Dogmatically Defined Immaculate Conception

[Barrett]

I’ve recently had a friend challenge me with the enclyclical “Ubi Primum” written by Pope Pius IX in 1849 and that some of the statements about Mary should actually be attributed to Jesus. For example: “Her foot has crushed the head of Satan” and “God has commited to Mary the treasury of all good things, in order that everyone may know that through her are obtained every hope, every grace, and all salvation. For this is His will, that we obtain everything through Mary.”

What is a clear concise way to explain this to my evangelical friend, besides me just picking at small points to explain?

The link to where he pointed out the “contradictory” nature of the encyclical is triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/04/queen-mother.html#links

 

[dal11]

Jesus came thru Mary. Jesus is all those things. What’s the problem again?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Jesus is God. God is eternal and unchanging. Jesus came to us through Mary. . . have her tell you when He ‘stopped’ coming to us through Mary. Have her explain why He ‘changed’.

 

[SoonerServant]

He stopped when the birth stopped. Are you still coming through your mom? If so, seek immediate medical attention.

 

[LilyM]

He stopped when the birth stopped. Are you still coming through your mom? If so, seek immediate medical attention.

Yes but does your Mom still take (and deserve) at least partial credit for everything you’ve done since birth by the mere fact that she put you on this planet? I know mine does, and she still will when I’m 70 and she’s 100!

Point is, Christ is outside time. His taking on humanity, just like his death, happened both in time and outside it. That’s why the Incarnation and the Passion were both such crucial events in our redemption, and could ONLY work if they were in a sense timeless events, since they had to be sufficient to redeem people past, present and future.

So in that way he hasn’t stopped ‘coming’ to us. And Mary certainly hasn’t stopped bringing Him to us and more importantly us to Him!!!