Did Mary need a savior?

[Liraco]

The reason it’s in the Bible is because the “Queen of Heaven” referred to a Babylonian goddess.

The fact that a pagan deity was known as the queen of heaven doesn’t mean this term can’t rightfully be applied, in another sense altogether, to Mary. The pagan king of Babylon, Nebuchadnezzar, is called the king of kings by Daniel (Daniel 2:37), yet this doesn’t preclude Jesus from being called by the same title (Rev. 17:14; 19:16).

Just like there’s no disservice to calling Jesus “King of kings”, the same applies to Mary as “Queen of Heaven”.

Keeping in mind that Revelation has many layers then I offer the following on Revelation 12:
The Woman in Revelation 12 is part of the fusion imagery/polyvalent symbolism that is found in the book. She has four referents: Israel, the Church, Eve, and Mary.
(please do follow the link for a further explanation of why, the article’s short.)

I say yes because Mary was a sinner, though, so I don’t need to explain anything else on the matter. You do.

Perhaps this will help you further:
This is a basic moral imperative for Paul, a counterpart to the positive imperative to “build one another up”; compare the expression “giving offense” as opposed to “pleasing” in 1 Cor 10:32-33.

I’d imagine Mary would at least have to say what the sacrifice was and why she was there

But you state that there was the obvious monthly obligation to go for purification. So would she really be required to state why she was there?

When a Catholic goes to confession, the priest asks us for our sins, not if we have sinned. It’s a given. In the case of the monthly ritual (or any at all), do we know if they even had to state their sins? I’ve read that, like with some protestants, they believe confession is to God alone.

I’d appreciate anything you could provide. I’ve read that the Talmud calls confession in front of another a show of disrespect.
I also found this:
the Talmudic saying is quoted that, in Temple times, the sin‑offering was slaughtered in the same place as the burnt offering in order not to expose the sinner to public shame. The individual is encouraged, however, to think of his particular sins while reciting the standard confession with the congregation.

God had a job for her, and she acted in faith. As far as that goes, she has plenty of peers. If you really want to get as specific as you just did in every case, you’ll find that you can make that same “peerless” argument for almost anyone else in the Hall of Faith.

I mean no disrespect to the elders, each certainly did many great things, but none of them were born with the gift she was. Again though, this was because of Jesus and not by anything she did.

Catholics translate it that way, too- as long as they’re translating from Greek to English. Check for yourself.

I did, and that’s what I quoted for you. It said that “full of grace” is not the exact translation and “highly favored daughter” is sub-par as you state. Again though, Mary’s status does not hinge on this translation or on this mere line of the gospel. I don’t have any English Bibles, I have a New Jerusalem Bible in Spanish and it does say in Lucas1:28 “Alégrate, llena de gracia”, the second part being unmistakably “full of grace”.

James Akin responds: I’m with you on the need for formal equivalence translations as opposed to the dynamic equivalence ones that are the rage. While they have their uses, serious Bible study isn’t one of them.
On the subject of kecharitomene, “full of grace” is an excellent translation of the word, though it isn’t the only one possible. It conveys more than many of the alternatives you list.

You would be implying that kind of thing quite a bit more strongly if you had chosen to argue for the “optional Mary stuff” just as forcefully as you do for the “required stuff.” As it is, though, you’re not leading me to any conclusions of that nature. I realize a lot of Protestants immediately go there before you even get started, though, and that doesn’t speak well of them.

What exactly is the “optional Mary stuff” to you? I’m not exactly clear on that.

As for Jimmy’s “false dichotomy”, you’re not forced to accept either choice. He merely speculates that either of those was a possibility to get an important point across, especially when leading up to the most important point in history (God’s actions are always with purpose after all). You’re free to choose a middle or “gray” area for what His mother could have been though, it just doesn’t make as much sense for God to choose a “mediocre” mother for the most important child of all.

To be fair, even though Jesus chose an extraordinarily holy woman for His mother, most people saw nothing extraordinary in her (or her son for most of His life for that matter, calling Him into question for being the mere son of a carpenter). She was, to most people’s eyes, a woman like any other. You can “blame” her humility for that.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Is Mary’s Queenship Biblical?
By Edward P. Sri, PhD
catholic.com/thisrock/1998/9812fea2.asp

---

Is Mary the Queen of Heaven Condemned by the Prophet Jeremiah?
By Steve Ray
catholicconvert.com/Portals/0/QueenOfHeaven.pdf

The Gebirah: Our Advocating Queen Mother
By Thomas J. Perna
motherofallpeoples.com/articles/general-mariology/the-gebirah-our-advocating-queen-mother.html

 

[mmmcounts]

I understand the point you are trying to make, but I can’t say I appreciate someone making an analogy, however tenuous, between Nazism and Catholicism.

Historically, Catholics have been on the right side of global struggles, including pretty solid alignment against both the Nazis and the Soviets. The comparison has more to do with a connection to logical fallacies. For example, when a Catholic isn’t willing or able to do something that demonstrates the Magisterium to be correct, this stereotypical Catholic will frequently retreat to the “infallibility of the Magisterium” claim.

It’s actually a win-win scenario for you. Even if your Protestant counterpart does go ahead and challenge that claim, it usually takes you far enough off topic that you never do get back to the original point. As far as that goes, it works even better than an ad hominem attack- such as a comparison to Hitler. These two methods of argument are quite different, actually- the only thing they really have in common is that neither of them belongs in an argument. Oh, and the actual Latin name for one of them kind of sounds like a made-up name for the other one- and this amused me.

it is claimed that this primacy was based, not on Peter’s authority transmitted to the papacy, but rather on the civil greatness of Rome, the capital of the empire.

It’s also argued that if some other empire had been greater than Rome, they would have found a different reason to assert divine superiority over other parts of the Church. It could also be argued that if the world’s largest and most powerful empire had been somewhere else, there’s a good chance that Peter (and Paul) would have been martyred there instead. They went to a lot of different places, you know, and in every place they did pretty much the same thing. As they passed through all those other places, though, they continued to live. They didn’t get killed until they were in Rome.

First of all, while the bishops of Chalcedon do base Rome’s authority in part on its civil greatness, we must not forget that the council Fathers said that Peter continued to speak through the pope. Thus, even these bishops attributed Rome’s authority, at least in part, to Peter’s primacy.

I don’t expect to successfully talk you out of the Primacy of Peter belief, so I won’t. I’ll leave that alone. Consider this, though: Even if you assume that Peter does have primacy, why is the Magisterium set up the way it is? You have a group of cardinals with a certain set of responsibilities and a certain type of authority, and then you have the position of Pope over them with its own authority, responsibilities, etc. Again, even if you assume that Peter had primacy, can’t you see how this setup is remarkably similar to the secular ruling system of Rome with the Senate and a Caesar? Catholics tend to compare the Pope to a Prime Minister, but the position of Prime Minister is quite different from the Pope’s position in a number of ways- and in those same ways, it is quite similar to the position of Caesar.

So here’s the deal: Setting aside our disagreement on Peter’s primacy- which can only result in fruitless argument- my contention is that the structure of the Magisterium looks very similar to the ruling structure of the Roman Empire, and this is more than just a correlation. The fruits of this argument look something like this: I don’t like how the structure of authority is set up in the Catholic Church for the same reasons that I don’t like how it was set up in the Roman Empire. I can feel free to do this because the Catholic Church didn’t get its structure from God in the first place- they got it from Rome’s secular system of government.

Rome’s privileges derive either from her preeminence in faith or from her apostolic foundation by Peter and Paul. These are supernatural grounds, not natural ones.

Two questions: What does it mean to have preeminence in faith, and how does killing Peter and Paul cause a group of people to be greater heirs of them than the people who didn’t kill them?

Third, Rome vigorously rejected the 28th canon of Chalcedon as an innovation. Now this rejection cannot easily be dismissed, for the Eastern bishops and emperors had a motive to elevate their own central see at Constantinople.

Can you see how, from the perspective of an outsider, Rome and Constantinople are just two cities doing the same thing with the same goal in mind? I don’t care if Rome was more successful in elevating their own central see; it doesn’t mean they’re the “good guys” just because they won. More to the point, the mere fact that there was a winner does not necessarily mean there should have been a winner- or that this game should have been played at all.

it emerged from biased men with a motive to increase their own power in direct violation of the ancient canons of the church.

You were talking about Constantinople. Anyone else could just as easily say the same thing about Rome. I don’t think I would say it in quite so provocative a manner, but it would amount to pretty much the same thing. Unlike an Eastern Orthodox Christian, though, I’m not arguing that there’s some other city that should supplant Rome or share in its primacy. I just don’t like the game at all. In doing so, my appeal to Scripture usually goes to 1 Corinthians 1. How can we make sure there’s no divisions among us, at least in the schismatic sense? One way is to require every Christian to recognize a particular city and a particular group of people as their leaders. Another way is to make sure no one does that. I think Paul was making an argument for the latter rather than the former.

“For it has been reported to me by Chloe’s people that there is quarreling among you, my brothers. What I mean is that each one of you says, “I follow Paul,” or “I follow Apollos,” or “I follow Cephas,” or “I follow Christ.” Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?” 1 Cor. 1:11-13

Finally, Constantinople withdrew canon 28 in response to Rome’s urging.

Again, I’m not “rooting for” Constantinople any more than Rome. I just don’t like the game.

 

[mmmcounts]

The Archangel Gabriel hails Mary as “full of grace” or as “you who have been and remain filled with the divine favor” (Luke 1:28). Even if you don’t accept these translations (I know you don’t), any translation still contains the Archangel hailing Mary as one highly favored.

She certainly was highly favored. She became the mother of Jesus. There is something about grace (or favor, if you wish to use the terms…not interchangeably, but perhaps as very similar things), though. It seems that Protestants and Catholics have a pretty different system of thought concerning grace. To a Catholic, “grace” is an actual thing that is given to a person. To a Protestant, to say something is given “by grace” does not mean there is actually something called “grace” that’s been given. It acts more as an adjective and less as a noun. So when a Protestant says “I am saved by grace,” the Protestant means they have received something called salvation which was given by grace- in other words, it has the quality of being a gift. To a Catholic, saying “I am saved by grace” means God actually gives you something called “grace” and the eventual end of this grace is salvation. Likewise, there’s a difference of understanding in the mechanics. Both of us place a great deal of importance on the role of the Holy Spirit in salvation. For a Protestant, though, the Holy Spirit indwells a person and actualizes the reality of salvation. This is done “by grace,” meaning the Holy Spirit has the quality of being a gift. For a Catholic, on the other hand…well, it’s been my experience that the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is downplayed. It is present, to the extent that Catholics may talk about how the HS can indwell a person and then stop indwelling a person due to a mortal sin, but for the most part it’s talked about in terms of “sanctifying grace.” Most (though not all) of the time, Catholics choose not to talk about the HS indwelling a person and talk about the presence or absence of “sanctifying grace” instead. If you were to draw a picture of this, it’s not as if the Holy Spirit’s presence and activity is “by grace”- instead, the picture looks like something where the Holy Spirit forms something called “grace” and infuses a person with it.

Likewise, when talking about Mary, the Protestant understanding of Mary’s relationship to grace does not involve an actual substance called “grace.” Rather, the Protestant understands Jesus as a gift to Mary. God’s act of choosing her for this role was done “by grace”- not that God made a divine substance of something called “grace” and filled Mary with it, but that God (aka the Holy Spirit) filled Mary’s uterus with Jesus. This act can be described as something done “by grace,” “in grace,” or “through grace,” meaning “grace” is an adjective that properly describes the action. Jesus was a gift, just like the Holy Spirit’s presence in the life of a believer is a gift. The Protestant viewpoint, however, is not so prepared to accommodate the idea of “a substance called grace which is a gift.” We can do “salvation, which is a gift” or “Mary’s pregnancy with Jesus, which is a gift.” But we don’t do “grace, which is a gift” very well. At least not in these two situations. And in one of them, it’s not even a question of what grace means- it’s a question of what favor means. Protestants say “God favored Mary by giving her the job of birthing Jesus.” Catholics…usually prefer not to talk about favor at all. My guess is that this has something to do with being inordinately attached to a certain Latin translation of the Bible.

Hope that helps you understand me a little more.

Mary prophesies that from then on, “all generations will call me blessed” (Luke 1:48). Do Protestants fulfill this prophecy? I think not. They are more likely to honor and preach about Mary, the sister of Martha (that was my own experience, anyway). Catholics, however, call her the “Blessed Virgin.”

I have no argument with the title “Blessed Virgin,” except when it implies that she remained a virgin for her entire life. So it’s not really a quarrel over the word “blessed”- it has a lot more to do with how “virgin” is understood.

On two separate occasions in John, Jesus calls his mother “woman” (John 2:5-11; 19:26-27). This was not a common form of address in ancient Palestine.

What exactly does the address of “woman” lead you to conclude? Apart from the “Eve parallel,” of course. Is there anything more than that, or is it just evidence of a parallel between two people?

she [Mary] is therefore the eschatological counterpart of Eve.

I realize eschatology refers to the final events of Earth’s history, but how is Mary- or Eve, for that matter- related to anything eschatalogical? Or are you using the term to refer to the beginning of the Messianic age rather than the End of Days?

Of course this only proves that Mary is the Second Eve if one is prepared to see Mary in the 12th chapter of Revelation. But it does seem natural to see a reference to Mary there, on a straightforward reading of the passage.

I’m prepared to examine the possibility. To be fair, though, you’re only going to give me reasons to see what you see. You’re not going to give me any reasons to see something different. Both types of reasons exist, but I’m not adequately familiar with either kind. So I have some work to do with Revelation, and I don’t think you can help me with all of it. Thank you for whatever help you can give, though.

Wouldn’t the early readers of Revelation have immediately thought of Mary when they read of a woman giving birth of Jesus?

The earliest readers of Revelation did not even include it with books like Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, etc.

a false dichotomy by forcing one to choose between Mary and the Church – as if the woman cannot be an image of both.

That’s not something I’ve heard before. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. To be fair, though, this would only be a false dichotomy as far as it unfairly eliminates a “third option.” That doesn’t mean the first two options are necessarily invalid.

 

[mmmcounts]

I suppose what I said on Muslims (and on free will with Adam & Eve) were not understood. I’m not sure I understood your point on the former. Are you saying then, Mike, that those who didn’t/don’t know the Truth of the gospel are condemned?

My understanding is that all are born under the curse, and if you die under the curse, you are condemned. The only way to escape the curse is through Jesus. However, I’m beginning to realize Catholics don’t believe a person attains the inheritance of eternal life as a result of being forgiven of their sins (more on that later).

It’s something I always took for granted- God wants each of us to live with Him when we die, but there’s a problem. That problem is sin. It’s the first two pages of the Wordless Book. It goes by other names, but in one form or another, that’s the basis of Christian teaching given to pretty much all Protestant kids around the time they start kindergarten.

For those who didn’t/don’t know the truth of the Gospel, I am inclined to think they are probably condemned. I realize there are a number of prominent Protestants- including C. S. Lewis and Billy Graham- who adopt something pretty similar to the “ignorance loophole,” but I don’t really agree with them. Granted, this question is not explicitly answered in the Bible, and I obviously don’t choose to hang my hat on an “infallibly declared dogma.” However, I do think that is the most probable conclusion. It’s not what I’d call a “belief,” though, and I wouldn’t even necessarily call it a “persuasion.” It’s more of an “opinion.” And even if my opinion on this were different, it wouldn’t really change my beliefs concerning the need to evangelize the unreached. As for you, as long as you’re solid on that particular belief and want to get the job done, I don’t mind if you have a differing opinion on the less important matter.

A specific number or section of the Catechism would help me to dispel those misconceptions.

2009-2010. Easy to remember- it’s the current year.

This is our right by grace, the full right of love, making us “co-heirs” with Christ and worthy of obtaining “the promised inheritance of eternal life.” The merits of our good works are gifts of the divine goodness. [2009]

The reason I disagree: No one deserves eternal life. Not now, not ever. It is, by nature, a gift of grace because we do not deserve it. We are sinful people. That never changes. We can’t ever make that go away. We are forever guilty of sin. It is only through Jesus that we can be forgiven of these sins, and that is how we receive the promise (or inheritance) of eternal life. Not that we are glorified already, but we have a guarantee.

Since the initiative belongs to God in the order of grace, no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification, at the beginning of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life. [2010]

The reason I disagree: Forgiveness and justification are not “the beginning of conversion.” It is conversion. When God forgives a person of their sins, justifies them, and declares them “righteous,” that person has eternal life and won’t be condemned; he has passed from death to life (John 5:24). The CCC says the attainment of eternal life happens through the merit system, and that’s not right. You can say what you want about merits being gifts from God and not just human efforts, but that doesn’t address my reason for disagreeing. I am not concerned with the particular way in which merit is credited to a person or who gets credit for what. That is very much not the issue.

The issue is this: “Attainment of eternal life,” according to the CCC, does not happen at what it calls “the beginning of conversion.” It correctly lays out the mechanism by which a person is forgiven of their sins, but it does not conclude that the “forgiven person”- now called “justified” and regarded as “righteous”- has eternal life. It says eternal life is attained through the merit system over the course of the rest of a person’s life. I don’t really care what kind of mechanism you describe at this point- the issue is that you’ve removed “attainment of eternal life” from the list of “stuff that happens when you become a Christian and God forgives your sins.”

I certainly do understand you think I’m wrong (along with the Church) and that what she holds on Mary is man-made or apart from God’s will. What I’m trying to show you though, is that it’s precisely because of God’s will that anything held on Mary by the Church is possible (though I understand you think that what she says God did to Mary is impossible). I certainly understand that Mary’s one of the biggest hurdles for protestants to really agree with Catholics.

Thank you for understanding. I think you’re right- Mary is a big hurdle. Four big dogmas, and they’re not one bit optional. It makes me think how times must have been a bit simpler before those dogmas were defined. I don’t know about you, but that’s me.

Which is why I still pray that God can grant you the grace to do just that. My words and knowledge are incredibly lacking (though I thank you for asking such hard questions to get me to think, strengthening my faith and knowledge though I’ve still got a looong way to go.) I hope you can spare the time to pray for me sometime as well.

Thank you for being patient with all my questions and not getting irritated with me. I have some work of my own to do, as well- I don’t mind saying Revelation is a weak point for me, so thank you for exposing that a little and helping me explore more about it.

Oh yea- praying for you. Sure, I can do that. Anything you want prayer for? I understand it’s the Internet and whatever you say goes everywhere, so you don’t have to say anything- and if you do, it can be really non-specific.

To be continued.

 

[mmmcounts]

Continued.

I was not aware it was only man who transmits the curse and the woman has no part in that. Where exactly is that?

I presented it as if it were written down plainly in the Bible. In reality, it’s the Protestant understanding of the mechanics of the Curse- and this is how Jesus’ sinlessness is explained.

The main verse used as support is Romans 5:12- “Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned-”

That verse is the main reason why “original sin” and any talk of a “curse” or “stain” exists. Granted, it does all go back to Adam and Eve, but there’s a reason why Jews don’t have a concept of original sin: It’s a New Testament by-product. In addition to that, however, Christians (on the whole) believe that it was Adam who bore responsibility for actually bringing sin into the world. Eve ate the fruit first, but it’s primarily because of how the New Testament links Adam to Jesus that we believe Eve “got the assist” while Adam gets credit for actually bringing sin into the world.

Protestants go just a bit further with this, though. Sin came into the world through one man- Adam- and death through sin, but it goes on to say this: “and so death spread to all men, because all sinned.” Protestants believe this means the “spread of death” means about the same thing as “transmitting the curse,” and that this transmission of the curse is an Adam-specific (and male-specific) part of the curse, just as Eve has certain female-specific curse elements. Additionally, it provides a nice little “out” for Jesus. You wanted to know how he could be born to a sinful female and avoid the curse of sin. This is how.

Granted, the explanation is a bit short on Biblical references. You’re absolutely not required to believe it’s true. It does work, though, and it provides a necessary explanation for how Jesus could be born to a sinful mother and avoid inheriting the curse of original sin. It’s one of those things that isn’t necessary for you, but it is for me.

Cafeteria Catholic, is that the “pick and chose” kind? The term is still new to me.

From what I can tell, pretty much. I’m probably not the person to ask, but from what I’ve seen on CAF, that’s what it looks like. It’s sometimes used opposite the “properly catechized” kind of Catholic.

The fact that you’re a Catholic constrains you in certain ways. Not in every way, but when the Magisterium infallibly declares a dogma to be true, you don’t have the option of disagreeing. Knowing this, I’m starting to wonder how fruitful it really is to question the infallibly defined doctrines. If nothing else, you’ll believe them because you simply have to. And it’s not like my goal is to convert Catholics…but that’s really the only option you have, should you decide to believe something other than what’s been “infallibly defined.” I’m starting to think it might be a good idea to get off the Mary topic at some point…the stuff in Revelation is something I really should explore, but after that I might go on to something like veneration.

 

[mmmcounts]

May the Holy Spirit guide you to the Truth. I find the book to be quite fascinating though it does seem to be quite hard to grasp a lot of it completely. Perhaps you’d like to discuss it on this or a separate thread once you’re done with your studies.

Thanks, I’ll let you know. That reminds me, though- a good first step for me would be to look at the threads other people have started on the topic. I could probably get a lot of dumb questions answered that way and figure out what some better questions would be.

What I meant by “auto-canonization” is that in a lot of funerals people are basically declared saints “oh don’t worry, he’s now in Heaven”, which makes a lot of people stop praying for their souls. I don’t want to go off on a huge tangent on the communion of saints, purgatory, etc.

Yeaaaah, I’m sure you know where I stand. C’est la vie. Thanks for the explanation, though.

Suffice it to say, the point is that we’re asked to pray for each other and not making exceptions. To Catholics that includes praying for: the Church Militant (those alive on earth), the Church Penitent (those undergoing purification in Purgatory in preparation for heaven), and the Church Triumphant (those already in heaven).

Oh, so that’s what Church Militant means. I’ve seen that handle for one of the mods, but I didn’t know why he picked that. The light bulb finally goes on.

I really should have looked that up at some point, but I guess I wasn’t curious enough.

Feelings are not what’s important. You’re right, I can’t bring myself to truly grieve all those children (zygotes, fetus, call them what you will) that are lost, because it’s something distant to me. I still realize the fact that it’s tragic even if the “feelings” aren’t there. I also can’t truly grieve all the lives lost at 9/11, children lost in a daycare fire, all those japanese dead from nuclear weapons, and many more things. I do feel however, bad about admitting such things because of how that might make me appear.

I think you’re right in saying that circumstances greatly effect how strongly you might feel about a death. For example, a friend of mine was going to school in New York just a few blocks from the WTC in '01 and was one of the people given the task of…for lack of a better term, cleaning up the dead bodies. (I know there’s a much better term than that, but I can’t think of it right now. Something involving forensics, maybe?) Part of those duties involved figuring out who the dead people were so their families could be notified, so my friend was unfortunate enough to be one of the people who saw it happen, handled the dead bodies, and found out all kinds of other details about the deceased. It was a shockingly unforgettable experience.

By comparison, I was a good distance away from it. I never saw or handled any of the dead bodies. I only heard about it, and I can only imagine what it was like. However, I also believe my friend and I were feeling the same thing in very different ways- what he felt was much more personal and intense, and what I felt was far less so. In some way, though, our experiences shared a common element- we were both grieving the same thing, and we were both grieving loss of human life. It’s different depending on exactly who dies, how you experience it, how they die, and how many people die, but the common element is human death, and that same thing can be seen and felt (in different ways and to different degrees) in the grieving process.

When a zygote dies before implantation- whether it’s a “by-product” of in vitro fertilization or something that happens naturally in the course of sex- my experience is that there’s no grieving process. I know that the socially conservative approach and the “culture of life” slash “sanctity of life” sorts of people encourage something different- at least where frozen zygotes are concerned- but after some consideration of what’s there and what’s happening, my conclusion (to this point) is that the concept of a “grieving process” should be- and is, in my experience- foreign to the loss of an unimplanted zygote. It’s not even a distant, faint, garbled kind of loss/grief feeling. It’s just…nothing. Over the course of time, I asked myself if I should feel anything. I eventually concluded that the answer is “probably not.”

Yet I know that feelings are nothing, they don’t define me or my relationship with God. Blessed mother Theresa, is a great example of this truth. She felt nothing for decades (the “black night of the soul” as some saints have experienced though not as long as her) and yet her faith didn’t waver, and showed nothing but love to all who met her. I may not feel truly bad for them, but that doesn’t mean I don’t care about them.

That’s a pretty good point. I can respect that. A lack of feelings certainly doesn’t prove anything- in fact, I don’t think there are any ways of proving this one way or the other. It is, however, one of the tools that you can use to assess probabilities. When I did that, it led me to conclude that the presence of a soul in a zygote was fairly improbable. The same tool allows me to seriously consider a different conclusion for fetuses, though there are other factors that cause me to be far less than certain on any of the possible conclusions.

You’re wrong though, because there IS something I can do and that’s prayer. It’s something that I know is powerful even if I don’t understand it fully yet. Even if you were right that they didn’t have souls, those prayers would not be wasted.

I do like prayer, and I also feel kind of funny about telling someone their prayers are wasted or pointless. I better not argue with that.

You’re right, I merely went off on a big tangent to speculate on a mere possibility of what could happen to a child to be given the chance to exercise their free will. I’m not saying this is anything close to Church teaching.

What you did wasn’t bad at all. My reaction to it was, though. I’ll take a look at the link. Thanks.

 

[mmmcounts]

Just like there’s no disservice to calling Jesus “King of kings”, the same applies to Mary as “Queen of Heaven”.

The difference is that Jesus is actually referred to as Lord of Lords and King of Kings in Revelation, 1 Timothy, and Daniel. You’re right in saying a previously misused title can be used for a redemptive purpose. You have a point there. However, in the example you brought up with “King of Kings,” there is sufficient evidence to the effect that the Jews who wrote the Bible and from whom we received the knowledge of our faith were ok with using that title to refer to God in the OT and NT. The same cannot be said of Mary- in fact, other than a couple of references in Acts, there’s really nothing said about Mary outside of the Gospels. Oh, and there’s the thing in Revelation, but that’s questionable at best, especially since it is (as I am only now starting to understand) an apocalyptic vision with fourfold imagery. The twelve-star crown, I assume, is the part referring to Israel. The main point is that Mary is never called “Queen of Heaven” in the Bible, and if she was, you would probably expect some part of Revelation to mention or describe it.

Like I said, you have a point, but it is two points that make a line. King of Kings- I see a line. Mary, Queen of Heaven- I see no line leading to the conclusion you’ve made. Granted, it doesn’t make you a bad person. I won’t accuse you of apostasy or Mary-worship. I will at least say this, though: For me to say Mary is not the Queen of Heaven- that’s a totally valid option. I wish to exercise that option. I don’t know this for sure, but I think even you could exercise that option if you so desired.

But you state that there was the obvious monthly obligation to go for purification. So would she really be required to state why she was there?

Even if it were all so obvious, though, someone had to explain it to Mary for the first time at some point in her young life. I agree that certain things are obvious- ie., “I am a sinner”- but if you think back to your childhood and the time when your parents first told you what sin was, I’m pretty sure they made sure you understood. And then- since it’s a matter of faith and religion- they had to make sure you actually believed it. As a differing example, the matter of menstruation is one thing- it’s universal and it’s kind of obvious (especially if you’re a woman), but someone still has to explain it to you. No one has to make sure you believe anything, though. Sin is similar to a certain extent, but then it’s also different. It is obvious, it does have to be explained, and there’s the additional step of making sure it’s a belief.

Basically, I feel that there must have been a time when the obvious and mundane parts of sacrificial tradition had to be explained to Mary. Beyond that, though, she had to do more than just understand it and be able to properly explain it. Since it was a religious matter, she probably had to demonstrate an understanding of why she did each of the sacrifices and why her sins required a sacrifice. That’s one of the main differences between studying someone else’s religion and actually practicing it as your own.

When a Catholic goes to confession, the priest asks us for our sins, not if we have sinned. It’s a given. In the case of the monthly ritual (or any at all), do we know if they even had to state their sins? I’ve read that, like with some protestants, they believe confession is to God alone.

I don’t think it involved the confession of specific sins; however, I do think several general elements were probably present in the process of making this or any other sacrifice: A statement by the priest describing the end, goal, or purpose of the sacrifice, a description of the various reasons for doing the sacrifice, and some sort of participation by the one for whom the sacrifice was made- “We’re on the same page here, and I believe what you’ve been saying is true.” The exact words are only important if you want to start doing these sacrifices again, but the general idea of the semantics is all you need in order for the idea of Mary’s sinlessness to start looking less probable.

I did, and that’s what I quoted for you. It said that “full of grace” is not the exact translation and “highly favored daughter” is sub-par as you state. Again though, Mary’s status does not hinge on this translation or on this mere line of the gospel.

Well…I would argue that it doesn’t hinge on- or proceed from- any part of the Bible, but when a Catholic talks to Protestants, you feel that for my benefit, every Catholic doctrine deserves (maybe not deserves…needs, in a provisional sense?) an attempt at a Biblical explanation. It’s only for my benefit, though- you don’t actually need it.

I don’t have any English Bibles, I have a New Jerusalem Bible in Spanish and it does say in Lucas1:28 “Alégrate, llena de gracia”, the second part being unmistakably “full of grace”.

Thank you for sharing that with me; I never would have thought to look up the Spanish translation since I don’t speak Spanish. If I had thought of it, though, I never would have guessed that it said that. This is the English version of the New Jerusalem Translation- same verse.

“He went in and said to her, ‘Rejoice, you who enjoy God’s favour! The Lord is with you.’”

This isn’t really a minor difference- one appears to be using the Vulgate as its primary source, and the other does not. I’m very interested in knowing why that is.

(Quoting Jimmy A.) On the subject of kecharitomene, “full of grace” is an excellent translation of the word, though it isn’t the only one possible. It conveys more than many of the alternatives you list.

I disagree on the grounds that “full of grace” is not a translation of a Greek word; it’s the translation of Latin words. I agree that it does a great job of conveying a certain Catholic-specific meaning, but you’ll understand if I don’t think that’s the chief end of Bible translation. Perhaps catholic with a small c- that’s one reason why the ESV is so good. You know what I’m saying, though.

What exactly is the “optional Mary stuff” to you? I’m not exactly clear on that.

There are four Marian dogmas. A lot of people wish there were five. The so-far nonexistent dogma is the one that infallibly defines Mary as Mediatrix and Co-Redemptrix- two separate ideas that are closely related but usually handled together. (I’m including details so you know I know what I’m talking about, not because I think you’re unaware of what the words mean). I should have just used the proper terms when referring to them, but I called them “the optional Mary stuff” out of laziness. They also happen to describe the two Marian beliefs most likely to cause Protestants to accuse you of bad stuff.

 

[Odell]

I guess most of you are working from the assumption that she never sinned. Let’s see what comes up.

Mary was saved. She was and is the most saved of all humans. The bible talks about salvation in many ways Mary was saved in all the manners of salvation that the bible talks about.

 

[Liraco]

For a Protestant, though, the Holy Spirit indwells a person and actualizes the reality of salvation. This is done “by grace,” meaning the Holy Spirit has the quality of being a gift. For a Catholic, it is present, to the extent that Catholics may talk about how the HS can indwell a person and then stop indwelling a person due to a mortal sin, but for the most part it’s talked about in terms of “sanctifying grace.”

I hadn’t heard of grace being referred to as a substance (but that’s false). I wasn’t aware Catholics downplayed the Holy Spirit as it’s through Him that we get these graces. As for mortal sin breaking the “indwelling” of the Holy Spirit, it’s us who choose separate ourselves from God through sin, not that He leaves us.
From a lengthy read on grace:

*justifying grace in Holy Writ is expressly termed a “gift [or grace] of the Holy Ghost” (Acts, ii, 38; x, 45), and as the abiding seed of God (I John, iii, 9). From this it follows that the grace must be as distinct from the Holy Ghost as the gift from the giver and the seed from the sower; consequently the Holy Spirit is our holiness, not by the holiness by which He Himself is holy, but by that holiness by which He makes us holy. He is not, therefore, the causa formalis, but merely the causa efficiens, of our holiness.

…sanctifying grace as an active reality, and not a merely external relation, must be philosophically either substance or accident. Now, it is certainly not a substance which exists by itself, or apart from the soul, therefore it is a physical accident inhering in the soul, so that the soul becomes the subject in which grace inheres; but such an accident is in metaphysics called quality (qualitas, poiotes)…*

The only way to escape the curse is through Jesus.

Correct, and that’s why the Church holds that even outside of the visible boundaries of the Church, God works in ways we cannot comprehend to save those who are not guilty of not following Him because they were never taught the gospel. Why would God punish those who lived good lives and also didn’t know any better? I’m not saying they’re all saved, I’m saying they’re not all damned. You say it yourself when you mentioned God’s desire:

God “desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim. 2:4). “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me” (John 14:6)

And again Jesus makes clear that He came for everyone: “I have other sheep, that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will heed my voice. So there shall be one flock, one shepherd” (John 10:16)

As the Pope says in Lumen Gentium and Gaidum et Spes:
*Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their consciences—those too may achieve eternal salvation (LG 16).

Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery (Gaudium et Spes 22).*

Ignorance doesn’t save those people (nor is it a loophole), it’s their conscious effort, under grace, to serve God as well as they can on the basis of the best information they have about him.

So while even someone’s conditioning against the Church might excuse their rejecting the Catholic Church (if they’re rejecting something they perceive as evil), those who know the Truth and refuse it ARE condemned.
They cannot be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or remain in it (cf. LG 14).

And even if my opinion on this were different, it wouldn’t really change my beliefs concerning the need to evangelize the unreached.

That is precisely what the Church continues to do, because the Lord commanded it. We just have the hope that those who weren’t reached have a chance at salvation.

The reason I disagree: No one deserves eternal life. Not now, not ever. It is, by nature, a gift of grace because we do not deserve it.

Correct, just a few lines before that in 2007: there is no strict right to any merit on the part of man.

Your claim that we’ve removed “attainment of eternal life” from the list of “stuff that happens when you become a Christian and God forgives your sins.” is incorrect. When one is baptized, when one comes out of a good confession, they’re in a “state of grace”. In other words: the state of sanctifying grace. There is no mortal sin in us (but the danger is we can choose to sin again).

We DO have “the promised inheritance of eternal life”, the problem is that it can be lost which is why we need to convert DAILY (as you put it, we’re sinners).
Paul agrees in Philippians 2:12 work out your salvation with fear and trembling. Why would we need to work anything out if we’re “done”?

When we properly repent and convert we are saved, but that savedalways.

Thank you for understanding. I think you’re right- Mary is a big hurdle. Four big dogmas, and they’re not one bit optional. It makes me think how times must have been a bit simpler before those dogmas were defined.

Indeed, they were simpler times when they didn’t need to be defined because they weren’t contested. The upside, though, is a deeper understanding.

Thank you for being patient with all my questions and not getting irritated with me. Oh yea- praying for you. Sure, I can do that. Anything you want prayer for?

If only I had it. That’s the wonder of being able to take your time to think your words through instead of blurting out what comes first. I’ve come to greatly appreciate the difference between answering someone in “the heat of the moment” and trying to answer to just provide the truth as I understand it (willing to admit mistakes, many which I’ve made just in this thread).

As for a specific intention, I’d ask for someone very close to me who has weakened in their faith (apparently almost given up on prayer too).

 

[Liraco]

it provides a necessary explanation for how Jesus could be born to a sinful mother and avoid inheriting the curse of original sin. It’s one of those things that isn’t necessary for you, but it is for me.

True, I think that even if the woman could also carry the “stain”, Jesus could still be free from it just as I believe Mary was. Even if Mary had been a sinner, I still think God had the ability to conceive Jesus without it (though you know I hold that BOTH were given this).

Thanks for the explanation.

Knowing this, I’m starting to wonder how fruitful it really is to question the infallibly defined doctrines. If nothing else, you’ll believe them because you simply have to.

Well at least for my part, I’m not “blindly” following things. If something doesn’t make sense or seems wrong, I look into it to understand the reasons. So far everything I’ve seen that’s defined as infallible doesn’t contradict the faith. The Magisterium and the Pope are only infallible in the negative sense to prevent teaching moral error (I think this was already explained earlier), but they can still make plenty of mistakes. Just as Paul called on Peter’s behavior giving the wrong message on gentiles and Jews, so too can the Pope or Bishops be corrected if they’re wrong. Peter was certainly not perfect, neither Paul nor any of the other Apostles.

Feel free to move on to a new topic (if it’s not too much to ask, please PM me the link if you start a new thread on this as things get lost in this large forum).

Over the course of time, I asked myself if I should feel anything. I eventually concluded that the answer is “probably not.”

As I said, it’s not about feeling. What matters is praying for the dead (though it seems you don’t really consider them alive at that point of their development).

Mary is never called “Queen of Heaven” in the Bible, and if she was, you would probably expect some part of Revelation to mention or describe it.

One would think that a crowned woman from Heaven would qualify, but I agree that it’s not explicit to remove any doubt. As I already said though, like almost everything else in Revelation, there’s a lot of meaning in everything, multiple meaning in many cases.

Even if we only saw “Israel, the Church, and Eve”, the second and third still tie to Mary for us Catholics. I certainly won’t hold it against you to think she’s not "Queen of Heaven"and you say you’re only beginning to delve deeper into the book.

Even if it were all so obvious, though, someone had to explain it to Mary for the first time at some point in her young life.

Indeed, in the podcast part I had quoted of Karl Keating he mentioned that Mary must have surely understood the concept of sin and therefore also come to understand that she hadn’t committed it. The sacrifices were still something that one offered to God as it was part of the law, and since there were no exceptions, I don’t see why she’d feel the need to create her own.

You can teach someone about sin but “believing it” doesn’t mean she was forced into acknowledging her own sin. Supposing they did make sure she believed it (that she was a sinner), then she was making all these offerings thinking she was a sinner when, in fact, wasn’t. She wasn’t lying because she was taught that she was a sinner and so did the offerings in obedience. That’s an interesting take I hadn’t thought of.

Still, I think Mary was at least aware at some point of the fact that she didn’t commit sins. Again though, without any exceptions there really wasn’t much “choice” in her choosing to do something apart from the sacrifices.

when a Catholic talks to Protestants, you feel that for my benefit, every Catholic doctrine deserves an attempt at a Biblical explanation.

You’re right that we don’t HAVE to explain everything through the Bible alone, but it certainly does help to show how things are grounded on what it says (at the very least to show these things aren’t unbiblical).

This isn’t really a minor difference- one appears to be using the Vulgate as its primary source, and the other does not. I’m very interested in knowing why that is.

Very interesting indeed. Whenever there is something from the vulgate in my edition it puts it on the footnotes as an alternative reading.

I actually incorrectly stated my Bible is the New, it’s actually just the “Jerusalem Bible” from 1967. The footnotes add to that verse that an alternate translation is: “you who have been and are still full of grace (or divine favor)”. I did check a recent edition of the New Jerusalem Bible in a bookstore and the quote was exactly the same.

The so-far nonexistent dogma is the one that infallibly defines Mary as Mediatrix and Co-Redemptrix- two separate ideas that are closely related but usually handled together.

I definitely see this one causing a problem for many (it pops up often in the CAL show too). As I’ve come to understand it though this is also one of those things that shows no contradictions when you see what it really means. Until you reach that point though, it’s certainly a “battle to show who’s right”.

 

[mmmcounts]

I hadn’t heard of grace being referred to as a substance (but that’s false).

You’re right, I must have been misunderstanding the use of grace by Catholics.

I wasn’t aware Catholics downplayed the Holy Spirit as it’s through Him that we get these graces.

See, that’s it right there. Instead of talking about the activity of the Holy Spirit and its direct effect on the person He indwells, you talk about graces given by the Holy Spirit. That’s how it runs through my mind, anyway.

justifying grace in Holy Writ is expressly termed a “gift [or grace] of the Holy Ghost”, and as the abiding seed of God (I John, iii, 9).

The meaning of “seed” in 1 John 3 might be a point of difference for us; I say it’s referring to the Holy Spirit.

From this it follows that the grace must be as distinct from the Holy Ghost as the gift from the giver and the seed from the sower; consequently the Holy Spirit is our holiness, not by the holiness by which He Himself is holy, but by that holiness by which He makes us holy. He is not, therefore, the causa formalis, but merely the causa efficiens, of our holiness.

I can agree with this insofar as characterizing the Holy Spirit’s actions as distinct from the Holy Spirit Himself. Additionally, I can’t help but think we have very different ideas as to the exact nature of the Holy Spirit’s actions throughout the life of a believer.

…sanctifying grace as an active reality, and not a merely external relation, must be philosophically either substance or accident. Now, it is certainly not a substance which exists by itself, or apart from the soul, therefore it is a physical accident inhering in the soul, so that the soul becomes the subject in which grace inheres; but such an accident is in metaphysics called quality (qualitas, poiotes)…

When you characterize grace as an “accident,” is that meant to say what it usually says when applied in modern philosophy? Specifically, is this intended to mark grace as a property?

For example, “the color blue” and “the atomic number 64” are good examples of accidents when used in this way. By contrast, a Cubs hat is not an accident and…let me check a periodic table…Gadolinium. Nice. That’s a substance, and one of its accidents is the atomic number 64. Another accident is strong magnetism at room temperature. (I like the Internet. Lots of information). This happens to be how I use the word “grace” with respect to the forgiveness of sins and the gift of eternal life: Grace is an accident. And the meaning of this accident is that eternal life is an unmerited gift. So when I see verses that say “It is by grace you have been saved through faith,” that means the salvation comes through faith, and one of its properties is grace.

Likewise, when I see something from Romans 11 that says “there is a remnant chosen by grace- and if by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace,” that means God’s choice- His “choosing” of the remnant- has the property of grace. And more than that- this accident/property/characteristic “of grace” is incompatible with something that is “of works.” It can’t be both. Otherwise, grace would no longer be grace.

Of course, “accident” could have a totally different meaning for you. This is what I’m getting from Aristotle, though.

Why would God punish those who lived good lives and also didn’t know any better?

Sin. Its wages are death. Now, I don’t like the idea of someone going to hell just because they never had the opportunity to ask Jesus to forgive them of their sins. I don’t know if you’re fully aware of this, but it doesn’t give me good feelings- it gives me feelings that are not very nice. However, I’m also relatively certain that Jesus is the only way to have your sins forgiven, and if you don’t, you suffer the consequences of sin. And like you said earlier, feelings don’t mean anything, right?

You say it yourself when you mentioned God’s desire:
God “desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim. 2:4).

The reason I initially brought that up was to demonstrate how God doesn’t get everything He desires. This seems like a pretty good time to bring that up again: God desires that none should perish. But a lot of people do perish. If anything, this demonstrates that God doesn’t like it any more than I do. (To be more precise, “than we do”- I just wanted to remind you that I’m not coming to these conclusions because they give me pleasure).

“I have other sheep, that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will heed my voice. So there shall be one flock, one shepherd” (John 10:16)

The “other sheep” that Jesus refers to here are Gentiles. “This sheepfold” is the Jews. It’s kind of funny how I had a long discussion with a close friend about this same verse pretty recently, but it was for an entirely different reason. I guess that’s why John 10:6 says what it says.

They cannot be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or remain in it (cf. LG 14).

So what do you do with high-profile Protestants who understand both Protestantism and Roman Catholicism better than you and I put together yet choose to remain Protestants? I’m talking about people at the highest levels- the Protestants with a half-dozen doctoral-level degrees in religion who actively interface with Catholics via organizations like ECT (Evangelicals and Catholics Together). These would be the kinds of Protestants who, without a doubt, understand all the claims of the Roman Catholic Church and decide not to join it, right? Are they unable to be saved?

A short list of such individuals (who all signed the ECT thing) would include Mark Noll (you can find him at Notre Dame), Chuck Colson, J. I. Packer (the only Anglican I see on the list of signees), Bill Bright- people like that. Granted, not all of them have doctorates with a “Th” in them, but those are the most recognizable names.

 

[mmmcounts]

Your claim that we’ve removed “attainment of eternal life” from the list of “stuff that happens when you become a Christian and God forgives your sins.” is incorrect. When one is baptized, when one comes out of a good confession, they’re in a “state of grace”.

It’s taken a good deal of time and plenty of trial and error, but I’ve been finding that “being in a state of grace” and “possessing an eternal inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading” are subtly nuanced little critters that have key differences.

We DO have “the promised inheritance of eternal life”, the problem is that it can be lost which is why we need to convert DAILY (as you put it, we’re sinners).

And all people are sinners; they always will be. Some people, however, are redeemed sinners while others are not.

work out your salvation with fear and trembling. Why would we need to work anything out if we’re “done”?

Working out your salvation does not mean you are supposed to earn something you already have. So just what are you working on? From what you’re saying, it sounds like you have a particular idea of how you got salvation in the first place and now you’re working on doing that same thing ad infinitum. I’m working on some stuff, but I think my stuff’s different from your stuff. Doesn’t mean I’m not doing anything over here, though.

This could easily stray into monergism and synergism. Boy, that’d be way off topic.

When we properly repent and convert we are saved, but that doesn’t mean we’re always saved.

You don’t like that particular understanding of the perseverance of the saints. Cool. I get it. By the way, the Free Grace folks are the ones who prefer terminology like “eternal security,” “OSAS,” and “unconditional assurance.” I’m not one of the Free Grace folks. People like me prefer to use the term attached to the P at the end of TULIP, and when it’s used in more of a (imo) disciplined way, it doesn’t come across in the same soft, cuddly, too-often-antinomian way that it often does.

Indeed, they were simpler times when they didn’t need to be defined because they weren’t contested. The upside, though, is a deeper understanding.

I’m gonna say I disagree with some of that. Here’s what I contend. You know how the Mediatrix/Co-Redemptrix things aren’t doctrines? Not every Catholic believes them, and no Catholic feels that they have to put the full measure of their faith in them. When the other four Marian dogmas were just like that, that’s exactly how it was with them, too. And for some of them, it wasn’t really so long ago. You know that even better than I do; there’s a chance you remember Vatican II.

That’s the wonder of being able to take your time to think your words through instead of blurting out what comes first.

True that. This is helping, though. I think I’ll do a lot better in real life because of this.

As for a specific intention, I’d ask for someone very close to me who has weakened in their faith (apparently almost given up on prayer too).

I will certainly pray for that. I actually have over the last couple of days- there was a period of time where I dinked around a little before I actually put this response together. And if you see this at any point on Sunday, I’d appreciate some prayer for that day during the evening. It’s kind of a similar situation. Thanks for praying for me already before I asked for any, and if you get a second to pray for me around supper time…today, I guess, it would mean a lot.

 

[mmmcounts]

True, I think that even if the woman could also carry the “stain”, Jesus could still be free from it just as I believe Mary was. Even if Mary had been a sinner, I still think God had the ability to conceive Jesus without it (though you know I hold that BOTH were given this).

As you said earlier, we disagree as to exactly what is possible and what is impossible. It was a nice summary.

Thanks for the explanation.

You’re quite welcome. Thanks for helping me out with grace. It’s a tricky one. It’s also one where I can’t really ask Protestants about the Catholic position- I know 99% of the information’s going to be (at least) just a bit off. (And if they used to be Catholic, it’s even worse. Same goes for ex-Protestants in certain situations, though).

Feel free to move on to a new topic (if it’s not too much to ask, please PM me the link if you start a new thread on this as things get lost in this large forum).

I’ve been thinking about what I should ask on veneration. I’ll probably do that this week. When I do, I’ll let you know. One thing I probably want to know the most about is exactly what goes on inside your head when you venerate something. Literally- what does your brain look like on an MRI and how does that compare to other sorts of MRIs? I’ll come up with a few other things to ask, though. Thanks for offering to help me out. It’s very kind of you.

One would think that a crowned woman from Heaven would qualify, but I agree that it’s not explicit to remove any doubt.

Yeah, about that. No matter how you slice it, it’s not like John actually saw Mary in heaven. He saw an image of a woman that could potentially represent Mary, and she does a variety of things that are clearly not done in heaven. I think John sees her in heaven primarily because he, in his vision, is in heaven and an angel is showing him a lot of things. Immediately after he says he “saw her in heaven,” she gives birth. That doesn’t happen in heaven. Not for Mary, not for anyone. But that’s where he’s seeing the vision, even though most of the things that…
a) already happened, or
b) haven’t happened yet
did not occur in heaven.
Also, the most obvious meaning of the twelve star crown has to do with people (or tribes) named Gad, Naphtali, Judah, etc. The ruling authority of divine queenship is certainly not the most obvious object of the symbol.

As I already said though, like almost everything else in Revelation, there’s a lot of meaning in everything, multiple meaning in many cases.

And in Revelation- more than any other place in the Bible- there’s a wide variety of interpretive explanations that may or may not be mutually exclusive. I don’t think there’s anything wrong (in principle) with multiple layers of imagery, but I also know there are arguments against taking Marian imagery to this kind of extent. I should know just a bit more within the next 12 hours. I’m pretty certain I won’t have a great handle on everything I want to, though- but it’ll be a step in the right direction.

Sundays are nice, by the way. I like them.

You can teach someone about sin but “believing it” doesn’t mean she was forced into acknowledging her own sin.

Here’s what I’m trying to say. An atheist could study a variety of religions and understand (from what they’re taught) that “this is what sin is.” A practicing Christian (or Jew or Muslim, for that matter) must be someone who actually believes sin is a serious problem that needs a solution. One of the key marks of a non-practicing monotheist from the Big 3 is that they don’t regard sin as a problem. They merely know about it.

In Mary’s case, she wasn’t in a position of merely knowing about it. She was a practicing Jew. Jewess? I don’t know which is more appropriate. Anyway. Speaking from my own experience, my parents didn’t exactly force me into acknowledging my own sin- however, they did teach me what was true and led me to understand that it was necessary to do so if I chose to be a practicing Christian instead of someone who merely knows about it. It was always clear that the choice was up to me, but full disclosure was a part of the deal too- I knew what I had to do if I went that route.

It’s also true that Mary’s situation was a bit different, though- not at all pluralistic. I suppose she could have chosen not to be a practicing Jew/Jewess in every sense of the word, but it was strongly expected of her.

Supposing they did make sure she believed it (that she was a sinner), then she was making all these offerings thinking she was a sinner when, in fact, wasn’t. She wasn’t lying because she was taught that she was a sinner and so did the offerings in obedience. That’s an interesting take I hadn’t thought of.

Here’s another thing that hasn’t really come up: Jesus and Mary probably talked a lot. We don’t know much about the specifics, but from the age of 30ish to 50ish, Mary had Jesus living in her home at an age where he could talk to her about whatever they wanted. Assuming Mary’s sinlessness and a childhood ignorance of it, I don’t think she would have stayed ignorant of it with Jesus around like that. (Of course, these are all situational speculations about a situation I don’t believe existed…Mine is not exactly an unbiased perspective). Just thought I’d point that out, though.

Still, I think Mary was at least aware at some point of the fact that she didn’t commit sins. Again though, without any exceptions there really wasn’t much “choice” in her choosing to do something apart from the sacrifices.

That’s a valid point. And as you already know, I have similar things to say about God’s decision to make her either sinless or sinful: Not really much of a choice. I really can’t fault you for applying the same logic in a different situation, though. I think that’s pretty solid. Under any circumstance, Mary probably didn’t have the luxury of skipping out on sacrificial requirements- for a number of reasons.

You’re right that we don’t HAVE to explain everything through the Bible alone, but it certainly does help to show how things are grounded on what it says (at the very least to show these things aren’t unbiblical).

And as for me, I don’t actually think everything has to be supported by a direct quote from Scripture- though I do believe all doctrines must be found there logically. (That, by the way, is Sola Scriptura in a nutshell). I really don’t think it’s that far off from what you believe.

I never really thought about it this way before, but it just occurred to me- maybe that’s why there’s no fifth Marian dogma. Maybe it’s because those things can’t be found logically within Scripture while the first four can. (The Assumption is a bit of a stretch, though). Do you think that’s part of the thought process for the cardinals who decide these things?

 

[sodak]

It’s a bit like going to confession in spite of perfection rather than because of sin. The thing is, what do you say once you walk in the booth? As you imagine how this scenario plays out, you should begin to realize the truth: A sinless person does not have any good reason to be at confession, nor does a sinless Jewess have any business making sacrifices for sin as if she were a regular Jewish girl.

A sinless Savior doesn’t need to be baptised by a very fallible man. But he did it anyway. Hmmm…

 

[Liraco]

One quick thing on what sodak commented:

Mary would have been committing sin by NOT offering the sacrifices. I believe it was brought up very recently in Catholic Answers two weeks ago. If you interested: download the show here.

See, that’s it right there. Instead of talking about the activity of the Holy Spirit and its direct effect on the person He indwells, you talk about graces given by the Holy Spirit. That’s how it runs through my mind, anyway.

Seems my knowledge and explanation were quite insufficient, so I apologize. I still have a long way to go but I’ll give it another go.

It seems that you assume we see the Holy Spirit just dropping these gifts on us and they’re the ones that do everything and the Holy Spirit is just like a messenger. Not at all the case and certainly not what was intended in any of what I wrote or quoted.

You’re right that the seed in 1 John 3:9 is “Christ or the Spirit who shares the nature of God with the Christian.” (footnote for verse 9) But we also use the term of seed to describe what we “plant” in another’s heart when we evangelize and pray that the Holy Spirit causes it to grow in them to lead them to the Truth. So the sower would be the Holy Spirit in that case.

More specifically on the role of the Holy Spirit: “to the Holy Ghost we attribute the operations of grace and the sanctification of souls, and in particular spiritual gifts and fruits, because He proceeds from the Father and the Son as Their mutual love and is called in Holy Writ the goodness and the charity of God.”

You can read more of that here. More specifically Part III A (the third person), Part VI (gifts).
*
As to the inner nature of these gifts, theologians consider them to be supernatural and permanent qualities, which make us attentive to the voice of God, which render us susceptible to the workings of actual grace, which make us love the things of God, and, consequently, render us more obedient and docile to the inspirations of the Holy Ghost*

this accident/property/characteristic “of grace” is incompatible with something that is “of works.” It can’t be both. Otherwise, grace would no longer be grace.

Which is why good works must arise FROM grace. Mere good works without God is merely philanthropy, and not done out of love for Him. So we can certainly agree that works don’t create grace, they spring from grace. That doesn’t make it incompatible with works though, as we learn in James 2
17 So also faith of itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
26 For just as a body without a spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead.

Faith moves those actions to be good, but I agree that by themselves they are nothing. We can talk more about “faith vs works” if you’d like but that could be a whole thread by itself.

I’m also relatively certain that Jesus is the only way to have your sins forgiven, and if you don’t, you suffer the consequences of sin. And like you said earlier, feelings don’t mean anything, right?

If we’re lead by feelings alone we’re led to error and selfishness (The Church won’t let me divorce? I’ll start my own church!)

Logically it makes sense that if God wants all men to be saved then He could work in ways we do not comprehend outside of the Church and without the gospel to give them the grace to go to Him. If they continue to reject Him then they gave up whatever chance they were given. Jesus is the way to salvation, but can you be certain that He is not with them at all?

Believe that they’re damned if you “want” (you don’t want to but you seem to indicate you must because there’s no other way for them). The least I can do is pray that they can find salvation and that He will provide the way for those who don’t reject Him. God is Mercy and I trust that fact, so let His will be done.

So what do you do with high-profile Protestants who understand both Protestantism and Roman Catholicism better than you and I put together yet choose to remain Protestants? I’m talking about people at the highest levels.

All the knowledge in the world is worth nothing (the flesh avails nothing, meaning man alone). They could know by heart every last dot of every document ever written about Christianity and that would mean nothing. As I quoted earlier, “no one comes to the Father, but by me” (John 14:6)

Just as I’ve come to realize so many things of my faith, and many others who at one point come to see “how did I ever miss THAT?”, I think that those protestants, geniuses or otherwise are still a “work in progress” (as we all are). The Holy Spirit will work in them and eventually lead them to the truth if they accept, so I don’t presume they won’t be saved. They’re simply just not there yet.

…continued…

 

[Liraco]

And all people are sinners; they always will be. Some people, however, are redeemed sinners while others are not.

Exactly. Which ties in to the next bit:

Working out your salvation does not mean you are supposed to earn something you already have. Doesn’t mean I’m not doing anything over here, though.

So then you ARE doing something, same as me. It almost seems like the hangup lies on the term “work” and what it means. What I’m basically saying actually reflects some of what you hold on lordship salvation: “It must be renewed every day in many acts of trust and obedience.” (your own link).

You don’t like that particular understanding of the perseverance of the saints.

I’m not sure I understand it from your perspective. The site you link to seems to have a contradiction between the elect being saved in the end no matter what and still having free will. Perhaps this ties in to the following part though.

Quick question though: do you believe that people are predestined to damnation?

I’m not one of the Free Grace folks. People like me prefer to use the term attached to the P at the end of TULIP, and when it’s used in more of a (imo) disciplined way

I didn’t know about TULIP before. Interesting read. Didn’t know about all the different accepted Catholic teachings one can hold that are mentioned in there.

So do you hold that: “No matter what trials they face, they will always persevere, so their salvation is eternally secure.” and that “if one habitually commits [mortal] sins, he was never a true Christian, no matter how sincere he appeared”? Just curious to know to better understand what you hold on predestination.

As mentioned in the article, Catholic theology has defined “predestined” to mean “predestined to final salvation.”… There is no reason why a person cannot be predestined to “believe for a while” but “in time of temptation fall away” (Luke 8:13). (meaning salvation can be lost, this under the section of “perseverance” linked above).

The Catholic Church formally teaches that there is a gift of final perseverance, so I’d like to understand your take on it as there’s many similarities.

You know how the Mediatrix/Co-Redemptrix things aren’t doctrines? Not every Catholic believes them, and no Catholic feels that they have to put the full measure of their faith in them. When the other four Marian dogmas were just like that, that’s exactly how it was with them, too. And for some of them, it wasn’t really so long ago. You know that even better than I do; there’s a chance you remember Vatican II.

I’m not old enough to know the transition, and as I’ve stated before, I’m even “younger” in my knowledge. I do see why those titles can be cause for trouble.

Mary as Mediatrix IS a doctrine. Perhaps you’re confused between dogma and doctrine:
Doctrine is Church teaching in all of its forms.
A dogma is a doctrine that has been expressly taught by the magisterium––either by conciliar or papal definition––to have been divinely revealed and contained in the Word of God, therefore requiring the belief of all Catholics.

The wise reasons for these Marian doctrines to not be made dogmas in their current state are made apparent in reactions such as yours. That’s because the “titles, as proposed, are ambiguous, as they can be understood in very different ways”.

I’d assume you believe we’re taking emphasis away from Christ and/or giving Mary something that is only His. Am I correct?

-Brief piece on the title here.
-“Making peace with the Mediatrix”

---

BTW, I did not read this then but I pray for you daily so I’ll add that intention now.

 

[Liraco]

I’ve been thinking about what I should ask on veneration.

Interesting to see you said “venerate something”. If it really were to the object alone, that’d be idolatry. Perhaps you’re thinking of when people are before an image of a saint, but even then we don’t honor those statues. All those amount to are “visual aids”. Just like it’s easier to remember a loved one by seeing their picture, the representation makes it easier to recall their lives.

Before posting that you might want to read this if you for more.

On the subject of MRIs, that’d be interesting to see.

it’s not like John actually saw Mary in heaven. He saw an image of a woman that could potentially represent Mary, and she does a variety of things that are clearly not done in heaven.

You hit the nail on the head. Revelation is not literal in that sense, and there’s a lot of meaning behind what it says (like the types the woman represents even if you don’t agree with all of them). The woman could represent Mary but not her alone. There’s many layers to it, and I do not pretend to know most of it.

I recently heard the interesting take Jimmy Akin has on Revelation and on where we seem to be in it based on his extensive study of it (though the explanation is obviously not extensive because that could be a whole show by itself). If you’re interested I’ll get the show linked.

I also know there are arguments against taking Marian imagery to this kind of extent. I should know just a bit more within the next 12 hours.

Sundays are nice, by the way. I like them.

Again, I understand the reasoning for “this kind of extent”, but in the proper context I haven’t seen the issue of Mary in revelation get taken too far. Sometimes though, it seems that some protestants are just afraid to acknowledge Mary at all (only doing so in Christmas cuz they kind of have to for the incarnation and that’s the extent of their “calling her blessed”.)

Sundays are very nice indeed. Is that when you go study? Hopefully you now know more but I’m sure you’ll still be needing a lot more time (but don’t we all?).

In Mary’s case, she wasn’t in a position of merely knowing about it. She was a practicing Jew. I suppose she could have chosen not to be a practicing Jew/Jewess in every sense of the word, but it was strongly expected of her.

As I said in my first reply today, Mary would have actually been committing sin by not doing the ritual. No one was ever exempt from it. As you said yourself, she wouldn’t have that “luxury”. Just as Jesus set a good example in doing things He didn’t have to, Mary also obeyed the law in humility to uphold a good example. Not being a good practicing Jew back then would qualify as a bad example.

Also, I don’t think she would have been ignorant of the fact she didn’t commit sin, but your post led to an interesting hypothetical “alternative”.

I don’t actually think everything has to be supported by a direct quote from Scripture- though I do believe all doctrines must be found there logically. (That, by the way, is Sola Scriptura in a nutshell). I really don’t think it’s that far off from what you believe.

Nice to know, except that in our case we also have Sacred Tradition to help out. I don’t know (I’m certainly no expert) but I’m pretty sure all defined dogmas have some foundation in scripture (or at least can use it to show there’s nothing to oppose it and prove it as “unbiblical”).

I never really thought about it this way before, but it just occurred to me- maybe that’s why there’s no fifth Marian dogma. Maybe it’s because those things can’t be found logically within Scripture while the first four can. Do you think that’s part of the thought process for the cardinals who decide these things?

I already took that in my previous answers from today. Again, it IS a doctrine but not yet a dogma. It’s not because there’s nothing “logical” about it or that scripture is against it, the problem right now seems to come down to it not yet being clear enough to be definable as a dogma. A title like mediatrix or co-redemptrix is very open to being misinterpreted (as we can see in these forums and elsewhere), so it’ll certainly require further clarification. These things can’t be rushed but I’m sure they’ll work on defining this further as it’s now become a more common objection and source of confusion.

 

[steadfast7]

Interesting to see you said “venerate something”. If it really were to the object alone, that’d be idolatry. Perhaps you’re thinking of when people are before an image of a saint, but even then we don’t honor those statues. All those amount to are “visual aids”. Just like it’s easier to remember a loved one by seeing their picture, the representation makes it easier to recall their lives.

Before posting that you might want to read this if you for more.

On the subject of MRIs, that’d be interesting to see.

You hit the nail on the head. Revelation is not literal in that sense, and there’s a lot of meaning behind what it says (like the types the woman represents even if you don’t agree with all of them). The woman could represent Mary but not her alone. There’s many layers to it, and I do not pretend to know most of it.

I recently heard the interesting take Jimmy Akin has on Revelation and on where we seem to be in it based on his extensive study of it (though the explanation is obviously not extensive because that could be a whole show by itself). If you’re interested I’ll get the show linked.

Again, I understand the reasoning for “this kind of extent”, but in the proper context I haven’t seen the issue of Mary in revelation get taken too far. Sometimes though, it seems that some protestants are just afraid to acknowledge Mary at all (only doing so in Christmas cuz they kind of have to for the incarnation and that’s the extent of their “calling her blessed”.)

Sundays are very nice indeed. Is that when you go study? Hopefully you now know more but I’m sure you’ll still be needing a lot more time (but don’t we all?).

As I said in my first reply today, Mary would have actually been committing sin by not doing the ritual. No one was ever exempt from it. As you said yourself, she wouldn’t have that “luxury”. Just as Jesus set a good example in doing things He didn’t have to, Mary also obeyed the law in humility to uphold a good example. Not being a good practicing Jew back then would qualify as a bad example.

Also, I don’t think she would have been ignorant of the fact she didn’t commit sin, but your post led to an interesting hypothetical “alternative”.

Nice to know, except that in our case we also have Sacred Tradition to help out. I don’t know (I’m certainly no expert) but I’m pretty sure all defined dogmas have some foundation in scripture (or at least can use it to show there’s nothing to oppose it and prove it as “unbiblical”).

I already took that in my previous answers from today. Again, it IS a doctrine but not yet a dogma. It’s not because there’s nothing “logical” about it or that scripture is against it, the problem right now seems to come down to it not yet being clear enough to be definable as a dogma. A title like mediatrix or co-redemptrix is very open to being misinterpreted (as we can see in these forums and elsewhere), so it’ll certainly require further clarification. These things can’t be rushed but I’m sure they’ll work on defining this further as it’s now become a more common objection and source of confusion.

 

[steadfast7]

Hi all,

I’ve been trying to slog through the pages of this thread, got about half way through. I just got to anxious to be a part of the discussion. Not sure if my points have already been dealt with and put to rest, if so I apologize.

1. Much debate on the translation of “κεχαριτωμενη” … what about the broader biblical use of this word and its semantic range? I argue that receiving grace, being endowed with grace, and continuing in grace is not unique to Mary alone.

Joh 1:16 And from his fullness **we have all **received, grace upon grace.
Act 6:8 And Stephen, **full of grace **and power, was doing great wonders and signs among the people.
Rom 1:5 [Jesus Christ] through whom **we have received grace **and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of his name among all the nations,
(dozens of examples of receiving grace in Romans alone)
2Co 9:8 And God is able to make **all grace abound to you, **so that having all sufficiency in all things at all times, you may abound in every good work.
1Tim 1:13,14 though formerly I was a blasphemer, persecutor, and insolent opponent. But I received mercy because I had acted ignorantly in unbelief, and the grace of our Lord **overflowed for me **with the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus.
Jam 4:6 But he gives more grace. Therefore it says, “God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble.”

there are tons of verses speaking of the fullness of grace that is ours in Christ.

Note also, phrases that may act as synonyms to being “full of grace.”

Eph 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with **every spiritual blessing **in the heavenly places
Eph 2:5-6 even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ–by grace you have been saved-- and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus,

the scripture is repleated with passages suggesting that we are full of grace, full of the spirit, seated with Christ, etc. However this does not imply our sinlessness.

1. Also, consider some other passages:

Luk 11:27-28 As he said these things, a woman in the crowd raised her voice and said to him, “Blessed is the womb that bore you, and the breasts at which you nursed!” But he said, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!”

In this instance, someone is actually paying hommage to Mary for being the bearing of Jesus. Jesus overturns this statement by taking attention off Mary and unto to those who do the will of God. Now, I don’t want to suggest too quickly that Jesus is implying that his mother does not do the will of God (although this would be the natural interpretation), but this is a very provocative statement indeed.

Mar 3:31-35 And his mother and his brothers came, and standing outside they sent to him and called him. And a crowd was sitting around him, and they said to him, “Your mother and your brothers are outside, seeking you.” And he answered them, “Who are my mother and my brothers?” And looking about at those who sat around him, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! Whoever does the will of God, he is my brother and sister and mother.”

Again, in similar fashion, people are trying to place the importance on Jesus’ family members to which Jesus responds by placing the importance on those who do the Father’s will. Such people are more important to Jesus than his blood relations … it seems.

Forgive me again if I’ve brought up issues that have already been dealt with.

cheers.