Mary as Mediatrix?

[VociMike]

fuzzy,

To start off, this is probably a good time to note that Catholicism does not derive its doctrines from Scripture, but rather, Scripture (at least, the New Testament) grew out of Catholicism. So while much of Catholic teaching is explicitly supported in Scripture, and much more is implicitly supported, we do not hold that “if it is not in Scripture, it is not true”. Especially when that really translates to “if I don’t find it in Scripture, it is not true”.

But to your point - what is prayer for others, really? It is an expression of love, of caring about another and of desiring what is truly good for them. We do this on earth. God obviously does it. So why would those not in heaven do it? Why would those not in heaven care about those on earth and desire what is truly good for them?

To put it bluntly, why would those in heaven be less Godly than those on earth? Why would they care less about the second great commandment than we do? Surely they fulfill both of the great commandments pefectly, yes?

So can we agree on that, at least?

 

[zach_dunn]

To start off, this is probably a good time to note that Catholicism does not derive its doctrines from Scripture, but rather, Scripture (at least, the New Testament) grew out of Catholicism.

Ummmmmmm…I think you could reword that a bit. Catholicism does derive doctrines from Scripture, but, I’ve been taught that Catholicism gets all of its doctrines from Divine Revelation, which is both Scripture and Tradition. I’m know you already know this and I’m not necessarily trying to correct you, but I don’t want Protestant’s worst fears being “realized.” Please don’t get mad, I’m not saying that you’re wrong and I know you know this already, I just wanted to point this fact out to the Protestants here.

Pax,
Zach

P.S. I also want to say that I agree that the New Testament grew out of Catholicism, I just also agree that Catholicism gets much of its doctrines from Scripture.

 

[CentralFLJames]

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 guess that is me you resented since I am the one who said that truth that the OT book you referenced was an incomplete revelation. I resented that you would not respond to my comments after putting in considerable time to respond to your question. If you come here to ask questions why should you resent the replies? Did you come here to learn or to teach?

First of all you are making up scripture. Christ did not ever state that the OT was the perfect truth. In fact He changed teachings and corrected errors (ref a person can sin in thought as well as deed and the Sauducees are wrong - there is life after death). He also said “I am the Word that comes down from heaven” and Jesus said a LOT more than what the OT said. Jesus also said “I am The Way The Truth and The Light”. If the OT was all of it then Jesus would have been best represented as a collection of OT vellum scrolls. But clearly He was not - Jesus was the living word of God who spoke and did "more than could be contained by words written in a world of books ".

Are you even familiar with the OT developmental history and how the wisdom literature was progressively developed?

Was the Book of Genesis a full revelation? No. We see much more being revealed progressively throughout the NT.

Most certainly the OT WAS NOT a full revelation. Please state your rationale with facts for why it was if you disagree.

You say you prefer to deal only with scripture. But Catholics prefer to deal with the whole word of God. This includes both written word and oral tradition and teaching. Do you realize that the Jews had an entire oral teaching that went along with the OT? Would you not want to know about that too had you known that?
Does writing something down give it more pedigree if you get a completely different private interpretation from what everyone originally believed?

Do you not see a logical inconsistency in saying “I prefer to deal with scripture and not oral tradition”? How do you come to believe that only the written Word of God (e.g scripture), especially the NT portion is any more trustable pedigree than the verbal Word of God passed down to Catholics through Sacred Tradition? You do realize that ALL NT scripture came out of oral traditions yes? You do realize that The Church seperated the cannon of the Bible from the hundreds of fake works yes? You do realize that no apostle or early apostle every saw a “bible” in his life yes? You do realize that the first official bible was published by the Catholic Church in 382 AD, about 350 years after Christ’s resurrection yes?

No offense but it seems to be you are being curiously inconsistent in accepting the Church’s teaching and authority to both write and discern true scripture and develop the cannon then after it is published - rejecting The Church as insufficient for explaining what it handed down. Care to comment on how that is rational in the world of fuzzylogix?

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.

Again the OT revelation was not a complete revelation. The Jews used to believe that there is no afterlife at all - one dies and that’s it. It is only later than they start to discern that the soul can carry on in the afterlife - but they did not know to the full extent. They imagined that a just soul one could enter into “the bosom of Abraham” - a place of mild bliss, peace and comfort. They had no concept of beatitude with God in what Catholics call heaven.

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.

So say you. I can agree in part. But even the literalistic elements are truthful and must agree with other scripture in the truths revealed in those other passages. The literary style does not invalidate the underlying truth. There is in fact a notion of Justice and a special class of souls (Martyrs) who merit special consideration in heaven. Can you explain how you can assert this passage is mere imagery then turn right around and try to project the idea that the omniscient God needs to be human like and “remember” - as if he can forget anything?

James

 

[VociMike]

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?

I don’t see why it needs to be a major stumbling block at all. Every Christian should love all the saints in heaven, those who have done God’s will. And every Christian should call Mary blessed, because that is scriptural.

Now as a Catholic I know that there is more to Mary than just this. That is, I know that God has revealed more through Mary, and that he has given us more in Mary. And I believe the same thing about all the other differences between Catholicism and non-Catholic Christianity. But the love of God and the love of neighbor is the foundation that should unite us.

 

[CentralFLJames]

…
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?

Yes of course. You have never read the scripture verses called
The Parable of the Persistent Friend - knocking and asking persistently?
Luke 11:5-13 The Parable of the Persistent Friend:

And he said to them, "Suppose one of you has a friend to whom he goes at midnight and says, ‘Friend, lend me three loaves of bread, 6 for a friend of mine has arrived at my house from a journey and I have nothing to offer him,’ 7 and he says in reply from within, ‘Do not bother me; the door has already been locked and my children and I are already in bed. I cannot get up to give you anything.’ 8 I tell you, if he does not get up to give him the loaves because of their friendship, he will get up to give him whatever he needs because of his persistence. 9 “And I tell you, ask and you will receive; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. 10 For everyone who asks, receives; and the one who seeks, finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened. 11 What father among you would hand his son a snake when he asks for a fish? 12Or hand him a scorpion when he asks for an egg? 13If you then, who are wicked, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the Father in heaven give the holy Spirit 5 to those who ask him?”

Prayer of repentance and mercy can divert God’s wrath and change the path one is on. It is only because God permits us to make wrong choices that outcomes need to be changed. Prayer is a cry of help to God that is admitting or error and asking for Him to save us or a friend from ourselves or to protect us from evils that are coming down on us as a result of our fellow man’s sins.

James

 

[fuzzylogix]

Zach:

I am not Jewish, but I can understand why you might think so. I’ve simply been taught (by a particular Protestant denomination, as well as by Christ Himself in Mat 5:17-18) that since obedience to Mosaic Law is what God wanted from those who served Him in ancient Israel, and considering that God is Immutable, Unchangeable and always the same (Heb 13:8), it is reasonable to believe that Mosaic Law still applies today.

(I have since left that particular denomination, yet the logic above still rings sharply in my mind. I have tired of denominational issues, and find myself without a specific congregation to attend with at the moment. Also, I find it extremely difficult to find a church that still believes in honouring Mosaic Law.)

Regarding Ecc 12:7, care should be taken with translational issues. The word rendered “spirit” here (ruach) is not the same as the word “soul” used elsewhere (nephesh). This “spirit” refers to a gust, a wind, and refers to the breath of God that is in man, elevating him above the status of the animals. Once man dies, this “spirit” goes back to God. Note, this spirit is not defined as a separate entity for each person, but is simply the breath of God; it is an impersonal force, not a soul containing a personality and memories etc. The actual “soul” of man (nephesh) does not refer to an immaterial entity (as I explained before), but refers simply to the physical being, which then is dead and rots away. This nephesh/soul also refers to all other kinds of animals, and is used extensively in Genesis, for example, to describe all manner of living creatures. As they can die, so also will men die, when the (impersonal force) breath of God leaves them.

As for Jesus’ words in John 6, my interpretation of these things is as follows (please also bear in mind that I am no scholar; my ideas may be less articulate than I would have preferred, so I’ll use another’s words):

Clarke writes in his commentary to explain this section: “Of all connections and unions, none is so intimate and complete as that which is effected by the digestion of aliments, because they are changed into the very substance of him who eats them; and this our Lord makes the model of that union which subsists between himself and genuine believers. He lives in them, and they in him; for they are made partakers of the Divine nature: 2Pe1:4.”

This bread metaphor indicates that, in consuming Christ figuratively (i.e taking His nature inside you), He will obviously then end up inside you, integrated fully in your being, as do the molecules of food that you eat. That is what is shown by Christ. But, when CHrist then lives inside you through the Holy Spirit, your actions will become those of Christ, and your nature will become identical to His.

What is the nature of Christ then? Well, it is many things, but one striking point is the fact that Christ followed the Mosaic Law to the letter! If Christ is therefore inside me (after having “consumed” Him), it makes perfect sense that my life and actions will conform to His nature, thereby honouring Mosaic Law as God’s ultimate will.

So you see, I agree with you that Christ is the bread by which we all must live.
BUT, God’s Law (through Moses) was the bread that Christ lived by, and hence, transitively that is the Law which any true believer in Christ will end up living by.

 

[fuzzylogix]

I resented that you would not respond to my comments after putting in considerable time to respond to your question.

I’m assuming you refer to your post about purgatory. While I do find the information therein interesting and worthy of consideration, I opted to take some time first to do just that and digest said information.

I apologise if this appeared to be me ignoring what you said.

Please keep in mind that I live in GMT+2, so my time for bed and typing will most likely not correspond to yours. I mean to discuss as many of the posts as I can when I get the time to do so.

 

[fuzzylogix]

First of all you are making up scripture. Christ did not ever state that the OT was the perfect truth. In fact He changed teachings and corrected errors (ref a person can sin in thought as well as deed and the Sauducees are wrong - there is life after death). He also said “I am the Word that comes down from heaven” and Jesus said a LOT more than what the OT said. Jesus also said “I am The Way The Truth and The Light”. If the OT was all of it then Jesus would have been best represented as a collection of OT vellum scrolls. But clearly He was not - Jesus was the living word of God who spoke and did "more than could be contained by words written in a world of books ".

Yes, He did appear to change some concepts in the OT Law. Yet, His changes never constituted taking away anything, or crippling or changing any concept in any way. In His magnification of the Law, He simply illustrated that following the Law outwardly is not sufficient, but that instead one must have a true love of the Law; in this way, one would not sin with thoughts even while keeping the Law physically to the letter. What He was saying was that it is not enough to do the bare minimum prescribed by the Law; if one loves God, you will keep the Law above and beyond the call of duty, so to speak.

The error of the Saduccees was in being not scriptural. The Jews in general knew very well of the resurrection, as is plainly attested to in Mar 12:23. So Christ never had to “correct” the OT. He may have revealed more, but never changed what was already there.

Where the bible states that God does nothing without revealing it to His prophets, it does not say that it is revealed partly and imperfectly. I suppose the term “incomplete” makes it seem to me that the OT is regarded as inferior to the NT, yet I cannot imagine Christ ever believing this, even today.

continued…

 

[fuzzylogix]

<< Actually, I’ll have to continue tomorrow. It’s already 2am here! >>

Peace to all

 

[brb2]

… 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?

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?

Mary has role in assisting her Son. Mary can’t save anyone since she is not divine. It’s Christ that Mediates a convert to the Father. She assists her Son … and the Church believes she can assist man in finding the faith to accept Christ.

Recall words of Mary in scriptures …“do whatever he tells you”. She always points us to Christ, she helps us anyway she can in finding initial Redemption. She also has a role assisting Christ as an Advocatrix and Mediatrix.

Many probably don’t even realize Mary played a role in their discovery of Christ. Mary doesn’t neglect to help someone … just because they don’t understand her role, or call her blessed. As long as they are seeking her Son … she will aid them with her efforts.

Later on, when these Protestants discover the Church and learn of her roles … then they will thank her for her aid.

 

[CentralFLJames]

…Where the bible states that God does nothing without revealing it to His prophets, it does not say that it is revealed partly and imperfectly. I suppose the term “incomplete” makes it seem to me that the OT is regarded as inferior to the NT, yet I cannot imagine Christ ever believing this, even today.

continued…

I respect your reverence for the OT. Me too.

I am one of those who believes that to get the most out of the NT one must understand the OT. I personally love the OT. You are correct in many ways. Jesus was the fulfillment of the OT. He did not come to put an end to law - He came to fulfill it. But the Jews made the law so complex - adding as many as 613 Mitzvot statements and principles of law and ethics contained in the Torah or Five Books of Moses. This empowered the the Jewish teaching elite and scribes and lawyers (Pharisees and Sadducees and so on) in a way that the average Jew had no way of being able to meet the letter of the law without constantly paying for sacrifices and getting rulings from the priestly class.

Jesus of course reduced the entire law down to two simple concepts - taking the highest law (Love God with your whole heart and Mind) together with the least law (Be hospital to your neighbor and love Him as yourself). But the Jews had a definate hiearchy in their laws - the least one “love your neighbor” was often disregarded or ducked out of. Jesus did something radical - He elevated it to near equality with Loving God! All the hundreds of other laws rolled up to these 2 and now the least law was essentially inseparable from the primal law. This in fact becomes co-joined in Catholic theology under our concept of Charity - Love of God and Neighbor (one can not do one to the exclusion of the other really since the potential for Jesus is in each of us).

This of course both amazed the pharisees at the simple yet profound self evident truth of the matter but also enraged them since the simplification essentially put them out of the religious-legal business. We know what happens next.

That said I must now say that the presence of 46 seperate OT books (Catholic Septuagint Cannon) written over 1,000 years is sufficient evidence that God did not give the whole entire revelation to the OT Jews in one fell swoop. If He did we would not have had the need for but one holistic revelation. No, the Jews had to take it in bite size pieces and come to grow in their knowledge of The Lord over 10 centuries so they could ask the deeper questions at each new step in the progression that God would progressively reveal through successive prophets.

I am no scholar on the Jewish theology but its pretty clear to me that the Jews had a very ambiguous and partially formed view of the afterlife that at times ranged the full gamut of “when you are dead you are dead and out of your misery” to something more akin to rejoining one’s ancestors. The initial view was this finality of death: the dead are like dust returning to dust (Genesis; Ecc. 3:19-20) or water poured out on the ground (2 Samuel 14:14). From the context of the Christian NT clearly this was not a holistic revelation.

The evolving view was this idea of repatriation with one’s fellows. For example Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, and the patriarchs are “gathered to their people” after death (Gen. 25:8, 25:17, 35:29, 49:33; Deut. 42:50; 2 Ki. 22:20). But the wicked are “cut off from their people” (Gen. 17:14; Ex. 31:14).

Another recurring Jewish biblical image of the afterlife is as a shadowy place called Sheol. It is a place of darkness (Psalm 88:13, Job 10:21, 22) and silence (Psalm 115:17), located in low places (Numbers 16:30, Ezekiel 31:14, Psalm 88:7, Lamentations 3:55; Jonah 2:7, Job 26:5). In 1 Samuel 2:6, God puts people in She’ol. In Isaiah 14:9-10, the departed in Sheol rise up to greet leaders who have now been brought low as they are.

Essentially the latter day Jews had to see death in a way where the soul continues to exist in some unconscious way after death. But again this partial revelation evolves in the Torah. The concept of a conscious life after death only begins to develop at the time Daniel 12:2 comes to the Jews

“And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life and some to reproaches and everlasting abhorrence.” Neh. 9:5.

This still falls way seriously short of the concept of beatitude with God and the divination process of grace operating in the repentant-baptised sinner that comes to us much later when Jesus it to teach us through His Church in the NT.

James

 

[fuzzylogix]

James:

Your previous post is a good one; well thought out and substantiated.

Yet, where you claim that Christ “condensed” the entire Law into those two commandments…don’t you think that is a somewhat simplistic view of it?

For one thing, His words were not “Love God, this is the one commandment, and love your neighbor, this is the other commandment”. He used ordinal numbering (first, second) in order to place these two commandments in context with the other remaining laws and commandments.

This indeed answered the question posed to Him to prompt this reply: “Lord, which of the commandments are the most important?”

Forgive me if I cannot see by any means the implication that “because these two are the first and second most important commandments, the others are contained in these”. In fact, Christ ends His answer with the words “On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets”. By no means are the laws replaced by these two simple principles, but they are summarised as such.

I agree that the Jews took the whole Law thing too far; this could not be more obvious then Christ calls the Pharisees “vipers”. But the Eternal did not take the whole Law thing too far. His words on the stone tablets were just and true, and more importantly, unchangeable. The fact that the tribe of Judah added hundreds of little regulations to spoil the Law does not change the core Law.

This is nowhere more evident than in the wording of the Sabbath law:
Exo 31:16 Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant.

A perpetual covenant. A never-ending, never-changing covenant. The Eternal had spoken these words, and if, as you claim, Christ truly changed this law (which is one of the ten commandments), then He had neatly made the Eternal into a liar.

This incongruence cannot exist, so I truly do believe that Christ did not by any means abolish or diminish any law. He magnified it, making it more sensitive, so that if you keep to the principles Christ explained, you would automatically keep the Mosaic Law as well; the Mosaic Law became a subset of Christ’s teaching, so to speak. But by no means did Christ teach people to keep a subset of Mosaic Law.

Can you see it this way? Or is there some other principle which I am not taking into consideration in my analysis?

 

[CentralFLJames]

…

This is nowhere more evident than in the wording of the Sabbath law:
Exo 31:16 Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant.

A perpetual covenant. A never-ending, never-changing covenant. The Eternal had spoken these words, and if, as you claim, Christ truly changed this law (which is one of the ten commandments), then He had neatly made the Eternal into a liar.

…
Can you see it this way? Or is there some other principle which I am not taking into consideration in my analysis?

OK - we have arrived at the difficult crux of the matter.

There are quite a few OT covenants: The Noahic Covenant, The Abrahamic Covenant; The Covenant with Lot; The Covenant with Jacob; The Mosaic Covenant ; The Israel Covenant; The Davidic Covenant etc.

Christians of course generally claim that we are God’s New Covenant people, on the basis of prophecies such as Jeremiah 31:31-34 and Isaiah 49:8.

Before I forget I want to give you this link to another topic here in CAF that relates to this entire subject:What Replaces Replacement Theology?

At hand here is the issue of the durability of covenants & if we have in fact a hiearchy of covenants - one or more within a higher level covenant? I am no expert here & frankly its beyond my theological insight to know the answer. Replacement Theology holds that that The Church has replaced Israel and I think certain aspects of the Law (The Decalogue) become actually more severe under Christian teaching. In the old law as you observe one had to DO something bad in general (except for failing to worship God which was a neglect of love and duty owed to God). But in Christian teaching we now are held to our thoughts as well as our deed. As I have said before on another thread - going to the public beach or pool and seeing all the tanned bodies was never before more dangerous to one’s eternity since under NT teaching even a sideways thought of lust is as bad as the actual deed of. How many OT Jewish boys got away with lust on technicalities?

My own thoughts here are that God set up the covenants to run for all time but set in place the constraints that if man or God broke the covenants one would suffer a specified consequence of that. In the case of Abraham it was to split open the carcass of the animals as a symbolic statement as to what God could rightfully do to Abraham’s descendants if they broke covenant.
Abraham's Covenant Genesis 15:8:

“O Lord GOD,” he asked, “How am I to know that I shall possess it?” 9 He answered him, “Bring me a three-year-old heifer, a three-year-old she-goat, a three-year-old ram, a turtle-dove, and a young pigeon.” 10 He brought him all these, split them in two, and placed each half opposite the other; but the birds he did not cut up. 11 Birds of prey swooped down on the carcasses, but Abram stayed with them. 12 As the sun was about to set, a trance fell upon Abram, and a deep, terrifying darkness enveloped him. 13 Then the LORD said to Abram: "Know for certain that your descendants shall be aliens in a land not their own, where they shall be enslaved and oppressed for four hundred years.
14 But I will bring judgment on the nation they must serve,…

18 It was on that occasion that the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying: “To your descendants I give this land, from the Wadi of Egypt to the Great River (the Euphrates), 19 the land of the Kenites…”

Again, I am not expert here but if we now flash forward to the NT at the time of crucifixion we see Jesus on the cross - cut open through the side with a spear (water & blood flowing out in an imagery of birth) and laid out in a tomb of sleep for 3 days (reminiscent of Adam put to sleep as Eve is formed from his side). The temple shroud is torn or cut in two which to me conflated with Christ’s spear opened carcass on the cross is reminiscent of the old testament covenants being broken by God. Then after 3 days Jesus rises again from his “sleep” and we have a proclamation of a New Covenant based not on temple worship and strict law but on a love-based law that is not so much "tho shall not do such and such " but rather “thou shall love God and Man”. It is a perfection of the same OT law without all the rigorous ritual aspects. But nonetheless Jesus still respects the priestly aspects of the Passover meal and so we arrive at the Catholic position of Christ as The High Priest of God in the order of Melchezdek offering Himself up to God before God’s throne (in a perpetual remembrance) and the Church doing the same through the same subordinate priesthood on earth in the sacrifice of the Holy Mass.

It all is profoundly integrative to me scripturally. A progression of covenants, manna in the dessert, word made flesh that comes down from heaven, bread of life offered up to God in the Eucharist; the cross as the narrow gate to heaven with Jesus hanging there as the salvific fruit of the Tree of Life to restore man. And a new thing that replaces the old commandment of “do not eat the forbidden fruit” with the invitation “come - eat from the fruit of the Tree of Life and be restored into eternal frienship with God”.

I think God basically just broke His Old Covenant and took the punishment onto Himself just to save His people from being held responsible by His Justice for having already broken it themselves. So God suffered the penalty of breaking the covenant in place of His People and we must assume He originally formed the covenant with the full knowledge his people would break the trust and He was prepared to pay that price. That price was the death and suffering of Jesus - The Messiah most Jews never even recognized.

I don’t have enough formal knowledge of covenant law to pull it all together seamlessly.

James

 

[SHW]

If Christ chose anything, I would abide by that choice. He (in the form of the Eternal) did indeed choose Mary as the vessel in which to be manifest and born from. I could never deny that, and I realise how blessed she was at that point in time, and through the ages.

The problem is to determine whether Christ did indeed choose Mary as mediator. I do not see this explicitly stated in the Bible, nor even implied. In contrast, as I have stated, Paul’s inspired words to Titus seem to indicate exactly the opposite: No mediation can occur between God and men, in any way, shape or form, except through Christ, and only Him. I cannot help but see this intention in Paul’s words.

Indeed, if Mary were so important to the early church, why is she scarcely mentioned anywhere in the NT outside of the gospels? (I may be wrong here, but I do not recall ever seeing her mentioned).

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.

The early Church was busy trying to get people to understand and believe about Jesus and His sacrifice (which reconciles us with God through Baptism) and also just trying to stay alive. Jesus sent His mother via apparitions to Fatima, Lourdes, etc. when the time was ready for us to learn more about her.

I wrote a paper on this subject of the Ark of the New Covenant. You can read it if you’d like at:

Ark of the New Covenant

SHW

 

[SHW]

The Miraculous Medal story tells of Graces bestowed by Mary

"Zoë Labouré was born on May 2, 1806 at Fain-les-moustiers, As child she had consecrated herself to the Blessed Virgin Mary.   Her mother died when she was eight, and when her elder sister, Louisa, left home to become a Sister of Charity, the duties of housekeeper and helper to her father fell upon her. When her mother died she chose the Blessed Virgin for her mother, and when she was about 14 or so she heard a call to the religious life. After some opposition from her father, she was allowed to join the Sisters of Charity of St Vincent de Paul in Paris, France in 1830 becoming Sr. Catherine Labouré.

The First Apparition

At 11:30 PM On July 18, 1830,she was awakened by an angel.   He told her that Our Lady was gong to appear in the convent chapel. The angel took St. Catherine  to the Church.. After waiting for some time, Our Lady entered the sanctuary and sat down in the chair.

 Sr. Catherine knelt down beside the Blessed Virgin and rested her hands in Her lap.  St. Catherine was granted the favor of speaking with Our Lady for almost two hours, during which time Our Blessed Mother told her that she would have to undertake a difficult task.

"My daughter, the good God wishes to charge you with a mission. You will have much to suffer, but you will bear it all with the thought that you are doing it for His glory. You will understand what the good God desires, and it will trouble you only until you shall have made it known to him who has to direct you. You will be contradicted, but you will also have the graces you need; do not doubt it. Speak with confidence and simplicity. Fear not; you shall see certain things ... give an account of them to him. You will be enlightened in your prayers ...The times are very evil. Misfortunes are about to cover over France. The throne will be overturned. The world will be convulsed by disasters of every description." (The Blessed Virgin looked very sad when saying this.) "But come to the foot of the altar; here graces will be shed upon all those who ask for them with confidence and fervor.
My daughter, I take special pleasure in pouring down my gifts upon the community. I love them immensely, and I am distressed because of the many abuses which have crept in. The Rule is not observed; there is great relaxation in both families. Tell this to whoever has charge of you, even if he be not the Superior. He will shortly have charge of the community in a special way, and then tell him to do his utmost to re-establish the practice of the Rule in its full vigor. Tell him that from Me. Let him guard against bad reading, so harmful to the community spirit; let him watch over waste of time and useless visiting. When the Rule is well kept, another community will come to join your own. This is not your custom, but I wish it, and see that they are accepted. God will bless them, and they will enjoy great peace. The community will increase.

But evil days will come upon you. The danger will be very great. **Fear not; the good God, through the intercession of St. Vincent, will protect the community**." (The Madonna still was sad)"**I Myself will be with you. I have always watched over you, and I will grant you many graces. **A time will come when the danger will be great, and it will seem as if all were lost. Then I will be with you; have confidence. You will rejoice in my company; you will have the protection of God and the intercession of St. Vincent for both communities.

It shall not be thus with other Religious communities; there will be victims ..." (In saying this, the Blessed Virgin had tears in Her eyes)"There will be many victims among the clergy of Paris ... The Archbishop will die ..." (At this point the Blessed Virgin was unable to speak any more; Her face was full of sadness) "my daughter, the whole world will be in desolation!"

to be continued…

 

[SHW]

Miraculous Medal continued:

The Second Apparition of Our Lady

During the following months, St. Catherine did all that Our Lady had asked of her. She spoke with her spiritual director and confessor, and she did everything he told her to do, despite the fact that he didn't believe her. Our Lady told her about the difficult task.  This is how St. Catherine recounts the event:

On November 27, 1830, the Saturday before the first Sunday in Advent, at 5:30 P.M., while I was making my Meditation in deep silence, I seemed to hear a sound, like the rustling of a silk dress. Turning my eyes in that direction, I saw the Blessed Virgin near the picture of St. Joseph. She was well proportioned and so beautiful that I could not describe Her. She was standing, and her robe was the color of the dawn, high at the neck, and plain sleeves. On Her head She had a white veil, which fell down on each side to Her feet. Her hair was parted in front and confined in a sort of coif, trimmed with a narrow crochet lace. Her face was quite uncovered, and Her feet were resting on a globe, of which about half was visible. Her hands were raised up to the height of Her girdle, in a graceful posture, holding another globe, which She seemed to press to Her Heart. Her eyes were turned to Heaven, and Her countenance was most beautiful.
 All of a sudden the globe disappeared from her hands, and her fingers were filled with rings with most precious gems. From these, rays of light went forth to all sides, enveloping Her in such splendor that one could see neither Her feet nor Her robe.
As I was absorbed in contemplating the Blessed Virgin, She lowered Her eyes to me, and said: "The globe which you see" (I understood Her to mean the one She had beneath Her feet) "represents the world, especially France, and every single person." And then She added: "**The rays are the symbol of the graces I shed on those who ask Me for them**." Then an oval frame was formed around the Blessed Virgin, on which these words were stamped in letters of gold:

**
“O Mary conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to Thee.”**

The inscription was arranged in a semi-circle, beginning from Her right hand, and passing over the head, finished at the height of Her left-hand.
Then a voice said to me:
 "Have a Medal struck according to this model, those who wear it after being blessed, shall receive great graces, especially if they wear it round their neck. Graces will be abundant for those who have confidence."

At that instant the picture seemed to turn round, and on the reverse I saw the letter M surmounted by a cross, with a big line at the base, and underneath the letter M were the Hearts of Jesus and Mary; the first, encircled by a crown of thorns; the other, pierced by a sword."

The Medal and Miracles

Sister Catherine confided in her confessor, Père Aladel, and after making very careful investigation, he was given permission by the Archbishop of Paris, Monseigneur de Quelen, to have the medal made. The Medal was initially known as the Medal of the Immaculate Conception. In June, 1832, the first 1,500 were issued. So many physical cures and conversions were attributed to the medal, it became known as the Miraculous Medal.

 Catherine Labouré died in 1876. Her body is still incorrupt. She was canonized  July 27, 1947. Her body lies in the chapel at the motherhouse on the Rue du Bac where she had her first meeting with Our Lady."

From:Our Lady of Grace

SHW

 

[placido]

I see this type of thing stated often.

How do you reconcile the idea of Mary’s intercession for you with what Paul said:

1Ti 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

This verse seems to indicate that Christ alone has the divine right of intercession for us, and no other. To assign this right to Mary as well…would that not in effect infringe upon the divine right afforded Christ?

Sadly, you are wrong from the word go.

 

[bluejesuit]

I see this type of thing stated often.

How do you reconcile the idea of Mary’s intercession for you with what Paul said:

1Ti 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

This verse seems to indicate that Christ alone has the divine right of intercession for us, and no other. To assign this right to Mary as well…would that not in effect infringe upon the divine right afforded Christ?

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?

I apologise if this has already been dealt with somewhere else; I have looked around the forum and searched, but usually they post this link to answer:

catholic.com/library/Intercession_of_the_Saints.asp

Of course Jesus Christ is the only mediator between God and men. Did you know why? He is the only mediator between God and men Because He is the only MAN pure unadulterated MAN to be at the same composition as GOD pure unadulterated GOD.

Now, does it mean nobody can ever be a mediator between God and men? Of course not.

We can ask other people to pray for us. Saints, Martyrs and Blesseds.

Calling Mother Mary Co-redemptrix, Mediatrix is not a problem.
Co-redemptrix simply means in its purest Latin sense and not the English context, WITH THE REDEEMER. Now, isn’t she with Jesus right from the start and now cooperates with our Redeemer Jesus Christ?

Mediatrix? Does not Jesus use His Mother in his salvation works?

Mary should be called what she ought to be. From the start of our Salvation History, she is present. Even until the end of time.

 

[CentralFLJames]

Of course Jesus Christ is the only mediator between God and men. Did you know why? He is the only mediator between God and men Because He is the only MAN pure unadulterated MAN to be at the same composition as GOD pure unadulterated GOD.

Now, does it mean nobody can ever be a mediator between God and men? Of course not.

We can ask other people to pray for us. Saints, Martyrs and Blesseds.

Calling Mother Mary Co-redemptrix, Mediatrix is not a problem.
Co-redemptrix simply means in its purest Latin sense and not the English context, WITH THE REDEEMER. Now, isn’t she with Jesus right from the start and now cooperates with our Redeemer Jesus Christ?

Mediatrix? Does not Jesus use His Mother in his salvation works?

Mary should be called what she ought to be. From the start of our Salvation History, she is present. Even until the end of time.

Very good bluejesuit. Correct.

The prefix “co” (co-mediatrix) does not mean “equal” as some of our fundamentalist friends would want to get everyone all spun up over. Nope. It means “with”. It is no different and no less biblical as “Mother with Child” that we see get in the manger scene.

James

 

[fuzzylogix]

I think God basically just broke His Old Covenant and took the punishment onto Himself just to save His people from being held responsible by His Justice for having already broken it themselves. So God suffered the penalty of breaking the covenant in place of His People and we must assume He originally formed the covenant with the full knowledge his people would break the trust and He was prepared to pay that price. That price was the death and suffering of Jesus - The Messiah most Jews never even recognized.

I must admit I’d never thought of Christ’s death quite in this fashion. The idea that the Creator God would break his own covenant in order to take the guilt of violating it on himself rather than have his partners in the covenant suffer the consequences…it is utterly poignant.

Yet as beautiful as this is, I think verses such as

**Jer 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. **

refer directly to the new covenant brought by Christ. I believe that, after giving the Mosaic Law, the covenant people proved over centuries that human will alone is not enough to overcome the sinful nature (what you would call original sin). The Creator, instead of smiting all who transgressed (and likely realising full well that this would entail the mass eradication of everybody on the planet), was stirred with compassion and devised another way:

He sent Logos, by which all things were created, to appear in human form and live perfectly according to the Law. Firstly, Logos would be an EXAMPLE of how it should be done. Secondly, Logos would provide PROOF that it could be done.

But thirdly, and most importantly, Logos/Christ, filled with the Holy Spirit, completed his earthly life in complete obedience to Mosaic Law so that the HS could literally contain all the keeping of the Law in itself. (There is no easy way to explain this one!) Before Christ, the HS was a force that was part of God. It implicitly knew the Law and understood it, I assume, but in never having experienced temptation and never having had to apply the Mosaic Law, the HS could not fully comprehend what it was to be human, and to have to fight to keep God’s commandments.

Christ’s incarnation changed this deficiency. Now the HS contained all it needed to impart every aspect of the knowledge of the Law to anybody it wished. This is how the Creator prepared to be able to write the Mosaic Law into the heart of every believer!

With the Holy Spirit empowered by Christ’s sinless life, it could bring Christ’s nature into any believer that asked it and wanted it truly. This indwelling by the HS would write the Mosaic Law upon the believer’s heart and soul, as it was fulfilled in Christ.

Now, far from popular teaching that, since Christ fulfilled the Law, we who believe in him need not do so, I believe this whole stroy to have a completely different meaning.

Consider this: We all agree that - contrary to what I assume is popular belief, at least among new Christians - it is not the fact that we commit sins that gives us a sinful nature, right? Instead, it is our sinful nature from birth that moves us to commit sins, thereby manifesting itself.

Symmetrically, I believe that it is not our volition to avoid sin that will give us a holy nature. (This was proven by generations of Israel’s sinners to be a flawed, impossible attempt that never bears fruit. God himself realised that this will never work.) Instead, it is the indwelling of the HS that cleanses our internal nature, and this will manifest outwardly, moving us to keep the Law, which God claims is now, through the power of the HS, indelibly written on our hearts.

This law that is written on our hearts is none other than Mosaic Law. I will agree with some that it is without all the ritualistic trappings that the Jewish authorities added over centuries, as Christ himself rebuked them for so doing.

This entire idea is expounded in the following article. I recommend reading at least the first page of it if you wish to understand my ramblings; it really explains much better than I am able:

stevenmcollins.com/html/diet.html

Peace to all
Jacques