182 replies to this topic

[3DOP]

mfbukowski, on 13 August 2012 - 11:16 PM, said:

I can tell you it won't be an accident when I avoid a discussion about substance!    No hurry!

In fact don't worry about it if you never get to it- knowing us, we are not going to resolve a couple of thousand years of discussions all by ourselves!  You're a great guy and I consider you a good friend and I think we are not going to solve all this anyway!

Thanks bukowski...may I call you "mf"? Heh.Be assured that without getting any mushier...that friend thing you mentioned?? It goes both ways.

3DOP

PS: But we'll still have to look at St. Augustine sometime soon to your disadvantage....okay? My lovely wife wants to go to the County Fair in the morning. (I had forgotten about that) Wednesday is the Assumption, and seminary boy leaves on Thursday. But it won't be forgotten.

Edited by 3DOP, 14 August 2012 - 12:37 AM.

[3DOP]

bukowski
When I first started studying Mormonism, it was clear to me that there was virtually no conceptual difference between the concept of "preaching to the spirits in prison" including doing their temple work and "praying for the souls in purgatory", but in my opinion we add another dimension and that is that our concept is that we cannot be exalted without doing temple work for our dead, whereas if I am not mistaken, Catholics can go to heaven without, theoretically, praying for the souls in purgatory.

3DOP
Yes! Thank you. I have argued repeatedly in favor of the interpretation of I Cor. 15:29: "Otherwise what shall they do that are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not again at all? why are they then baptized for them?", according to the teaching of St. Francis deSales, who would also have recognized that there is virtually no conceptual difference between the two activities.


bukowski
But yes we have been around the block about babies and hellfire- of course you are a convert to Catholicism and did not experience being a young Catholic in the 1950s and learning about Limbo.  But of course this doctrine has been re-defined to the point where people allege it was never doctrine.  I have documentation from Catholic sources that the doctrine was in fact changed, and I think we have discussed that.

But it is clear that Augustine in fact changed earlier Catholic doctrine about unbaptized babies not being damned and this belief persisted in the church for a long time.

Here is even a Catholic source which illustrates the change- which to me is prima facie evidence of an apostasy at least as early as the fifth century if one refuses to accept all the evidence for one before that:

3DOP
1) St. Augustine is one church father. Influential though he may be, he could not change Catholic teaching. There is no unanimity of the Fathers in favor of Augustine's innovation. In fact, it would appear that his predecessors disagreed with his conclusions and those who followed him never accepted his speculations either. It might seem peculiar to us, but we are certainly more familiar with the pre-Augustinian fathers than Augustine himself. Individually he is fallible, and clearly, the Church never accepted his teaching, even unofficially. He might have fared better if he had access to the New Advent website.

2) Mormon detractors could as easily go poking around in the Journal of Discourses to find "official" teachings about how Mormons believed that Adam was God. I would suggest that if Brigham Young's teaching was not Mormon doctrine, it seems difficult to see how the speculations of one bishop from North Africa, or a council of African bishops influenced by their leader, proposed official Catholic doctrine.

3) Damnation, if you can even call it that, according to the very single worst speculation of a Catholic apologist whose teaching has been rejected both before and after says this from your own quote: .

Quote

..the very most that St. Augustine concedes is that their punishment is the mildest of all, so mild indeed that one may not say that for them non-existence would be preferable to existence in such a state."  

As for limbo, although you are correct that I wasn't around in the 50's, I am well aware of the teaching and I subscribe to it. Many seem to think it has been scrapped. A panel deciding that every dead baby immediately receives the beatific vision is no more authoritative than Augustine's speculation. I am as free to respectfully reject Pope Benedict's panel of experts, as I am St. Augustine. The Church has never ruled on this question (of limbo vs. heaven) and Catholics are free to speculate, while being tolerant of those Catholics with whom they disagree. If the Church ever ruled that dead babies go straight to heaven, I will submit. The Church cannot rule that dead babies suffer the pains of Hell. There is no official dogma about specifics. But about a damnation that means Hellfire for babies, there is unanimity of the early Fathers. Later Fathers, the Schoolmen, the Counter-Reformation, and the modern Church against such a notion. Even at St. Augustine's worst period, while he was concentrating heavily on distancing himself from Pelagius who believed in a limbo, allowed that such a life would be preferable to non-existence.

The reason you found this information at a Catholic website, is if I may say so, because it is neither embarrassing nor any kind of evidence at all against the Catholic faith. It is a straightforward account of the ways Catholic theologians have tended to speculate about whether dead babies get to contemplate God for all eternity. No one has really answered my previous comments yet about whether that is the primary occupation of dead babies (contemplation of God in the beatific vision) according to LDS teaching on their eternal abode. I doubt that even in the celestial kingdom, this activity would be considered primary. I jested yesterday about being sentient, fed, clothed, and not having to go to work as being something to look forward to in this life, but also the lot of dead unbaptised babies. If I may add to that sunshine, immortality, natural gifts, ability to know God in created things, and to express this knowledge through artistic creativity, I might do limbo justice. There is no reason whatever why this should not be the case. And except for those who think it would be great to contemplate God instead, it might even sound like heaven, but certainly no kind of damnation.  

3DOP

Edited by 3DOP, 14 August 2012 - 12:56 PM.

[3DOP]

...continuing to think of this subject of pedobaptism as an LDS might perceive it, I am reminded that I think I have seen passages in the Book of Mormon that are highly charged against the doctrine of infant baptism, implying that this means unbaptised dead babies burn in hell. There is an important way to look at this.

Now I have only demonstrated the situation as it has existed in the Old World Church. One could still be LDS, recognize that with regards to infant baptism, the Old World Church has a different (and acceptable) view of the fate of unbaptised babies, and realize that these passages against infant baptism must be applied against the New World Church only. Yes, the Church in America would have to be apostate when those passages were written. But it would be mistaken to apply the condemnations of a unique form of infant baptism outside of its unique historical context. The passages against infant baptism in the Book of Mormon cannot be applied to the Old World Church because of significant differences between the Old World Church and the Church in America.

Edited by 3DOP, 14 August 2012 - 01:01 PM.

[3DOP]

Following is what Yep listed as being "items that we believe are indicative of the apostasy":

Baptism no longer by immersion
Infant baptism
Concept of Infants not being innocent at birth
Governmental Change in the Church (the calling of Apostles done away with and the introduction of Cardinals and Archbishops)
The use of the term "the Holy Father" when referencing the Pope (i.e. see Matthew 23:9-10)
Celibacy requirement of bishops and priests
The worship and elevation of Mary
The praying to saints as advocates instead of only praying to God with Christ as advocate.
Grace without works leading to complete salvation
Etc.

What evidences exist for or against these claims?

______________________________

We can return to any of the items discussed so far if that would be desirable. Proceeding in order would bring us to the subject of church government.

Catholics do not see the office of Apostle distinctly from the office of bishop. All Apostles were bishops, not all bishops were Apostles. The qualification for being an apostle wasn't some different form of ordination but rather to have seen Christ, and been designated to be sent out on a special mission. There was an obvious need for Apostles in this sense in the early church, so that the faith would be founded on eyewitness accounts of the Resurrection of Christ. But the best explanation for why there weren't apostles later, is that the apostles themselves never tried to perpetuate their office except inasmuch as the bishops were their successors:

Quote

Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry.

---I Clement 44

That Judas was replaced is significant in Acts 1. When St. Peter makes his appeal to Scripture for the reason why Judas should be replaced we read:

Quote

For it is written in the book of Psalms: Let their habitation become desolate, and let there be none to dwell therein. And his bishopric let another take.  

---Ac. 1:20

But this passage from the Psalms doesn't require that every apostle be replaced by another apostle. This is distinctively prophetic in regards to Judas alone. Secondly, it indicates that all the candidate needs to inherit Judas' office, is to become a bishop. It doesn't say anything about being ordained as an apostle, but as a bishop! There are two qualifications 1) To have seen the Lord Jesus bodily, 2) To go out on a mission and establish new churches:

Quote

Am not I free? Am not I an apostle? Have not I seen Christ Jesus our Lord? Are not you my work in the Lord? And if unto others I be not an apostle, but yet to you I am. For you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord.  

---I Cor 9:1, 2

The new apostle, Mathias, who received Judas' bishopric was an Apostle in the same sense as St. Paul. He had seen Christ, he had taken a bishop's office, and the seal of apostleship is not found in a separate ceremony but rather in accomplishing a work of establishing the Gospel. Another reason that apostles could not ordain anything except bishops is that the generation who had seen Jesus after the Resurrection had died. If seeing Jesus was a prerequisite to the apostolic office, and no one worthy of the episcopate was left who could claim to have seen Him, they could not possibly perpetuate the office. In the two biblical cases (Paul and Mathias) where new apostles are made, it is in connection with having seen Jesus. What happened according to St. Clement of Rome is for that reason entirely predictable, the apostles ordained many successors. The bishoprics of all of the apostles were filled again. As time went on, the apostles themselves understood that the worthiest candidates were too young to have seen Jesus, and so, the Church which is founded and established upon the Apostles is perpetuated by the highest office that the apostles could bestow, the bishop, as St. Clement explains.  

I do not understand the objection to later developments when as the church grew, certain bishops had charge over principle geographical areas that qualified them as archbishops. If I am not mistaken, the office of cardinal arose much later than the early centuries. These would be the special servants of the bishop of Rome, ordinarily bishops themselves, whose submission to the pope does not seem controversial. The popes desired to establish a body of electors to choose a successor. These are cardinal bishops of Rome, personally chosen, who would presumably replace the pope with the best possible candidate. We could go into this in more detail but it seems beyond the scope of the first centuries.

[3DOP]

The next evidence in favor of an apostasy of the early church is "the use of the term 'the Holy Father' when referencing the Pope, (i.e. see Matthew 23:9, 10)".

Quote

And they love the first places at feasts, and the first chairs in the synagogues, And salutations in the market place, and to be called by men, Rabbi. But be not you called Rabbi. For one is your master; and all you are brethren. And call none your father upon earth; for one is your father, who is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters; for one is your master, Christ.  

---Mt. 13:7-10

It seems difficult to interpret this passage rigorously. If it is a sin to address everyone except God with the titles of "Doctor" or "Father", then I doubt there is any among us who is innocent. For who is scandalized if students in their studies refer to their teachers with the English equivalent of master or rabbi, as Dr. So and So. Who is troubled if they hear a child call out, "Father", to his, well, father? This is wrong? No. Neither are we troubled when St. Paul refers to himself as a father to the Corinthians:

Quote

I write not these things to confound you; but I admonish you as my dearest child. For if you have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet not many fathers. For in Christ Jesus, by the gospel, I have begotten you.

---I Cor. 4:14-15

Jesus is teaching His disciples and us that Our Father in Heaven is preeminently the father of all fatherhood, while He who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life is the teacher of all knowledge. St. Paul expresses this idea very well in his letter to the Ephesians:

Quote

For this cause I bow my knees to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Of whom all paternity in heaven and earth is named,

---3:14, 15

Any time the title of father is used, it should be understood in subordination to that of God the Father. We have fathers of our country, church fathers, city fathers, and biological fathers. Jesus, in His mission to magnify His Father, wanted to emphasize that if anyone is a father of anybody or anything, it is because of God the Father. The Rabbis had obviously become proud and let these titles go to their heads.

It isn't like some legislation came out of the pope's office one day telling the flock to start calling him "Holy Father". These are popular acclamations which represent how children feel toward beloved ones to whom they feel childlike affection. We know that neither our priests nor our popes are God. Assuredly, it would be robbery to attribute to any man the prerogatives of God, but we cannot think of a more appropriate title for those who baptize us and intercede for us to God in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, than "Father", which expresses a subordinate relationship to Him for "whom all paternity in heaven and earth is named."

3DOP

[Alan]

I have just been studying the role and assistance the Vatican gave to Nazi war criminals in their escape to South America and elsewhere. It seems to me that when the RC church have to come down on one side or the other, they nearly always get it wrong. Is the pope inspired? Does he or any of the cardinals etc ever receive any revelation? I think most would agree that it is very difficult to identify circumstances where a case could be made.

[3DOP]

Alan
I have just been studying the role and assistance the Vatican gave to Nazi war criminals in their escape to South America and elsewhere.

3DOP
I'm not familiar. Have you studied what the Vatican says about why they did this? Does the Vatican admit doing this? Does this have anything to do with LDS claims that the early church was apostate?

Alan
It seems to me that when the RC church have to come down on one side or the other, they nearly always get it wrong.

3DOP
Maybe you should expand your studies.

Alan
Is the pope inspired?

3DOP
Sometimes.

Alan
Does he or any of the cardinals etc ever receive any revelation?

3DOP
Yes.

Alan
I think most would agree that it is very difficult to identify circumstances where a case could be made.

3DOP
I really couldn't say what most would think. If you are correct, it merely demonstrates that most are unfamiliar with Catholic history.

Do you think most would agree that it is easy to identify circumstances where a case could be made that anybody receives any revelation? Who do you believe receives revelation?

Edited by 3DOP, 16 August 2012 - 12:16 PM.

[3DOP]

Okay...so next on the list of evidences for apostasy in the early church is: "Celibacy requirement of bishops and priests."

First of all, I don't think it has been established that celibacy was a requirement for clerics in the early church of the east or the west. My position is that beginning with Christ and the Apostles, perpetual virginity is extolled and holy matrimony is praised. I deny that the practise of strict celibacy of all deacons, priests and bishops in every place has ever been church law. It wasn't until at least the early Middle Ages that a more rigorous rule promoting priestly celibacy was introduced into law by various churches in union with Rome. Therefore, I'll limit my arguments for the purpose of this thread to the reasons why celibacy was ever advocated, and under what circumstances. Even though celibacy was encouraged from the beginning of the Patristic era, there were always monogamous deacons and priests.

Quote

Virginity, the conduct of the angels, is the property of all incorporeal nature. We do not say this as speaking ill of marriage, perish the thought! For we know that the Lord blessed marriage by His presence, and we know the saying, "Marriage is honourable and its bed undefiled." But we say this by way of recognizing that however good marriage may be, virginity is better.  

---St. John of Damascus, The Source of Knowledge (3:4:27), cited from the Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 3, William Jurgens, ed., The Liturgical Press, 1979, p.341

St. John is citing our Lord's presence at Cana as proof of the goodness of marriage. I will be defending the Catholic teaching that for those called to the marriage state, God has instituted Holy Matrimony as a Sacrament, a means of grace unto salvation for both husband and wife. In conjunction with its teaching on marriage, the Catholic Church also holds that it is God's will that there are some, far fewer in number, who God has chosen to give the gift of celibacy, which is itself an even more honorable state in which to glorify the good God, and enter into the fulness of the joys of everlasting life.

3DOP

[mfbukowski]

3DOP, on 16 August 2012 - 02:41 PM, said:

Quote

Virginity, the conduct of the angels, is the property of all incorporeal nature. We do not say this as speaking ill of marriage, perish the thought! For we know that the Lord blessed marriage by His presence, and we know the saying, "Marriage is honourable and its bed undefiled." But we say this by way of recognizing that however good marriage may be, virginity is better.  

---St. John of Damascus, The Source of Knowledge (3:4:27), cited from the Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 3, William Jurgens, ed., The Liturgical Press, 1979, p.341
In conjunction with its teaching on marriage, the Catholic Church also holds that it is God's will that there are some, far fewer in number, who God has chosen to give the gift of celibacy, which is itself an even more honorable state in which to glorify the good God, and enter into the fulness of the joys of everlasting life.

3DOP

The problem with this however as an ethical statement is that if everyone did it, the human race would cease to exist.

I believe in a morality which applies to everyone everywhere. In my opinion, mores should be universal; your moms were right when they asked you as a child "What if everyone did that?".   I think that such any other approach makes no sense.

Even as a Catholic, I could not defend such an ethic this way.  I think it makes more sense to hold, for example, that priests dedicate themselves to celibacy as  a special covenant between themselves and God as a voluntary gift perhaps, to help themselves overcome their bodily desires and dedicate themselves more fully to God.

That to me makes sense- it is like the LDS idea of fasting, but extended in one area for a lifetime.

But to see virginity as a "higher" calling, if made universal, would extinguish the human race.   The implication is that we are not equal before the Lord.  There are those who are called to be more Godly and the others of us to be less so.  Yet those called to be "less" indeed are indispensable to those who are called to be "higher" or those who are virgins would not even have been born.

I see it ultimately as making the virgin class into a parasitic minority dependent on the others for their very existence.

I don't mean to be offensive- I am attacking the argument of celibacy being a higher calling, not the covenant of celibacy itself.  If someone feels they want to be celibate, that is their decision and I have no problem with it.

[volgadon]

Alan, on 16 August 2012 - 11:11 AM, said:

I have just been studying the role and assistance the Vatican gave to Nazi war criminals in their escape to South America and elsewhere. It seems to me that when the RC church have to come down on one side or the other, they nearly always get it wrong. Is the pope inspired? Does he or any of the cardinals etc ever receive any revelation? I think most would agree that it is very difficult to identify circumstances where a case could be made.

What must not be forgotten is that the Vatican gave a lot more assistance to combatting the Reich than aiding it. Monsignor O'Flaherty, a high-ranking official, sheltered both Jews and allied soldiers, at great risk to himself and even to the See itself. Many priests and nuns sheltered Jews, as did many of the rank-and-file. Metropolitan Andriy Sheptitsky, head of the Greek Catholic Church in Ukraine sheltered Jews in his own residence and publically opposed political murder. The Vatican was also involved as a go-between for Admiral Canaris and the Allies, in planning a putsch against Hitler. In 1943, Hitler very nearly issued an order to storm the vatican.
Whatever Catholic involvment in the ratlines, they were far from friends to Hitler and the Nazi Party.

[Alan]

While many individual catholics, including priests etc played heroic roles during the war, the role the church played, especially the Vatican, leaves a lot to be desired. And volgadon, the "Greek Catholic Church" is a different church.

But I am interested in 3DOP's assertion that the Pope receives revelation. I would be interested to hear of one example.

[volgadon]

Alan, on 17 August 2012 - 04:59 AM, said:

While many individual catholics, including priests etc played heroic roles during the war, the role the church played, especially the Vatican, leaves a lot to be desired. And volgadon, the "Greek Catholic Church" is a different church.

But I am interested in 3DOP's assertion that the Pope receives revelation. I would be interested to hear of one example.

The Greek Catholic Church as Uniates fall under the Roman Catholic umbrella. The Vatican itself was considered enough of an enemy for Hitler to try to destroy it, which is often overlooked.

[3DOP]

mfbukowski, on 16 August 2012 - 03:53 PM, said:

The problem with this however as an ethical statement is that if everyone did it, the human race would cease to exist.

I believe in a morality which applies to everyone everywhere. In my opinion, mores should be universal; your moms were right when they asked you as a child "What if everyone did that?".   I think that such any other approach makes no sense.

Even as a Catholic, I could not defend such an ethic this way.  I think it makes more sense to hold, for example, that priests dedicate themselves to celibacy as  a special covenant between themselves and God as a voluntary gift perhaps, to help themselves overcome their bodily desires and dedicate themselves more fully to God.

That to me makes sense- it is like the LDS idea of fasting, but extended in one area for a lifetime.

But to see virginity as a "higher" calling, if made universal, would extinguish the human race.   The implication is that we are not equal before the Lord.  There are those who are called to be more Godly and the others of us to be less so.  Yet those called to be "less" indeed are indispensable to those who are called to be "higher" or those who are virgins would not even have been born.

I see it ultimately as making the virgin class into a parasitic minority dependent on the others for their very existence.

I don't mean to be offensive- I am attacking the argument of celibacy being a higher calling, not the covenant of celibacy itself.  If someone feels they want to be celibate, that is their decision and I have no problem with it.

mfbukowski, a good day to you.

Thank you for your generous reply. Far from being offensive, I appreciate your sensitivity and willingness to try to place yourself in the position of a Catholic. Knowing, or at least thinking I know the aversion that Latter-day Saints have to the practise of celibacy for a rule of life with no view to marriage, your answer was refreshingly conciliatory. There is one positive statement you make with which I think I am in almost complete agreement:

Quote

I think it makes more sense to hold, for example, that priests dedicate themselves to celibacy as  a special covenant between themselves and God as a voluntary gift perhaps, to help themselves overcome their bodily desires and dedicate themselves more fully to God.

Now I differ in that you are suggesting that there is an incompatibility between the view of unequal callings and celibacy as a free gift. I have never pursued religious life and am not sure if the vow (special covenant) is to "help themselves overcome bodily desires". It is ordinarily unwise to make a vow unless one has already demonstrated to one's superiors and oneself the ability to perform the promise. But your main point I think is that a vow of celibacy is a "voluntary gift". No one is ever to be compelled in such a matter.

The very essence of all priestly ways, both pagan and Christian, is to offer sacrifices. Even those Christians who aren't sacramentally ordained as priests, must retain a priestly character in our daily lives:

Quote

Be you also as living stones built up, a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.

---I. Pet. 2:5

St. Paul admonishes the faithful in the same vein:

Quote

I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercy of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, pleasing unto God, your reasonable service.

---Rom. 12:1

To those unacquainted with the love of God, the idea of a priestly life of sacrifice is unthinkable. To take vows of poverty, or chastity, or obedience to a superior is virtually a voluntary death. But isn't that what Christ did for us, not only in His Passion and Cross, but also in His birth and life? From a first night in a manger, to His willing obedience to His truly inferior parents (see the Finding of the Child Jesus in the Temple), to His earthly ministry, Jesus' life was characterized by these three kinds of free sacrifice.

Unto those with no desire to emulate Jesus, the presentation of our bodies as a living sacrifice is totally unreasonable. But to Christians loving Him who first loved us, there is a commendable desire to reciprocate. The good God, while not needing these sacrifices for any want of His own, is well pleased to see us offer to Himself what is most precious to us, because we want to emulate and be conformed to the life of His Son. According to St. Paul, in this light, to offer up even our bodies as a living sacrifice is reasonable.

I know that some LDS speculate that Jesus might have married. I do not believe that, but for those who hold that He was, it must at least be granted that He did not claim the ordinary prerogatives of marriage. Rather than living with, and providing a home for His family, He had no place to lay His head, and it was for our sakes that it was so. If for no other reason than that His mission seemed incompatible with a happy family life, I suggest that He chose not to marry. Either way, Jesus sacrificed the mutual warmth and daily consolation of normal married life that would ordinarily be the hope for any young husband and wife. He did this for us. There have always been generous souls who have wanted to offer their bodies as a living sacrifice in a similar manner

Lord willing, I'll try later to share my thinking about your objections to unequal callings and to establish the biblical basis for celibacy as a gift that is only for a few.    

Regards.

3DOP

[3DOP]

Alan, on 17 August 2012 - 04:59 AM, said:

While many individual catholics, including priests etc played heroic roles during the war, the role the church played, especially the Vatican, leaves a lot to be desired. And volgadon, the "Greek Catholic Church" is a different church.

But I am interested in 3DOP's assertion that the Pope receives revelation. I would be interested to hear of one example.

Hi Alan,

I read your question carefully before giving it an unqualified answer, which I rarely do. I think you have to reinterpret your question too narrowly to be able to propose my affirmative answer as "3DOP's assertion that the Pope receives revelation."  

I deny asserting that "the Pope receives revelation."  

That said, I can recall at least two occasions when specific popes have received specific revelations that have become known to the whole Church. Was it because they were popes or was it because they were holy, or was it because of a combination of factors that they were chosen, I could not say. But I can confidently answer in the affirmative to the question as to whether "he or any of the cardinals, etc ever receive any revelation." Try googling Leo XIII/20th Century or Pius V/Lepanto.

The Catholic vocabulary in regards to revelation is unfortunately misleading to the ear of a Latter-day Saint. The New Testament canon may be bound, but the Word of God is not. Hundreds and thousands of words from God have been communicated to the faithful on earth since the times of the Apostles. The purposes have been as diverse as can be imagined. Sometimes they are given to meet a local difficulty of a particular time. Sometimes they are given to propagate a new kind of devotion. Sometimes they are prophetic in nature, foretelling events that are soon to transpire, with admonitions about how to respond and conditional promises of either reward or chastisement. Sometimes an angel or saint has appeared that others can see. Sometimes audible voices are heard. Sometimes the seer has a dream. Often, it is the still, small voice which is received in deep recollection and quiet.

I asked you a question too if you didn't notice. It was about who you think receives revelation and whether "most" could agree about the evidence thereof. Many reliable and convincing prophecies and other kinds of revelation just in the last century have been declared to be acceptable by the Catholic Church. There are hundreds of pages of the spoken words of Jesus to one canonized saint alone. I was thinking you were Mormon but not Salt Lake. I could be wrong. So who do you believe in that is providing your recent prophecy and revelation? Surely you don't limit the gift of prophecy and revelation to high officials of the Church hierarchy? Maybe that was why you asked specifically about popes and cardinals? We don't exclude revelations on those many occasions when "your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams," regardless of their rank in the Church.

My concern about the Catholic position as ordinarily worded is that it gives the impression that we believe all revelation is closed. Infallible revelation ended with the Apostles. But revelation carrying a weight of certainty for us that is comparable to Latter-day Scripture for Mormons, has certainly continued. If I am not mistaken, we disagree with Mormons about whether apostolic revelation is infallible. But we agree with Mormons that post-apostolic revelation (along with ALL of the apostolic gifts) continues. Leaving aside the further question of the witness of continuing signs, wonders, and miracles among the Mormons, I truly am not familiar with any LDS prophecies and revelations except for those of Joseph Smith. I doubt if the frequency or scope of them could significantly exceed the multiplied prophecies and revelations by Catholic seers and visionaries in the last 200 years. Maybe it would be good just to dig into it all and present the evidence sometime? A lot of Catholics are unfortunately ignorant of the rich heritage we have in very recent times showing that God's Spirit continues to be "poured out upon all flesh".

I hope you understand my desire to try to wrap up this thread which has now lasted already almost a month and a half with me being far and away the most active contributor. I don't want to start anything else yet, but I think the subject of Catholic continuing revelation and miracles for anyone who is interested, would definitely merit a thread of its own. I am sure that revelation and miracles would take even more time because of the sheer abundance of material. If I can finish up this thread in the next few weeks, maybe you would want me to introduce the topic again sometime after that? I'll tell you what. I probably shouldn't start a topic about that on the Mormon board. It would be a little self-serving I am afraid. But if you or somebody else that's LDS wants to get something started, I'll eventually be sure to make my way to it. But in the meantime, I have unfinished work here.

3DOP

Edited by 3DOP, 17 August 2012 - 02:42 PM.

[3DOP]

Throughout the Old Testament era, it seems to have been considered at least unfortunate, if not a curse, to be childless, to be sterile, to be incapable of bearing children. There is no record that anyone ever sought such a lifestyle deliberately. But Isaias prophecies of a time when those who bear no children are received with special honor in God's kingdom. Of course, Catholics and Orthodox would see the fulfillment of this prophecy in the vows of celibacy taken by priests and religious for all of the centuries since the time of Christ:

Quote

For thus saith the Lord to the eunuchs, They that shall keep my sabbaths, and shall choose the things that please me, and shall hold fast my covenant: I will give to them in my house, and within my walls, a place, and a name better than sons and daughters: I will give them an everlasting name which shall never perish.

---Is. 56:4, 5

It is easy to pass over inconvenient or difficult prophecies. I don't think the Jews of Christ's day had been giving it much thought. It didn't very easily conform to their beliefs. It is in St. Matthew's Gospel, ch. 19, that Jesus' disciples are surprised at the way Jesus is critical of how divorce was only tolerated by Moses "for the hardness of your heart". The Lord goes on to establish a rigorous rule against remarriage which prompts the disciples to proclaim, "If the case of a man with his wife be so, it is not expedient to marry." (Mt. 19:10) The significance here is that they all accept the idea that marriage is expedient and they are assuming that Jesus will agree.

But Jesus doesn't correct them because he is about to explain that for some, marriage most certainly IS NOT EXPEDIENT:

Quote

Who said to them: All men take not this word, but they to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs, who were born so from their mother's womb: and there are eunuchs, who were made so by men: and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. He that can take, let him take it.

Mt. 19:11-12

It is the third category Jesus names to which I mainly draw your attention. For three groups, marriage is certainly not according to Jesus' teaching, expedient. Obviously those who were born with the incapacity and those who have been forcibly sterilized need not marry. There can be no argument about that. But additionally, there is third very interesting group, of which Jesus approves. These are they who for the sake of the kingdom have "made themselves eunuchs". Obviously, we do not understand our Lord to have been approving of self-mutilation. Rather however, that for some, they will become as eunuchs having chosen such a life for the sake of the Gospel. But rather than feeling desolate about it as they did in the Old Testament, God will give them "an everlasting name which shall never perish", as explained in the prophecy of Isaias.

---------------------------

Getting late. Bukowski, I need to go through a little bit of I Corinthians to tie up the topic of biblical celibacy. At that time, it should be convenient to discuss more thoroughly the inequality of gifts and callings of God as found I think in ch. 12. But even in this passage from the Gospel, I would have you note how, whatever it is you believe He was advocating if not voluntary celibacy, Jesus said, "All men take not this word, but they to whom it is given" and again, "He that can take, let him take it."

Good night all,

3DOP

Edited by 3DOP, 18 August 2012 - 12:04 AM.

[3DOP]

I was considering making comment on some lengthy texts from St. Paul's first letter to the Corinthians. But it occurs to me that it is probable that Latter-day Saints will agree with my exegesis, while diminishing the authority of the text for an arguably plausible reason. In this chapter, St. Paul makes a distinction regarding those things found herein which are by "commandment of the Lord" and those which are of the Apostle's personal counsel. I may advance a few reasons why Catholics accept St. Paul's personal counsel in this document with equal authority. But for sake of argument, I will begin by analyzing the text according to the worst possible condition for the Catholic, as though we may safely dismiss all of "St. Paul's counsel" as being entirely mistaken:

Quote

1 Now concerning the things whereof you wrote to me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.  2 But for fear of fornication, let every man have his own wife: and let every woman have her own husband.  3 Let the husband render the debt to his wife: and the wife also in like manner to the husband.  4 The wife hath not power of her own body: but the husband. And in like manner the husband also hath not power of his own body: but the wife.  5 Defraud not one another, except, perhaps, by consent, for a time, that you may give yourselves to prayer: and return together again, lest Satan tempt you for your incontinency.  6 But I speak this by indulgence, not by commandment.  7 For I would that all men were even as myself. But every one hath his proper gift from God: one after this manner, and another after that.  8 But I say to the unmarried and to the widows: It is good for them if they so continue, even as I.  9 But if they do not contain themselves, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to be burnt.  

---I Cor. 7:1-9

Of course, I will argue energetically that the Apostle is certainly teaching the advantages of remaining unmarried if anyone somehow mistakenly interprets this or the passage that follows after a different manner. Taken together with the passages from the Old Testament as well as the Gospel which give evidence that a new dispensation of God's will has been revealed, Catholics (and Orthodox) have a threefold biblical witness in favor of the idea that for most, described appropriately as those who "do not contain themselves", marriage has been instituted and blessed by God, for indeed "it is better to marry than to be burnt." (either with lust or worse). But for others, we see as in Mt. 19, "It is good for a man not touch a woman," but again, "every one hath his proper gift from God." Rather than argue that St. Paul is against perpetual celibacy, I think the Latter-day Saint should lay the greatest weight upon verse 6: "I speak this...not by commandment."

Quote

25 Now, concerning virgins, I have no commandment of the Lord: but I give counsel, as having obtained mercy of the Lord, to be faithful.  26 I think therefore that this is good for the present necessity: that it is good for a man so to be.  27 Art thou bound to a wife? Seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? Seek not a wife.  28 But if thou take a wife, thou hast not sinned. And if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned: nevertheless, such shall have tribulation of the flesh. But I spare you.  29 This therefore I say, brethren: The time is short. It remaineth, that they also who have wives be as if they had none: 30 And they that weep, as though they wept not: and they that rejoice, as if they rejoiced not: and they that buy as if they possessed not:  31 And they that use this world, as if they used it not. For the fashion of this world passeth away.  32 But I would have you to be without solicitude. He that is without a wife is solicitous for the things that belong to the Lord: how he may please God.  33 But he that is with a wife is solicitous for the things of the world: how he may please his wife. And he is divided.  34 And the unmarried woman and the virgin thinketh on the things of the Lord: that she may be holy both in body and in spirit. But she that is married thinketh on the things of the world: how she may please her husband.  35 And this I speak for your profit, not to cast a snare upon you, but for that which is decent and which may give you power to attend upon the Lord, without impediment.  36 But if any man think that he seemeth dishonoured with regard to his virgin, for that she is above the age, and it must so be: let him do what he will. He sinneth not if she marry.  37 For he that hath determined, being steadfast in his heart, having no necessity, but having power of his own will: and hath judged this in his heart, to keep his virgin, doth well.  38 Therefore both he that giveth his virgin in marriage doth well: and he that giveth her not doth better.  39 A woman is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth: but if her husband die, she is at liberty. Let her marry to whom she will: only in the Lord.  40 But more blessed shall she be, if she so remain, according to my counsel. And I think that I also have the spirit of God.

---I Cor. 7:25-40

With an interlude between verses ten and twenty-five begin another section where St. Paul gives a kind of disclaimer. Once again, it seems expedient for the LDS position to diminish the authority of this passage for once again, it appears impossible to me to interpret this passage any other way than that St. Paul is advocating not only that those who are unmarried remain so, but also alludes to a truth which is repeated twice in the Gospels, that marriage is for this life only in verse 29: "The time is short...they also who have wives be as though they had none."  In the Gospels, the Lord Jesus is questioned by the Sadducees, unbelievers in the resurrection, regarding the heavenly marital status of an hypothetical woman who married more than one brother. They wonder which brother will be her husband. But Jesus surprises them by informing them that marriage is for this life only:

Quote

For in the resurrection they shall neither marry nor be married; but shall be as the angels of God in heaven...For when they shall rise again from the dead, they shall neither marry, nor be married, but are as the angels in heaven.

---Mt. 22:30, Mk. 12:25

Catholics take the position that St. Paul's counsel, being compatible with other revelations in both Testaments, is to be taken as given to us by the Holy Ghost. That he was modest enough to admit that the theology he is developing is taking God's Word a further step, does not give us the liberty to disregard it according to our view.

But let us suppose these sections from I Corinthians SHOULD be disregarded. It has been alleged that the practice and advocation of celibacy for both men and women who "hath his proper gift from God", is an evident sign of apostasy. I think those of you who follow my posts regularly, know that I use strong language sparingly. I think you will search a lot of posts before you will find me saying what I am about to say regarding the allegation of apostasy because of celibacy, as practiced and advocated by the Roman Catholic Church. The practice of perpetual celibacy as evidence for apostasy is preposterous.

I admit the plausibility of disregarding much of St. Paul's seventh chapter. But when we Catholics have only codified the clear teaching of an Apostle of Christ, mistaken though you might say he was, it cannot be evidence of apostasy. If Restorationists would insist upon describing such an error as evidence of apostasy, they are doing so at great expense. It seems to me that the difficulties of accusing Catholics of apostasy while exonerating an Apostle whose counsel we follow would do incalculable damage to LDS claims. Why is it okay for the Apostle Paul to believe and advocate his own counsel, but when we follow him, we are apostate? See what I mean? I think you would end up losing the Apostle Paul. Maybe a handful of you are ready for that. I think it would be disastrous for Mormons.

If I were LDS, I would back away as fast as I could from the allegation that perpetual celibacy must be understood as a sign of apostasy in the early church.

3DOP

Edited by 3DOP, 19 August 2012 - 08:52 AM.

[3DOP]

Finally, I need to address the concerns expressed by mfbukowski regarding the Catholic position, as quoted from St. John of Damascus which affirmed that marriage was honorable but that perpetual celibacy was even more so:

bukowski
The problem with this however as an ethical statement is that if everyone did it, the human race would cease to exist.

3DOP
No worries there mate. We know that it is only for a few. And for the many, we don't even allow artificial birth control!

bukowski
I believe in a morality which applies to everyone everywhere. In my opinion, mores should be universal; your moms were right when they asked you as a child "What if everyone did that?".   I think that such any other approach makes no sense.

3DOP
I don't recall mom saying that. But when applied to picking a grape without paying for it in the produce department, it shows great wisdom. But this isn't about choosing between good and evil but between two great goods. Jesus says that it is for the few.

bukowski
Even as a Catholic, I could not defend such an ethic this way.  I think it makes more sense to hold, for example, that priests dedicate themselves to celibacy as  a special covenant between themselves and God as a voluntary gift perhaps, to help themselves overcome their bodily desires and dedicate themselves more fully to God.

3DOP
What ethic? Nobody is considered a second class citizen because they are married. Priests and religious could never look down on us either. They all have Moms and Dads. They are the product of marriage. We once had a parish priest, in fact he is the one under whom my son decided to discern if he was called to such a life. This good priest is also a good son who calls his Mom everyday, and usually more than once! Good priests are the product of good families and they know that the family and marriage is the institution through which God wills that our priests and religious are nurtured. Thanks be to God for our good priests who love us and care for us foregoing the joys that we are permitted.

It was God's will that Jesus Himself was born into a family unit composed of mother and father. There is no unequal ethic going on. We who experience the good joys of married family life just love our priests. Because we are grateful for their unequalled sacrifice on our behalf, we say that as a state of life, as a vocation, perpetual virginity is more honorable than the married state. Individually, that does not mean that they are holier or will all occupy higher places in heaven.  

bukowski
That to me makes sense- it is like the LDS idea of fasting, but extended in one area for a lifetime.

3DOP
Here my friend is alluding to the priestly life of celibacy as "a special covenant...and as a voluntary gift." That is precisely what it is! There is no Catholic ethic or more which violates anyone's freedom in this matter. Further, none of the revelations to which we point in favor of celibacy approach the subject from a view that would diminish marriage, or to "cast a snare", as St. Paul says to those who are called to a married vocation. No one needs ever feel reproach or guilt for following either calling. My own son, as I mentioned above is in a period of discernment. I pray that it is God's will that he be a priest, mainly because we need priests, but even more, I pray God's will may be clearly known to him. And if he should conclude that it is not for him, he will return without anyone's disrespect.

bukowski
But to see virginity as a "higher" calling, if made universal, would extinguish the human race.

3DOP
Correct. The Albigensian heresy proposed the doctrine of devils, "forbidding to marry..." (I Tim. 4:3). They universalized that which was meant for the few. But simply because the Albigensians overemphasized the true doctrine, is no reason to abolish perpetual celibacy as a voluntary act of sacrifice, which is the essence of priestly activity. The Albigensians turned out to be rather zealous. Things got political, which is to say they became violent and one of the Crusades was eventually directed at the suppression of such a pernicious doctrine.  

bukowski
The implication is that we are not equal before the Lord.  There are those who are called to be more Godly and the others of us to be less so.  Yet those called to be "less" indeed are indispensable to those who are called to be "higher" or those who are virgins would not even have been born.

3DOP
We are nothing if not unequal. In every way. Our natural gifts and talents are unique to ourselves as is the environment into which we are born. Only God could know how to correctly judge the degrees of merit or chastisement we deserve. If on top of that, we posit that certain positions in the Body of Christ are more honourable than others it is not remarkable. In I Corinthians 12, St. Paul is explaining why God has given us such an inequality of gifts and callings:

Quote

For the body also is not one member, but many. If the foot should say, because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? And if the ear should say, because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? If the whole body were the eye, where would be the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where would be the smelling? But now God hath set the members every one of them in the body as it hath pleased him. And if they all were one member, where would be the body? But now there are many members indeed, yet one body. And the eye cannot say to the hand: I need not thy help; nor again the head to the feet: I have no need of you. Yea, much more those that seem to be the more feeble members of the body, are more necessary. And such as we think to be the less honourable members of the body, about these we put more abundant honour; and those that are our uncomely parts, have more abundant comeliness. But our comely parts have no need: but God hath tempered the body together, giving to that which wanted the more abundant honour, That there might be no schism in the body; but the members might be mutually careful one for another.

---I Cor. 12:14-25

According to this understanding, the Body of Christ is indeed composed of unequal parts. Equality in the members works, gifts, and honour would make a true Body, a spiritual organism, as desired by God impossible: "But now God hath set the members every one of them in the body as it hath pleased him. And if they all were one member, where would be the body?" (v. 18, 19) The Apostle wrote this chapter to admonish his readers to avoid the kind of egalitarian thinking which you seem to be advocating bukowski.

bukowski
I see it ultimately as making the virgin class into a parasitic minority dependent on the others for their very existence.

3DOP
A parasite no. Not ultimately. Not ever. A parasite offers no benefit to its host. But yes, there exists a mutuality of dependence whereby those of us with an excess of material gifts, are more than compensated by those who can favor us by virtue of their spiritual gifts. And as a class if you insist on such an expression, be assured that there is neither conflict, nor any ability for the "class" to perpetuate itself, except for the free good will of the majority.

Nobody prays to have more parasites! But we Catholics pray for more priests! And sometimes, thank God, we get to rejoice when a family member is so privileged to join priestly or religious ranks.

bukowski
I don't mean to be offensive- I am attacking the argument of celibacy being a higher calling, not the covenant of celibacy itself.  If someone feels they want to be celibate, that is their decision and I have no problem with it.

3DOP
Fair enough bukowski. You know I am not offended in the least, don't you? I thank you again for your generous acceptance of celibacy as a free and even life-long covenant. I hope I have persuaded you that what you described as acceptable to you, is pretty much what it is. But with regards to your concerns about inequality and class difficulties, I disagree strongly. As Catholics view and practice the vocation to celibacy, your concerns are not necessary.

Catholics take a middle view to the question of married life. We have Mormons and many Protestants on the one hand, who continue to advocate the goodness of family life and the value of marriage much as it was understood before the times of Christ. I remember the pressure to get married before I left Baptist Bible College. I am glad I did, but it reflected an aversion to celibacy and an unbalanced emphasis on married life as an almost exclusive way to live. We have usually had Albigensians, or those like them on the other hand, who advocate the goodness of an aesthetic life of sacrifice on the other. (I think the last Shaker died recently. Yes, bukowski, universality isn't a good idea). We agree with both Albigensian and Mormon. Catholics teach that families must be perpetuated by honorable and Sacramental Marriage while acknowledging the superiority, however slight, of a priestly life of self-sacrifice and perpetual virginity. In this matter we happily enjoy "having our cake and eating it as well". We take and accept the best of what both our opponents in this subject teach.

See y'all later.

3DOP

Edited by 3DOP, 19 August 2012 - 08:52 AM.

[Alan]

3DOP,

Just for the record, you are right - I am Mormon but not Salt Lake, or even Utah, or even the US. As my avatar indicates, I am British.
I think you should probably start that new thread about Catholic revelation. I can't think of any apart from the psuedo-prophets like Nostradamus or Mother Shipton. These were, perhaps, holy individuals who received personal revelation. I am talking about revelation and prophecy for the whole church and for the whole world. When God wanted the early church to take the gospel to the Gentiles he spoke to and through Peter the senior apostle and earthly leader of the church, and not some one else however holy they were. In other words, the Lord uses an orderly system and has done throughout history.
Therefore, according to this pattern he should be speaking to us through the Pope and all I am asking for is an example of this occuring in the last two or three hundred years.
Many thanks.

[3DOP]

Alan, on 19 August 2012 - 08:50 AM, said:

3DOP,

Just for the record, you are right - I am Mormon but not Salt Lake, or even Utah, or even the US. As my avatar indicates, I am British.
I think you should probably start that new thread about Catholic revelation. I can't think of any apart from the psuedo-prophets like Nostradamus or Mother Shipton. These were, perhaps, holy individuals who received personal revelation. I am talking about revelation and prophecy for the whole church and for the whole world. When God wanted the early church to take the gospel to the Gentiles he spoke to and through Peter the senior apostle and earthly leader of the church, and not some one else however holy they were. In other words, the Lord uses an orderly system and has done throughout history.
Therefore, according to this pattern he should be speaking to us through the Pope and all I am asking for is an example of this occuring in the last two or three hundred years.
Many thanks.

I have never heard of Mother Shipton, nor paid any attention to Nostradamus.

As I said Alan, I think it would be self-serving to start a thread about post-apostolic revelation. As you see, there is barely any participation from LDS parties on THIS thread. I feel a little bit like I am already Mr. Monologue. If they are curious they will ask and I will answer. If you are curious, start a thread and I will answer as time permits and will exclude anything "revealed" by Nostradamus or Mother S.

As for St. Peter, I have to differ with your opinion that his New Testament leadership sets up any kind of pattern. I quoted a prophecy that came from the very mouth of St. Peter about how all people will prophesy in the new age, and so it is. In our canon, only two small books are attributed to St. Peter. That leaves 25 other New Testament books that break your pattern, assuming you agree with the Catholic canon of the New Testament.

[3DOP]

The next on the list of evidences for apostasy has to do with what what Yep describes as "The worship and elevation of Mary."

Today is the Feast of Our Lady's Nativity, and it seems like an opportune time to ask her help on how to explain the great things that God has done with her.

I think I would have to begin by way of protest. It seems to me that one of the surest signs of apostasy is "disregard for the Mother of God."

Quote

My soul doth magnify the Lord. And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour. Because he hath regarded the humility of his handmaid; for behold from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.  Because he that is mighty, hath done great things to me..

---Luke 1:45-49

Unfortunately for those who view the Protestant Reformation as a good thing, one of the side effects of it always seems to be a minimalization of the role of the Mother of the Saviour in the economy of salvation. The "Second Eve" as Our Lady was referred to by St. Irenaeus, reverses all the wrongs that were done by the first Eve. Like Eve, she was born sinless. Like Eve, the critical moment of her existence was when she was approached by an angel. Whereas Eve thought that by obeying the serpent, she would become a goddess, it appears that by obeying God's angel, Mary has become one. The Catholic Church has not elevated Mary. The Catholic Church has called her "blessed" for all generations because "He that is mighty hath done great things to me (her)..."

God elevates Mary. Jesus defers to His Blessed Mother even in this life. Making a feeble objection to His mother's request for wine, she knows He will do her bidding, telling the attendants at the wedding feast of Cana to "do whatever He tells you." (paraphrase) This is what our Lady has continued to do, since the moment when Jesus gave His own mother to be St. John's mother and our mother at Calvary. She is an advocate for us while admonishing us to do her Son's will.

I am weary of saying we don't worship Mary. There is a clear and unmistakable distinction between the worship we give to God and that which we give to His greatest creation, but to to non-Catholics, our veneration of Mary is a devotion that seems excessive. But I fear that it only seems so because non-Catholics are over eager to be distanced from any "taint" of adulation for Mary. The Scriptures, sparing as they are in relation to Mary, give clear evidence of her excellent qualities, and so to us Catholics, it seems like the non-Catholics diminish her...to excess. Forget about Catholics when you are pondering the life and role of the Mother of Jesus. What kind of person would the Father choose to be the mother of His only-begotten Son? The angel said that she was "full of grace". Does this strike you as in any way remarkable?

Oh how can we fail to see that if there were two Adams, there were also two Eves? In the story of the Fall, is there not an important role for a woman? Is it so inappropriate that a woman should figure prominently in our redemption? But Mormons believe in human exaltation. You believe in deification. If Protestants are scandalized that we think Mary has been exalted in heaven, why should you be?

I have referred at other times to The Liturgical Year. It is a series of books that provides commentary on the seasons and days of the church calendar comprising sixteen volumes. I received it for a Christmas present last year. A precious gift. In today's reading for the feast, there is a beautiful passage that contrasts the Garden of Eden with the new paradise that is commemorated on this day when we remember the birth of Blessed Mary:

Quote

Hail, new world, far surpassing in magnificence the first creation! Hail blessed haven, where we find a calm after so many storms! Aurora dawns; the rainbow glitters in the heavens; the dove comes forth; the ark rests upon the earth, offering new destinies to the world. The haven, the aurora, the rainbow, the dove, the ark of salvation, the paradise of the heavenly Adam, the creation whereof the former was but a shadow: all this art thou, sweet infant, in whom dwell already all grace, all truth, all life.

---The Liturgical Year, Dom Gueranges, republished by St. Bonaventure Publications, 2000, vol. 14, p. 146, 147

Our Lady's life is a little hidden in the New Testament. It is even more hidden in the Old. But it is there for the Church to discover...for those who "hear the word of God and keep it." Beginning with the Garden of Eden, our Lady is symbolized in figurative shadow from Moses to the Maccabees. I love her. I do. She is beautiful. She is His mother and my mother. O Mary my queen, my mother, remember I am thine own, keep me, guard me as they property and possession. I am a little boy with her. I run to her daily, and as at Cana, she tells me "Do whatever He says". Somehow it seems easier to obey when hearing it from my good mother.

On the Feast of the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary,

3DOP

Edited by 3DOP, 08 September 2012 - 12:29 PM.