Having a personal relationship with Mary

[Byzantine_Wolf]

If you notice they become irritated maybe it is because the question may be laced with the insinuation that one should not be praying to Mary.

Well…you shouldn’t, but that leads to other discussions.

Even your statement infers that Catholic put more importance to Mary than Jesus. This accusation may upset Catholics because it is not true.

My statement was that “some (though not all) people on CAF” do that. I wasn’t speaking about Catholics in general, I was speaking about a select group of people on an internet forum. I used very specific language to make sure it was not taken the way you said it. Quite frankly, when a carefully clarified statement is taken out of context that way, it’s only a further sign that some people here overreact.

 

[Reuben_J]

Well…you shouldn’t, but that leads to other discussions.

My statement was that “some (though not all) people on CAF” do that. I wasn’t speaking about Catholics in general, I was speaking about a select group of people on an internet forum. I used very specific language to make sure it was not taken the way you said it. Quite frankly, when a carefully clarified statement is taken out of context that way, it’s only a further sign that some people here overreact.

Otherwise I can’t see why Catholics should be irritated. It’s not like they’re irrational time bombs waiting to be detonated. But it is true that there is unfair and untruthful accusation about Mary in the Catholic Church - it is difficult to be indifference in this instance.

As for the first part of your post - Catholics are very passionate, convinced and convicted that we can ask Mary to intercede. You can expect them to fight tooth and nail to defend this belief and they are not shying away from a debate on this subject - which is one of their cores belief.

Hope that explains your experience with them and understand why there can be very lengthy discussion on this topic.

 

[JustaServant]

True .You do not hear that much anymore - devout-devoted .However,evangelicalism is correct to keep first things first .First you must be born again ,that is have a personal ,saving experience with the Savior, where you are a new creature .Now it is this new creature that must decide how devoted they will be to His calling .We must be careful NOT to ask or encourage one to be devoted ,when they have NOT been born again .That is burdensome religion…I would not ask if you have a personal relationship with your wife, but I would ask if you are married,and if you say yes , then I can encourage and admonish your devotion to your spouse.

Well that opens up another issue, and we don’t want to derail the thread.
I am not saying people stop using the words ‘personal relationship’, I understand where evangelicals are coming from when they say that and Catholics should always answer YES when asked if we have a ‘personal relationship with Christ’. It’s simply that the word usage is rather childish, and people who are not christians at all become very confused when asked the question.

 

[Reuben_J]

Interesting .though the few scriptures I looked up lists both father and mother.The mother is “mother” not queen. Indeed in oriental culture ,because of many wives ,the mother because of her “stability” of position, had more authority than wives of the king. Israel was influenced by her neighbors, but not always with God’s condoning.

Your belief no doubt does influence your understanding of the Bible and vice-versa you can say that for me too. Funny how we can see things differently from the same Bible.

I don’t know which Bible College you went to but I am not surprise if these institutions teach according to their doctrines.

KJB (I am quoting a major Protestant Bible to avoid being baised) has this to say where queen mother is clearly implied:

2 Chronicles 15:16
And also concerning Maachah the mother of Asa the king, he removed her from being queen, because she had made an idol in a grove: and Asa cut down her idol, and stamped it, and burnt it at the brook Kidron.

1 Kings 15:13
And also Maachah his mother, even her he removed from being queen, because she had made an idol in a grove; and Asa destroyed her idol, and burnt it by the brook Kidron.

The NIV is even more explicit:

Kings 15:13
He even deposed his grandmother Maacah from her position as queen mother, because she had made a repulsive Asherah pole. Asa cut the pole down and burned it in the Kidron Valley.

2 Kings 10:13
he met some relatives of Ahaziah king of Judah and asked, “Who are you?” They said, “We are relatives of Ahaziah, and we have come down to greet the families of the king and of the queen mother.”

2 Chronicles 15:16
King Asa also deposed his grandmother Maacah from her position as queen mother, because she had made a repulsive Asherah pole. Asa cut the pole down, broke it up and burned it in the Kidron Valley.

Jeremiah 13:18
Say to the king and to the queen mother, “Come down from your thrones, for your glorious crowns will fall from your heads.”

Jeremiah 29:2
(This was after King Jehoiachin and the queen mother, the court officials and the leaders of Judah and Jerusalem, the craftsmen and the artisans had gone into exile from Jerusalem.)

Lineage of both parents was important ,biblically to show Davidic line to messiah ,hence both Joseph and Mary have their Davidic lineage .I am just not so sure it was but for the messiah’s lineage and not because of … "queenhood’… The biblical fact is Jesus is King of Kings .We are His Bride .Jesus is not oriental, does not have more than one bride ,therefore ,in a more traditional sense ,we are His “Queen”…

I am not sure which denomination you come from but if you don’t believe that the Messiah should come from the Davidic line then you are quite different from many other Christians. And I am not just talking about Catholics.

As far as having relationships ,you bet bet we need them all . However , you can"t get much better than having an “in” with the groom, but if some prefer the “mother-in-law”, well then what does that say about you and your groom ?

It does not mean that we don’t have a relationship with Christ. There is no reason why we should not have a relationship with his mother either. The former – we do, even though we may express it differently. The latter, why shouldn’t we, even if the relationship can’t compare with that of Jesus?

 

[KathleenGee]

I think people excluding Mary and the communion of saints drawing from the tradition of faith, of living out a more sanctified life, do not realize the spiritual depth we Catholics have.

Ask any Catholic if they worship Mary, of course they will say no.

It is looking at the surface of our faith and coming across countless tracts and ministers who tell you we are part of a man made contrived religion. If it were man made, I would have left a long time ago.

If I were to lose my Catholic faith, I would just stay home. The protestant churches do not have the Eucharist (Christ), and the universal understanding of the Word of God, Jesus Christ the Word.

So essentially, I would not join a Protestant church, not because they Mary or the saints, but because they do not give me enough of Christ.

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

Otherwise I can’t see why Catholics should be irritated. It’s not like they’re irrational time bombs waiting to be detonated. But it is true that there is unfair and untruthful accusation about Mary in the Catholic Church - it is difficult to be indifference in this instance.

And it is likewise true that there are some Roman Catholics (again, note the distinction) who cannot prioritize. Just as there are others in most faiths/denominations.

But that was my only point to bring up.

 

[lil_flower_luv]

At any rate we were commenting on your statement that Jesus Gave us all Mary to take care of. I am merely using your method of interpretation to other scriptures, which I take you did not like.You like separation of "powers " so to speak-like the priest up there(altar) or in there(confessional) with something between us,a bit like the old testament ,where only the priest can go into the holy of holies. Priest is used a thousand times in the O.T. yet only a handful in the new ,and to say we are all priests. Just because it has been abused( a thousand translations) does not mean it is not true. A magisterium may fix that but create other problems if it ask you to abdicate your priesthood ,your first-class priesthood that the bible says you can have , if you so desire His fullness. Again ,your little jab is well taken , you are off the hook of responsibility to any truth I was trying to allude to.

*I *am not the one interpreting the scriptures. The Church is.

Jesus prayed that His followers might become one (Jn 17:20-21), so how can that happen if we’re all translating His Word to our liking? The Magisterium is the Divine Teacher Himself who is not capable of fallibility.

I always hear in Catholic circles people angry at the Protestant desire to have a “personal relationship with Jesus” but why is it ok to have a “personal relationship with Mary?”

Are you kidding me? We WANT protestants to have a more personal relationship with Jesus. They choose not to because they deny His Real Presence in the Eucharist. What’s more personal than that?

The apostle John was the only apostle who stood there by the foot of the cross, and who would have been able to taken care of the Virgin Mary. For his faith, John was given the trust to take care of the Virgin Mary as his own mother. I recognize that in the Roman Catholic Church it is believed she remained a virgin - then she would not have had any direct children of her own to take care of her after Christ passed away (and later ascended to heaven). Using this standard, John was chosen to take care of her as an adopted mother.

However, the placing of the statement is nonsensical, in my honest opinion. I have a feeling we would be having this conversation even if Christ gave the Virgin Mary to the apostle in John 1:1.

Thank you for answering my question
Do you believe Mary is Ever-Virgin?

The placing of Jesus’ statement means so much! He entrusted His Mother to us as He was dying on the Cross. I believe a saint put it better than I ever will:
“Jesus Christ, after having given us all he could give, that is to say, the merit of his toils, his sufferings, and bitter death; after having given us his adorable body and blood to be the food of our souls, willed also to give us the most precious thing he had left, which was his holy Mother.” ~Saint John Marie Vianney
Our Lord has given His Mother to us for our own soul’s benefit. To be drawn closer to Him. That is the only purpose. Not to be worshiped. Or praised. But to honored as His Mother, and our own heavenly Mother. Who did we go to when we scraped our knee as a child? Who do we still go to when something tragic happens in our life? Our Mother. As much as we understand and know our own mother’s role in our physical and emotional life, then we can grasp the role of Mother Mary in our spiritual life.
*
“Mary is the Mother of Jesus and the Mother of all of us even though it was Christ alone who reposed on her knees . . . If he is ours, we ought to be in his situation; there where he is, we ought also to be and all that he has ought to be ours, and his mother is also our mother.”* ~Martin Luther (Sermon, Christmas, 1529)

Because nowhere in scripture is that title ever given to her, nor does any New Testament writer ever speak to her of such a way. Likewise, in the context of which we are speaking, that one passage in John does not confirm it, neither in plain language or context.

You replied to yourself here,

That’s why I’m not a Roman Catholic.

 

[david_ruiz]

*I *),?

The Magisterium is the Divine Teacher Himself who is not capable of fallibility.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

No I’m not kidding you. The idea of a “personal” relationship with Christ has been criticized, mocked, and chided in CAF for years and in other Catholic media. Catholics tend to look at the corporate aspect of the relationship with Christ, not a personal one, from my experience. The Eucharist is not a solo thing, but the ultimate sign of unity and cohesion with the Church and one another, not personal. And with confession we are sinners who have taken good out of the Church and harmed the Body of Christ. Hence the absolution and penance.

Are you kidding me? We WANT protestants to have a more personal relationship with Jesus. They choose not to because they deny His Real Presence in the Eucharist. What’s more personal than that?

 

[KathleenGee]

Guerny,

I don’t know how old you are, but in the USA, the faith of the Catholic was ghetto. Vatican II brought us out of the ghetto.

 

[lil_flower_luv]

No I’m not kidding you. The idea of a “personal” relationship with Christ has been criticized, mocked, and chided in CAF for years and in other Catholic media. Catholics tend to look at the corporate aspect of the relationship with Christ, not a personal one, from my experience. The Eucharist is not a solo thing, but the ultimate sign of unity and cohesion with the Church and one another, not personal. And with confession we are sinners who have taken good out of the Church and harmed the Body of Christ. Hence the absolution and penance.

You’ve made good points. Unity in the Church is beautiful, as well as important. But I think you’re generalizing a bit here, GH. Why would any Catholic criticize the idea of having a personal relationship with Christ when we ourselves must desire one? I don’t understand.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I’m personally not generalizing, lil, I’m not even telling you that that’s how I personally feel. I’m telling you that’s how a lot of Catholics feel here. Just search through CAF through the search feature, go back and read some of the stuff I’ve read about it. I personally believe that the Catholic DOES have a personal and a corporate relationship with Christ. The personal comes through private prayer, devotionals, sacramentals, confession, and Eucharist. But the confessional and Eucharist also link us up with the collective (to employ a Star Trek borg term ) with the rest of the Catholics around us in a sign of unity. And in the confessional I try to confess and atone for the damage I’ve done to Mother Church, the goodness I’ve robbed from her. My prayers, thoughts, devotionals and heart are in a personal relationship with Christ but through the sacraments and liturgy, etc. I share Him with others. It’s not an either-or but both kind of thing. So this is NOT my opinion that we don’t have a personal relationship. I’m saying that I’ve observed many Catholics who have that opinion. Big difference.

Blessings to you!

You’ve made good points. Unity in the Church is beautiful, as well as important. But I think you’re generalizing a bit here, GH. Why would any Catholic criticize the idea of having a personal relationship with Christ when we ourselves must desire one? I don’t understand.

 

[lil_flower_luv]

I personally believe that the Catholic DOES have a personal and a corporate relationship with Christ. The personal comes through private prayer, devotionals, sacramentals, confession, and Eucharist. But the confessional and Eucharist also link us up with the collective (to employ a Star Trek borg term ) with the rest of the Catholics around us in a sign of unity. And in the confessional I try to confess and atone for the damage I’ve done to Mother Church, the goodness I’ve robbed from her. My prayers, thoughts, devotionals and heart are in a personal relationship with Christ but through the sacraments and liturgy, etc. I share Him with others. It’s not an either-or but both kind of thing.

Very well put. I agree with you!

I’m personally not generalizing, lil, I’m not even telling you that that’s how I personally feel. I’m telling you that’s how a lot of Catholics feel here. Just search through CAF through the search feature, go back and read some of the stuff I’ve read about it.

So this is NOT my opinion that we don’t have a personal relationship. I’m saying that I’ve observed many Catholics who have that opinion. Big difference.

Blessings to you!

Hm, I wonder why I’ve never heard this before! Thank you, though. God Bless you.

 

[Dokimas]

Yesterday on EWTN radio there was a commentary in which the speaker talked about the value of having a personal relationship with Mary. I guess I had never considered my requests for Mary’s intercession as developing a personal relationship with her – I had always reserved that for Christ. I think the commentary was done by Cardinal Rigali. As a Mormon I didn’t even think about having a personal relationship with Jesus – that was something I wanted to develop with the Father through Jesus. Is that the same way we Catholics normally would look at our relationship with Mary?

IMO, Mary would respond ‘there’s is ONLY one mediator between us and our God and this Person in always praying for us, it’s Jesus. Don’t consider a personal relationship with me; only concern yourself with a relationship with Jesus.’

 

[Reuben_J]

I’m personally not generalizing, lil, I’m not even telling you that that’s how I personally feel. I’m telling you that’s how a lot of Catholics feel here. Just search through CAF through the search feature, go back and read some of the stuff I’ve read about it. I personally believe that the Catholic DOES have a personal and a corporate relationship with Christ. The personal comes through private prayer, devotionals, sacramentals, confession, and Eucharist. But the confessional and Eucharist also link us up with the collective (to employ a Star Trek borg term ) with the rest of the Catholics around us in a sign of unity. And in the confessional I try to confess and atone for the damage I’ve done to Mother Church, the goodness I’ve robbed from her. My prayers, thoughts, devotionals and heart are in a personal relationship with Christ but through the sacraments and liturgy, etc. I share Him with others. It’s not an either-or but both kind of thing. So this is NOT my opinion that we don’t have a personal relationship. I’m saying that I’ve observed many Catholics who have that opinion. Big difference.

Blessings to you!

One of the most sensible posts that I have come across for quite a long time. You are very Catholic in saying this and that should clarify things if this should be your position.

Praise God.

P/S
About the persnal relationship with Jesus thing (that had been discussed before in a thread I think) is more semantic than substance. For some Catholics who object to the usage of this phrase is not per se but for the way it entails in Protestant understanding.

 

[david_ruiz]

Well that opens up another issue, and we don’t want to derail the thread.
I am not saying people stop using the words ‘personal relationship’, I understand where evangelicals are coming from when they say that and Catholics should always answer YES when asked if we have a ‘personal relationship with Christ’. It’s simply that the word usage is rather childish, and people who are not Christians at all become very confused when asked the question.

Thank-you .Why should a Catholic answer yes to having a “personal relationship” ,a saving one, with Christ ?.I would never say a Baptist or Lutheran or E.Orthodox, should say that ,simply or even complicatedly, because they are Baptist etc. What do you mean ,before I go any further ? …As far as non-Christians, I would hope they would at least be confused with all things Christian. After all,they are not born-again ,and can not even see the Kingdom ,but are in darkness,from the other kingdom. I would not change tried and true words that describe our Christian experience .The words are very relevant to both kingdoms , as in do you personally know such and such a person .Like do you know George Washington ? Well yes, he was our first president, you say .I say, but have you MET him personally, talked to him and he to you ? Meeting someone and talking to someone is VERY basic in human experience. Remember, the basic evidence that sends one to hell, separates them from God, is not knowing Him (even though He desires thru His Spirit to know and even sup with us). “Depart from me ,I never knew you”, is found in the bible several times.

 

[KathleenGee]

David,

You have a Spanish last name…have you ever gone into a Catholic church or attended Mass???

 

[david_ruiz]

QUOTE=Reuben J;7088241]Your belief no doubt does influence your understanding of the Bible and vice-versa you can say that for me too. Funny how we can see things differently from the same Bible.

I don’t know which Bible College you went to but I am not surprise if these institutions teach according to their doctrines.

KJB (I am quoting a major Protestant Bible to avoid being baised) has this to say where queen mother is clearly implied:

Thank-you I am getting my education here , Iron sharpens iron .I did not totally contradict what you wrote .I was given 12 scriptures of female lineage and only one referred to her as “queen”,the rest “mother”.I agreed to your premise of the mother as queen ,in oriental culture ,and in Jewish culture. I just disagreed on your emphasis , that it is a totally positive and natural thing (a typecast for Mary) .You certainly did not disagree with me on the relevancy of lineage ,as to Messiah. Thank-you for the other scriptures that solidify both our statements .Indeed ,sometimes the mother of a king was queen.If you want to infer others were also, ,just not mentioned , I am O.K.with that . It is there ,in plain language.However .it is also there in plain language that the queen of heaven in Jeremiah is a false goddess.Your best scripture would be Psalm 45:9. Indeed maybe Mary is arraigned beautifully as queen , but it is not that plain , perhaps veiled , hence I would rather stick to things more relevantly revealed.

****

I am not sure which denomination you come from but if you don’t believe that the Messiah should come from the Davidic line then you are quite different from many other Christians. And I am not just talking about Catholics.

Sorry .you are probably like me and get too excited with a response ,and fail to read carefully .I reread carefully and I did state Messiah IS from Davidic line .How could you be confused ? That was my main premise on the first statement ,that mothers of Judah’s kings are mentioned perhaps for this reason.Are any of those mother’s names mentioned in Mary’s lineage ?

I

t does not mean that we don’t have a relationship with Christ. There is no reason why we should not have a relationship with his mother either. The former – we do, even though we may express it differently. The latter, why shouldn’t we, even if the relationship can’t compare with that of Jesus?

Then why do you not focus on the best, most excellent of things ? Oh , I have a relationship with Mary also , as a real historical figure in the faith ,a fellow saint, the mother of our Lord. I have personal knowledge of her ,as stated in Holy Scripture ,illumined in my heart by the Holy Spirit (a bit like I know about George Washington, as it has been written about him also).But I have NOT personally met her nor “supped” with her , for she is on the other side, for now. Only God is everywhere ,and omniscient. I know she and all saints are of one accord, but no other specifics, just as a fellow believer in China ,we do NOT connect except through and in the Lord. I do not “hear” my China brother, nor he me, but we are of one accord before the Lord.​

 

[guanophore]

Then when Jesus promised us the Holy Spirit,that he would guide us  ,bring things to remembrance , give us power ,

No. He was talking to the Church He founded. Those who depart from that are no longer in a position to inherit these promises.

making us priests -that was for everybody, right?

There are three levels of priesthood, foreshadowed in the OT, and fulfilled in the New. There is the High Priest, the ministerial priesthood,a nd the priesthood of all believers.
There are differences of authority and tasks for each.

 When he said preach the gospel to all, forgiving ,binding that was for all of us to do .right ?

No. All the baptized are called to preach the gospel, but binding and loosing is a power given to those Jesus placed in authority over His flock.

Whenever we break bread , we can all do it in remebrance of Him, right?

Sure. You can call it that.

When he said confess your faults ,one to another , that could be between any two people ,right?

yes, but Catholics find it most expedient to confess them to those to whom Jesus gave the power to remit them.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Catholics sadly have already adopted a heap of Protestant trappings from holding hands during the Our Father to kumbaya-style songs, singing “Amazing Grace” (sigh) to more informality and chit-chat before Mass starts, taking communion in the hand, etc. I don’t see a problem with the language of having a relationship with Mary. Devotion is a fine word, too. We don’t want to get into a position where we choose NOT to use lingo just because Protestants are doing it. That’s arbitrary and reactionary. I’d say use or don’t use terminology based on the depth of its meaning and significant ramifications, not just because someone else is doing it. The reverse has occured in Protestantism, sadly. Lutherans used to make the sign of the Cross during Luther’s times. It was the generations after him that purged that lovely and meaningful physical gesture. Why? Because it was “too Catholic.” The Anglicans dropped vestments, kneeling, genuflecting, images, holy water, etc. all because it was “too Catholic” until the Oxford Movement came along and restored some sanity there. We don’t want to follow this example only on the Catholic side.

I think it better for Catholics not to adopt evangelical phrases. Even as an evangelical I believed the phrase "personal relationship’ to be insufficient in describing our faith. It’s like someone asking if I have a personal relationship with my wife…
I beleive a better word is devotion. It speaks to a much deeper relation. I would think even devout Protestants would see that as a better phrase.