Mary as having authority as the "Queen Mother"?

[mpernot]

You have blinders on and earplugs in. What more can be said?

Quite a statement from someone who won’t offer any support for their accusations and ignores support given by the other point of view…

I was interested in an open exchange, but I think this thread has no fruit to offer either of us. All I ask is that you don’t continue to misrepresent the Catholic faith by perpetuating the claim that we worship Mary. I’ll be sure not to misrepresent your position either. I once had issues with Mary’s position in the faith for a while also, as well as praying to saints. It became clear to me as I began to really understand apostolic authority, which is why I suggested that you learn more about that as well. Hopefully, someday it will be made clear to you also. As a former Catholic, I think you have no idea what you left behind or you would have never left it. That’s not a dig on you, I think it’s the truth.

Pray for me, and I’ll pray for you as well. Interceding for each other in this way is no different than asking Mary to intercede for us, by the way. She’s much closer to God than I am, so I’ll ask her to intercede for you, too.

 

[guanophore]

I’m sorry to say that much of what you wrote here is blasphemous. I must be harsh in my response because it is warranted in this case. Mary is NOT the purest realization of the faith. Jesus Christ is, period!

This is just a misunderstanding. Of course Jesus is the image of God to us. What we are saying is that Mary embodies God’s intention for humanity. She is a creature, and human beings are the crown of God’s creation. God demonstrated in Mary what He intends for all of humanity. This is true of Christ, of course, but Mary does not have a Divine nature as He does, and neither do the rest of us.

Mary is what God intended for Eve to be. How is that blasphemy?

Pope Pius XII worshipped and influenced the Catholic faithful to worship Mary. He attributes many things to Mary that ONLY rightfully belong to Christ. He spoke blashemy against our Lord.
I wholeheartedly disagree with what you believe regarding Mary and the popes.

I think that you don’t understand the difference between worship and honor. I also think you don’t understand God’s intention for humanity.

God intends to make us partakers of the divine nature. A little exploration of the concept of theosis may help here.

 

[guanophore]

Where have you been??? I have given the Scriptures over and over. You just wish to ignore that your churches teachings regarding Mary are anti-Scriptural.

No, there is nothing in Scripture that contradicts any Catholic teachigns. This is because it was the Catholic Teaching that produced th NT. They come from the same Source, so they cannot conflict with one another. Your understanding of both is deficient, however, so it seems to you as if they contradict.

You need not explain anything my friend. I was a devout Roman Catholic for nearly four decades. I know the prayer from Pope Pius XII well. I also know what Scripture says regarding much of this. It’s pure Mary worship.

It is a shame that you were so poorly catechized. It was a sign of the times, sadly. There is a whole generation of victims.

It speaks for itself. He spoke for himself. He unequivocally attributed qualities to Mary that soley belong to Christ. Why don’t you compare his prayer to what many of the Early Church fathers stated about Mary.

I have found nothing contradictory there either. I agree, though, that some people’s devotion to Mary is over the top. Here in this part of the country, some celebrate the feast of Our Lady of Guadelupe as to a goddess.

God wants to impart divine characteristics to us, but we will not “become” divine. We will always be creatures partaking of the divine nature.

I don’t see that in my Bible. Hmm. I don’t see it in 4 other translations I have either.

That is because it often is not reflected in the “translations”. I think this is the crux of the problem. Whatever “I don’t see in my bible” must be wrong. You don’t seem to realize that your perceptions are not the standard for the Truth of God’s kingdom.

Then where does it become more than an unsubstantiated rumor?

Same time and place when the Trinity, the hypostatic union, and the canon of the Scripture were determined not to be unsubstantiated rumor. When it was divinely revealed and proclaimed by the Church. What you are suffering is a distrust of God in the ability to guide the Church.

Right. But which ones are not and how do we prove them to be from God?

Personally, I don’t think it is possible. I think it is a matter of faith. One either accepts the teachings of the Apostles, or not.

You have blinders on and earplugs in. What more can be said?

Not much! We have been clearly instructed not to listen to those who have left the faith.

 

[richardwy]

I am challenging you to use Scripture to prove Mary’s Assumption into Heaven body and spirit and all of the other dogmas that cannot be shown in Scripture. I am asking you to prove that these are true.

Why?

What you’re asking is plain silly.

Why would you do that?

You’re focusing on dogmas while missing the bigger picture.

It always boils down to the same thing: traditions of the apostles and the scriptures (put yourself in Saint Paul’s time and place; then try it again with the Church Fathers) versus those who protest against the Apostle’s traditions, the Scriptures, and Church Fathers.

The only legitimate “beef” that I can see in Christianity could exist does exist between Catholics and the Orthodox.

 

[Good_Fella]

You have blinders on and earplugs in. What more can be said?

Nothing more can be said since you haven’t really said anything to begin with.

 

[guanophore]

You are misunderstanding me. I am challenging you to use Scripture to prove Mary’s Assumption into Heaven body and spirit and all of the other dogmas that cannot be shown in Scripture. I am asking you to prove that these are true.

Why?

What you’re asking is plain silly.

Why would you do that?

You’re focusing on dogmas while missing the bigger picture.

It always boils down to the same thing: traditions of the apostles and the scriptures (put yourself in Saint Paul’s time and place; then try it again with the Church Fathers) versus those who protest against the Apostle’s traditions, the Scriptures, and Church Fathers.

The only legitimate “beef” that I can see in Christianity could exist does exist between Catholics and the Orthodox.

It is a demand/challenge that proceeds from a false premise - that Scripture contains everything. Scripture itself does not say this about itself! This is the same as asking:

“Show me where the table of contents to scripture is found in scripture”, then when such a list cannot be produced because it does not exist within the Scriptures, saying “it is anti-biblical”.

It is also silly because we are talking about an event that occurred after most of the NT had already been written, and those books that were not yet written do reference it.

I think, though, that the importance Mary was to have in the Church was veiled in the beginning. Just like the need to define the Trinity, it was not initially obvious.

 

[mpernot]

It is a demand/challenge that proceeds from a false premise - that Scripture contains everything. Scripture itself does not say this about itself!

I thought this too, but a comment from post 73 seems to say otherwise:

mpernot: Having said that, show me where the Bible says that everything we as Christians need to know about our faith must come only from Sacred Scripture. If this is what you believe, you ought to be able to find a verse from Scripture that backs this up. Can you do this?

SIA: I don’t believe everything that is truth is contained in Scripture, but I do believe that everything in the Bible is truth. Think about that.

The question wasn’t directly answered, but this is definitely not a ‘Sola Scriptura’ remark. The point of my questions in post 68 was to make sure that I wasn’t falsely assuming either way. This is why I have found the the exchange since these posts very interesting; I thought we might have some common ground with respect to the truth outside of Scripture (seems to be relatively rare with non-Catholic Christians). But, with all due respect to SIA, I think all that came of it were unsupported, close-minded accusations.

 

[SIA]

The real challenge posed here to Catholics is to provide evidence that Mary really was born without the stain of original sin, remained a virgin her whole life, ascended into Heaven body and spirit and is now the Queen of Heaven. This sounds almost like the female version of the Nicene Creed! There is no support anywhere to back any of these. We have been in this subject countless times but yet not a single person can show the proof for these statements to be true.

 

[richardwy]

There is no support anywhere to back any of these. We have been in this subject countless times but yet not a single person can show the proof for these statements to be true.

This reminds me, just a little, of some trial where the defendant refuses to recognize the authority of the court trying them.

“Authority” is the bug bear. And one of the reasons I love the Church. Not because it says, “we’re the boss on these things; lump it.”

But because through history it has demonstrated itself to be the Church.

As opposed to a state sponsored Christian fellowship or one individually or collectively sponsored.

 

[SIA]

This reminds me, just a little, of some trial where the defendant refuses to recognize the authority of the court trying them.

“Authority” is the bug bear. And one of the reasons I love the Church. Not because it says, “we’re the boss on these things; lump it.”

But because through history it has demonstrated itself to be the Church.

As opposed to a state sponsored Christian fellowship or one individually or collectively sponsored.

Still nothing…

 

[ncgolf]

The real challenge posed here to Catholics is to provide evidence that Mary really was born without the stain of original sin, remained a virgin her whole life, ascended into Heaven body and spirit and is now the Queen of Heaven. This sounds almost like the female version of the Nicene Creed! There is no support anywhere to back any of these. We have been in this subject countless times but yet not a single person can show the proof for these statements to be true.

… Catholics don’t believe Mary ascended … Mary was assumed, Feast of the Assumption. If you want to disbelieve … ok … but disbelieve what we believe not what you think we believe.

 

[ncgolf]

This sounds almost like the female version of the Nicene Creed!

The Nicene Creed

We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is seen and unseen. We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, one in being with the Father. Through Him all things were made. For us men and our salvation He came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit, He was born of the Virgin Mary , and became man. For our sake He was crucified under Pontius Pilate; He suffered, died, and was buried. On the third day He rose again in fulfillment of the scriptures: He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end. We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son. With the Father and the Son, He is worshiped and glorified. He has spoken through the Prophets. We believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

What part of what Catholic belief in what Mary means to mankind would make you write such a thoughtless and asanine comment? I included this so you can point to the line you are referring to.

 

[ncgolf]

The real challenge posed here to Catholics is to provide evidence that Mary really was born without the stain of original sin, remained a virgin her whole life, ascended into Heaven body and spirit and is now the Queen of Heaven. This sounds almost like the female version of the Nicene Creed! There is no support anywhere to back any of these. We have been in this subject countless times but yet not a single person can show the proof for these statements to be true.

Marian doctrines are logical consequences when the whole of Salvation History is reflected on. This is how dogmas of the Trinity and Hypostatic Union are developed … no one piece of Scripture supports fully but the whole of Scripture does. I am sure the Apostles could not fully understand all of what Christ was … it took reflection and prayer and study by those who followed to give a more complete understanding … also a couple of heresies helped the Church along in reasoned and correct understandings.

Marian doctrines do not stand on their own without a Catholic understanding of Christ’s nature, original sin, Christ’s ascension, etc and an understanding and acceptance of how the Church interprets Scripture in the developoment of dogmatic doctrine. Since you do not accept the latter statements your skepticism is understandable but you have never shown why the Catholic understanding of Mary is unreasonable. None of the those items listed by you is impossible for God … for Mary herself yes … but not for God.

Nothing you listed is something Mary did … they were all things Mary would have to receive as a gift … extraordinry gifts for an extraordinary woman … could not God have given these to Mary?

Mary would indeed be a goddess without Jesus.

The word Assumption is not mentioned in Scripture … does this mean it did not happen or that it cannot be?

If you really think about it what evidence or proof is there to believe in Jesus anyway … what proof or evidence is enough for a real skeptic? We don’t believe now because of proof but because of faith.

 

[mpernot]

The real challenge posed here to Catholics is to provide evidence that Mary really was born without the stain of original sin, remained a virgin her whole life, ascended into Heaven body and spirit and is now the Queen of Heaven. This sounds almost like the female version of the Nicene Creed! There is no support anywhere to back any of these. We have been in this subject countless times but yet not a single person can show the proof for these statements to be true.

This is interesting to me and I think you’re changing your tune here. Consider your demand back in post 79:

I am simply asking for an example of a church teaching that is, as you say, “contrary to scripture.”

Mary as co-Redemptrix with Christ.

Mary as co-Mediatrix with Christ.

Mary as perpetually virgin.

Mary remaining without sin for her entire earthly life.

Each can be Clearly refuted by using Scripture.

I’ve already shown that Mary as Co-Redemptrix, Mary as Co-Mediatrix, and Mary as perpetually virgin are not contrary to Scripture (I never did get around to Mary as perpetually sinless, did I? It’s definitely not counter to Scripture, and we can revisit that if you are open to it). In your latest accusation here, it sounds like proving that such things are not counter to Scripture is no longer good enough; you are now demanding proof of these doctrines.

Each and every thing Catholics believe can be proven to not be counter to Scripture, but I honestly don’t know if these beliefs can be definitively proven to a non-Catholic who would not recognize the authority of the Magisterial documents. I also think it doesn’t matter. We both believe in truth outside of Scripture, which makes me think it’s very likely that you actually hold traditions/doctrines outside of Scripture to be truth. As long as these are not contrary to Scripture, you’d probably have a heck of a time proving or disproving those beliefs as well.

Part of the Catholic (and indeed any faith) faith is understanding the authority of the church you follow. Once this happens in the Catholic faith then all those church writings you keep misinterpreting mean something. All that apostolic authority and the authority of the church stuff - it’s actually relevant, I (and others) don’t keep bringing it up to sidetrack you because we can’t answer the question. We are answering the question.

 

[guanophore]

I thought this too, but a comment from post 73 seems to say otherwise:

The question wasn’t directly answered, but this is definitely not a ‘Sola Scriptura’ remark. The point of my questions in post 68 was to make sure that I wasn’t falsely assuming either way. This is why I have found the the exchange since these posts very interesting; I thought we might have some common ground with respect to the truth outside of Scripture (seems to be relatively rare with non-Catholic Christians). But, with all due respect to SIA, I think all that came of it were unsupported, close-minded accusations.

Well, in deference to him, he has had a very bad personal experience with Catholicism, so his accusations well up from the injuries caused, among other things. I can’t help it if he is double minded, demanding Scriptural "proofs’ then at the same time, admitting that they are not necessary.

 

[guanophore]

The real challenge posed here to Catholics is to provide evidence that Mary really was born without the stain of original sin, remained a virgin her whole life, ascended into Heaven body and spirit and is now the Queen of Heaven. This sounds almost like the female version of the Nicene Creed! There is no support anywhere to back any of these. We have been in this subject countless times but yet **not a single person can show the proof **for these statements to be true.

No, and you cannot seem to understand what “faith” is about, and that these dogmas, just like the nicean creed, are “faith statements”. They are doctrines of “faith”, not “proof”. None of the content of the Marian doctrines or the nicean creed are amenable to scientific proofs. Sorry, you are applying investagatory principles erroneously in the wrong field of study.

If you are interested in “proof”, you are on the wrong forum.

We accept the elements of the Nicean Creed because we recieved the faith passed on to us by the Apostles. It was that Divine Deposit of Faith that produced the Bible. The Marian doctrines are part of that same deposit of faith. I cannot either provide you with any “proof” that, from among the 400+ documents floating around, claiming to be inspiried in 385 AD that the 27 chosen to become the NT are the ones that belong there, and no others. This is an article of faith.

It seems to me you are having a trust problem. You cannot seem to trust the same Source of all the other elements of faith you accept is the one from whence the Marian doctrines came.

 

[SIA]

No, and you cannot seem to understand what “faith” is about, and that these dogmas, just like the nicean creed, are “faith statements”. They are doctrines of “faith”, not “proof”. None of the content of the Marian doctrines or the nicean creed are amenable to scientific proofs. Sorry, you are applying investagatory principles erroneously in the wrong field of study.

If you are interested in “proof”, you are on the wrong forum.

We accept the elements of the Nicean Creed because we recieved the faith passed on to us by the Apostles. It was that Divine Deposit of Faith that produced the Bible. The Marian doctrines are part of that same deposit of faith. I cannot either provide you with any “proof” that, from among the 400+ documents floating around, claiming to be inspiried in 385 AD that the 27 chosen to become the NT are the ones that belong there, and no others. This is an article of faith.

It seems to me you are having a trust problem. You cannot seem to trust the same Source of all the other elements of faith you accept is the one from whence the Marian doctrines came.

I don’t agree. There is much in the Nicene Creed that pertains to proof of truths such as Christ and who he is and what he did. The Holy Spirit and his defining qualities. The definition of the one holy catholic and apostolic Church. No Marian dogmas contained in it however. It was formulated and used to oppose heresies of its day.

 

[mpernot]

I don’t agree. There is much in the Nicene Creed that pertains to proof of truths such as Christ and who he is and what he did. The Holy Spirit and his defining qualities. The definition of the one holy catholic and apostolic Church. No Marian dogmas contained in it however. It was formulated and used to oppose heresies of its day.

I think there is scientific proof that Jesus Christ existed in human form, but nearly all of the Christian beliefs about God (including Jesus) cannot be proven scientifically or with any sort of tangible evidence. That’s not the point of faith, and it’s not the purpose of the Nicene Creed. You cannot give the creed to a non-Christian and say “here’s proof of what we believe”, it’s only documentation that declares basic tenets of the faith.

The Nicene Creed was indeed developed at the council of Nicea to clarify church teaching and combat the Arian heresy, but it was not intended to contain every article of faith that we hold. The creed was developed to define and profess the core beliefs (and as noted above, specifically the core beliefs challenged by Arianism). The fact that Marian doctrine is not there doesn’t mean that we don’t believe it or that it is not important. If anyone wants a list of every belief that Catholics maintain, the correct source is not the Nicene Creed but the Catechism (via the documents from the early church that informed it). Forgive me if I missed your point, but I think this was Guanaphore’s point.

By the way, the fact that everything in the Nicene Creed centers around God (and mostly Jesus) should further reinforce the point that Catholics don’t worship Mary. If we did, wouldn’t that be in our creed?

 

[guanophore]

I don’t agree. There is much in the Nicene Creed that pertains to proof of truths such as Christ and who he is and what he did. The Holy Spirit and his defining qualities. The definition of the one holy catholic and apostolic Church. No Marian dogmas contained in it however. It was formulated and used to oppose heresies of its day.

Then perhaps we are having a semantic problem with the word “proof”. What does it mean to you? Are dogmatic statements made by the Church considered to you to be “proofs”?

If so, what criteria do you use to determine which dogmatic statements you will accept as “proof” and which ones are “speculations” (doctrines of men, or whatever term you use to refer to the dogmatic statements you reject)

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

When Protestants read their Apostles Creed in church, not only must they say “The Holy Catholic church”, they must also say “Born of the Virgin Mary”…
It states the Apostles wrote this Creed in the Third century, others say it was written on the 7th day after Christ was ascended into heaven. Just goes to show you that everything was Catholic in belief.