Protestants and Mary

[elvisman]

So now I didn’t learn much from the Church because I bowed down to images? And I was a renegade going against Rome?

So what did these men know?
fatimaconference.org/images/Collegial-Consecration.jpg

Apparently not as much as you. And I know you’ll explain this one away so I’m prepared.

You see you give the perception to your reading audience that people who bow to statues are wrong and didn’t learn that from the church. It’s just your twist on perception and reality.

Reality is
People do bow down to statues
That is Pope John Paul the II by the way.

Nope.
Bowing and kneeling while praying is normal. Worshipping an idol is something that is completely different. You are equating the two to make your point. Images are not in and of themselves idols. An image becomes an idol it is worshipped - in the sense that it is treated as a god.
The men in the picture are not kneeling before the statue in worship. They are in prayer - probably the Rosary - which is Scriptural.

Whereas the word, “worship” can be used more loosely, if applied to all of us, we would all be guilty of some form of the word which has several meanings, including:
1. The honor given to a person of importance — (such as magistrates and some mayors)
2. Reverence offered a divine being or supernatural power; an act of expressing such reverence
3. A form of religious practice with its creed and ritual
4. Extravagant respect or admiration for or devotion to an object of esteem

When a person kisses a picture of a loved one, they are guilty of “worship” in this sense. When a man kneels before his girfriend to propose marriage - he is guilty of "worship" in this sense.
However, anybody using reason would understand that they do not worship them as gods.**
**Again - people like you like to blur the lines because of some personal bitterness toward the Church. Your motive is glaringly are transparent.

You know that Catholics give special honor Mary (hyperdulia) but don’t worship (Latria) her. However - it serves your purpose better to say that we do.

 

[Radical]

**If the Reformers were **wrong about Mary – what makes you think they weren’t wrong about everything else. You have to resort to relativism to accept these 2 paradoxical elements.

a study of scripture and early historical writings…same thing that leads to the conclusion that the CC erred

**If you’re referring to the **Protoevangelium of James (AD 150) – prove that this is a heretical document. Your skeptecism doesn’t render anything heretical.

well your Pope Gelasius is credited with listing it after this remark: *The remaining writings which have been compiled or been recognised by heretics or schismatics the Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church does not in any way receive; of these we have thought it right to cite below a few which have been handed down and which are to be avoided by catholics: *

So tell me, how much of the book do you take as reflecting the truth and how much as being false? Was it written by James as claimed? …please don’t fall into that pit of relativism

I didn’t say that they were killed for specific beliefs – although belief in the Real Presence was one of the reasons they were martyred – being accused of cannibalism.

name anyone martyred on the charge of cannibalism

**I asked:
***What *was the motive for the Early Christians to teach falsehoods?
Why were they willing to die for their Christian beliefs if it was all a sham?

they were prepared to die for Christ and their beliefs regarding him…but I haven’t seen a case where someone died for his belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary. Don’t try to validate that belief by attaching it to something actually taught in scripture.

Again – answer the questions I asked without dancing around them.

adding to existing beliefs seems to be a natural inclination for men…In the NT there is no mention of any grand thing about Mary (apart from her virginity at conception). In the Apostolic Fathers there is no mention of any grand thing about Mary (apart from her virginity at conception). Then it starts. In a document (falsely claimed to have been written by James) we find the first record of these sort of extrabiblical claims. And from there it continues to build. Centuries later we now see a group campaigning for Mary to be elevated to co-redemptrix.

Now my good dancing partner, please answer my question about what portions of the Gospel of James are to be taken as truthful and give your reasons for doing so.

 

[CWBetts]

a study of scripture and early historical writings…same thing that leads to the conclusion that the CC erred
well your Pope Gelasius is credited with listing it after this remark: *The remaining writings which have been compiled or been recognised by heretics or schismatics the Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church does not in any way receive; of these we have thought it right to cite below a few which have been handed down and which are to be avoided by catholics: *

So tell me, how much of the book do you take as reflecting the truth and how much as being false? Was it written by James as claimed? …please don’t fall into that pit of relativism

name anyone martyred on the charge of cannibalism

they were prepared to die for Christ and their beliefs regarding him…but I haven’t seen a case where someone died for his belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary. Don’t try to validate that belief by attaching it to something actually taught in scripture.

adding to existing beliefs seems to be a natural inclination for men…In the NT there is no mention of any grand thing about Mary (apart from her virginity at conception). In the Apostolic Fathers there is no mention of any grand thing about Mary (apart from her virginity at conception). Then it starts. In a document (falsely claimed to have been written by James) we find the first record of these sort of extrabiblical claims. And from there it continues to build. Centuries later we now see a group campaigning for Mary to be elevated to co-redemptrix.

Now my good dancing partner, please answer my question about what portions of the Gospel of James are to be taken as truthful and give your reasons for doing so.

She IS the co-redemptrix. This does not mean that Christ was insufficient, but in that she cooperated in salvation history. Kind of like when a toddler “helps” he mom bake cookies. Mom is sufficient, but the child participated in a small way.

 

[lil_flower_luv]

She IS the co-redemptrix. This does not mean that Christ was insufficient, but in that she cooperated in salvation history. Kind of like when a toddler “helps” he mom bake cookies. Mom is sufficient, but the child participated in a small way.

You hit the nail on the head!

 

[Follow_Yeshua]

The men in the picture are not kneeling before the statue in worship. They are in prayer - probably the Rosary - which is Scriptural.

Elvis, I understand your position. You cannot convey the spiritual intent of 1 Billion Catholics nor can I. I respect your position. We will have wait for the Righteous Judge to sort out our differences.

My main hangup about Mary is how do you know its her? I mean it requires you to have faith in this super natural Mary who is going to play a role in your spiritual walk. So please don’t be offended at me at all. I don’t hate Catholics I’m just overly concerned that they might be double-crossed in the end. I wouldn’t open my mouth if I didn’t care. And I know you didn’t ask for my help but its never my intention to be a know it all or an antagonizer, I really do care from the bottom of my heart.

 

[CWBetts]

Elvis, I understand your position. You cannot convey the spiritual intent of 1 Billion Catholics nor can I. I respect your position. We will have wait for the Righteous Judge to sort out our differences.

My main hangup about Mary is how do you know its her? I mean it requires you to have faith in this super natural Mary who is going to play a role in your spiritual walk. So please don’t be offended at me at all. I don’t hate Catholics I’m just overly concerned that they might be double-crossed in the end. I wouldn’t open my mouth if I didn’t care. And I know you didn’t ask for my help but its never my intention to be a know it all or an antagonizer, I really do care from the bottom of my heart.

Let’s try this way. Mary was without a doubt, in the Body of Christ when she walked on this earth. Are you implying that she was somehow removed from the Body of Christ when she went on the Heaven? If that is the case, I will need to see your justification for this belief.

 

[Dokimas]

Dear Dokimas

In our Holy Bible, there are few miraculous births, like Issac was born when Abraham and Sarah were too old to bear children, same goes with Samson, John the Baptist and Our Mother Mary too was born under Miraculous circumstances.

I believe all these births were for a reason and God wanted them to be so. If you look in the holy Bible, the word of God was carried in an Ark specially built in the way God wanted it, and I bet Mother Mary too was as pure as the Ark as she was to bear the Word in her womb. By our saying things which make Mother Mary just a simple person, is like touching the Ark, and you see what happened to Uzza when he touched the ark?

1 Chronicles chapter 13: 9-10 says

13:9 And when they came unto the threshingfloor of Chidon, Uzza put forth his hand to hold the ark; for the oxen stumbled.

13:10 And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Uzza, and he smote him, because he put his hand to the ark: and there he died before God.

Wolverine.

You make it sound as if the Bible says something about how Mary was conceived/born. As you problably know, the Bible is silent on that issue.​

The Ark of the Covenant contained Aaron’s rod that budded, a bowl of manna and the tablets with the commandments written on them by Moses.

 

[Dokimas]

adding to existing beliefs seems to be a natural inclination for men…In the NT there is no mention of any grand thing about Mary (apart from her virginity at conception). In the Apostolic Fathers there is no mention of any grand thing about Mary (apart from her virginity at conception). Then it starts. In a document (falsely claimed to have been written by James) we find the first record of these sort of extrabiblical claims. And from there it continues to build. Centuries later we now see a group campaigning for Mary to be elevated to co-redemptrix.
.

I’m not a Catholic; I agree the view of Mary by the RCC is incorrect. However, I think the Bible has some wonderfully interesting things to say about Mary. All Christians could learn much from her life and how she responded to God.

 

[Dokimas]

By the way - did the Ark of the covenant “move, see hear, walk or talk”?
If not, then WHY did the Jews prostrate themselves before it (Joshua 7:6)?

I think you may be putting too much emphasis on the Ark; you seem to be forgetting what’s on top of the Ark – The Mercy Seat with the figures of the angels; the Presence of the Lord, at times, was between the angels on the Mercy Seat. Joshua most likely bowed before Ark, not because of the Ark, but because to the Mercy Seat and the Presence of the Lord.

 

[elvisman]

I think you may be putting too much emphasis on the Ark; you seem to be forgetting what’s on top of the Ark – The Mercy Seat with the figures of the angels; the Presence of the Lord, at times, was between the angels on the Mercy Seat. Joshua most likely bowed before Ark, not because of the Ark, but because to the Mercy Seat and the Presence of the Lord.

**It’s still an inanimate object and God is omnipresent. **
Why not bow down to a rock or a sandwich?

---

I’m not putting too much emphasis on the Ark - which prefigured Mary.
NT fulfillments are ALWAYS more glorious that the OT type - without exception.

 

[elvisman]

Elvis, I understand your position. You cannot convey the spiritual intent of 1 Billion Catholics nor can I. I respect your position. We will have wait for the Righteous Judge to sort out our differences.

My main hangup about Mary is how do you know its her? I mean it requires you to have faith in this super natural Mary who is going to play a role in your spiritual walk. So please don’t be offended at me at all. I don’t hate Catholics I’m just overly concerned that they might be double-crossed in the end. I wouldn’t open my mouth if I didn’t care. And I know you didn’t ask for my help but its never my intention to be a know it all or an antagonizer, I really do care from the bottom of my heart.

How do I know what is her?

 

[Dokimas]

It’s still an inanimate object and God is omnipresent.
Why not bow down to a rock or a sandwich?

---

I’m not putting too much emphasis on the Ark - which prefigured Mary.
**NT fulfillments are ALWAYS **more glorious that the OT type - without exception.

When God gave Moses the Tabernacle, He was giving a copy of the real thing in Heaven. The Tabernacle has so much symbolism and all points to Jesus the Messiah. If the Ark represents anyones body, it is most likely the Ark represents the actual physical Body of Jesus, not Mary.​

 

[Radical]

I’m not a Catholic; I agree the view of Mary by the RCC is incorrect. However, I think the Bible has some wonderfully interesting things to say about Mary. All Christians could learn much from her life and how she responded to God.

agreed. By “grand thing” I meant something that put her in a class all by herself (and that cummulatively put her above all the rest of mankind and the angels)

 

[Dokimas]

agreed. By “grand thing” I meant something that put her in a class all by herself (and that cummulatively put her above all the rest of mankind and the angels)

Now I understand. Thank you. Good point.

 

[Radical]

She IS the co-redemptrix.

That isn’t the official position yet, is it? In any event, it only raises the question: When was the term co-redemptrix (or its equivalent) first applied by the CC to her and why did it take so long from the start to apply such a title? The history of the Venerators and Mary is a history of the Venerators crediting Mary, over time, with more and more titles and more and more importance (and now it is often claimed, w/o continuity of evidence, that the additions were actually always taught unanimously by the ECFs from the very start)

 

[lil_flower_luv]

That isn’t the official position yet, is it? In any event, it only raises the question: When was the term co-redemptrix (or its equivalent) first applied by the CC to her and why did it take so long from the start to apply such a title? The history of the Venerators and Mary is a history of the Venerators crediting Mary, over time, with more and more titles and more and more importance (and now it is often claimed, w/o continuity of evidence, that the additions were actually always taught unanimously by the ECFs from the very start)

Hey, did you know Martin Luther had a great devotion to Mary?

 

[Radical]

Hey, did you know Martin Luther had a great devotion to Mary?

Yep. He also believed in a Real Bodily Presence…but I do not feel compelled to adopt his views.

 

[lil_flower_luv]

Yep. He also believed in a Real Bodily Presence…but I do not feel compelled to adopt his views.

Then who’s views have you adopted? Have you made your own? I have a hard time understanding people’s beliefs when they have broken away from the Universal Church. I’m sorry.

 

[Radical]

Then who’s views have you adopted? Have you made your own? I have a hard time understanding people’s beliefs when they have broken away from the Universal Church. I’m sorry.

No need to apologize…I suspect we have very different backgrounds. I have never broken away from the CC as I never was a part of it…I didn’t know it even existed until I was already a member of the Universal Church (which I define, based on the NT, as those to whom God has given his Spirit). I am prepared to (and have) adopted the views of many learned individuals in those situations where I haven’t been given any serious reason to doubt those views. When reason for doubt exists, I tend to study the matter (with reference to what others have said on the matter) and come to my own conclusion. As a result, some of my views have changed dramatically. This approach is not restricted (by me) to religious matters.

 

[lil_flower_luv]

No need to apologize…I suspect we have very different backgrounds. I have never broken away from the CC as I never was a part of it…I didn’t know it even existed until I was already a member of the Universal Church (which I define, based on the NT, as those to whom God has given his Spirit). I am prepared to (and have) adopted the views of many learned individuals in those situations where I haven’t been given any serious reason to doubt those views. When reason for doubt exists, I tend to study the matter (with reference to what others have said on the matter) and come to my own conclusion. As a result, some of my views have changed dramatically. This approach is not restricted (by me) to religious matters.

Are you still a work in progress? Or are you firm in what you believe now? Thank you for explaining; I will try not to stray from the topic anymore.

Blessings,
Therese