H
Hesychios
Guest
What is “have a marital relationship” a euphemism for… ?
- Status
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
Peace be with you Hesychios;
First of all the, What you label as a proposed dogma (Mediatrix of all graces) is already believed and practiced, and has always been believed in by the Catholic Church. The definition or clarification of Mary’s role being described in our time as Mediatrix of all graces is not nothing new of how God became incarnate, took on flesh, and was born of the blessed Virgin Mary. Your argument against the Pope or his God given authority from Jesus himself has nothing to do with Marian apostolic faith.
I believe in the already ancient Catholic belief of Mary as Mediatrix of all graces, whether it becomes a dogma for Catholics or not. In fact all Christians believe that Mary is Mediatrix of all graces if the true Christians believe Jesus was born of the blessed Virgin Mary.
I am not accusing just the East of pride, I hope to reveal and expose the Truth of what keeps the fire lit from the schism, which comes from pride of men on both sides.
The Latin Church is not split as you falsely claim about this topic. What needs to be made clear here about the difference between a doctrine and what is has been practiced by Catholics since the Apostolic period. Is that Mediatrix of all graces has not come under attack. So as it stands today Mediatrix of all graces is worthy of Christian belief, so you dont have to practice or reject this Catholic belief in order to remain in good standing with the body of Jesus Christ.
IF and when Mediatrix of all graces is made Catholic Doctrine. Then Mediatrix of all graces is to be defined, clarified and made worthy of belief for all Catholics in good standing with the body of Jesus Christ.
True the magisterium has declared the “age of revelation is closed”. Mediatrix of all graces is not new, as you and others misunderstand this definition to a new age of learning and understanding. You and non catholics are making this out to be new, when in reality it is not. Mediatrix of all graces is a clarification, and definition of what took place 2000 years ago, and continues to take place today, (Mary gives us her son, as Jesus gives us his Mother). Mary tells the servants of God “Do what ever he tells you”. If a Christian believes this scriptural command from our blessed Mother, the Christian has just acted upon the Mediatrix of all graces. Before you get into your theological rampage, let me make it clear, I have not defined Mediatrix of all graces to you in its entirety. Only what I as a Catholic have always and will always believe in Mary Mediatrix of all graces defined from the Catholic faith, not proposed non catholic definitions or false misinterpretations of Mediatrix of all graces.
To note; your interjections of my practicing Catholic faith that I have commented to another poster, you have mistakingly taking out of context, and makes you judge over my comments which you placed out of the content of many topics being explained to another poster. Please do not judge my comments by taking them out their context from another post. Ask me directly, if you have a question or doubt about my commentary.
For you information here is a **PRAYER Quote from St. Athanasius (**d.373) TO MARY ABOUT ALL GRACES FROM THE ALREADY APOSTOLIC CHRISTIAN BELIEF on the topic;
"It becomes you to be mindful of us, as you stand near Him** Who granted you all graces**, For you are the MOTHER OF GOD AND OUR QUEEN. Help us for the sake of the King, the Lord God and Master Who was born of you. For this reason you are called “FULL OF GRACE”. Remember us, most holy Virgin, an dbestow on us gifts from the riches of your graces, Virgin, FULL OF GRACE.
So Hesychios, if you have a problem with the already apostolic belief Mary Mediatrix of all graces, take it up with the Early Church Fathers or learn and understand what it means before you object to God’s graces. Your commentary only confirms what has been revealed to me, that the Eastern Church disapproves the Western Church’s authority to defend Apostolic Truths practiced since antiquity, by defining them to new worlds, new languages and new ages. “There is nothing new under the Sun” as you wrongly point out about the Catholic Magisterium.
Peace be with you
Peace be with you
L
lil_flower_luv
Guest
I really prefer not to get off topic, so if you find the answer, you can PM me. Looking forward to it.
God Bless you and yours
Therese
G
Good_Fella
Guest
But she freely desired to please God nonetheless. Eve’s infidelity and disobedience helped cause our death; Mary’s faith and obedience helped cause our restoration to new life. If Mary had chosen to deny God what he willed, then all hope of universal salvation would have been lost forever.
Mary stood at the foot of the cross. While her divine Son offered a satisfaction for our sins in strict justice (de condigno), our Blessed Mother offered for us a satisfaction of becomingness (de congruo) by spiritually suffering in proportion to her love for her crucified son (cf. Lk 2:35). When Mary pronounced her fiat, she did so fully aware of what she would have to painfully endure for our sake because of her love. Abraham at least had no idea that he would eventually be asked to immolate his son Isaac. Mary’s willingness to please God in spite of the many sorrows she would have to face essentially contributed to our redemption. We are not saved by Christ alone and by grace alone. If we are not willing to suffer for God in his grace, then we’ll never get to heaven notwithswtanding our Lord’s Passuion and Death. God could have become man without actually being made of a woman. God preordained that a woman, the new Eve, be closely associated with his Son, the new Adam, in order for his plan of redemption to be complete.
“In uniting herself to the Passion and Death of her Son she suffered almost unto death; as far as it depended on her, she immolated her Son, so that it can be said that with him she redeemed the human race.”
Pope Benedict XV
“If anyone wishes to come after me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow me.”
Matthew 16, 24
PAX :heaven:
V
Vico
Guest
I think they are after you because of the definition of the word will. Per Merriam Webster will is volition defined as an act of making a choice or decision, also, a choice or decision made. It does not have one’s own original idea. (Will you have dinner with me? Oh, yes I will, thank you.) Since she could have said no, it was a choice. And per the Immaculate Conception dogma, she was preserved (in anticipation of the merits of Jesus Christ) from the usual lack of sanctifying grace (which is obtained through baptism) from her conception. Since God knows what will happen in advance of peoples free will choices (because He sees beyond time) there can be destiny.
H
Hiskid1973
Guest
“Behold your mother.”
Hey I know where that’s at…Jesus said that to John the beloved when He gave Mary to him to care for her…He said to Mary’“behold your son”…
Hey I know where that’s at…Jesus said that to John the beloved when He gave Mary to him to care for her…He said to Mary’“behold your son”…
D
Dancelittleewok
Guest
So Jesus dying up the Cross wanted to clear up a filial matter?
H
Hiskid1973
Guest
Not sure what that word means…Never hear dof it
H
Hesychios
Guest
If I was my mother’s only child and her means of support and care, and I was dying, I would certainly want to give her into the care of someone I trusted and could count on.
These days people buy annuities and sign contracts with nursing homes, unfortunately.We seldom ask or expect distant relatives or friends to step in and take on the job, it’s a cold world we live in. In those days everything was relational.
D
Dancelittleewok
Guest
I’m not denying that is needed. If Jesus is God and has made references to Himself dying and raising again, why wouldn’t He have the foreknowledge to do this before the actual execution?
H
Hesychios
Guest
We don’t know if it was arranged beforehand or not. Either way the explanation makes sense… " John…look upon your mother". This was a way of saying “farewell”, or perhaps another sense “it is now time for us to accept the fact that I am departing”.
http://www.balamandmonastery.org.lb/icons/iconAlCrossT.gif
This is the text according to the New American Bible:
Standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary of Magdala.
When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple there (whom he loved), he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son.” Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother.” And from that hour the disciple took her into his home. After this, aware that everything was now finished, in order that the scripture might be fulfilled, Jesus said, “I thirst.”
There was a vessel filled with common wine. So they put a sponge soaked in wine on a sprig of hyssop and put it up to his mouth. When Jesus had taken the wine, he said, “It is finished.” And bowing his head, he handed over the spirit.
That’s it, the whole story. There were several people present, and Jesus did not say “behold your children”. This monologue was directed specifically by Jesus to two particular people: John and his mother.
"And from that hour the disciple took her into his home" means just what it says. Jesus was dead within the hour and John took Mary into his home. This text (even in translation) is succinct, it is concise. In other words it is brief and to the point.
Anything else we want to read here we have to bring with us, which (I think) is probably why the whole passage is rarely quoted.
H
Hiskid1973
Guest
You know I wondered why he didn’t go to His own family(I know some don’t believe He had other brothers and sisters) but I think He knew how strong in the faith John the beloved would be and trusted him to care for His mother…
H
Hesychios
Guest
I think the passage strongly suggests that he was the sole support of his mother at that time.
This does not preclude the possibility of his having step-brothers, some probably older than his mother. With the passing of their father and advancing years these step brothers may not have been considered responsible for the care of the second wife of their father.
H
Hiskid1973
Guest
We have these scriptures also:
3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.
Matt 12:47 Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.
48 But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?
49 And He stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!
50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.
L
Liraco
Guest
I’m sure He won’t, you’re following what you believe to be the Truth.
So long as you don’t deny the Truth and honestly do all you can to attain it, then keep going.I do think you’re not seeing the verse put before on the importance of what was taught orally as also being important in addition to what was written. Remember there were Christians long before there was a complete Bible.
Final thing, nothing infallibly taught by the Catholic Church is contradicted by scripture. Not a single dogma. If you properly understand scripture and what is taught, you’ll come to see it, even if it takes some time.
I think you’ve already heard the fact that there was no word for “cousin” in Aramaic. Just briefly:
catholic.com/library/Bad_Aramaic_Made_Easy.asp
…If one wanted to refer to the cousin relationship, one has to use a circumlocution such as “the son of his uncle” (brona d-`ammeh). This often is too much trouble, so broader kinship terms are used that don’t mean “cousin” in particular; e.g., ahyana (“kinsman”), qariwa (“close relation”), or nasha (“relative”). One such term is aha, which literally means “brother” but is also frequently used in the sense of “relative, kinsman.”
Just like two unrelated people can call each other “brother” nowadays, it doesn’t have to mean a literall blood relation. If Jesus did indeed have any brothers and sisters from Joseph, they were only step-brothers, sons of Joseph from a previous marriage (unless you want to deny Mary’s virginity but that’s for another time). If Jesus gave Mary to John instead of his biological brethren, it would have been an incredible insult to the family as they were the ones meant to take care of her.
In those passages you quote, Jesus is letting the people know what is important, which is doing God’s will. God comes FIRST, then family. Always an important message.
G
Good_Fella
Guest
Jesus uttered these words after he had first addressed his mother by calling her Woman instead. Nothing is coincidental or hypothetical in the Scriptures. Jesus used the appellation he did when addressing his mother in allusion to her role as the New Eve - the spiritual mother of all the living and helper in the divine order of redemption (Gen 3:15; Jn 2:3-7).
The Protoevangelium is fulfilled on Mount Calvary, where we have Jesus nailed to the cross for our sins and his sorrowful mother standing at the foot of it.
“I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring. He will strike at your head, while you strike at his heel.”
The figure of the New Eve is a biblical theme that runs from Genesis to Revelation. Israel and the Church are presented as corporate types of the new Eve, while the Virgin Mary is portrayed as the antithetical personification of Eve (mother of all the living). The earliest Christians believed that as Adam had a female helper named Eve, so Jesus, the new Adam (1 Cor 15:45), had a woman, Mary the new Eve, intimately associated with him in the divine plan of redemption (Lk 1:38; 2:35; Jn 2:3-7).
At the Annunciation, Mary acted in faith in response to the announcement of the archangel Gabriel, and so she became the mother of our Lord, who would save us from the sin of Adam and Eve by reconciling us with God (Rom 5:19;1 Cor 15:22). As Eve was involved in mankind’s (Adam’s) fall from grace by submitting to the words of the serpent and enticing her husband out of disobedience to God, so Mary, the New Eve, contributed to our restoration to new life by her faith and charity. As Eve became the mother of those of the old creation in Adam (2 Cor 5:17), so Mary became the mother of those of the new creation in Christ (Rom 8:29).
We mustn’t overlook the fact that St. John’s description of the crucifixion scene on Calvary resembles the scene in the garden of Eden at the time of the fall. There is a tree in the form of a cross (Gal 3:13) on which hangs the fruit of Mary’s womb (Lk 1:42). There is a man, Jesus the new Adam, and his helper (woman), Mary his mother, the new Eve. Eve encouraged Adam to partake of the forbidden fruit which resulted in mankind’s fall from the original state of holiness and justice. Mary, our spiritual mother, encourages us to partake of the fruit of her womb (Jn 2:5; Rev 12:17) so that we may be reconciled with God.
As the woman is of a man, even so is the man also of a woman.
1 Corinthians 11, 12
PAX
R
rocom01
Guest
Our Blessed Mother Mary certainly deserves an official acknowledgement from the Church for her three roles in our salvation and in our lives. She’s the Queen of Heaven and Earth and The Mother of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. She’s also our Spiritual Mother in Whom we owe our love, honor, gratitude, respect and devotion.
Is that too much to ask from the Church and from all of us who are Christians?
Is that too much to ask from the Church and from all of us who are Christians?
M
mangy_dog
Guest
Couldn’t agree more.Our Blessed Mother Mary certainly deserves an official acknowledgement from the Church for her three roles in our salvation and in our lives. She’s the Queen of Heaven and Earth and The Mother of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. She’s also our Spiritual Mother in Whom we owe our love, honor, gratitude, respect and devotion.
Is that too much to ask from the Church and from all of us who are Christians?
- Status