M
mich2
Guest
I believe I was clear in who’s Will I was refering to, Apophasis.“Thy Will,” or “your will?” His Word, or your “process?”
Andre
- Status
Andre
J
Jasny
Guest
Well said
BTW may I take the opportunity to say that Mary was NOT the spouse of the Holy Spirit( 3rd person of the Trinity). This has been a pius custom without theological underpinnings.
I know that many saints have proposed this custom but it is wrong.
- The Son is generated by the Father not the Holy Spirit. So if it is to be said she is the “spouse” of one of the Divine trinity it would be the Father.
- The 3rd council of Torledo( which is the best creed on the HolyTrinity) says: "(38) Yet we must NOT believe that the Holy Spirit is Father of the Son, because of the fact that Mary conceived by the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit, lest we seem to assert that there are two Fathers of the Son, which is certainly impious to say."
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
Ex-Catholics, that should be - one cannot be a Catholic, and believe in the deity of Mary; nor falsify the Blessed Trinity; because one automatically ceases to be a Christian, if one holds obstinately to such doctrines. What this deifying of Mary reminds me of is the Goddess of many feminists; the only remedy for the goddess lie, in all its forms, is the True God.
IMHO this development is unsurprising, given the exaggerations about the function of the BVM that are allowed to circulate: if I were Pope, I would condemn a lot of the ideas of St.Louis de Montfort &, especially, St. Maximilian Kolbe. He was a Pole, & it is also from Poland that the Mariavites came, who were excommunicated in 1906. That there are such horrid blasphemies as the deity of Mary is* partly* the fault of the Church. I would be only too delighted to be wrong about this - I don’t think I am ##
D
didymus
Guest
Maybe he’s thinking of the proposed Marian title of “Co-Redemptrix”? I don’t want to re-ignite the controversy here but I know that even some Catholics don’t care for it and that it is misunderstood outside the Church as elevating Mary to near-divine status.
T
Thursday1
Guest
There is a fundamental problem, in Mary being created in the exact image of God. If Mary was made in the exact image of God, she would be indistinguishable from God (or so says Aquinas). You will mainly find this argument used in response to why there is natural evil, but it applies here as well.
Given: God is uncreated, Mary is created,
If Mary were the exact image of God, there can be no distinguishing between the two of them. However, per our given information, we can distinguish between uncreated and created. Therefore the syllogism is false. QED
The limit of being created necessarily prohibits Mary from being one in nature with God, and thus is an infinite limitation. To quote Spinoza: “This I know, that between finite and infinite there is no comparison; so that the difference between God and the greatest and most excellent created thing is no less than the difference between God and the least created thing.”
Yours in Christ,
Thursday
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
1. The authenticity, supernaturality, & orthodoxy of these apparitions is highly contentious. Approval of them has been given by the bishop only.
2. To call the BVM “Co-Redemptrix” would falsify the NT use of the figure of the Kinsman-Redeemer in the OT: a solo figure.Isaiah 63 is echoed in Revelation, where “the winepress of the wrath of God” is spoken of (14.19 & 19.15); the chapter in Isaiah says: “I have trodden the winepress alone…”; if they are put together, it seems clear Isaiah 63 is taken to refer to the wrath of Christ as Judge; cf. Luke 23.44 - the imagery is that of “the day of the the LORD”. He treads the winepress alone. There is no place for Mary - Jesus acts alone. Mary did not drink the cup of the Wrath of God: Jesus did. Mary did not take on herself the sins of the world: Jesus did. Some things she cannot be or do, as she is human, & no more; no amount or degree of grace can alter the difference between God & her. ##
What an idea. 
How could any but God Incarnate alone be the One, to see Whom, is to see His Father ? Such an idea flies in the face of the NT witness to His Unique Sonship, & to much more about Him. It is anti-Christian - it lowers the Son so that He is hardly, if at all, more excellent than His mother.
Creatures are negligible in comparison with Him. That’s not to say she is not a Saint - she is - but she is as nothing compared to Him, for all her graces.No human could possibly be the exact Image of God, but His Son alone. To be that Image, is possible to no creature. St.Paul does not so much as name her in the one verse (Galatians 4.4) in which he refers to her; but he cannot stop speaking of Christ. Christ fills his heart, his teaching, his mind - everything is for, from, to, in & by Christ. If Mary had been that like her Son, he could hardly not have said so. St. John speaks of her - & never says that. In all the Bible, there is not one hint of it. ##
The written Word of God imposes limits; if what it says of Christ is true, some ideas about creatures cannot be. Metaphysics imposes others.
Nothing that obscures the place of Christ can be true. That idea would be valueless - & it would be a modern invention. What Father taught it? If the Church teaches fables, it has no claim to be heeded in that matter, because it has no authority to teach untruths, but only what is true. He did not give it authority to replace Him by His mother, or to make Him subject to Her; she is now subject to Him 
A
apophasis
Guest
So well stated!!! And I might add, the Church has no authority to teach that it is subject to her.1. The authenticity, supernaturality, & orthodoxy of these apparitions is highly contentious. Approval of them has been given by the bishop only.
2. To call the BVM “Co-Redemptrix” would falsify the NT use of the figure of the Kinsman-Redeemer in the OT: a solo figure.
Isaiah 63 is echoed in Revelation, where “the winepress of the wrath of God” is spoken of (14.19 & 19.15); the chapter in Isaiah says: “I have trodden the winepress alone…”; if they are put together, it seems clear Isaiah 63 is taken to refer to the wrath of Christ as Judge; cf. Luke 23.44 - the imagery is that of “the day of the the LORD”. He treads the winepress alone. There is no place for Mary - Jesus acts alone. Mary did not drink the cup of the Wrath of God: Jesus did. Mary did not take on herself the sins of the world: Jesus did. Some things she cannot be or do, as she is human, & no more; no amount or degree of grace can alter the difference between God & her. #### What an idea.
Creatures are negligible in comparison with Him. That’s not to say she is not a Saint - she is - but she is as nothing compared to Him, for all her graces.
No human could possibly be the exact Image of God, but His Son alone. To be that Image, is possible to no creature. St.Paul does not so much as name her in the one verse (Galatians 4.4) in which he refers to her; but he cannot stop speaking of Christ. Christ fills his heart, his teaching, his mind - everything is for, from, to, in & by Christ. If Mary had been that like her Son, he could hardly not have said so. St. John speaks of her - & never says that. In all the Bible, there is not one hint of it. ##
The written Word of God imposes limits; if what it says of Christ is true, some ideas about creatures cannot be. Metaphysics imposes others.
Nothing that obscures the place of Christ can be true. That idea would be valueless - & it would be a modern invention. What Father taught it? If the Church teaches fables, it has no claim to be heeded in that matter, because it has no authority to teach untruths, but only what is true. He did not give it authority to replace Him by His mother, or to make Him subject to Her; she is now subject to Him
M
mich2
Guest
To begin with, Thursday,I did mention that Mary, being like unto God hypothesis, is introduced as a theological speculation only. My problem with certain catholics on this thread is that they seem to **know **the limits to be put on Mary. I fully agree that we cannot preach as **truth **our own personal speculations. My point is this; before the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary was declared, there were many catholics who preached it as being a false doctrine. They were not at fault since it had been declared as dogma yet…however, they were wrong nevertheless. The doctrine of Co-Redemption and Mediatrix are not newly emerging specuations but have been believed by many Saints. I personally do not put any limits as to what the nature of Mary might be.
From his book the Glories of Mary St. Alphonsus de Liguori wrote.
She is omnipotent, for the queen, according to all laws, enjoys the same privileges as the king; and since the son’s power also belongs to the mother, this Mother is made omnipotent by an omnipotent Son. 39
I disagree; no creature has the fulness of God within them, not even the Archangels, since, by their very nature, they simply are not able contain the fullness of God. Jesus is God incarnate, and so, Himself is God by nature. I am speculating that Mary only has received a nature capable of receiving the fullness of God.Notice that St Alphonsus de Liguori identified Mary as omnipotent
through her Son Jesus; such is a **divine **characteristic that no one will argue about…I personally do not find St Alphonsus’ teaching blasphemous, although I question whether some Catholics within this thread would indeed find such logic blasphemous in essence. This is the danger I find when people try to limit God.
Within the book "GLORIES OF MARY ", Such words are used to describe her… **Incomparably greater than all other creatures. 4-451. **…Jesus is omnipotent of himself; Mary is all powerful through her Son. 73-70,that is, Omnipotent through grace. 68,… Purest, holiest, fairest of creatures…
Splendor of all heaven,… **There is an **infinite difference **between God’s servants and His mother 91-10.
**,notice the word infinite is used …Thou has far excelled every other work of God,… After her Son, exalted by divine grace above all the angels and men
Such wording do not “prove” that Mary was created in the exact likeness of God, but certainly suggests such a doctrine to be possible.
Yours in Christ,
Thursday
Andre
A
apophasis
Guest
A perfect example of Paul’s principle: “A little leaven leavens the whole lump.”
R
rtconstant
Guest
timesonline.co.uk/article/0,3933-2034462_1,00.html
Well assuming the above link is correct (it is cool if I post that link correct?) then I think this one has been put to bed.
Well assuming the above link is correct (it is cool if I post that link correct?) then I think this one has been put to bed.
C
childofmary1143
Guest
While it is true that the Holy Spirit is the “father” of the Son nevertheless the Holy Spirit IS THE SPOUSE OF THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY. That is an article of our faithWell said
BTW may I take the opportunity to say that Mary was NOT the spouse of the Holy Spirit( 3rd person of the Trinity). This has been a pius custom without theological underpinnings.
I know that many saints have proposed this custom but it is wrong.
3 Church Fathers and good theology have taken the overshadowing of Mary not to be the 3rd Person but the whole God Triune. Appropriation must be given to the act of the Person and as pointed out above if we were to appropriate the act of conception (ie. Generation of the Son) it properly would belong to the Father.
- The Son is generated by the Father not the Holy Spirit. So if it is to be said she is the “spouse” of one of the Divine trinity it would be the Father.
- The 3rd council of Torledo( which is the best creed on the HolyTrinity) says: "(38) Yet we must NOT believe that the Holy Spirit is Father of the Son, because of the fact that Mary conceived by the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit, lest we seem to assert that there are two Fathers of the Son, which is certainly impious to say."
M
mich2
Guest
So, what are you saying, Micheal? Are you declaring that such apparitions are totally false, having definite erronious teachings, eventhough the bishop, with the support of Rome declared the vision worthy of belief?
So, are you declaring the message of the apparition of the Lady of all Nation as being a sham, or a deception of Satan, with no possibility for the vision being authentic…or am I misinterpretating what you have written?
Many…many protestant will quote scriptures in order to claim that Mary had other children as well…Isaiah 63 is echoed in Revelation, where “the winepress of the wrath of God” is spoken of (14.19 & 19.15); the chapter in Isaiah says: “I have trodden the winepress alone…”; if they are put together, it seems clear Isaiah 63 is taken to refer to the wrath of Christ as Judge; cf. Luke 23.44 - the imagery is that of “the day of the the LORD”. He treads the winepress alone. There is no place for Mary - Jesus acts alone. Mary did not drink the cup of the Wrath of God: Jesus did. Mary did not take on herself the sins of the world: Jesus did. Some things she cannot be or do, as she is human, & no more; no amount or degree of grace can alter the difference between God & her. #### What an idea.
Protestants also claim her to be a Saint, Micheal.
Therefore God is unable to create a living being equal to Him…Is that what you are implying?
If the Church teaches fables, it has no claim to be heeded in that matter, because it has no authority to teach untruths, but only what is true. He did not give it authority to replace Him by His mother, or to make Him subject to Her; she is now subject to Him
Acoording to you, is the Church capable of teaching authoritavely in terms of dogma, untruths? If not, then you have nothing to worry about…the Church will **never ** elevate lies to a domagtic level…
Andre
J
Jasny
Guest
Andre
There is some speculative theology connected with my satement above. That could clear up this divinity problem.There are three sacraments which give a mark on the soul, baptism, confirmation, holy orders. What the marks do is very mysterious but they are there we know, from Church teaching. Im not sure how holy oders work in this speculation but I relate what I can remember.
The marks bring us into the inner life of the trinity. They form a special relationship with us and a nothr person of the Trinity.
Baptism’s mark brings us into 2nd person’s sonship as adopted sons and members of the Church. By this mark we now have a special relationship with the Son.
Confirmation’s mark brings us into a special relationship with the Holy Spirit, bringing us into a deeper relationship in the Trinity.
The question arises what of the mark of the Father. Well this theory says that the Father generates the Son so Mary was sealed by the Father to generate the Son and by doing this so sealed her soul with the mark of the Father. Meaning that she is the one person that has the marks of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit and makes her share in the Trinity is the most complete of all creation.
M
mich2
Guest
Not really, rtconstant. I do understand the concern about 20th century Marian apparitions…they’re extremely numerous, and very understandably, some, many, or even most among them might be frauds.
However, you know as well as I do that Rome did identify some of the visions as “worthy of belief”. One of such apparition which obtained the approval of Rome by the present Pope, then Cardinal Ratzigner, was the miraculous event which happend to Sr. Agnes Sasagawa in Akita, Japan, .
**JUNE, 1988 – Vatican City – Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, gives definitive judgement on the Akita events and messages as reliable and worthy of belief. **
Here’s a Catholic link gives a list of the most publicized Marian apparitions having an * on those who have been Church approved.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marian_apparitions
Within the Catholic article, Akita is listed as approved, where Garabandal and Medjugorje are not, and Amsterdam is not even listed among them, showing that it is not a church approved apparition and also not very well known.
However,the Lady speaking to Sr. Agnes Sasagawa in Akita, Japan, “is” the Lady of all Nations. Sr. Agnes Sasagawa’s movement is the devotion to the Lady of all Nations.
Now, as your article mentions, the Church is going to silence
Amsterdam, due to possible theological errors or at least misunderstood (without any official claim the apparition is a fake, I’m certain of that, since Akita would now have to be explained). The Church needs to move with extreme precaution in such cases.However, to silence is not a condemnation, but a cautious step forward, only.
Andre
M
mich2
Guest
Let’s speak of the already accepted Marian Dogmas, Apophasis.A perfect example of Paul’s principle: “A little leaven leavens the whole lump.”
The “Immaculate Conception of Mary”, and Her “Assumption into Heaven”.Do you accept those as your personal beliefs? No?
Then, how could anyone expect you to support the doctrines of Mary, Mediatrix and Co-Redemptrix?
Andre
T
Thursday1
Guest
No, that is what we are all saying, not implying. To be equal to God requires being uncreated. God cannot create something uncreated. Let’s make a little table, 1 meaning uncreated, and 0 meaning created.
Our options are:
God I Mary
. 1 I 0
. 1 I 1
. 0 I 0
. 0 I 1
For God and Mary to be equal, they must both have the same value in our table. That leaves us with options 2 and 3. Option 3 is ridiculous, because God, by definition, is uncreated. That leaves only option 2. God is uncreated, Mary is uncreated. But, we know Mary is created by God, so this cannot be so.
All of this is just Aquinas’s argument for natural evil, just narrowed down a bit to just Mary.
God cannot create a perfect being, i.e. one equal to Himself.
Yours in Christ,
Thursday
M
mich2
Guest
My mistake Thursday, I did not want to imply the possibility of equalness between Mary and God. In this thread, I did mention specifically that Mary could never be called God, due to the reasoning you’ve mentioned. Having said that; a creature of God can receive the presence of God within; how much, potentially,depending on it’s nature, God is more revealed to some and less to others.Being simply creatures, there will be an infinite communion gap between the creature and God,since God is an infinite Being.There will always remain an infinitely deep mystery between God and His creatures. However, we know that such a Gap does not exist between the Father and His Son, since the Son, according to nature, is also God. My question to Micheal was this; isn’t it possible for God to create a being capable in having also a perfect communion with God, without any mystery remaining between the creator and the creature?
I believe that God can certainly create such a creature. I also have never claimed that Mary was such a creature, but only that it was possible that she was, through the reading of church documents such as St. Alphonsus de Liguori .
My question, I guess, would be whether you or Micheal could accept the writings of such Saints as being catholic teachings? Here I stress that the book The Glories of Mary does not identify Mary as being created in such a manner, however, the language used definitely points to such a direction.
Andre
M
mich2
Guest
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
He is not - any more than the wind of heaven is the father of the seed in the field which the sower has sown. Jesus has one Father only - & it is not the Spirit of God; to say otherwise is heretical; as well as needless
If it’s an article of faith, it will have been defined. So it would be in Denzinger. It wasn’t in Denzinger in 1976; it wasn’t in the 1997 CCC. So when was it defined ?
It’s a metaphor to call the Holy Spirit “the Spouse of the Blessed Virgin” - & she can hardly be a or the “quasi-incarnation of the Holy Spirit” as well: she would be marrying herself, & that would be ultra-sick.But unless she really is the wife of the Holy Spirit, it is meaningless to call her “mother of God” - she really & truly is the mother of Jesus, & Jesus really, truly, & substantially is God. So the title “mother of God” is perfectly appropriate. But what is the use of denying she is equally really, truly, & substantially the wife of the Holy Spirit ? That is what one is committing oneself to believing, if one is going to call her “the spouse of the Holy Spirit” - for the reasoning that calls her mother, calls her “spouse of the Holy Spirit” & “daughter of the Father”. She can be mother, without being “spouse” or “daughter” - it is because she is rightly called “mother”, that she is wrongly called “spouse” or “daughter” as well. One title is based on God’s testimony in Scripture, the others are fantasies which should never have started up. If her motherhood is real & substantial, then so must her spousehood & daughterhood be, in the same sense. And that is hardly different from Mormonism, with its “God” who has sexual intercourse with Mary - except that this title “daughter” implies divine intercourse with Mary’s mother.
The only way to avoid the worse than Mormon monstrosity that results if these phrases are understood in the same sense (as by parity of reasoning they have to be), is to deny the rightness of calling her spouse and daughter - which one can do easily, because she is neither: whereas she did become the human & created mother of the Eternal Son made man
“But these two titles are metaphors” - then why is the third not a metaphor also ? It is illogical & irrational to have the same foundation for three titles which are not to be understood univocally - that is, in the same sense; it is a good way to create confusion; as if there were not enough & to spare as it is. It would be like having Three Divine Persons one of Whom was not really God, but only man. The reality of the Incarnation is unaffected by this parallel, because the Word Incarnate is as truly man as He is God, & as truly God as He is man - His Two Natures are inseparable & real. Mary, by contrast, is sheerly human - so a way of thinking which works in speaking of the Word Incarnate, does not work in speaking of her. To call her “spouse of the Holy Spirit” either makes her a goddess, or destroys the Incarnation by destroying the reality of her being the mother of God made man. This title cannot be an article of faith. Solution: keep the title “mother of God”, which points to what is real - & cast out the other two. ##
- Status