L
- Status
A
AdriannaJean
Guest
I don’t see why rays of sunlight from Mary’s heart have to symbolize divinity. Think back to highschool English class when you studied symbolism. A symbol can have many meanings to you, but the only one that is relevant to the book is the one the author meant it to have. It is the same in art. You can take a symbol any which way you like, but the only one that matters is the one the artist meant to depict. If you wanted to draw the Immaculate Heart Of Mary you could do so with or without sunbeams. What would matter is the meaning you gave it. In this case, it is not you who is the artist so the appropriate response is not “well this is what I think it means, so it is heretical” but “oh, well I would have done it differently, but what the artist meant it to symbolize was not heretical, so therefore the piece is not heretical.”
B
budgie2
Guest
Christ also calls himself the light of the world in the Gospel of John 8:12
When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.” Although Christ also calls his disciples the light of the world, perhaps because they have been set alight by the Gospel and show the light of Christ to others.
My main problem with the picture of the Immaculate Heart is that it is just a female version of the Sacred Heart under a different name. It shows the same fire and sunrays aswell as crown in some versions and Mary is sometimes dressed the same. Is Mary simply a female Christ? Or did Mary play a different role entirely? I believe the Sacred Heart represents Christ’s soul. Christ was also divine and son of God, although Mary was not divine and therefore should not have her soul represented in the same way. Mary was blessed as the Son of God passed through her womb.
When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.” Although Christ also calls his disciples the light of the world, perhaps because they have been set alight by the Gospel and show the light of Christ to others.
My main problem with the picture of the Immaculate Heart is that it is just a female version of the Sacred Heart under a different name. It shows the same fire and sunrays aswell as crown in some versions and Mary is sometimes dressed the same. Is Mary simply a female Christ? Or did Mary play a different role entirely? I believe the Sacred Heart represents Christ’s soul. Christ was also divine and son of God, although Mary was not divine and therefore should not have her soul represented in the same way. Mary was blessed as the Son of God passed through her womb.
1
1ke
Guest
Um, no it is not.
The Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary are two completely different theologically and represented differently artistically speaking.
Have you studied anything about the Sacred Heart of Jesus or the Immaculate Heart of Mary?
It is not a crown of thorns, it is a crown of roses. The Immaculate Heart also shows Mary’s heart being pierced by a sword, as was prophesied in Scripture.
As to being dressed similiarly, this is a ridiculous argument. All biblical figures are pictured dressed in long robes and tunics, because-- surprise, that’s what they all wore in biblical times.
No. Mary is not a female Christ, nor does the Church teach this, nor does the Immaculate Heart of Mary claim this.
Uh, is this a rhetorical question.
What you believe is (a) wrong and (b) not relevant. What the Church teache is what is releveant.
The Sacred Heart image is not an image of Christ’s soul, nor does the Immaculate Heart image depicting Mary as divine in any way.
How old are you? What sort of study have you done of church theology?
N
Nick_in_MB
Guest
It’s got a different name because it is different.
J
Jennifer_J
Guest
ewtn.com/Devotionals/heart/heart1.htm
Any images of the Sacred Heart and the Immaculate Conception are the ARTIST’S interpretations of the devotion. They each use artistic symbols. Perhaps a study of ART would be helpful for you, as you are confusing artistic symbols with Church Teaching…
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_symbolism
newadvent.org/cathen/07168a.htm
newadvent.org/cathen/07163a.htm
Any images of the Sacred Heart and the Immaculate Conception are the ARTIST’S interpretations of the devotion. They each use artistic symbols. Perhaps a study of ART would be helpful for you, as you are confusing artistic symbols with Church Teaching…
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_symbolism
newadvent.org/cathen/07168a.htm
newadvent.org/cathen/07163a.htm
L
LilyM
Guest
In the interests of complete accuracy, Our Lady of Fatima is represented with her Immaculate Heart surrounded by a crown of thorns, not roses. As in the depiction attached.
However, it must be pointed out that this is utterly unique among depictions of the Immaculate Heart - of which all others DO depict roses and not thorns.
A
ALLGIRLS
Guest
:clapping:
P
Palm_Tree
Guest
If you really want to do some research on the Immaculate Heart of Mary, here are a couple links to get you started:
**Devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary **
(from the New Advent Catholic Encycolpedia)
newadvent.org/cathen/07168a.htm
Immaculate Heart of Mary
(from Wikipedia)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immaculate_Heart_of_Mary
B
budgie2
Guest
So the two miracles dedicated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary and Immaculate Conception are to St. Catherine Laboure and founder of the miraculous medal and Our Lady of Fatima. Is that right? I know that it’s not defined doctrine but I have strong disbelief in the Immaculate Conception which also means that I have to see these miracles as false.
I dislike the Immaculate conception on a number of grounds. Here are two:
- Mary was saved from the point of her conception and not through the saving action of Christ.
- The Immaculate conception led to the doctrine of the Assumption which means that Mary is the only human being in history to never have died or resurrected, excluding her son who shared the same burden of death with us. Therefore Mary’s heart is not immaculate and loving and it is also popular belief that she did not share the pains of childbirth.
A
AdriannaJean
Guest
Again with not putting authority where it belongs. The Immaculate Conception IS defined doctrine. It even has a feast day. Why do you consider yourself to be intellectually superior to every pope and Catholic theologian since Jesus’ time? What makes you so special? Have you dedicated your entire life to the study of theology? If you have then I will print this off and literally eat my words. You are not the ultimate authority on what is true and what it not.
And your arguments are not even logical. Look at your last paragraph. How does the fact that Mary never died make the Immaculate Conception untrue? It’s like me saying “I have an apple tree in my backyard therefore I am allergic to oranges.” The two statements are completely unrelated!
And, theologically speaking, how the Immaculate Conception worked is that since God is outside of time and space, He took the saving grace of Christ and applied it to Mary at the time of her conception. So she was saved by Christ, just before He was born. And don’t you dare tell me that God can’t do that!
J
JamesE24
Guest
Mary is not the only human being to not have died. I forget which one, but one of the prophets was taken up to heaven in a fiery chariot. He didn’t die.
Also, Mary didn’t die, so she isn’t loving?!!
I think you have to really, rethink what you are saying, cause that doesn’t make any sense.
J
Jennifer_J
Guest
Enoch and Elijah were taken directly to heaven.
Elijah:
2 Kings 2:11 says: “As they were walking along and talking together, suddenly a chariot of fire and horses of fire appeared and separated the two of them, and Elijah went up to heaven in a whirlwind”
source: catholic.com/library/Immaculate_Conception_and_Assum.asp
"The doctrine of the Assumption says that at the end of her life on earth Mary was assumed, body and soul, into heaven, just as Enoch, Elijah, and perhaps others had been before her. It’s also necessary to keep in mind what the Assumption is not. Some people think Catholics believe Mary “ascended” into heaven. That’s not correct. Christ, by his own power, ascended into heaven. Mary was assumed or taken up into heaven by God. She didn’t do it under her own power. "
Elijah:
2 Kings 2:11 says: “As they were walking along and talking together, suddenly a chariot of fire and horses of fire appeared and separated the two of them, and Elijah went up to heaven in a whirlwind”
source: catholic.com/library/Immaculate_Conception_and_Assum.asp
"The doctrine of the Assumption says that at the end of her life on earth Mary was assumed, body and soul, into heaven, just as Enoch, Elijah, and perhaps others had been before her. It’s also necessary to keep in mind what the Assumption is not. Some people think Catholics believe Mary “ascended” into heaven. That’s not correct. Christ, by his own power, ascended into heaven. Mary was assumed or taken up into heaven by God. She didn’t do it under her own power. "
O
otjm
Guest
And what makes you think, in the few years you have been alive, that you have accumulated more wisdom than the Church has in 2000 years?
1
1ke
Guest
Apparitions and devotions springing from them are considered private revelation by the Church. You are not required to believe in them or participate in them. The Church deems them free from doctrinal error and worthy of belief if they are approved, but it does not require anyone to believe in them. You should read the Catechism entry regarding apparitions.
However, the *Immaculate Conception *is not a matter of private revelation, nor is it optional regarding belief, nor is it based on the private apparitions mentioned above-- the Immaculate Conception was defined before St. Catherine Laboure, before St. Bernadette, and before the children of Fatima received apparitions of the Virgin Mary.
It is a **Dogma **of the Catholic Church. It has been solemnly defined by the Church and every Catholic must assent to this teaching.
Neither of these statements accurately reflects the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.
The Church does not teach Mary was saved from the moment of her conception. It teaches she was preserved free from all stain of original sin from the moment of her conception.
Moreover, the Church explicitly teaches that all mankind needed a savior, Mary included. The Immaculate Conception dogma does NOT teach that Mary was saved apart from Christ. Salvation comes through Christ and no other way-- that is Catholic teaching.
The Dogma of the Assumption does not teach that Mary “never died.” The dogma of the Assumption states only that at the end of her earthly life Mary was assumed body and soul into heaven.
All of your “problems” with Marian dogma are based on the fact that you *don’t know what they actually say *and that you have *wrong assumptios *about them and *wrong conclusions *that flow from your wrong assumptions.
Please study what the Church teaches before you post what your “problems” are with the teachings.
L
LilyM
Guest
This is called a straw man argument.You’re attacking what you THINK the dogmas say when in fact they say no such thing.
It is actually NOT part of the Immaculate Conception dogma that Mary wasn’t saved through the saving action of Christ. She absolutely was saved through His saving action, only the effects of that action were applied to her by God upon her conception. God is able to do this since He is outside time, time is His creation.
Second straw man - it is NOT part of the dogma of the Assumption that Mary never died. It’s also not part of the dogma that she DID die. Catholics are free to believe that she died, and free to believe that she didn’t die, the Church simply hasn’t passed on any divine revelation on the subject of her death. Subsequent teaching on the dogma has made it clear that it does not bind us to believe that Mary didn’t die, nor that she did die.
B
budgie2
Guest
So if Catholics do not know whether Mary died or not, if Mary did die was she also resurrected before the Apocalypse and ascended or assumed into heaven? Or was her dead body assumed into heaven? I think these two options sound ridiculous and I think the doctrine of the Assumption reads that Mary is immortal whereas Christ was mortal.
I believe Mary is being portrayed as a female Christ, free from sin (Immaculate and spotless) who ascended (was assumed) into heaven and has a Sacred (immaculate) heart. I’m not blaming anybody apart from the Popes.
L
LilyM
Guest
I think the whole idea of a deity becoming human, willingly offering Himself to be put to death, then rising and ascending into heaven, only to somehow remain on Earth as well, in the form of something that to all appearances is bread and wine but is in reality NOT bread and wine, sounds ridiculous as well. Of course I ALSO know, as you apparently do not, that the wisdom of God is foolishness to mere mortals like us, for scripture tells us so.
And what of it if she was alive? Both Enoch and Elijah were assumed into heaven alive - does that make them equal to Christ? And would they not have had to be in a state of grace to be fit to be assumed into God’s heaven?
And it says much about your lack of theological knowledge that you confuse the Ascension under his own power of Christ with the Assumption by God’s power rather than their own of Mary, Enoch and Elijah.
N
Nick_in_MB
Guest
Still making them the same, which they aren’t.
So since you aren’t listening to people explaining doctrine, maybe you’ll listen to something from the secular world.
merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sacred
merriam-webster.com/dictionary/immaculate
Sounds like two different definitions.
Well, when you put it that way… LOL
B
budgie2
Guest
I have looked at the Bible passage that you have quoted and indeed it says in Kings that Elijah went to heaven in a whirlwind. However, we do not know if Elijah died or not. It is the Church’s teaching also that nobody could enter heaven before Christ’s death and resurrection and the souls of the just were suspended in limbo. So do you believe Elijah went to heaven before Christ came to Earth, died and rose from the dead? Some people believed that Christ was Elijah. Although Elijah was a prophet who was meant to announce the coming of the Messiah in some ways he must have represented the Messiah himself to some Jews as they were waiting for the second coming of Elijah. At the Passover feast Jews put out a glass of wine for Elijah over night. Christ is not a reincarnation of Elijah although to some people he resembled this prophet.
Mark 6:14
King Herod heard about this for Jesus’ name had become well known. Some were saying, “John the Baptist has been raised from the dead, and that is why miraculous powers are at work in him.”
Others said, “He is Elijah.”
And still others claimed, “He is a prophet, like one of the prophets of long ago.”
I personally believe it is wrong to state that anybody assumed or ascended to heaven body and soul apart from Christ himself and this is an aspect of Christ’s divinity. It may be that Christ as both God and Man had a home in both heaven and earth and could physically exist in heaven. We as human beings are mere earthlings and are waiting for the Resurrection here on Earth which will lead to eternal life on Earth.
wordoftruthradio.com/questions/45.html
- Status