Any non catholic: what is your opinion on Mary the Mother of God?

  • Thread starter Thread starter traillius
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
elvisman said:
That is patently false. This has always been taught from the Early Church on:

In about 155 AD, Justin Martyr* (in his Dialogue with Trypho)* made the Mary-Eve parallel by saying:
“Christ became a man by a virgin to overcome the disobedience caused by the serpent …For Eve, a virgin and undefiled, conceived the word of the serpent, and bore disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary received faith and joy when the angel Gabriel announced to her the glad tidings that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her and the powers of the Most High would overshadow her, for which reason the Holy One being born of her would be called the Son of God. And she replied: ‘Be it done unto me according to thy word.”

(This is the Woman who is spoken of in Gen. 3:15)

Ireneus,** circa 180-199 AD** wrote, “Against Heresies”. In it, he wrote of Mary:
“Consequently, then, Mary the Virgin is found to be obedient, saying: “Behold, O Lord, your handmaid; be it done to me according to your word.” Eve, however, was disobedient; and when yet a virgin, she did not obey…. having become disobedient, was made the cause of death for herself and for the whole human race; so also Mary, betrothed to a man but nevertheless still a virgin, being obedient, was made the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race…. Thus, the knot of Eve’s disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. What the virgin Eve had bound in unbelief, the Virgin Mary loosed through faith.”

**Tertullian **wrote in his “The Flesh of Christ” in about 208-212 AD:
“For it was while Eve was still a virgin that the word of the devil crept in to erect an edifice of death. Likewise, through a Virgin, the Word of God was introduced to set up a structure of life. Thus, what had been laid waste in ruin by this sex, was by the same sex re-established in salvation. Eve had believed the serpent; Mary believed Gabriel. That which the one destroyed by believing, the other, by believing, set straight.”

From this you can see that the idea of Mary as “the mother of all living in Christ” was something that the Church interpreted from the Scriptures from the very beginning, and would not have been alien to a First-Century reader at all - especially if they had John’s Gospel in front of them.

Just because something isn’t explicitly mentioned in the Catechism - doesn’t mean that it is not taught by the Church.
Click to expand...
Thanks. But these don’t address my point.
 
larkin31 said:
Interesting! Now we are getting somewhere! Whose editorial insertions are those? And what is removed from the ellipsis? Did you do that editing?

The second quote is not on my point.
Click to expand...
The names of the Bulls are listed. How about this, go read “both” the “entire” bulls and then let me know whats edited:shrug:

Fact of the matter is you are wrong, and you have been wrong on C-Church teaching. And for whatever reason you find it “impossible” to simply admit you are stuck on dead issue. There are certainly debatable issue’s with this topic. This isn’t one of them. 🤷
 
GaryTaylor said:
The names of the Bulls are listed. How about this, go read “both” the “entire” bulls and then let me know whats edited:shrug:

Fact of the matter is you are wrong, and you have been wrong on C-Church teaching. And for whatever reason you find it “impossible” to simply admit you are stuck on dead issue. There are certainly debatable issue’s with this topic. This isn’t one of them. 🤷
Click to expand...
This one, I fully agree, appears to be the one document from the CC that directly addresses my question. But interestingly, the exact very point that I am questioning is the exact very set of words that you (apparently) have editorially inserted into the bull text. Which is a very curious phenomenon to any person asking a specific question, which I am. So why are your hackles all up about my not accepting things? I fully accept this, but for now the only evidence directly on my question is the material that you have inserted.

And all you have to say is “go read it yourself.” I don’t know why you edited and redacted at all unless it actually did not say what you are claiming it did. I have no interest in reading those entire bulls. I just figured that you would quote the relevant text rather than insert your own changes. 🤷 But whatever.

This may well be the one document that the CC has that directly answers my question. But the jury is still out…
 
elvisman said:
**This explicitly **answers the question as to whether or not Mary is the Woamn spoken of in Gen. 3:15.
What exactly IS your point?
Click to expand...
see above Gary gets it. I will stick with him. Thanks, though.
 
larkin31 said:
This one, I fully agree, appears to be the one document from the CC that directly addresses my question. But interestingly, the exact very point that I am questioning is the exact very set of words that you (apparently) have editorially inserted into the bull text. Which is a very curious phenomenon to any person asking a specific question, which I am. So why are your hackles all up about my not accepting things? I fully accept this, but for now the only evidence directly on my question is the material that you have inserted.

And all you have to say is “go read it yourself.” I don’t know why you edited and redacted at all unless it actually did not say what you are claiming it did. I have no interest in reading those entire bulls. I just figured that you would quote the relevant text rather than insert your own changes. 🤷 But whatever.

This may well be the one document that the CC has that directly answers my question. But the jury is still out…
Click to expand...
Theres nothing I added, I use all Catholic websights. 🤷 But in good faith when I get off work I will double check that Catholic sight against the Pope’s Bull. I admitt I have seen what you are referring to done before, but it would be by a Priest. Lets investigate and I will get with you again.👍
 
Larkin31

Here’s the actual Bull from the 1800’s Its down about half way. Not sure if you read it, I see what your saying. There’s not a change but a clarification as the the Popes indication? Let me know if you agree or disagree.

papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9ineff.htm
 
Here the excerpts from EWTN which I believe are actually clearer.

ewtn.com/faith/teachings/marye1.htm

Its this paragraph here…

As if these splendid eulogies and tributes were not sufficient, the Fathers proclaimed with particular and definite statements that when one treats of sin, the holy Virgin Mary is not even to be mentioned; for to her more grace was given than was necessary to conquer sin completely.[24] They also declared that the most glorious Virgin was Reparatrix of the first parents, the giver of life to posterity; that she was chosen before the ages, prepared for himself by the Most High, foretold by God when he said to the serpent, “I will put enmities between you and the woman”[25]–unmistakable evidence that she was to crush the poisonous head of the serpent. And hence they affirmed that the Blessed Virgin was, through grace, entirely free from every stain of sin, and from all corruption of body, soul and mind; that she was always united with God and joined to him by an eternal covenant; that she was never in darkness but always in light; and that, therefore, she was entirely a fit habitation for Christ, not because of the state of her body, but because of her original grace.
 
larkin31 said:
see above Gary gets it. I will stick with him. Thanks, though.
Click to expand...
I asked - "What exactly is your point?" This is a discussion board and if you are attempting to make a point that somebody cannot understand - the charitable thing to to is to explain. My personal feeling on the matter is that you are changing the rules with every posts because we’re getting too “warm”.

**You seem to want to dismiss ALL proof unless it’s something that you are ready to accept. You have been given ample evidence that this is what the church teaches but because it is not explicitly mentioned (although it is alluded to) - you simply dismiss it. This makes it glaringly apparent that you have no grasp on what the Church teaches nor the way she teaches it.
 
I can’t see how the Bull can be interpreted any other way. The Pope directly connects Eve with Mary through the scripture verse from Genesis.

And of course JP-II expands on its connection to Revelations. Which is alluded to the earlier encyclical.
 
elvisman said:
I asked - "What exactly is your point?" This is a discussion board and if you are attempting to make a point that somebody cannot understand - the charitable thing to to is to explain. My personal feeling on the matter is that you are changing the rules with every posts because we’re getting too “warm”.

You seem to want to dismiss ALL proof unless it’s something that you are ready to accept. You have been given ample evidence that this is what the church teaches but because it is not explicitly mentioned (although it is alluded to) - you simply dismiss it. This makes it *glaringly *apparent that you have no grasp on what the Church teaches nor the way she teaches it.
Click to expand...
well, I am not Catholic. 🤷

But Gary understands fine. And I understand him. We just disagree on the persuasiveness of his editorial insertions.
 
elvisman said:
I know what I’ve read so why dont you** enlighten us, Doki.

**I can tell you this: Eve wasn’t **Jewish so your position on the matter is irrelevant.
Click to expand...
Moses was and OT is a Jewish book. Understanding their understanding could help.

I have no insight. I was asking.
 
larkin31 said:
Thanks.
Click to expand...
You are welcome.
larkin31 said:
This confirms my thoughts. The “woman” in Genesis 3 is Eve, not Mary.
Click to expand...
Well, the Catechism clearly stated that that verse is Eve, as well as Mary. This prophecy is fulfilled with Christ and Mary. No question
larkin31 said:
Of course, Mary–and any other human on the planet after Eve–would, if you are a traditionalist, be progeny of Eve eventually. That was not in question.
Click to expand...
I agree. The typological offspring in the Old Testament refers to the offspring of Mary in the New Testament.
larkin31 said:
And, it appears, there is no Catholic Catechism teaching otherwise.
Click to expand...
It clearly showed that there was. Let Catholics interpret Catholic doctrine. There are Catechism teachings otherwise. Trust me. We know Catholic doctrine better than you do. As we should…
 
Dokimas said:
Moses was and OT is a Jewish book. Understanding their understanding could help.

I have no insight. I was asking.
Click to expand...
Well - it seemed that Moses may have had more insight than most Jews. The first 5 Books of the OT are accredited to him. He may have even had insight to the Trinity as we read in Gen. 1:26, " “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness."

**It wouldn’**t surprise me one bit if he also had some insight as to the prophecy about the Woman in Gen. 3:15 . . .
 
GreggAlvarez said:
It clearly showed that there was. Let Catholics interpret Catholic doctrine. There are Catechism teachings otherwise. Trust me. We know Catholic doctrine better than you do. As we should…
Click to expand...
I am “letting” you. I am even asking you to. But, as you know, your interpretations are not infallible, and in some cases not even persuasive.

I am working with Gary on the one teaching that actually addresses my point directly. Thanks, though.
 
larkin31 said:
I am “letting” you. I am even asking you to. But, as you know, your interpretations are not infallible, and in some cases not even persuasive.
Click to expand...
I am not claiming infallibility. Nor am I persuading you of anything. Nor am I interpreting anything. I answered the question you asked. I was not “interpreting” Catholic doctrine. I just gave it to you as the Church stated it. You were the one interpreting my answer, which is Catholic doctrine.
larkin31 said:
I am working with Gary on the one teaching that actually addresses my point directly. Thanks, though.
Click to expand...
That is fine. Gary is doing the exact same thing I did: Giving it to you as the Church states it. There are no “editorial insertions”. Paraphrasing hardly counts as interpetation. I answered. Gary answered. Elvisman answered. We gave you the Church doctrine as the Church states it, verbatim or paraphrased (with no addition). You interpreted our answers as interpretations in themselves. You interpret your interpretation as unquestionably true. You assumed we changed it. You are disagreeing with your own unwarranted assumption. But, I hope that works out for you buddy. You seem content with that system. I will no longer reply unless I see something out of the ordinary.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top