Mary as Mediatrix?

[CentralFLJames]

But Monica’s mention of the parable of Lazarus brings with it an interesting idea of how saints in heaven are actually barred from helping those left behind.

When the rich man asked Abraham to send Lazarus to warn his family of what awaits them if they don’t repent, Abraham denied the request bluntly, saying in effect “All people on earth already know what to do. They have the Mosaic Law, hence know exactly how to please God and avoid hellfire. It is now their choice whether to follow the Law of God.”

This seems a strong indication that my answer to the above Question 2 from VociMike was actually WRONG:

Should saints in heaven pray for those on earth? Using this parable in Luk16:29, Jesus in effect says “No, why should saints in heaven pray for those on earth? The earthbound people have the Scriptures; they know exactly what to do and how to live their lives, and need no extra help.”

Is this interpretation inaccurate?

I don’t think this logic works. The important thing to observe here is that Lazarus is not yet in heaven.

Lazarus is in Abraham’s bosom - not yet in heaven; Jesus had not yet risen from the dead to open heavens door. Jesus had not yet taught the spirits sojourning in hades/Abraham’s Bosom. Those not in heaven do not enjoy the full intercessory favor reserved for the saints.

In heaven there is only one rule - Love. Love would grant the extension of grace to those on earth in accordance with God’s will. After Lazarus was promoted to heaven He would be able to intercede in accordance with God’s will.

James

 

[VociMike]

But Monica’s mention of the parable of Lazarus brings with it an interesting idea of how saints in heaven are actually barred from helping those left behind.

When the rich man asked Abraham to send Lazarus to warn his family of what awaits them if they don’t repent, Abraham denied the request bluntly, saying in effect “All people on earth already know what to do. They have the Mosaic Law, hence know exactly how to please God and avoid hellfire. It is now their choice whether to follow the Law of God.”

This seems a strong indication that my answer to the above Question 2 from VociMike was actually WRONG:

Should saints in heaven pray for those on earth? Using this parable in Luk16:29, Jesus in effect says “No, why should saints in heaven pray for those on earth? The earthbound people have the Scriptures; they know exactly what to do and how to live their lives, and need no extra help.”

Is this interpretation inaccurate?

By this interpretation, neither should we pray for each other - hmm…

This all gets into the very interesting question of why we should pray for others. After all, there’s nothing we can tell God that he doesn’t already know.

 

[fuzzylogix]

By this interpretation, neither should we pray for each other - hmm…

This all gets into the very interesting question of why we should pray for others. After all, there’s nothing we can tell God that he doesn’t already know.

Well, praying for one another is a form of cameraderie (for lack of a better word). We are all in the same boat, all suffering the same threats and attacks. To ask God to help out a fellow Christian or to save s.o’s soul is one thing, seeing as we are peers on earth; yet, for a righteous man who already reached heaven, he is out of this world and on to the next. Christ seems to say that the dead man had his own trials, and conquered, Those remaining on earth still need to conquer, but are fully equipped to do so, whether they realise it or not.

To use a very simple, silly analogy: When I am past school and my little brother asks me to help him with his homework, I could help him outright by doing all the work for him, but I know that doing so would ultimately damage his education. He must learn to get through it himself.

I KNOW this analogy is way flawed so plz don’t jump on it, but I mean only for it to serve to characterise the kind of attitude I pick up from Christ in this parable. The feeling of “leave them to their own devices; they have the exact same advantages and knowledge as you who conquered, so let’s see if they can do the same unaided.”

 

[BRB1]

I

Another problem with the “Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant” metaphor (although exceptionally beautiful as it may be…I write prose ), is that I don’t think the Scriptures clearly depict Mary as such an Ark.

Firstly, the Ark was made to house the Law of God, the Mosaic Law. Not temporarily, like Mary housed Christ, but permanently. Uzzah died when he touched the Ark to steady it, but this was not for the sake of the vessel, but for what it carried inside it! The stone tablets were what was holy unto God, not the vessel.

Secondly, the analogy comparing Mary to the Ark is flawed also in the way that it ignores the fact that it is in Christ, through His work, through His sacrifice, that salvation eventually came to us. I would rather see Christ as the Ark of the New Covenant. In His flesh, in His human form, He contained the perfect nature of the Lamb led to the slaughter, a sacrifice for all of us.

This nature contained in the flesh of His body is exactly that which we must all aspire to, just as the ancient Israelites had to aspire to the nature described on the stone tablets, held inside the Ark.

Mary’s connection with the Ark is that she was the STRUCTURE that housed the WORD of God [Christ]. God told Moses exactly how to build the wood sturcture for the first ARK, that contained sacred contents Word on Stone].

Again … NT fulfillment of OT typology is always superior to the original. With Mary, God created his own organic Ark … vs inorganic wood for the first Ark. Now Christ becomes the organic Word, not just Laws on inorganic Stone.

 

[fuzzylogix]

I don’t think this logic works. The important thing to observe here is that Lazarus is not yet in heaven.

Lazarus is in Abraham’s bosom - not yet in heaven; Jesus had not yet risen from the dead to open heavens door. Jesus had not yet taught the spirits sojourning in hades/Abraham’s Bosom. Those not in heaven do not enjoy the full intercessory favor reserved for the saints.

James

What is this you mention of Christ teaching the spirits sojourning in Abraham’s bosom? I do not know this concept at all. Could s.o maybe explain and augment with Scripture to substantiate?

Thx

 

[SingleMomMonica]

But Monica’s mention of the parable of Lazarus brings with it an interesting idea of how saints in heaven are actually barred from helping those left behind.

When the rich man asked Abraham to send Lazarus to warn his family of what awaits them if they don’t repent, Abraham denied the request bluntly, saying in effect “All people on earth already know what to do. They have the Mosaic Law, hence know exactly how to please God and avoid hellfire. It is now their choice whether to follow the Law of God.”

This seems a strong indication that my answer to the above Question 2 from VociMike was actually WRONG:

Should saints in heaven pray for those on earth? Using this parable in Luk16:29, Jesus in effect says “No, why should saints in heaven pray for those on earth? The earthbound people have the Scriptures; they know exactly what to do and how to live their lives, and need no extra help.”

Is this interpretation inaccurate?

The Saints in heaven are active members of the Body of Christ as are we, Christians here on earth.

The Saints in heaven intercede for the members of the Body of Christ who are still here on earth.

Reread the passage in the New Testament. Saints don’t intercede for the Damned. There is NO hope for the damned, those in hell. They have no recourse to God, the Angels or the Saints nor the prayers of the Faithful still on earth for any type of assistance in getting any of their desires granted, even if they have desires for their relatives still on earth.

 

[fuzzylogix]

Mary’s connection with the Ark is that she was the STRUCTURE that housed the WORD of God [Christ]. God told Moses exactly how to build the wood sturcture for the first ARK, that contained sacred contents Word on Stone].

Again … NT fulfillment of OT typology is always superior to the original. With Mary, God created his own organic Ark … vs inorganic wood for the first Ark. Now Christ becomes the organic Word, not just Laws on inorganic Stone.

I must admit that your logic is compelling, and once again the metaphor is exquisite.

But on the topic of Mary, I’d like to mention one instance I noted of Christ’s attitude towards her.

**Luk 8:20 And it was told him by certain which said, Thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to see thee.
Luk 8:21 And he answered and said unto them, My mother and my brethren are these which hear the word of God, and do it. **

Now, if I am not mistaken, this is a rather blunt dismissal by Christ of his mother and his brethren (or cousins). In fact, to my layman’s mind, this seems to be practically a denial of any ties with Mary (figuratively, of course, as she still remained his natural mother). This is tantamount to disownment, unless I’m terribly mistaken.

This appears to be Christ saying, “My familial ties are of no consequence. What is way more important are the spiritual bond I share with these disciples of mine, my believers.”

This does not seem to me a fitting attitude of the Word (typifying the stone tablets) towards its vessel (a type of the ark). Not that I’m saying Christ displayed a flawed attitude or anything. He, being flawless, would not dishonour his mother. I’m simply pointing out that Christ Himself did not esteem Mary nearly as much as the Catholic church does.

Is this observation correct?

 

[fuzzylogix]

The Saints in heaven are active members of the Body of Christ as are we, Christians here on earth.

The Saints in heaven intercede for the members of the Body of Christ who are still here on earth.

Yes, I hear you. Many people repeat these words almost like a mantra. But is there Scripture to show this process in effect? More importantly: even if there are other Scriptures, did Christ Himself say that saints will intercede?

(I tend to take Christ’s word for anything instantaneously, so everything goes quicker when He can be quoted.)

 

[BRB1]

I

**Luk 8:20 And it was told him by certain which said, Thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to see thee.
Luk 8:21 And he answered and said unto them, My mother and my brethren are these which hear the word of God, and do it. **

Now, if I am not mistaken, this is a rather blunt dismissal by Christ of his mother and his brethren (or cousins). In fact, to my layman’s mind, this seems to be practically a denial of any ties with Mary (figuratively, of course, as she still remained his natural mother). This is tantamount to disownment, unless I’m terribly mistaken.

?

WrongO … your logic is fuzzy

Christ was not putting down Mary … or suggesting he doesn’t cherish family ties. Christ was actually demonstrating that those who were listening to his teachings are everybit as important to him as his biologic mother and his cousins (brothers/sisters).

Christ was showing his respect to his audience … by not dropping his teachings to them, and leaving to consult with his family.

But, even more inspirational was that Christ used the occasion to teach us that we all are family to him … brothers/sisters & mother (in case of Mary) … provided we heed his words and do will of God.

 

[SingleMomMonica]

Odd that you mention the definition of death since The Inter-
national Standard Bible Encyclopaedia says: “. . . We are influ-
enced always more or less by the Greek, Platonic idea that the body
dies, yet the soul is immortal. Such an idea is utterly contrary to the
Israelite consciousness and is nowhere found in the Old Testament”
(1960, Vol. 2, p. 812, “Death”).

Interesting that you bow down to the Authority of the authors of this Encyclopedia (by the way, anyone can write an Encyclopedia) since the Encyclopedia isn’t and doesn’t claim to be Infallible. You should rather honor the Infallible teachings of the Church which Christ established.

This appears to be very much true, since any and all references I can find to the soul from the OT (as Hebrew nephesh) indicates its mortal nature:

Eze 18:4 Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.

So also Eze18:20, and others. God even stated this directly to Adam and Eve, in His warning about the forbidden fruit. Note: He did not say “You shall die (and by implication your body shall die but your immortal soul shall return to Me, intact and concious)”, but rather He explicitly said “Your soul shall die”. This implies that the word “soul” as the Bible uses it refers not to some immaterial thing that exists independently of its physical host, but rather the soul seems to be a physical thing itself. This is consistent with the soul being able to die, as is mentioned many times.

You really need to read the Catechism of the Catholic Church as it would immediately clear up your understanding of “Soul” as to what it meant to the Hebrews who wrote the Old Testament and to the Jews who wrote the New Testament - both Old and New were written by human authors by the power of the Holy Spirit. It is necessary to understand the original languages used and their meanings. Keep in mind you are reading an English Translation of the Bible as anything Translated into another language some of the meaning is lost. You ought to consider which Authority around today has ability to understand and relay correctly the meaning of the Bible so that you don’t continue to miss out on basic parts of Christianity.

In reference to Abrahan’s bosom, I believe that these words may be an obvious expression used by the Jews at the time(I will check sometime to make sure). It is used in a parable by Jesus, and parables are notoriously known not to be taken literally. They illustrate some point, but do not pertain to physical arrangements and events.

Parables were notorious used for describing the truths of the Christian Faith in a way that those who were spiritually blinded by the devil would not be able to understand, but those who had been enlightened by Christ would clearly understand.

But let us not forget, Christ Himself was an Israelite, and His only education was the OT. He certainly then would have believed in the Hebrew conciousness, as revealed by God in many places in the OT.

Let us not forget that Christ Himself is both 100% Human and 100% God. He created ALL Things, including Knowledge. His Knowledge far surpasses that of the entire Human Race and was in no way limited to the OT. He knows when a hair falls from your head and yes He came to bring light to the limited knowledge He revealed to those of OT times so as to bring them to the Fullness of Truth, the Pillar and Foundation of Truth is the Church as the New Testament says. The fact of the matter is, until you embrace the Catholic Church, you will continue to be confused and easily misled. I encourage you to join RCIA to begin the Inquiry process and to pray to God daily for Him to reveal Himself and His Church to you so that you may be guided in all His Truth.

 

[VociMike]

Well, praying for one another is a form of cameraderie (for lack of a better word). We are all in the same boat, all suffering the same threats and attacks. To ask God to help out a fellow Christian or to save s.o’s soul is one thing, seeing as we are peers on earth; yet, for a righteous man who already reached heaven, he is out of this world and on to the next. Christ seems to say that the dead man had his own trials, and conquered, Those remaining on earth still need to conquer, but are fully equipped to do so, whether they realise it or not.

To use a very simple, silly analogy: When I am past school and my little brother asks me to help him with his homework, I could help him outright by doing all the work for him, but I know that doing so would ultimately damage his education. He must learn to get through it himself.

I KNOW this analogy is way flawed so plz don’t jump on it, but I mean only for it to serve to characterise the kind of attitude I pick up from Christ in this parable. The feeling of “leave them to their own devices; they have the exact same advantages and knowledge as you who conquered, so let’s see if they can do the same unaided.”

I think you’re reading far too much into this. Abraham was asked to make a direct intervention. He was not asked to pray. And again, if “leave them to their own devices” is the operative principle, why pray for somebody else? Bringing God into the act, in whatever fashion, is hardly leaving them to their own devices. I think you were far closer to the truth when you noted that those in heaven would practically be compelled to do whatever was in their power to assist all those whom God loves.

 

[CentralFLJames]

What is this you mention of Christ teaching the spirits sojourning in Abraham’s bosom? I do not know this concept at all. Could s.o maybe explain and augment with Scripture to substantiate?

Thx

I run the risk of exposing you to too much at one time and confusing you. Let me first of all ask you to read 1 Peter 3:19; 4:6.
1 Peter 3:18-20; 4:6:

18For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit; 19** in which also He went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison**, 20 who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water.

1 Peter 4:6 For the gospel has for this purpose been preached even to those who are dead, that though they are judged in the flesh as men, they may live in the spirit according to the will of God.

From the above we know that Christ descended to the realm of Hades and taught to those in prison there before rising and opening the gates of heaven.

Now let me give you a few more things to think about. Here are some select rephrases out of the Catholic New Advent Encyclopedia that blend scripture with Catholic theology and ancient Jewish belief and custom.

According to the Jewish conceptions of that day, the souls of the dead were gathered into a general tarrying-place the Sheol of the Old Testament literature, and the Hades of the New Testament writings (cf. Luke 16:22; in the Greek 16:23)

There were two compartments in Sheol/hades - each distinctly separated by a wall or a chasm from the abode or compartment to which the souls of the wicked were consigned. The latter was a place of torments usually spoken of as Gehenna (cf. Matthew 5:29, 30; 18:9; Mark 9:42 sqq. in the Latin Vulgate) – the other, a place of bliss and security known under the names of "Paradise" (cf. Luke 23:43) and “the Bosom of Abraham” (Luke 16:22-23).

But in Catholic understanding and belief “Paradise” is NOT formally heaven - at least not when used in the time-context of the OT. It (Abraham’s Bosom) was a temporary place that God created special for those who were born before Christ so their souls could wait for Christ to open the locked gates of Heaven. This was the best any ancient Jew could imagine for an after-death reward.

Since the coming of Our Lord (with heaven unlocked), “the Bosom of Abraham” through revelation gradually ceased to designate a place of imperfect happiness, and it has become retrospectively synonymous with Heaven itself. I personally prefer to think of it as those in “paradise” following Christ into heaven ( The Beatific Vision) after He preached to them for 3 days and opened heaven’s gate.

More here: newadvent.org/cathen/01055a.htm

This is a great segue into Purgatory. This is important to understand since it helps us more fully understand NT teaching.

In its wake of Christ’s resurrection God’s Mercy was opened up to humankind and purgatory was manifest. In Catholic Theology this is an interim place that souls go to who are judged worthy of heaven but are found to be less than in a perfect state of sanctification (no unforgiven grave sins but lacking proper repentance and still having some appetite or tendency to desire to sin).

1 Peter 3:19; 4:6 - Jesus preached to the spirits in the “prison.” These are the righteous souls being purified for the beatific vision.

Note the scripture 2 Tim. 1:16-18.
Onesiphorus is dead but Paul asks for mercy on him “on that day.” Paul’s use of “that day” demonstrates its eschatological usage (see, for example, Rom. 2.5,16; 1 Cor. 1.8; 3.13; 5.5; 2 Cor. 1.14; Phil. 1.6,10; 2.16; 1 Thess. 5.2,4,5,8; 2 Thess. 2.2,3; 2 Tim. 4.8). Of course, there is no need for mercy in heaven, and there is no mercy given in hell. Where is Onesiphorus? He must be somewhere else - it is purgatory.

This is another prime example of praying for the deceased souls that are in purgatory.

Hope this helps - now I expect we will get a lot of questions about purgatory - which is a natural progression to this line of dialog.

James

 

[SingleMomMonica]

Yes, I hear you. Many people repeat these words almost like a mantra. But is there Scripture to show this process in effect? More importantly: even if there are other Scriptures, did Christ Himself say that saints will intercede?

(I tend to take Christ’s word for anything instantaneously, so everything goes quicker when He can be quoted.)

Yes Christ did say it, which is why the Catholic Church continues to teach it to this very day. It along with everything the Catholic Church continues to teach comes to us from what Jesus taught to us and when necessary has been clearly defined with the power of the Holy Spirit through the Infallibility of Church Councils and the Pope speaking Infallibily.

Read John 21:25. Not everything Jesus said and did in recorded in the Bible as the Gospels even says.

Read 2 Thess 2:15. The Apostles teach us to hold on to the teachings and traditions they give us which Christ gave them.

Yes, the Bible specifically says this in many places: including, but not limited to the “cloud of witnesses” spoken about in the New Testament in Hebrews 12:1.

Rev. 6:9-11 specifically describes Christian Martyrs who have been slaughtered their faith and testimony of Jesus in Heaven praying to God and God giving them a white robe and asking them to wait until the end of time after all those who would be come Martyrs for Christ had been Martyred.

Then you can see that Saints prayers are offered to God as incense by an Angel in Rev. 8:3-4.

The Bible is full of such references of the Saints interceding in Heaven for those of us here on earth.

 

[zach_dunn]

I read somewhere that Catholics call Mary by the title “mediatrix” sometimes. I can’t help but feel that this appears to be a form of usurpation of Christ’s role?

It seems as though you don’t have a good understanding of the Churches teaching on this matter. The more common title given to her is “the mediatrix of graces.” She is so called because all grace comes through Jesus Christ, and Jesus came through her. This subject is addressed in paragraphs 969-70 of the Catechism. Here is a link to the Catechism on the internet.

Hope this helps.

Pax,
Zach

 

[CentralFLJames]

It seems as though you don’t have a good understanding of the Churches teaching on this matter. The more common title given to her is “the mediatrix of graces.” She is so called because all grace comes through Jesus Christ, and Jesus came through her. This subject is addressed in paragraphs 969-70 of the Catechism. Here is a link to the Catechism on the internet.

Hope this helps.

Pax,
Zach

The truth is most Catholic never hear this title in the liturgy or in homely address by the priest. Most of us only hear her addressed as “Mother of God” or “Mother Mary” or “Mother of Mercy” or “Queen of Heaven” or “Holy Mother” or “Blessed Mother” or “Holy Queen” (from the final rosary prayer).

I think the only time anyone hears the title mediatrix is when they are reading theological works or various religious writing or else running into it as one title of many seen in the list in the Catechism.

James

 

[zach_dunn]

The truth is most Catholic never hear this title in the liturgy or in homely address by the priest. Most of us only hear her addressed as “Mother of God” or “Mother Mary” or “Mother of Mercy” or “Queen of Heaven” or “Holy Mother” or “Blessed Mother” or “Holy Queen” (from the final rosary prayer).

I think the only time anyone hears the title mediatrix is when they are reading theological works or various religious writing or else running into it as one title of many seen in the list in the Catechism.

James

Really? Hmmm, mediatrix of graces is the most common one I’ve heard, I guess that’s because the only time I ever talk about her and religion and such is on here…

Pax,
Zach

 

[fuzzylogix]

Yes Christ did say it, which is why the Catholic Church continues to teach it to this very day. It along with everything the Catholic Church continues to teach comes to us from what Jesus taught to us and when necessary has been clearly defined with the power of the Holy Spirit through the Infallibility of Church Councils and the Pope speaking Infallibily.

You claim Christ did say it, yet furnish no Scripture substantiating such.

I really mean no offence whatsoever, but providing the selective Infallibility of the Pope and the Infallibility of various church councils does not prove to me conclusively that Christ did say it. Nor in fact does the favourite argument I’m starting to recognise here, namely that “it was part of the oral tradition handed down to the church”. It is easy to claim something (that others see as unbiblical) simply a result of oral tradition. I’m sorry to say that this does not constitute a very convincing argument.

I prefer just to deal in Scripture, please. Christ Himself said to His Father in John 17:17 “Thy Word is truth”, and at the time Christ spoke, this Word He was referring to was all the Scriptures contained in the OT. I resent the fact that somebody earlier in this thread called the OT Scriptures “imperfect revelation” or something to that effect. Christ regarded them as perfect truth, and so should we all.

That is part of why, when I read in multiple places in the OT that “the soul that sinneth shall surely die”, I take from it the fact that the human soul is not immortal. It can die, and certainly will without Christ’s saving grace.

As for the witnesses of Heb 12:1. While Catholic tradition might value the resemblance of the word martus to the word martyr, and their resulting perceived connection, the original meaning was limited to simply “witness”. Hence, regardless of church tradition, there is no proof that this “cloud of witnesses” is made up of deceased saints. It might refer to live saints, or even live infidels, or both. In Hebrew thinking even inanimate objects can be witnesses to something. (Like Abel’s blood being a witness to his murder, crying out to God figuratively).

Honestly now, there really is no telling from Scripture alone that these are deceased saints, is there?

As for the “witnesses” in Revelation, I refer again to the imagery employed by Genesis with Abel’s blood “calling out” to God for vengeance. This is not literal. Nobody would see it as such. This simply means that God took notice, and He was moved to avenge Abel’s death. Compare this to the martyrs seen in Revelation, asking “When will our blood be avenged?” This could very well (and most likely does) simply refer to the fact that God remembers the martyrs, and He won’t let them go unavenged.

 

[fuzzylogix]

I think you’re reading far too much into this. Abraham was asked to make a direct intervention. He was not asked to pray. And again, if “leave them to their own devices” is the operative principle, why pray for somebody else? Bringing God into the act, in whatever fashion, is hardly leaving them to their own devices. I think you were far closer to the truth when you noted that those in heaven would practically be compelled to do whatever was in their power to assist all those whom God loves.

I regret that the “leave them to their own devices” phrase sounds so cold and unfeeling. The phrase “they’ve got the Law, they know what to do” seems to me to capture Christ’s attitude on numerous times in the gospels. He really believed in God’s Word (at the time, the OT Scriptures) as absolute, undeniable truth. He claimed not to abolish the Law, but to magnify it, if anything. He certainly thought that the Word of God (OT Scriptures, Mosaic Law) was the “bread” by which man should live.

Hence, while the Law was so clearly spelled out for each person equally, there should in fact be no reason to pray for others. We all know what to do, and we all have the free will to choose to do it (or not). It could be interpreted as an indication of Christ’s attitude in this regard in the way He taught His followers to pray. Note that the Lord’s Prayer does not pray for others, but only for yourself (and by extension the others reciting the prayer with you in the congregation, “us”), and for the Lord to glorify Him.

Many Catholic believers may think me very simple or primitive, but I do not believe that piling prayer upon prayer will make the request any more powerful, nor any more likely to be answered. When people ask me to pray for an afflicted friend, I will do so due to my innate caring for other people. But I do not for one second delude myself that my prayer, added to that of others, will actually make God more likely to “listen”. The Eternal will do what He will, to work out His plan. No amount of prayer will change the Plan in its essential points, right?

I think that prayer, being a personal communication from me to my Creator, cannot be reinforced by me speaking louder, or praying more often, or using bigger words, or getting hundreds of others to pray with me. This I would think applies to living saints and the dead ones (though I am still not convinced that the dead are anything but oblivious). Prayer can be a request, and I don’t think that getting the same request repeated many times over will move the Eternal any more than will a single, heartfelt request.

Are there scriptures to prove my belief wrong about prayer?

 

[fuzzylogix]

Christ is the ONLY mediator between the man and the Father. Mary was the Mother of Christ, not the Father. But, within the Church structure … Mary is believed to serve as a mediator between man and Christ. They worked perfectly as a team here on earth.

Christ gave her to John as his Spiritual Mother, and John teaches she belongs to all Christians. John had his own biologic mother at the time of Cross … so Christ was not asking John to adopt her as his natural mother … the adoption was primarily for Spiritual purposes.

Since you believe Mary to be in heaven … and functioning in a saintly role … what would prevent her from mediating (serving as Spiritual mother) between Christ and ALL Christians ?

Again, no one is suggesting Mary can forgive original or even venial sins. But, she may very well have been given the primacy role of intervention on the behalf of the saved, at our hour of death, at our times of weakness, etc. Not to forgive us … but, to present our concerns/needs to Christ.

This is not to say we can’t communicate with Christ w/o Mary. Indeed, a Christian should have the H.S. within them … being counseled by the 3rd person of Trinity. But, if/when we greave the H.S. … Mary may well be instrumental for us with her Son.

I like the use of your language in this post. “Mary is believed to serve as mediator” allows for some interpretive leeway, as does “may very well” and “what would prevent”. I like when people provide this interpretive leeway as a courtesy, and as breathing room.

Your final paragraph brought something to mind… If the whole Christian process can in fact occur without Mary, would I be correct to say that Mary’s veneration and intercession is not a major point of conflict between Catholicism and Protestantism?

Anybody is free to answer at this point, please.

So, what I am saying is this: If I were your neighbour, and you venerated Mary like all good Catholics, yet I did not, based on the objections I raised in this post, would my not honouring Mary as you do irk, bother or otherwise incite you? Would you be more than neighbourly with me, perhaps even friends and brothers in Christ, if this difference were the only difference between our religious practices?

In other words: Is honouring Mary as anything more than just another servant of God, and asking her to intercede for me, really a critical factor to my salvation?

 

[zach_dunn]

I prefer just to deal in Scripture, please. Christ Himself said to His Father in John 17:17 “Thy Word is truth”, and at the time Christ spoke, this Word He was referring to was all the Scriptures contained in the OT. I resent the fact that somebody earlier in this thread called the OT Scriptures “imperfect revelation” or something to that effect. Christ regarded them as perfect truth, and so should we all.

I know I could easily figure this out, but I’m lazy , so, I’ll just ask. Are you Jewish? I don’t want it to seem like I don’t think the OT is God’s word because I do believe it is, but you seem to rely a lot on the Old Testament.

That is part of why, when I read in multiple places in the OT that “the soul that sinneth shall surely die”, I take from it the fact that the human soul is not immortal. It can die, and certainly will without Christ’s saving grace.

What about Ecclesiastes 12:7?

“7 And the dust return into its earth, from whence it was, and the spirit return to God, who gave it.”

Here we see that God gave a spirit (soul) to something, but what? Obviously a man, so something must have happened to that man that he lost his spirit, I’m assuming death. So we see that the spirit is with God after death. Also, God is still obviously the God of the spirit and as we read in Mark 12:27

“27 He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. You therefore do greatly err.”

I believe these points make a strong argument for the immortality of the soul, am I wrong?

He really believed in God’s Word (at the time, the OT Scriptures) as absolute, undeniable truth.

I do too, so does every other Christian I’ve ever talked to.

He claimed not to abolish the Law, but to magnify it, if anything. He certainly thought that the Word of God (OT Scriptures, Mosaic Law) was the “bread” by which man should live.

This idea looks right over John 6:51-60. I’ll show mypoint with John 6:51-52

“51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven. 52 If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world.”

It is obvious that He, and not the OT or the Mosaic Law, is the bread by which men are to live.

Pax,
Zach