Stance on the virgin Mary

  • Thread starter Thread starter ntisawesome
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
N

ntisawesome

Guest
I’m curious about what is or isn’t Dogma, regarding Mary.

Usually the posts go something like this:

Protestant: I believe that Mary was a great person, and that she was very special to give birth to Jesus, and may have lived an exemplary life. But I cannot see why Catholics pray to her and worship her, or why they revere her as mother of the church or religion. I further cannot see why she is labelled as a co-redeemer or mediator between us and Christ.

A good Catholic reply will, using the backing up of scripture, properly refute all claims that praying to Mary or giving her devotion is a sin. They will then usually insist that they do not worship her, because worship is reserved for God. Often they will end off with something along the lines of “Well, since she was Jesus’ mother, can we not at least revere her on those grounds alone?”

(My point is that I never question why we should at least revere her for being Jesus’ mother. But that’s where it has always ended for me.)

The best conclusion I can see coming out of this is something like this:

Claim: Mary is without sin.

Protestant Response: You can’t prove she is.

Catholic Response: You can’t prove she isn’t.

So shouldn’t it be something that people are allowed to believe in or not to believe in? Is it a necessary part of being Catholic to believe that Mary is an intercessor and mediator between us and Christ? Or can we just respectfully say “I am not sure.”, and wait and find out when we die?

-nt
 
Not sure about Dogma, but my 2 cents.

The bible supports Mary as Mother to all Christians (Rev. 12:17). Well those that keep God’s commandments and bear witness to Jesus. Why would the devil become angry with Mary? I would suspect she didn’t sin and this is why he became angry with her.

John 19:26:27 should make us ask Why is Jesus calling Mary “Woman” and why is he telling her to “behold your son”? The writer of the Gospel wants you to think back to Gen 3:15. We know John the disciple is not Mary’s son. If Jesus told the apostle to call her mother, why can’t we?

Genesis 3:15 speaks of Mary being without sin. Now it’s not going to read that Mary absolutely did not sin, but what woman had Jesus and if she sinned like us, would there be enmity between her and the serpent.

Gen 3:15 I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; He will strike at your head, while you strike at his heel."

I would also invite you to read all of Revelation 12. It’s a good read.

But remember, all children should respect their mother and if anyone talks bad about my mother, I will defend her. I try my best to imitate Christ and if he honored Mary, so will I.

Whatever you do, make sure you talk about Mary if you have little girls. She is the greatest role model you can have in this world.
 
Three major OT types of Mary:
  1. Mary as the Second Eve
    Romans 5:14 teaches that Adam was a type of Christ. As Christ is the new Adam (1 Corinthians 15:45), Mary is the new Eve. After Adam and Eve sinned, Genesis 3:15 prophesizes a woman and her son who will be at total enmity with the serpent (Satan) and his descendents:
    “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will strike at your head, while you strike at his heal.” (NAB)
    The woman’s son will crush the serpents head. Since the man who crushes the serpents head is obviously Jesus, the woman must be Mary.
    Thus, Genesis 3:15-17 describes two teams: the fall team- Adam and Eve, and the redemption team- Jesus and Mary, the new Adam and the new Eve.
St. Justin

St. Irenaeus

Sacred scripture continually shows Jesus and Mary together in the pivotal events of our salvation.

In Judges 4:17-22, Jael drives a tent peg through the skull of the Canaanite general, Sisera. Judges 5:24 celebrates her: “Most blessed of women be Jael.”
Judges 9:50-55 describes a woman who drops a millstone on the head of tyrannical King Abimelech, fracturing his skull. Judith delivers the Jewish people from the Assyrian army by beheading its commander-in-chief, Holoferens, with his own sword as he slept. (Judith 12-13).

Judith 13:18- “You are blessed by the Most High God above all women on earth; and blessed be the Lord God…. Who has guided you to strike the head of the leader of our enemies.”

The praises of Jael and Judith both anticipate Elizabeth’s praise of Mary in Luke 1:42, “Blessed are you among women”. Elizabeth immediately connect Jesus with Mary by immediately adding, “and blessed is the fruit of your womb!”

Jesus definitely crushed the Satan’s head on Calvary. Satan intended to strike Jesus with a lethal blow on the cross, but it proved to be a minor wound (“you strike at his heel”). Satan suffered the mortal wound (“he will strike at your head”) as Jesus destroyed the power of sin and death.
Who was at Christ’s side on Calvary? Mary. What does Jesus call her? “Woman”. Mary is the New Eve. She is the “woman” of Genesis 3:15, the “woman” of John 2 whose intercession at Cana launched Christ’s public ministry, the “woman” of John 19 at the foot of the cross, and the “woman” of Revelation 12 who, with her son Jesus, fights against Satan until the end.

Mary as the New Ark of the Covenant

The ark was the holiest object in the OT religion. It carried the stone tables (10 commandments). In Exodus 25, God gave meticulous instructions for constructing the Ark. It was made of acacia wood (supposedly incorruptible), plated inside and out with pure Gold. It had to be kept from all impurity and profanation. In 2 Samuel 6:6-7, God struck a man named Uzzah dead because he dared to touch the Ark.

St. Ambrose

The Ark contained the written Word of God; Mary carried the living Word. Mary is the living Ark of the living word. The Ark helps us to see the biblical basis for doctrines like the Assumption, which are not taught explicitly in Sacred Scripture, but which are taught implicitly though typology.

Mary as the NT Queen Mother

The OT kings clearly prefigured Jesus Christ, the NT King of Kings (Revelation 19:16). Jesus, descended from King David. Therefore, the kings of Judah, who were from David’s line, especially prefigure Jesus’ kingship. Luke 1:32 says, “the Lord God will give to him [Jesus] the throne of his father David. “

The wife of the king of Judah was not the queen. The queen was the king’s mother. She was known as the Queen Mother. She had great honor and authority in the kingdom.
1 Kings 2:19-20 “So Bathseba went to king Solomon, to speak to him on behalf of Adonijah. And the king rose to meet her, and bowed down to her; and he sat on his throne, and had a seat brought the king’s mother; and sat on his right. Then she said, “I have one small request to make of you; do not refuse me.” And the king said to her: “make your request, my mother; for I will not refuse you.”

The Queen Mother served as the king’s confidant and advisor. The Queen Mother had an official position; she had to be deposed in order to be removed (1 Kings 15:13). The Jewish idea of Davidic kings would have naturally included the king on his throne with the queen mother at his right hand.

Jesus, the NT Davidic King, does not have a wife. His mother would be the NT Queen. This is exactly what Revelations 11 and 12 describe. A Woman (Mary) gives birth to a son (Jesus) who will “rule all the nations” (12:5). Jesus is a new Solomon. Just as Solomon rules over other kings (2 Chronicles 9:23-26), Jesus is the “King of Kings and Lord of Lords.” (Revelation 19:16)

Just as Solomon built a temple housing the Ark of the Covenant, Jesus builds an eternal temple housing a new Ark of the Covenant in heaven (Revelation 11:19). And just as King Solomon enthroned his queen mother at his right hand, Jesus enthrones Mary as his Queen Mother; “A woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars” (Revelation 12:1).

Any king of the household of David would be expected to have a queen mother. That’s what Mary is: the Queen Mother of the Messianic King. We can now appreciate the role Mary is playing as the NT Queen Mother.
 
The angel Gabriel’s greeting (hail full of grace) establishes Mary’s position. Grace is God’s sharing of his life with us. Think of a vessel filled to the brim with water. One more drop will cause a overflow . There is no more room. Mary is that vessel. She was born without sin and never sined. There is no room for sin. Does anyone even remotely think that God would bring His son down from heaven to a spoiled tabernacle. The bible doesn’t go into a lot of detail regarding Mary. Yet we are learning from Her appearencesthe past six hundred years.The church is now established and Mary’s time is now.
ntisawesome said:
I’m curious about what is or isn’t Dogma, regarding Mary.

Usually the posts go something like this:

Protestant: I believe that Mary was a great person, and that she was very special to give birth to Jesus, and may have lived an exemplary life. But I cannot see why Catholics pray to her and worship her, or why they revere her as mother of the church or religion. I further cannot see why she is labelled as a co-redeemer or mediator between us and Christ.

A good Catholic reply will, using the backing up of scripture, properly refute all claims that praying to Mary or giving her devotion is a sin. They will then usually insist that they do not worship her, because worship is reserved for God. Often they will end off with something along the lines of “Well, since she was Jesus’ mother, can we not at least revere her on those grounds alone?”

(My point is that I never question why we should at least revere her for being Jesus’ mother. But that’s where it has always ended for me.)

The best conclusion I can see coming out of this is something like this:

Claim: Mary is without sin.

Protestant Response: You can’t prove she is.

Catholic Response: You can’t prove she isn’t.

So shouldn’t it be something that people are allowed to believe in or not to believe in? Is it a necessary part of being Catholic to believe that Mary is an intercessor and mediator between us and Christ? Or can we just respectfully say “I am not sure.”, and wait and find out when we die?

-nt
Click to expand...
 
I should have bolded the sections of Queen Mother, Ark of the New Covenant and the New Eve in the previous post.

The Four Defined Marian Doctrines - Immaculate conception, Assumption ( I havent wrote anything on this yet), Mother of God, Perpetual Virginity
**
Mother of God **
Why is it wrong to honor the Mother of our Savior? Mary’s special privileges were given to her by God, not man!
Luke 1:26-56- Archangel Gabriel’s greeting shows Mary great honor. Elizabeth, “filled with the Holy Spirit”, twice calls Mary blessed in just four short verses. Guided by the Holy Spirit, Elizabeth honors Our Lady saying, why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” In verse 48, Our Lady prophesizes that all ages will call her blessed. Are you calling Mary blessed?

Jesus has two natures- divine and human. He is one Divine Person. Since this one person was born on Mary, she truly is the Mother of the one Divine Person: in short, the Mother of God.
The logic is simple:
  1. Mary is the mother of Jesus.
  2. Jesus is God.
  3. Therefore, Mary is the Mother of God.
If you deny that Mary is the Mother of God, you are really denying the incarnation. When the eternal Son of God became man, he assumed a human nature. Thus he could be born of a woman just as we are.

Luke 1:43- Elizabeth calls Mary “mother of My Lord.” In the NT, Lord refers only to God.

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

Luke 1:35- “the child to be born will be called holy, the son of God.”

Galatians 4:4- “when the time has fully come, God sent forth his son, born of a woman.”

Early Church Fathers:

St. Iganatius of Antioch (110) : “For our God, Jesus Christ, was conceived by Mary in accord with God’s plan….”

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.”

Note that when the Church Fathers call Mary the Mother of God, they presume Christians take it for granted. They don’t see any need to explain and defend this belief as if it were in any way controversial.

Mary’s title of Mother of God was not rejected until 429. In that year a bishop named Nestorius promoted the heresy that Jesus is two distinct persons, and that Mary is the mother of the human person only. In 431, the Council of Ephesus condemned this heresy. It did not surface again in Christianity until after the Reformation.

Saying Mary is not the Mother of God, implies that Jesus is either not God, or he is two persons, both of which are heresies.

Martin Luther: “In this work whereby she was made the Mother of God, so many and such good things were given to her that no one can grasp them…. Not only Mary the mother of Him who is born 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.” – The Works of Luther

John Calvin: “It cannot be denied that God in choosing and destining Mary to be the Mother of His Son, granted her the highest honor… Elizabeth calls Mary Mother of the Lord, because the unity of the person in two natures of Christ was such that she could have said that the mortal man engendered in the womb of Mary was at the same time the eternal God.” – Calvini Opera

Some claim that because Mary could not have given Jesus his Divinity , she cannot properly be called his Mother. This is a serious error. Jesus is ONE person. A person is a unity. That is why we say a person is born, not a nature of a body. Our parents did not give us our souls (they were created directly by God), only our bodies. However, we never say our mothers gave birth only to our bodies. Rather, they gave birth to us!

The more important a person is in Christ’s mission, the greater honor he has in heaven. This is why, in heaven, the Apostles have such high places (Luke 22:29-30). Mary gave Jesus his body, which was the instrument of our redemption. She carried him in her womb, nursed him, clothed him, fed him, and protected him. Mary consented to the Father’s will for Jesus.
 
B]
Mary as Immaculate Conception Proved from ScriptureThree key points:
  1. Mary was preserved from original sin from the first moment of her existence. Mary was also completely preserved from any stain (effects) of original sin. This means she had no corrupt nature.
  2. The Immaculate Conception only deals with Mary’s freedom from original sin. However, the Church also teaches the doctrine that Mary was never touched by personal sin.
  3. This privilege was given to Mary in view of Christ’s merits. Jesus was Mary’s savior. She was redeemed by Jesus Christ just as we are, except that Mary’s redemption was unique; it was a proactive redemption. The fruit of Christ’s redemption was applied to preserve Mary from sin, as it is applied to us to remove sins contracted.
Romans 3:23- “ALL have sinned….”
St. Paul is speaking of personal sins people commit, as opposed to original sin we inherit. St. Paul does not mean all in an absolute sense, as we know of some exceptions: Jesus, Adam and Eve before the fall, children below the age of reason, and for Catholics… Mary.

In Romans 3:9-10, St. Paul says “all men, both Jews and Greeks, are under the power of sin, as it is written: “None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands, no one seeks for God.” St. Paul is quoting Psalm 14.
So what did King David mean by, “there is none that does good, no, not one” (verse 3)? David is lamenting widespread rebellion in Israel. David’s enemies are not just the Gentile nations, but also fellow Israelites such as Absalom and Saul, members of his own covenant family. David is using “all” in the collective sense of including large proportions of each group (Jews and Gentiles), not in the distributive sense of including each and every individual. David immediately distinguishes “all the evil doers” from “my people” and the “generation of the righteous”. If absolutely “no one” is righteous than how can David possibly refer to the “generation of the righteous?”

Scriptural evidence:
Genesis 3:15- “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will strike at your head, while you strike at his heal.” (NAB)

God is speaking of the serpent (Satan) after Adam and Eve has succumbed to his temptation. The woman’s offspring who will strike (crush) the head of the serpent (defeat him) is acknowledged by ALL Christians to be Jesus. The enmity, of opposition, between the woman and the serpent is the same enmity that exists between Jesus and the serpent. This enmity is total; the devil never ensnared Jesus in sin as he did Adam and Eve. Therefore, the woman, the mother of Jesus, would also never be ensnared by sin because she, too, is a total enmity with the serpent. This woman must be Mary. She cannot be Eve, who embraced the devil and turned away from God. Furthermore, Eve did not literally give birth to Jesus, Mary did.

Luke 1:28: “Hail, full of grace”….

The angel Gabriel calls Mary “full of grace” to indicate she has fullness of grace. This would be impossible with Mary were touched by any sin, because every sin diminished grace. He does not call her Mary. He substitutes the title of “full of grace” for her name to indicate how exceptional and unique Mary’s fullness of grace is.

If I said “there goes John, the greatest tennis player”, you know John is good at tennis. But if I said, “There goes Mr. Tennis”, you’d understand that John is not only good at tennis, but also unique and exceptional in this sport.

Some Protestant versions of their bibles say “O highly favored daughter”.

Follow up with this with them:
Luke 1:28
Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you.

When discussing the Immaculate Conception, an implicit reference may be found in the angel’s greeting to Mary. The angel Gabriel said, “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you” (Luke 1:28). The phrase “full of grace” is a translation of the Greek word kecharitomene. It therefore expresses a characteristic quality of Mary.

The traditional translation, “full of grace,” is better than the one found in many recent versions of the New Testament, which give something along the lines of “highly favored daughter.” Mary was indeed a highly favored daughter of God, but the Greek implies more than that (and it never mentions the word for “daughter”). The grace given to Mary is at once permanent and of a unique kind. Kecharitomene is a perfect passive participle of charitoo, meaning “to fill or endow with grace.” Since this term is in the perfect tense, it indicates that Mary was graced in the past but with continuing effects in the present. So, the grace Mary enjoyed was not a result of the angel’s visit. In fact, Catholics hold, it extended over the whole of her life, from conception onward. She was in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of her existence.

Additionally, the angel’s greeting, “Hail, Full of Grace” suggests that “Full of Grace” is being used as a title and not as a mere description. This is analogous to the Roman greeting, “Hail, Caesar” said to someone whose name was “Julius” and whose title was “Caesar”. The angel did not say, “Hail, Mary, full of grace”; this is part of OUR prayer in the rosary.

From this passage, we can find clear support for the Church’s teaching that Mary was preserved from all stain of original sin and was herself full of grace from the moment that she was immaculately conceived in her mother’s womb by a singular gift of God.
 
God took great pains to prepare and preserve the vessel that contained his written Word. It was mode of enduring acacia wood and Gold. God demanded that this holy container be without stain or defect. God struck Uzzah dead instantly because he dared to touch, and thus profane, the precious Ark (2 Samuel 6:7). If God took such care to preserve the OT Ark from stain, defect, or profanation, how much more would he carefully preserve the NT Ark, which carried the even holier cargo of the living Word, from all stain of sin?

Eve was free from all sin and concupiscence (the inclination to sin). Thus, her “no” to God was a perfect choice of the will. For Mary’s obedience to undo Eve’s disobedience, Mary’s “yes” to God must be as perfect as Eve’s “No”. This could only be true if Mary were free from both sin and inclination to sin, just as Eve was.

St. Ephraim (c.306-373) in the Nisibene Hymns, he writes
You [Christ] alone and your Mother
Are more beautiful than any others;
For there is no blemish in you,
Nor any stain upon our Mother,
Who of my children
Can compare in beauty to these?

St. Ambrose (340?- 397) in his Commentary on Psalm 118, he writes:
Lift me not up from Sara by from Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace had made inviolate, free from every stain of sin.

St. Augustine (354-420) in Nature and Grace (415), he writes:
Having excepted the Holy Virgin Nary, concerning whom, on account of the honor of the Lord, I wish to have absolutely no question when treating of sins- for how do we know what abundance of grace for the total overcoming of sin was conferred upon her, who merited to conceive and bear Him in whom there was no sin?

Duns Scotus (1266-1308)
He proved that Mary’s preservation from original sin did not remove Mary’s need for a redeemer. It required a more perfect redemption: a preservative redemption.

If a man pulled you out of quicksand, you would say he saved you. But if he kept you from falling in the quicksand in the first place, you would say he saved you more perfectly.

Eve said no to God with a perfect human nature. Mary likewise said no to God with a perfect human nature. Such a nature excludes all sin and concupiscence.

For perpetual virginity I really like this article : catholicsource.net/articles/perpetualvirginity.htm
 
Keep in mind that devotion to the Virgin and doctrines about her (called Mariology) are subsets of Christology (doctrine about Christ) and should flow from it.

Marian devotion makes NO sense outside of just Who our Lord, God, and Savior Jesus Christ is.

As C. S. Lewis properly said in MERE CHRISTIANITY, Marian devotion and doctrines are the LAST thing to bring up to a person who does not even believe that the Virgin’s Son is God Incarnate.

A friend of mine suggests that Marian doctrine is part of the “strong meat” St. Paul was telling one group of Christians, criticising them for still being able to handle only milk.

It’s only because I believe to the bottom of my heart that Jesus is Lord, God, and Savior Incarnate risen from the dead that I can say with the angel, “Hail, O Lady full of grace! The Lord is with you!”
 
Let me first and foremost thank you all for taking the time to write such detailed posts.

The problem is that I am not at the point where I will accept a “proof” that relies on scripture outside of the Bible.

I’m not trying to kick and scream about sola scriptura, I know that Catholics don’t believe in it, but it’s how I was brought up.

But to be honest, most of the replies have not really answered my question but rather just taken an opportunity to glorify Mary. I really respect all of your devotions to her, but my question is sort of being ignored: rather why is it compulsory to accept her as co-redeemer so long as you revere her as the chosen vessel by which Jesus was born.

Thanks for answering, all above and below this post.

-nt
 
Remember that certain of the Marian feasts, such as her Entrance into the Temple and Dormition (or Assumption), come from the SAME tradition that produced the Bible to start with.

When you think about it, the Bible itself can rest on no other foundation than the tradition of the Church.

What other authority do you have for 27 books in the NT–and just those 27?
 
The important thing to understand is that every heretical idea comes down to a denial of the Incarnation of Jesus.

There are Protestants who object to the Title Theotokos, or Mother of God, (Literally God-bearer) They say it elevates Mary beyond where she should be. However the reality it it confirms the errors of those who would deny both the Divine and Human natures of Christ. From the moment He was formed in her womb, Jesus was True God and True Man, not a 50-50 Hybrid, nor a Human who was elevated to a special place, not a phantasm who appeared to be among us, but was just a spirit, nor an Angel who appeared to be a man. All false beliefs that occured in the Early Church and by the Definition and Dogmatic truth Catholics, (and those Protestants who retain the belief in the Dual Nature of Christ) owe it to the Fathers of the Councils who upheld what looks on the surface to be a Marian Doctrine, but in reality upholds a Christologic Doctrine.

There are those who minimize the role of Mary as a tool used by Jesus to be born into the world. By denying the Fiat, or the permission of Mary to carry, give birth to, nurtured, educated and protected Jesus until His time had come, we also deny the role Jesus in our own lives. We fall into the errors of either Calvin where we really don’t have any choice for God or against Him, because He has chosen or rejected us. We are either Elect or Damned. Or the other extreme where Jesus has very little to do with our Salvation, We determine our Salvation by making a one time, “decision” and then Jesus is bound to open the gates of heaven even if we do not stay on the path of salvation. A very troublesome doctrine, because you really don’t know if you are “saved” or “notsaved”. You can say, I accepted Jesus into my heart, and that is that, the guy next to you in the pew can say I’m saved, but you don’t exhibit to me the kind of life that I accept as proof of a real conversion, so I have determined that you are not saved. Mary is a model of the role we have in our salvation, that is to give spiritual birth to Christ in baptism and to nurture and grow in wisdom and strenght with Jesus as we protect our faith from sin and error.

I could go on, but I think you can see that anything that we as Catholics regard to our Lady, and her role in our salvation is directly linked to, empowered by and sustains the Christologic truths of Christ Jesus, She like the moon, simply reflects the Truths of Christ, and draws us to His light.
 
Well I posted my posts in a certain way- for the main reason I knew you were looking for scripture evidence.

Looking at her as the New Eve, Queen Mother, and Ark of the New Covenant… All BEGIN and reinforce the doctrines we have.

For example, the queen mother was the advisor and confidant for all… So wouldnt she be the same for us?

The Ark was protected in a very special way, God killed someone who was trying to protect the ark. Wouldnt he do the same for Mary- since Mary contained the word became flesh…

I also went into detail about the doctrines… Maybe you should re-read my posts, but ALL the major reformers- Martin Luther, John Calvin etc. believed she was the mother of GOD and that she never had children… So you also need to look at Early Church Fathers, and beginning reformers to see what happens when the bible alone becomes the only source of authority… Things are taken out of context.
 
ntisawesome said:
I’m curious about what is or isn’t Dogma, regarding Mary.

Usually the posts go something like this:

Protestant: I believe that Mary was a great person, and that she was very special to give birth to Jesus, and may have lived an exemplary life. But I cannot see why Catholics pray to her and worship her, or why they revere her as mother of the church or religion. I further cannot see why she is labelled as a co-redeemer or mediator between us and Christ.

A good Catholic reply will, using the backing up of scripture, properly refute all claims that praying to Mary or giving her devotion is a sin. They will then usually insist that they do not worship her, because worship is reserved for God. Often they will end off with something along the lines of “Well, since she was Jesus’ mother, can we not at least revere her on those grounds alone?”

(My point is that I never question why we should at least revere her for being Jesus’ mother. But that’s where it has always ended for me.)

The best conclusion I can see coming out of this is something like this:

Claim: Mary is without sin.

Protestant Response: You can’t prove she is.

Catholic Response: You can’t prove she isn’t.

So shouldn’t it be something that people are allowed to believe in or not to believe in? Is it a necessary part of being Catholic to believe that Mary is an intercessor and mediator between us and Christ? Or can we just respectfully say “I am not sure.”, and wait and find out when we die?

-nt
Click to expand...
Hi, that’s a good question 🙂 ultimately, we believe that God gave the Church the authority to interpret Scripture. (since the Church is the “pillar and the foundation of truth” as it says in the Bible).

I don’t think the Catholic response to Protestants is as simple as “you can’t prove she isn’t”… there are parts in Scripture that support the idea of her being sinless. For example, that she is ‘full of grace’… the Greek word for that implies that Mary is completely filled with grace, there simply can’t be anything else in her (ie: sin.) Mary’s sinlessness mainly comes from our undestanding of theology and what the Mother of Christ needed to be like in order to not dishonour Him. It’s all for His sake in the end. For example, Jesus got His human nature from Mary… if she was with original sin, He would have received a corrupted human nature too.

Also, it was such an honour for Mary to bear the Son of God in her womb, that it was important for her to be completely pure before God… think of how when we receive the Eucharist, we need to be cleansed from sin… but this is even greater, this is her giving Him human nature. When Mary said that God is her Savior, what it means is that He saved her at conception… it was just different timing 🙂

I know this can all seem like human philosophy…just people trying to figure out theology… but as I said in the beginning, we believe the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit “Into all truth”. 🙂 The Early Church Fathers talked about Mary being sinless. God bless
 
ntisawesome said:
Let me first and foremost thank you all for taking the time to write such detailed posts.

The problem is that I am not at the point where I will accept a “proof” that relies on scripture outside of the Bible.

I’m not trying to kick and scream about sola scriptura, I know that Catholics don’t believe in it, but it’s how I was brought up.

But to be honest, most of the replies have not really answered my question but rather just taken an opportunity to glorify Mary. I really respect all of your devotions to her, but my question is sort of being ignored: rather why is it compulsory to accept her as co-redeemer so long as you revere her as the chosen vessel by which Jesus was born.

Thanks for answering, all above and below this post.

-nt
Click to expand...
I’d like to point out that co-redemptrix isn’t official dogma, nothing like. And it’s not at all likely to become so in the foreseeable future. As such, co-redemptrix is something that a Catholic can choose to believe or not - like the Fatima apparitions. 🤷

What we ARE required to believe are Mary’s Perpetual Virginity, her title of Mother of God, her Assumption and Immaculate Conception.

They all have to do with what Christ is much more than Mary.

Put it this way, we believe that the babe she bore (the babe she was destined from before the world began to bear) was truly God incarnate, at one and the same time, and ever and always, both true God and true Man. This being the case, it is unfitting to believe that she, the vessel of God, was anything less than immaculate - her body was unutterably holy, like the Ark of the Covenant in the OT.

People didn’t use the Ark of the Covenant for mundane purposes - as a storage box for their money or jewellery, for example - did they? Not that such purposes are bad in and of themselves, simply that the Ark was reserved solely for its holy purpose - so much so that anyone who touched it died!

So with Mary’s body, which bore God Himself within. That rendered it unfit for any mundane purpose, such as the ordinary bearing of children, or ordinary marital relations. Not, again, that such things are bad in and of themselves, just unfitting for God’s chosen and willing unique vessel.

For these reasons the dogmas of Mother of God, Perpetually Virgin, and Immaculately Conceived, are a necessary logical extension of our understanding of who Jesus is and what His status as God-Man requires.

As for the Assumption - again, if Jesus truly is both Man (and as such bound by the commandment to honour His mother) and God (perfect in his obedience to that commandment), then it is unfitting to believe that He gave her less than the highest honour any human is granted. Which is to be assumed, body and soul, into heaven as Elijah and Enoch were. To do otherwise is to say He dishonoured her, and unthinkably broke the commandment, by granting preferential treatment to them.
 
Highly revered, elevated above all other saints, enshrined in dogma and fiercely defended…
yet, when the Queen of Heaven (the Mother of the Church, the Mediatrix of All Graces) speaks, with dire warnings about the future of humanity, the Church blithely declares her words to be “worthy of belief”.

As a Catholic, you are required to believe in her Perpetual Virginity, her Sinless Nature and her Assumption (Body and Soul) into Heaven. When she speaks, however, you are under no compulsion whatsoever to attach any significance to her words.
 
ntisawesome said:
Let me first and foremost thank you all for taking the time to write such detailed posts.

The problem is that I am not at the point where I will accept a “proof” that relies on scripture outside of the Bible.

I’m not trying to kick and scream about sola scriptura, I know that Catholics don’t believe in it, but it’s how I was brought up.

But to be honest, most of the replies have not really answered my question but rather just taken an opportunity to glorify Mary. I really respect all of your devotions to her, but my question is sort of being ignored: rather why is it compulsory to accept her as co-redeemer so long as you revere her as the chosen vessel by which Jesus was born.

Thanks for answering, all above and below this post.

-nt
Click to expand...
The title co-redeemer has not been defined as church dogma ( and probably will not be so defined, at least by the present pope, precisely because it is so easily misunderstood) so you do not ‘have to’ accept that. Properly understood, it should not be a problem. ‘Co’ doesn’t mean ‘equal to’ it means ‘with’. In his life and death, Mary stood ‘with’ Jesus, totally accepting it all as God’s will and offering her suffering with his. In a sense, we are all called to do this in our own lives. But Mary is our model in this because, by the action of God’s grace in her, she did this fully.

We can’t think of Mary only as a ‘vessel’; she was a flesh and blood real human person who freely responded to God’s call, through the angel, to become the mother of the Son of God.

We aren’t required to pray to Mary, or any other saint, to assist us by their prayers to live a Christian life. But we believe in the Communion of saints so we know that the saints in heaven, like other Christians on earth, are able to assist us by their prayers. Since the prayer of a just person avails much, it is advantageous for us to ask for the prayers of Mary and other saints.

As long as you accept that Mary was a virgin before and after the birth of Jesus, that God freed her from original sin at the moment of her conception, and that her body was taken into heaven at the end of her time on earth, you are not required to believe more. These are the church dogmas. It seems that they were the constant Tradition about Mary that was passed down from the early church. At a particular time in history, the church dogmatically defined these long-standing beliefs. This is usually done when a belief begins to be questioned or heresies arise that the church needs to address. Probably these beliefs weren’t explicitly stated in the gospels because the purpose of the gospels was to tell us about Jesus, not to satisfy our curiosity about Mary.

To be a Catholic you don’t ‘have to’ have a devotion to Mary. But you do have to believe that the Holy Spirit was given to the church to lead it into all truth. The church built on the cornerstone of Jesus, on the foundation of the Apostles, guided by the Holy Spirit, is reliable. It has true authority to teach and interpret the Gospel.

If you can settle in your mind the issue of the authority and reliability of the Church, you will not have to find explicit proof in scripture of every doctrine. The basis for some teachings is implicit in the scriptures but not clearly spelled out.

Keep praying, the Lord is leading you on this journey. You may not find the answers to your doubts on an internet forum but we would all like to help you. It would be a good idea (if you can bring yourself to do so) to briefly ask Mary to join her prayers to yours that God will resolve your doubts and questions. God bless you.
 
My apologies to those whom I said did not answer my questions. I was reading their posts hastily and not thoroughly. I went back for a re-read, and there was more to the story.

I think those are some good answers, and have put me in a better understanding than I was in before.

The truth is I am beginning to have faith in the Church’s authority, as it is starting to sound silly that God would leave us with only a cryptic book to guide us through a journey on which our eternal salvation or damnation depends.

But my faith is not enough, because I come from a family of Baptists and Pentecostals, some of which are very anti-Catholic. I need to be prepared to defend these beliefs based on things that they will accept. They will certainly not accept my faith in the Catholic church, but rather likely just worry even more that I am being brainwashed.

Here’s my new way to think about it:

Assume Mary was not without original sin.

Then what is the point of the immaculate conception? Why not just have Mary and Joseph consumate their marriage, make a baby, then God could manifest that baby with his spirit and divine nature, say he’s actually the son of God, and we would end up exactly where we are now, with a saviour that is the son of God and the son of a woman, whom we’d all revere and respect.

But God clearly didn’t choose to go this route. And to assume that Mary is not without sin would kind of contradict his choice.

It seems to be similar to the argument of the real presence or not. If you think of communion as just a symbol, it sort of trivializes the whole point of the new covenant with Christ.

Anyways, these are just my thoughts on the issue.

Thanks for the helpful replies, and sorry for the negativity that came out in my previous post.

-nt
 
Welcome to a path that will lead to a closer intimacy with Jesus.

Your hypotosis on the Nature of the hypostatic union, IThe way Jesus comes to us in the Incarnation as True God and True Man) is not new, and some very smart people have proposed it. In fact none of the Reformers was dumb, they were just motivated by their own self importance, and defiance to the Authority given to the Church, which they assumed for themselves.

As to Mary and Joseph having physical relations and then the Spirit of God taking posession of the Body, it would be similar to the heretical teachings of the Arians and Nestorians. Jesus would be relegated to being the highest of all Creation, and not God himself. It would be the human that God posessed that died on the Cross, not the Second person of the Trinity. That God would become Man, and not just possess a man’s body, and will is the greatest gift we have been given.
 
why is it compulsory to accept her as co-redeemer so long as you revere her as the chosen vessel by which Jesus was born.
Click to expand...
I wanted to answer this question 🙂

Co-Redemptrix is not dogma… but theologically there’s nothing in it against Church teaching. Many people have misunderstandings about it though. For example, it does NOT mean “Co Redeemer”… it is Latin, not English 🙂 when translated from Latin, it means “woman with the Redeemer”. It refers to Mary’s close relationship with Jesus and her participation in the work of redemption BY being directly involved in the Incarnation…

we don’t view her as just a vessel… she said ‘yes’ to God.* Because Mary said yes, we have a Savior*. God didn’t HAVE to use her, but He chose to… God bless 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top