Friday, July 20, 2007

Papal Bull on Mariolotry



Chris at Papal Bull has a good post about what is commonly known as Mariolotry or Mariology. Do check it out.

40 comments:

approvedworkman said...

DT
Thanks for the shout-out.I am honored.
Just got home late from a Friday night fellowship, and one of the women there, who is a good sister in the Lord, just happens to be an ex-nun. She has supplied me with all kinds of great research. Considering recent events, the exposing of Roman Catholicism is essential.

RC said...

DT,

This is not a good post! There is no constructive critique, not is there any authoritative information nor analysis. What are you guys playing at?

approvedworkman said...

rc,
Does that stand for Roman Catholic??

Let's see, I provided several links throughout the post which speak for themselves. My main point is, apparitions and visions are not authoritative. That is actually a very gnostic viewpoint.

What would be authoritative in your mind? A papal decree?
If you want my scriptural dissection of pagan Rome's theology, look on my sidebar under the heading "more on the rcc"
Also my links under "The Watchmen"

I will only debate from Scripture, So I don't want to hear about roman tradiitons and papal dogma, or the chuch fathers, who btw, were not infallible in their writing and teaching.

RC said...

Approved,

I would be wary of providing links that "speak for themselves" when they do not in the least do so. You weaken your credibility. One would think your information comes from visions and apparitions!

Where do you get the idea that the Church holds that visions and apparitions are authoritative? The Church has always regarded visions and apparitions with the utmost suspicion and scrutiny, unless and until they are confirmed by substantial extraneous evidence. Even so, all visions and apparitions are categorized as non binding, private revelation.

caspar said...

Hello, Approved,

But you follow the teachings of the Church fathers in council on the Trinity and the natures of Christ.

Also, who will be best suited to pass on the Apostolic teaching direct?

God bless.

approvedworkman said...

rc
The blog I linked to was using the vision of a pope as authority. Go talk to them, although if you are novus ordo they would consider you to be a heretic also. The links are all good ones. I haven't damaged any credibility.

caspar
I did not say the fathers were wrong about everything. I said they are not infallible. Therefore we can only use what scripture supports. There is no such thing as ex cathedra.
As for apostolic teaching and succession, the Lord selects apostles not the church. The roman abomination asssumes authority that was never given to the church.
I am finishing another post using another link from the same sedevacantist site; of course using Scripture only.

RC said...

But Approved, you did not answer my question: where do you get the idea that the Church holds that visions and apparitions are authoritative? - Especially since historically, the Church has always regarded visions and apparitions with the utmost suspicion and scrutiny, unless and until they are confirmed by substantial extraneous evidence. Even when thus confirmed, all visions and apparitions are categorized as non binding, private revelation.

MM said...

Approved, seriously: at your post you suggest that "a pope has a vision, and it becomes infallible doctrine and dogma." This is simply not the case, and you know it. A mere personal vision has *never* attained the status of doctrine or dogma.

You know as well as I do that the sum total of "infallible" teachings ex cathedra in the past 800 years amounts to the grand total of three (3) teachings. You also know as well as I do that ex cathedra statements must pertain only to faith and morals (not to personal revelations) and that they must be coextensive with the deposit of revelation entrusted to the Church in her traditions, including her tradition of the sacred Scripture. Why oh why are you twisting the facts?

Dead Theologians said...

MM and rc,

Why can't we just stick to scripture alone, period?

DT

MM said...

DT,

Why can't we just stick to scripture alone, period?

... because Scripture is never taken alone. "Scripture alone" will always mean *you* alone and your sinning mind set up as the absolute authority over the text. Good luck with that-

RC said...

- The issue at hand is not Scriptual interpretation. The issue is the fact that Approved is throwing around faulty information.

approvedworkman said...

Did any of you actually click on the links and read them?
The people who are posting the faulty info are sedevacantist roman catholics. Complain to them.
Are the Wikepedia links wrong also? How about the hymn I linked to?
As I said, they believe you to be heretics as much as any Protestant, and yet you refuse to hold them to account.
My blog exists to show what a pagan hodge-podge the Roman Church actually is.
When you don't stick to Scripture alone, you have the mess that I am exposing. Thanks for proving all my points.

I find amazing similarities in the way the papists and the emerging/emergent types "dialogue"
How dense!!

Dead Theologians said...

MM,

You build amazing straw houses.

I do agree with Approved in reference to the dialogue with Emergents and RC's.

""Scripture alone" will always mean *you* alone and your sinning mind set up as the absolute authority over the text."

Someone who has been saved will have the Holy Spirit living in them to give them wisdom to interpret.

Who has given the RCC this wisdom? Or can they just DECLARE it and it becomes unquestionable, unchallengeable, and authoritative?

No, "you have fun with that one."

DT

RC said...

Approved, even if someone did take the time to click on your links (which is not an attractive option, since you refuse to refer to primary sources) one would hardly have the chance to understand you better, because you provide no analysis. Your posting is an undisciplined string of unfounded insider complaints, which you attempt to weave together with misinformed allegations.

If the Church must endure the scandal of sulky detractors, she deserves better.

MM said...

Dead,

I'm afraid I don't know what you mean by "building straw houses."

Would you like for me to rephrase for you?

""Scripture alone" will always mean *you* alone and your sinning mind set up as the absolute authority over the text, (because) someone who has been saved will have the Holy Spirit living in them to give them wisdom to interpret."

You see the problem? You are still presupposing yourself to be an infallible source, in absolute authority over the text.

This is unbiblical. Scripture requires us to be under authority and in submission to one another. You are also presupposing that you will *always* obey the Spirit and heed His direction in leading you to an infallible interpretation; but this is an unbiblical presumption, because only Christ was in such harmony with the Holy Spirit. The rest of us are uncumbered with pride, sins, and errors that cloud our reasoning. This is why we need the collaborative and authoritative guidance of the Church, the pillar and ground of the truth, to whonm the Spirit was given for guidance into all truth, which you have (dangerously) chosen to reject.

In short, Dead, it's clear that you have a Pope and a set of 'infallible' dogma- and conveniently, both reside within your own fallible head.

Dead Theologians said...

MM,

Who is your authority? The pope? The one who is now infalliable but was falliable before becoming the great vicar?

Face it MM. You bow to Rome. I bow to Christ alone. You do not have an understanding of salvation or you would understand the indwelling Holy Spirit.

My prayers are for you and all of Rome to repent.

DT

approvedworkman said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
approvedworkman said...

RC
Nice avoidance technique.
I am wondering if you have even read my post.
Primary sources? Dp you mean the rcc canon and/or catechism? Now there's an unbiased source.
I linked to a Roman Catholic blogsite that was alleging that the "virgin" appeared to a pope and offered the "sabbatine privilege"
I simply linked to what others are posting as roman truth.
Wikepedia is also linked to as reference by many bloggers. As for the hymn, it is what it is.
My allegations are not misinformed. I don't care if personal revelation is a take it or leave it proposition. The fact is almost all of roman paganism takes it at face value.
Your response tells me that you did not check the links at all, or just a cursory glance at best.
Therefore you are not only the misinformed one, you are a liar.
My posts are quite disciplined, and all of your spin-doctoring does not change the facts.
As I said complain to your papist brothers. They wrote the original posts. Anyone who blogs is free to link to what is put out there as "absolute truth". I am simply exposing it.

mm
We are under the authority of the triune God, then the Scriptures, then our own renewed consciences. Then comes apostles, prophets etc etc. We do not lord over each other. Rome does not rule the earth.
Rome forgets that the church is actually all who are born again into the Kingdom of God, i.e. all of the saints, the true believers.
The church is not an institution separated from the saints and run by popes, cardinals, and magesterial decree.

approvedworkman said...

I also find it interesting that none of the papists will comment on the site of the post that dt linked to here.

MM said...

Approved and DT,

Sigh. Approved, why dont you link to actual authoritative sources? Why do you refuse to reference the actual Catechism and enclyclicals? If you did, I would better understand where you get the (surprisingly novel) claims that "Rome rules the earth...Rome (thinks) that the church is (not) all who are born again into the Kingdom of God, i.e. all of the saints, the true believers. ..The church (is) an institution separated from the saints and run by popes, cardinals, and magesterial decree."

???? Where do you get this stuff? This is not the Catholic Church that I know and joyfully belong to. Unless it's a figment of your resentful imagination, you should be able to back this stuff up.

Dead, Yes! I am a Catholic! You have no idea what your'e missing. It's wonderful. And yes, I do owe and show filial reverence to our Pope. If Christ had a vicar, wouldnt you do the same? Biblically, there is great warrant for believing with confidence that Christ DID install an infallible office (not a person- we believe that the office of the papacy is infallible, not the person) to guide His Church. Do you think that Jesus did not mean all of the things that he said to Peter about caring for and serving his brethren, holding the keys to the Kingdom, forgiving sins, and feeding the sheep? Do you think that the apostles did not know what they were talking about when they recognized a successive apostolic office that had to be filled by Matthias after Judas' demise? Do you really think that the earliest followers of Christ in His Church- who deferred to the apostles and the apostolic headquarters in Rome- were really ignorant pagans?

caspar said...

Hello, Approved,

Yes, the Lord chooses apostles. He also chooses bishops, priests, and popes. We believe this. it is not claimed that the Church has the unilateral power to make any of these. We call such a choice by God a "vocation". If a person has a vocation to the priesthood, for instance, it means he has discerned a call to serve God in that capacity, after long prayer and contemplation (some are more dramatic than that, but it's rare).

It is believed that the Holy Spirit guides the cardinals in their choice of a pope through the action of the Holy Spirit--the same as Protestant practice of praying to discern who to elect as pastor.

The precedent for this in Scripture is in the first chapters of Acts, where Matthias is selected to replace Judas Iscariot. By the will of God, of course, but also through men's action.

God bless.

approvedworkman said...

Any mention of Matthias beyond Acts 1? BTW they cast lots, i.e. die and the lot "fell" on Matthias. They did not vote. Church politics and compromise have always been the governing factors in papal ekections.

mm
The evidence of my claims is roughly 1500 years of abominable roman catholic history. Don't tell me that the popes did not exert supreme control over emperors,as well as instigate wars, persecutions, and pogroms.
Countless visions of dead saints, the virgin/goddess, sexual weirdness, ecstasies, ascetism,pereversion need I go on?
The rcc is a spiritual whorehouse.

MM said...

'Proved,

To both of your benighted responses re the Biblical precedent for the apostolic succession and the various shameful facts of Christian history ...

Frankly...

So What?

Is it your M.O. to prioritize those Scriptures that have more frequent emphasis than others? Do you wish to relativize the Bible in this way? Perhaps this is the bad fruit of the Sola Scriptura heresy.

And sure, RC history is full of sinners as well as saints. So is all of human history, including certain Protestant debaucles past and present that are not helpful to reference. Perhaps this is the bad fruit of adhering to the human-centered doctrines of Protestantism rather than submitting to Christ.

(I really need to stop commenting here- I am starting to sound like you people!)

Faithful said...

Hi, I found your site through MM's blog. I love this image of our Lady. She is standing as a foremost witness to the glory of her Son, looking down on Him with utter surrender and adoration. She inspires us to do the same. Thanks for sharing!

approvedworkman said...

"Is it your M.O. to prioritize those Scriptures that have more frequent emphasis than others? Do you wish to relativize the Bible in this way?"

What is your point? I do not prioritize, nor do I ever relativize.
Your answer is hey we all stink, so let's stink to high heaven?

You wish you were like us.

faitful,
Does a Spirit filled believer need the goddess to incite worship of the Messiah?

Dead Theologians said...

MM,

You said "Perhaps this is the bad fruit of the Sola Scriptura heresy."

The idea of tradition and papal "bull"/councils/edicts being on the level of Holy Writ is utterly demonic.

Agreed, that we make mistakes in our interpretation of Scripture is a given. But to put something on the same level as Scripture is a scary thing indeed.

DT

Faithful said...

Approved,

I do not know what you mean by "the goddess." Do you worship a goddess? That would seem like blasphemy to me.

Mary, as you know, is the mother of our Lord. Her devotion to Her Son should inspire all of us.

Perhaps you would be interested in the honor given to Mary from some of the theologians that this blog purports to showcase:

Martin Luther

"In this work whereby she was made the Mother of God, so many and such great good things were given her that no one can grasp them. ... Not only was Mary the mother of him who is born [in Bethlehem], but of him who, before the world, was eternally born of the Father, from a Mother in time and at the same time man and God." (Weimer's The Works of Luther, English translation by Pelikan, Concordia, St. Louis, v. 7, p. 572.)

"It is a sweet and pious belief that the infusion of Mary's soul was effected without original sin; so that in the very infusion of her soul she was also purified from original sin and adorned with God's gifts, receiving a pure soul infused by God; thus from the first moment she began to live she was free from all sin."(Sermon: "On the Day of the Conception of the Mother of God," December [?] 1527; from Hartmann Grisar, S.J., Luther, authorised translation from the German by E.M. Lamond; edited by Luigi Cappadelta, London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner, first edition, 1915, Vol. IV [of 6], p. 238; taken from the German Werke, Erlangen, 1826-1868, edited by J.G. Plochmann and J.A. Irmischer, 2nd ed. edited by L. Enders, Frankfurt, 1862 ff., 67 volumes; citation from 152, p. 58)

"She is full of grace, proclaimed to be entirely without sin- something exceedingly great. For God's grace fills her with everything good and makes her devoid of all evil...The veneration of Mary is inscribed in the very depths of the human heart." (Personal "Little" Prayer Book, 1522)

"It is the consolation and the superabundant goodness of God, that man is able to exult in such a treasure. Mary is his true Mother, Christ is his brother, God is his father."(Sermon, Christmas, 1522)..."Mary is the Mother of Jesus and the Mother of all of us even though it was Christ alone who reposed on her knees . . . If he is ours, we ought to be in his situation; there where he is, we ought also to be and all that he has ought to be ours, and his mother is also our mother." (Sermon, Christmas, 1529)

John Calvin

"It cannot be denied that God in choosing and destining Mary to be the Mother of his Son, granted her the highest honor. ... Elizabeth called Mary Mother of the Lord, because the unity of the person in the two natures of Christ was such that she could have said that the mortal man engendered in the womb of Mary as at the same time the eternal God." (Calvini Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Braunschweig-Berlin, 1863-1900, v. 45, p. 348, 35.)

Huldreich Zwingli

"It is right and profitable to repeat the angelic greeting - not prayer - 'Hail Mary' . . . God esteemed Mary above all creatures, including the saints and angels - it was her purity, innocence and invincible faith that mankind must follow."

Heinrich Bullinger

'The Virgin Mary . . . completely sanctified by the grace and blood of her only Son and abundantly endowed by the gift of the Holy Spirit and preferred to all . . . now lives happily with Christ in heaven and is called and remains ever-Virgin and Mother of God."

MM said...

Approved,

Perhaps I misread you, but I am sure that you misunderstood me. In response to the Scriptural foundation for the apostolic succession in Acts 1, you retort with the implication that this reference occurs 'only' in Acts 1, as though this diminishes the authority of the apostolic precedent. This, of course, relativizes Scripture. And such action is, of course, exemplary of the cavalier attitude that sinful humanity will always take towards the Word of God when they are not governed by His ordained authority. You should be more careful with the risks that you take with His Word.

approvedworkman said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
approvedworkman said...

mm
Spare me.
I do not relativize scripture.
The rcc most certainly does.
There is no precedent for apostolic succession as you define it. The Apostles cast lots, i.e. die. You hear nothing about Matthias afterward. This is not a precedent for a college of cardinals electing a vicar of Christ.
It should be apparent that I hold Scripture in higher regard than Rome ever has.
Why do you speak as if the church is a separate entity from the saints? This is the problem. The church is not an institution. It is not the magesterium, nor do we bow to popes and bishops, and/or the other pseudo-caesars who lord it over the people of God.
Don't ever presume to warn me about the "risks" I take with the Word. You are a shill for roman catholicism, and you wouldn't recognize the Bible if it fell on your head.

Faithful,
Why does every papist think that we worship Luther, or Calvin or any of the other reformers?
I stand by Scripture. Any doctrine or teaching that says Mary was born sinless, remained a virgin or that she mediates on our behalf is patently false. Anyone who espouses such twaddle, needs to be corrected.

BTW how can Mary be the mother of Jesus, of whom the Bible says is the second Adam,and also be the new Eve, as Rome advocates? Such a teaching is not found in the Scriptures; besides the fact you have Jesus exhibiting an Oedipus complex to boot.
Don't show me quotes from men, show me from the Word of God.

JSU said...

"Don't show me quotes from men, show me from the Word of God."

AMEN! I just love the "bad fruit" of Sola Scriptura. It is the sword that divides the sheep from the goats, the truth from the lies, the followers of Christ from the deceiving apostates. AMEN!

MM said...

'Proved. The only thing that is really clear about your beliefs and behavior is that you are no gentleman- so frankly, I will presume to warn you whenever I like. You need all the help that you can get!

Dead, does it not worry you that your blog seems to bring out the worst in your commentors?

Faithful said...

Approved:

"BTW how can Mary be the mother of Jesus, of whom the Bible says is the second Adam,and also be the new Eve, as Rome advocates?"

I fail to see your problem with this teaching. Eve, like Mary, was a mother. Sin entered the world through Eve. Salvation, in the incarnation of the Second Person of the Trinity, entered the world through Mary, thus fulfilling God's Genesis prophecy that "the seed of the woman" will crush the serpent. It's in these ways that Mary replaces Eve's sad legacy.

"Such a teaching is not found in the Scriptures; besides the fact you have Jesus exhibiting an Oedipus complex to boot."

Again, I'm not sure that I understand you.

I am confused further. You identify yourself with the teachings of the Reformers, but you do not conform to their teachings on Mary? Are you part of a denomination that allows you to pick amd choose whatever you want to believe? (some Catholics would envy you, if that is the case- how great to have such freedom!)

TO said...

Let me just say that I am in support of your attitude towards MM. Ignorant women have no place discussing theological matters.

It is for this reason that Protestants are right to banish any emphasis on Mary, the whore of Revelation.

approvedworkman said...

I identify myself with Scripture. No one ever claimed that Luther, Calvin, etc are inerrant and infallible, unlike the excathedra popes.
I don't have any choice in the matter I have to stay with the Word.

As for the new Eve, no such teaching is found or implied. As for the second Adam we have Romans 5 and 1 Cor 15 for starters.

mm
I could care less about your opinion of me.
Better to have rancor than the sweet lies of the serpent.
Ah unity at the expense of Truth. Is there any other kind?

Dead Theologians said...

MM,

You said "Dead, does it not worry you that your blog seems to bring out the worst in your commentors?"

Please don't be so hard on yourself.

Faithful,
Was Mary and Jesus married like Adam and Eve?

To,
That is why I identified the RCC as the Whore. The RCC IS the great whore of Revelation.

DT

Faithful said...

DT

Was Mary and Jesus married like Adam and Eve?

No, of course Jesus was not married to Mary. Mary is His mother. She is, however, a member of His Bride, the Church. She is also the first to acknowledge Him as her Savior within that Bride.

TO said...

Dunt play games with me DT. You are compromising already. Revelation is clear that it is Mary who is drunk with the blood of the saints. Where else does the RCC get its energy from but from the demoness? Where else did the vile heresy come from that says that Jesus is literally her son? As though God could become so debased. Jesus denies that Mary is his mother. Let all who think otherwise burn in the place where they belong.

JSU said...

TO

Where did that come from??? I can't tell if you are being sarcastic or expressing what you believe. Since I think the latter is true of you... I don't know what to say. All I can say is... what?????????????????????

Dead Theologians said...

to,

You said "Revelation is clear that it is Mary who is drunk with the blood of the saints. Where else does the RCC get its energy from but from the demoness? Where else did the vile heresy come from that says that Jesus is literally her son?"

You are way out on this one. Your view cannot be supported in scripture.

Please explain yourself scripturally.

DT

LinkWithin

Blog Widget by LinkWithin