Having a personal relationship with Mary

[Adam_Warlock]

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.

Well said. “Personal relationship” is utterly insufficient to describe the depths and mysteries of Christianity.

 

[Adam_Warlock]

Catholics sadly have already adopted a heap of Protestant trappings from holding hands during the Our Father to kumbaya-style songs,…

This change is hard to understand. So is the “personal relationship with Mary” - or even the “personal relationship”, period. But I agree - do not adopt Protestant things merely because they are popular. Nor should one abhor a useful statement only because a Protestant says it.

 

[guanophore]

Interesting .though the few scriptures I looked up lists both father and mother.The mother is “mother” not queen.

Well, that is a good start, David. Keep reading the Scriptures! When you read how Solomon treated Bathsheba when she came to court, you will begin to get a sense of the role of the King’s mother in the Davidic Kingdom.

The position of the Kings Mother (Gebirah) was an office that drew it’s power from the identity of the Son.

.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 can see your point. However, the Mother of the King (queen mother) had an office that the wife of the King did not. Indeed, the Church is the Bride of Christ.

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 ?

This is another example of the “either/or” thinking that many of our separated brethren suffer from. Having a relationship with the groom;s mother does not take away from ones relationship with the groom. Do you think that Jesus healing Peter’s mother in Law some how took away from Peter’s relationship with Jesus?

 

[david_ruiz]

David,

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

Yes.Went to Guardian Angels Grammar School(altar boy ,Dominic Savio Club ,where I gave my first two sermons, also won an award from the bishop because I wrote two or three pages commenting on his sermon for our confirmation service and the other classmates could only muster up a paragraph or two-I won a beautiful blue and white porcelain figure of Mary) .I then attended Jesuit high school.One of our most beloved priests ,very charismatic -was in the movie “the Exorcist” as the priest playing the piano-challenged us to talk to Jesus ,more often .I ,and I suppose my classmates, were very worldly , at least compartmentalizing our faith -finding it not that relevant, and could not quite get with the teachers “program”. Needless to say ,we frustrated him . Later I understood why.He assumed because we were baptized Catholic ,we were born again and could “see”, when in my experience , I was not… When I was 20, and like most my friends not doing anything Catholic for several years now , I was shown to be lost and on my way to hell ,for I could not sincerely say Jesus was my Lord and Savior , as others could. The Holy Spirit brought to my remembrance my Baltimore Catechism, from 3rd or 4th grade ,question # ?,in bold black : What is faith ? Faith is a gift of God. (roll over Luther) Wahlah ! It was not within me , He must put it in me. Give it up ,stop trying (religion-self justification from my religious experience, for indeed, “hold on to what you have ,else you will lose even that” ,and I lost all my Catholicism-or so I thought.I did not even believe in an historical Jesus). But that night I slept like a baby, for ,in a way I was properly forced to put it back in God’s hands (almost threw it back at Him ,but He could handle it ). It was like you are gonna have to change me , put it in me, faith , that indeed you are my loving Savior. Funny, but when I gave up , He roared in ,and finally began to make me see the simplicity of His love and yolk. “Behold ALL things became new”,and I was" born again". I knew beyond a shadow of a doubt of my eternal salvation,because of what HE DID for me…I am thankful to my parents(catholic ) and teachers who gave me profound seeds of truth -life/death,good and bad, judgement ,heaven or hell ,Christ’s atonement.I am thankful for a "protestant " to bluntly challenge my depravity and a need for change, and to meet Jesus.in fullness and truth.

 

[guanophore]

"Therefore it means more for Mary to have been a disciple of Christ than to have been the mother of Christ....a greater blessing to have been Christ's disciple than to have been Christ's mother.....

Yes, this is why He said of her “blessed even more (rather) is the one who hears the Word of God, and does it”. She conceived Him in her heart before He was conceived in her womb.

The Church is something better than the virgin Mary.Why ? Because Mary is part of the Church, a holy member, quite exceptional, supremely wonderful, but still a member."...St.Augustine Sermon 72/A,7....Why was this sermon necessary ? Were people back then trying to make Mary more than she was ?

It is not expedient or necessary to compare them as if they are in some sort of competition for “betterness”.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

First of all, dude, I’m a HUGE Exorcist fan. The book and movie rock! I love it! The fact that you know someone in that film should’ve kept you Catholic!

But I would say that you should be fair to Catholicism with regards to Christ working through you. The Catholic Church doesn’t teach that we must work to get Christ’s merit or that we have to earn Him and bring goodness into us. The Church teaches that everything good comes from Christ. Think of it…I sin and do something terribly foolish. I have the stain of sin upon me. I go to confession. It is Jesus that forgives me in absolution, not myself. I then am made holy without mortal sin’s blemishes to go down the aisle to Holy Communion. The Eucharist, another gift from God, not me, comes free of charge. Then I get a blessing from the priest, another gift from God. The sacraments flow from Him. I look at it more that we’re given a vase by God full of life. We just have to not drop it, break it, and screw it up. Yet even when we do, he superglues it back, we don’t? Christ is working through us in Catholicism for sure. It’s not a solo act I’d say.

But I will note that I know more people who went through the Catholic schooling system who came out rebellious and wild and bitter. Wow. There is just something about it sometimes? Some of the biggest rebel party animal maniacs I know went through Catholic schools?

Yes.Went to Guardian Angels Grammar School(altar boy ,Dominic Savio Club ,where I gave my first two sermons, also won an award from the bishop because I wrote two or three pages commenting on his sermon for our confirmation service and the other classmates could only muster up a paragraph or two-I won a beautiful blue and white porcelain figure of Mary) .I then attended Jesuit high school.One of our most beloved priests ,very charismatic -was in the movie “the Exorcist” as the priest playing the piano-challenged us to talk to Jesus ,more often .I ,and I suppose my classmates, were very worldly , at least compartmentalizing our faith -finding it not that relevant, and could not quite get with the teachers “program”. Needless to say ,we frustrated him . Later I understood why.He assumed because we were baptized Catholic ,we were born again and could “see”, when in my experience , I was not… When I was 20, and like most my friends not doing anything Catholic for several years now , I was shown to be lost and on my way to hell ,for I could not sincerely say Jesus was my Lord and Savior , as others could. The Holy Spirit brought to my remembrance my Baltimore Catechism, from 3rd or 4th grade ,question # ?,in bold black : What is faith ? Faith is a gift of God. (roll over Luther) Wahlah ! It was not within me , He must put it in me. Give it up ,stop trying (religion-self justification from my religious experience, for indeed, “hold on to what you have ,else you will lose even that” ,and I lost all my Catholicism-or so I thought.I did not even believe in an historical Jesus). But that night I slept like a baby, for ,in a way I was properly forced to put it back in God’s hands (almost threw it back at Him ,but He could handle it ). It was like you are gonna have to change me , put it in me, faith , that indeed you are my loving Savior. Funny, but when I gave up , He roared in ,and finally began to make me see the simplicity of His love and yolk. “Behold ALL things became new”,and I was" born again". I knew beyond a shadow of a doubt of my eternal salvation,because of what HE DID for me…I am thankful to my parents(catholic ) and teachers who gave me profound seeds of truth -life/death,good and bad, judgement ,heaven or hell ,Christ’s atonement.I am thankful for a "protestant " to bluntly challenge my depravity and a need for change, and to meet Jesus.in fullness and truth.

 

[KathleenGee]

David,

It has been said out here that if you want your child to lose their faith, send them to a Catholic school. I think the students are given way too much head knowledge that is better for university level thinking.

What young people need is what you needed…a personal relationship with Christ…and unfortunately, no matter how much given via the literary instruction and going to Mass…to make the emotional connection of Christ in the sacraments takes time. It is a great blessing and help in having some gifted Christian friends your age to make Christ alive in you.

It is very hard for catechists to do this…I think the Good Shepherd Catechesis has the best foundation for preschool and early school years…the best theological learning is prayerful and reflective and quiet…not the format used in general catechizing of our young…you have to create an ‘atrium’, a sacred space among the students to help them discover Christ within them, a sensitive place where they can feel safe to express themselves. Sunday school is noisy, rambunctious, arts and crafts…

These past 20 years or so have been very hard on parents. I know of one Catholic family whose 7 kids remained Catholic. The parents were well known in the parish, made their presence known, but spent their time going to Mass together as a believing family unit and lived out the Gospel together as a family serving in soup kitchens in the city for the poor.

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

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

I don’t care offhand, but to argue from a Roman Catholic standpoint, if we’re to assume she was ever-virgin, then she had no direct children who, by Jewish law, would be taking care of her, hence why Christ, as He was dying, would ask a close disciple to take care of her. It certainly shows His respect for His mother (following the commandments He asked us to follow), as well as that the apostle John was truly beloved.

The placing of Jesus’ statement means so much! He entrusted His Mother to us as He was dying on the Cross.

That’s taking the placement and again presenting the presupposition that when Christ tells the apostle John to take care of her as an adopted mother is a command to us all. It is again simply illogical to assume that’s a command to everyone when it’s directed to John and simply refers to taking care of the Virgin Mary according to Jewish custom. We haven’t seen yet how, from scripture, how this is extended to us all.

You replied to yourself here,

I don’t understand what you mean in this part. Apologies, I think I’m just confused.

 

[Reuben_J]

Then why do you not focus on the best, most excellent of things ?

Yes, we do david ruiz, thank you very much. Do you?

 

[JustaServant]

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.

Very true. One thing I have learned from both Catholic and mainline Protestant theologians is that our language should never be vague, but exact. The problem with evangelical language is ‘catch phrases’ that sound great and will get the ‘amen’ section going, but is either devoid of true meaning, or too simplistic.
The job of the priest/minister is to convey that concept in a way the flock will understand, but not comprimise the meaning of the words.
Getting back to the OP, “personal relationship” might sound good, but it is too simplistic a phrase in regard to salvation.

 

[eslocklier]

Above all, Jesus Christ is the Saving One and He is the reason for salvation and grace. If people honor Mary because of her place in Jesus’ life that is all great, just as long as Jesus is the only one being worshipped.

 

[david_ruiz]

QUOTE=guanophore;7091646]Yes, this is why He said of her “blessed even more (rather) is the one who hears the Word of God, and does it”. She conceived Him in her heart before He was conceived in her womb.

Alleluia!

It is not expedient or necessary to compare them as if they are in some sort of competition for “betterness”.

.
Tell that to St Augustine .It is his statement ,but it does apply today,sorry ,for some it does

 

[FOFEBA]

First, I don’t know what this has to do with anything related to the topic of the thread or thread’s train-of-thought, it seems like a shot in the dark here, but I’ll offer a brief response any way…

If you’re trying to say, “Aha! Luke talks about the virgin birth, and he was a Gentile, ergo he’s connected to some of these guys over here in Greece who said they were virgin born!”, I would say: Luke was not the only apostle to mention the virgin birth.

Matthew, born and raised as a Jew, mentions that before Joseph and Mary were betrothed (in other words, when she would be expected to be a virgin) she was “found to be with child from the Holy Spirit” (Matt 1:18). In other words, she was found pregnant, and not by another man but by the Holy Spirit. Matthew even adds for us that Joseph “knew her not until she had given birth to a son” (Matt 1:25). In other words, they did not have sexual relations before the birth of Christ. Matthew, a Jewish apostle, confirms the virgin birth.

Likewise, if you’re going to try to point to these Greeks and say there’s a Greek connection, you’ll have to first go to the prophecy of the virgin birth in Isaiah, which is quoted in Matthew 1:23 (and not in Luke). Was Isaiah, a devout Jewish prophet, ransacking pagan prophets and stealing their ideas saying, “The Jews will buy into this!” Theological consistency tells us no.

It’s not a “shot in the dark” at all, but more of an attempt to illuminate the subject.

Professor Campbell made a life work of studying religions and mythology. It would be fair to say that it is unlikely that anyone participating in this forum understands as much as he did about the historic and cultural influences which influence religious beliefs. If you have not seen his rather remarkable set of interviews with Bill Moyers, you might consider watching it.

Campbell’s position on the notion of a virgin birth is that if it were considered unusual at the time, that there would have been historical accounts of such an event. His opinion is that the reason that nobody seems to have taken note of it at the time was that the claim was not unusual.

He then goes on to trace the origin of the then popular idea. Over time, there have been fads in religious thinking. Christianity has not been exempt. While not directly related to this thread, there are biblical scholars who would say that the choice of which books to include in the currently accepted versions of the Bible came out of cultural context of the times when those decisions were made, for example.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

One thing that drives me nuts is how many Protestants nowdays use “amen?” as a “right?” type of phrase. Amen does NOT mean “am I right, y’all?” the way they use it in evangelical circles. Hearing that stuff makes me cringe!

Very true. One thing I have learned from both Catholic and mainline Protestant theologians is that our language should never be vague, but exact. The problem with evangelical language is ‘catch phrases’ that sound great and will get the ‘amen’ section going, but is either devoid of true meaning, or too simplistic.
The job of the priest/minister is to convey that concept in a way the flock will understand, but not comprimise the meaning of the words.
Getting back to the OP, “personal relationship” might sound good, but it is too simplistic a phrase in regard to salvation.

 

[david_ruiz]

QUOTE=guanophore;7091435]

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.QUOTE]

Forshadow? Does not compute.They were in actuality,fullfilled in the and ,during the O.T.
The only forshadow was the Lamb,and he fullfilled ALL and did away with the old priesthood ,for a priest is for sacrifices ,and Jesus was the FINAL sacrifice.:We are now ALL priests ,my bible says. Indeed ,Catholicism developed back into the old testament ,but it was not always so in the beginning of the church.Your statement of 3 classes is not found in N.T. I understand Catholic teaching of two classes of priests.Having begun in the spirit we can end up in the flesh,even a church dogma. Again ,I see prophet ,apostle ,teacher,elder or bishop .I do not see priest .The earliest you see any word in a service(mass) to heirarchy is the word "president "-not priest,Paul says Jesus has done a new thing ,why do we revert back to the comfortable “old”?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

David, I think the history and reasoning is flawed here. The OT priesthood was a foreshadowing of the New priesthood established by Christ. The Hebrew priesthood could not offer valid sacrifices, just the blood of animals and a sincere heart. The Early Church did indeed have a priesthood very very early on. Crack open the Didache and read it. It an early second century worship manual of sorts and it points toward the sacrificial nature of the priesthood, discusses liturgy and worship, sacrifice, the Eucharist, etc. I’d also encourage you to read the Early Fathers, all of whom believed in a priesthood, not a mere council of elders in a presbyterian model. In the very primitive Church the Christians were in a cocoon of sorts. They were still worshipping in the synagogue and things were in their infancy. We see presbyteros used interchangeably with episkopos, etc. But very, very quickly we see differentiation. Episkopos is the bishop, the ultimate shepherd. The presbyteros helps the bishop. With time and the outrageous growth (thanks be to God!) of the parishes, bishops could no longer handle performing every wedding, every baptism, every Eucharistic celebration, so they started delegating some of it to the presbyterate.

Don’t you find it odd that in the East (Orthodox) lands there is a sacrificial priesthood so early AND in the West (Catholic) there is a sacrificial priesthood, then in the Coptic lands, and on and on? There is not one community that had a Calvinist/Presbyterian elders/pastors model that you can point to in the second century?

Also, regarding your reference to the High Priest being Christ Jesus, presumably from Hebrews, you’re correct. Jesus is our only HIGH priest. And you’re right, we’re all priests, but not as you think. The clerical priests of Catholicism, Orthodoxy, etc. merely share in the same priesthood of Christ and are an extension of his Sacramental power through humanity. We are the body of Christ as the Church. Through the clergy Christ’s priesthood lives, breathes, sacrifices Himself for us, forgives us, baptizes us, counsels us, etc. The priesthood of all believers in Catholicism refers to the vocation we all have as Christians to teach, preach the Good News, be fishers of men, good examples, and stewards of Christ’s sacraments as well. But we are not ordained and able to convey these channels of grace as individuals. Paul talks about how each person has a unique vocation, ability given by God, and purpose. But these gifts differ. The ministerial priesthood and the priesthood of the laity are two different dimensions of one sublime Saviour’s desire for us.

Forshadow? Does not compute.They were in actuality,fullfilled in the and ,during the O.T.
The only forshadow was the Lamb,and he fullfilled ALL and did away with the old priesthood ,for a priest is for sacrifices ,and Jesus was the FINAL sacrifice.:We are now ALL priests ,my bible says. Indeed ,Catholicism developed back into the old testament ,but it was not always so in the beginning of the church.Your statement of 3 classes is not found in N.T. I understand Catholic teaching of two classes of priests.Having begun in the spirit we can end up in the flesh,even a church dogma. Again ,I see prophet ,apostle ,teacher,elder or bishop .I do not see priest .The earliest you see any word in a service(mass) to heirarchy is the word "president "-not priest,Paul says Jesus has done a new thing ,why do we revert back to the comfortable “old”?

 

[FOFEBA]

I think it all comes down to the “communion of saints”. We are not seperated by death from those who go before us and have died in Christ. Absolutely we can have a personal relationship with her.

All religious feelings and beliefs are personal. If one is religious, then the relationships one has with the objects of adoration of belief must be personal. I’m not quite sure why it would be debatable.

 

[Reuben_J]

Yes, we do david ruiz, thank you very much. Do you?

 

[lil_flower_luv]

Hi, friend,

Above all, Jesus Christ is the Saving One and He is the reason for salvation and grace. If people honor Mary because of her place in Jesus’ life that is all great, just as long as Jesus is the only one being worshipped.

In your mind, is having a personal relationship with Mother Mary the equivalent of worshiping her?

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

It’s not a “shot in the dark” at all, but more of an attempt to illuminate the subject.

Professor Campbell made a life work of studying religions and mythology. It would be fair to say that it is unlikely that anyone participating in this forum understands as much as he did about the historic and cultural influences which influence religious beliefs. If you have not seen his rather remarkable set of interviews with Bill Moyers, you might consider watching it.

Campbell’s position on the notion of a virgin birth is that if it were considered unusual at the time, that there would have been historical accounts of such an event. His opinion is that the reason that nobody seems to have taken note of it at the time was that the claim was not unusual.

He then goes on to trace the origin of the then popular idea. Over time, there have been fads in religious thinking. Christianity has not been exempt. While not directly related to this thread, there are biblical scholars who would say that the choice of which books to include in the currently accepted versions of the Bible came out of cultural context of the times when those decisions were made, for example.

You completely avoided any real response to my own.