It’s been said that the Roman Catholic Church has produced more atheists than any other system of thought on earth. I agree and one reason for that is the inane cult of Mary worship.
She was so obviously “just a woman” that to venerate her with attributes that can only belong to God, is so glaringly wrong. For Catholics, Mary and not Jesus is often the central focus of worship. Even though the Bible clearly states that Jesus had step-brothers and sisters, RC teaches that Mary remained a virgin. She is revered as perfect and unbesmirched by original sin and some Catholics even say that she plays a role in redemption. Catholics ignore Jesus, their mediator and Saviour and direct their prayers to Mary!
It is virtually the sole domain of Roman Catholics to see Mary (sometimes Jesus) in tacos and grilled cheese sandwiches and if this was not silly enough, Catholics will even make pilgrimages to see these ridiculous sights. The worship of Mary is not left to only the lowly or uneducated. Pope John Paul II declared a total devotion fo Mary. He even thanked Mary, not Jesus but Mary, for saving his life.
I just finished re-reading “Alive” the story of the rugby players who crashed in the Andean mountains and survived for something like 70 days by feeding on those who had been killed in the crash. One paragraph in the book says that the sixteen survivors came down off the mountain “because of the miraculous powers of the Virgin Mary.”
How can that NOT be offensive to God? I just can’t help but think that this type of idol worship will not go unnoticed by Creator God.
Even when Jesus was still on earth someone tried to venerate Jesus’ mother - “Blessed is the womb that bore You, and the breasts at which You nursed.” Jesus rebuked the person and pointed that person in the right direction, “On the contrary, blessed are those who hear the Word of God, and observe it.” Luke 11:27-28.
Mary appears only three times in the Gospels. On two of those occasions Jesus mildly rebukes her for entering into His spiritual business. In other words, she was in no way to play a role in His role of mediation. There is no hint that Mary ever sought, received or accepted any type of adoration because of her position of Jesus’s mother. Even in The Magnificat Mary does nothing but lower herself and magnify God. She never hints at the absurdity that she was without sin and uplifts instead the glory of God and of His show of grace toward her, someone undeserving as are we all.
Mary was favoured of God - not because of who she was but because of who God is - Period!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Then there's that whole transubstantiation business. I can't think of another religious claim that is such silly nonsense while at the same time being so easily disproven. As long as roughly one billion people on the planet are unwilling to admit that a Eucharist cracker isn't the actual flesh of Jesus, I don't know if there's any hope in trying to reason with those kooks.
ReplyDeleteI am going to start by saying that I am a regular reader, and I am *usually* impressed by what you have to say. This time, I feel I have to respond to your prejudice. I say prejudice because it is clear in your choice of words such as cult and the pejorative "Roman" (as if Latin Catholics are somehow different from other ones).
ReplyDeleteI am appalled by your treatments of other Christians here, and wonder how you can call yourself one after this.
"Even though the Bible clearly states that Jesus had step-brothers and sisters, RC teaches that Mary remained a virgin."
Actually, that is not clear at all. Just that there were those who were referred to as Jesus' brothers, as was common for that people in that era. Just as Abraham and Lot were "brothers." However, no clear familial relation to these men was made. A *simple* cross referencing does show that they at least had a different mother.
"Catholics ignore Jesus, their mediator and Saviour and direct their prayers to Mary!"
That argument has always perplexed me in a big way. Especially since frequently used "Hail Mary" says "blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus" and also "pray for us." Never does it say "I pray to you." I can't fathom a way this could be anymore clear, yet is so consistently remains a stumbling block.
"It is virtually the sole domain of Roman Catholics to see Mary (sometimes Jesus) in tacos and grilled cheese sandwiches and if this was not silly enough"
Yes, because this is a phenomenon unique to Catholics. This remark deserves no further dignifying.
"She is revered as perfect and unbesmirched by original sin"
Yes, because it was from her that Jesus got his human nature. Why would The Father allow His Son to be carried by a sinner? Why was Mary so special? Why did Gabriel say "Hail Mary, full of grace" were she not already special?
"...and some Catholics even say that she plays a role in redemption"
No, Catholics believe she co-operated with God. Mary said "yes" which is the opposite of Eve's "no." She could just as easily have said "No. I will not bare The Messiah." You might also want to refresh yourself with the prophecy of Simeon.
"The worship of Mary is not left to only the lowly or uneducated."
It's not reserved for anyone. It's non-existent.
"Pope John Paul II declared a total devotion fo Mary. He even thanked Mary, not Jesus but Mary, for saving his life."
How about a citation to go with that accusation? Shall we take your word for it? I will sooner side with Pope John Paul II who said "this is the foot of the cross on which hung the saviour of the world," which he was part of.
"How can that NOT be offensive to God? I just can’t help but think that this type of idol worship will not go unnoticed by Creator God."
You call it idol worship. I call your remark picking apart the words of survivors for a meaning you would prefer. I find your doctrine of not asking others to pray (to God) for another to be interesting.
"Mary appears only three times in the Gospels. On two of those occasions Jesus mildly rebukes her for entering into His spiritual business. In other words, she was in no way to play a role in His role of mediation"
Such a fascinating blasphemy. Jesus broke a commandment by dishonouring His mother, by rebuking her, for something He ended up doing. Truly fascinating.
Since I can plainly see you are hard set in your ways, I will part with this ;
"[She is the] highest woman and the noblest gem in Christianity after Christ . . . She is nobility, wisdom, and holiness personified. We can never honour her enough. Still honour and praise must be given to her in such a way as to injure neither Christ nor the Scriptures." - Martin Luther
Mr. Gronk, that's an interesting claim. Please, explain to me how faith is disproven? Maybe you can also tell me how the clear language of Christ was misunderstood?
ReplyDeleteAnonymous said: "Mr. Gronk, that's an interesting claim. Please, explain to me how faith is disproven? Maybe you can also tell me how the clear language of Christ was misunderstood?"
ReplyDeleteI don't think I said anything about faith being disproven in my comment about transubstantiation. Faith is very real. But some things people have faith in, such as transubstantiation, are easily disproven. Saying A turns into B, yet to our senses it still appears to be A, is nonsense. Before mass, a Eucharist cracker is composed of molecules of a certain type, which are composed of specific types of atoms. After the priest does whatever he does that allegedly changes the cracker into Jesus, it will be composed of the exact same molecules, which are composed of the exact same atoms. From a chemical analysis perspective, a pre-mass cracker is indistinguishable from a post-mass (unconsumed) cracker. All that talk about "substance" and "accidents" is a bunch of shifty language developed in an attempt to placate people who are brave enough to say, "Wait a minute, this is still a cracker."
Regarding the language of Christ being misunderstood, it's no surprise that over the course of 2000 years, humans have come up with different interpretations of the contents of the Bible. What's literal, what's figurative, what has deeper meaning, what is the meaning when taken out of context, etc. But nothing in the Bible has any bearing on my thoughts regarding transubstantiation.
"I am appalled by your treatments of other Christians here, and wonder how you can call yourself one after this."
ReplyDeleteI know some fine Christians in the Roman Catholic (as opposed to the (world-wide Catholic) Church but I believe that Jesus did not meet them or find them in their false doctrine and false beliefs.
Mr Gronk, if you have a problem with the idea of Transubstanyiation, and your idea that it "placates people," perhaps you should take it up with the source. Christ.
ReplyDeleteBut to the contrary, it does not plcalte people. The Gospel of John makes it clear that people couldn't deal with it, and stopped following Him. This is because the language used also made it clear regarding the literal nature of the transformation.
Maybe the chemicals stay the same, but that doesn't say much. most life on Earth is comprised of the smae chemicals. You already addressed the philsophical concept of "accident and properties" so I won't lecture you on it. you rejection of the notion bring me back to this. How can you disprove faith?
You don't have faith in it, just as those who chose to stop following Christ. Others do, just as Peter who said "To whom shall we go?"
To you Thesauros, I womnder about your continued remarks, such as "roman Catholic" and then makign a distinction between them and, as you say, "world-wide Catholic."
ReplyDeleteThe term "Roman Catholic" is a perjorative. And insult made by Anglicans to mock "world-wide Catholics" and does not reflect a particular group. This is also why it is only used in English speaking parts of the world. there is no difference between and Latin or Byzantine or Maronite (etc, etc) Catholic.
Now, I have trouble believeing you could say this in ignorance, simply because you seem to chose your worlds carefully. You also strike me as an intelligent, articulate man. You do not get to play the ignorance card. You formed an opinion, learned and repeated that which backed up what you were comfortable with.
"I believe that Jesus did not meet them or find them in their false doctrine and false beliefs."
Really? Perhaps you might want to explain or back up your remarks.
Why is Catholic doctrine false when yours is correct? Why would Christ not meet those who look to Him, love Him and worship Him?
Anonymous said: "Mr Gronk, . . ."
ReplyDeletePlease, call me Brap. This an informal, friendly setting (usually).
"if you have a problem with the idea of Transubstanyiation, and your idea that it "placates people," perhaps you should take it up with the source. Christ."
I'd love to, but I only communicate with living people, and none of them have any convincing evidence that a cracker becomes "not a cracker" during mass, before someone eats it. Just because someone said it a long time ago doesn't make it true.
"the language used also made it clear regarding the literal nature of the transformation."
If it's a literal transformation it's no longer a cracker, correct?
"Maybe the chemicals stay the same, but that doesn't say much. most life on Earth is comprised of the smae chemicals."
At the atomic level, yes, most life on earth is carbon-based. That doesn't make either one of us a diamond or a pencil lead, though. The arrangement of those chemicals is somewhat important for identification purposes. Are you suggesting the arrangement of the chemicals in the cracker changes during mass, such that it would then be identified as human tissue?
"How can you disprove faith?"
Again, I never claimed or attempted to disprove faith, so I guess I don't understand why you keep asking that question. Some things people have faith in can be disproven, and some cannot. Faith in the existence of God or unicorns cannot be disproven because you can't prove a negative. Faith that the world will end next week is easily disproven by waiting a week or two. Faith that a cracker turns into human flesh is easily disproven by a simple chemical analysis. (I'm not a chemist or a biologist, so I will admit that's an assumption on my part.)
I'll try this again, hopefully without the typos this time.
ReplyDelete"I'd love to, but I only communicate with living people,"
I can see how an "alien from outer space" might find that a problem…. Moving on
"...and none of them have any convincing evidence that a cracker becomes 'not a cracker' during mass, before someone eats it. Just because someone said it a long time ago doesn't make it true."
However, just because someone says it is not so, doesn't make it true either. Isn't this also becoming an issue of faith?
"If it's a literal transformation it's no longer a cracker, correct?"
Well I would have said, no longer unleaven bread, but yes.
"At the atomic level, yes, most life on earth is carbon-based. That doesn't make either one of us a diamond or a pencil lead, though. The arrangement of those chemicals is somewhat important for identification purposes. Are you suggesting the arrangement of the chemicals in the cracker changes during mass, such that it would then be identified as human tissue?"
Yes, but the DNA of all life on Earth is 92% the same. The chemicals they make use of, and are made of are the same, thought they may exist in different quantities.
The distinction between flesh and bread is entirely subjective. As stated, the elements and molecules are the same, though existing in different amounts. The distinction between the two is made by the observer.
If I consume too much beer one day, no one is going to say "forget about him, he's more alcohol than man now" simply because I have more ethyl in me than a fully sober man.
To someone completely unfamiliar with either, say an alien from outer space who is not constructed the same way humans are, the lines between the two may blur. Both are made of cells. Both have water and other chemicals in common. Why should they recognise it the same way humans do?
At what point does the food in my stomach become chyme? At what point is that chyme considered part of my body? It's subjective. Again, the determination of where these lines exist may vary to one familiar with the concept to one who is less familiar of unfamiliar with it.
This brings us back to the ancient and pre-Christian era concept of "accidents and essence." A piece of unleaven bread is not so because it is flat, light brown, light weight and because of the chemicals in it. My blood is not blood because of the lack of alcohol, and it's "blood status" is not removed because it suddenly has alcohol in it.
Accidents and essence.
This again brings us back to faith.
"I'm not a chemist or a biologist"
How modest of you.
"Again, I never claimed or attempted to disprove faith, so I guess I don't understand why you keep asking that question. Some things people have faith in can be disproven"
You have already stated you plan on ignoring the arguemtn to your stance, so how can you expect someone to come along and "prove" their point of you?
You disregard the concept of "accidents and essence" and cling entirely to subjective views. Especially subjective for someone who (says he) is "from outer space" and should understand the difference between the various lifeforms (and their bi-products) of Earth.
Your mind was made up before you wrote a single word. And yes, you are arguing faith.
As Pope Benedict satted, it's a good thing that the appearance remains the same. It shows true faith.
"The distinction between flesh and bread is entirely subjective."
ReplyDeleteWhat the !?
Anonymous: "However, just because someone says it is not so, doesn't make it true either. Isn't this also becoming an issue of faith?"
ReplyDeleteNo, the statement that a cracker isn't human flesh doesn't require any faith to be verified as true, just some simple observation and analysis.
Brap (previously): "At the atomic level, yes, most life on earth is carbon-based. That doesn't make either one of us a diamond or a pencil lead, though. The arrangement of those chemicals is somewhat important for identification purposes."
Anonymous: "Yes, but the DNA of all life on Earth is 92% the same. The chemicals they make use of, and are made of are the same, thought they may exist in different quantities.
The distinction between flesh and bread is entirely subjective. As stated, the elements and molecules are the same, though existing in different amounts. The distinction between the two is made by the observer."
How do you know a Eucharist cracker doesn't become human flesh during mass, and instead becomes part of an earthworm, a whale, or a tulip? If another observer observed something different about the same cracker, who would be right?
Anonymous: "If I consume too much beer one day, no one is going to say "forget about him, he's more alcohol than man now" simply because I have more ethyl in me than a fully sober man."
I agree. You are not the contents of your digestive system.
Anonymous: "At what point does the food in my stomach become chyme? At what point is that chyme considered part of my body? It's subjective. Again, the determination of where these lines exist may vary to one familiar with the concept to one who is less familiar of unfamiliar with it."
Agreed. The transition from food to chyme to actually becoming part of the body is a gradual, continual process, with no clear lines between the steps. Are you suggesting a Eucharist cracker is in the process of transforming into Jesus' flesh, and Catholics just decide to call it flesh earlier in the process than non-Catholics do? If anything, the cracker is in the process of becoming part of whoever consumes it during mass.
Brap (previously): "Again, I never claimed or attempted to disprove faith, so I guess I don't understand why you keep asking that question. Some things people have faith in can be disproven"
Anonymous: "You have already stated you plan on ignoring the arguemtn to your stance, so how can you expect someone to come along and "prove" their point of you?"
I thought I was responding to most or all of your claims pretty well. If I missed something, feel free to state it again. If you want to spend the time to discuss "accidents," I can tell you that my response will be the same. At the atomic and molecular level, there is nothing subjective about what something is. I suspect it will be a waste of time for both of us, but I'm actually enjoying it since this is my first experience discussing transubstantiation online.
Anonymous: "You disregard the concept of "accidents and essence" and cling entirely to subjective views."
Didn't you just say whether or not something is bread or flesh is subjective? You should appreciate subjective views. I actually think I'm being very objective, since there probably isn't a single laboratory in the world that would analyze a cracker and say it's human flesh.
Anonymous: "Especially subjective for someone who (says he) is "from outer space" and should understand the difference between the various lifeforms (and their bi-products) of Earth."
Yes, I understand wheat and humans are different. I think that's the main point we disagree on.
The typical fallacy of Catholics worshiping Mary is a tired, centuries-old mistake. As only God can be worshipped, Mary- the Mother of God the Son- is venerated. As she interceded to her Son at the wedding feast at Cana, so, too, will she intercede for us.
ReplyDeleteIt's in the Bible and the Catechism.
"No, the statement that a cracker isn't human flesh doesn't require any faith to be verified as true, just some simple observation and analysis."
ReplyDeleteThe analysis would simply show that the material has the chemicals that make up most life forms on Earth. While the concentrations may lean towards the numbers one would expect to find in bread, the determination of what it is is entirely subjective. Does the observer know what bread is? Does the observer know what human flesh is? In what "packaging" where the materials to be analysed put in? A whole piece in which the object could be looked at with the naked eye (which would create a bias based upon first impression) or in a microscopic amount, even just the separated chemicals?
"That doesn't make either one of us a diamond or a pencil lead, though. The arrangement of those chemicals is somewhat important for identification purposes."
Human flesh and ape flesh, or even other mammalian flesh, are remarkably similar, and if delivered for analysis in the right way, can be mistaken for what it is not.
"How do you know a Eucharist cracker doesn't become human flesh during mass, and instead becomes part of an earthworm, a whale, or a tulip? If another observer observed something different about the same cracker, who would be right?"
Again, coming back to faith. Jesus told us that His followers about The Eucharist, and how it was "true flesh" and His "blood is true drink." Catholics, and other Christian groups, believe Him. They just don't seem to have a problem in making the next logical leap of faith. That being, a God who can create all things, can change bread and wine into His own flesh.
Anonymous (previously): "If I consume too much beer one day, no one is going to say "forget about him, he's more alcohol than man now" simply because I have more ethyl in me than a fully sober man."
"I agree. You are not the contents of your digestive system."
And yet you still miss the point. At what point is a person changed enough to not be considered human? Does one need to add enough foreign elements? Does a one armed man count as "only 85% human?" Is a prehistoric human, say from 1 million years ago, so how less human? Will a person from 500,000 years from now be more human? The idea of what a human is, is subjective. While there are certain scientific parts to it as well, the definition is still a construct of the human mind, perception and language.
If I smack two iron spoons together, the electrons in the iron will become agitated and jump around. One could say, the irons atoms that made the spoons have ceased to be, and new ones took their places, since the original placement of the sub-atomic particles were crucial to them being "those spoons." Or if I ran a current through the spoons, because now, extra electrons are moving through them.
You may want to consider "The Ship of Theseus" which is an ancient paradox concerning the metaphysical and how we define what we observe.
"Are you suggesting a Eucharist cracker is in the process of transforming into Jesus' flesh, and Catholics just decide to call it flesh earlier in the process than non-Catholics do?"
No.
"At the atomic and molecular level, there is nothing subjective about what something is."
ReplyDeleteCorrect. Hydrogen is hydrogen is hydrogen. Oxygen is oxygen, etc. What these atoms and molecules make can be subjective, since no one living thing has exclusive "right" to any of the chemicals it is made of.
"I suspect it will be a waste of time for both of us"
I disagree, but, whatever.
"Didn't you just say whether or not something is bread or flesh is subjective? You should appreciate subjective views. I actually think I'm being very objective, since there probably isn't a single laboratory in the world that would analyze a cracker and say it's human flesh."
All an objective analysis will prove is that the chemicals have remained the same. It does nothing to determine any conclusive information concerning the essence of what it is or has been.
A doorstop and a sheet of paper are both made of wood, but if a scientist sees either (or both) he/she will call one a doorstop and the other a sheet of paper, despite being made of the *exact* same material. However, the doorstop is not so because it is made of wood, or is a wedge because some are made of other materials and/or in other shapes. The paper is not so because it is made of wood or because it is flat, because some paper is rough (less tan flat) and made of other materials. Would a stack of paper become a doorstop because it is made of wood, like the former doorstop, and not flat? To the subjective observer, no.
"Yes, I understand wheat and humans are different. I think that's the main point we disagree on."
Two people are different. How alike and and different do things have to be before a distinction is made? How large does this difference have to be to be considered relevant?
Despite making arguments concerning the chemical composition, the chemical composition is not relevant. Only that perception of them is. And that was the entire point of discussion objective and subjective analysis. One not able to consider the metaphysical will dwell entirely on the appearance, where as one who *can* consider the metaphysical will look at the essence.
To that end, it wouldn't even matter if (as you suggested) the bread change (chemically) into part of a tulip. If the only observable (physical) change was that, those with faith would still believe what Jesus told them.
So yes, this has been a matter of faith the whole time.
The chemical composition is irrelevant.
In the Bible, Jesus said the bread and wine was His Flesh and Blood. Why would He lie about that?
ReplyDeleteIf this article of faith finds no purchase in you, it is pointless to parse it ad nauseum.
Just saying.
Taken in context with the rest of Jesus’ teaching, it is impossible, for me at least, to make a case for Jesus saying that taking this sacrament:
ReplyDelete(a) turns into His body and blood, and
(b) leads to salvation.
I’m certain that Jesus statements in John 6:53-68 were intended to be confusing as He was addressing those who had, up to this point refused to believe any and all signs that Jesus had presented to them. He instead laid out for those willing to learn what His sacrifice meant for them.
That He spoke about eternal life as a result of “eating and drinking” should show that He was NOT talking about eating in the normal earthly sense.
The key to understanding John 6:53-68 is found in the verses 6:51 - “I am the living bread that came down from heaven,” and 6:63 - “The Spirit gives life, the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.”
In 6:51 He is speaking metaphorically. In 6:63, to make sure that He isn’t misunderstood, Jesus explains to the disciples that He was speaking metaphorically.
To Thesauros, I'm sorry, sir, but you are yet to establish any metaphorical nature to what Jesus said. to the contrary, while Jesus is know to have often spoken in parables and "riddles," John 6 is a fine example of a time when Jesus making what he said abundantly clear. Also that that He was *not* being metaphorical.
ReplyDeleteWhen his (former) disciples heard what He said, they questioned it. They wanted to know how. Jesus asked "Doth this scandalize you?" Jesus repeated exactly what He said, and rather than saying "wait guys, just an allegory," He let those who could not accept it leave, for He wasn't changing what He said.
John 6:51 may be an allegory, but not to say the transformation isn't real. Jesus connected Himself to the Eucharist. And John 6:63, is about His ascention into Heaven, not telling people "it's just a figure of speech."
What was the first thing John the Baptiser said when Jesus showed up at the River Jordan? He said "Behold the Lamb of God, behold Him who taketh away the sin of the world." This was connecting Jesus to the lamb that was sacrificed for Passover. Christ's death and resurrection was called, by Paul, "Christ's Passover." This is why words like "Pascal" have always been tied not just to Easter, but to The Eucharist.
Why would Jesus say or do anything if it had no actual purpose or meaning? By even suggesting Jesus' words or actions were ambiguous only serves to make Him appear less than a solid figure, a non-Messiah.
ReplyDelete"If this article of faith finds no purchase in you, it is pointless to parse it ad nauseum."
ReplyDeleteSince people apparently believe in transubstantiation due to faith instead of evidence, I will pose the question I usually pose when people present the faith card to justify their belief in anything.
Given the overwhelming number of things one can choose to have faith in today, how should we decide what to have faith in? Should we look at what the majority of people on the planet have faith in, and go that route? Should we side with the majority in our own country or city, or with the majority among our friends and family? Should we just go with our gut instincts? Should we look for evidence to support our beliefs? Should we go with the oldest beliefs, since they have withstood the test of time the best?
The followers of Jim Jones, Joseph Smith, L. Ron Hubbard, and the Heaven's Gate founders all have or had faith, and some or all of those goups must have faith in something they shouldn't have. How do we avoid making similar mistakes gong forward?
"Why would Jesus say or do anything if it had no actual purpose or meaning?"
ReplyDeleteWho says it's for nothing or without meaning? Jesus said, "Do this in remembrance of Me."
Taking part in The Lord's Table has huge significance, meaning, context and purpose - for Catholics and for Protestants. Disagreeing on what takes place during the Meal does not detract from its meaning.
You are not dissecting the event to understand its components. You are removing the meaning. Jesus did not mince words, nor was He flippant. If the bread and wine did not become Body and Blood then there would be no reason to commemorate it or thank God for saving us.
ReplyDelete“If the bread and wine did not become Body and Blood then there would be no reason to commemorate it or thank God for saving us.”
ReplyDeleteOh dear, I think we’re WAY off the mark here.
What is being remembered is not the Last Supper. If that is the case, no wonder Roman Catholics believe that the sacrament saves!
What is being remembered is the voluntary sacrificial death of the sinless Lamb of God, the Son God, Jesus the Christ, Messiah whose body was broken and whose blood was shed so that by faith in what His death and resurrection accomplished we might receive forgiveness for our sins. Just like revering Mary and ignoring Messiah as our ONLY mediator is wrong, so too is revering the elements and ignoring the event for which they stand as a reminder - nothing more.
Who ignores Jesus? Who ignores the Last Supper?
ReplyDeleteBecause Catholics choose to ask Mary to mediate for them and the Last Supper is integral to EVERY Mass, someone is therefore ignoring Jesus and elevating Mary to the status of a god?