We continue, from part 1 and part 2, considering the difference between Mariology (the study of Mary, the mother of Jesus) and Mariolatry (the worship of the fugazi Catholic “Mary”) via an example taken from Rev. Anthony Bus’ St. Stanislaus Kostka Catholic Church in Chicago, Ill. Wherein they have built a sanctuary devoted to “Mary” which contains a idolatrous image.
We now come to the issue of the eucharist (of which you can read in detail here) which is, oddly, said to be, both, the literal flesh of Jesus and yet “under the appearance of” bread. This bread made by human hands is then worshiped as per the Catechism of the Catholic Church #1380:
“The Church and the world have a great need for Eucharist worship.” [John Paul II, Dominicae cenae, 3]
Now, a word about silence about which there is much to say and yet, what is relevant here is the context in which silence is being recommended. Within a temple dedicated to a false goddess, wherein manmade bread is worshipped as a god and “sacred silence” is practiced. The problem is that within this context, silence serves to quiet and open the mind, readying it for whatever the spirit beings that dwell within the temple have to pour into it. The issue is not whether therein someone actually believes that YHVH has spoken to them but whether that which they are told is in conformity with the Bible.
In order to drive home the point about just how faulty this entire scenario is we must consider just what is the “Ark of Mercy”? Firstly, we note that the Ark is a monstrance; wherein the host, the eucharist, is kept:
“The idea of the iconic monstrance was conceived nine years prior to its unveiling…The doors of the parish were opened and eyes were turned to Mary, Holy Queen and Mother of Mercy…At the request of Fr. Anthony, Stefan Niedorezo was commissioned to sculpt the image of the iconic monstrance according to the design conveyed in the Book of Revelation.”
Let us go step by step through this. Firstly, it may be nothing at all, granted, but they do make a point to repeat, time and time again, that the time of conception to the time of fruition of this project was “nine years.” In occult numerological reduction 9 equals the number of the beast. This is because 6+6=12 and 1+2=3 and 3+6=9 or, simply, 6+6+6=18 and 1+8=9. Thus, the parish (the temple) was opened and eyes were turned to whom? To Jesus? No, rather, to “Mary, Holy Queen and Mother of Mercy.”
Now to the specific point about the monstrous monstrance which looks like many, faulty, depictions of the Ark of the Covenant and yet, atop which is a crescent moon atop which is a very spooky looking figure hooded and robed in red with stars encircling its head. Yet, it is said to have been modeled “according to the design conveyed in the Book of Revelation” but how so?
Two quotes and a few other references are noted:
“Then God’s temple in heaven opened and in the temple could be seen the Ark of His Covenant. There were flashes of lightning and peals of thunder, an earthquake, and a violent hailstorm! A great sign appeared in the sky, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. Because she was with child, she wailed aloud in pain as she labored to give birth. (Rev. 11:19;12:1-2)…
Ask for a sign from the Lord our God; let it be deep as the nether world, or high as the sky! But Ahaz answered, I will not ask! I will not tempt the Lord! Then the Lord said: Listen, O house of David! Is it not enough for you to weary men, must you also weary God? Therefore the Lord Himself will give you this sign: the Virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and shall call Him Emmanuel. (Isaiah 7:11-14)”
The Revelation text is the one which Catholics have claimed refers to Mary as the Queen of Heaven with “a crown of twelve stars.” Yet, the only Queen of Heaven in the Bible is an abominable idol, see here for details.
Moreover, they get themselves into a bind because they want to claim that Mary was, both, immaculately conceived and also the woman of this Revelation text. Yet, if she was immaculately conceived, that is born without the stain of original sin then she would not be subject to the curse of the fall in Genesis 3 wherein part of the curse is pain in childbirth. Well, this woman “wailed aloud in pain as she labored to give birth.” Thus, either this is Mary and Mary was not immaculately conceived or Mary was immaculately conceived but is not the woman of Revelation 12—they cannot have it both ways…they only do so via dogma that threatens Catholic will eternal hell. You will find all the details you will need to tackle this issue in Mary in Roman Catholicism, part 8 - Immaculately Conceived? The Isaiah text seems to have nothing to do with the actual form which the Ark of Mercy idol was given.
“The composition of the iconic monstrance is based on the ancient tradition of Christian iconography. In the earliest tradition of the Church, the Blessed Virgin Mary is shown wearing a red outer garment to symbolize her humanity…The iconic monstrance, Our Lady of the Sign – Ark of Mercy, has inscribed in Greek calligraphy two passages from Sacred Scripture. The hem of Our Lady’s dress reads from Isaiah 61:10, ‘I will greatly rejoice in the Lord, my soul shall exult in my God; for He has clothed me with the garments of salvation, He has covered me with the robe of righteousness’. The neckline of Our Lady’s garment reads from the opening passage of her prayer in Luke’s gospel, the Magnificat; ‘My soul magnifies the Lord.’”
Note that the Isaiah 61 text refers to YHVH having “clothed me with the garments of salvation.” The article from which this was quoted literally only quotes five words from the Magnificat which is wherein Mary is speaking. Yet, the Magnificat runs from Luke 1:46-55 so why only quote five words and why not provide a citation? Because it makes the text say something that it does not and also makes it more difficult for someone to look up. There is a reason, even if unstated in the article, why the Luke text was coupled with the Isaiah text and it is because Isaiah referred to salvation and so does Mary, her own salvation (vss. 46-47):
“My soul exalts the Lord, and my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior.”
This is troubling to Catholic dogma which claims that Mary was not only immaculately conceived but also sinless her entire life (which, by the way, means that she could have redeemed humanity and Jesus could have just stayed in heaven—this is exactly that which they are doing with the fugazi “Mary”; turning her into the savior). Mary recognized her human sinful condition and rejoiced that YHVH had saved her.
All quotations above are from the following pages from the St. Stanislaus Kostka website:
Feel free to take advantage of the free subscription to this page so that you will get an email notification when something is posted herein—see subscribe link above, next to my name…or just CTRL+F and search for “subscribe.”
Find us on: