The OLD TESTAMENT says not to WORSHIP or MAKE OFFERINGS to the Queen of Heaven, before Mary was born, and of course before Jesus was born. There was, at that time, no queen of heaven, and the title referred specifically to Ishtar, Ashtoreth, or Isis, depending on locality.
We do not look to Mary for forgiveness of our sins.
Co-redemptrix does not mean what you say it means. What it means is that Jesus could not have been born in human form, without God choosing Mary to be impregnated with him. She is the helper to the redeemer. She carried him in her womb, bore him, and raised him. She is the mother of God. She is not God, and we do not worship her, ask forgiveness of her, ask of her to gain access to the Father, or any of the things you rightly claim to be wrong.
Tradition is how we got the new testament. The traditions (the mass, the eucharist, confession, etc) had been practiced since christ’s ascension for many years before the gospels were even written, and the oral tradion written down literally is how the gospels came into being as a book, and the writings of Peter, Paul etc were primarily dealing with sorting out issues within the tradition, which was a continuation of Jewish temple worship without the killing of a live creature and without the need for adherence to mosaic and ritual cleanliness laws.
I haven’t gotten into the encyclical because it’s extremely nuanced. The Church as a whole has been the greatest spokesman against communism in the history of communism (notwithstanding rogue actors acting often in secret to help the nazis etc, in explicit violation of church teaching). If you want to pull out one paragraph from one encyclical totally out of context from all church teaching and use it to try to prove that the church is against private property, you’re not even seeking to understand. Read the catechism. Private property is linked to the dignity of the human person, and is the lens through which one must read the encyclical. It’s also not infallible and doesn’t displace other church teaching.
So we can sort out your misconceptions about what the church actually teaches about Mary, if you are inter in understanding those teachings, and if we get through that, then we can spend some time dissecting this one encyclical that you have chosen to interpret in a way that no one in the church has chosen to interpret it.
No, I am not. You have chosen to not understand, and have weaponized you misunderstanding to condemn me for believing something that you have decided I believe, which I do not believe, and which I have explained I do nit believe. You cannot be woken up, though, because you only pretend to be asleep. May God grant you ears to hear.
I understand the Roman Catholic position and I VEHEMENTLY DISAGREE with it.
You say veneration is not worship. I say you're playing word games.
You say kneeling in front of a statue of the Virgin Mary and placing a crown of roses on its head while singing Ave Maria is merely veneration. I say it's idolatry and the statue is a graven image.
You say that even though the Roman Catholic Church refers to the Virgin Mary as the Queen of Heaven, the co-redemptrix, mediatrix and advocate, just as the ancient Babylonians did, there's nothing wrong with this and the two aren't related. And then you take it a step further and claim I don't know what co-redemptrix really means, when the definition is irrelevant to the fact it's a shared title. I say you're the one who's willfully ignorant at this point.
The OLD TESTAMENT says not to WORSHIP or MAKE OFFERINGS to the Queen of Heaven, before Mary was born, and of course before Jesus was born. There was, at that time, no queen of heaven, and the title referred specifically to Ishtar, Ashtoreth, or Isis, depending on locality.
We do not look to Mary for forgiveness of our sins.
Co-redemptrix does not mean what you say it means. What it means is that Jesus could not have been born in human form, without God choosing Mary to be impregnated with him. She is the helper to the redeemer. She carried him in her womb, bore him, and raised him. She is the mother of God. She is not God, and we do not worship her, ask forgiveness of her, ask of her to gain access to the Father, or any of the things you rightly claim to be wrong.
Tradition is how we got the new testament. The traditions (the mass, the eucharist, confession, etc) had been practiced since christ’s ascension for many years before the gospels were even written, and the oral tradion written down literally is how the gospels came into being as a book, and the writings of Peter, Paul etc were primarily dealing with sorting out issues within the tradition, which was a continuation of Jewish temple worship without the killing of a live creature and without the need for adherence to mosaic and ritual cleanliness laws.
I haven’t gotten into the encyclical because it’s extremely nuanced. The Church as a whole has been the greatest spokesman against communism in the history of communism (notwithstanding rogue actors acting often in secret to help the nazis etc, in explicit violation of church teaching). If you want to pull out one paragraph from one encyclical totally out of context from all church teaching and use it to try to prove that the church is against private property, you’re not even seeking to understand. Read the catechism. Private property is linked to the dignity of the human person, and is the lens through which one must read the encyclical. It’s also not infallible and doesn’t displace other church teaching.
So we can sort out your misconceptions about what the church actually teaches about Mary, if you are inter in understanding those teachings, and if we get through that, then we can spend some time dissecting this one encyclical that you have chosen to interpret in a way that no one in the church has chosen to interpret it.
James 1:8
A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.
You're talking out of both sides of your mouth. There's no use in continuing this dialogue.
No, I am not. You have chosen to not understand, and have weaponized you misunderstanding to condemn me for believing something that you have decided I believe, which I do not believe, and which I have explained I do nit believe. You cannot be woken up, though, because you only pretend to be asleep. May God grant you ears to hear.
I understand the Roman Catholic position and I VEHEMENTLY DISAGREE with it.
You say veneration is not worship. I say you're playing word games.
You say kneeling in front of a statue of the Virgin Mary and placing a crown of roses on its head while singing Ave Maria is merely veneration. I say it's idolatry and the statue is a graven image.
You say that even though the Roman Catholic Church refers to the Virgin Mary as the Queen of Heaven, the co-redemptrix, mediatrix and advocate, just as the ancient Babylonians did, there's nothing wrong with this and the two aren't related. And then you take it a step further and claim I don't know what co-redemptrix really means, when the definition is irrelevant to the fact it's a shared title. I say you're the one who's willfully ignorant at this point.
“Just as the babylonians did”
When did the babylonians refer to Mary? I was under the impression hat she wasn’t born until a millennia or so later.