- Status
S
sambos671
Guest
Well that was my point with Nestorius ( I wasn’t defending him just stating a fact about his issues). It is clear that the operation of the veneration of Mary differed greatly among the early Church. As is evident in the Orthodox reply. I could say that “real christians” believed in Sola Scriptura but it wasn’t defined until Luther. You and I know this is not true and niether is the fact that the church had a uniformed belief about Mary until the 1800. And there was opposition to it. It wasn’t readily accepted. Why not? Hmmm. So the church did not always believe it as was my point about Nestorius and I’m sure I can find others with minimal study. But he show discord with her veneration. The Orthodox are of the same opinion though they disagree with him about Theotokos.
It is a new development and I did not hear of it. Though I find it strange. She has the apearance of Native Americans the Mexicans think She is the Mary mother of Jesus about to give birth when Mary was a Jewish woman with Jewish features. She is the Patron ST. of The Americas but she’s the queen of Heaven? The Gate to heaven? This is speculation. Not difinative.
I’ve never claimed to be an expert on Catholicsm or even entirely knowledgeable about Catholic doctrine. You will find on my profile that I am protestant. However, the reason I think it is strange that I don’t understand Catholicism is because most Catholics I know (including my family that are Catholic) don’t know their own faith. So don’t be suprised. My point about abuse is it happens more often that you give it credit for. I’ve experienced it. As far as scripture and tradition working togther I was loosely quoting this.
And my point in using it is this. There is nothing in scripture to make me believe in Co-redemtrix (which you said you don’t have a problem with) and I’ve noted that prayers are said with this in mind. How long before it becomes dogma? Was my point. There is nothing in scripture refering to Mary as the gate of heaven. There is nothing in scripture calling her directly as queen of heaven. So these consepts come from tradition which I’ve stated was not agreed on for many years. The assumption though a nice thought is also passed down through tradition. Though the Orthodox have a different take on it. So this dispute goes back at least a millenia.
What scripture do you refer?
R
rad
Guest
i don’t speak for it …i just like it, especially the reason why christ died for us,they have a better understanding than catholic or protestants in this reguard and the veneration of the theotokos…
S
steve_b
Guest
So why continue to quote a heretic as if there is some point here?
sambo:
taking your points 1 by 1
- The Church can select a patron saint for a particular purpose. It’s only strange to those who are on the outside looking in
- Mary can appear any way she wants. Look at Jesus immediately after the resurrection. In the garden they thought He was the gardner. Along the road to Amaeus, His own disciples did not recognize Him.
- Jesus is King of Kings. That makes Mary the gebirah, queen mother. agapebiblestudy.com/documents/Mary%20The%20Queen%20Mother%20of%20the%20New%20Davidic%20Kingdom.htm
yet you attack what you don’t know?
sambo:
I’m sad but not suprised.
sambo:
Consider the following. My comments in blue
Rev 11:
19* Then God’s temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant was seen within his temple; and there were flashes of lightning, voices, peals of thunder, an earthquake, and heavy hail.
What did the arc of the covenant contain?- Manna
- budding staff of Aaron (designates the high priest)
- 2 tablets (word of God)
Who did Mary carry inside of her - Jesus the bread of life
- Our High priest
- who is the word of God
The first arc was a prototype for the second arc, Mary and she is in the heavenly temple. Why you say?
Rev 12:
1 And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars; 2* she was with child …[snip]
5* she brought forth a male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron, but her child was caught up to God and to his throne, …[snip]
12* Rejoice then, O heaven and you that dwell therein! But woe to you, O earth and sea, for the devil has come down to you in great wrath, because he knows that his time is short!" 13 And when the dragon saw that he had been thrown down to the earth, he pursued the woman who had borne the male child. …[snip]
17 Then the dragon was angry with the woman, and went off to make war on the rest of her offspring, on those who keep the commandments of God and bear testimony to Jesus.
The temple in heaven is opened. We see the arc of the OT, AND we immediately see Mary arc of the NT being discribed. Her child is the king of heaven who sits on His throne. Mary’s clothes are dazzling and she wears a crown of stars. The king and His queen mother
sambo:
It goes back to the beginning.
sambo:
1 Tim 3:
15 if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.
S
sambos671
Guest
I’m attacking one aspect of Catholicism and primarily the aspect that it states it doesn’t teach (but does because it doesn’t have a problem with it Co-redemtrix) or how about Co-mediatrix? I’m actually reviewing catholicism and Church history but I have a sticking point with Mariology.
This is all just speculative. Revelations 12 still doesn’t mention co-mediatrix, redemtrix, gate of heaven etc…
definately figurative language hear the twelve stars are the 12 tribes of Isreal, the sun and the moon are showing the majesty of God Since she was covered by the Holy Spirit. Apocalyptic literature uses this type of language all the time. As far as the ark comparison its a thought but keep in mind the ark held the first covenant. Jesus performed an act for the second covenant. But I’ve never denied her a special role. I do have problems attaching to her things scriptures don’t.
S
steve_b
Guest
You like to argue for the sake of arguing.
S
sambos671
Guest
Actually, sometimes I do and you’re right about that but not with this thread and discussion. Studying Church history has lead me back to the Catholic Church but this holds me back. This Marian veneration that is primarily RCC. The Orthodox and Copts do not go to the extend that the RCC does with its view of Mary. While I don’t mind venerating Mary and even asking her to pray for us I do find the preoccupation and the… How do I put it the extreme veneration problematic. And I see it more often than the chuch gives credit. The nonsense of people flocking to see a glimps of the Madona on a oil slick bridge, or on the side of a building or in someones back yard. It stikes me as going to far. The church stands silent on this though. I want to participate in sacramental worship but am held back by this Marian issue. Purgatory the way Scott Hahn explains it is even acceptable to me but this thing about Mary is difficult.
R
ralphinal
Guest
I can’t help you with all of it, but I would like to point one small part out and help with it.
At no point in time are you required to accept any Marian apparition. You do not even have to accept Fatima or Lourdes. The people who run from place to place are, for the most part, looking for something exernal to fill an internal hole. Yes, there are some who are misguided on their faith and other seeking a miracle.
In other words, just ingore them.
L
Laurent_LUG
Guest
J
JMJ_coder
Guest
Actually, there is veneration of the Theotokos in the East that if you don’t know the liturgical and theological jargon and idioms seems quite alarming. The only real difference between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches is in regards to the Immaculate Conception (which doesn’t have to due with Mary, but with our understanding of Original/Ancestral Sin, which is itself a mere misunderstanding, in my opinion).
As for the Madonna on an oil slick - the Church frequently denounces such supposed ‘apparitions’. But, it must be understood that the Church cannot possibly keep up with all the supposed ‘apparitions’. Mary seems to show up on a potato chip every week now. And such nonsense is usually pretty contained. But, when such an event gains in popularity, and the Church is made aware, the Church does act. The Church has on numerous occasions said that ‘such and such and apparition is not authentic’. The Church takes seriously investigating serious claims of apparitions, and is dutiful in discerning them. Relatively few apparitions have been deemed worthy of belief by the Church - not that the Church demands one to believe in them, but that the Church can find no fault in the message and thinks that it is an authentic apparition.
As for those who ‘go running after every rumored report of a supernatural nature’, I am reminded of what Bishop D’Arcy (Bishop of Fort Wayne-South Bend) said in response to the alleged apparitions in Sylvan Springs, Indiana:
"God comes to us through the ordinary, through the bread and wine [of Communion] and through the pastor as shepherd," Bishop D’Arcy said. "As a pastor, I would say people should seek [the] ordinary means Christ has given to the Church and not seek signs and wonders."
G
guanophore
Guest
Well, we read it differently.
Actually, we call her the spouse, because the consummation occurred, resulting in conception.No, it does not have those kinds of implications for the Trinity. Mary is a created being. She has relationships with every member of the Trinity.
I can understand why you might think that the divine deposit of faith does not address this.
The HS did not overshadow anyone else as He did Mary. The union is spiritual, with a physical result. The reason we believe that Mary remained ever virgin is because Joseph would have understood that she was the Spouse of the HS.
A marriage is a human union that occurs between male and female. This does not correctly define what happpened between Mary and the HS, which is spiritual in nature. Even though the spiritual even resulted in a physical result, it was not intercourse in the physical sense that we now it.
This is part of Sacred Tradition, and is the substance of what Irenaeus used to defend against heresy.
No. But I can understand why it might seem this way.
The gate of heaven is part of the OT foreshadowing.
Well, she is. The HS did not overshadow anyone else in this way.
Yes, we are also grafted into His family if we obey the will of God as she did. She is blessed to be the mother of the Lord, but also even more blessed because she heard the word of God, and obeyed.
T
tGette
Guest
R
rad
Guest
Spouse only applies for human marrages earthly ones ,its like saying Jesus has one earthly step father and two hevenly one’s…
God the Father and God The Holy Spirit…
By The Power Of God Jesus was concieved,a mystery…anything else said is blasphemy…
T
tGette
Guest
I do not get your logic, especially in saying this is blasphemy.Spouse only applies for human marrages earthly ones ,its like saying Jesus has one earthly step father and two hevenly one’s…
God the Father and God The Holy Spirit…
By your logic we can say that the word father only applies to a man who has children. And we all know that God the Father is not actually a man, nor is He a human being. So should we not call God our Father?
So, then why does “spouse” have to apply only to human marriage?
How is this like saying Jesus has two Heavenly fathers?
The Christian faith is one big mystery. Mary being the spouse of the Holy Spirit is yet another mystery.
R
rad
Guest
Christ was Human and Divine ,he has a right to say it…The Most Holy Spirit God never incarnated…So I guess Saint Paul was mistaken when he called the Church the Spouse and Bride of Christ.
.
J
JMJ_coder
Guest
The Orthodox have no problem with this (though, they tend to use different language - but the concept is the same). The Fathers of the Church - both East and West - speak of Mary as wedded to God.I have to go with what the orthodox churches say mysteries are a holy mystery they don’t disect them they accept them on faith
R
rad
Guest
You will have to show me that …i never read anything like that…they never even defined holy communion when the change takes place,they have faith that it just happens… thats why its called a Holy Mystery in the orthodox churches…once the aaw is removed thru disecting the mysterys whats left…no more aww or anything.
- Status