All glory and praise to our Lord God; The Father, The Son, & The Holy Ghost. Thank you Lord for brining supernatural life and grace to this precious baby boy through the waters of Baptism. Deo Gratias!!!
Yes. If you’re not down with that, you’re not going to enjoy heaven.
“Being subject one to another, in the fear of Christ. Let women be subject to their husbands, as to the Lord: Because the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the church. He is the saviour of his body. Therefore as the church is subject to Christ: so also let the wives be to their husbands in all things. Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the church and delivered himself up for it: That he might sanctify it, cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life: That he might present it to himself, a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. So also ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man ever hated his own flesh, but nourisheth and cherisheth it, as also Christ doth the church: Because we are members of him, body, of his flesh and of his bones. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother: and shall cleave to his wife. And they shall be two in one flesh. This is a great sacrament: but I speak in Christ and in the church. Nevertheless, let every one of you in particular love for his wife as himself: And let the wife fear her husband.” (Eph 5:21-33)
“Let us be glad and rejoice and give glory to him. For the marriage of the Lamb is come: and his wife hath prepared herself.” (Ap 19:7)
We pray in worship (Latria) to The Blessed Holy Trinity. We pray (hype-Dulia) to the Blessed Virgin Mary and we pray (Dulia) to the Holy Saints.
Not all prayer is worship as Sacrifice is given to God alone. If you’ve lost the concept of worship as sacrifice, then prayer becomes your highest form. And if prayer is your highest form to God then it would follow that that’s not good to offer to man the same as you would to God. So, I understand why you think the way you do.
The problem is not that we pray to Mary. The problem is that you don’t truly worship God with the Holy Sacrifice of Jesus Christ in His, Passion, death, and glorious Resurrection to God the Father through the Eucharist.
Do you condemn St Elizabeth, who is filled with the Holy Ghost for her declaration to Mary?
“And she cried out with a loud voice and said: Blessed art thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. And whence is this to me that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” (Lk 1:42-43)
καὶ ἀνεφώνησε φωνῇ μεγάλῃ καὶ εἶπεν· εὐλογημένη σὺ ἐν γυναιξί καὶ εὐλογημένος ὁ καρπὸς τῆς κοιλίας σου. καὶ πόθεν μοι τοῦτο ἵνα ἔλθῃ ἡ μήτηρ τοῦ Κυρίου μου πρός με;
Do you condemn the Archangel Gabriel for his declaration to Mary?
“And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.” (Lk 1:28)
καὶ εἰσελθὼν ὁ ἄγγελος πρὸς αὐτὴν εἶπε· χαῖρε, κεχαριτωμένη· ὁ Κύριος μετὰ σοῦ· εὐλογημένη σὺ ἐν γυναιξίν.
“For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread, And giving thanks, broke and said: Take ye and eat: This is my body, which shall be delivered for you. This do for the commemoration of me. In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood. This do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me. For as often as you shall eat this bread and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come. Therefore, whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread and drink of the chalice. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. Therefore are there many infirm and weak among you: and many sleep.” (1 Cor 11:23-30)
“The Lord hath sworn, and he will not repent: Thou art a priest for ever according to the order of Melchisedech.” (Ps 109:4)
“Then he said to them: O foolish and slow of heart to believe in all things, Which the prophets have spoken. Ought not Christ to have suffered these things and so, to enter into his glory? And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded to them in all the scriptures the things that were concerning him. And they drew nigh to the town whither they were going: and he made as though he would go farther. But they constrained him, saying: Stay with us, because it is towards evening and the day is now far spent. And he went in with them. And it came to pass, whilst he was at table with them, he took bread and blessed and brake and gave to them.” (Lk 24:25-30)
St. Ambrose of Milan (Doctor of the Church)
Ambrose focused heavily on the liturgical and sacramental dimension of this text in On the Mysteries:
•Faith Over Sight: Ambrose argued that "the flesh profits nothing" when a person relies only on their physical senses. If you look at the altar with "fleshly eyes," you see only ordinary bread and wine.
•The Work of the Holy Spirit: He taught that it is the Holy Spirit who transforms the offerings and gives them life. Believers must look past the natural "flesh" of the elements to see the spiritual reality brought about by the word of Christ.
St. Hilary of Poitiers (Doctor of the Church)
In his landmark work On the Trinity (Book VIII), Hilary used John 6 to combat the Arian heresy:
•Real Substantial Union: Hilary pointed out that Jesus says, "the words I speak to you are spirit and life"right after talking about eating His flesh.
•Refusing a Mere Metaphor: He argued that if the flesh profited absolutely nothing in reality, Christ would not have insisted so heavily that His flesh is "true food". Hilary asserted that we eat the flesh of Christ truly and substantially in the sacrament to achieve a real, spiritual union with God, not a symbolic one.
St. Thomas Aquinas (Doctor of the Church)
In his Catena Aurea and his Lectures on the Gospel of John, Aquinas summarized and systematized the patristic response into distinct points:
•Distinguishing "Flesh": Thomas noted that "flesh" can mean the physical substance itself or a carnal mode of understanding.
•The Execution of Grace: He explained that the flesh of Christ is the instrument of the divinity. Just as a tool (like a pen) cannot write anything on its own ("profits nothing" by itself), it accomplishes great things when guided by the hand of the master. Christ’s flesh is the necessary instrument through which the Holy Spirit dispenses grace and life.
@JennyWakefiel12 St Cyril argued that Christ's physical flesh, considered completely by itself as mere human tissue, cannot give eternal life. However, because His flesh is perfectly united to the Divine Word (Logos), it becomes entirely quickened and life-giving.
“But there are some of you that believe not.”
When Jesus says His words are "spirit and life," St. John Chrysostom interpreted this to mean His words are divine, spiritual, and entirely free from the laws of physical consequence. Christ’s words operate above the natural order of this world. Therefore, the crowd should have approached the mystery with awe, faith, and patience, rather than walking away because it violated their natural understanding.
“It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that did not believe and who he was that would betray him. And he said: Therefore did I say to you that no man can come to me, unless it be given him by my Father. After this, many of his disciples went back and walked no more with him.” (Jn 6:64-67)
St. John Chrysostom, in his Homilies on the Gospel of John (specifically Homily 47), interpreted "the flesh profiteth nothing" (John 6:63) as a direct rebuke of the carnal mindset of Jesus’ listeners, rather than a statement about Jesus' actual physical body. Like Augustine, Chrysostom fiercely defended the reality of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist, arguing that the verse condemns a literalistic, faithless way of hearing divine mysteries.
St. John Chrysostom Father and Doctor of the Church, argued that everything the crowd did up to that point was a result of this profitless, carnal perspective. He noted that it was carnal for them to:
•Question how Jesus came down from heaven.
•Dismiss Him simply because they thought He was merely the "son of Joseph".
•Demand physically, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"
Because they only looked at physical consequences, they completely missed the mystical sense of His words.
You need to think about this with the Spirit of God, and not with your simple fleshy mind.
St. Augustine concluded that the words Jesus speaks about eating His flesh are "spirit and life" when embraced with living faith. Rather than relegating the Eucharist to a mere symbol, he affirmed the reality of Christ's presence, emphasizing that the believer must consume it "spiritually"—with faith, charity, and a receptive heart.
St. Augustine firmly defended the importance of Christ's literal, physical incarnation. He reasoned that if the flesh truly profited nothing, the Word would never have become flesh to dwell among us. The physical body of Jesus Christ, His sacrifice on the cross, and the physical voices of the Apostles were entirely necessary for our salvation.
Additionally, Augustine argued that human flesh in itself is dead without the animating Spirit. He explained that the flesh functions merely as an instrument or vessel. Just as a tongue is just a piece of flesh until the spirit uses it to speak, the flesh of Christ is a vehicle for grace only when animated by the Spirit. The flesh is the vessel; we must look to what it holds—eternal life.
@mdencro@JennyWakefiel12 Hello Marija, Show me where scripture says that? It would be good if you had multiple scriptural verses as anyone can take one verse outside of the whole and assign it a heterodox meaning.