Do we as Catholics worship Mary

[dolphinlove]

because you do. When you say ten hail Mary’s for every one Our Father (the prayer we are commanded to say) you can call it what you want, but it’s worship.

Hail Mary
Full of Grace
The Lord is with thee
Blessed art thou amongst women
And blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus

This first part is passages out of the bible. The first part is what the Angel Gabriel said to Mary when Gabriel appeared to her. The last part is what her cousin Elizabeth said to her. Now, since you are sola scripture, do you agree these lines out of the bible are to worship Mary? Your good enough to accuse us of worshiping her with lines out of the bible, you must do the same thing then?

Holy Mary, mother of God, pray for us sinners now, and at the hour of our death.
Amen

As with the rest of this, we are asking her to pray for us, there is no indication here we worship Mary.

Irenaeus was wrong, Mary is not the New Eve. She is not a prototype for perfect love, only God is perfect. She is not a mediatrix, we only have one mediator. She is not a co-redeemer, we only have one redeemer. No one sees the Father except through Christ, therefore, Mary needed saving just like we do & therefore she was a sinner like the rest of us.

The reason God chose Mary is because she was without sin.(to explain this to you if you want, start a new thread, it takes to long)

She was not a perpetual virgin (she was a virgin when she bore Jesus, but after that all indications are that she bore children). Jesus clearly had siblings.

Jesus did not have brothers. It was more than likely he had either step brothers or cousins. Mary was a virgin, how could he have full blooded brothers and sisters?

 

[thecoach]

Because somebody told them so. And the person who told them believed the person who told him, etc. So it’s really because of their faith in the traditions of men.

Non-Catholic faith in the traditions of men??? Are you serious??? This from a member of a church that equates such tradition with Scripture? And when you throw around terms like co-redemptrix, you run a very thin line between veneration and worship.

 

[sola_scriptura]

Hail Mary
Full of Grace
The Lord is with thee
Blessed art thou amongst women
And blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus

This first part is passages out of the bible. The first part is what the Angel Gabriel said to Mary when Gabriel appeared to her. The last part is what her cousin Elizabeth said to her. Now, since you are sola scripture, do you agree these lines out of the bible are to worship Mary? Your good enough to accuse us of worshiping her with lines out of the bible, you must do the same thing then?

Holy Mary, mother of God, pray for us sinners now, and at the hour of our death.
Amen

As with the rest of this, we are asking her to pray for us, there is no indication here we worship Mary.

Noah was blameless & righteous in the eyes of God, should we take verses from Genesis & make a prayer venerating Noah? Those words describing Mary were not intended as prayer (or veneration).

The reason God chose Mary is because she was without sin.(to explain this to you if you want, start a new thread, it takes to long)

It’s funny, the Catholic Church will usually say Mary needed to be saved (since Scripture clearly states no one can see the Father except through Christ). However, I guess they missed all the passages telling us what Christ saves us from?

Can you show me passages in Scripture telling us why God chose Mary? You will not find a single word or inference asserting a sinless Mary, I checked many times. Do you think God chooses anyone because they’re sinless? Might I suggest Romans 9 & Ephesians 2, for a good study on the doctrines of predestination and grace.

Jesus did not have brothers. It was more than likely he had either step brothers or cousins. Mary was a virgin, how could he have full blooded brothers and sisters?

Prove Mary was a virgin from Scripture. The Koine Greek words used clearly denote siblings not cousins. Of course they weren’t full blooded, they were half siblings.

The perpetual virgin myth has no support from Scripture.

 

[rinnie]

Noah was blameless & righteous in the eyes of God, should we take verses from Genesis & make a prayer venerating Noah? Those words describing Mary were not intended as prayer (or veneration).

It’s funny, the Catholic Church will usually say Mary needed to be saved (since Scripture clearly states no one can see the Father except through Christ). However, I guess they missed all the passages telling us what Christ saves us from?

Can you show me passages in Scripture telling us why God chose Mary? You will not find a single word or inference asserting a sinless Mary, I checked many times. Do you think God chooses anyone because they’re sinless? Might I suggest Romans 9 & Ephesians 2, for a good study on the doctrines of predestination and grace.

Prove Mary was a virgin from Scripture. The Koine Greek words used clearly denote siblings not cousins. Of course they weren’t full blooded, they were half siblings.

The perpetual virgin myth has no support from Scripture.

No one can prove anything to anyone. All we have is faith in Christ. If you go back to the beginning of this post you will have all of your quesions answered. In the Catholic faith we have oral, and written. If you really think about it before the bible we only had oral anyway. Then things were written in the bible. Everything was left to the Church. If you read the bible it tells you to listen and be faithful to the church. The bible tells you not all is written that is why we have Tradition also. So the Catholic Church is the only Church that has all three. So no matter what we say its not all written in the bible. So i can see if its not written in the bible you will not believe it anyway. As far as reading the bible we are told do not interpret it, you must have the gift of the Holy Spirit to do that, but again you see it the way you see it, so again we will not be able to ever convince you. I would suggest the best thing to do is pray for the Grace from God to help you understand what he wants you to know. And if you pray hard enough and try and study the Catholic Faith, i can promise you this one year from today you will see things in a different light. See the Catholic faith is based on exactly that Faith in Jesus Christ. You will also come back and say now I understand why you Love and ask the Blessed Mother to also pray for you, and I also understand why God choose her, and how he left her here to be an perfect example for Christian Faith. To see her son Crucified on the cross, and suffer the way he did and she did and still never say one negative thing against God, or show one doubt in him that is called perfect trust. Now that is the best proof i can give. so take the year study, get right info. And you will see the proof isnt just in the pudding the Proof is in the RCC.

 

[sola_scriptura]

No one can prove anything to anyone. All we have is faith in Christ. If you go back to the beginning of this post you will have all of your quesions answered. In the Catholic faith we have oral, and written. If you really think about it before the bible we only had oral anyway. Then things were written in the bible. Everything was left to the Church. If you read the bible it tells you to listen and be faithful to the church. The bible tells you not all is written that is why we have Tradition also. So the Catholic Church is the only Church that has all three. So no matter what we say its not all written in the bible. So i can see if its not written in the bible you will not believe it anyway. As far as reading the bible we are told do not interpret it, you must have the gift of the Holy Spirit to do that, but again you see it the way you see it, so again we will not be able to ever convince you. I would suggest the best thing to do is pray for the Grace from God to help you understand what he wants you to know. And if you pray hard enough and try and study the Catholic Faith, i can promise you this one year from today you will see things in a different light. See the Catholic faith is based on exactly that Faith in Jesus Christ. You will also come back and say now I understand why you Love and ask the Blessed Mother to also pray for you, and I also understand why God choose her, and how he left her here to be an perfect example for Christian Faith. To see her son Crucified on the cross, and suffer the way he did and she did and still never say one negative thing against God, or show one doubt in him that is called perfect trust. Now that is the best proof i can give. so take the year study, get right info. And you will see the proof isnt just in the pudding the Proof is in the RCC.

It is you who has much to learn my friend. Sadly I predict you’ll only find out at the second death.

 

[Stephen_C]

It is you who has much to learn my friend. Sadly I predict you’ll only find out at the second death.

So does Second death = Hell? Is that what you are saying?

 

[sola_scriptura]

So does Second death = Hell? Is that what you are saying?

no it doesn’t mean hell. Any student of the Bible would immediately know what this term means … so before you slam me for my own views, perhaps you might give reading Scripture a shot?

 

[dok]

Speaking with a Catholic colleague, I found myself in an odd situation as a Protestant. He had said, “I don’t understand my own religion sometimes. Why do we worship Mary?” I did my best to explain the official Catholic view that it isn’t worship in the same sense as the worship of Christ. Not sure I made much headway, and the problem is the meaning of “worship.” It’s a word in the English language and trying to give it a technical, ecclesiastical meaning is problematic. Two definitions from dictionary.com:

• to render religious reverence and homage to.
• to feel an adoring reverence or regard for (any person or thing).

Sounds to many like what Mary gets in the RC Church. If Catholics really mean to differentiate veneration of Mary from worship of Christ, I think a more serious educational effort needs to be made.

 

[Stephen_C]

no it doesn’t mean hell. Any student of the Bible would immediately know what this term means … so before you slam me for my own views, perhaps you might give reading Scripture a shot?

Just wanted clarification from you…No slam intended…

God bless,
Stephen

 

[scylla]

Why not end this thread with the answer…

What is the Catholic definition of worship? No non-catholic who accuses Catholics of worshipping Mary could answer that correctly since it would prove them to be incorrect.

So the answer is Catholics never worship Mary and the closest anyone comes to worshipping Mary is what non-catholics do when they show any love for her, since they do not worship as Catholics do. (so my premise is that only a bad Catholic or non-catholic could worship Mary)
No good Catholic could ever, it is impossible.

So we are reduced to the same accusation as always which is the only way someone can attack the Catholic Church, out of sheer hatred for truth or God and by believing lies.

No non-catholic could ever honestly disagree with the Catholic Church, only by promoting misinformation or by being mislead. There are plenty of bad Catholics to help believe the Catholic Church is wrong, but no one with a good heart ever rejects Christ honestly.

God Bless
Scylla

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I don’t know if anyone actually reads these, but I had a while to chew on this subject last night. I knew that what I did as a Christian, as a Catholic, was wholly in the right. It is my firm conviction. But I kept thinking to myself again and again, “Are there words? Or does one simply have to experience this whole thing for one’s self?”

Last night, I screwed up bigtime–as I so often do. I as a Protestant made the mistake of thinking that I needed to give God some “cool down” time before I ran to him. Not because I felt like I couldn’t go to him, but because I felt like it was hypocritical to sin knowing God’s love is endless and he’d just take me back anyway. That’s the definition of taking advantage of someone. But I, perfectionist as I am, am working on accepting grace fully.

Last night, I knelt down, and I began crying–not for “Catholic guilt,” as they say, but because I was truly sorry for my repeated offense. I… wanted forgiveness but also a desire to stop. As I knelt and cried, I suddenly realized I was praying. “Hail, Holy Queen, Mother of Mercy, our life, our sweetness and our hope. To thee do we cry…” My eyes closed, I did what I do so often: I saw myself, a little child, blood covering my hands, and Mother Mary holding me her white robes all messied by my hands. But she didn’t care… She just rocked me and wiped my tears, and smiled, saying, “Do not be afraid”, again and again. Then she set me down, took me by the hand and led me to Christ. He knelt down, eyes overflowing, just picked me up, and held me so I could hear his Heart’s beat, while our Mother just stood to his side and smiled.

I was still praying, I realized all of a sudden. “Our Father, who art in heaven…” Jesus is anything but unapproachable in my mind. He endured the Cross out of love, not dutiful obligation. When I see him in my mind’s eye, imperfect image as it is, I see him smiling, gentle, ready to take his child into his arms. So why Mary, too, then? I guess, knowing that she IS my Mother, it’s natural to see myself in her arms. I love her. I’m sorry if that’s “wrong,” but I love her and have a relationship with her–however undeveloped. And when one realizes that she knows full well that our sins crucified her only son, that we caused his agony, and yet smiles that incredible, unbelievable smile and gently whispers, “I love you,” well, that’s God’s love shining through her. In her arms, I experience the love of Christ. True Love finds its source in God, and Mary radiates with the Father’s love and compassion. She shows it to us, helps us experience it. To see her is to see in a dazzling mirror God’s mercy. **What we love in Mary, we love for it finds its origins in God the Father. **Here on earth, we experience this to a degree. We see godly people who are filled with joy and compassion and see God in them and thus begin to love them back. If Mary really is the perfect disciple, the “handmaid of the Lord” who is constantly giving her Yes to God, then it’s natural to love her–we love love, and God IS love.

It’s more than “giving credit where credit is due.” It’s seeing what we as humans have to potential to be.

Christ is always shining brilliantly in our obedience, and to encounter his love in his saints, and in the Blessed Mother in particular, is just one way of experience him. We grow to love him for it, and appreciate our extended family. To love Mary all the more, is to love Christ in her all the more.

It’s never an either/or deal. Christ or Mary. **“Wherever there is goodness–wherever there is love–that is God.” We do not fear to love the godly here on earth for their christliness, do we? Neither do Catholics fear loving the saints in heaven for theirs. **

Hope this makes sense.

Peace

 

[sola_scriptura]

Why not end this thread with the answer…

What is the Catholic definition of worship? No non-catholic who accuses Catholics of worshipping Mary could answer that correctly since it would prove them to be incorrect.

So the answer is Catholics never worship Mary and the closest anyone comes to worshipping Mary is what non-catholics do when they show any love for her, since they do not worship as Catholics do. (so my premise is that only a bad Catholic or non-catholic could worship Mary)
No good Catholic could ever, it is impossible.

So we are reduced to the same accusation as always which is the only way someone can attack the Catholic Church, out of sheer hatred for truth or God and by believing lies.

No non-catholic could ever honestly disagree with the Catholic Church, only by promoting misinformation or by being mislead. There are plenty of bad Catholics to help believe the Catholic Church is wrong, but no one with a good heart ever rejects Christ honestly.

God Bless
Scylla

The bottom line is Marian theology as presented by the RCC is wrought from poor exegesis. Hey, no one is perfect right? Well except God, right? Ahh, herein lies the paradox, in the RCC view no one is perfect unless you’re God or of course the Pope (at least in terms of dogma and doctrine).

So when a Pope utters a sentence it becomes impossible to redact, or else the whole house of cards comes tumbling down. Here’s some exegesis, a little more on point:

We know Mary needed saving because no one sees the Father except through Christ (with no exceptions) – even Catholic dogma does not deny this. Somehow this fact isn’t followed to its logical conclusion. That is, what do we need saving from? The answer of course is sin.

So then what should be the role of Mary? If it is partner then is that role more analogous to the mother of David, the queen mother of Israel? Or as partner to Christ as Eve was to Adam? There’s a marked difference between these two depictions. The first keeps the role of Mary in a temporal context, while the latter creates a role as a mediatrix or co-redeemer. Drawing a parallel between Mary and the mother of David negates the idea queen of heaven, while the depiction Mary, as the New Eve does not.

Look at 1 Timothy 2:8-15. The split we see here is that no longer is the woman saved by her connection to the man, but rather through child rearing. No longer can her relevance be framed as bride, but as mother (in the economy of salvation). Adam allowed himself to be swayed by the woman, while Christ overcame the infirmities of the flesh inherited by his mother. When we keep the focus on Christ as sole redeemer the exegesis is clear. Mary describes herself as a bondservant, a depiction formerly associated with Hagar. Elizabeth is old and barren (as was Sarah) but still becomes pregnant with John the Baptist (the new Elijah). So the typology of Mary as Eve, and helper is fallacious. Rather the proper role of Mary is as bondservant. This role negates any notion of mediatrix or co-redeemer when understood properly.

Another important fact is why Mary was in a unique position to mother the Messiah. Joseph enjoyed kinship in the Davidic line, however, he was a descendant of Jehoiakim (who was a king of Israel cursed by God for burning a scroll written by Jeremiah). The curse was that none of his children would sit on the throne of David. Mary was also a descendant of David; however, legal title passes through the line of the father, while blood relation is passed down maternally (under Jewish law). So we see the uniqueness of the marriage between Joseph and Mary, which of course was a divine design. Joseph could pass legal title to the throne of David, but due to the curse could not pass blood title. Mary could offer blood lineage but could not pass legal title.

Through Mary Jesus inherited a blood or “flesh” identity as Israel. Jesus embodied both Israel of the flesh and Israel of the promise (as fulfillment of that promise). He came to make the two one by destroying with His flesh the law (a sign of the Old Covenant). We learn this in Ephesians 2:14-15. Making from the two one new man (referring to Jacob & Esau, as representative of the Israel of the flesh & of the promise). The older shall serve the younger (see Romans 9:12, Genesis 25:23).

When we look at Rev. 12 we see the same dichotomy. In Rev. 12:1 we see “the woman” (Mary) clothed with the sun . . . and a crown of twelve stars on her head (representing the twelve tribes of Israel). Now turn to Rev. 21:23, the “city” (who Paul at Galatians 4:26 describes as “our mother”) does not need the sun or the moon to shine on it, because it is illuminated by the glory of God. The city (the New Jerusalem) is also depicted as the “bride of the Lamb” in Rev. 21:9 (of course the Lamb is Christ).

Here we see the disengagement between the “Israel of the promise” and the “Israel of the flesh.” The bondservant, Mary, as Hagar represents the children of the flesh. She is depicted as a queen mother, however, her queenship is not of heaven, but rather of Israel. Not Israel of the promise, but rather Israel of the flesh (as was the mother of king David).

We see further evidence of this distinction in Galatians 4. When Paul describes Christ as the “New Adam” he is referring to the resurrected Christ (see 1 Corinthians 15:45). Mary just as the Apostles failed to understand the constant references Christ made to His impending death and resurrection until He was actually resurrected. As it tells us in Matthew 12, it is not Jesus’ earthly family who will counted as His mother, brothers, or sisters; but rather the faithful, yet another indication of the disengagement I’m referring to. We also see this at the wedding ceremony in Cana, where Mary is concerned with the temporal needs of the wedding guests for more wine, while Christ is concerned with something completely different.

What happens when we juxtapose the role of Mary into a “queen of heaven”? Check out Jeremiah 7:18.

 

[thecoach]

The bottom line is Marian theology as presented by the RCC is wrought from poor exegesis. Hey, no one is perfect right? Well except God, right? Ahh, herein lies the paradox, in the RCC view no one is perfect unless you’re God or of course the Pope (at least in terms of dogma and doctrine).

So when a Pope utters a sentence it becomes impossible to redact, or else the whole house of cards comes tumbling down. Here’s some exegesis, a little more on point:

We know Mary needed saving because no one sees the Father except through Christ (with no exceptions) – even Catholic dogma does not deny this. Somehow this fact isn’t followed to its logical conclusion. That is, what do we need saving from? The answer of course is sin.

So then what should be the role of Mary? If it is partner then is that role more analogous to the mother of David, the queen mother of Israel? Or as partner to Christ as Eve was to Adam? There’s a marked difference between these two depictions. The first keeps the role of Mary in a temporal context, while the latter creates a role as a mediatrix or co-redeemer. Drawing a parallel between Mary and the mother of David negates the idea queen of heaven, while the depiction Mary, as the New Eve does not.

Look at 1 Timothy 2:8-15. The split we see here is that no longer is the woman saved by her connection to the man, but rather through child rearing. No longer can her relevance be framed as bride, but as mother (in the economy of salvation). Adam allowed himself to be swayed by the woman, while Christ overcame the infirmities of the flesh inherited by his mother. When we keep the focus on Christ as sole redeemer the exegesis is clear. Mary describes herself as a bondservant, a depiction formerly associated with Hagar. Elizabeth is old and barren (as was Sarah) but still becomes pregnant with John the Baptist (the new Elijah). So the typology of Mary as Eve, and helper is fallacious. Rather the proper role of Mary is as bondservant. This role negates any notion of mediatrix or co-redeemer when understood properly.

Another important fact is why Mary was in a unique position to mother the Messiah. Joseph enjoyed kinship in the Davidic line, however, he was a descendant of Jehoiakim (who was a king of Israel cursed by God for burning a scroll written by Jeremiah). The curse was that none of his children would sit on the throne of David. Mary was also a descendant of David; however, legal title passes through the line of the father, while blood relation is passed down maternally (under Jewish law). So we see the uniqueness of the marriage between Joseph and Mary, which of course was a divine design. Joseph could pass legal title to the throne of David, but due to the curse could not pass blood title. Mary could offer blood lineage but could not pass legal title.

Through Mary Jesus inherited a blood or “flesh” identity as Israel. Jesus embodied both Israel of the flesh and Israel of the promise (as fulfillment of that promise). He came to make the two one by destroying with His flesh the law (a sign of the Old Covenant). We learn this in Ephesians 2:14-15. Making from the two one new man (referring to Jacob & Esau, as representative of the Israel of the flesh & of the promise). The older shall serve the younger (see Romans 9:12, Genesis 25:23).

When we look at Rev. 12 we see the same dichotomy. In Rev. 12:1 we see “the woman” (Mary) clothed with the sun . . . and a crown of twelve stars on her head (representing the twelve tribes of Israel). Now turn to Rev. 21:23, the “city” (who Paul at Galatians 4:26 describes as “our mother”) does not need the sun or the moon to shine on it, because it is illuminated by the glory of God. The city (the New Jerusalem) is also depicted as the “bride of the Lamb” in Rev. 21:9 (of course the Lamb is Christ).

Here we see the disengagement between the “Israel of the promise” and the “Israel of the flesh.” The bondservant, Mary, as Hagar represents the children of the flesh. She is depicted as a queen mother, however, her queenship is not of heaven, but rather of Israel. Not Israel of the promise, but rather Israel of the flesh (as was the mother of king David).

We see further evidence of this distinction in Galatians 4. When Paul describes Christ as the “New Adam” he is referring to the resurrected Christ (see 1 Corinthians 15:45). Mary just as the Apostles failed to understand the constant references Christ made to His impending death and resurrection until He was actually resurrected. As it tells us in Matthew 12, it is not Jesus’ earthly family who will counted as His mother, brothers, or sisters; but rather the faithful, yet another indication of the disengagement I’m referring to. We also see this at the wedding ceremony in Cana, where Mary is concerned with the temporal needs of the wedding guests for more wine, while Christ is concerned with something completely different.

What happens when we juxtapose the role of Mary into a “queen of heaven”? Check out Jeremiah 7:18.

Well done!!!

 

[rinnie]

It is you who has much to learn my friend. Sadly I predict you’ll only find out at the second death.

See in my religion there is no such thing as death. Jesus took away death. When I leave this world I will go to the next world the one Jesus promised me. When Jesus died on the cross and rose again he proved there is no death. So i have no idea what you are talking about a second death. But what I have to learn I will learn from the Pope who is who Jesus left the Church too. In my religion we are not to listen to People who predict only God can predict. But I am sorry if i upset you, but all I said is if you want to learn the Catholic Religion you are welcome to do that. Then when you understand it and really know what it is about then you can make your comment. But it is not fair to pass judgement when you do not even understand the faith,

 

[sola_scriptura]

See in my religion there is no such thing as death. Jesus took away death. When I leave this world I will go to the next world the one Jesus promised me. When Jesus died on the cross and rose again he proved there is no death. So i have no idea what you are talking about a second death. But what I have to learn I will learn from the Pope who is who Jesus left the Church too. In my religion we are not to listen to People who predict only God can predict. But I am sorry if i upset you, but all I said is if you want to learn the Catholic Religion you are welcome to do that. Then when you understand it and really know what it is about then you can make your comment. But it is not fair to pass judgement when you do not even understand the faith,

Does “your religion” include the Book of Revelation? If it does might I suggest you give a read – check out chap. 20.

 

[sola_scriptura]

Well done!!!

thanks!

 

[MDK]

Well done!!!

By agreeing with that post, you’ve showed a great amount of ignorance. Anyone can make a straw man with false arguments and knock it down. Are you in any way concerned with bearing false witness…, because you have done so.

 

[MDK]

We know Mary needed saving because no one sees the Father except through Christ (with no exceptions) – even Catholic dogma does not deny this. Somehow this fact isn’t followed to its logical conclusion. That is, what do we need saving from? The answer of course is sin.

If one was in a hole, one would be saved by being pulled out. One could also be saved from falling into the hole by being pushed aside before they fell in.

 

[MDK]

What happens when we juxtapose the role of Mary into a “queen of heaven”? Check out Jeremiah 7:18.

Another of the dangers of do-it-yourself salvation, by interpreting any way you want, instead of how it was intended.

Just as there were false gods being worshiped, there were those who falsely claimed to be the Messiah, there was a false queen of heaven. The false queen of heaven was actually the moon, which they worshiped under that name. God was opposed to all of these.

We know there is a true God, there is a true Messiah, and a true Queen of Heaven. Are you certain that God disapproves of any of these?

 

[Goth_Catholic]

because you do.
God, I’m so not in the mood for this.

When you say ten hail Mary’s for every one Our Father (the prayer we are commanded to say) you can call it what you want, but it’s worship.
Dulia, is veneration for the saints, Hyperdulia, is the veneration reserved for Mary alone, Latria, is the worship of God. You protestants constantly confuse Dulia and Hyperdulia with Latria.
Irenaeus was wrong, Mary is not the New Eve.
And you have the authority to declare Irenaeus wrong, I assume?
She is not a prototype for perfect love, only God is perfect. She is not a mediatrix, we only have one mediator. She is not a co-redeemer, we only have one redeemer.
And by what authority do you declare this?
No one sees the Father except through Christ, therefore, Mary needed saving just like we do & therefore she was a sinner like the rest of us.
God saved her at the moment of conception.
She was not a perpetual virgin (she was a virgin when she bore Jesus, but after that all indications are that she bore children). Jesus clearly had siblings.
Wrong. Greek does not have a word to differeniate between step brother/half brother/ and full brother, and more so the gospel writers make a point of always saying “His mother and his brothers” so to assoicate them with Jesus but not with Mary.

The blessed mother is indeed worthy of the highest respect. She is blessed among women, but not a fourth member of the trinity?
And we don’t make her the fouth member.
She is not the queen of heaven.
Third time i ask you, by what authority do you declare this?
A “type” for the church, perhaps (I think this is supportable; but you guys have dug yourselves into a view of Mariology that is too easy to pick apart).

peace,
sola_scriptura

:banghead: