority on Church history and he writes that “The first instance of the formal invocation of Mary occurs in the prayers of Ephraim Syrus (379).” I decided to see if he was correct on this point. I went from Catholic Answers to Scott Hahn (A prominent Catholic Apologist) to see if they could provide other evidence. I basically found them to have none. Second, Catholics often cite many early Church Fathers but for the first 300 years those early church fathers are not talking about the subject that Catholics try and defend (Prayer to Mary). They are often found talking about Mary but not prayer to Mary. They might talk about saints and how they pray for us in the third and fourth centuries, but they are still not talking about devotion to Mary in prayer. Third, even on the Catholic Encyclopedia Website, doubt is expressed regarding the early development of prayer to Mary and gives it a much later development and further evolution through the years (Thurston, 1910).” I mean all of this in kindness and grace. Thanks everyone for showing the same on these blogs. It can easily get heated on things like these, but it sure does not have to. Thanks for the intellectual discussion.

Lastly, I think there is one really important point. How did Jesus teach us to pray? He taught us to pray “OUR FATHER” but never taught us to pray “Our Mother.” Therefore in following the words of Christ we pray “Our Father.” That is the teaching.

“Theologically the wording is very careful in the Catechism to distinguish worship and veneration. That being said I find many Catholics unaware of the distinction themselves.”

Many Catholics I know who have at one time seemed to be confused about this have found their difficulty resolving as they continued to pray to Our Lady and to get to know her better. No creature, you see, is more aware of the gulf between her own existence and the Majesty of the Divine Author of all things, between the omnipotence of God and her own nothingness in comparison.

Over time, Mary gently, graciously, and with the utmost delicacy and maternal solicitude, leads those who pray for her intercession into a realistic awareness of the differences between the worship that they owe to their and her God, and the honor that they owe to her as a fellow-creature, who is the Mother of the Son of God.

“He (Jesus) taught us to pray ‘OUR FATHER’ but never taught us to pray ‘Our Mother.’ Therefore in following the words of Christ we pray ‘Our Father.’”

The Master taught us to ask the Divine Father who is God for all that we need, and pray that His will be done.

To ask Mary these same things would be inappropriate.

As was mentioned above: dulia / hyperdulia vs. latria.

On the Cross, Catholics have always believed, the Lord Jesus gave His mother into the care of His beloved disciple, and at the same time, gave His mother to the whole Church as the mother of us all.

Maybe in the non-Catholic world, a devoted son never speaks to his mother.

Doesn’t ask her to pray for him.

Doesn’t whisper to her his concerns.

But among Catholics, it would not be considered normal for a son to treat his mother in this way.

That is why, as Mary is all of our mother, we share with her our thoughts and seek her prayers.

I understand it is not so in your world.

I understand exactly where you are coming from. I listen to Catholic Radio, have attended hundreds of Catholic Masses, Gone to adoration, and much more. The point I am making is 1) That Prayer to Mary (or asking her for prayer) is a later development that even New Advent leads onto. (as mentioned in one of my previous posts) 2)That Jesus nor an apostle tell us to ask Mary for prayer, or ask others who have passed on for prayer. 3)The practice of Prayer to Mary (asking Mary for prayer) is not done by divine revelation/command. You are welcome to think as you will about Mary and her relationship with Jesus. I personally am amazed myself! Thank God for her amazing faith and acceptance of the Angel’s message. Yet we still have no command or revelation to ask her for prayer. Thanks for the time and kindness.

Catholics tend to think of Jesus as the Living God, the Living Head of a Living Church, living right here, right now.

We consider Sacred Scripture to be a document of the Church, the inspired Word of God, which has preeminent place of authority in the Church. We also consider the many of the writings of the Councils and the Popes, interpreting Sacred Scripture, and exploring and developing for the people the meaning and relevance of Sacred Scripture, to be the inspired by God. Not on the same plane as Scripture, but necessary to its fullest understanding.

Scripture itself says “Jesus said and did many things not recorded here.” (John 21:25). The Church’s understanding is that the Apostles, together with the other disciples, and Mary herself, who had spent years, living with the Master, following Him, sharing His meals, searching for a bed for the night with Him, waking up at the dawn with Him, praying with Him, after His Ascencion into Heaven, handed on a family tradition, as it were, of things said, done, not said, and not done by Jesus that could only have been known and handed on by those who were his closest companions. These were what formed the kernel of what Catholics call Sacred Tradition, of how things are done in the Church.

This knowledge of how-Jesus-did-things which are extra-Scriptural is   rejected by Protestants, but is embraced and developed by the Catholic Church.

Thank you Thibaud.  I’ve gotten a better understanding.  Do you also pray to dead relatives for prayer since they are also close to God?

This is quite a different case altogether for a very obvious reason : whereas I know that Mary and the saints are, by definition, in Heaven, I can’t be sure that my departed relatives are. Of course, I fervently hope they all are, but I don’t know for sure. Therefore, my prayers in this matter are necessarily qualified : I ask them to pray for me if they are in Heaven or in Purgatory and I pray for them in case they are in Purgatory so that they may enter Heaven.

Really, the core of the matter is that Catholics believe that the Communion of the Saints mean that we are all “in the same ship”, whether we are still fighting for our salvation here on Earth, being purified by God’s love in Purgatory or in Heaven with God.

Thanks Marian for your thoughts on the subject of Scripture and Tradition. I want to make a couple of points. 1) Many Protestants are not even close to in line with what the Reformers and have slipped into something more like “SOLO SCRIPTURA” rather than “SOLA SCRIPTURA.” SOLO means “Me my Bible and no one else.” In other words this gives good reason not to follow teachers or Pastors. It also gives people a lot of strange ideas about other forms of knowledge like Tradition, Experience, and Reason. Those who hold to SOLO think they are holding to SOLA because they say “Bible alone.” These are typically the Fundamentalist types. SOLA does not mean only the Bible and no other authorities or forms of knowledge. Rather it means it is the Highest Singular Authority as it is the WORD of GOD for sure. Thereby if other forms of knowledge contradict it (tradition, reason, or experience) any person has the right to stick with their trump card of Scripture. Do you see the difference? In its historical context SOLA meant singular highest authority, rather than only authority.

Why did I mentioned the above? Because I agree with you that a lot of Protestants are suspicious of other forms of knowledge like tradition, experience, and even reason. These are the fundamentalist types and they are suspicious of everything. Then however there are a lot of others groups as well that are not fundamentalist but rather more historical. They are okay with tradition so long as it does not contradict Scripture. They are okay with it as long as it does not make something infallible that is not in Scripture or even the rule of faith (as I mentioned above). As much as I like Tradition Scripture is still the trump card. Jesus himself used it this way to trump the traditions of the pharisees that they themselves thought divine.

Isaac, well good to know you weren’t offended. But really, I think the crux of the issue is that, to St.Irenaeus, the “Rule of Faith” is Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the living voice of the Church.

Analogously, any secular nation has a Constitution, a legal and political tradition, whether of its founding fathers or former judicial decisions, and the Supreme Court.

Well, we can go the Fathers if you like, but about our faith in the communion of Saints, that whether in heaven or on earth, we intercede for one another, the practice has no dearth of support in Holy Scripture.

Every time we are afforded a glimpse of the land we were created for, we see that it is not a dead place of gloom, silence and despair, but of life, joy, beauty and song.

The Apocalypse of St.John is a striking example. We see the disembodied souls, slain as martyrs, pray for judgment on the wicked(6:9-10), we see the Saints offer prayers(5:8), the Angels make intercession before the throne (8:4).

But most of all, in body and soul, we see in the heavenly Kingdom, a Woman, crown of all creation, glory of the human race, resplendent in heavenly majesty (12:1). She is the Mother of God and the Mother of all believers. (12:17)

God bless you.

So then are there issues with the Marian dogmas?  I think so but I surely do not take a fundamentalist hate toward Mary or the ideas expressed by the Catholic church. I am not a fundamentalist. Instead I ask if it is true? In my post a ways above I gave many reasons why it does not seem to be true, and these were arguments from tradition and Scripture. The summary was that people did not ask for the prayers of Mary for the first, or second century, and my source was Scott Hahns own work and New Advents. So the question is…if prayer to (asking her for prayer) did not show up till the third century and in its present form till much later. Should then we think it was part of the earliest traditions? The answer here is no. It was not passed on by an apostle and there is not a document showing that it was. I mean this all in grace and kindness and hope that it is received as such. Lets keep focused on the truth and we will grow together as the body of Christ.  Thanks!

My last post was meant to come before yours Nishant. I was continuing with my thought above. Thanks for the comment I will think about it and probably get back to it. Thanks again for the discussion. God Bless you as well!

“if prayer to (asking her [Mary] for prayer) did not show up till the third century and in its present form till much later, should then we think it was part of the earliest traditions? The answer here is no. It was not passed on by an apostle and there is not a document showing that it was. . . .”

If you think about how the Protestant Reformation happened at about the same time as the popularization of the printing press, then our modern passion for having all facts appearing on the printed page can plainly be seen as a rather extraordinary fetish. Prior to the Reformation, most Christians learned their faith by word-of-mouth, from the families, their pastors, the good sisters. Most Christians never saw a book throughout their entire lives, and couldn’t have read one if they did. Only a very few persons were literate. Books were in manuscript form, hand-copied, and hand-bound, and cost a fortune to possess.

It wasn’t until the invention of the printing press that the commonality of men might hope to own a book of any kind, and until then, it was fairly pointless their learning to read, as well. People memorized things; they didn’t read, because they couldn’t.

It was the same with ancient Jews: much of the Pentateuch was written down after hundreds and hundreds of years of being handed on orally.  (I can well imagine a smart-mouthed young Jewish boy, on being instructed on the Ten Commandments, inquiring of his rabbi, “where is that written down in Scripture?” Because for a long time, there wasn’t anything written down.)

And did you know it was some decades before the story of Jesus’ life, death, and Resurrection were written? Until then, the Gospel was transmitted organically, by word-of-mouth. And even after the Word was written down, copies would have been rare and scarce. Many of the earliest Christians would have been born, lived, accepted the Lord, and died, without ever seeing or hearing anything about the written Gospel as we know it.

Did these early believers question whether the Gospel was true because no written records of its source were extant? Probably not; this passion for “I’ll believe it when I read it” is a strictly second-millenial invention. People living in the first millenium didn’t have that luxury.

Does this mean that those early Christians living in the first millenium were gullible fools, naively believing every superstition they came across? Some today would have you believe that this must have been so. After all, they believed what wasn’t written down in books. But this is not what Catholics understand about the earliest Christians; we believe that the faith among the early Christians developed organically, that it was very much rooted in the Jewish tradition – and again, not limited to what was written down in Torah and Talmud (which latter hadn’t been written down yet by then.) And that their experience of Christ and His Apostles was superadded onto their Jewish experience. And that the Gentiles among them absorbed much of the Jewish experience along with their knowledge of Christ, through the organic oral and lived experience of their Christian pastors.

Did you know that the ancient Jewish belief is that on her wedding day, a bride is considered especially close to Heaven, and that her family and the other guests approach her to speak their prayers into her ear so that she may transmit them to God on their behalf?*

Although not written down anywhere in their texts and manuscripts of the time, this ancient belief and tradition, current among the Jews of Jesus’ day, would have suggested itself to the Apostles after the Ascension, when gathered together, they wondered how they were to go on, now that nothing was left of Jesus to them, excepting only His mother. And they would have turned to her - unwritten down though it was to do so - with their prayers, as would have been natural among Jewish men of that time.  And again, although no one thought to write this down, we can surmise that new Christians entering the Church decades, generations, and centuries later would have drawn on this ancient Jewish tradition in sending prayers to Mary, imploring her intercession with the Father and the Son.

_________________________

* Source: Kantor, Rabbi Shalom, Hillel Rabbi, Binghamton University, in Koach, the online webzine of the United Synagogue of Conservative Journalism. Posted June 4, 2008. URL: http://www.uscj.org/koach/koc_5768_sivan_skantor.htm

I wonder if we’re not all too hung up on the details?  Are these the things God cares about?  Or rather

Matthew 25:31-46
New International Version (NIV)
The Sheep and the Goats
    31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.   34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
   37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
   40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’
   41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink,43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’
   44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’
   45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’
   46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

Thanks

Very good post “thought” ! I think the focus of both Catholics and catholics (get the difference) is that we work together on the most important things. The most important things are helping others which I think the greatest help is salvation through Jesus Christ. Gospel preaching and Helping others physically is something we should all be doing. Yet, I do think God cares about matters of truth as well even over some of these points that we are making. If the Catholic is right then there are a lot of souls in purgatory that surely need our prayers. If they are wrong then they should just focus their efforts on the trinity. Lastly, what I think these conversations can do if done in an intellectually honest way is to bring us together! Catholics and non-Catholics if they would dialogue openly with care they would find that there is a lot more that unites them than divides them. That we must work together to stop secularism destroying this society. There will still be differences but the differences will be understood and our focuses united because we are not off in the background backstabbing each other while in foreground saying we are working together. Let’s work together! Talk about these real issues so that we can forge greater unity! Jesus said, Sanctify them by your truth Lord, Your word is truth (John 17:17). This is my prayer for all of us.

Isaac, cool. :-)

I just saw this, with regard to your first post, I think you missed Jennifer’s point. You said, “In other words it is not necessary to be Catholic to avoid those errors. Plus, if it were true that one should be Catholic to avoid these heresies (which it is not) it would not mean that they could not fall into other errors. I think logically speaking if this is used as an argument for the truth of Catholicism it falls short.”

Consider the question: Can faithful Christians have good grounds for thinking Jesus founded a teaching Church that He would protect from all error? If the answer to this question alone is yes, then one does not need, as a Catholic Christian, one can, but one does not need to demonstrate that every error is an error. If we know that this is true, then we know on this basis alone that what the Church actually teaches is what the Bible actually says.

And it seems to me there are innumerable Biblical reasons to believe this, (Mat 16:18, Mat 18:17, 1 Tim 3:15) etc, not to mention from the Fathers.

On a final note, wonder if you’ve heard of Kristin Franklin? You probably might have, but if not, she was a Protestant missionary to Catholics, before she herself came to the realization that this was God’s way of preserving truth, through divinely guiding His teaching Church.

God bless.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1858224/posts

Isaac,
I have always enjoyed listening to your conversations with Fr. Simon on Relevant Radio. I look forward to listening to your story on EWTN’s The Journey Home!

Great brief synopsis on some very real heresies that still face the church in even today.

In response to one of the questions post here, “Are these the things God cares about?” The answer is emphatically yes. Scripture is full of examples and warnings against false prophets and teachers from Genesis through Revelation.

God in His mercy and wisdom has provided the Church and Holy Scripture to protect us from the lies of the devil and heretics alike, less we be like those St. Paul describes in Eph 4:11-14 “And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry…so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes.”

Like any good father, God looks out for and protects His children.

@ Therese, Thanks for the comment. I enjoy the conversations myself.

In regard for development and early Christian writings. One has brought the point of the printing press and the “need” for things to be written as a modern necessity that has not always been needed. On this part I add partial agreement. I can agree that people can share the message in community especially as was seen in Jewish communities that were so careful. Yet, with such late development in regard to Prayer to Mary as I mentioned in above posts. A Christian who appeals to early writers and most importantly to the highest (Scripture) they have ample room for refuge for not practicing this. The Catholic continually appeals to the Fathers for support for things. Great. Yet, in this example when the earliest Fathers give no support for such a practice, why does the Catholic still hold so much to it? What I find is that no one has debated the facts that I mentioned in an earlier post on it much later development. No one has debated that God has given us no command that we should pray to (ask for prayer from) the saints in heaven. Maybe this should be looked at seriously by the Catholic. Again, thanks for the thoughts. I mean all of this with care and kindness, I really do. For the love of Truth, Isaac

@ Nishant: Thanks for the article of Kristen Franklin. I think there is a lot of good insights in the three part article as well as draw backs. Insights: Christianity does in fact have problems. Drawbacks: Her understanding of Sola Scriptura was actually flawed to begin with, which I mentioned before above regarding many “Protestants.” Insight: She hit on a nerve that of American missions that needs to be dealt with. Drawback: This is not uniformly true of Missions of other denominations and many in fact teach exactly the opposite of what she mentioned was characteristic of Evangelical missions. Outright rebuttals and rebukes have been given by Evangelicals of the same things she found wrong. Insight: She needed to get stronger in her church history and she discovered many things that she did not know was true. These things led her to Rome. Drawback: This great knowledge of church history does not necessitate Catholic conversion. It could have meant she should have broadened her channel for what Orthodoxy is. She could have considered the Orthodox Church as well or Coptic, etc.

Thanks for the article again. Realize, that I am not a Catholic Missionary. It is not my goal to convert Catholics to Christianity. That is a false assumption that says that Catholics cannot be Christian. I think Catholics can be Christians/saved/etc. It is about particulars that I think they may need a little correction. Truth matters. Jesus said in John 17:17 Sanctify them by your truth, your word is truth. It is John 17:17 that I care about. Thanks again for the discussion.

@mrsceecee: Exodus 20:4-5 “Thou shalt not make UNTO THEE any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow thyself to them, nor serve them”

Note the words “unto thee” in the first phrase of the commandment. It means here “for yourself”. We are not to make graven images for ourselves. The Israelites did not violate the commandment because they did not create the ark for themselves. They made it for God who had commanded them to make it. God did not tell the Catholics to make all these statues of Mary and angels. By making them and bowing down to them, they are breaking the commandment.

“mrsceecee,” you will be relieved to learn that images are perfectly fine; the iconoclast heresy was dealt with at the Second Council of Nicaea, in 787 A.D., under Pope Hadrian I (772–795):

“...we declare that we defend free from any innovations all the written and unwritten ecclesiastical traditions that have been entrusted to us. One of these is the production of representational art; this is quite in harmony with the history of the spread of the gospel, as it provides confirmation that the becoming man of the Word of God was real and not just imaginary, and as it brings us a similar benefit. For, things that mutually illustrate one another undoubtedly possess one another’s message. ... we decree with full precision and care that, like the figure of the honoured and life-giving cross, the revered and holy images, whether painted or made of mosaic or of other suitable material, are to be exposed in the holy churches of God, on sacred instruments and vestments, on walls and panels, in houses and by public ways; these are the images of our Lord, God and saviour, Jesus Christ, and of our Lady without blemish, the holy God-bearer, and of the revered angels and of any of the saintly holy men. The more frequently they are seen in representational art, the more are those who see them drawn to remember and long for those who serve as models, and to pay these images the tribute of salutation and respectful veneration. Certainly this is not the full adoration in accordance with our faith, which is properly paid only to the divine nature, but it resembles that given to the figure of the honoured and life-giving cross, and also to the holy books of the gospels and to other sacred cult objects.”

@Isaac Fleming,

I recommend you read John Henry Newman’s Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine.

Ditto on the JHN rec.  Frankly he was much more learned on the Fathers than any of us ever will be, and came to see the the distinction that Protestants make is untenable, but I would recommend reading the essay in full…it is simply a tour de force.  I would also add “The Second Eve”, which is a short compilation of excerpts from Newman’s writings about the Virgin Mary that a nun compiled which is published by TAN books.

That’s why these wonderful bible study groups can be confusing. To read and understand the bible one must read it in its context not just ripping off quotes of scripture. The bible much be read in conjuction with sacred traditions and in accordance with the teachings of the magisterium of the Catholic Church. With all three of those factors together, one can get tons and tons of Truth with all the explainations you need.

“Maybe in the non-Catholic world, a devoted son never speaks to his mother.
Doesn’t ask her to pray for him.
Doesn’t whisper to her his concerns.
But among Catholics, it would not be considered normal for a son to treat his mother in this way.”
## Depends on the type of Catholicism, and on the temperament of the Catholic. Those are poor analogies - they fail because, though the Son of Mary is her son, He is also, & primarily, the Son of God: His Divine Sonship is both logically and theologically prior to His sonship of a woman by which He took a true human nature & became a man among other men. As a Divine Person, He is unlike any of us, because He is neither a creature (even though His Sacred Humanity *is* created) nor a sinner - we are both. And the Catholic tendency to treat Him as just another man, overlooks the unlikeness between Him and us - and indeed Mary; He may be, & is, her son; but He is also her Creator, Redeemer, Mediator, Lord, and God, just as He is ours. It would be a great error OTOH to think of her as anything like a fourth Divine Person, or OTO to overlook His Divinity by overstressing His Sacred Humanity. The fact is, we have no need of Mary, for she can do nothing for us which He cannot do - but without Him, we are nothing & can do nothing.  She is needless, just as we are; she & we have a place in God’s purpose only because He so wills, not because God needs anything.
Evangelical Protestants, because they are far better acquainted with the Bible than most Catholics seem to be, often have a Biblically-informed notion of Christ - that is why Mary counts for very little among most of them. The presence of *anti*-Biblical ideas about Mary among Catholics has not recommended the Catholic notion of the BVM: ideas such as the separation of Christ’s Kingdom into a Kingdom of Justice (ruled by Christ) & a Kingdom of Mercy (ruled by Mary), with the accompanying idea that Jesus is not approachable by sinners, so that we must go through Mary. These ideas can be found in “The Glories of Mary” & the “True Devotion”. The unrevised version of the Lourdes hymn did not help. If these ideas are unfamiliar, it’s because the Council had a more balanced & more Christian Mariology, which left little room for the worst excesses of pre-Concilar Marian devotion - the period after 1965 saw a decline in Marian devotion, until JP2.

@manticore

I’m really at a loss for words. For starters, can you please provide for me an example of “the Catholic tendency to treat Him [Jesus] as just another man?”

Thanks.