S
SIA
Guest
How so? How does Mary change or define who God is? Mary was chosen by God. Jesus was God before being made incarnate to the Virgin Mary. Mary was a “yes”, not a God producer.
I'm getting tired of hearing from Protestants that we worship Mary and the saints!
- Status
S
SIA
Guest
God in the flesh yes. We do agree there.
R
RobHom
Guest
No, that is not what it says. You know better than that. No-one, absolutely no-one in the Catholic Church has ever said that Mary was the second person of the trinity. Only a confused self-proclaimed “ex-catholic” has said that…
I bet Christ is really happy with your conduct.
Why must you continue with your antagonistic and willfully wrong posts. You know what you are saying is wrong.
S
SIA
Guest
I never said that Mary was the second person of the Trinity. You need to get off your high horse and stop this nasty tirade. You are so blinded by anger right now that you totally blew this one. Read my post again and try it again.
S
SIA
Guest
100% God.
R
RobHom
Guest
No, you did. I quoted precisely what you said. Actually what you said was that “we believed that”. A bearing of “false witness” on your part.I never said that Mary was the second person of the Trinity. You need to get off your high horse and stop this nasty tirade. You are so blinded by anger right now that you totally blew this one. Read my post again and try it again.
SIA…stop trying to read my mind… you’re failing dismally. You are incapable of “angering” me. You haven’t the ability, much less the acumen. Sorry to put it that way, but it would seem that you view yourself as a “legend in your own mind”.
I blew nothing. I called you out on falseness. It seems to be your stock in trade.
Again, if you are so angry with the Catholic Church…why do you spend so much time on this site? To vent your spleen? Spread your vitriol?
Why don’t you answer the questions. Your snide pointless comments are worthless.
W
Wildgraywolf
Guest
SIA said:
Just to to be clear: I think you folks mean: 100% God and 100% human, Correct?
G
guanophore
Guest
No,SIA. It is comments like this that lead me to think that you never understood your Catholic faith.
This heresy was denounced by the Catholic Church in the first few centuries. If you wish to understand the Catholic teaching you will need to study gnosticism and arianism.
I am puzzled to read this, since it seems to contradict what you wrote above. The term “theotokos” or “God-bearer”, rendered in the Latin “mother of God”, was derived from the development of the doctrine of Christ. We believe that He is God in the flesh, therefore, Mary is the Mother of God. She did not originate his divine nature, but neither was His human nature separated from the divine. She did not give birth to a “nature” but to a Person, who had both a divine (eternal) and a human nature.
Phil 2:5-7
Christ Jesus,
6 who, though he was in the form of God,
did not regard equality with God
as something to be exploited,
7 but emptied himself,
taking the form of a slave,
being born in human likeness.
Mary is the mother of Christ Jesus, the second person of the Trinity, who emptied Himself, so that He could be born of her.
This was the term that was selected by the council to clarify the nature of Jesus.
This is an essential question, and represents centuries of debate among the most advanced theologians. I commend you for asking it.
The nature of Mary does not change or define who Christ is, on the other hand, the nature of Christ changes and defines who Mary is. All the Marian doctrines were developed from the nature of Christ. If He is really flesh, then He took His human flesh from Mary, in whose womb He was formed.
Absolutely. This is clear in both scripture, and tradition:
Phil 2:5-7
Christ Jesus,
6 who, though he was in the form of God,
did not regard equality with God
as something to be exploited,
7 but emptied himself,
taking the form of a slave,
being born in human likeness.
She was both! She gave her “yes”, and “produced” God from her womb. She did not produce the eternal nature of God, but His human nature was not separated from the divine nature.
G
guanophore
Guest
Correct. The Catholic Church developed the docrine of the Trinity, and the hypostatic union, in which it is stated that the second person of the Trinity, the Divine Son of God,took on human nature and was born of a virgin (flesh of her flesh). 100% God and 100% man. Of course the Catholic church has never professed the ability to comprehend this great mystery of God.
P
Pixie_Dust
Guest
Yes.
W
Wildgraywolf
Guest
Good, now I can sleep easier.
It’s good to know we can all agree on the person hood of Jesus.
P
Pixie_Dust
Guest
Some people seem to think that Mary only gave birth to the human Jesus, separating Him from His divinity.Good, now I can sleep easier.
J
justasking4
Guest
Lets not forget that Mary according to Saint Alfonso Ligori in conjunction with the Catholic church is omnipotent. We see this from the Glories of Mary:
“Therefore, to use the words of St. Antonine, God has put the whole Church not only under the patronage, but even under the power and authority, of Mary. Since, then, the Mother must have the same power as the Son, Mary became omnipotent because Jesus is omnipotent. Of course, the Son is omnipotent by nature, where Mary is omnipotent only by grace. This is proved by the fact that the Son never refuses the Mother anything she seeks, as St. Bridget learned in a revelation.”
This passage is from his book in
chapter 6
TURN, THEN, MOST GRACIOUS ADVOCATE
It is not really a stretch to think that she would be included in the Trinity.
“Therefore, to use the words of St. Antonine, God has put the whole Church not only under the patronage, but even under the power and authority, of Mary. Since, then, the Mother must have the same power as the Son, Mary became omnipotent because Jesus is omnipotent. Of course, the Son is omnipotent by nature, where Mary is omnipotent only by grace. This is proved by the fact that the Son never refuses the Mother anything she seeks, as St. Bridget learned in a revelation.”
This passage is from his book in
chapter 6
TURN, THEN, MOST GRACIOUS ADVOCATE
It is not really a stretch to think that she would be included in the Trinity.
J
justasking4
Guest
Lets not forget that Mary according to Saint Alfonso Ligori in conjunction with the Catholic church says she is omnipotent. Only God is omnipotent. We see this from the Glories of Mary:
“Therefore, to use the words of St. Antonine, God has put the whole Church not only under the patronage, but even under the power and authority, of Mary. Since, then, the Mother must have the same power as the Son, Mary became omnipotent because Jesus is omnipotent. Of course, the Son is omnipotent by nature, where Mary is omnipotent only by grace. This is proved by the fact that the Son never refuses the Mother anything she seeks, as St. Bridget learned in a revelation.”
This passage is from his book in
chapter 6
TURN, THEN, MOST GRACIOUS ADVOCATE
It is not really a stretch to think that she would be included in the Trinity with this kind of teaching.
R
RobHom
Guest
But the differentiation is that only you put that stretch into action. We do not. No Catholic believes that.
G
guanophore
Guest
You are right, but this is not Catholic Teaching. It is the opinion of a man who was very devoted to Mary, and entrusted his life to her care. His recommendation that all others do the same is not binding on Catholics.
ja4, would you consider taking issue with actual Catholic doctrine, instead of pulling poetry out of rare books and purporting that it is equivalent to Catholic Teaching?
Or even better, would you consider developing some tolerance in your heart for those who have different religious practices than yours, even if you don’t agree with them?
You seem to feel as though you have a God ordained mission to pull the weeds out of what you think is the wheat field. It is very unbecoming.
J
justasking4
Guest
I don’t think you and others quite grasp the significance of this work in regards to how it has impacted marian doctrines and practices and the millions of lives it has affected. This is what the introduction to this work says:
"INTRODUCTION
St. Alphonsus wrote The Glories of Mary as a defense of our Lady’s sublime position in traditional Catholic devotion. Certain writers of his time, tainted with Jansenism, were busy ridiculing devotion to Mary, singling out the Hail Holy Queen [Salve Regina] for particular criticism.
St. Alphonsus’ admirable handling of their false scandal over common Catholic practice was simple enough, but overwhelming in its effect. He quoted Saints, Doctors, popes, theologians, Sacred Scripture, the Liturgy, the mind of the Church, the whole vast treasury of Catholic tradition and said, equivalently, “Here is your answer.”
St. Alphonsus did not argue, except now and then. Where was the need for argument? His tone was quiet but devastating, full of the calm assurance which comes from reliance on unimpeachable authority. He was tender, at times rapturous, particularly when directly addressing our Blessed Lady in his beautiful prayers. He wrote with the mind of a genius and the heart of a child, a great theologian who was also a Saint.
No one will ever know the extent of his influence over those millions of genuinely Catholic spirits who want to be devoted to our Lady."
He was not just writing some “poetry” but was making “a defense of our Lady’s sublime position in traditional Catholic devotion.”
I suspect many catholics are just familar with saying the Hail Mary and don’t really give it much thought. Its works like these that really shows how this kind of thing does in fact support Catholic Teachings on Mary.
You strike me as one who does not want this kind of thing to be known and if you were for the truth would want this to be known widely. I can only guess why you don’t…You seem to feel as though you have a God ordained mission to pull the weeds out of what you think is the wheat field. It is very unbecoming.
Ps-- would not this work be considered part of the “fullness of the Truth” that is in the Catholic church?
- Status