Mary

[headman13]

Cornerstone, let me interject as the resident Lutheran Pastor and Doctor of Theology. It is the gravest error to deny that Mary is the Mother of God. It is to deny the Incarnation of God in Christ, it is to deny the efficacious nature for both body and soul of Jesus’ bitter sufferings, horrible death and glorious resurrection. Martin Luther said that “anyone who cannot call Mary the ‘Mother of God’ doesn’t understand theology.” The Bible teaches us in Colossians 2: 9 “In Him [Christ] dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.” Mary did not just give birth to the Human nature of Jesus. She gave birth to the “Word made Flesh,” God Incarnate. If you believe that the 2nd Person of the Trinity took flesh in her womb, you must believe that she gave birth to God Incarnate. The Human nature and the Divine nature are perfectly and inseparably united in God Made Man, our blessed Lord, when “the Word became Flesh and dwelled among us” in the womb of the blessed Virgin Mary. She is indeed the Holy “Theotokos,” “God bearer,” the Mother of God.

Now, in contrast to some of my Roman friends here, I do not advocate the excesses of marian devotion. But even Martin Luther said “You cannot honor the Son by dishonoring His Mother.” At the Annunciation of our Lord the angel told Mary that she was “highly favored” full of grace. And so she was and is. Mary responds to Elizabeth in Luke 1:48 “henceforth all generations shall call me ‘blessed’.” And blessed she is indeed. In addition to having born Our dear Savior under her heart for 9 months and having brought Him into the world and knelt beside His manger bed, she is the model of the Church in her submission to the will of God, in her devotion to her Son, even following Him to the Cross. Would that we could all be like her. When Jesus commended her to the care of St. John, he commended her to us as well. Mary always points us to Jesus. As she did at the Wedding in Cana she tells us “Do everything that He commands you.” She is the Mother of our Lord and God and we must honor her as such. To do otherwise is to dishonor our Lord.

 

[Socrates]

cornerstone:

PART ONE

1. the meaning of “without Mary” is that any faith that needs to have anything else that God on the equation is a pagan one.

So all “bible based” religions are pagan then? The bible is not God is it? (I realize that it is the written word of God, but it is not itself God. It is therefore something other than God.)

Serious question: Could your church “hold itself” without the bible? If no divine revelation had been committed to paper could your church “hold itself?” Would it even exist?

1. this is not the first attack to the Bible i see in this forum.

See, this is where you are so wrong. I did not attack the bible at all. I’m constantly amazed that some cannot separate scripture from the man made doctrine of sola scriptura. Rejecting sola scriptura is the rejection of a man made doctrine…it is not a rejection of scripture itself. Accusing me of attacking the bible because I reject a false doctrine invented by Martin Luther 500 years ago is just a strawman, whether you realize it or not. I suspect that you don’t realize it and I fear that you won’t realize it.

the Bible is not a book.

Um…I’m afraid it is. With a cover and pages and letters and words and sentences and everything. It records divinely inspired inerrant words but it is a book nonetheless. I’m sure this will sound like an attack on the bible to you (which it most certainly is not) but no book – not even a divinely inspired one – can be self referentially authoritative.

I think you might want to consider whether you are worshipping God or worshipping the bible.

if you only read one or two verses from here and there you will miss what the Bible really is./quote]
I actually agree with that statement. Reading one or two verses out of context is typically how anti-Catholics attack the Catholic Church.

it is God revealing himself to us.

Diagram that sentence.

Subject: it [the bible]
Verb: is
Predicate nominative: God
Participle (adjective) modifying P.N.: revealing Himself

You’re telling me that the bible is God.

The bible really isn’t “God revealing himself to us.” It is a written record of some of what God has revealed. There is a BIG difference. God indeed grants us understanding when we study what he has revealed, but the bible does not itself reveal anything. God reveals. The bible is a record of that revelation. The bible is an object. God is God.

Did God reveal the table of contents of the bible? In which divinely inspired book of the bible was that revelation recorded? In what divinely inspired book of the bible did God say that the bible is the sole rule of faith? Unless you can answer those questions, sola scriptura as well as your worship of the bible as God is unscriptural.

it is a love letter. it is, even from the old testament, a prelude to Jesus. His coming is what the whole Bible points to. but one thing is true, for a closed heart the Bible is a closed “book”.

You’re absolutely right on this bit. 100% agreement here. My heart is totally open to God therefore the bible is an open book. Is your heart open to God or just open to the bible? There’s a difference unless you believe that the bible is your God.

you are right Jesus founded the church, but not the roman catholic church.

Right, technically it is just the Catholic Church which includes more than just “Roman” Catholic. The successor of Peter just happens to be the bishop of Rome.

Did God grant the keys to the Kingdom to the bible or to Peter? Did He give the bible the power to bind and loose or did He give it to men that he chose to lead His Church? Did Jesus tell the bible to feed His lambs?

 

[Jdg164]

Would you exist without your mother? No. Neither would you exist without your father.

Could the Church have existed without Mary? Yes. Did God ordain it to be that way? It would appear not, since He chose to have Christ come to us though this Blessed Vessel.

 

[Jdg164]

cornerstone:

Nothing on the Bible says that she participated on delivering the Good News.

This is not my attempt to be a smart-aleck- I say this in all seriousness. See Matthew 1:18-25, Luke 2:1-7, and John 2:1-5 for starters. I think there sufficient evidence here of Mary delivering the Good News.

 

[Socrates]

cornerstone:

PART TWO

1. you are right that the Bible does not have all the truth. but, thank God, it does not leave room for lies.
   the catholic church claims that more than the Bible itself, traditions are to be trusted and followed.

Provide a Catholic source indicating that the Catholic Church elevates sacred Tradition above sacred Scripture. You can’t do it.

8But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed.
dont you love verse 8?

Amen. I do love verse 8. Notice it says “preached to you.” It does not say “written down for you.”

there are traditions that the apostles followed. but verse 8 shows with out room for twisting that if those traditions are not what Jesus told us then they only want to pervert the gospel.

And from the bible we know that not everything that Jesus told us was written down. So who can tell you what traditions do not follow what Jesus taught?

1. the one twisting is not me. i said Mary is not the mother of God. if you understand that Jesus was full man and full God, that Jesus is the Son, the Word, the second person of the Trinity, and that the Word of God pre-existed his human body, isn’t a little overreaching to say that Mary was the Mother of God?

Absolutely not. Jesus was one person with both a human and a divine nature. He was not more than one person. He did in fact pre-exist his human nature. Mary is still His mother. He chose her to be His mother. He created her to be His mother. She is His greatest creation, but she is a creature nonetheless.

Do you think God is incapable of creating a mother for Himself?

if Mary is the mother of GOD then she is not just a woman. She is sort of deity.

That’s just a willful misinterpretation on your part. Mary is a woman. She is not a deity. You cannot point to any authentic Catholic teaching that says Mary is a deity. You’re making that part up yourself.

(by the way explain to me why Jesus who is GOD had to die on the cross and all of the apostles but one died a horrible death but Mary somehow was worthy of going directly to heaven)

Easy. Jesus was following the commandments. Honor thy mother and father.

(Actually there is no dogma about whether Mary was assumed into heaven before or after she died. She might very well have experienced death.)

1. the ONLY fact is that GOD payed the price and He did it by himself. Saying that Mary was the mother of GOD and that she somehow improves my relatioship with GOD in any way not only denies the divinity of Jesus but also that HE is not almighty and that the work of the cross was not perfect.

I’m sorry but your conclusion here is purely an emotional outburst, there is not logic to sustain it. If she’s the mother of God and Jesus is her son then Jesus is God. You are again willfully adding your own idea that it means she preexisted Him or that she is a deity. That’s not Catholic teaching and never has been. (If all you are going to do is argue against your own fantasies then I’m done. If Catholic teaching were so error-ridden I’d think that you wouldn’t have to resort to lying to refute it.)

You say she is not the mother of God while you admit that she is the mother of Jesus. You are therefore saying that Jesus is not God. I happen to believe that He is indeed God.

Hebrews 4:12-13
12 For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. 13And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are naked and open to the eyes of Him to whom we must give account

Amen. Couldn’t agree more.

(Show me the verse that tells me the word is limited to only what has been written down.)

 

[rosarywarrior]

cornerstone:

The one not believing in the Trinity is you. The second person of the Trinity, Jesus, the Word. did not come to exist on Mary’s womb.

) 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was in the beginning with God. 3All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. 4In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend1] it.

If You believed in the Trinity as three persons in ONE God, then you must realize that Jesus is the Second person of the trinity. In your original statement you said you did not believe Mary was the mother of God. You don’t seem to believe that Jesus is True God and True Man. You seem to think Jesus is only a Man. Why do you keep quoting the Bible which was put together by Catholics who believe in the Trinity and have love for Mary?

 

[Mike_C]

If keeping tradions, particularly devotion to the Mother of God is wrong, then not only Catholics, but Orthodox Christians, Anglicans, Lutherans are wrong also. How could these churches be wrong for so long?

 

[Socrates]

Mike C:

If keeping tradions, particularly devotion to the Mother of God is wrong, then not only Catholics, but Orthodox Christians, Anglicans, Lutherans are wrong also. How could these churches be wrong for so long?

That’s a good point. This always seems to get framed as a protestant vs Catholic issue when that’s not the case. Your point also illustrates that Marian devotion was not something that caused the protestant revolt. I think the attack on Marian devotion really only evolved after a few centuries of compounding the errors resulting from sola scriptura.

 

[Jdg164]

Mike C:

If keeping tradions, particularly devotion to the Mother of God is wrong, then not only Catholics, but Orthodox Christians, Anglicans, Lutherans are wrong also. How could these churches be wrong for so long?

Hold on there! Be careful with this logic. I adore my Mother Mary, so be careful when you defend her with this kind of logic. Man believed for several thousand years that the earth was flat. Guess what. They were wrong. Believing in something for a long time does NOT make it right.

 

[CMcLaurin]

Catholics do not believe that Jesus came to exist in The Blessed Virgin’s womb. We believe he existed long before our Holy Mother. He, however, became INCARNATE in her, through the Holy Spirit.
Jesus is fully God and fully man, and both parts, though they predated Mary, came to be born on earth through her.
Could we exist without Mary? No, because through her Christ became incarnate and gave us the Church.

 

[ralphinal]

Jdg164:

Hold on there! Be careful with this logic. I adore my Mother Mary, so be careful when you defend her with this kind of logic. Man believed for several thousand years that the earth was flat. Guess what. They were wrong. Believing in something for a long time does NOT make it right.

Perhaps it would be better to say why would the Holy Spirit have allowed us to be wrong for so long?

 

[Jdg164]

ralphinal:

Perhaps it would be better to say why would the Holy Spirit have allowed us to be wrong for so long?

I prefer to think: Why would the early Church Fathers (guided by the Holy Spirit and having lived right after the time of Christ) have honored and respected Mary so profoundly?

Irenaeus:

“The Virgin Mary, being obedient to his word, received from an angel the glad tidings that she would bear God” (Against Heresies, 5:19:1 A.D. 189).

Hippolytus:

“[T]o all generations they [the prophets] have pictured forth the grandest subjects for contemplation and for action. Thus, too, they preached of the advent of God in the flesh to the world, his advent by the spotless and God-bearing (theotokos) Mary in the way of birth and growth, and the manner of his life and conversation with men, and his manifestation by baptism, and the new birth that was to be to all men, and the regeneration by the laver [of baptism]” (*Discourse on the End of the World *1 [A.D. 217]).

Ambrose of Milan:

“Mary’s life should be for you a pictorial image of virginity. Her life is like a mirror reflecting the face of chastity and the form of virtue. Therein you may find a model for your own life . . . showing what to improve, what to imitate, what to hold fast to” (*The Virgins *2:2:6 [A.D. 377]).

 

[chemcatholic]

Jdg164:

Hold on there! Be careful with this logic. I adore my Mother Mary, so be careful when you defend her with this kind of logic. Man believed for several thousand years that the earth was flat. Guess what. They were wrong. Believing in something for a long time does NOT make it right.

Well, there is a difference between the two. The world being flat was a scientific concept, which is open to change. The veneration of Mary is a spiritual concept and religious concept, which is not open to change.

Peace

 

[chemcatholic]

1) the meaning of “without Mary” is that any faith that needs to have anything else that God on the equation is a pagan one.

pa·gan ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pgn)
n.
One who is not a Christian, Muslim, or Jew, especially a worshiper of a polytheistic religion.
One who has no religion.
A non-Christian.
A hedonist.
A Neo-Pagan.

Sorry, but you can’t just redefine words as you wish.

 

[chemcatholic]

cornerstone:

can the traditions say “white” and the Bible say “black”. no

You are correct. However,

Where does the Bible say that Mary sinned even once in her life?
Where does the Bible say that Mary was not a virgin?
Where does the Bible say that Mary was not assumed into Heaven?
Where does the Bible say that Mary does not intercede with Jesus on our behalf?

Peace

 

[chemcatholic]

cornerstone:

Jesus had to come from the tribe of Judah and the house of David. personally i believe that she had to be special for God to pick her.

That’s funny, I seem to remember the Gospel geneologies linking Jesus to the house of David through Joseph, not Mary. I don’t have my Bible with me to double check - can anyone verify my memory?

Peace

 

[Jdg164]

chemcatholic:

Well, there is a difference between the two. The world being flat was a scientific concept, which is open to change. The veneration of Mary is a spiritual concept and religious concept, which is not open to change.

This may be, but if you are going to argue Marian doctrine with a protestant- you simply can’t put anything in the “not open to change” category because they clearly DO think it is open to refutation.

 

[Emmaus]

Hello Cornerstone,

You actually make some correct points in you post.

cornerstone:

Mary is an icon of the catholic church.

That is in fact correct. Mary is an image or icon of the Catholic Church.

"507 At once virgin and mother, Mary is the symbol and the most perfect realization of the Church: “the Church indeed. . . by receiving the word of God in faith becomes herself a mother. By preaching and Baptism she brings forth sons, who are conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of God, to a new and immortal life. She herself is a virgin, who keeps in its entirety and purity the faith she pledged to her spouse.” The Catechism
scborromeo.org/ccc/p122a3p2.htm#506

here comes my first question. was she blessed cause she was picked to bring Jesus to this world or because of for her on account? is it something she did?

She was graced by God and that is always gratuitous, not earned. In her prayer the Magnificat in Luke 1, Mary called God her Savior. Catholics believe God saved her from sin by grace in a preventative manner, rather then in a restorative manner. It was God’s work, not her’s. But her obedience was her own, even as Eve’s disobedience was her own.

"Canons Concerning Justification: Council of Trent

Canon 1.
If anyone says that man can be justified before God by his own works, whether done by his own natural powers or through the teaching of the law, without divine grace through Jesus Christ, let him be anathema."
ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/TRENT6.HTM

Nothing on the Bible says that she participated on delivering the Good News.

The newleyweds at Cana in John 2 might disagree.

Nothing about Mary being assumed into heaven or even mention on when she died.
If she indeed was assumed into heaven, when did that happen?

At the end of her life according to Catholic doctrine. No, it is not in the Bible, except by implication in Rev 11:19 and Rev 12, but Catholics do not subscribe to Sola Scriptura.

i strongly believe that if it could be possible for her to talk to the multitude of believers in the catholic church she would say:
Keep your eyes in Jesus. He is the way, the truth and life.
no one comes to the Father but thru Him.

She did just that in John 2:5 when she said “Do whatever he tells you.” Catholics hear that every time that Gospel passage is read at Mass or we read it on our own. That is Mary’s entire message in a nutshell.

You may fnd some of the information at these links of interest.

Mary, Ark of the New Covenant
bcpl.net/~spohl/MaryArkoftheCovenant.htm

Mary, the New Eve
bcpl.net/~spohl/MarytheNewEve.htm

Marian Doctrines / Christological Doctrines
bcpl.net/~spohl/MarianDoctrinesChristologicalDoctrines.htm

Mary - Doctrines in the Bible
bcpl.net/~spohl/MaryDoctrinesintheBible.htm

Prayer to Mary and the Saints
bcpl.net/~spohl/PrayertoMaryandtheSaints.htm

God Bless,