Question About Mary ??

[Jaypeeto4]

Hi bellievers, Jaypeeto4 here.
I don’t know much about the revelation given to Simon Stock by Mary about the Brown Scapular. It is “private revelation,” and not Catholic doctrine.

However, God can grant special protections to people through various means. Remember, in the Old Testament the prophet told the King (of Tyre I think it was??) to bathe seven times in the River Jordan and he would be cured of his leprosy.
What was so magical about the Jordan river?? Nothing, of course.

There is no magic to the Brown Scapular.
It is to be assumed that a person who would go to the trouble of being enrolled in the Brown Scapular, and wear it every day, would be so devoted to Jesus Christ that God would conceivably grant him or her a little extra spiritual protection.

A person practicing deadly sin, but wearing a brown scapular while committing those deadly sins, would still go to hell if he died while simultaneously fornicating while wearing a brown scapular. All other faith-in-God requirements have to be met.
The brown scapular is just a piece of cloth unless the person wearing it is 100% devoted to Christ. Mary won’t pray for the salvation of someone who is willfully spitting in the face of her Son Jesus, even IF he is wearing the scapular as a good luck charm to try and get away with it. No promises of God are completely without conditions attached, and loyalty to Christ is chief among them.

Love,
Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+

 

[water]

Hi bellievers, Jaypeeto4 here.
I don’t know much about the revelation given to Simon Stock by Mary about the Brown Scapular. It is “private revelation,” and not Catholic doctrine.

However, God can grant special protections to people through various means. Remember, in the Old Testament the prophet told the King (of Tyre I think it was??) to bathe seven times in the River Jordan and he would be cured of his leprosy.
What was so magical about the Jordan river?? Nothing, of course.

There is no magic to the Brown Scapular.
It is to be assumed that a person who would go to the trouble of being enrolled in the Brown Scapular, and wear it every day, would be so devoted to Jesus Christ that God would conceivably grant him or her a little extra spiritual protection.

A person practicing deadly sin, but wearing a brown scapular while committing those deadly sins, would still go to hell if he died while simultaneously fornicating while wearing a brown scapular. All other faith-in-God requirements have to be met.
The brown scapular is just a piece of cloth unless the person wearing it is 100% devoted to Christ. Mary won’t pray for the salvation of someone who is willfully spitting in the face of her Son Jesus, even IF he is wearing the scapular as a good luck charm to try and get away with it. No promises of God are completely without conditions attached, and loyalty to Christ is chief among them.

Love,
Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+

After your well explaining, I hope “believers” won’t say “please Yes or No” answer to the passage again.

 

[Allweather]

After your well explaining, I hope “believers” won’t say “please Yes or No” answer to the passage again.

Unfortunately, he probably will.

Oversimplification is boilerplate for these fundamentalists.

First, they pack the argument down so simple that it makes no sense whatever. Second, they stick to the line no matter what.

You can ask intelligent questions until the cows come home, but you’ll get no intelligent responses. This is because they don’t have any. Theirs is an oversimplified world populated by oversimplified people.

But, they’re mostly good people. I used to be like them, and I can say without a moment’s doubt that they’re mostly very holy, good people. Irritating, for sure, but good, nevertheless.

 

[water]

But, they’re mostly good people. I used to be like them, and I can say without a moment’s doubt that they’re mostly very holy, good people. Irritating, for sure, but good, nevertheless.

I agree so. Most people see what is true to them and want to share what they believe it is true to others. That is what we also do. Unfortunately, sometimes the sharing is not always sharing.

 

[guanophore]

It’s too late… I’ve already read the Word of God. Mary is the mother of Jesus. Your religion’s use of anathema doesn’t work on me. I suggest you read the following verses.

Gal 1:8
But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

Gal 1:9
As we said before, so say I now again, If any [man] preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

Are you telling us that the gospel presented to you does not acknowlege that Jesus is God? Or that His humanity was taken entirely from the body of His mother Mary?!


Anyway, it is never too late to grow in the truth. IF you have been wrongly informed (false gospel) this can be corrected!

“Maria meter theo” Are you claiming that is doctrine?

Yes, but we call her Theotokos (God bearer) because that is the term handed down to us from the Fathers.

It doesn’t matter whether it dogmatic. Your RCC teaches such blasphemy. That is a false gospel and you know it. You should also know what happens to those who preach a false gospel and it ain’t pretty.

Maybe it would help if you could focus on lambasting one element at at time?

Perhaps you don’t know the history of the Brown Scapular. It is not an official teaching of the church. A devotion is a prayerful practice that is optional for the faithful to practice. It is doctrine that Mary is the Mother of God. Christians believe that Jesus is God,a nd Mary is His mother. Therefore, in order to be a Christian, one must believe in Theotokos.

Those who wear the Brown Scapular accept this. They accept that the second person of the Trinity (God) was made flesh (Jesus) born of a woman, and died on the cross to pay for our sins. The one who believes this may wear the Scapular. It is not the wearing of the Scapular that saves them, but the belief it represents. No one wore it without that faith to go with it. Again, you are taking the words out of context.

God cannot be divided as you claim. If Mary is the mother of God then she is mother of the Trinity.

Well, believers, please be assured that you are not the first to struggle with these mysteries. This has gone on for milennia. It is really too much for our puny minds to understand. This is why we rely on the Church for guidance. In fact, in some mysterious way we don’t understand (I guess I speak for at least you and me), God is “divided” to the extent that there are three persons in one essence. The Father and the Spirit were not incarnated, and did not die on the cross. Mary is not their mother. She is the earthly mother of the second person, Jesus. This has all been worked through by the Fathers, and I am sure, if you keep reading, you will encounter their theologies.

 

[guanophore]

The Trinity cannot be divided. Biblical Mary is not the mother of the Biblical God (Theos). Your RCC Mary is the mother of a (theo)

This is a very pecular statement. First of all, you are implying that, by becoming incarnated, Jesus was somehow “divided” from the Father and Spirit, which did not happen. Second you are denying the divinity of Christ, which would mean you are not Christian, and thirdly, you are making up one or two other people, one you call “Your RCC Mary”??? And the other “a theo”, who maybe is some “lesser God”?? I guess the fact that this sounds so confusing is a testiment to how confused you are. May God bless you, and grant you wisdom as you seek Him with your whole heart.

I John 4:1-3 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

2Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:

3And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God:

This statement comes from the self proclaimed “one true church”. Now, just ask yourself this question… Is this statement true?

“whosoever dies wearing this scapular shall not suffer eternal fire”.

Since the wearing of the scapular is a visible sign of the invisible belief in those promises of Christ, I would have to say “both”.

It is like wearing a wedding ring. Wearing it is not what makes one married, but it is a symbol and outward sign of the vows made at the marriage. Wearing it will not preserve the marriage, either, but you notice when the marriage is broken, the ring comes off!

Are you kidding me? This statement doesn’t even come close to the truth. It’s not even part truth part lie. Not even a lot of truth and a little lie. It’s a pure, unabridged, bold faced, lie.

“whosoever dies wearing this scapular shall not suffer eternal fire”

I am glad that you will not be found, upon your death, superstitiously believing that the little square thang will save you. On the other hand, for those who are “in Christ”, they have died, and their life is hidden with Christ in God. And when such persons wear jewelry or carry beads, or wear a scapular to remind themselves of their situation in life, then it is no lie!

If you don’t like it, don’t use it. It is not a sin. But, if it does not commend itself to you, why berate others for their devotional practice? Have you forgotten what Jesus said to do with the tares? If you think we are all a bunch of tares, why are you trying to set fire to us? It is disobedience to Christ.

Of course it’s false. Your precious RCC is propagating this stuff. When I left the RCC, my own relatives sent me a scapular to wear. If you believe that statement as many Catholics do, you’re believing a lie.

believers, you have been corrected about this before. You have been told more than once that this is not considered part of the divine deposit of faith, and therefore, not an official teaching of the Church. I am sorry if you find the gift your relatives sent you as offensive. However, at this point you are working your way toward an infraction on this thread.

 

[guanophore]

Mary won't pray for the salvation of someone who is willfully spitting in the face of her Son Jesus, even IF he is wearing the scapular as a good luck charm to try and get away with it.  No promises of God are completely without conditions attached, and loyalty to Christ is chief among them.

Love,
Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+

Actually, I think she would. I think her heart is much more immaculate than ours, and she would know that such a one needed even more prayer. However, I do agree with what you said about 100% devotion to Jesus. Some people wear a wwjd on their wrist. Does that mean they always do what He would do? No, but they are probably trying.

 

[guanophore]

But, they’re mostly good people. I used to be like them, and I can say without a moment’s doubt that they’re mostly very holy, good people. Irritating, for sure, but good, nevertheless.

I think believers feels much the same way I used to feel. Angry that there was not a personal encounter with Christ in Catholicism, and the perception that one has been hoodwincked by the “false gospel”. It took me almost 20 years of sojourn in fundamentalism to realize the depth of what I had left. At the time, I wanted something superficial, easy to grasp, and making me feel better. Fundamentalism did all that for me. Thanks be to God I grew out of it!

 

[Delphinus85]

I would like to hear how one can say Mary had perpetual virginity based on scripture ……

Luke 1:34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?

This obviously is a response from Mary to the angel Gabriel after hearing that she would give birth knowing that she had not been sexually active with Joseph or any other man. Of the four definitions of the original Greek word for “know”, all have the idea of knowledge except one that has the idea of a Jewish idiom for sexual intercourse.

Matthew 1:24-25 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: and knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

Once again the same root word “know” with the same implication for the definition. The implication of the sentence is that he did not have intercourse with her “till she had brought forth her firstborn son”.

Please give me your opinions !!

Thanks, Partridge

I think it’s more appropriate to ask WHY she was asking this, rather than the fact she asked this. She was engaged! hehehe I’m an engaged woman, and if an angel came to me and told me I’d be bearing a son, I’d be like “well duh! I’m planning on starting that process in just a few months!” I find it puzzling why an engaged woman would ask how she could be having a kid now (or in the future) unless she was planning on never having a sexual relationship, which really suports that notion that mary was a dedicated temple virgin, with her fiance marrying her for her protection, rather than…other things.

 

[Claude_Kenneson]

Act 10:34
Then Peter opened [his] mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:

Rom 2:11
For there is no respect of persons with God.

Does that mean that children are now free to not show any honor to their mothers and fathers?

 

[Pixie_Dust]

Does that mean that children are now free to not show any honor to their mothers and fathers?

<<>>
Well, sure! Jesus was being totally disrespectful to his momma, by calling her “woman” at the wedding in Cana. Aren’t we supposed to follow His example?

 

[kujo313]

Does that mean that children are now free to not show any honor to their mothers and fathers?

It means that Jesus can divide a household or keep a household together. I know of one family where the parents do not believe in God but their daughter does. The daughter does what she’s supposed to do and they honor her Christianity and church time.

 

[believers]

Does that mean that children are now free to not show any honor to their mothers and fathers?

Mat 10:34
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

Mat 10:35
For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

Mat 10:36
And a man’s foes [shall be] they of his own household.

Mat 10:37
He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

 

[kujo313]

Mat 10:34
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

Mat 10:35
For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

Mat 10:36
And a man’s foes [shall be] they of his own household.

Mat 10:37
He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

My brother got kicked out of the house because he got “saved”. That wasn’t a good “witness” on my parents’ part. However, my brother got kicked out of the house because he stood up for the Gospel.

 

[LilyM]

Now who’s going extrascriptural - any indication in the slightest that Mary didn’t support Jesus’ mission or believe in it? She was at the foot of His Cross for crying out loud!

 

[guanophore]

It means that Jesus can divide a household or keep a household together. I know of one family where the parents do not believe in God but their daughter does. The daughter does what she’s supposed to do and they honor her Christianity and church time.

Your interpretation here has no relation to the context of the verses, which has to do with the baptism of the Holy Spirit being given to Gentiles as well as Jews. The context means God is not a racist, and is not limiting the gifts of the Spirit to Jews only. I does not have to do with dividing families, or failing to follow the commandment.

Mat 10:34
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

Mat 10:35
For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

Mat 10:36
And a man’s foes [shall be] they of his own household.

Mat 10:37
He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

Ok, believers, maybe you have family issues like kujo. What I would urge is that you take these verses, not in isolation, but as a whole with the entire teaching of God. None of these verses is intended to invalidate the fifth commandment. Even if, through our faith, our family members become our enemies, we are still called upon to love, respect, pray and be Jesus to them. Also, putting God first in every relationship does not mean one should dishonor another. In fact, the respect that we show to others is a reflection of our respect for God.

My brother got kicked out of the house because he got “saved”. That wasn’t a good “witness” on my parents’ part. However, my brother got kicked out of the house because he stood up for the Gospel.

If he did it in the same abrasive, destructive, disrespecful, and hostile manner in which you have represented your “gospel” here on these threads, they were absolutely right to remove him. It is an offense to God for one to disrespect ones elders and parent by such conduct. How else could he snap about his sin?

 

[kujo313]

Now who’s going extrascriptural - any indication in the slightest that Mary didn’t support Jesus’ mission or believe in it? She was at the foot of His Cross for crying out loud!

Mary believed in Jesus as the Messiah. Up to then, she was part of the Abrahamic Covenant (“And he believed in the LORD, and He accounted it to him for righteousness.” Gen 15:6; Romans 4)

In John 2, Mary tells the servants (are you a servant?) to do what Jesus says.

Did Jesus say to recite Mary’s words 53 times? Did Jesus say to make statues and paintings of Mary and make pilgrimages to “holy” sites dedicated to her? Did Jesus say “Do what she says”? Did Jesus say that Mary would come to you or that He would?

You say that John at the cross represented all believers in taking Mary as their mother yet, the actions and writings of the apostles say otherwise. Only John did and that (James 1:27).

Either the apostles were wrong or the denomination who practice it are. I know that you’ll quote some famous dead people who lived in the 2nd century that was “probably” quoting one of Jesus’ disciples but you really can’t assume that unless you ask them personally.
One thing that cannot be denied is the Bible, itself. Only those books within the covers have been tried and true. Everything else was declared insignificant by your own people.

What about Mary? She was chosen by God to give birth to the Messiah instead of God creating Him like He did Adam. God chose Mary to be the “virgin” that was mentioned by His prophet. He didn’t mention having her put in such a spotlight as your denomination does today.

 

[Allweather]

Either the apostles were wrong or the denomination who practice it are. I know that you’ll quote some famous dead people who lived in the 2nd century that was “probably” quoting one of Jesus’ disciples but you really can’t assume that unless you ask them personally.

The Apostles were not “wrong.” They didn’t believe in sola scriptura, yet you do. So maybe you’re wrong?

One thing that cannot be denied is the Bible, itself. Only those books within the covers have been tried and true. Everything else was declared insignificant by your own people.

No one here denies anything in the Bible. I believe in it, every word of it. But I cannot accept your personal, fallible interpretations of it. Your interpretations are largely off-base, because you’re cut off from the Church which wrote the Bible and clarifies its meanings for all Christians.

And, it is incorrect by a LONG SHOT to suggest that “everything else was declared insignificant” by the Church. Nonsense. The writings of the Fathers are critically significant, even though they do not constitute Scripture.

 

[Pixie_Dust]

One thing that cannot be denied is the Bible, itself. Only those books within the covers have been tried and true. Everything else was declared insignificant by your own people.

“He who believes in Scripture as his only guide ends by believing in his own mistaken interpretations of the Bible, and that means that he ends by believing in himself.” (Radio Replies, Vol 1)

What about Mary? She was chosen by God to give birth to the Messiah instead of God creating Him like He did Adam. God chose Mary to be the “virgin” that was mentioned by His prophet. He didn’t mention having her put in such a spotlight as your denomination does today.

OK…first you say “One thing that cannot be denied is the Bible, itself” which says in Luke’s Gospel:

Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost: 42 And she cried out with a loud voice, and said: Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. 43 And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?..48 Because he hath regarded the humility of his handmaid; for behold from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.

Hmmmm, The Bible says “all generations shall call [Mary] blessed” and yet in this generation we have people who claim to be ruled by the Bible alone, say Mary was not much more than an incubator.

 

[guanophore]

In John 2, Mary tells the servants (are you a servant?) to do what Jesus says.

Did Jesus say to recite Mary’s words 53 times?

Actually, kujo, they were not “Mary’s words”. The words used in the Rosary are thos of the angel Gabriel, and of her cousin Elizabeth.

Did Jesus say to make statues and paintings of Mary and make pilgrimages to “holy” sites dedicated to her?

He didn’t say not. He himself went on pilgrimages to the temple on regular feast days. He didn’t tell us not to make crosses, either. If people are reminded and inflamed in their faith by looking at statues and pictures, why do you need to be scandalized by this? If such devotional practices do not commend themselves to you, don’t use them! Why berate those that do?

Did Jesus say "Do what *she* says"?  Did Jesus say that Mary would come to you or that He would?

I think more “do what she does”. Her behavior is a good role model for us. We can always be confident in patterning our lives after those holy men and women who have gone before us:

Heb 13:7

7 Remember your leaders, those who spoke to you the word of God; consider the outcome of their life, and imitate their faith."

You say that John at the cross represented all believers in taking Mary as their mother yet, the actions and writings of the apostles say otherwise.

Please explain this. Are you thinking tht the other apostles had as little respect for Mary as you seem to have?

Only John did and that (James 1:27).

Are you saying now you agree that Mary had no other children?! That would put her in the category mentioned by James…

Either the apostles were wrong or the denomination who practice it are.

Wrong about what? The Apostles are no where recorded as having a dismissive attitude toward the Theotokos.

I know that you’ll quote some famous dead people who lived in the 2nd century that was “probably” quoting one of Jesus’ disciples but you really can’t assume that unless you ask them personally.

If I am able to do that, I will probably not be interested in asking anymore, since I will have full knowledge by then. You err in thinking that the Holy Fathers are dead. “for all are alive unto Him”.

One thing that cannot be denied is the Bible, itself. Only those books within the covers have been tried and true. Everything else was declared insignificant by your own people.

No one is denying the truth of the Bible, kujo. Of course it became tried and true by way of the Catholic Church. It is a Catholic book, written, preserved, and promulgated by Catholics. However, you are incorrect that everything else declared is insignificant. the Sacred Tradition is equally significant, and the Catholics that wrote that Bible never intended for it to be separated from the Apostolic teaching from which it emerged.

What about Mary? She was chosen by God to give birth to the Messiah instead of God creating Him like He did Adam. God chose Mary to be the “virgin” that was mentioned by His prophet. He didn’t mention having her put in such a spotlight as your denomination does today.

If it bothers you to spotlight the Mother of God, don’t do it. But it is unwise to berate and accuse those that do. If you believe that such persons are “tares” then you are instructed to “let them grow” together with the wheat. It is the holy angels that will sort them out at on the day of judgment, so it is improper for you do do so now.