S
Superstar905
Guest
No sweat! by the way, post #57 was addressed to you
- Status
L
levi86
Guest
Superstar905
Superstar905:
R
reen12
Guest
quote: BJLabre, addressing levi86
Because the Church has taught what she teaches -
in terms of the mother of Jesus - she cannot be infallible.
Best, :tiphat:
reen12
I hold a position that is precisely the contrary:
Because the Church has taught what she teaches -
in terms of the mother of Jesus - she cannot be infallible.
Best, :tiphat:
reen12
S
Superstar905
Guest
You see, here is where scripture would really help you Levi. Mary’s We are all united to Christ’s heart, but Mary is in a special way when scripture talks about Mary’s heart (singular) also being peirced when Jesus’ was.
As for our souls magnifying the Lord…no, we do not magnify the Lord as Mary’s does, but maybe some pious and holy people in some way do. This is why scripture specifies that Mary (singular) soul (name removed by moderator)articular magnifies the Lord.
As for Mary’s intercessory power, I think that has been adequately covered.
As for our souls magnifying the Lord…no, we do not magnify the Lord as Mary’s does, but maybe some pious and holy people in some way do. This is why scripture specifies that Mary (singular) soul (name removed by moderator)articular magnifies the Lord.
As for Mary’s intercessory power, I think that has been adequately covered.
L
levi86
Guest
Ok, I agree with you on all of that, and I definitely feel that Mary is unique and special, I’ve thought about it and I really have two main objections with this issue.
1)If the Holy Ghost acts through Mary in distributing grace and such, then to me this renders the Holy Ghost somewhat redundant. From what I have heard (correct me if I’m wrong). The Holy Ghost chooses to use Mary as a means of distributing the power of God. However before Mary the Holy Ghost did this without a mediator. So know the question must be asked, if the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son then its purpose is obvious, its role is to transfer the power of God to the world. The general opinion I’ve heard is that Mary acts as channel from the Holy Ghost to the earth. But if you were a bit more cynical (as I am) couldn’t it just as easily be said that the Holy Ghost is a channel from Father/Son to Mary?, thus dramatically decreasing its role. Almost making it incidental and irrelevant now that Mary has assumed most of its power.
- I would easily accept this doctrine if it was firmly based in tradition, however it is not. The church fathers did make comparisons between Eve and Mary. They said all Graces flowed from Mary, purely because she is the Mother of Christ and he is Grace incarnate. The church fathers always referred to this as an objective phenomena (a singular action from her initial acceptance of God) they never considered it to be subjective, in that Mary bestowed Grace to men on a “case by case” basis.
S
Superstar905
Guest
Hey Levi…about point #1 here…lets get something straight. The Holy Spirit/God the father/Jesus Christ, are all one in the same, as we believe mutually to be the Trinity. If God uses a person to do miracles, or great things, does that mean that God is, as you said above, redundant? I hardly think so. Thus Mary, in her special role in the Divine plan, does NOTHING of her own, but completely throught the power of God, who has a history of using his creation to do his wonderful work, including dispensing graces. Remember, it is not Mary’s own grace, it is the grace of God.
As for point #2, the belief is FIRMLY HELD IN TRADITION. Here: web.archive.org/web/20030604150503/http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ321.HTM
Remember though, that as Church Militant pointed out here in post #7: You seem distressed that there is so little specific scripture & ECF reference to this & the other Marian teachings, yet you also seem to have forgotten that we grow in our understanding of all aspects of Christianity and that the church only makes these clarifying statements either when a belief is attacked, or discussion and study bring some new light to what we already believe.
Remember, that we grow in our understanding of all aspects of Christianity, and this proposed doctrine, is a great example of this.
Anyway, hope i was able to help you out somewhat, and I am quite impressed with your diligent search of our amazing faith, that believe me, has all the answers.
God Bless.
H
hurst
Guest
Allow me to add more precision: They are not all one and the same. They are three distinct persons. But yes, one and the same God in nature.
Actually, I would say she does do something of her own. She is not God, and is an existence separate from God, though in God.
She has a will, which though united with God, is not equal to God, because she is a creature.
True, but just as Joseph had free reign to distribute Pharoah’s wheat, so Mary has free reign to distribute God’s grace to whom she will. This is not to say God is limited by her. He can very well command her to dispense it to anyone He tells her. But she has the ability to decide to act also.
hurst
S
Superstar905
Guest
Absolutely, thanks Hurst
F
forthright
Guest
This may be an over-simplification, but here goes. . .
If Christ is everything for us Christians, then the Holy Spirit delivering Jesus to us through Mary in the first place would automatically mean that through her the Holy Spirit delivers all graces.
It doesn’t necessarilly have to have the idolatrous connotation you picture.
If Christ is everything for us Christians, then the Holy Spirit delivering Jesus to us through Mary in the first place would automatically mean that through her the Holy Spirit delivers all graces.
It doesn’t necessarilly have to have the idolatrous connotation you picture.
H
hurst
Guest
What do you mean by “the power of God”? She is not used to keep all creation in existence. The power of God is what keeps us existing in our nature. She herself needs to be kept in existence by the power of God.
But it can be said that she “has” the power of God insofar that she “has” the Christ child in her lap. But that is subject to other considerations.
God is not redundant, though. If anything, we are. God does not need us to exist. But it is because of His love and glory that He lets us participate in His life!
I am not sure this is accurate. Where did you learn that “its purpose is obvious, its role is to transfer the power of God to the world”?
If you need a more detailed understanding, then we will have to go beyond the general statements.
But let me just warn you - it can take years of prayer and contemplation. For to understand and know something, you essentially have to participate in it.
But this much should be clear: she does not substitute for the Holy Ghost. He uses her to dispense Himself, as it were (just as He used her to dispense Jesus to the world).
The Church is also a channel of grace, and is obviously acting thus continuously. Would you say that the Church renders the Holy Spirit redundant?
Again, Mary is not replacing. If the Holy Spirit were as water, then Mary is as the hose nozzle. But it is still the Holy Spirit we receive, and His gifts. Same for when we receive from the Sacraments of the Church. Those flow through priests, physically speaking. That does not diminish the Holy Spirit, but magnifies it.
I would say that it is combined. They all flow through her whether she is aware of it or not. At times she can herself influence the distribution. A steward does what He is commanded, but may also be given permission to do more for those he personally favors.
Note: these are just possible ways to understand the notion, and not necessarily dogmatic.
hurst
S
St.BJLabre
Guest
It is amazing to me how much Protestantism has infected the minds of so many people (I don’t mean this is an offensive way so please don’t take it that way). I just mean that prior to the Protestant reformation every Christian Church held the same beliefs about Mary as the Catholic Church. The Immaculate Conception and the Perpetual virginity of Mary were all universally held positions, although they weren’t yet necessarily declared infallibly. All of the sudden, one guy decides that the Church has been wrong for over 1000 years and everyone begins to take this one guy’s opinion over centuries of Christian Tradition. That, my friends, is illogical.
B
BlindSheep
Guest
I don’t understand why this dogma would be necessary. What would it accomplish, except to further alienate protestants? I’ve never been a protestant, but even I am uncomfortable with the definitions some of you are giving for the “mediatrix” title. I can understand how Mary is the Mediatrix of All Graces inasmuch as it was through her that Jesus became man; yet, when some of you say she is the “neck” between Christ and the Church, etc., I find this disturbing. since it implies that we have no direct connection with Christ.
R
reen12
Guest
quote: BJLabre
hundreds of millions of other Christians] the
Marian teachings of the Church…not matter how
far back they go, who “endorsed” them…and when…
are contrary to the teachings of St. Paul.
I have neither the intention nor desire to “defend”
this stance, yet recommend that those who are
unsure of these Church teachings, simply read
St. Paul…and the gospels…and then try to comprehend
how get from those to Marian doctrines, without
contradicting the writings of St. Paul.
If the reply is: the Church has the sole authority to
interpret scriptures…
then, that authority is clearly forfeit - given Marian doctrines.
And, were Tradition to be invoked, my reply would be
similar. Read St. Paul and the gospels …and then try to comprehend
how get from those to Marian doctrines, without contradicting
the writings of St. Paul.
quote: BJLabre
accretions - by the 16th c. - from the clear teachings of scripture.
Protestants “protest” these doctrines and others.
As I said, above:
quote: reen12
I respect…while disagreeing heartily. :tiphat:
Best,
reen12
BTW, BJ Labre is my favorite Catholic saint.
bowdoin.edu/~hholbroo/index11.html
I ordered, from England, an English translation of the biography,
written by his confessor, Marconi. [dated: 1785?]
Alas, I fear, having read St. Paul [along with
hundreds of millions of other Christians] the
Marian teachings of the Church…not matter how
far back they go, who “endorsed” them…and when…
are contrary to the teachings of St. Paul.
I have neither the intention nor desire to “defend”
this stance, yet recommend that those who are
unsure of these Church teachings, simply read
St. Paul…and the gospels…and then try to comprehend
how get from those to Marian doctrines, without
contradicting the writings of St. Paul.
If the reply is: the Church has the sole authority to
interpret scriptures…
then, that authority is clearly forfeit - given Marian doctrines.
And, were Tradition to be invoked, my reply would be
similar. Read St. Paul and the gospels …and then try to comprehend
how get from those to Marian doctrines, without contradicting
the writings of St. Paul.
quote: BJLabre
Far from “infection,” same cleansed the untenable doctrinal
accretions - by the 16th c. - from the clear teachings of scripture.
Protestants “protest” these doctrines and others.
As I said, above:
quote: reen12
That a billion people, in conscience, accept that the CC is infallible
I respect…while disagreeing heartily. :tiphat:
Best,
reen12
BTW, BJ Labre is my favorite Catholic saint.
bowdoin.edu/~hholbroo/index11.html
I ordered, from England, an English translation of the biography,
written by his confessor, Marconi. [dated: 1785?]
S
Superstar905
Guest
I too feel it’s unnecessary, however, I trust the wisdom of the Church since it is the Pillar and Bulwark of truth…not me, lol. That said, I do understand to a fair degree the title and believe it to make total sense, but I don’t see how proclaiming this is at all necessary. All graces flow through Mary (directly or indirectly), who cares?
Just my 2 cents. By the way, Mary being the neck of the Church, is only an analogy…if Christ is the head, and we are his body, Mary could be his neck, being that she was our human connection to Christ. Makes sense.
T
TobyLue
Guest
Church Militant
And just to underline one thing that you posted and a brief comment.
“And Mary said: My soul doth magnify the Lord…” Everything and anything that is directed to Mary is to magnify Our Lord, not Mary. That’s what some people do not understand. They think that because we hold Mary in high esteem that we elevate her to God’s level. That could be nothing further from the truth. Our praise of Mary simply magnifies our praise to God. Just like the painting of some famous artist. The more we praise the beauty of the painting the more it magnifies that artist. The painting is just a creation of the artist. Mary is just a creation of God like all of us, however, she was, as you said, the most unique human being behind Jesus.
God Bless
And just to underline one thing that you posted and a brief comment.
“And Mary said: My soul doth magnify the Lord…” Everything and anything that is directed to Mary is to magnify Our Lord, not Mary. That’s what some people do not understand. They think that because we hold Mary in high esteem that we elevate her to God’s level. That could be nothing further from the truth. Our praise of Mary simply magnifies our praise to God. Just like the painting of some famous artist. The more we praise the beauty of the painting the more it magnifies that artist. The painting is just a creation of the artist. Mary is just a creation of God like all of us, however, she was, as you said, the most unique human being behind Jesus.
God Bless
T
TobyLue
Guest
Oh, and another thing and thank you Church Militant for posting it.
Irenaeus (A.D. 120–200) wrote, “As by a virgin the human race had been bound to death, by a virgin it is saved, the balance being preserved, a virgin’s disobedience by a virgin’s obedience” (Against Heresies, 3, 22, 19). Eve made the Fall possible, but Adam effected it; Mary made our redemption possible (by consenting to bring the Savior into the world), but Jesus effected it.Noticed that this is one of the things that the Church was teaching but look at the time of Irenaeus. This was before the Bible was compiled. If anything being contrary to what was taught by the Church, it would not have been accepted as scripture. So thus anything in scripture will **not **go against the Church teachings about Mary, and the Church is the final interpreter of scripture, not every Joe Blo and his own ideas and then saying that the Church is wrong.
Irenaeus (A.D. 120–200) wrote, “As by a virgin the human race had been bound to death, by a virgin it is saved, the balance being preserved, a virgin’s disobedience by a virgin’s obedience” (Against Heresies, 3, 22, 19). Eve made the Fall possible, but Adam effected it; Mary made our redemption possible (by consenting to bring the Savior into the world), but Jesus effected it.Noticed that this is one of the things that the Church was teaching but look at the time of Irenaeus. This was before the Bible was compiled. If anything being contrary to what was taught by the Church, it would not have been accepted as scripture. So thus anything in scripture will **not **go against the Church teachings about Mary, and the Church is the final interpreter of scripture, not every Joe Blo and his own ideas and then saying that the Church is wrong.
H
hurst
Guest
If God did something a particular way for our salvation, let us praise Him and rejoice in it.
If someone else is offended by what God has done, we must let them go their way, unfortunately.
Herod and others could not believe that the Christ would be born in a cave, and others doubted He could have come from Nazareth.
The pharisees were offended at Christ claiming to be God. They didn’t think God should be so lowly. They wanted the Romans to be overpowered etc.
Many disciples left Jesus after His hard saying about eating His flesh.
Finally, we are given to understand that the Devil refused to go along with God because he couldn’t accept having to bow down before human flesh (Christ) or follow the commands of a female (Mary our Queen).
If God truly wishes to do something a certain way, we must seek to enlarge our hearts in faith and humble ourselves to God’s ways, or else depart and be self-absorbed.
Consider all things. We receive Christ Himself from the priest. How is it disturbing that we receive graces from the hand of Mary at some point?
Let us rejoice at how God includes us in His glorious life!
hurst
T
tomaskovarik
Guest
So, what is exactly that the Church does declare infallibly about Mary? By the way, as a ex-protestant, I still am having great trouble with the infallibility issue…just cannot get over it. But I will not sweat over it either. Where could one find a list of infallible statements?
L
levi86
Guest
Irenaeus (A.D. 120–200) wrote, “As by a virgin the human race had been bound to death, by a virgin it is saved, the balance being preserved, a virgin’s disobedience by a virgin’s obedience” (Against Heresies, 3, 22, 19).
I totally accept this, but the early belief was that Mary helped in salvation. There is NO early material to suggest that Mary has a “day by day” role in transferring grace. If you warp this statement that way, then it would mean that the statement also infers that Eve also has a continuous role in transferring sin from Satan. This is not the case.
The belief that Mary is a Mediatrix of Grace only came about in the Middle Ages and was not a part of early church tradition. Some may say this is fine, because the church evolves. But as far as I know all the other Marian dogmas are rooted in early history, with most being clearly defined by the 4th century. I don’t know of any other doctrine that comes out of nowhere like this one.
I totally accept this, but the early belief was that Mary helped in salvation. There is NO early material to suggest that Mary has a “day by day” role in transferring grace. If you warp this statement that way, then it would mean that the statement also infers that Eve also has a continuous role in transferring sin from Satan. This is not the case.
The belief that Mary is a Mediatrix of Grace only came about in the Middle Ages and was not a part of early church tradition. Some may say this is fine, because the church evolves. But as far as I know all the other Marian dogmas are rooted in early history, with most being clearly defined by the 4th century. I don’t know of any other doctrine that comes out of nowhere like this one.
C
Church_Militant
Guest
I don’t look for this to ever be declared dogma and since it’s not I don’t really pay it much mind. I understand what they mean, but it’s too confusing to converts and our a-C opponents.
I ain’t holdin’ my breath for this one.
Pax vobiscum,
I ain’t holdin’ my breath for this one.
Pax vobiscum,
- Status