Mary did what she was told

[Irish_Catholic_1]

Is that you Tom?

Nope.
My name is Terry

 

[Leeann]

OK so you’re saying that the Church says Mary is MORE than human?

Two different “Marys”…the 'human Mary" of the gospels and “the Mary” that the Catholic church has invented over the centuries…so yes.

 

[Hisalone]

Mary was a woman of great faith, she agreed to have Christ formed within her.

Why are we so unwilling to have the faith to agree that Christ be formed within us?

 

[Dancelittleewok]

Two different “Marys”…the 'human Mary" of the gospels and “the Mary” that the Catholic church has invented over the centuries…so yes.

Out of curiosity, who do you think the “Catholic Mary” is and how is she different from “the human Mary”?

 

[Leeann]

Out of curiosity, who do you think the “Catholic Mary” is and how is she different from “the human Mary”?

The the “human Mary” of the gospels, the Mary that was born, like you and I…needing the same redemption that is offered by the blood of Jesus…is not the same “Mary” that the Catholic church has developed over the centuries.

Post #25 - sites the Catholic church’s catechism with regards to their Mary.
Sorry if this is brief, (getting dinner ready) - but I was using “human Mary”…to distinugish between the two…the one that the Catholic church promotes and the one that the apostles,disciples and the very first early believers knew and lived with. If you read back through the posts you’ll see how it was applied.

gotta run…peace!

 

[Dancelittleewok]

The the “human Mary” of the gospels, the Mary that was born, like you and I…needing the same redemption that is offered by the blood of Jesus…is not the same “Mary” that the Catholic church has developed over the centuries.

Post #25 - sites the Catholic church’s catechism with regards to their Mary.

The CC acknowledges that Mary needs a savior and she says as such in the Magnificant. We believe that God intervened and preserved Mary from original sin. As for the claim that Mary is more human, I’d yes: she is how humans should be.

Adam and Eve were created without sin and are still acknowledged as humans. Our humanity now has hardened heart and darkened intellects, all the other consequences of sin. Mary is the new Eve and Christ is the new Adam. However, I suspect (and correct me if I am wrong) that you equate sinless-ness with divinity. Mary, although Immaculately conceived, isn’t divine. She is a mere atom compared to her Son. If anything her life is a testament to her reliance on God, to a life of grace. Our humanity shouldn’t be defined by sin but how much grace works within us and how we work with it.

 

[Leeann]

The CC acknowledges that Mary needs a savior and she says as such in the Magnificant.

Please correct me, but doesn’t the Catholic church’s catechism acknowledge that their “Mary” didn’t need a savior – it states:

966 *"Finally the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things, so that she might be the more fully conformed to her Son, the Lord of lords and conqueror of sin and death."506 The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin is a singular participation in her Son’s Resurrection and an anticipation of the resurrection of other Christians: *

The “human Mary” of the gospels however, does acknowledge her Lord and Saviour.

We believe that God intervened and preserved Mary from original sin. As for the claim that Mary is more human, I’d yes: she is how humans should be.

Yes…this is the Catholic church’s “Mary”.

Adam and Eve were created without sin and are still acknowledged as humans. Our humanity now has hardened heart and darkened intellects, all the other consequences of sin. Mary is the new Eve and Christ is the new Adam.

This is more of the Catholic church’s teachings (*with regards to their “Mary” *) that has been developed over the centuries– as I stated previously somewhere - to the point of creating a new religion altogether.

However, I suspect (and correct me if I am wrong) that you equate sinless-ness with divinity. Mary, although Immaculately conceived, isn’t divine.

Wait for it!

At one point in time, Mary wasn’t even mentioned as someone to be used as an example – the Apostles pointed to themselves and many others, the foremost being JESUS Himself….to follow as examples.

She is a mere atom compared to her Son.

While you yourself may truly believe this,have you read any of the Prayers of Consecration to the Catholic church’s “Mary” lately? The developed teachings of the Catholic church and the claims that it has made with regards to when/how God blessed and graced their Mary (at the moment of her conception) continuing right on to the developed teaching of their Mary’s assumption into heaven and that she is the Queen of Heaven….etc.,etc.,etc……does not imply that *to them *“she is a mere atom compared to her Son,”.

If anything her life is a testament to her reliance on God, to a life of grace. Our humanity shouldn’t be defined by sin but how much grace works within us and how we work with it.

Did you go back and read the previous posts as I suggested, so you could get an idea of why the wording “human Mary” and the point of “sinlessness” was brought into discussion…at any rate…I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiment of your statement…nevertheless the reality is…as a result of Adam and Eve and the consequences of their fall from grace, as you state above ….sin is a major part of our humanity…that’s a simple fact.

 

[Irish_Catholic_1]

Please correct me, but doesn’t the Catholic church’s catechism acknowledge that their “Mary” didn’t need a savior…

NO, it does NOT. The Pope’s infallible statement on Mary’s Immaculate Conception specifically states that it is due to the Merits of Christ’s sacrafice. Christ is her savior, but his merits were applied to her ahead of time.

We declare, pronounce and define that the doctrine which holds that the Blessed Virgin Mary, at the first instant of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace of the Omnipotent God, in virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of mankind, was preserved immaculate from all stain of original sin, has been revealed by God, and therefore should firmly and constantly be believed by all the faithful.
—Pope Pius

 

[FightingFat]

Please correct me, but doesn’t the Catholic church’s catechism acknowledge that their “Mary” didn’t need a savior – it states:

966 *"Finally the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things, so that she might be the more fully conformed to her Son, the Lord of lords and conqueror of sin and death."506 The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin is a singular participation in her Son’s Resurrection and an anticipation of the resurrection of other Christians: *

The “human Mary” of the gospels however, does acknowledge her Lord and Saviour.

Your conclusion here is incorrect Leeann, although I must offer my congratulations; you have seen through to the important crux of the matter with regards to the Immaculate Conception, a problem considered by St. Thomas Aquinas. The Church knows that time does not restrict God or His actions. Yes Jesus saved Mary, but she was redeemed Meliori modo (in a better and preventative way) at the moment of her conception, throughout her life she was continually redeemed ‘in the best way’, being graced with redemptive graces which made her capable of not failing. Mary the all holy, never ceased to be the ‘wholly redeemed’.

This is the only scenario which can be true when you consider Mary in light of her vocation- Mother of God. As such, how could she have had any complicity with sin? The one who finds herself so close to god must be completely pure and holy, since we know that the divine love sanctifies human beings who do not put obstacles in its way, the moment it reaches them.

That is all the more reason why the Son of God made man, carried nine months by Mary, should have sanctified the one in whom He lay. Surely He must already have prepared the Virgin Mary to become His purest tabernacle from the first moment of her existence?

Another consideration: The motherly love of Mary for her Son Jesus was and is a love of God, since it was the love of God made man–correct?

Now if it is true that no perfect love of God is possible for a human creature without a sanctifying grace of divine love, how can Mary have truly been able to love Jesus without her human motherly love being divinely made supernatural through sanctifying grace? And so if Mary was to love the Son of God with such pure love the moment she became a mother, must she not have received this grace of divine love at the moment of her conception, in such a way that sin was never able to deprive her of this supernatural capacity for divine love?

 

[peary]

Have you ever come across this idea from Fundamentalists? Mary was told by God she would carry Jesus and her acquiescence was irrelevant? Mary was not ASKED to bear the Messiah, she was TOLD she would. She simply acknowledged it would be done according to His will, not hers.

Any help? What Scripture should I be looking at here?

Well, She could have said no, but didn’t. The Angel said that She was to bear the Son of God, and that God chose her (the Angel said that she was blessed among *all *women)She obviously wasn’t pregnant at the time of the Annunciation. So great was her Faith in God that she approached His request in humility and servitude. This is a far different cry than what some fundamentalists have said. A little humility and servitude on their part would do them well too.

 

[Dancelittleewok]

Please correct me, but doesn’t the Catholic church’s catechism acknowledge that their “Mary” didn’t need a savior – it states:

966 *"Finally the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things, so that she might be the more fully conformed to her Son, the Lord of lords and conqueror of sin and death."506 The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin is a singular participation in her Son’s Resurrection and an anticipation of the resurrection of other Christians: *

The “human Mary” of the gospels however, does acknowledge her Lord and Saviour.

Yes…this is the Catholic church’s “Mary”.

This is more of the Catholic church’s teachings (*with regards to their “Mary” *) that has been developed over the centuries– as I stated previously somewhere - to the point of creating a new religion altogether.

Wait for it!

At one point in time, Mary wasn’t even mentioned as someone to be used as an example – the Apostles pointed to themselves and many others, the foremost being JESUS Himself….to follow as examples.

While you yourself may truly believe this,have you read any of the Prayers of Consecration to the Catholic church’s “Mary” lately? The developed teachings of the Catholic church and the claims that it has made with regards to when/how God blessed and graced their Mary (at the moment of her conception) continuing right on to the developed teaching of their Mary’s assumption into heaven and that she is the Queen of Heaven….etc.,etc.,etc……does not imply that *to them *“she is a mere atom compared to her Son,”.

Did you go back and read the previous posts as I suggested, so you could get an idea of why the wording “human Mary” and the point of “sinlessness” was brought into discussion…at any rate…I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiment of your statement…nevertheless the reality is…as a result of Adam and Eve and the consequences of their fall from grace, as you state above ….sin is a major part of our humanity…that’s a simple fact.

I did read the other posts but if you don’t like the answers given to you about “their” Mary, then fine but it’s the actual truth: Mary is a mere atom compared to her Son. Since you are quoting from the CCC, read this: 964 Mary’s role in the Church is inseparable from her union with Christ and flows directly from it.

Speaking of prayers, Catholic pray the Magnificat (also called Canticle of Mary) in the Liturgy of the Hours:

My soul magnifies the Lord,
And my spirit rejoices in God my Savior.
For He has regarded the low estate of His handmaiden,
For behold, henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.
For He who is mighty has done great things for me, and holy is His name. And His mercy is on those who fear Him from generation to generation.
He has shown strength with His arm:
He has scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts.
He has put down the mighty from their thrones,
and exalted those of low degree.
He has filled the hungry with good things;
and the rich He has sent empty away.
He has helped His servant Israel, in remembrance of His mercy;
As He spoke to our fathers, to Abraham and to His posterity forever.

Glory be to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit.
As it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen

If Catholic had some idea that Mary didn’t need a Savior (and the contrary has been echoed to you in may posts, especially FightingFat and Irish_Catholic) then would the laity, religious, priests all pray this Scripture which acknowledges that Mary needs a Savior from Mary’s own mouth?

As for the Assumption, Mary didn’t go to Heaven by her own power but by the Holy Spirit.
As for the Queen of Heaven, it is because her Son is the King of Heaven—He willed it and the Church affirms this doctrine. The CCC says this:

970 "Mary’s function as mother of men in no way obscures or diminishes this unique mediation of Christ, but rather shows its power. But the Blessed Virgin’s salutary influence on men . . . flows forth from the superabundance of the merits of Christ, rests on his mediation, depends entirely on it, and draws all its power from it."511 "No creature could ever be counted along with the Incarnate Word and Redeemer; but just as the priesthood of Christ is shared in various ways both by his ministers and the faithful, and as the one goodness of God is radiated in different ways among his creatures, so also the unique mediation of the Redeemer does not exclude but rather gives rise to a manifold cooperation which is but a sharing in this one source."512

You’re right sin is apart of our humanity but that is not how God intended. God created Adam and Eve to be sinless in creation. Sin not only damages our nature but also humanity as whole not to mention God Himself. If you can acknowledge that Adam and Eve are sinless and human, why not Mary? How does her sinless equate to divinity?

Furthermore, since both Adam and Eve are sinless and human–made in God’s own image–have freely chosen to disobey Him and sin. Why do you think that because Mary is the New means she doesn’t have a free will?

You referenced “Thou shalt” in Luke’s Gospel. How does this override Mary’s free will?

 

[Dancelittleewok]

You want me to compare Mary with Jesus?

Jesus’ conception and His birth are well documented in scripture.
The Catholic church’s Mary’s conception and birth isn’t.

Jesus’ sinlessness is well documented in scripture.
The Catholic church’s Mary’s sinlessness isn’t.

Jesus’ role as being human and the necessity for this being so is also well documented in scripture.

Mary’s role as *being human *is also documented clearly in scripture.
However the *Catholic church’s *Mary has nearly obliterated her humanness over the years, with its own teachings attributed to her and developed over the centuries and taught as truth.

Jesus’ divinity is also documented well in scripture.

That is as far as I can go in comparing Jesus with Mary …can I ask you if you think Mary was/is equal and able to be compared to Jesus?

FightingFat was asking: If you can believe that Jesus is sinless and very much a human, why not Mary whom was sinless and very much a human? It’s a logical conclusion.

We Catholics don’t ever think Mary is divine. Like I said before, Adam and Eve were both very much human and sinless pre-Fall. Sinless-ness isn’t a requirement for deity if God Himself would originally create humans as sinless until our first parent’s sin gave us a tendency towards evil. Furthermore, Adam and Eve were both sinless, still human, and had a free will.

Does Jesus equal to Mary or the reverse? The commonality is that they are both human in nature (God had a fully human nature and will in the Incarnation)–this is FightingFat’s comparison. On your part, you equated that his question was comparing divinity but Catholics have never taught Mary is or ever will be divine. This “Catholic Mary” that you speak of isn’t what Catholics believe–that she is divine–but of your own preconceived notions about Catholic really believe regardless if all these Catholic will say “not true or not in our teachings, sorry” until the cows come home.

Instead of telling us Catholics what’s in our teachings, why not listen?

 

[peary]

*Originally Posted by Leeann
Hi Jon

Yes, if you consider Mary was human like all of us, then certainly she would have the free will to do so, however the Catholic church’s “Mary” was/is apparently not human like all of us…they present her as someone born without sin*.

Where did you get THAT garbage from? It certainly isn’t taught by the Church, that’s for sure.

 

[Leeann]

Your conclusion here is incorrect Leeann, although I must offer my congratulations; you have seen through to the important crux of the matter with regards to the Immaculate Conception, a problem considered by St. Thomas Aquinas. The Church knows that time does not restrict God or His actions. Yes Jesus saved Mary, but she was redeemed Meliori modo (in a better and preventative way) at the moment of her conception, throughout her life she was continually redeemed ‘in the best way’, being graced with redemptive graces which made her capable of not failing. Mary the all holy, never ceased to be the ‘wholly redeemed’.

All true believers, know that time does not restrict God or His actions.

If the Catholic church, as you state above, knows that time does not restrict God or His actions, why then do they themselves make a supposedly “infallible” (totally unsubstantiated) declaration to a specific time with regards to “their Mary’s” redemption – and then bind their adherents to having to believe in this developed teaching, in order to obtain their own salvation? Not only a different religion – but a different gospel message.

This is the only scenario which can be true when you consider Mary in light of her vocation- Mother of God. As such, how could she have had any complicity with sin? The one who finds herself so close to god must be completely pure and holy, since we know that the divine love sanctifies human beings who do not put obstacles in its way, the moment it reaches them.

That is all the more reason why the Son of God made man, carried nine months by Mary, should have sanctified the one in whom He lay. Surely He must already have prepared the Virgin Mary to become His purest tabernacle from the first moment of her existence?

I am not trying to be difficult and it is understandable how you have arrived at this conclusion, based on the Catholic church’s developed teachings with regards to “their Mary” that this sanctification took place at her own conception….since it has already been clarified that you believe that God and His actions are not restricted by time….consider that this act could have taken place at the moment of HIS conception.

Another consideration: The motherly love of Mary for her Son Jesus was and is a love of God, since it was the love of God made man–correct?

Now if it is true that no perfect love of God is possible for a human creature without a sanctifying grace of divine love, how can Mary have truly been able to love Jesus without her human motherly love being divinely made supernatural through sanctifying grace? And so if Mary was to love the Son of God with such pure love the moment she became a mother, must she not have received this grace of divine love at the moment of her conception, in such a way that sin was never able to deprive her of this supernatural capacity for divine love?

Only if you need to believe this in order to be in line with the Catholic church’s developed teachings on “their Mary”….that she was conceived sinless…that she remained sinless….etc.,etc.

In the above you state “if Mary was to love the Son of God with such pure love the moment she became a mother, must she not have received this grace of divine love at the moment of her conception,…” (I stop here to point out once again, that there is no need for Mary to have received ‘this divine love at the moment of her conception’ in order for her to be able to love the Son of God with ‘such pure love the moment she became a mother.’…Why?..because as has already been pointed out, this action could have occurred at HIS conception….which follows more truly to…what I have termed here…”the human Mary” of the gospels, as opposed to the different developed “Mary” of the Catholic church.

I do understand that you obviously believe in the Catholic church’s “Mary” and you are aware that I don’t… so the questions you pose here, based on the Catholic church’s developed teachings of “their Mary”…can never be answered satisfactorily for you by me.

However I have addressed the original OP, as directly and clearly as I could and any subsequent postings.

 

[Leeann]

Well, She could have said no, but didn’t. The Angel said that She was to bear the Son of God, and that God chose her (the Angel said that she was blessed among *all *women)She obviously wasn’t pregnant at the time of the Annunciation. So great was her Faith in God that she approached His request in humility and servitude. This is a far different cry than what some fundamentalists have said. A little humility and servitude on their part would do them well too.

I agree with you peary…Mary’s humility and faith and desire to be of service leaves us all in the pale. As for what some fundamentalists have said, I don’t know specifically what you may have heard and there are extremes at both ends of the spectrum, whether it be total disregard for her by some or a new religion/theology/cult based strongly upon her own personage and attributes. Neither is healthy or dignified.

 

[Leeann]

NO, it does NOT. The Pope’s infallible statement on Mary’s Immaculate Conception specifically states that it is due to the Merits of Christ’s sacrafice. Christ is her savior, but his merits were applied to her ahead of time.

We declare, pronounce and define that the doctrine which holds that the Blessed Virgin Mary, at the first instant of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace of the Omnipotent God, in virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of mankind, was preserved immaculate from all stain of original sin, has been revealed by God, and therefore should firmly and constantly be believed by all the faithful.
—Pope Pius

IrishCatholic - sorry - I missed your post when I got a chance to come back in…thanks for clearing that up for me.
It kinds of ties into what FightingFat posted with regards to time not restricting God’s actions…and my response as to why the Catholic church attempts to do so here, by attributing a specific time (at her own conception) when she was supposedly redeemed/blessed/graced/…and to there being no need for that to have happened.

 

[Dancelittleewok]

IrishCatholic - sorry - I missed your post when I got a chance to come back in…thanks for clearing that up for me.
It kinds of ties into what FightingFat posted with regards to time not restricting God’s actions…and my response as to why the Catholic church attempts to do so here, by attributing a specific time (at her own conception) when she was supposedly redeemed/blessed/graced/…and to there being no need for that to have happened.

Isn’t that what grace is? Unmerited, unnecessary, a gift given to us by God Himself. God made His own mother and graced in her immaculate conception–how mind blogging is that? I mean, if you think about us God could’ve left us sinners but He chose to send His only begotten Son to die. He saved us not out of necessity but of love. Can you not imagine Him doing the same for His own mother?

You mentioned in your post to FightingFat, that God could’ve done so immaculately conceived Himself but what did He say in Isaiah? That He would be borne of a Virgin.

 

[CaptainPicard]

Duoay Rheims

Luke - Chapter One

26 And in the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent from God into a city of Galilee, called Nazareth, 27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary. 28 And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. 29 Who having heard, was troubled at his saying, and thought with herself what manner of salutation this should be. 30 And the angel said to her: Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found grace with God.

31 **Behold thou shalt **conceive in thy womb, and shalt bring forth a son; and **thou shalt call his name Jesus. 32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the most High; and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of David his father; and he shall reign in the house of Jacob for ever. 33 And of his kingdom there shall be no end. 34 And Mary said to the angel: How shall this be done, because I know not man? 35 And the angel answering, said to her: The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the most High shall **overshadow thee. And therefore also the Holy **which shall **be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

36 And behold thy cousin Elizabeth, she also hath conceived a son in her old age; and this is the sixth month with her that is called barren: 37 Because no word shall be impossible with God. 38 And Mary said: Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it done to me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.

Mary was told. She acknowledge it would be done, according to His Will.

Gn 2 14-18
" The name of the third river is the Tigris; it is the one that flows east of Asshur. The fourth river is the Euphrates.
The LORD God then took the man and settled him in the garden of Eden, to cultivate and care for it.
The LORD God gave man this order: “You are free to eat from any of the trees of the garden
except the tree of knowledge of good and bad. From that tree you shall not eat; the moment you eat from it you are surely doomed to die.”
The LORD God said: “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a suitable partner for him.” "

You mean Mary was just like Adam and Eve who had no choice?

Also, I’m not sure why any of the Marian doctrines take away her humanity. She certainly isn’t human just like the rest of us. This I can agree with you on. But she’s human.
We have a thread going on in the apologetic forum on Mary and Jesus as the New Adam and New Eve if that is a subject that interests you.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=400872

I know you’re just trying to defend what you think is the truth, but you are really missing out by rejecting the Church’s Marian teachings. This must sound odd to you, but I think if you really had a good explanation as to why Catholics believe what we do about the Blessed Virgin Mary, you might change your mind.

 

[FightingFat]

All true believers, know that time does not restrict God or His actions.

If the Catholic church, as you state above, knows that time does not restrict God or His actions, why then do they themselves make a supposedly “infallible” (totally unsubstantiated) declaration to a specific time with regards to “their Mary’s” redemption

The Church has a vocation to explain the Gospel. It does this with authority, it is this authority which stops it dividing upon itself in the way that Protestant denomination divide in among themselves. Infallible pronouncements are objective reality, and Leeann, many things you would agree with! Like the fact that Jesus is Lord, these are what the Church teaches infallibly. It is how the Church states objective reality.

and then bind their adherents to having to believe in this developed teaching, in order to obtain their own salvation? Not only a different religion – but a different gospel message.

Can you show me where the Church binds its adherents to having to believe something in order to obtain their salvation?

I am not trying to be difficult and it is understandable how you have arrived at this conclusion, based on the Catholic church’s developed teachings with regards to “their Mary” that this sanctification took place at her own conception….since it has already been clarified that you believe that God and His actions are not restricted by time….consider that this act could have taken place at the moment of HIS conception.

Yes, good point, and God could have done this, but if you think about it, what the Church has done here is followed the clues like a detective…The clues are about grace and what we know of what it is, how it is bestowed and the effects it has on us human beings. Now if you follow Luther, grace is no more than a layer of snow on the dung of humanity (his nasty image not mine). The Church teaches that grace has a real effect on us, it bestows supernatural gifts on us which provide us with the only fulfilment which will satisfy our craving for Him. God fulfils our hunger with the unexpected reality of an end which exceeds the proportions of any created nature: divine friendship, personal union and the beatific vision. Mary bore Jesus Christ, does it not make sense that this is a bit special?

Only if you need to believe this in order to be in line with the Catholic church’s developed teachings on “their Mary”….that she was conceived sinless…that she remained sinless….etc.,etc.

Doesn’t it make sense that anyone in that close a contact with almighty GOD would be a bit special? Do you think it would not alter you in a real way? Do you not think you would be “full of grace” as the angel said, and that grace would have a real effect on your person?

In the above you state “if Mary was to love the Son of God with such pure love the moment she became a mother, must she not have received this grace of divine love at the moment of her conception,…” (I stop here to point out once again, that there is no need for Mary to have received ‘this divine love at the moment of her conception’ in order for her to be able to love the Son of God with ‘such pure love the moment she became a mother.’…Why?..because as has already been pointed out, this action could have occurred at HIS conception….which follows more truly to…what I have termed here…”the human Mary” of the gospels, as opposed to the different developed “Mary” of the Catholic church.

Why? Why does it follow more truly? Do you believe that God choose the person for this special task before time? Does that make sense to you?

Have you ever considered the arc of the covenant and how that relates to Mary? Have you ever thought about Eve and her role in Scripture and juxtaposed that with Mary’s role?

A final word. We should show humility before God and to think that you can work something out better than the Church demonstrates a degree of arrogance before God, don’t you think? Please forgive me if this appears rude, I merely think that you would benefit from acquainting yourself with what the Catholic Church teaches about Mary before you join a thread like this and start explaining to us what we believe–especially when it appears you do not know, you merely have been told by someone else what we believe…Think about that will you?

You may find this book useful from an Evangelical perspective: amazon.com/Mary-Evangelicals-Toward-Understanding-Mother/dp/083082569X/ref=sr_1_11?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1259408568&sr=8-11

And this one is simple and explains what Catholics believe and why:

amazon.com/How-Understand-Virgin-Mary-Jacques/dp/0756768225/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1259408739&sr=1-1

 

[Leeann]

Wow! Am wayyyy behind here…will definitely respond to posts, but it may be over a day or two as I’m limited to being able to come on to maybe once or twice a day.