P
- Status
P
pablope
Guest
Well, then it seems you have not been asked in this thread…what have your denomination/churck/pastor done to accord any honor you deem for Mary?With all due respect, I am not in need of a lesson in Catholic teaching. I understand that praying for one another is fine. We do it as well. I am well aware of the Communion of Saints. We recognize them too. We also recognize that Mary is foremost of all the saints. I understand that Catholics do not profess to worship Mary and they proclaim to venerate Mary. I am not refuting what the theology says, my objections are geared more toward what has been observed. Don’t make a comentary of making me aware of what Catholics believe on these issues, I already know most of it. I just wanted you to know that. I’m not trying to be snarky about it.
And you personally, what have you done to accord any honor you deem Mary deserves? And have you done anything voluntarily, out of the goodness of your heart? Have you even said as much as a thank you for bearing the savouir, taking him to Egypt, being at the foot of the cross while Jesus was there crucified for us?
P
pablope
Guest
[/QUOTE]
P
pablope
Guest
Suggestions: If you want to read on your own, on the Search portion of this website, you can type in any subject and you will be directed to answers to your questions.
Or you can start up a thread on your own, if you have specific questions or issues.
M
moondweller
Guest
Not interesting at all. Did you know that in Israel that position was a man-made position, not a Divinely appointed one? Of course you did. I pointed that out in my previous post. David never set up a throne for his mother. And Solomon never had any Divine direction to do so. And if you’d read the O.T. prophecies describing the Messianic Kingdom to come, there’s no mention, whatsoever, of a “queen mother” position. Nor do any of the Apostles teach of such a position in heaven now. As in ancient Israel, there’s simply no Divine support for it.Did you know in ancient Israel that the Queen Mother had a position of honor higher than that of the king’s wife? it was the mother who was the Queen, not the king’s wife.
Interesting.
You’re confused in that there’s even co-pilot at all. Jesus flew solo on that flight, my friend.I never confuse the pilot with the co-pilot.
Even better, it’s very Biblical. Hence, you may trust it.Well, moon, it is very Catholic of you to say this!
No. No work of redemption took place until the cross. And that work was His and His alone - to His glory.
One would think she prayed as well.
I do not think such thing. Actually, I think that statement is heretical. Nor is that what Paul meant in Col. 1:24. There was no deficiency, whatsoever, in Christ’s “finished” work on the cross. It was a perfect work of redemption; a work which is applied, in full, to every believer at the time of personal belief in Him (1 Pet. 1:l8-19; Col. 1:14).
K
KathleenGee
Guest
Fundamentalists should not be taking their hats off when they visit the graves of loved ones because it is showing they believe the dead are communing with them…bible says one should not commune with the dead…
I am sure we can think of many things that are merely representative of our respect and honor of others…without idolizing them.
I think some of this comes from the false teachers pounding away at their followers, scaring the hell out of their congregations from coming to Mass and learning the truth about Catholicism…
My hat off to Fundamentalists who venture here, even if to dispute.
I am sure we can think of many things that are merely representative of our respect and honor of others…without idolizing them.
I think some of this comes from the false teachers pounding away at their followers, scaring the hell out of their congregations from coming to Mass and learning the truth about Catholicism…
My hat off to Fundamentalists who venture here, even if to dispute.
E
Eric_Hilbert
Guest
Fix your quote boxes folks.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Speaks volumes!
That’s begging the question, isn’t it?
That’s very un-biblical, moon. The work of redemption began in the Old Testament. It was fulfilled in Christ.
And Mary was part of God’s plan for salvation.
Just like I am. I make up what is lacking in Christ’s suffering. Didn’t someone holy say that?
G
Good_Fella
Guest
Even the Davidic monarchy was established on the initiative of the Israelites, but it must have been sanctioned by God nonetheless, since our Lord chose to become our King through David’s lineage. Likewise, God permitted King Solomon to set up a throne for his mother in anticipation of the royal dignity that was to be conferred on Mary by virtue of her Divine Maternity. Since the fall of Adam and Eve, God has allowed events to happen for the sake of a greater good. Everything that happens in this world falls under Divine Providence. It is certainly providential that the queenship in the royal house of David be conferred upon the king’s mother instead of his favourite wife, for the Son of Man was not given in marriage to any other woman other than the Church - the Bride of Christ - of which Mary is the* archetype* by virtue of her spiritual fruits. The Church was born in spirit at the moment our Blessed Mother pronounced her Fiat for our sake. She truly is our advocate before the King by dispensing the graces she has been bestowed with in plenitude on all her children who seek to produce the same spiritual fruits in their lives as she did with the help of her maternal intercession. Both our Lord and King, Jesus Christ, and Mary his mother, Queen of Heaven, have been anointed by God in their monarchy: Mary by virtue of her divine Son.
Your throne, O God, stands forever; your royal scepter is a scepter of justice.
You love justice and hate wrongdoing; therefore God, your God has anointed you with the oil of gladness above your fellow kings.
With myrrh, aloes, and cassia your robes are fragrant. From ivory-paneled palaces stringed instruments bring you joy.
Daughters of kings are your lovely wives; a princess arrayed in Ophir’s gold comes to stand at your right hand.
Listen, my daughter, and understand; pay me careful heed. Forget your people and your father’s house, that the king might desire your beauty.
He is your Lord; honour him daughter of Tyre.
Then the richest of the people will seek your favor with gifts.
All glorious is the king’s daughter as she enters, her raiment threaded with gold; in embroidered apparel she is led to the king.
The maids of her train are presented to the king.
The throne of your father your sons will have; you shall make them princess through all the land.
I will make your name renowned through all generations; thus nations shall praise you forever.
*Psalm 45, 7-18 *
I bud forth delights like the vine,
my blossoms become fruit fair and rich.
Come to me all you who yearn for me,
and be filled with my fruits.
Sirach 24, 17-18
*The ruler in Israel will give them up , until the time
when she who is to give birth has borne.
And the rest of his brethren shall return to the children of Israel. *
Micah 5, 3-4
The Gospel of Matthew (2:10-11) implies the apostles did orally preach that Mary is our Lord’s Queen Mother (Gebirah) and our’s, too, since we are his brethren as adopted children of God. The evangelist writes that when the Magi entered the house where the Holy Family was staying, they saw Jesus “with Mary his mother.” Nothing recorded in the Scriptures is purely incidental, since everything written bears great significance and is a testimony to what was more explicitly taught by the apostles ( cf.Lk 1:1-4). There was no need to mention Mary at all, for the Magi came to pay homage to the King of kings. Matthew’s primary objective was to assure the Hebrews that Jesus was in fact the messianic successor to David’s throne in whom all the Davidic prophecies have been fulfilled. Yet he was mindful of including Mary, because as a Jew, he understood her to be our divine Lord’s royal mother, whose place is at the side of her Son in the kingdom of Heaven as our Advocata and channel of divine grace (Dispensatrix) in and through the Holy Spirit who overshadowed her.
And coming to her the angel said, “Hail, O highly favored daughter. The Lord is with you.”
Luke 1, 28
{This translation is from the Offertory Antiphon of the Mass for the Feast of the Immaculate Conception.}
“A princess arrayed in Ophir’s gold comes to stand at your right hand.
All glorious is the king’s daughter as she enters, her raiment threaded with gold.”
PAX :heaven:
M
moondweller
Guest
No, it’s not unbiblical. Christ’s work of redemption began on the cross and ended on the cross. It was His work and His alone.
Christ is God’s salvation. Mary played a part of the incarnation by which God brought about salvation in the Person and sacrificial work of Jesus Christ Acts 4:12 “And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved.”
YOU?
Christ’s work of redemption on the cross was perfect. It lacked nothing. Certainly nothing you could add (nor I). When one personally believes in Him, His perfect, sacrificial work of redemption accomplished there on the cross (in His blood) is applied to the believer, in full. IOW, that believer is perfectly, and eternally redeemed (purchased) and now eternally belongs to God.1 Cor 6:20 “For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body.”
1 Cor 7:23 “You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men.”
Rev 5:9 "*And they sang a new song, saying, "Worthy are You to take the book and to break its seals; for You were slain, and purchased for God with Your blood {men} from every tribe and tongue and people and nation."You see, PR, redemption was Christ’s work and His alone. The Divine price of redemption was His blood, and His alone. There’s no “co-redeemer” involved in this redemption. It had to be perfect. Hence, Christ (His blood) alone.
M
mortonsam
Guest
G
GreggAlvarez
Guest
This cannot be true… If that were true and there was no plan for salvation, then there would be no Old Testament. Also, considering you either missed or ignored my post, you forget that we (2000 years later) have the will to believe in it or not. Hence, Redemption of Man could not have ended on the Cross. Otherwise, the only people that could be saved are the people that existed temporally at that time. I certainly do not believe that you believe that this one–for-all act is not eternal. BUT you are wording it that way. Saying that the Redemption of Man by the Son of Man was His work ALONE is denying that a plan for salvation and, hence, the Old Testament. It is ultimately His work but God had a plan for salvation. Without Mary’s consent, the Son of Man/Son of God would not have come to this world. Is this unbiblical? No. Does it say this in the Bible? No. Can Faith-illumined reason lead one to reach a conclusion that the Bible does not explicitly state? Yes. If you deny this, then the Incarnation cannot be true, nor can the Holy Trinity, the Holy Spirit as God, or even the Protestant idea of Sola Scriptura. I would be cautious to use “extrabiblical” but that is exactly what this is: an idea that is backed by biblical or faith-illumined reasoning, yet is not explicitly stated in the Bible.
Could not agree more, Moondweller. This has been our point. I would word it a little differently but it is still very clear.
Colossians 1:24 - Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ on behalf of his body, which is the church,YOU?
Christ’s work of redemption on the cross was perfect. It lacked nothing. Certainly nothing you could add (nor I). When one personally believes in Him, His perfect, sacrificial work of redemption accomplished there on the cross (in His blood) is applied to the believer, in full. IOW, that believer is perfectly, and eternally redeemed (purchased) and now eternally belongs to God.1 Cor 6:20 “For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body.”
1 Cor 7:23 “You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men.”
Rev 5:9 “*And they sang a new song, saying, "Worthy are You to take the book and to break its seals; for You were slain, and purchased for God with Your blood {men} from every tribe and tongue and people and nation.”
This is what PR Merger was referring to. This does not mean that Christ’s work was defective. A literal interpretation might lead one to that, but that is why we have a Church. Anyway, your idea of eternal salvation is not for this thread, but I do completely agree with those Bible verses, not your interpretation but those verses do speak to me.
You yourself said this: “Mary played a part of the incarnation by which God brought about salvation”. YOU said this. Now, you are taking it back? Without the Incarnation, there is no Jesus. And according to your statement, there is no Incarnation without Mary. This is why we call her Co-Redeemer because “God brought about salvation” through Mary. BROUGHT salvation through Mary. Salvation is through Jesus. And the Incarnation of Jesus is through Mary. Salvation through Jesus through Mary. Keep in mind that this is NOT saying that salvation is ultimately through Mary. This has probably crossed your mind by now. Redemption is Christ’s work, but not alone (as per my argument in the first part of this post). Salvation is through Christ. Nobody doubts this or is saying the contrary. You have to read the book (Mary) to know the story (Jesus), but in the end, it is the story that makes the book. All stories come first but we need books to know the stories.
Also, nobody is saying somebody else’s blood was in the mix (per se), but He did have to get His flesh from somebody. That somebody was Mary.
Everything points to the Catholic Church, Moondweller. Unless you change your belief that “Mary played a part of the incarnation by which God brought about salvation,” then you should come to the Church. The Church is a beautiful creation. Mary, being its Mother, is also a very beautiful person. What better help to bring us to Christ than His own Mother!
God bless
M
Mikeoffaith
Guest
I see what you are saying Benedict and mind you I can appreciate it, but the reasoning you are using behind it doesn’t seem to make much sense. All the examples that you have used are in the OT, there was always the people, a middle man, and God. However, since we have Christ as the Word made flesh does he not become instrument between the people and God the Father? Has Christ not become our new Moses, Elijah/Elisha? So why do we now need to have an intercessor between the people and Christ?no my friend. the rules have never changed. look at the widow, in the old testament that lost her son to sun stroke. the prophet interceded and prayed over the child, and God heard the prayer, and brought him back to life. look at the drought that came over the land of israel, i always get elijahs ministry and elishas ministry mixed up, so i cant remember which one this fell under. it did not rain until the prophet interceded and prayed for it. in our time, i can ask you to pray for me. i can also ask those that have gone beyond to pray for me to Christ. we are one Church. God is the God of the living not the God of the dead. we have simply not had the veil lifted. they are much closer than us. they see with the eye, we see with faith. their prayers can aid us much. how much more the Blessed Mother, who is right there with her Son? Peace
M
Mikeoffaith
Guest
I’m not saying that it is a necessity or the formation of any criterion. I do think it a curiosity and a question worth asking. Again, I don’t think this takes anything away from Mary’s status.I think you’re taking my argument too far.
morton’s position is: one’s importance in Christianity ought to be measured by how often someone is mentioned in Scripture.
My argument: many, many important saints, martyrs, evangelists are not mentioned more than once or twice in Scripture; to wit: St. Philip.
To state that someone needs to be mentioned past a certain book in Scripture in order to determine one’s importance is arbitrary. Not to mention, un-biblical.
Why would that be necessary? Who determined this criterion?
M
Mikeoffaith
Guest
I will let you tackle that thread, since it’s an issue for you and not for me.
M
Mikeoffaith
Guest
Jon, you are so much braver than I to tempt these waters. I know you know the answer that is going to put up. But again like I said in an earlier post, I don’t think this argument should really appear in this thread.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Mary is the Mother of Jesus and the Mother of all of us even though it was Christ alone who reposed on her knees . . . If he is ours, we ought to be in his situation; there where he is, we ought also to be and all that he has ought to be ours, and his mother is also our mother. (Sermon, Christmas, Martin Luther 1529).
Thus we have another path of intercession according to Luther.
In 1529 Martin Luther engaged the question of transubstantiation in the famous conference at Marburg with Zwingli and other Swiss theologians; he maintained his view that Christ is present in the bread and wine of the Eucharist.
Heinrich Bullinger
Bullinger (d. 1575) . . . defends Mary’s perpetual virginity . . . and inveighs against the false Christians who defraud her of her rightful praise: ‘In Mary everything is extraordinary and all the more glorious as it has sprung from pure faith and burning love of God.’ She is ‘the most unique and the noblest member’ of the Christian community . . .
‘The Virgin Mary . . . completely sanctified by the grace and blood of her only Son and abundantly endowed by the gift of the Holy Spirit and preferred to all . . . now lives happily with Christ in heaven and is called and remains ever-Virgin and Mother of God.’
{In Hilda Graef, Mary: A history of Doctrine and Devotion, combined ed. of vols. 1 & 2, London: Sheed & Ward, 1965, vol.2, pp.14-5}
John Wesley (Founder of Methodism)
The Blessed Virgin Mary, who, as well after as when she brought him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin.
Historical and Modern Theology, Mysticism, Phenomenology, Philosophy all confirm the Blessed Mothers unique role in Christology. There is nothing Mary asks of Her Son which He refuse’s. Just isn’t Bible or Christian teaching till you reach Calvin who was in error.
As far as statues and the relevance? Same as with the Crucifix which is often Prayed by or in front of.
Thus we have another path of intercession according to Luther.
In 1529 Martin Luther engaged the question of transubstantiation in the famous conference at Marburg with Zwingli and other Swiss theologians; he maintained his view that Christ is present in the bread and wine of the Eucharist.
Heinrich Bullinger
Bullinger (d. 1575) . . . defends Mary’s perpetual virginity . . . and inveighs against the false Christians who defraud her of her rightful praise: ‘In Mary everything is extraordinary and all the more glorious as it has sprung from pure faith and burning love of God.’ She is ‘the most unique and the noblest member’ of the Christian community . . .
‘The Virgin Mary . . . completely sanctified by the grace and blood of her only Son and abundantly endowed by the gift of the Holy Spirit and preferred to all . . . now lives happily with Christ in heaven and is called and remains ever-Virgin and Mother of God.’
{In Hilda Graef, Mary: A history of Doctrine and Devotion, combined ed. of vols. 1 & 2, London: Sheed & Ward, 1965, vol.2, pp.14-5}
John Wesley (Founder of Methodism)
The Blessed Virgin Mary, who, as well after as when she brought him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin.
Historical and Modern Theology, Mysticism, Phenomenology, Philosophy all confirm the Blessed Mothers unique role in Christology. There is nothing Mary asks of Her Son which He refuse’s. Just isn’t Bible or Christian teaching till you reach Calvin who was in error.
As far as statues and the relevance? Same as with the Crucifix which is often Prayed by or in front of.
M
Mikeoffaith
Guest
Mortonsam,
I think you are missing out on the finer points here that sometimes does not come across well especially in English, with a Protestant perspective and to some extent made more complex by some Roman Catholics not understanding the line either.
Here is the short of it. When we talk about worship, there are actually three concepts involved, latria, hyperdulia and dulia. In most protestant circles we see worship as one act to God Himself which would correspond to latria. Latria is reserved to God alone. A better translation for latria would be adoration. Dulia can also rightly be included in the very meaning of the word worship. Worship at it’s very base is worthship, being in the state of worthy. Dulia can also be thought of as veneration and is given to the saints. The saints by their nature are worthy of our veneration but can never be worshiped in the sense of latria. And in this scheme of things would be hyperdulia. This is given to Mary. It’s a little more than dulia but not quite latria, a special honor for a special chosen one.
Three different concepts but all similar in nature, it’s not a wonder the lines can become blurred. But if we are going to have a discussion on worship, I think we need to have a clear understanding of the terms and concepts that make the differences apparent.
To my Roman Catholic brothers and sister, did I accurately outline this?
M
mortonsam
Guest
Absolutely did. There is this woman who goes to the same parish as my parents. (They are Catholic and I am not). She frequents the church at all times of the day (even when nobody is there). I went there to help my dad set up for his men’s group which I do attend on occasion (he goes to my Anglican men’s group from time to time too) and I have seen this woman crying and almost prostrate in front of our Lady of Guadelope asking Mary to give her visions of what her deceast mother is doing and asking Mary to let her know when her time is near. This Totally freaks me out. It’s almost like being at an astrologer’s house. Eek!
M
Mikeoffaith
Guest
I don’t think there has been much said here that is contrary to Lutheran theology. Practice is a different matter entirely. The practice of the people here may accurately reflect the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. I’m in the middle of reading a book titled, “The One Mediator, the Saints and Mary”, this is the document that was published reflecting the discussions and conclusions of the 8th round of the Lutheran-Roman Catholic dialogue. Both sides discussed this whole contention of Marian dogma and doctrine. The Roman Catholic participants verified orthodox teaching and admitted that at times in the history of the church and at various locales, orthopraxy wasn’t always there. This does not mean that the churches teaching is out of whack.
- Status