Non Catholic view of Mariology II

[ChristAgenda]

I think you are right and I believe that Mary would have wanted it this way. Mary as we all do, understood that she, the mother of the Lord, was the creature as opposed to the creator and Savior. Her soul magnifies the Lord; it does not replace the Lord.

However, to insist that Jesus’ mother has no place as a prayer warrior when it comes to the salvation of sins, well I wonder what Jesus would have to say about those rather harsh words about His mother?

I can confirm with confidence that as far as salvation is concerned Saint Mary or any other passed away Saint has no place.
No Saint can add to the blood of Jesus Christ.

 

[MartinJordan]

I think you are right and I believe that Mary would have wanted it this way. Mary, as we all do, understood that she, the mother of the Lord, was the creature as opposed to the creator and Savior. Her soul magnifies the Lord; it does not replace the Lord.

However, to insist that Jesus’ mother has no place as a prayer warrior when it comes to the salvation of sins, well I wonder what Jesus would have to say about those rather harsh words about His mother?

Joe, just two words for you. Quote properly.

MJ

 

[ChristAgenda]

Perhaps, to become a saint is to become fully conformed to God’s divine Will. I know of no one like that walking the earth. Only one person long ago…

All church denominations will disagree with you on that since they have a long list of passed away Saints, they seem to be acknowledged only when they die. Amazingly just like a artist you paints a portrait and is appreciated only when he dies.

Fascinating in deed.
So are you definitely sure there are none living?

 

[joe371]

Joe, just two words for you. Quote properly.

MJ

You said:
As far as God’s salvation is concerned Saint Mary has no place and I as a Christian believe it should be kept that way so that the focus is solely kept on Jesus Christ.

She does though, as a prayer warrior, as do we, for the salvation of sinners - right?

 

[MartinJordan]

You said:
As far as God’s salvation is concerned Saint Mary has no place and I as a Christian believe it should be kept that way so that the focus is solely kept on Jesus Christ.

She does though, as a prayer warrior, as do we, for the salvation of sinners - right?

That was Christ Agenda.

MJ

 

[joe371]

All church denominations will disagree with you on that since they have a long list of passed away Saints, they seem to be acknowledged only when they die. Amazingly just like a artist you paints a portrait and is appreciated only when he dies.

Fascinating in deed.
So are you definitely sure there are none living?

I was talking about passed away saints. Everyone in heaven is a saint. No protestant churches, or the CC, have living saints walking the earth? That they do not, is my only point. We agree…

 

[ChristAgenda]

I was talking about passed away saints. Everyone in heaven is a saint. No protestant churches, or the CC, have living saints walking the earth? That they do not, is my only point. We agree…

When Saint Mary was living was she not a Saint or any other Sain for that matter.
So for you and others what constitutes a Saint?

 

[joe371]

When Saint Mary was living was she not a Saint or any other Sain for that matter.
So for you and others what constitutes a Saint?

I guess it really comes down to one’s definition. I see your point. There are a couple of definitions: If the word saint which means holy is referring to all who believed and continue to believe in Jesus Christ and his teachings on earth, then you are right my friend. There are saints walking the earth…

 

[joe371]

That was Christ Agenda.

MJ

Yeah, but all Christians partake via prayer. Our prayers matter when it comes to the salvation of others. Only God does the actual saving…

 

[MartinJordan]

Because the Grace of God came upon her and that grace is Christ.

Not a bad way to think of it.

Although it doesn’t end there. She will always be Jesus’ (True God and True Man) Mother…and ours!

MJ

 

[MartinJordan]

Yeah, but all Christians partake via prayer. Our prayers matter when it comes to the salvation of others. Only God does the actual saving…

Agreed. Meanwhile, please look at my religion status so there is no confusion of what I believe. Thanks.

MJ

 

[GaryTaylor]

I think you are still confused about your theology and exactly what you believe.

Just trying to get you to see where you are being inconsistent.

And where you have departed from the Orthodox teachings, which are consonant with Catholicism.

Absolutely

:sad_yes:

 

[GaryTaylor]

I’ve already addressed this point. Christ has not been incarnated yet, how can someone receive something from an event that has not occurred yet?

Grace its always first. Its the falling in the pit analogy supplied above for you which you have no comment for either.

I see your also back to the very protestant “its not in the Bible” chant, just like the “very” long list we have already supplied to you for the Orthodox. No response there either. The pot calling the kettle black again.

Queen of Heaven and Mary above the cherubim, and seraphim in the Orthodox, no response there either since this too brings up those difficult questions such as St Bellarmine asked…

("its possible,” he says, “for a mere creature to be without any sin. Such, for example, are the good angels in heaven. Consequently, the same must be true of the Virgin Mother of God, who is more pure than the angels. Otherwise she would be less pure than the angels, at least by the presence of sin. For true purity consists of two qualities: absence of sin and nearness to God.” The point is that if Our Lady is more pure than the angels in closeness to God, which all admit, then she is also as pure as they in the absence of sin, since purity comprehends both qualities without discrimination.) Fr Hardin archieves

therealpresence.org/archives/Mariology/Mariology_038.htm



John the Baptist, avoidance.

You do not want to discuss anything, only persecute the Church. And in the name of orthodoxy?

 

[GaryTaylor]

We don’t decide upon authority, we decide on truth. Truth is authoritative by itself.

If error has occurred, then it has to be corrected.

Besides, how can I judge? I can only see snippets you provided which seemingly is pretty conveniently on your side. But I neither would go through the effort to read the entire thing just to prove it to you. I know what Orthodoxy teaches. I’m pretty sure these people who use “Original Sin” as a term would mean the same thing I mean, and not what the Roman Catholic Church means when they use the term.

Who’s we? Are you the infallible voice of orthodoxy? Who is the “we” specifically you are speaking for?

This orthodox response throughout this thread, you call that truth? Confusion is not truth.

“If” error has occurred? What about the error you refuse to acknowledge in your own thinking here? Is that the pot and kettle double standard again?

And how could you judge, as you admit here I neither would go through the effort] vague reading of material supplied. And you conclude with another double standard with Original Sin while “Ancestral” is, oh, just fine in orthodoxy.

You are the “King” of the double standard.

 

[Porknpie]

Catechisms are not infallible documents. They are not in Orthodoxy, they are not in the Catholic Church. Also, out of convenience, the term “Original Sin” has been adopted by some Orthodox, but they do not mean the same thing as what it means in Roman Catholicism. ** We even have adopted the Seven Sacraments, when in Orthodoxy we recognize more than seven.** For example, Monastic Tonsuring and the Funeral Rite are Sacraments in Orthodoxy.

Our fallen reality is a result of man’s first rebellion against God and thus we have lost our communion with Him. As I already related earlier, like the Prodigal Son, we are his children born in the pig pen where he ended up after his sin. We do not inherit the pig pen, we are born into this reality that our ancestors are living in the pig pen. The pig pen is not part of our being, but we live in it.

Constantine,

Can you clarify how many sacraments you have? You are saying 9? This link says 7.

 

[Porknpie]

Originally Posted by ConstantineTG
I’ve already addressed this point. Christ has not been incarnated yet, how can someone receive something from an event that has not occurred yet?

Because God is outside of time.

Such concept only exists in modern thought and is found nowhere in Scripture both Old and New Testament, as well as the teachings of the Church Fathers. To introduce modern theory based on science fiction fantasy into our faith is ridiculous.

Constantine,

Is this wrong then? Is this ridiculous?

*The Son of God is born from the Father “before all ages”; that is, before creation, before the commencement of time. Time has its beginning in creation. God exists before time, in an eternally timeless existence without beginning or end.

Eternity as a word does not mean endless time. It means the condition of no time at all—no past or future, just a constant present. For God there is no past or future. For God, all is now.

In the eternal “now” of God, before the creation of the world, God the Father gave birth to his only-begotten Son in what can only be termed an eternal, timeless, always presently-existing generation. This means that although the Son is “begotten of the Father” and comes forth from the Father, his coming forth is eternal. Thus, there never was a “time” when there was no Son of God. This is specifically what the heretic Arius taught. It is the doctrine formally condemned by the first ecumenical council.*

Source is here

Thoughts?

 

[GaryTaylor]

For example, those who would just accept a Trinitarian Formula baptism may miss the fact that some who do use the Trinitarian formula do not believe in a Baptism for the remission of sins. .

How about this conversation which we have attempted several times to engage you. But you don’t want to discuss this either.

 

[Tomyris]

I am not going, if I can help it, get into the Catholic-Orthodox disagreement, which I read as the Catholics are saying the Orthodox agree with them and the Orthodox disagree.
There are presuppositions regarding the sacramental system that I approach in a different way than you do.

No matter how perfect and sinless, etc., Mary is, how can she still in any way be fit to carry God? I would think no created thing could be, regardless of how great or exalted or otherwise. It would still be solely by the grace of God, and so her personal qualities would be irrelevant, no?

 

[PRmerger]

Is it true that the doctrine of Original Sin implies that one must seek knowledge only through God? That unless God gives permission, seeking knowledge is a sin?

No, that is not correct.

The Catholic paradigm has always been one of* fides quarens intellectum.*

Thus, seeking knowledge has been a mandate. We are to love God with our entire MIND, heart, soul and strength.

However, all knowledge does come only through God, I can’t see any other way knowledge comes. Can you?

 

[PRmerger]

I am not going, if I can help it, get into the Catholic-Orthodox disagreement, which I read as the Catholics are saying the Orthodox agree with them and the Orthodox disagree.
There are presuppositions regarding the sacramental system that I approach in a different way than you do.

No matter how perfect and sinless, etc., Mary is, how can she still in any way be fit to carry God? I would think no created thing could be, regardless of how great or exalted or otherwise. It would still be solely by the grace of God, and so her personal qualities would be irrelevant, no?

It is fitting, but not necessary, for Mary to be immaculate and pure and a perfect vessel.

So while God did not have to make her free from sin–it’s true that God could dwell in a filthy, sinful creature, too–it’s fitting that the Eternal Logos be in a fitting vessel.