A few questions on Mary

[Lenten_ashes]

One of the most convincing arguments for me was thinking of Mary as the New Ark of the Covenant. As you probably know, the Ark in the Old Testament is where God’s Presence dwelt. And inside the Ark was manna, the Law, and Aaron’s staff. We know Jesus is God, and he dwelt inside Mary. He is the Bread of Life, the Word become flesh, and the Good Shepherd. So there is definitely a correlation between the Ark and Mary and Jesus. If you read in the Old Testament, the Ark was extraordinarily beautiful and holy. It could not even be touched, but carried on poles. So we read about a man named Uzzah is 2 Samuel 6 and in 1 Chronicles 13. He was helping to transport the Ark, and it started to fall, and he reached out and took hold of it with his hands. The Bible says that God struck Uzzah down (he died) because of his error. His mistake was that he assumed his hand was more holy than the earth that the Ark was in danger of falling on. That his hand was worthy to touch the Ark, where God’s presence dwelt. But Uzzah, like us all, was a sinner, and thus he couldn’t touch the Ark. How much more would Mary, who had God dwelling in her need to be sinless?

It’s so important to show that the doctrine of Mary’s sinless ess isn’t about Mary. It’s about Jesus. It’s fitting that since He is holy, he would choose a holy vessel to bear and raise him.

^WINNER!!!

Once protestants understand the typology it becomes undeniable. They acknowledge the typology with all things Christ but not with the blessed Mother for some reason. My guess is they just aren’t looking.

 

[Jennifer132]

^WINNER!!!

Once protestants understand the typology it becomes undeniable. They acknowledge the typology with all things Christ but not with the blessed Mother for some reason. My guess is they just aren’t looking.

As a lifelong Protestant (first baptist, then non-denom/reformed), typology was not a big thing. I knew Christ was a new Adam since the epistles mention it, and knew there was some prophecies in the OT that were fulfilled in Christ, but my first glimpse of typology was when I started looking into Catholcism. I am fascinated by it, honestly, and I think it is absolutely a much richer way to read the Bible. Prior to learning about typology, I frequently wondered what the point of the OT was, and also regarded it as just a bunch of old stories that talked about God’s chosen people, but lacked the knowledge of the continuity of scripture.

I also think it’s important to note that Protestants are very wary (generally speaking) of giving honor to Mary because they feel it takes away from Christ. If you can picture a pie with only so many slices, if I give a slice to Mary, that’s one less slice for Jesus. And so, if I say Mary was more special than the average person, or that Peter was chief among the apostles, or that Tradition is equal to Scripture, I’m at the same time taking away from Christ’s glory. It can be incredibly hard to step outside of that mindset, for fear of offending God by honoring another.

 

[AveOTheotokos]

I also think it’s important to note that Protestants are very wary (generally speaking) of giving honor to Mary because they feel it takes away from Christ. If you can picture a pie with only so many slices, if I give a slice to Mary, that’s one less slice for Jesus. And so, if I say Mary was more special than the average person, or that Peter was chief among the apostles, or that Tradition is equal to Scripture, I’m at the same time taking away from Christ’s glory. It can be incredibly hard to step outside of that mindset, for fear of offending God by honoring another.

I was raised Catholic, but used to struggle greatly with giving any thought or recognition to Mary out of fear of taking attention away from Jesus. After really delving into my faith, I finally was able to gain an appreciation and understanding for her and her role in our lives.

When we look out across the vastness of the ocean, or gaze into the infinite night sky, or stare out into an endless mountain valley, we see beauty and feel a sense of amazement, awe, and wonder.

This is one of the ways we see God. We see his creation, the complexity, the perfection, the beauty. We don’t worship these things, as they are nothing of their own doing, but are manifestations of our God’s creative love. All these works of art point back to the creator.

As with any amazing work of art, the credit goes not to the canvas and paint, or to the marble or clay, but to the artist or worked them into something beautiful.

Mary is nothing on her own, but God chose to make her his most perfect creation; a perfect dwelling place for the Holy Spirit, an Ark for the Lord.

Everything special about Mary serves only to glorify the perfection and divinity of her Son and Savior, Jesus.

Just like when we admire a beautiful work of art, or are awestruck by an amazing sunset, they serve to not bring praise, worship, glory upon themselves, but rather the one who created them.

Also, the following quote from St. Maximilian Kolbe helped me greatly with my struggle to show any love towards Mary:

“Never be afraid of loving the Blessed Virgin too much. You can never love her more than Jesus did.”

 

[jcrichton]

As a lifelong Protestant (first baptist, then non-denom/reformed), typology was not a big thing. I knew Christ was a new Adam since the epistles mention it, and knew there was some prophecies in the OT that were fulfilled in Christ, but my first glimpse of typology was when I started looking into Catholcism. I am fascinated by it, honestly, and I think it is absolutely a much richer way to read the Bible. Prior to learning about typology, I frequently wondered what the point of the OT was, and also regarded it as just a bunch of old stories that talked about God’s chosen people, but lacked the knowledge of the continuity of scripture.

I also think it’s important to note that Protestants are very wary (generally speaking) of giving honor to Mary because they feel it takes away from Christ. If you can picture a pie with only so many slices, if I give a slice to Mary, that’s one less slice for Jesus. And so, if I say Mary was more special than the average person, or that Peter was chief among the apostles, or that Tradition is equal to Scripture, I’m at the same time taking away from Christ’s glory. It can be incredibly hard to step outside of that mindset, for fear of offending God by honoring another.

Hi Jennifer!
Welcome Home! :extrahappy::extrahappy::extrahappy:
Thank you for sharing… I’ve never understood Protestantism from that perspective… from what you explain it seems that their misgivings are due much out of zealousness for Christ.

Yet, Scriptures tells us that we must glorify God in what we do and that we (Believers) are part of the Body of Christ:

16 But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. 17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. 18 And we all, who with unveiled faces contemplate the Lord’s glory, are being transformed into his image with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit. (2 Corinthians 3:16-18)

15 For this reason, ever since I heard about your faith in the Lord Jesus and your love for all God’s people, 16 I have not stopped giving thanks for you, remembering you in my prayers. 17 I keep asking that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father, may give you the Spirit[f] of wisdom and revelation, so that you may know him better. 18 I pray that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened in order that you may know the hope to which he has called you, the riches of his glorious inheritance in his holy people, 19 and his incomparably great power for us who believe. (Ephesians 1:15-19)

5 so in Christ we, though many, form one body, and each member belongs to all the others. 6 We have different gifts, according to the grace given to each of us. If your gift is prophesying, then prophesy in accordance with your faith; 7 if it is serving, then serve; if it is teaching, then teach; 8 if it is to encourage, then give encouragement; if it is giving, then give generously; if it is to lead, do it diligently; if it is to show mercy, do it cheerfully. (Romans 12:5-8)

31 So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God. (! Corinthians 10:31)

17 And whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him. (Colossians 3:17)

11 So Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, 12 to equip his people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up 13 until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ. 14 Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of people in their deceitful scheming. 15 Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will grow to become in every respect the mature body of him who is the head, that is, Christ. 16 From him the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work. (Ephesians 4:11-16)

Since, St. Mary was Christ’s mom, can any Believer truly think that Christ would be offended if we seek the intersession of His and our mom?

We are, if we Believe Christ and Believe in Christ, all part of His Body–is His mom somehow excluded?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

I was raised Catholic, but used to struggle greatly with giving any thought or recognition to Mary out of fear of taking attention away from Jesus. After really delving into my faith, I finally was able to gain an appreciation and understanding for her and her role in our lives.

When we look out across the vastness of the ocean, or gaze into the infinite night sky, or stare out into an endless mountain valley, we see beauty and feel a sense of amazement, awe, and wonder.

This is one of the ways we see God. We see his creation, the complexity, the perfection, the beauty. We don’t worship these things, as they are nothing of their own doing, but are manifestations of our God’s creative love. All these works of art point back to the creator.

As with any amazing work of art, the credit goes not to the canvas and paint, or to the marble or clay, but to the artist or worked them into something beautiful.

Mary is nothing on her own, but God chose to make her his most perfect creation; a perfect dwelling place for the Holy Spirit, an Ark for the Lord.

Everything special about Mary serves only to glorify the perfection and divinity of her Son and Savior, Jesus.

Just like when we admire a beautiful work of art, or are awestruck by an amazing sunset, they serve to not bring praise, worship, glory upon themselves, but rather the one who created them.

Also, the following quote from St. Maximilian Kolbe helped me greatly with my struggle to show any love towards Mary:

“Never be afraid of loving the Blessed Virgin too much. You can never love her more than Jesus did.”

Hi!
I concur with your estimation of the Virgin Mary.

It is so interesting to read the Annunciation and the Visit to Elizabeth… this young lady is marveled at the attention bein lavished at her by God… she feels so insignificant/unworthy; then at the visit, Elizabeth goes wild for her (“the mother of my Lord”) and Mary, Inspired by the Holy Spirit, presents herself as God’s servant and declares that she will be thought of as Blessed by all generations… but she does not allow her head to burst (as most of us would allow our inflated egos to swell our head beyond measure) but actually credits God for choosing her, His lowly maiden, as she, with joyful Spirit, magnifies God…

…and to think, she was merely a young woman of 15 or 16… Scriptures Reveals so much in such a gentle and humble young Believer!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Lenten_ashes]

As a lifelong Protestant (first baptist, then non-denom/reformed), typology was not a big thing. I knew Christ was a new Adam since the epistles mention it, and knew there was some prophecies in the OT that were fulfilled in Christ, but my first glimpse of typology was when I started looking into Catholcism. I am fascinated by it, honestly, and I think it is absolutely a much richer way to read the Bible. Prior to learning about typology, I frequently wondered what the point of the OT was, and also regarded it as just a bunch of old stories that talked about God’s chosen people, but lacked the knowledge of the continuity of scripture.

I also think it’s important to note that Protestants are very wary (generally speaking) of giving honor to Mary because they feel it takes away from Christ. If you can picture a pie with only so many slices, if I give a slice to Mary, that’s one less slice for Jesus. And so, if I say Mary was more special than the average person, or that Peter was chief among the apostles, or that Tradition is equal to Scripture, I’m at the same time taking away from Christ’s glory. It can be incredibly hard to step outside of that mindset, for fear of offending God by honoring another.

Thanks for the response Jennifer!

It’s a good point about Mary. Not only do protestants fear they subtract from Jesus with Marian devotion, but often times are frightened by the very idea of becoming “too Catholic”. Some Fundamentalists are not only Anti-Catholic, but also Anti-Lutheran/Anglican or any other sect that even somewhat resembles the Catholic Church.

Pretty much same scenario for me. I listened to EWTN as a protestant and typology was discussed, so i looked in to, and was astounded by, what I had not noticed as protestant. Because SS Christians who read the bible regularly naturally feel empowered. Like we felt like there just wasn’t much we could have missed so long as you read the Word enough…boy was i wrong lol.

My particular Mega-Church was very Jewish focused and so they did focus a lot on OT and fulfilled prophecy, and so typology was already up my alley, but I had never heard it from a Catholic perspective. And when i did, i began to see the pieces of the puzzle coming together. OT is God’s will concealed, NT is God’s will revealed. And the fullness of this is found in the ONE Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Pure beauty…

PAX

 

[wmscott]

Hi everyone! I recently posted a thread on how to explain some things to an Evangelical friend on the Non-Catholic Religions area, and I got really helpful answers. I have yet to put to use the help I’ve been given.

The questions I have however which I am worried about when I talk to him again, concern the Blessed Virgin. My friend questions our belief that she is sinless. “How do you know and are so sure that she was any different from us? I don’t see that anywhere in the Bible. She was a simple girl, and you Catholics put her on a pedastal.” That’s the gist of what he says to me. He refers to Romans 3:23 to show me that she was a sinner just like the rest of us. I have tried explaining to him but he then just sends links to Protestant websites that show “proofs” (pretty much showing that they’re in the Bible) of Mary being a sinner. One website mentioned how could Mary need a savior and all that if she was sinless. I tried giving answers to what the website says, but he didn’t really seem to get it.

And now the question has gone to my mind, what if he asks about after Mary was done raising Jesus? He might say “okay, Mary could have been sinless during her pregnancy and being the mother to Jesus, but what about after his death? How do you know that she was still full of grace?” And I’m fretting over that possibility.

I sometimes wonder how easily some Protestants try to box God in and place limits on Him, why is it so inconceivable that God can create a sinless being??? So to be biblical about it, this wasn’t the first time that God had created sinless beings was it…. What about Adam and Eve, they were created sinless and lived that way until the apple thing.

 

[Jennifer132]

I sometimes wonder how easily some Protestants try to box God in and place limits on Him, why is it so inconceivable that God can create a sinless being??? So to be biblical about it, this wasn’t the first time that God had created sinless beings was it…. What about Adam and Eve, they were created sinless and lived that way until the apple thing.

I’m not sure that in general Protestants try to place limits on God. The rallying cry of the Reformation was Scripture Alone, and the truth is, Scripture doesn’t explicitly say that Mary was sinless. It may be there implicitly, but not in any form the average Bible reader would get from a plain reading of the text. On the contrary, the Bible is very explicit that there are none righteous, and all have sinned. So it’s not that Protestants are “putting God in a box”, so much as they are trying to protect the Scriptures from being made to say something that they don’t see it saying. Protestants have been taught to cherish the Bible and its words above ALL else, and to claim any doctrine not perceived as explicitly mentioned in the Bible, hits the Protestant mind and heart at the core.

Protestants are encouraged, just as the reformers taught, that if they read their Bibles by the power of the Holy Spirit all doctrine needful for faith and life will be made plain to them. Since Mary is mentioned only a handful of times, and none of these verses specifically mention her sinlessness, it can be very difficult for a Protestant to wrap his mind around. Not to mention, Protestants have been by and large taught that it takes away from God to honor another person (another rallying cry of the reformation).

I would suggest the original post avoid the Mary conversation at least to start, and instead focus on the idea that all doctrine must necessarily come from scripture (sola Scriptura). If you can prove Sola Scriptura is illogical, not to mention NOT in the Bible!! the door then opens to the idea of accepting doctrine not explicitly plain in Scripture. I’m not sure many Protestants will be open to the Mary doctrines while still convinced of the doctrine of sola Scriptura.

 

[wmscott]

I’m not sure that in general Protestants try to place limits on God. The rallying cry of the Reformation was Scripture Alone, and the truth is, Scripture doesn’t explicitly say that Mary was sinless. It may be there implicitly, but not in any form the average Bible reader would get from a plain reading of the text. On the contrary, the Bible is very explicit that there are none righteous, and all have sinned. So it’s not that Protestants are “putting God in a box”, so much as they are trying to protect the Scriptures from being made to say something that they don’t see it saying. Protestants have been taught to cherish the Bible and its words above ALL else, and to claim any doctrine not perceived as explicitly mentioned in the Bible, hits the Protestant mind and heart at the core.

Protestants are encouraged, just as the reformers taught, that if they read their Bibles by the power of the Holy Spirit all doctrine needful for faith and life will be made plain to them. Since Mary is mentioned only a handful of times, and none of these verses specifically mention her sinlessness, it can be very difficult for a Protestant to wrap his mind around. Not to mention, Protestants have been by and large taught that it takes away from God to honor another person (another rallying cry of the reformation).

I would suggest the original post avoid the Mary conversation at least to start, and instead focus on the idea that all doctrine must necessarily come from scripture (sola Scriptura). If you can prove Sola Scriptura is illogical, not to mention NOT in the Bible!! the door then opens to the idea of accepting doctrine not explicitly plain in Scripture. I’m not sure many Protestants will be open to the Mary doctrines while still convinced of the doctrine of sola Scriptura.

Maybe so but in “trying to protect the Scriptures from being made to say something that they don’t see it saying” to me it is a limited mindset that extends to everything including what God can and cannot do.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Maybe so but in “trying to protect the Scriptures from being made to say something that they don’t see it saying” to me it is a limited mindset that extends to everything including what God can and cannot do.

I’m obviously no longer a protestant apologist, but to play the advocate, there has been many strange cults to come out of that branch of Christendom, so they must be very guarded with their SS approach.

Pax

 

[jcrichton]

I’m obviously no longer a protestant apologist, but to play the advocate, there has been many strange cults to come out of that branch of Christendom, so they must be very guarded with their SS approach.

Pax

Hi, Lenten!
…the problem with the “guarding” is that it supposes that God, that is, the Holy Spirit, is not able to Reveal Truth and Guide the Church; hence, the strange occurrences in splitsville (the spitting of the broken Body into more schisms, some of which end up in the nether theologies where basically man’s opinion (vote) determines God’s Revelation and Will–ie: Jehovah Witnesses and the likes)–God is not only placed in a box but He is constrained at the disposition of those who rendered Him contained.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[susanlo]

Maybe so but in “trying to protect the Scriptures from being made to say something that they don’t see it saying” to me it is a limited mindset that extends to everything including what God can and cannot do.

I think it would be more accurate to say ‘what God did and did not do,’ instead of ‘what God can and cannot do.’
Catholics don’t believe that Mary’s cousin Elizabeth was immaculately conceived. Is this because they don’t think God could do this? Or is it just because they don’t believe God chose to do this in this circumstance?

I am confused about the topic and how free will and original sin interact. Could God cause someone to not be able to choose to sin in any circumstance? I suppose He could. Did He do this? I don’t know.

I am new to learning the Doctrine of Original Sin, but right in the doctrine Augustine quotes Ambrose in saying:

It is therefore an observed and settled fact, that no man born of a man and a woman, that is, by means of their bodily union, is seen to be free from sin. Whosoever, indeed, is free from sin, is free also from a conception and birth of this kind.” Moreover, when expounding the Gospel according to Luke, he says: “It was no cohabitation with a husband which opened the secrets of the Virgin’s womb; rather was it the Holy Ghost which infused immaculate seed into her unviolated womb. For the Lord Jesus alone of those who are born of woman is holy, inasmuch as He experienced not the contact of earthly corruption, by reason of the novelty of His immaculate birth; nay, He repelled it by His heavenly majesty.”

newadvent.org/fathers/15062.htm

So at the time that the idea was being finalized that man was born contaminated with Adam’s sin, it was thought that only Jesus was free from it. I don’t know when that idea changed and why it is necessary to understand this about Mary.

 

[jcrichton]

One of the most convincing arguments for me was thinking of Mary as the New Ark of the Covenant. As you probably know, the Ark in the Old Testament is where God’s Presence dwelt. And inside the Ark was manna, the Law, and Aaron’s staff. We know Jesus is God, and he dwelt inside Mary. He is the Bread of Life, the Word become flesh, and the Good Shepherd. So there is definitely a correlation between the Ark and Mary and Jesus. If you read in the Old Testament, the Ark was extraordinarily beautiful and holy. It could not even be touched, but carried on poles. So we read about a man named Uzzah is 2 Samuel 6 and in 1 Chronicles 13. He was helping to transport the Ark, and it started to fall, and he reached out and took hold of it with his hands. The Bible says that God struck Uzzah down (he died) because of his error. His mistake was that he assumed his hand was more holy than the earth that the Ark was in danger of falling on. That his hand was worthy to touch the Ark, where God’s presence dwelt. But Uzzah, like us all, was a sinner, and thus he couldn’t touch the Ark. How much more would Mary, who had God dwelling in her need to be sinless?

It’s so important to show that the doctrine of Mary’s sinless ess isn’t about Mary. It’s about Jesus. It’s fitting that since He is holy, he would choose a holy vessel to bear and raise him.

Hi, Jennifer!
…since the link brought me to your post I reread it… I concur with you fully (highlighted text); it is this very extrapolation which the Church sought to gain by defining Mariology–she remains the humble handmaiden (servant) of the Lord; yet, God exalted His lowly servant to provide a Holy abode for the Incarnate Word… conversely, when we ascribe Mary the title of Mother of God we are professing that the Word, though Incarnate, never ceased being Divine.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

I think it would be more accurate to say ‘what God did and did not do,’ instead of ‘what God can and cannot do.’
Catholics don’t believe that Mary’s cousin Elizabeth was immaculately conceived. Is this because they don’t think God could do this? Or is it just because they don’t believe God chose to do this in this circumstance?

I am confused about the topic and how free will and original sin interact. Could God cause someone to not be able to choose to sin in any circumstance? I suppose He could. Did He do this? I don’t know.

I am new to learning the Doctrine of Original Sin, but right in the doctrine Augustine quotes Ambrose in saying:

newadvent.org/fathers/15062.htm

So at the time that the idea was being finalized that man was born contaminated with Adam’s sin, it was thought that only Jesus was free from it. I don’t know when that idea changed and why it is necessary to understand this about Mary.

Hi, Susan!
Doctrine and theology evolved from Jesus’ very Ministry; through the Holy Spirit the Truth was further unfolded and put into Writing. Yet, Doctrine and theology continued to unfold and take shape (fighting heresies, compiling Writings, prescribing modals, etc.).

Throughout time the Church thinkers would present arguments which would eventually lead to the arrest/abolishment of the heresies faced by the Church and the formation of the Faith (Oral and Written Traditions, Doctrine, Worship). There would be periods of confusion and created by the zealousness of the Faith, personal belief/interpretations, and sheer will/ego/psyche. Then there would be the periods of thought (defining and refining theology and terms).

As we know (Believers) the Word Is God and never ceases Being God; hence, the Church does not need to define Jesus’ Conception or Birth being free of sin as He entered the world. The fact that the angel came to make the announcement clearly defined Jesus’ sinless state (not a conception through human blood/flesh). Mary state was defined as “immaculate conception” to demonstrate God’s Incarnation into a holy womb; consequently, Jesus would nurse and depend upon Mary’s sinless state. Again, the emphasis is to define Christ’s purity.

Here’s something that can help you identify the issue with the Virgin’s “Immaculate Conception:”

The Catholic Church teaches that Mary was conceived by normal biological means, but God acted upon her soul (keeping her “immaculate”) at the time of her conception…

Although the belief that Mary was sinless and conceived immaculate has been widely held since Late Antiquity, the doctrine was not dogmatically defined until 1854, by Pope Pius IX in his papal bull Ineffabilis Deus.[1] (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immaculate_Conception)

Late Antiquity is a periodization used by historians to describe the time of transition from classical antiquity to the Middle Ages in mainland Europe, the Mediterranean world, and the Middle East…

Generally, it can be thought of as from the end of the Roman Empire’s Crisis of the Third Century (c. 235 – 284) to, in the East, the period of early Islam (7th – 9th centuries), following the Muslim conquests in the mid-7th century. (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Antiquity)

The sentence against the first parents was accompanied by the Earliest Gospel (Proto-evangelium), which put enmity between the serpent and the woman: "and I will put enmity between thee and the woman and her seed;…

The salutation of the angel Gabriel — chaire kecharitomene, Hail, full of grace (Luke 1:28) indicates a unique abundance of grace, a supernatural, godlike state of soul, which finds its explanation only in the Immaculate Conception of Mary. But the term kecharitomene (full of grace) serves only as an illustration, not as a proof of the dogma…

This celebrated comparison between Eve, while yet immaculate and incorrupt — that is to say, not subject to original sin — and the Blessed Virgin is developed by:
•Justin (Dialogue with Trypho 100),
•Irenaeus (Against Heresies III.22.4),
•Tertullian (On the Flesh of Christ 17),
•Julius Firmicus Maternus (De errore profan. relig xxvi),
•Cyril of Jerusalem (Catecheses 12.29),
•Epiphanius (Hæres., lxxviii, 18),
•Theodotus of Ancyra (Or. in S. Deip n. 11), and
•Sedulius (Carmen paschale, II, 28).
(newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm)

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[wmscott]

I’m obviously no longer a protestant apologist, but to play the advocate, there has been many strange cults to come out of that branch of Christendom, so they must be very guarded with their SS approach.

Pax

I understand, I am a convert myself and I fully understand the limited mindset that I used to have, but some Protestants do as an unfortunate and probably unintended practice place constraints and limit what God can do. It is to protect scripture and faith that they have been born and raised in and believe they have correctly and authoritatively personally interpreted to fit their particular brand of theology. This is an unfortunate consequence of the division within the Christian faith.

 

[jcrichton]

I understand, I am a convert myself and I fully understand the limited mindset that I used to have, but some Protestants do as an unfortunate and probably unintended practice place constraints and limit what God can do. It is to protect scripture and faith that they have been born and raised in and believe they have correctly and authoritatively personally interpreted to fit their particular brand of theology. This is an unfortunate consequence of the division within the Christian faith.

Hi, WM!
…it’s been my experience that when it comes to “division” the non-Catholic view is that there really isn’t one (well, they do draw the line against the Catholic Church); it seems that everything is accommodated by the “having one mind” unity; which, unfortunately, would make Christ’s Command that we be one in Him as He is One with the Father null and void:

30 I and the Father are one.” (St. John 10:30)

11 I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name, the name you gave me, so that they may be one as we are one.

22 I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one— 23 I in them and you in me—so that they may be brought to complete unity. **Then the world will know **that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.
(St. John 17:11, 22-23)

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Potato1237]

Hi, Camillus!
It is interesting because Scriptures does not say that the Blessed Virgin did not sin… yet, it does not say that she did sin.

What we do know from Scriptures is that when Moses approached the burning bush he was addressed by God:

So why was God so concerned with a basic plot of land?

God made the plot of land Holy because He would Present Himself on that specific plot of land to Moses.

Could the Word, Who is God, then venture into a womb of a sinful woman?

Yet, we know from Scriptures that the Virgin Mary was not a round of the mill “young maiden:”

How can your friend reconcile the two: a) super concern for a plot of land on which God will not dwell in (mix with/intertwine) and a woman’s womb where God not only will dwell in but take His human form and depend upon the woman throughout his childhood? How can the land be purified but the woman simply be call from amongst millions?

Great point!

 

[simspt]

Hi everyone! I recently posted a thread on how to explain some things to an Evangelical friend on the Non-Catholic Religions area, and I got really helpful answers. I have yet to put to use the help I’ve been given.

The questions I have however which I am worried about when I talk to him again, concern the Blessed Virgin. My friend questions our belief that she is sinless. “How do you know and are so sure that she was any different from us? I don’t see that anywhere in the Bible. She was a simple girl, and you Catholics put her on a pedastal.” That’s the gist of what he says to me. He refers to Romans 3:23 to show me that she was a sinner just like the rest of us. I have tried explaining to him but he then just sends links to Protestant websites that show “proofs” (pretty much showing that they’re in the Bible) of Mary being a sinner. One website mentioned how could Mary need a savior and all that if she was sinless. I tried giving answers to what the website says, but he didn’t really seem to get it.

And now the question has gone to my mind, what if he asks about after Mary was done raising Jesus? He might say “okay, Mary could have been sinless during her pregnancy and being the mother to Jesus, but what about after his death? How do you know that she was still full of grace?” And I’m fretting over that possibility.

calledtocommunion.com/2010/12/marys-immaculate-conception/

 

[simspt]

Hi everyone! I recently posted a thread on how to explain some things to an Evangelical friend on the Non-Catholic Religions area, and I got really helpful answers. I have yet to put to use the help I’ve been given.

The questions I have however which I am worried about when I talk to him again, concern the Blessed Virgin. My friend questions our belief that she is sinless. “How do you know and are so sure that she was any different from us? I don’t see that anywhere in the Bible. She was a simple girl, and you Catholics put her on a pedastal.” That’s the gist of what he says to me. He refers to Romans 3:23 to show me that she was a sinner just like the rest of us. I have tried explaining to him but he then just sends links to Protestant websites that show “proofs” (pretty much showing that they’re in the Bible) of Mary being a sinner. One website mentioned how could Mary need a savior and all that if she was sinless. I tried giving answers to what the website says, but he didn’t really seem to get it.

And now the question has gone to my mind, what if he asks about after Mary was done raising Jesus? He might say “okay, Mary could have been sinless during her pregnancy and being the mother to Jesus, but what about after his death? How do you know that she was still full of grace?” And I’m fretting over that possibility.

calledtocommunion.com/2010/12/mary-without-sin-scripture-and-tradition/

calledtocommunion.com/2010/12/marys-immaculate-conception/

calledtocommunion.com/2010/11/mary-as-co-redemptrix/

calledtocommunion.com/2012/12/searching-for-the-immaculate-conception/

 

[petra22]

calledtocommunion.com/2010/12/marys-immaculate-conception/

What about the fact that the mother holds dna cells from her child in her body for decades…

Can you imagine the dna cells of Jesus in your body for decades??? He only lived till about age 33…!

See this…
theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/10/your-babys-leftover-dna-is-making-you-stronger/381140/