Some questions about Mary

[rom323]

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.

According to Catholic teaching, Mary was sinless therefore she would not be subject to death because death is the result of sin.

(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.)

Please share this evidence with me. Catholic tradition is unreliable and unscriptural therefore untrustworthy.

(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.)

I have never asserted that Catholics believe that they MUST approach Christ through Mary. How does Mary’s assumption reveal Christ to His Church???

(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.

If I have unwittingly insulted you I apologize, but telling someone that what they believe is not true is actually an act of love. I was a Catholic for many years so I know first hand how Mary is exhaulted within Catholicism. When Catholics say “we don’t worship Mary, we venerate her” it is because they don’t know what worship is. Praying to and bowing down are in fact acts of worship reserved to God alone!

(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.

The only reason you believe the Catholic interpretation is because you are not familiar with biblical interpretation. Scripture interpretates Scripture. Read Rev 12 again then read Gen. 37:9, Jer. 4:31, Mic. 4:8-11, Isiah 26:17, Isiah 66:7-8.

(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.

Maybe you need to understand that prayer is to be directed to God alone! No one else can hear or answer prayers and the Scriptures forbid contacting the dead!

Peace and Charity,

 

[rom323]

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,

I found a quote that might interest you:

---

**“New Testament exegesis for the Roman Catholic interpreter is not an exercise in ascertaining the meaning of the biblical text through examination of the Greek words, the literary context, and the original intent of the writer. Far from it; it consists rather in listening to what the Roman Catholic Magisterium has already said the meaning is, and then looking for ways that that meaning can be defended from Scripture.” **

---

I have found this to be absolutely true!

---

 

[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.

Please read Ephesians 1:1 and tell me who Paul is writing to!

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Dear rom323;

From your statements and admissions it seems to me that you left the Catholic faith before you ever really understood what it was. Someone in your life has taught you many many half-truths and outright falsehoods about the Catholic faith that you have taken to heart to justify your own personal decision to leave the Church. It is clear to me that you are not here to learn about what Catholics believe. You are here to tell us we are wrong. (You admitted it in your last post to me. And it is clear from your Screen Name - Rom 3:23.) But nothing you say convinces me that you are right and 2000 years of Church teaching is wrong. (Your little “quote” without any citation to authority only proves my point and does nothing to solidify your own argument. It merely proves to me your unsubstantiated bias.)

As for your own exegesis, it fails to consider the bible as a whole but instead draws from bits and pieces without recognizing Mary’s foreshadowing in the OT as both the New Eve and the Ark of the New Covenant. Only Catholic exegesis considers the whole of Scripture rather than parsing out bits and pieces in a sad attempt to justify a tortured interpretation. Your own exegesis also fails to acknowledge that doctrines can develop over the centuries and still be true. Just as the doctrine of the Trinity. And your conclusion that the teaching authority of the Magesterium is somehow contradictory to Scripture is not supported by history or truth. The “contradictions” only arise when compared to your own flawed personal interpretation of Scripture.

Here’s a quote for you to ponder, from the Archbishop Fulton Sheen, who said that there are “not more than 100 people who hate the Catholic Church in America, but there are over 1,000,000 who hate what they wrongly perceive the Catholic Church to be.” It is clear to me that you hate what you falsely perceive to be Church teaching. But I say to you that what you hate is not the Catholic Church’s teaching. You hate your own flawed misunderstanding of Church doctrine. Until you see this you will not listen, you will only condemn what you refuse to understand, based upon your own personal interpretation of Scripture.

I hope you discover the truth some day.

I will say the Rosary for you tonight, and I will ask all the angels and saints to pray with me for you to the Lord our God.

Peace and Charity,

 

[rom323]

Robert in SD:

Dear rom323;

From your statements and admissions it seems to me that you left the Catholic faith before you ever really understood what it was. Someone in your life has taught you many many half-truths and outright falsehoods about the Catholic faith that you have taken to heart to justify your own personal decision to leave the Church. It is clear to me that you are not here to learn about what Catholics believe. You are here to tell us we are wrong. (You admitted it in your last post to me. And it is clear from your Screen Name - Rom 3:23.) But nothing you say convinces me that you are right and 2000 years of Church teaching is wrong. (Your little “quote” without any citation to authority only proves my point and does nothing to solidify your own argument. It merely proves to me your unsubstantiated bias.)

As for your own exegesis, it fails to consider the bible as a whole but instead draws from bits and pieces without recognizing Mary’s foreshadowing in the OT as both the New Eve and the Ark of the New Covenant. Only Catholic exegesis considers the whole of Scripture rather than parsing out bits and pieces in a sad attempt to justify a tortured interpretation. Your own exegesis also fails to acknowledge that doctrines can develop over the centuries and still be true. Just as the doctrine of the Trinity. And your conclusion that the teaching authority of the Magesterium is somehow contradictory to Scripture is not supported by history or truth. The “contradictions” only arise when compared to your own flawed personal interpretation of Scripture.

Here’s a quote for you to ponder, from the Archbishop Fulton Sheen, who said that there are “not more than 100 people who hate the Catholic Church in America, but there are over 1,000,000 who hate what they wrongly perceive the Catholic Church to be.” It is clear to me that you hate what you falsely perceive to be Church teaching. But I say to you that what you hate is not the Catholic Church’s teaching. You hate your own flawed misunderstanding of Church doctrine. Until you see this you will not listen, you will only condemn what you refuse to understand, based upon your own personal interpretation of Scripture.

I hope you discover the truth some day.

I will say the Rosary for you tonight, and I will ask all the angels and saints to pray with me for you to the Lord our God.

Peace and Charity,

Praying to Mary and the saints is futile because, like the rest of the faithful dead, they are sleeping in the grave awaiting the resurrection morning. The Bible says there is only “one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Tim. 2:5,). There is no Bible evidence for the view that the immortal souls of the saints in heaven are assistant mediators or that we need mediators between us and the supreme Mediator. The Holy Spirit assists us in making known our requests to God (Rom. 8:26), but the one Mediator is Jesus Christ. Jesus said, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6). That being so, we cannot approach the Deity through an angel, a redeemed human being in heaven, or an earthly human being. The only One whom the Bible mentions as appearing “in the presence of God on our behalf” (Heb. 9:24) is the Lord Jesus Christ. He is the only One spoken of as the Advocate for sinners in the heavenly sanctuary (1 John 2:1; Heb. 8:1, 2; 9:15; 12:24).

Con’t

 

[rom323]

The Bible teaches that it is wrong to pray to an angel or to another human being. The angel before whom John bowed in an act of worship refused to accept such adoration. He said, “‘You must not do that! I am a fellow servant with you and your comrades who hold the testimony of Jesus. Worship God! For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy’” (Rev. 19:10). A second attempt by John to worship the angel resulted in a similar response: “‘You must not do that! I am a fellow servant with you and your comrades the prophets, and with those who keep the words of this book. Worship God!’” (Rev. 22:9). It follows that heavenly angels, holy prophets, and humans who obey the will of God are not to be worshiped. Our acts of devotion and our prayers are to be directed solely to the Deity.

The Apostle Peter made it clear to Cornelius that it is wrong to worship a man, even though he happens to be one of Christ’s apostles (Acts 10:25, 26). Likewise the Apostle Paul refused to accept acts of worship directed to himself (Acts 14:11-18). Jesus reminded Satan of the divine instruction in this regard: “Worship the Lord your God, and serve only him” (Matt. 4:10).

As supreme Deity (John 5:18; 8:58; Col. 2:9), Jesus accepted people’s worship while He was here on earth, and forgave their sins (Matt. 2:11; 14:33; 15:25-28; Luke 5:20-25; John 9:38). After His resurrection, He was worshiped by His followers (Matt. 28:9, 17; Luke 24:52; John 20:28). The New Testament command is that we should bow before Him, acknowledging Him as our Lord (Phil. 2:9-11). It is entirely appropriate to speak directly to Christ in prayer (Acts 7:59; Rev. 22:20). Heavenly beings worship Him (Heb. 1:6; Rev. 5:8, 13, 14), and it is our privilege to worship Him also.

There is no example in Scripture of a saint in heaven accepting worship, forgiving sin, acting as a mediator, or supplying the needs of people on earth. Saint worship is totally unscriptural and contrary to the will of God as expressed in His Word. The only Being we are to worship is the Deity Himself. Because Jesus Christ, the Father, and the Holy Spirit are the Deity, we are commanded to worship Him, seeking His forgiveness for our sins and asking for His guidance, wisdom, and strength in the affairs of our everyday lives.

Praying to the angels and saints is forbidden by Scripture yet you continue to ignore this fact, why?

The quote is from Kugelman!

You continue to put your trust in created beings rather than THE ONLY ONE who can save your soul. The Rosary will avail you nothing. It is an insult to Jesus Christ’s finished work on the cross!

I will pray that God will open your heart and mind to the truth!

 

[rom323]

Dear Robert,

Can we pray to Mary or other saints as we do to God? Can some person who is at the other end of the universe hear our prayers? Isn’t this something that is exclusively reserved to God? How can a saint hear hundreds or thousands of prayers at one time? No matter how great a saint they were, they are not omniscient nor can they answer our prayers (it is a known fact there are more prayers offered to Mary than to God by Catholics). This is seen by the statement by Bishop Liqouri “*We often more quickly obtain what we ask by calling on the name of Mary than by invoking that of Jesus. She…is our Salvation, our Life, our Hope, our Counsel, our Refuge, our Help” *(The Glories of Mary by Bishop Alphonse de Ligouri (Brooklyn: Redemptorist Fathers, pp. 254, 257).

When we look in the Bible we find that prayer is directed to God alone. To set up a person as a recipient for our prayers, no matter how great they are is making them out to be deity. Asking a saint to help and guide or protect is something only God can do. As someone once put it, why go to the branch office when you can go to the president.

There is not one example of a Christian addressing prayers to Mary or saints, or those who are dead passing from our world. There is much to be said of those who practice Spiritism that use this method. Catholic defenders suggest that Mary is not part of “the dead”, since she’s spiritually alive in Heaven. The passages in Deuteronomy 18 and Isaiah 8 are referring to the physically dead, not the spiritually dead. There are hundreds of prayers and passages about prayer in scripture, and none of them instruct prayers to the dead. The scriptures forbid attempting to contact the dead, yet the Catholic Church teaches people to do it.

I pray God touches your heart with the truth.

 

[twf]

rom323:

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.”

Hi. Thanks for the reply. You are operating under many misconceptions about the Church, I think . It depends how you are using the word ‘saint’, it simply means ‘righteous person’. In this context I meant all those who are in heaven. Yes, of course they were being given up to God. Why do you think we invoke the saints in heaven? So that they can pray for us TO God. That is the whole idea. It is clear in these passages that these saints and the angel are offering up our prayers to God. Prayer to God is a form of worship, yes. But is asking someone on earth to pray for you a form of worship? Of course not. Why is asking a saint in heaven to pray for you a form of worship? It is only worship if you make it so. Like I pointed out in my post, there is a difference between worship due only to God and to veneration (honour) the saints and angels. (Remember I pointed out that Daniel and Lot
prostrated before angels, but not in worship, but in veneration).
Is it different than asking those on earth because we can’t see those in heaven? Well, what about asking a friend to pray for you by email. You can’t see that friend, and you have no absolute proof that the friend heard you. We believe that God allows those in heaven to pray for us as well, as we are a single family of God, united in spirit.

You say that asking those in heaven to pray for you is against the Word of God. Where does Scripture say this? Scripture shows that those in heaven can offer up our prayers to the Father. Where does it say that we can not ask them to pray for us?

The Holy Spirit does guide the Church in discerning the canon of Scripture. But that only works for Catholics. How can you be sure that those men properly discerned the Spirit? How do you know that they were right? If you are sure that they were right to choose those exact 66 books, then you believe that the Word of God also includes special infallible guidance for men who decide to define the canon. You still have not answered the question. Where does Scripture say that Scripture alone suffices? The Word of God clearly refers to both written and oral teachings in Scripture. (In the OT, the writings and the word of the prophets…in the NT, the writings of the apostles and the preaching of the Apostles). Check out scripturecatholic.com/scripture_alone.html and scripturecatholic.com/oral_tradition.html. I strongly encourage you to listen to the file at the bottom (Solascriptura.ra) at maxbrackett.com/Audio01.asp. As a Protestant, it played an important role in showing me that the notion that God’s Revelation is found only in Scripture is false. At the very least, you’ll know where we’re coming from.

In Christ,
Tyler

 

[rom323]

twf:

Hi. Thanks for the reply. You are operating under many misconceptions about the Church, I think . It depends how you are using the word ‘saint’, it simply means ‘righteous person’. In this context I meant all those who are in heaven. Yes, of course they were being given up to God. Why do you think we invoke the saints in heaven? So that they can pray for us TO God. That is the whole idea. It is clear in these passages that these saints and the angel are offering up our prayers to God. Prayer to God is a form of worship, yes. But is asking someone on earth to pray for you a form of worship? Of course not. Why is asking a saint in heaven to pray for you a form of worship? It is only worship if you make it so. Like I pointed out in my post, there is a difference between worship due only to God and to veneration (honour) the saints and angels. (Remember I pointed out that Daniel and Lot prostrated before angels, but not in worship, but in veneration).

You say that asking those in heaven to pray for you is against the Word of God. Where does Scripture say this? Scripture shows that those in heaven can offer up our prayers to the Father. Where does it say that we can not ask them to pray for us?

The Holy Spirit does guide the Church in discerning the canon of Scripture. But that only works for Catholics. How can you be sure that those men properly discerned the Spirit? How do you know that they were right? If you are sure that they were right to choose those exact 66 books, then you believe that the Word of God also includes special infallible guidance for men who decide to define the canon. You still have not answered the question. Where does Scripture say that Scripture alone suffices? The Word of God clearly refers to both written and oral teachings in Scripture. (In the OT, the writings and the word of the prophets…in the NT, the writings of the apostles and the preaching of the Apostles). Check out scripturecatholic.com/scripture_alone.html and scripturecatholic.com/oral_tradition.html. I strongly encourage you to listen to the file at the bottom (Solascriptura.ra) at maxbrackett.com/Audio01.asp. As a Protestant, it played an important role in showing me that the notion that God’s Revelation is found only in Scripture is false. At the very least, you’ll know where we’re coming from.

In Christ,
Tyler

Let me quote Walter Martin who understood all too well the significance of the action of praying to one other than God. “Mark this well; there is not one verse of the scripture in the NT. anywhere which authorized anybody to intercede with God after death. We are told to pray for one another only while on earth. Prayer that is blessed by God is prayer which is suppose to be directed to god while we are alive. There is no authority in scripture for prayers either by, to or for the dead. Yet this is the cardinal tradition of the Roman Catholic church- a tradition which the 4th chapter of Hebrews very pointedly contradicts.”

 

[rom323]

For Catholics the most often used way to pray is by the rosary, which is a series of prayers said that are counted on a string of beads (groups of ten small beads separated by one large one, there are five sets of decades) All the prayers said to both Mary and the Father are said with no distinction. There is one “Our father” with ten “Hail Mary’s” said over and over, it ends with trust in Mary’s intercession. Clearly the emphasis is on Mary.

 

[twf]

rom323:

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?

Where in the Catechism is the second part of the Commandment remitted? It certainly is in my copy…
Again, you are attacking the Church without base!

These accusations are not fair. Now you are claiming statues are all about money? Since when does the Church itself sell statues? It would be individual craftsmen and companies that make money off statues, not the Church. Actually, God did not condemn all images, only idols of pagan gods and any images that were worshipped. We do not worship images of Christ and the saints. They are a way to focus on God. We are physical creatures. We are not angels. God gave us five senses, and it is most natural to worship with all of our senses. Jesus came as a man. Scripture says He is the “image” of the Invisible God. Therefore, how can it be wrong to have images of the Image of God!? He was a man, so we could have painted his portrait if we lived at the time. If the United States has a statue of Thomas Jefferson, how much more the heros of faith? Hebrews 12:1 says we are surrounded by a great cloud of witnesses. In fact, even though God condemned images of pagan gods and other creatures for worship, he COMMANDED sacred images to be made for the temple and other uses. Consider the following:
Exodus 25:18-22; 26:1,31 Images of the Cherbium are to be made.
Num. 21:8-9 - An image of a bronze serpent is to be made through which God would heal the people.
I Kings 6:23-36; 7:27-39; 8:6-67 - sacred images of Cherbium were to be engraved in the temple. It is only the worship of images as gods that is condemned, not the use of sacred images in and of themselves. God could not be depicted in any image, of course, but that is because God is invisible; Christ, however, is the IMAGE of the Inivisible God. (Col. 1:15).

In Christ,
Tyler

(See scripturecatholic.com/sacramentals.html)

 

[twf]

By the way, saints in heaven can hear our requests for them to pray for us because they are no longer limited by space and time in the same way we are.

 

[antiaphrodite]

rom323:

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?

i must ask your forgiveness. see, i thought you wanted to be taken seriously, but now it appears i was wrong. i’m sorry, i do apologize.

(p.s. it still wasn’t very nice of you to say those things, though:tsktsk: )

 

[mtr01]

rom323:

The Latin Vulgate is not an accurate translation of the bible. It is a translation of a translation. **Please tell me how Genesis 3:15 reads in your **Douay-Rheims bible?

Modern scholarship has dismissed the translation “full of grace” as a nonviable rendition of caritow. This word occurs in the same form in Ephesians 1:6. Should we then conclude that all believers are without original sin?

The problem is, rom, the word isn’t caritow (charitoo) per se. The word is kecharitomene (κεχαριτωμενη ). In fact, the Angelic Salutation is the only time that word appears in the Bible.

Furthermore, you are wrong about the viableness of “full of grace” as a translation. The only question that modern Protestant scholars have is to whether to the active/passive sense of the translation is conveyed. That is, whether Mary is “full of grace” that she bestows (on Jesus) or is “full of grace” that she received from God. Since the Catholic Church has always taught the latter, there is no problem.

However, there are many reasons why “highly favored daughter” is a butchered translation, starting with the fact that “daughter” is not the direct address, and nowhere appears in the Greek. Furthermore, do you know how many times charitoo (the root of kecharitomene) is translated as “favor”, and how many as “grace”? Try 5 to 120, respectively. No, the weight of evidence argues against “highly favored daughter”.

If you want a good look at the issues of translating “kecharitomene”, look here.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

rom323:

Praying to Mary and the saints is futile because, like the rest of the faithful dead, they are sleeping in the grave awaiting the resurrection morning. The Bible says there is only “one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Tim. 2:5,).

Dear rom323;

Your premise is based upon several faulty assumptions.

First, Catholic teaching does not agree with your unsupported conclusion that the dead are “sleeping in the grave.” To the contrary, Catholics acknowledge Christ’s victory over death as a complete victory, such that those who have departed this world in God’s grace are truly alive and enjoying the many blessings of Heaven. Catholics also believe in the community of saints (again, there seems to be a disconnect arising from our different understanding of the word “saint”) that encompasses not only the faithful here on Earth, but the faithful who now reside in the presence of God. Those who the Church recognizes as being in the presence of God we English speaking Catholics refer to commonly as the “saints” because of their holiness. We believe those who are in Heaven and in the presence of God can receive requests for prayer from fellow christians because they, like those of us still living on Earth, are part of the body of Christ. The members of the body of Christ continue to work together and are connected in a real spiritual sense. When Paul speaks of the body of Christ he does not exclude those who have already passed on. Neither do Catholics. To the extent you suggest the dead are sleeping in the grave, and unable to participate as members of the body of Christ you are denying Christ’s victory over death. Do you really believe that part of the body of Christ is “asleep?” That is grave error indeed - IMHO.

Second, you make the assumption that a person can somehow unwittingly or accidentally engage in an act of worship. That is just silly. Worship requires a conscious and informed decision on the part of the worshipper. So, to suggest that a person can accidentally worship Mary is as ridiculous as suggesting that one can accidentally commit any other sort of intentional act.

Third, you insist that prayer equals worship. By that logic you would never be able to file a civil complaint in the state of California, because at the end of every such pleading is a “prayer for relief.” By your reasoning every complaint on file with the court is an accidental act of worship unwittingly directed to a created being - a superior court judge. Prayer means a request. In the context of prayers to saints, they are requests to pray to God on the prayer-maker’s behalf. The prayer to the saint - whether it be Mary or St. Joseph or some other saint, is NOT per se an act of worship notwithstanding what you or some other protestant may believe.

Fourth, you conclude that I and other Catholics put our trust in the saints instead of Christ. Again, you are creating a false dichotomy. The saints are present within the body of Christ and they are present solely because of Christ’s work. Catholics do put our trust in Christ and in no other mediator because it is through Christ and Christ alone that we are redeemed. But asking our fellow members of this Body of Christ - who are now in Heaven - to pray with and for us takes nothing away from that total giving of ourselves to Christ our redeemer.

At this point, I’m going to stop responding to your posts because it is clear to me that you are either unwilling or unable to acknowledge the Catholic understanding of prayers to Mary and the other saints. But, I meant what I said earlier - I do hope you find the truth.

Peace and Charity,

 

[hlgomez]

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?*

Bajolyn,

This question seems to be rather based on our human perception of salvation. Have you ever considered those who died already and how to save them? Even if God can create more Mary’s in the process, still those who have died are yet to be saved thru one Man–the Word Incarnate.

But the real question here is the effect of original sin upon mankind. This is the bottom line. Human beings are not created in the same manner as the angels. Angels are created whole and entire. They do not marry and beget children–they do not procreate. That’s why when Lucifer sinned–his sin didn’t affect the entire angelic world. Adam and Eve’s sin did, because we came from one man and one woman–down to the present age. Human beings “procreate.”

That’s why the effect of Adam and Eve’s sin went for all of humanity. Because we descended from one parent. We are not created one piece–whole and entire–like the angels.

It is not true that Mary didn’t need salvation. In fact, she received salvation ahead of us–thru the merits of her Son coming into the world thru her. We are saved by grace–Mary was full of grace.

The answer to your question no. 2 is spoken of by Archangel Gabriel written in Luke; “Hail, full of grace! The Lord is with thee.” and Elizabeth filled with the Holy Spirit exclaimed; “Blessed are you among women…” Mary herself prophesied it; “From now on all generations shall call me blessed.”

So forget about that non-sense argument that Mary wasn’t blessed enough.

Pio

 

[twf]

Rom: I was operating under the assumption that, like most Protestants, you believe that those who have died in Christ are currently in heaven. Am I now right to think that you actually believe in a form of soul-sleep?

 

[maryj]

hello rom323, Scripture teaches us that Mary is “Mother of God”

Luke 1:43: Elizabeth calls Mary"mother of my Lord." In the New Testament, “Lord” refers ONLY TO GOD.

Mathew 1:23: “Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel,” (which means…God with us)".

Early church fathers confirm Mary’s divine maternity
St. Ignatius of Antioch “For our God, Jesus Christ, was conceived by Mary in accord with God’s plan…” Letter to the Ephisian 18,2:

St. Irenaeus of Lyons (180-199) “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; Jurgens, vol. 1,#256a.

Protestant Reformers insist that Mary is the Mother of God…
Martin Luther: " In this work whereby she was made the Mother of God, so many and such good things were given her that no one can grasp them…Not only was Mary the mother of Him who is born(in Bethlehem) but of Him who, before the world, was eternally born of the Father,from a mother in time and at the same time man and God." Weimer, The works of Luther, English translation by Pelikan, Concordia, St Louis, vol. 7, page 572

and there you have it…
I shall be a defender of Mary.

 

[rom323]

antiaphrodite:

i must ask your forgiveness. see, i thought you wanted to be taken seriously, but now it appears i was wrong. i’m sorry, i do apologize.

(p.s. it still wasn’t very nice of you to say those things, though:tsktsk: )

Are you saying that Exodus 20:4 is listed AS A COMMANDMENT is the Catechism?
:nope:

 

[rom323]

twf:

Rom: I was operating under the assumption that, like most Protestants, you believe that those who have died in Christ are currently in heaven. Am I now right to think that you actually believe in a form of soul-sleep?

I also believe that those who have died in Christ are in heaven. What I don’t agree with is that they can hear and answer our prayers!