I dont see how this doesnt borderline on mary worship

[Bishopite]

That link includes this:
"3) Leo XIII, Encyclical, Octobri mense adventante, Sept 22, 1891, *** 24, 1891, 196.

… it is right to say, that nothing at all of that very great treasury of all grace which the Lord brought us–for ‘grace and truth came through Jesus Christ’ [Jn 1.17]–nothing is imparted to us except through Mary, since God so wills, so that just as no one can come to the Father except through the Son, so in general, no one can come to Christ except through His Mother."

how can someone possibly say that noone can come to christ except through mary?

What Pope is saying is that Mary in her fiat cooperated in order to bring forth Jesus, Luke 2:7.
And this is nothing new as Mary is the new Eve, Eve in her disobedience brought forth the fall, Mary in her fiat (obedience) brought forth the Savior. Jesus is God, we do NOT worship Mary, we only worship Jesus because He is God. Again this is nothing new as St. Ireneaus used the same analogy back in AD 180 against heretics that’s why his letter is called against heretics. And remember St. Irenaeus was a disciple of St. Polycarp who was a disicple of John the Apostle so we have a very early anouncement of how Mary is a part of the salvation process, she is NOT the savior only Jesus saves, Mary cooperated as we do in order to be tools for God to save others.
"St. Irenaeus: -

“With a fitness, Mary the Virgin is found obedient, saying, ‘Behold Thy handmaid, 0 Lord; be it to me according to Thy word.’ But Eve was disobedient; for she obeyed not, while she was yet a virgin. As she, having indeed Adam for a husband, but as yet being a virgin . . becoming disobedient, became the cause of death both to herself and to the whole human race, so also Mary, having the predestined man, and being yet a Virgin, being obedient, became both to herself and to the whole human race the cause of salvation.
. . . And on account of this the Lord said, that the first should be last and the last first. And the Prophet signifies the same, saying, ‘Instead of fathers you have children.’ For, whereas the Lord, when born, was the first-begotten of the dead, and received into His bosom the primitive fathers, He regenerated them into the life of God, He Himself becoming the beginning of the living, since Adam became the beginning of the dying. Therefore also Luke, commencing the line of generations from the Lord, referred it back to Adam, signifying that He regenerated the old fathers, not they Him, into the Gospel of life. And so the knot of Eye’s disobedience received its unloosing through the obedience of Mary; for what Eve, a virgin, bound by incredulity, that Mary, a virgin, unloosed by faith.”
(Adv. Haer. iii. 22.34.)

 

[Bishopite]

That link includes this:
"3) Leo XIII, Encyclical, Octobri mense adventante, Sept 22, 1891, *** 24, 1891, 196.

… it is right to say, that nothing at all of that very great treasury of all grace which the Lord brought us–for ‘grace and truth came through Jesus Christ’ [Jn 1.17]–nothing is imparted to us except through Mary, since God so wills, so that just as no one can come to the Father except through the Son, so in general, no one can come to Christ except through His Mother."

how can someone possibly say that noone can come to christ except through mary?

What Pope is saying is that Mary in her fiat cooperated in order to bring forth Jesus, Luke 2:7.
And this is nothing new as Mary is the new Eve, Eve in her disobedience brought forth the fall, Mary in her fiat (obedience) brought forth the Savior. Jesus is God, we do NOT worship Mary, we only worship Jesus because He is God. Again this is nothing new as St. Ireneaus used the same analogy back in AD 180 against heretics that’s why his letter is called against heretics. And remember St. Irenaeus was a disciple of St. Polycarp who was a disicple of John the Apostle so we have a very early anouncement of how Mary is a part of the salvation process, she is NOT the savior only Jesus saves, Mary cooperated as we do in order to be tools for God to save others.
"St. Irenaeus: -

“With a fitness, Mary the Virgin is found obedient, saying, ‘Behold Thy handmaid, 0 Lord; be it to me according to Thy word.’ But Eve was disobedient; for she obeyed not, while she was yet a virgin. As she, having indeed Adam for a husband, but as yet being a virgin . . becoming disobedient, became the cause of death both to herself and to the whole human race, so also Mary, having the predestined man, and being yet a Virgin, being obedient, became both to herself and to the whole human race the cause of salvation.
. . . And on account of this the Lord said, that the first should be last and the last first. And the Prophet signifies the same, saying, ‘Instead of fathers you have children.’ For, whereas the Lord, when born, was the first-begotten of the dead, and received into His bosom the primitive fathers, He regenerated them into the life of God, He Himself becoming the beginning of the living, since Adam became the beginning of the dying. Therefore also Luke, commencing the line of generations from the Lord, referred it back to Adam, signifying that He regenerated the old fathers, not they Him, into the Gospel of life. And so the knot of Eye’s disobedience received its unloosing through the obedience of Mary; for what Eve, a virgin, bound by incredulity, that Mary, a virgin, unloosed by faith.”
(Adv. Haer. iii. 22.34.)

 

[Mannyfit75]

This idea is wrong, the reason God picked Mary is because he knew she would say yes. If Mary would have said no God would not have sent the Angel to her. You act like God would have been in big trouble sending his Son here if it hadn’t been for Mary. God is much BIGGER than that.

It’s also been prophecied in Isaiah 7:14, and also Genesis 3:15.

 

[cyberjacques]

Wow, so many great posts, I don’t know where to begin! Let’s see if I can add something to the mix.

Cuban07, it’s good that you want to be clear on this topic. Far too often people end up focusing entirely on the divinity of Jesus and not giving any thought to His humanity. But the fact that He became fully human and shared in our suffering is what allows us to share in His resurrection. He made Himself the beginning and the end of the communion of saints. The source of His humanity was His mother. She gave birth to Him, she raised Him, and she must have been a truly remarkable person to be handed such a responsibility. Her humanity is truly something to aspire to. In order to fully understand the humanity of Jesus, we must understand His mother. And in order to fully accept His sacrifice, it is necessary to understand His humanity as well as His divinity. Or at least as much of His divinity as we are capable of understanding.

Hope that helps, God bless!

 

[TOME]

Cuban07,
There are two works of Pope Benedicy XVI that may help you if you are into reading such books. The first is very short, its title is “Daughter Zion”. The second is a book that is actually a series of lectures (Homilies) of our Holy Father, given when he was Cardinal Ratzinger, and Fr. Hans Urs von Batlhasar - it’s title is,
“Mary, The Church at the Source”.

In these two books I found Pope Benedict’s presentation not only very clear - he addresses the topic of your questions, but you may find it interesting just how deeply rooted in scripture the role of Mary is in The Church.

 

[Linda_Marie]

But Linda, don’t all Christians have to at least give Mary the merit and recognition of Jesus’ virgin birth and willingness to sacrifice Her reputation at God’s request and that She birth His Son? Isn’t that one of the “minimums” of the Christian faith?

I can’t speak for all Christians but I would hope that to be the case. However, I work with some Christian whose faces screw up like they’d just bitten into a lemon at the mention of Mary’s name and dismiss her as a mere vessel. They acknowledge the Virgin Birth in that “a” virgin gave birth to Jesus but downplay Mary’s role to insignificance. They don’t accord her the free will to have said ‘No’. She was destined to bear Christ and she had no say in the matter so it could have been any woman and Mary was nothing special. Since she couldn’t say no, she accrues no merit with her 'Fiat". At least, that is what I understand them to believe after discussions with them at the end of which they told me that they find discussions of Mary to be offensive and to please refrain from ever mentioning her name in their presence again.

 

[Church_Militant]

This idea is wrong, the reason God picked Mary is because he knew she would say yes. If Mary would have said no God would not have sent the Angel to her. You act like God would have been in big trouble sending his Son here if it hadn’t been for Mary. God is much BIGGER than that.

And you miss the whole concept of the protoevangelium which prophecies about Mary.

You act as if Mary had no choice…no free will. She responded to the fullness of God’s grace.

There is no worship of the Blessed Virgin in faithful Catholic teaching, though a great many a-Cs *desperately wish *there was.

 

[guanophore]

Hello if you’ve been following my threads I am looking into the catholic church and would very much like to get baptized, however every so often i see these red flags… What i read a few minutes ago on another thread raised one such flag, even more so well because it came directly from the mouth of a pope.

ewtn.com/faith/teachings/marya4a.htm

That link includes this:
"3) Leo XIII, Encyclical, Octobri mense adventante, Sept 22, 1891, *** 24, 1891, 196.

… it is right to say, that nothing at all of that very great treasury of all grace which the Lord brought us–for ‘grace and truth came through Jesus Christ’ [Jn 1.17]–nothing is imparted to us except through Mary, since God so wills, so that just as no one can come to the Father except through the Son, so in general, no one can come to Christ except through His Mother."

how can someone possibly say that noone can come to christ except through mary?

God could have provided expiation for our sins in any way He so desired. He chose to come to us through Mary. She has been made a divine conduit.

We do not worship Mary because she is a human, and not divine. But we do see in her all of our future. In yielding to the will of God, she demonstrated the life of grace that we can all have.

 

[PC_Master]

I would only like to mention that the most obvious problem here seems to be a misunderstanding of terms. Roman Catholics say “Without Mary, Jesus wouldn’t have been born,” which is essentially saying that we have access to Jesus because of Mary.

On the other hand, what the pope in question wrote, which seems to have been the concern of the original poster is saying that we can only get to Jesus through Mary.

In the former example, while Mary is indeed responsible (in part) for bringing Christ into the world, one does not need to consult, speak to, or interact with her in any way in order to interact with or communicate with Jesus. Thus, you can “get to” Jesus without Mary.

In the latter example, getting to Jesus requires going through Mary, making Mary, essentially, a mediator (some use the term “mediatrix”) between man and Jesus. This is the position I would guess that the original poster is having issues with.

 

[thistle]

Maybe my reading comprehension skills are not up to par but i get from the pope’s statement is that i cannot speak to Jesus directly. I am not saying the pope said Mary is God, i am simply saying that from his statement one can infer that he does say Jesus is out of reach and only by going through Mary we can reach the son. I understand i can speak to the mother and she might be a way to reach the son but to say that I MUST go through the mother gives me cause for concern.

Who am I to contradict you on your reading skills!!

We are NOT required to pray to Mary. How many times do all the posters have to tell you this.

 

[Lev23]

Because Jesus wouldn’t have been incarnated as both God and man without Mary!

No Mary = No man Jesus!

And since anyone who comes to Christ comes not only to the Divcine nature of Christ but to His human nature, too–then no one can come to that human nature without Mary–take her away and we never have Christ’s human nature.

And absolutely none of that takes away from Only Jesus being God and Mary only being a human creature!

Don’t forget that before Mary, King David and the nation of Israel, the Patriarchs of Israel, and Abraham were also needed.

 

[VociMike]

I would only like to mention that the most obvious problem here seems to be a misunderstanding of terms. Roman Catholics say “Without Mary, Jesus wouldn’t have been born,” which is essentially saying that we have access to Jesus because of Mary.

On the other hand, what the pope in question wrote, which seems to have been the concern of the original poster is saying that we can only get to Jesus through Mary.

And yet you will simply not find this latter claim taught by the Church. Not now, and not in the past.

 

[PC_Master]

And yet you will simply not find this latter claim taught by the Church. Not now, and not in the past.

Well, Pope Leo XIII certainly taught it (see post #1). That’s what brought up the question with the original poster.

 

[jpusateri]

Maybe my reading comprehension skills are not up to par but i get from the pope’s statement is that i cannot speak to Jesus directly. I am not saying the pope said Mary is God, i am simply saying that from his statement one can infer that he does say Jesus is out of reach and only by going through Mary we can reach the son. I understand i can speak to the mother and she might be a way to reach the son but to say that I MUST go through the mother gives me cause for concern.

I am curious why you think you cannot go to God directly. What is Jesus’ role? Doesn’t Jesus get in the way of going to the Father?

 

[VociMike]

Well, Pope Leo XIII certainly taught it (see post #1). That’s what brought up the question with the original poster.

If an alleged teaching surfaces in one document and is not seen before or after that document, then perhaps one is misunderstanding that one document? That would be the reasonable view. The unreasonable view would be to assume (without any evidence) that the Church has always taught this, or to assume that the Church quietly (no evidence, remember) decided to stop teaching this after the one document, or to assume (again, without evidence) that teachings pop into existence and just as quickly vanish again.

 

[PC_Master]

I am curious why you think you cannot go to God directly. What is Jesus’ role? Doesn’t Jesus get in the way of going to the Father?

We can go directly to the father with our petitions and praises. Scripture shows that directly, if I’m not mistaken. The concern here seems not to be whether or not we can go through a mediator of some kind, but rather whether or not we must go through a mediator.

If an alleged teaching surfaces in one document and is not seen before or after that document, then perhaps one is misunderstanding that one document? That would be the reasonable view.

The text is pretty clear…

…nothing is imparted to us except through Mary, since God so wills, so that just as no one can come to the Father except through the Son, so in general, no one can come to Christ except through His Mother.

The text says that in general, without going through Mary, no one can come to Christ. This is simply wrong. Explain to me how this text can be seen to mean anything else (without drastically twisting what it says).

The unreasonable view would be to assume (without any evidence) that the Church has always taught this…

No one here ever claimed that the church always taught this. I expressly deny it. But the document shows that Pope Leo XIII certainly did teach it. You see, I don’t assume that Roman Catholic teaching is completely non-contradictory as a basis for my evaluations; you do.

…or to assume that the Church quietly (no evidence, remember) decided to stop teaching this after the one document, or to assume (again, without evidence) that teachings pop into existence and just as quickly vanish again.

I’m not going to make any claims as to when this changed. All I can say for certain is that the teaching of Pope Leo XIII is incorrect on this issue, and that it does not fall in line with modern Roman Catholic teaching on the subject.

 

[VociMike]

The text is pretty clear…

I don’t even know what it means “to come to Christ through His Mother”. Note that you have not even paraphrased it correctly - you have inserted your particular interpretation into the text. It does not say that we must go through His Mother. It says “through His Mother”. Those two things are not identical. The actual phrasing could just as easily mean that we cannot (in general, don’t forget that) come to Christ without some action on Mary’s part. Does it mean we must pray to Mary? That is certainly not taught by the Church. Does it mean that Mary is somehow involved (her prayers, perhaps) in us coming to Christ? Would that be the end of the world if God chose to make it so?

No one here ever claimed that the church always taught this. I expressly deny it. But the document shows that Pope Leo XIII certainly did teach it. You see, I don’t assume that Roman Catholic teaching is completely non-contradictory as a basis for my evaluations; you do.

But we still don’t know what “it” is. We don’t know what he’s teaching here, despite your certainty that we do.

 

[PC_Master]

I don’t even know what it means “to come to Christ through His Mother”.

The text seems clear to me, but if you’d care to provide alternate explanation for what “though his mother” means, feel free.

Note that you have not even paraphrased it correctly - you have inserted your particular interpretation into the text. It does not say that we must go through His Mother. It says “through His Mother”. Those two things are not identical. The actual phrasing could just as easily mean that we cannot (in general, don’t forget that) come to Christ without some action on Mary’s part.

And this action would be? Even if you’re correct, this is still wrong, and not what the church teaches. There is only one mediator between God and man, after all. If you have to go through someone, they become a mediator (someone who is between two things).

Does it mean we must pray to Mary? That is certainly not taught by the Church. Does it mean that Mary is somehow involved (her prayers, perhaps) in us coming to Christ? Would that be the end of the world if God chose to make it so?

I never said the church currently teaches this stuff. Secondly, that doesn’t exclude that a pope in the past taught it. Thirdly, Mary’s intercession being involved in our salvation is not going through Mary. To go through something, you have to have interaction with it. My salvation is not dependent on any interaction between myself and Mary.

Oh, and I wouldn’t have a problem with it if God chose to make it so, but I have no reason to believe that he actually did. The gospel writers (and Paul) certainly didn’t feel that it was an important doctrine of their day.

But we still don’t know what “it” is. We don’t know what he’s teaching here, despite your certainty that we do.

I’ve proposed what I believe his statement means. If you disagree, you should have a supportable reason for the disagreement, or at least an alternate theory (with support).

 

[Kjallak]

Because Jesus wouldn’t have been incarnated as both God and man without Mary!

No Mary = No man Jesus!

And since anyone who comes to Christ comes not only to the Divcine nature of Christ but to His human nature, too–then no one can come to that human nature without Mary–take her away and we never have Christ’s human nature.

And absolutely none of that takes away from Only Jesus being God and Mary only being a human creature!

No Mary’s Mother = No Mary, no Adam + Eve = no anyone, dear Lord we should worship everyone by this man’s logic!

 

[Holly3278]

I don’t have an answer for you but I can offer my prayers.