Daniel Montoro wrote:
Rhology, in a catholic's prayers for Mary's intercession the point of it is to lead us to Jesus. MAry helps us because Jesus has given her the grace to help us by leading us to himself. If you can't understand this fact then you are retarded or an evil demon who acts on behalf of Satan attempting to pervert our minds with your lies. By saying Jesus is absent, you are attacking the insturment he decided to use. You're not god, Jesus is. You're nothing more than a mindless follower of some psychotic lunatics named Martin "psycho depressed" Luther and John "legalistic Jew hater" Calvin. Basically, to say that Jesus is absent speaks more to your lack of intelligence and hate for God then it does of catholic theology.(link to source - Caution, while this comment was fairly clean, it was after Mr. Montoro calmed down a a bit.)
Gem Bridge, How about looking at the Wedding Feast at Cana. This shows how weak your bogus argument is. You really need to end your hatred of the only church you can attain your salvation through. Hopefully you are just ignorant for your sake.
Andrew, by reading above I'm sure that in your heart you now know that any argument following the same line of knuckleheaded responses will fail.
You guys should not abuse God's truth lest you find yourselves in hell.
I'll respond to this guy's points, one at a time:
1) "[I]n [Romanist] prayers for Mary's intercession[,] the point of it is to lead us to Jesus." This line would work if, for example, Romanist prayers to Mary were only for catechumens. In point of fact, the Romanist never gets past praying to Mary. I think it would be fair to say that one could not be a good "Roman Catholic" and pray only to Jesus. Praying to Mary, in point of fact, simply leads to more devotion to Mary - not to devotion to Jesus.
2) "[Mary, the blessed mother of Jesus,] helps us because Jesus has given her the grace to help us by leading us to himself." One could never get this doctrine from the Bible. The role of leading people to Jesus is the role of the evangelist, something that is never provided as a description of our Lord's mother. She was certainly highly favoured by God (so much so that all generations will call her blessed), but she is not a dispenstress of grace. Mary, if she could speak, would certainly lead people away from devotion to herself and toward devotion to her Son and Savior. As noted above, however, Marian devotion in practice leads away from divine devotion and towards further Marian devotion.
3) "If you can't understand this fact then you are retarded or an evil demon who acts on behalf of Satan attempting to pervert our minds with your lies." This, of course, would seem to contradict the ecumenical spirit of Vatican II.
4) "By saying Jesus is absent, you are attacking the [instrument] he decided to use." First of all, the statement itself doesn't follow. If Jesus is absent, he is absent. If he is present, he is present. It has nothing to do with attacking or defending instruments of Jesus. Second, it is simply the say-so of those who practice Marian devotion upon which the idea that Jesus "decided to use" this is based. In other words, this is not a practice taught or exampled in Scripture, but is - instead - a tradition of man.
5) "You're not god, Jesus is." Agreed. Likewise, however, Mary is not a goddess. And, according to Jesus, all those who do the will of Jesus' father are his mother and brethren.
6) "You're nothing more than a mindless follower of some psychotic lunatics named Martin "psycho depressed" Luther and John "legalistic Jew hater" Calvin." Actually, Scripture - not men - are our rule of faith. Despite the slander of Christian men (and bear and mind that Mr. Montoro graciously believes that every non-retarded person who disagrees with him on these issues is demon-possessed), these ad hominems are really irrelevant. Even if they were true, we don't accept anything as true simply because Mr. Luther or Mr. Calvin said so: we accept things as true because the Scriptures say so. We reject Marian prayers both because they are not taught or exampled in Scripture and because they are contrary to Scripture.
7) "Basically, to say that Jesus is absent speaks more to your lack of intelligence and hate for God then it does of catholic theology." One can readily see, simply by reading, where the hatred and lack of intelligence is. More to the point, however, the concept of Jesus being absent in a prayer is simply a matter of logic. If a prayer says, in effect, "If Mary doesn't help us, no one will," then Jesus is absent from that prayer. There may be some attempted explanation for Jesus' absence, but it takes a special breed of zealotry to make the statements Mr. Montoro makes.
8) "[Gene Bridges], How about looking at the Wedding Feast at Cana." The wedding feat at Cana is an example of Mary suggesting that people should go directly to Jesus. If there is an analogy to be made from this passage, it is not one that leads to Marian devotion.
9) "This shows how weak your bogus argument is." Actually, Mr. Montoro making such a statement without any supporting argument would seem to show either that he has no case at all, or that he has no ability to set forth and explain his case. As noted above, the only analogy to be drawn from the account is one that is not helpful to Rome's claims.
10) "You really need to end your hatred of the only church you can attain your salvation through." Actually, one can only attain salvation through faith in the Lord Jesus. One of the objections to this old-style anti-ecumenical Catholicism is the fact that it defines salvation by the church, instead of the other way 'round. By putting the cart before the horse, this old style of anti-ecumenical, pre-Vatican II Catholicism is subject to the the criticism that it usurps the role of the Holy Spirit in saving whom He will.
11) "Hopefully you are just ignorant for your sake." This kind of comment is already addressed above.
12) "Andrew, by reading above I'm sure that in your heart you now know that any argument following the same line of knuckleheaded responses will fail." If they will fail, it won't be because of Mr. Montoro's crushing defense of his religion. In point of fact, Mr. Montoro's method of defense seems likely simply to highlight his fanatical devotion to his religion, as opposed to any rational basis for anyone else to agree with him.
In conclusion, I think it's important to note that not all of Rome's supporters are this truculent or reckless in their claims. Just because this particular Romanist shows no understanding of the teachings of the Scriptures or even his own church, that doesn't mean that all supporters of Romanism are in the same boat. I hope to respond to some of the more thoughtful supporters in due course, though those sorts of comments naturally take longer to address.