Some questions about Mary

[featherjinxer]

It doesn’t say it is sufficent- it says it helps. It is also a pastoral letter- usually attributed to Paul or one of his diciples. Here is is with more context:

14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; 15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

He says remeber what you wre TAUGHT, as well as scripture. Plus, the NT was not even composed yet- most likely he was speaking of the Old Testament.

 

[rom323]

wcknight:

YES, you missed it, your in H***

just kidding, but IF it did already occur how would you know for certain it didn’t already happen without you.

Because you are still here, ha ha!


wc

 

[rom323]

antiaphrodite:

true, but it did not say “only Scripture”. are not prayer and evangelizing essential too? and paul said in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 “so then, bretheren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by, us, either by word of mouth or by letter.”

These "traditions were later written down as Scripture.
Just what did Jesus say about tradition???

 

[antiaphrodite]

if you’re talking about Matthew15, He was condemning corrupt tradition, not all tradition.

and when exactly were they written down?

 

[twf]

Yes, when were these traditons written down? Where does it say that they were written down? How do you know that all the teachings of the Apostles were written down, when Scripture never says so? How do you know what books should be considered Scripture, when Scripture, your only authority, does not tell you?

If you believe that we should always go straight to God, then why do you ask others to pray for you? (I assume that you do). If you can ask a brother on earth to pray for you, why can’t you ask a brother in heaven to pray for you? (Or in this case, a sister/mother). The book of Revelation makes it clear that they do offer up our prayers (that is, the saints and angels), and the early practice of the Church was to ask those martyrs in heaven to pray for them. God loves to use human agents, and Christ desires that we share in His ministry with Him. It makes perfect sense that God would want those in heaven to pray for their comrads on earth.

Revelation 5:8 (KJV): *And when he had taken the book, the four beasts and four and twenty elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints. *
(A newer translation would say incense, not odours).
Revelation 8 (KJV):

• 3And another angel came and stood at the altar, having a golden censer; and there was given unto him much incense, that he should offer it with the prayers of all saints upon the golden altar which was before the throne.
  4And the smoke of the incense, which came with the prayers of the saints, ascended up before God out of the angel’s hand. *

If you want to see where we are coming from (a lot of us are former Protestants ourselves…who felt like you did on these issues, so we know where you are coming from), check out some of the apologetics sites like scripturecatholic.com, catholicoutlook.com, and the various articles at this site (catholic.com).

In regards to Mary, remember that in Luke 2, Elizabeth venerated Mary. She said “who am I that the mother of my Lord would visit me” and proclaimed her “blessed among all women.” To venerate one of God’s great creatures is not to take away from the worship due only to God. Daniel prostrated before the angel, and Lot did before the angels as well (Gen. 19:1). Was this worship? No, it was a profound veneration of glorious creatures of God. Where do you find in Scripture that all creatures are equal? Some are worthy of more honour than others. Does not Christ honour the servants with varying degrees in the parable of the talants?

I invite you to consider this brief article: catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0301fea3.asp

You also may be interested in Newman’s work on Mary as the New Eve (christendom-awake.org/pages/marian/newman1.html)).
In Christ,
Tyler

 

[BibleReader]

bajolyn:

I have a couple of honest questions about Mary which I’m hoping someone can help me with:

1. It seems to me that if Mary was immaculately conceived and lived a sinless life, then for her, anyway, the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross would have been unnecessary for her salvation. If God wanted to simply create a new and sinless humanity apart from Christ (as He is said to have done in Mary), then why would He choose the painful and torturous road of the cross to effect our salvation?

Mary was immaculately conceived by “the painful and torturous road of the cross to effect our salvation.”

The grace of the cross purchased by Jesus’ suffering and death goes forwards and backwards in time. Mary was one of the recipients of that purchase, when the grace purchased by Jesus’ suffering and death preserved Mary from the stain of Original Sin, beginning at the moment of her conception. One can see the grace of the cross going backwards in time in another famous example, Enoch. How could Enoch have “walked with God” – been assumed alive into Heaven – except for the grace of the cross? See Genesis 5:24.

Why would God have bothered doing this? Why not let an ordinary, disgusting, morally dirty, sinful woman conceive and give birth to His Son?

Answer: It would have destroyed the ova from Mary’s womb to which Jesus’ divinity was joined, and it would have killed Mary, at the time of the Annunciation, when the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary.

Proof: Exodus 33:18-20. There, Moses was told that only seeing God’s face would have killed Moses. God says, “But my face you cannot see, for no man sees me and still lives.”

However, the connection to God proposed by Gabriel to Mary at the time of the Annunciation is an even more intimate connection. If seeing God’s face kills Original-Sin-tainted flesh, then *joining His actual divinity to flesh, by the Incarnation with and into Mary’s ova, and by the physical connection with Mary in the womb before birth, *would be positively deadly.

 

[BibleReader]

bajolyn:

I have a couple of honest questions about Mary which I’m hoping someone can help me with:

1. In the gospels, there are two accounts where it seems that people were attempting to venerate Mary. In both instances, Jesus seeks to change their understanding - it is not the physical relationship to Jesus that makes one blessed, but rather obedience to the will of the Father. Here are the two passages to which I am referring:

Luke 11:27-28 (NIV)
27 As Jesus was saying these things, a woman in the crowd called out, “Blessed is the mother who gave you birth and nursed you.” 28 He replied, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it.”

Matthew 12:47-50 (NASB95)
47 Someone said to Him, “Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to You.” 48 But Jesus answered the one who was telling Him and said, “Who is My mother and who are My brothers?” 49 And stretching out His hand toward His disciples, He said, “Behold My mother and My brothers! 50 “For whoeverdoes the will of My Father who is in heaven, he is My brother and sister and mother.”

I understand that in giving her assent to Jesus’ conception, Mary was a perfect illustration of obedience to the Father, however, the point the Jesus seems to me to be making is that we should not consider Mary as being above others, but rather one of many who glorify the Father by her obedience. Why does the Catholic Church venerate Mary to the point of elevating her above all of the apostles and all other saints who have ever lived?

As a seeking protestant, I would have to say that these are fairly big questions for me. Can anyone help?

The Luke passage tends to neither venerate nor not venerate Mary. When the woman says, “Blessed is the mother who gave you birth and nursed you,” she wasn’t saying, “How HOLY Mary is!” Instead she is saying, “She was lucky to carry you in her womb!” In other words, “She was BLESSED by that!” So, when Jesus diverged from this perspective, He wasn’t diverging from a veneration.

In Matthew, I agree with your analysis of the structure. Mary is treated, there, with no honor at all!

However, remember that Mary – especially because of her immaculate state – serves in absolute humility before her divine Son.

When we venerate Mary, we venerate “the handmaid of the Lord.” We venerate a servant! Mary wouldn’t have it any other way!

Despite the verses treating Mary with the same divine loving contempt as the rest of us, you can see her special status conferred on her, in John’s gospel.

At the marriage feast in Cana, Mary intercedes; Christ rebukes her, saying that God’s business is none of her business, and it’s not time, anyway; Mary confidently assures the servants that He will help, anyway; Jesus, despite His rebuke of three seconds before, and despite the fact that this is against God’s timing, helps Mary, anyway! What did He help her with? Getting some booze for a bunch of drinkers at a wedding? Read carefully, and you figure it out. Hint: Jars = “mortal man.” Six = “evil.” Drinkable water = “salvation.” Wine = “the blood of Christ.”

In any event, when He did these things in response, what did Jesus call Mary? Answer: “Woman.”

When Jesus is hanging on the cross, and He appoints Mary John’s mother – and, in principle, Mother of the Church – what did He call her? Answer: “Woman.” That was her official appointment to the job of…what? You tell me. Re-review the story of the marriage feast at Cana, John 2.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

rom323:

Actually it is important to know if Mary died, for if she died we need to know why she died!

The Assumption of Mary is another attempt to parallell Mary with Jesus. It adds nothing to the Glory of God!

We do not need to go through Mary to get to Jesus. This is another example of elevating the creature to the status of the Creator! Jesus is the only Mediator between God and Man!

Obviously you’re not listening to what Catholics on this thread are telling you…

(1) Why do you NEED to know if Mary was assumed into Heaven before or after she experienced death? Why would a doctrinal statement on the issue persuade you one way or the other as to the truth of the assumption?

(2) The Assumption is not a “parallel” with Jesus. It is a further display of the power of the risen Christ. Christ ascended to Heaven on His own power. Mary was assumed into Heaven by the power of her Son, Christ. It was an awesome display of Godly power by Jesus Christ. The two events are not parallel. The assumption is the ultimate display of Christ honoring His mother. The ascension is Christ’s return to Heaven and taking His seat at the right hand of the Father. Two entirely different events with different theological significance.

(3) Catholics do not believe they NEED to go through Mary if they want to know Jesus. We believe that by honoring Mary we only bring honor to Christ and thereby magnify His glory. Mary always points the way to her Son. Jesus Christ loses nothing by our honoring of Mary. It is an entirely different thing to falsely conclude - as you have - that Catholics believe the ONLY way to Jesus is through Mary. To suggest that Catholics cannot give worship to Christ directly, or seek His grace directly, because of Mary is to pervert the clear teachings of the Church. Christ is and will always be the center and focus of the Church and His Blessed mother is a help - NOT a hindrance.

Peace and Charity,

 

[Robert_in_SD]

rom323:

… To Jesus through Mary…

Please don’t insult me with your intellectual dishonesty! Has the resurrection of the dead occured? Did I and the rest of the world miss it???

Dear Rom323;

Who’s being intellectually dishonest here?

First, how quick you are to read so much into what I stated.

Where in the statement, “To Jesus through Mary” is there any support for the proposition that Catholics MUST go through Mary to reach Jesus. One would have to also read in the phrase “… and only through Mary” at the end of my statement to arrive at your conclusion. (Protestant arguments always seem to make this same blunder.) But that’s not what I said, is it?

My statement suggests only one potential path - a GREAT path - by which one can come to know Jesus by contemplating the life of His mother. How sad that you take a beautiful sentiment like that and misread it to support your own twisted personal view of Catholicism.

Please listen to what people are telling you about Catholic beliefs. Even if you don’t agree, at least have the integrity to acknowledge the Church’s teachings on Mary are not what you are describing.

I’ll restate what I said earlier. Perhaps different language will get the message through: Catholics do not believe that we MUST “go through Mary.” We acknowledge that Mary is there for us as a spiritual mother in a real and biblically supported sense, to help us in our relationship with Jesus Christ. Thus, if you truly honor Mary, you must also love Christ as your savior. There is no dichotomy contrary to your fevered machinations.

Second, Mary’s bodily assumption into Heaven was obviously NOT the final resurrection of the dead at the time of Christ’s second coming, nor does the Church teach that it was such. But one can speculate that Mary’s current condition is much like what all the saints will one-day experience. Again, I see no reason why it is the case that a doctrinal statement on whether Mary was assumed into Heaven before or after her death is relevant to one’s acceptance of the doctrine. We only must understand that it was at the end of her life.

Peace and Charity,

Peace and Charity,

 

[Robert_in_SD]

rom323:

It is obvious that you know little about biblical interpretation. The book of Revelation is 404 verses, 278 of which are direct allusions to Old Testament passages. It is a book of symbols not riddles. The Woman in Rev. 12 is no more Mary than the Woman in Rev. 17 is. The symbol refers to Gen. 37:9 which records the dream of Joseph. It is the nation of Israel or to be more precise, the people of God from whom came the Messiah… It has nothing to do with Mary! Notice that “the Woman” cries out in pain giving birth. In Catholic Theology Mary is sinless and did not experience pain in childbirth!

Dear rom323;

Now you are just being condescending and rude.

Scholars acknowledge that Revelation is a complex book, if not the most complex book in the Bible. In Catholic theology the woman is a symbol of many different things, including Israel and the Church. But isn’t it interesting to note that the other two entities in this part of the vision had direct relationships to specific individuals. The child is Christ the Son of God. The dragon is Satan. Why would the woman be the only a “symbol” in this portion of John’s vision without a direct relationship to an individual? Because the woman is Mary, whom all generations will call blessed. Protestant theology tries hard to negate this interpretation because it validates Mary’s position as the Queen of Heaven. But protestant interpretations of this verse ignore the obvious.

Peace and Charity,

 

[rom323]

twf:

Yes, when were these traditons written down? Where does it say that they were written down? How do you know that all the teachings of the Apostles were written down, when Scripture never says so? **How do you know what books should be considered Scripture, when Scripture, your only authority, does not tell you? **

If you believe that we should always go straight to God, then why do you ask others to pray for you? (I assume that you do). If you can ask a brother on earth to pray for you, why can’t you ask a brother in heaven to pray for you? (Or in this case, a sister/mother). The book of Revelation makes it clear that they do offer up our prayers (that is, the saints and angels), and the early practice of the Church was to ask those martyrs in heaven to pray for them. God loves to use human agents, and Christ desires that we share in His ministry with Him. It makes perfect sense that God would want those in heaven to pray for their comrads on earth.

Revelation 5:8 (KJV): *And when he had taken the book, the four beasts and four and twenty elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints. *
(A newer translation would say incense, not odours).
Revelation 8 (KJV):
*3And another angel came and stood at the altar, having a golden censer; and there was given unto him much incense, that he should offer it with the prayers of all saints upon the golden altar which was before the throne. *
*4And the smoke of the incense, which came with the prayers of the saints, ascended up before God out of the angel’s hand. *

If you want to see where we are coming from (a lot of us are former Protestants ourselves…who felt like you did on these issues, so we know where you are coming from), check out some of the apologetics sites like scripturecatholic.com, catholicoutlook.com, and the various articles at this site (catholic.com).

In regards to Mary, remember that in Luke 2, Elizabeth venerated Mary. She said “who am I that the mother of my Lord would visit me” and proclaimed her “blessed among all women.” To venerate one of God’s great creatures is not to take away from the worship due only to God. Daniel prostrated before the angel, and Lot did before the angels as well (Gen. 19:1). Was this worship? No, it was a profound veneration of glorious creatures of God. Where do you find in Scripture that all creatures are equal? Some are worthy of more honour than others. Does not Christ honour the servants with varying degrees in the parable of the talants?

I invite you to consider this brief article: catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0301fea3.asp

You also may be interested in Newman’s work on Mary as the New Eve (christendom-awake.org/pages/marian/newman1.html)).
In Christ,
Tyler

To use the logic of many Catholics on this thread, Where does it say they were not written down???

Please don’t discount the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding men in determining which Books were Scripture and which were not!!!

Sure I ask my LIVING brothers and sisters to pray FOR me but I do not pray TO my brothers and sisters. Prayer is an act of worship directed to God ALONE! We cannot communicate with those who have passed away and any attempt to do so goes against the Word of God!

I think that you are confused as to what a “saint” is! All true believers are saints not those cannonized by the Catholic Church. Also note that these prayers are poured out TO GOD not any “saints.”

 

[mrS4ntA]

rom323:

I think that you are confused as to what a “saint” is! All true believers are saints not those cannonized by the Catholic Church. Also note that these prayers are poured out TO GOD not any “saints.”

I think you are, too.
We define “saint” as whoever in eternal communion with God (i.e. in Heaven). Now, the Church canonise a person to be a “saint” because she excercises her infallibility in declaring for sure that someone is a saint (i.e. in Heaven), plus she sees it fit for that person to be an exemplar and model of a Christian life. Now your average Joe who’s never been under anyone’s radar but made it in Heaven would also be saint Joe, even though the Church doesn’t canonise him per se (although we in the Church militant couldn’t know that he is for sure unless he is canonised - but that’s from our perspective, not Joe’s): she holds the key to the Gate of Heaven but the Gate is God’s nonetheless.

 

[rom323]

mrS4ntA:

I think you are, too.
We define “saint” as whoever in eternal communion with God (i.e. in Heaven). Now, the Church canonise a person to be a “saint” because she excercises her infallibility in declaring for sure that someone is a saint (i.e. in Heaven), plus she sees it fit for that person to be an exemplar and model of a Christian life. Now your average Joe who’s never been under anyone’s radar but made it in Heaven would also be saint Joe, even though the Church doesn’t canonise him per se (although we in the Church militant couldn’t know that he is for sure unless he is canonised - but that’s from our perspective, not Joe’s): she holds the key to the Gate of Heaven but the Gate is God’s nonetheless.

Fortunately for me, your definition of “saint” is not biblical. A “saint” is any TRUE follower of Jesus Christ! Please read: 1 Cor. 6:2, Col. 1:4, Eph. 6:18 and Phm. 4-7. We who are TRUE believers are saints. We are set apart from those around us who do not TRULY believe in the Lord Jesus Christ.:yup:

 

[rom323]

antiaphrodite:

if you’re talking about Matthew15, He was condemning corrupt tradition, not all tradition.

and when exactly were they written down?

Actually He was condemning the religious tradition of men! Anytime you go outside the pages of Scripture for biblical truth you risk falling into apostasy. :yup:

 

[rom323]

twf:

Yes, when were these traditons written down? Where does it say that they were written down? How do you know that all the teachings of the Apostles were written down, when Scripture never says so? How do you know what books should be considered Scripture, when Scripture, your only authority, does not tell you?

If you believe that we should always go straight to God, then why do you ask others to pray for you? (I assume that you do). If you can ask a brother on earth to pray for you, why can’t you ask a brother in heaven to pray for you? (Or in this case, a sister/mother). The book of Revelation makes it clear that they do offer up our prayers (that is, the saints and angels), and the early practice of the Church was to ask those martyrs in heaven to pray for them. God loves to use human agents, and Christ desires that we share in His ministry with Him. It makes perfect sense that God would want those in heaven to pray for their comrads on earth.

Revelation 5:8 (KJV): *And when he had taken the book, the four beasts and four and twenty elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints. *
(A newer translation would say incense, not odours).
Revelation 8 (KJV):
*3And another angel came and stood at the altar, having a golden censer; and there was given unto him much incense, that he should offer it with the prayers of all saints upon the golden altar which was before the throne. *
*4And the smoke of the incense, which came with the prayers of the saints, ascended up before God out of the angel’s hand. *

If you want to see where we are coming from (a lot of us are former Protestants ourselves…who felt like you did on these issues, so we know where you are coming from), check out some of the apologetics sites like scripturecatholic.com, catholicoutlook.com, and the various articles at this site (catholic.com).

In regards to Mary, remember that in Luke 2, Elizabeth venerated Mary. She said “who am I that the mother of my Lord would visit me” and proclaimed her “blessed among all women.” To venerate one of God’s great creatures is not to take away from the worship due only to God. Daniel prostrated before the angel, and Lot did before the angels as well (Gen. 19:1). Was this worship? No, it was a profound veneration of glorious creatures of God. Where do you find in Scripture that all creatures are equal? Some are worthy of more honour than others. Does not Christ honour the servants with varying degrees in the parable of the talants?

I invite you to consider this brief article: catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0301fea3.asp

You also may be interested in Newman’s work on Mary as the New Eve (christendom-awake.org/pages/marian/newman1.html)).
In Christ,
Tyler

We are not to make an idol of, worship, bow down or serve anyone other than God. Read Ex. 20 :4, Deut. 4:15-19 and Rev. 19:10.

Why has the Catholic Church omitted the Second Commandment from it’s Catechism? Could it have something to do with the money made from the sale of statues?

 

[rom323]

Mary was immaculately conceived by “the painful and torturous road of the cross to effect our salvation.”

ONLY Jesus was immacuately conceived! Mary was a sinner just like you and I.

The grace of the cross purchased by Jesus’ suffering and death goes forwards and backwards in time. Mary was one of the recipients of that purchase, when the grace purchased by Jesus’ suffering and death preserved Mary from the stain of Original Sin, beginning at the moment of her conception. One can see the grace of the cross going backwards in time in another famous example, Enoch. How could Enoch have “walked with God” – been assumed alive into Heaven – except for the grace of the cross? See Genesis 5:24.

Please prove that Mary was preserved from the stain of sin! Maybe you should read Rom. 3:23?

Why would God have bothered doing this? Why not let an ordinary, disgusting, morally dirty, sinful woman conceive and give birth to His Son?

Actually, He did!

Answer: It would have destroyed the ova from Mary’s womb to which Jesus’ divinity was joined, and it would have killed Mary, at the time of the Annunciation, when the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary.

And you came up with this theory from where???

Proof: Exodus 33:18-20. There, Moses was told that only seeing God’s face would have killed Moses. God says, “But my face you cannot see, for no man sees me and still lives.”

Just when did Mary see God’s face??? God’s face was cloaked in Jesus’ humanity!

However, the connection to God proposed by Gabriel to Mary at the time of the Annunciation is an even more intimate connection. If seeing God’s face kills Original-Sin-tainted flesh, then *joining His actual divinity to flesh, by the Incarnation with and into Mary’s ova, and by the physical connection with Mary in the womb before birth, *would be positively deadly.

If you are implying that Mary is God’s mother, you better re-think that one!!! :yup:

 

[rom323]

Robert in SD:

Obviously you’re not listening to what Catholics on this thread are telling you…

(1) Why do you NEED to know if Mary was assumed into Heaven before or after she experienced death? Why would a doctrinal statement on the issue persuade you one way or the other as to the truth of the assumption?

We need to know why Mary died because Catholicism teaches the Mary was sinless and therefore would not have experienced death. Rom. 6:32!!!

(2) The Assumption is not a “parallel” with Jesus. It is a further display of the power of the risen Christ. Christ ascended to Heaven on His own power. Mary was assumed into Heaven by the power of her Son, Christ. It was an awesome display of Godly power by Jesus Christ. The two events are not parallel. The assumption is the ultimate display of Christ honoring His mother. The ascension is Christ’s return to Heaven and taking His seat at the right hand of the Father. Two entirely different events with different theological significance.

The problem is there is no evidence that the assumption of Mary occured! It is just another attempt to elevate a mere creature to an undeserved status. God is infinite, Mary finite.

(3) Catholics do not believe they NEED to go through Mary if they want to know Jesus. We believe that by honoring Mary we only bring honor to Christ and thereby magnify His glory. Mary always points the way to her Son. Jesus Christ loses nothing by our honoring of Mary. It is an entirely different thing to falsely conclude - as you have - that Catholics believe the ONLY way to Jesus is through Mary. To suggest that Catholics cannot give worship to Christ directly, or seek His grace directly, because of Mary is to pervert the clear teachings of the Church. Christ is and will always be the center and focus of the Church and His Blessed mother is a help - NOT a hindrance.

Read John 14:6 Acts 4:12. Mary is of no help!

Peace and Charity,

 

[rom323]

Robert in SD:

Dear Rom323;

Who’s being intellectually dishonest here?

First, how quick you are to read so much into what I stated.

Where in the statement, “To Jesus through Mary” is there any support for the proposition that Catholics MUST go through Mary to reach Jesus. One would have to also read in the phrase “… and only through Mary” at the end of my statement to arrive at your conclusion. (Protestant arguments always seem to make this same blunder.) But that’s not what I said, is it?

My statement suggests only one potential path - a GREAT path - by which one can come to know Jesus by contemplating the life of His mother. How sad that you take a beautiful sentiment like that and misread it to support your own twisted personal view of Catholicism.

Please listen to what people are telling you about Catholic beliefs. Even if you don’t agree, at least have the integrity to acknowledge the Church’s teachings on Mary are not what you are describing.

I’ll restate what I said earlier. Perhaps different language will get the message through: Catholics do not believe that we MUST “go through Mary.” We acknowledge that Mary is there for us as a spiritual mother in a real and biblically supported sense, to help us in our relationship with Jesus Christ. Thus, if you truly honor Mary, you must also love Christ as your savior. There is no dichotomy contrary to your fevered machinations.

Second, Mary’s bodily assumption into Heaven was obviously NOT the final resurrection of the dead at the time of Christ’s second coming, nor does the Church teach that it was such. But one can speculate that Mary’s current condition is much like what all the saints will one-day experience. Again, I see no reason why it is the case that a doctrinal statement on whether Mary was assumed into Heaven before or after her death is relevant to one’s acceptance of the doctrine. We only must understand that it was at the end of her life.

Peace and Charity,

Peace and Charity,

There is ONLY ONE PATH, Jesus Christ, PERIOD!!! Instead of spending all your energy “honoring” Mary, maybe you should spend your time honoring the Creator of the Universe! Maybe you should contemplate just how small Mary is compared to her God! God will not tolerate you putting anyone or anything before Him

 

[rom323]

Robert in SD:

Dear rom323;

Now you are just being condescending and rude.

Scholars acknowledge that Revelation is a complex book, if not the most complex book in the Bible. In Catholic theology the woman is a symbol of many different things, including Israel and the Church. But isn’t it interesting to note that the other two entities in this part of the vision had direct relationships to specific individuals. The child is Christ the Son of God. The dragon is Satan. Why would the woman be the only a “symbol” in this portion of John’s vision without a direct relationship to an individual? Because the woman is Mary, whom all generations will call blessed. Protestant theology tries hard to negate this interpretation because it validates Mary’s position as the Queen of Heaven. But protestant interpretations of this verse ignore the obvious.

The “woman” in Rev. 12 is to be seen in the same light as another “sign” who is also a portrayed as a “woman.” In Rev. 17 the “woman” represents the people of the Satan whereas the “woman” in Rev. 12 repersents the people of God!

Peace and Charity,

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Dear rom323;

(1) You are misinformed on Catholic beliefs to the extent you conclude that Catholics believe Mary could not die a mortal death because of her immaculate conception. She was borm in the same state as one who is baptized. By your logic, any baptized christian would live forever. We know that’s not the case. Nor is it the case to conclude that Mary would not die when she reached the end of her life.

(2) There is plenty of evidence that the Assumption occurred, including the tradition of the church, past examples of Assumptions in the Bible, etc. You choose to discount it together with the interpretations of scripture that have been quoted to you, including Revelation. It is your choice (and your loss) to turn your back on the gifts given by Christ to His church. (BTW - I agree that Mary is a finite creature and that God is infinite. The Church’s teaching on this issue is also in agreement. But that does not resolve the issue for or against the validity of the Assumption. Your arms must be really tired from striking this “straw man” over and over again.)

(3) Again, these verses (John and Acts) are not in conflict with the doctrine of the Assumption. I agree that Christ is the only intercessor between man and God. That’s not the issue. Mary and the doctrine of the Assumption reveal Christ to His Church. That’s the point. (Again, Catholics don’t believe that we can only approach Christ through Mary. We believe she is there to assist our understanding of Christ. Why do you insist on only rehashing these misperceptions you harbor about Catholic doctrine. You don’t have to accept our beliefs. But at least you can stop misrepresenting them to us in your attack.)

(4) Do insults help you feel like a better christian? How sad that your arguments have now deteriorated into a vitriolic and unbalanced attack of my Catholic faith. I have not attacked your beliefs. Let me just say that I see no contradiction between worshipping God and thanking Mary for her example of discipleship - thanking her for her “yes” to God’s request - thanking her for her willingness to take on the awesome responsibility of raising the Word Made Flesh - changing His diapers, wiping His nose, hugging him when he cried in the night as a child then standing by in perfect faith while He was nailed to a cross. Why can’t you stop your nonsensical attack upon your own false understanding of Catholic doctrine and take a moment to offer a simple thankyou to the woman who gave birth to our savior (Yes, I meant yours and mine)? And let me add that no true Catholic would place Mary on a par with God (another straw man), nor would any true Catholic call her divine (another straw man). She was a woman - an amazing woman who for her whole life was “full of grace.” Nothing she does, and nothing offered to her in honor and respect takes one whit of glory from God, notwithstanding your limited comprehension of this fact.

(5) I’ve read Revelation, thank you. I concur with the Catholic interpretation. The most consistent interpretation is that it’s Mary, Queen of Heaven, not just some abstract depiction of Israel or the Church.

(6) Also, it is clear that Catholics and protestants mean different things when they use the terms “prayer” and “worship.” Within the Catholic understanding, the terms are not synonymous, while in most protestant circles they are. Maybe you should take the time to ponder the language divide before you start attacking this issue again.

Peace and Charity,