The Importance of Mary in Catholicism

[EricFilmer]

Show me in the text where Gabriel asks for Mary’s consent.

The following are statements made from Protestant Commentaries on the Gospel of Luke. Some are historical, some are modern. I’m adding the underlines for emphasis:

“1:38 And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord - It is not improbable, that this time of the virgin’s humble faith, consent, and expectation, might be the very time of her conceiving.”

• John Wesley (from his Explanatory Notes)
  biblestudytools.com/commentaries/wesleys-explanatory-notes/luke/luke-1.html

“’Luke 1:38: ’be it unto me according to thy word;’
she assented to what the angel said should be unto her; she earnestly desired it might be, and firmly believed it would be; she set her “Amen” to the angel’s message.”

• John Gill’s Exposition of the Bible
  biblestudytools.com/commentaries/gills-exposition-of-the-bible/luke-1-38.html

“Her acquiescence in the will of God concerning her, v. 38. She owns herself, 1. A believing subject to the divine authority: ‘Behold, the handmaid of the Lord.’ ‘ Lord, I am at thy service, at thy disposal, to do what thou commandest me.’ She objects not the danger of spoiling her marriage, and blemishing her reputation, but leaves the issue with God, and submits entirely to his will. 2. A believing expectant of the divine favour. She is not only content that it should be so, but humbly desires that it may be so: ‘Be it unto me according to thy word’.”
Matthew Henry Commentary on the Whole Bible (1706)
biblestudytools.com/commentaries/matthew-henry-complete/luke/1.html

“Verse 38: When Mary accepted what God wanted, she was taking a great risk.”

• Hilda Bright: Luke’s Good News
  biblestudytools.com/commentaries/matthew-henry-complete/luke/1.html

“Mary’s faith was also a statement of willing submission to God’s promise and will for her, as all statements of faith are. She willing accepted God’s promise and plan for her life, including all the inconveniences and risks attached to it.”

• Dr. Richard P. Bucher – Our Redeemer Lutheran Church
  orlutheran.com/html/luk126.html

“‘Behold I am the handmaid of the Lord: let it be to me according to your word’ (Luke 1:38). She accepted the miracle of the virgin birth gladly, although she felt unworthy of the calling… If God was to send His Son to earth, He had to have the acceptance and cooperation of Mary. She cheerfully and obediently submitted to His will… Mary shows us what God can do with our lives when are willing to submit to His designs.”

• Charles Dickson, A Protestant Pastor Looks at Mary (Our Sunday Visitor, Inc: Huntington, Indiana, 1996), pg. 74.

And here is a Protestant professor, who teaches at a Baptist university, who says that Mary’s statement “Let it be done to me…” IS a statement of consent, just as everyone in this forum has been telling you:

“’May it be done to me according to your word.’ This is an aorist middle (deponent) optative, which is a prayer or expressed desire… This verse shows the theological balance between God’s sovereignty and His covenant mandate (i.e., ‘if’…’then’) of human response. God planned and initiated; Mary cooperated!” (And yes, the exclamation point at the end was from the actual text)

• Dr. Bob Utley, Professor of Hermeneutics, East Texas Baptist University.
  freebiblecommentary.org/pdf/VOL3A.pdf (page 21)

And just so everyone knows what Dr. Bob Utley, as a professor of hermeneutics, teaches:
(from thefreedictionary.com/hermeneutics):
hermeneutics ˌhɜːmɪˈnjuːtɪks]
n (functioning as singular)

1. (Christian Religious Writings / Bible) the science of interpretation, esp of Scripture

In other words, he’s an expert on biblical languages and Scripture interpretation!

It doesn’t say “blessed is she who gave consent to what was offered.” You’re a story teller, Eric. But your stories can’t change Scripture.

So how about all these other people I quoted, Moondweller? Are they “story tellers” too? So did John Wesley not know what he was talking about? And are you going to say that John Gill and Matthew Henry, whose Bible commentaries are considered historical classics among Protestant theologians, didn’t know what they were talking about? And are all those other people clueless too? Shall we call Dr. Utley and tell him that he should resign his position as a professor of hermeneutics at East Texas Baptist University?

Let me guess, these are more questions of mine that you will end up ignoring.

I just gave you SEVEN quotes from credible Protestant sources (and from a variety of Protestant backgrounds) stating that Mary gave her consent to the message of Gabriel.

For the THIRD time I challenge you to find ONE, just ONE, credible Protestant Scripture scholar or theologian who backs up your claim that Mary did not offer consent.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

1. No, I didn’t misunderstand your question. I presume that what you mean by what we “don’t” do is erect statues of her, kneel and pray to her, elevate her to unbiblical positions, consider her our “mother,” or believe she has the power to intercede for us on earth and dispense “graces” in order to do “gracious works” which contribute to one’s future salvation. If that’s what you mean, then you’re right. We don’t do any of those things as a way of considering/counting her "blessed.
2. "We count her “blessed” because of what was said TO her and what was fulfilled through her. It’s that simple. We can go no further. We cannot exceed what is written concerning her.
3. AGAIN, there is no instruction to “honor” Mary either from Christ, the Apostles (they never even mention her in the Epistles) or Scripture. If I say any more on this subject I’ll be kicked off the forum.Well, my warning states differently. And the post I uploaded was deleted.I would differ with you based on that John passage but I was already warned. Suffice it to say that that passage does not present Mary as everyone’s “mother.”
4. Same thing! My translation interprets it “count me blessed.” Silly reply.
5. But you don’t elevate Joseph, the shepherds and the wise men to unbiblical, heavenly positions. Nor do I see statues of Joseph, the shepherds or the wise men erected in all your church buildings throughout the year. To which of the shepherds do you personally pray? Do you say a “Hail Shepherds?”
6. My interpretation is based on what is REVEALED in the Scriptural passage itself. Not your stories which have no validity to the actual Biblical text. Show me in the text where Gabriel asks for Mary’s consent.

1. You have yet to prove WHY it is unbiblical. I will be back on later to say why everything you just said has 0 proof but is purely anti-catholic opinion and nothing more.

 

[kepha1]

Which brings us right back to my original question. Can there be a Catholicism without Mary?

Catholicism is based on Jesus Christ, who came to the world through Mary.
No Mary, no Jesus.
Know Mary, know Jesus.

The context is based on the text, my friend. And the text is Scripture.

TEXT without CONTEXT is a PRETEXT.
The BIBLE without the CHURCH is just an EXCUSE!

Show me in the text where Gabriel asks for Mary’s consent.

The word “consent” is not anywhere in Luke. If you do the will of God, you are consenting to His will. Are you arguing that Mary’s free will was suspended over a text that just says she “believed”? Does anyone who does the will of the Father have their free will removed?

 

[pablope]

Off topic, but you may PM me.(1) Show me in Scripture where the Father instructs anyone to “honor” Mary. It’s Mary herself who said all generations will count me blessed. And she was right. She didn’t say all generations will “honor” me.

(2) According to the Scriptures salvation is not a reward but a GIFT, by grace through faith (Eph. 2:8-9). As is justification (Rom. 3:24) and eternal life (Rom. 6:23). But that’s all I can say about that on this thread. You may PM me.

1. Sorry, it was not my intent to be off topic…I was trying to connect your statements about Mary in this thread with those Biblical verses…that whatever you have said, will become part of you at the time of judgement, that you cannot run away from your statements.

Biblical verses for honoring Mary…I think all that needs to be quoted had already been quoted, so I will not need to repeat what has been posted.

2). Again, it was not my intent to deviate, but I cited those for you to reflect on in your own time. I am familiar with the verses you quote…these are standard Protestant defense quotes…but after you have had time to reflect on the verses from Matthew, see if those agree with the verses you quoted. I suggest that you start another thread with this subject, if you wish. Just one last tidbit for added reflection…read eph 2: 8-9, but include verse 10.

 

[pablope]

You now speak for Mary? Gabriel made a statement to her. Show me in the text where Gabriel asks for Mary’s consent. Mary’s response was one of faith, not consent. This is confirmed in Lk. 1:45:"And blessed {is} she who believed that there would be a fulfillment of what had been spoken to her by the Lord."It doesn’t say “blessed is she who gave consent to what was offered.” You’re a story teller, Eric. But your stories can’t change Scripture.

You seem to focus on Luke 1: 45…

Luke 34 and 38:

34Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I am a virgin?”…

38And Mary said, “Behold, the bondslave of the Lord; may it be done to me according to your word.” And the angel departed from her.

Verse 34 indicates Mary was not sure of this…but finally in verse 38, gives her conset.

 

[pablope]

No,

We don’t do any of those things as a way of considering/counting her "blessed."We count her “blessed” because of what was said TO her and what was fulfilled through her.

re Gabriel asks for Mary’s consent.

So, what do you do in your realm that are not Catholic ways, that would indicate that you are considering/counting her as “blessed”? You cited catholic ways, but you did not account about what you do.

 

[paul_c]

The word “consent” is not anywhere in Luke. If you do the will of God, you are consenting to His will. Are you arguing that Mary’s free will was suspended over a text that just says she “believed”? Does anyone who does the will of the Father have their free will removed?

Kepha,
this is exactly the problem. Moondweller denies that man has free will. In his theology, God has a plan and the people are mere puppets, pre-ordained before time to heaven or hell regardless of their actions… You see, the reason he is so vehemently denying Mary’s consent is that he understands that if Mary actually had a choice, then free will is proven and his theology is in ashes. He will not concede this point, even though it is obvious to most of on this thread that he is absolutely wrong, because he has so much invested in his theological outlook. After all, " May it be done to me according to thy word" clearly states consent to anyone who understand the English language.

This discussion really isn’t about Mary, she is just being used as a example to define the differences between Moondweller’s theology and ours. He’s trying to paint Mary as the center point of Catholic theology as a counterpoint to his Christ centered view. This is a strawman because he doesn’t understand Catholicism at all. This is an artifact of his view of Christ’s infinite mercy to those who have faith in him. This over rides everything else in Moondweller’s world. Once you believe as he does, then you need nothing else - no church, no sacraments, no good works, you really don’t even need the Bible. Its all about believing that Jesus will save you, no matter what if you just believe in his mercy. He will tell you that men were predestined for heaven or hell, but that’s really meaningless operatively, because its all about believing Jesus will save you if you believe that he will. Faith alone is the center of his theology

The problem for Moondweller, ultimately is that he doesn’t balance God’s Mercy with Justice. While he probably won’t come out and say it this way, there is no justice in his theology. He will argue vehemently that man is a weak and perverse creature and that nothing he can do merits anything from God. He will argue that everything is preordained and that nothing we do or say has any real meaning. So justice has no place in moondweller’s theology: it is completely mercy based.

The threats to his theology are many. Any show of free will in scripture, such as Mary’s consent must be explained away. Any view of merit on the behalf of man must be explained away. Any view of the value of Good works or of love must be explained away.
The sacraments are a threat to Moondweller, because it requires action in addition to faith. The church and the communion of saints are a threat to Moondweller because if we can help each other, then we are not relying solely on God’s mercy.

 

[Pax]

MD in Christ,

You asked a poor question of someone other than me. I answered your poor question with a telling question of my own as shown below.

It seems to me that your poor question has been answered by others, and That it is now necessary for you to answer my question which has exposed your lack of logical thought.

So just go for it.

God bless

MS in Christ,

Can we have the gospel of Luke without Mary?

That’s not the question. Is there a Catholicism without Mary?

 

[pablope]

Kepha,
this is exactly the problem. Moondweller denies that man has free will. In his theology, God has a plan and the people are mere puppets, pre-ordained before time to heaven or hell regardless of their actions… You see, the reason he is so vehemently denying Mary’s consent is that he understands that if Mary actually had a choice, then free will is proven and his theology is in ashes. He will not concede this point, even though it is obvious to most of on this thread that he is absolutely wrong, because he has so much invested in his theological outlook. After all, " May it be done to me according to thy word" clearly states consent to anyone who understand the English language.

This discussion really isn’t about Mary, she is just being used as a example to define the differences between Moondweller’s theology and ours. He’s trying to paint Mary as the center point of Catholic theology as a counterpoint to his Christ centered view. This is a strawman because he doesn’t understand Catholicism at all. This is an artifact of his view of Christ’s infinite mercy to those who have faith in him. This over rides everything else in Moondweller’s world. Once you believe as he does, then you need nothing else - no church, no sacraments, no good works, you really don’t even need the Bible. Its all about believing that Jesus will save you, no matter what if you just believe in his mercy. He will tell you that men were predestined for heaven or hell, but that’s really meaningless operatively, because its all about believing Jesus will save you if you believe that he will. Faith alone is the center of his theology

The problem for Moondweller, ultimately is that he doesn’t balance God’s Mercy with Justice. While he probably won’t come out and say it this way, there is no justice in his theology. He will argue vehemently that man is a weak and perverse creature and that nothing he can do merits anything from God. He will argue that everything is preordained and that nothing we do or say has any real meaning. So justice has no place in moondweller’s theology: it is completely mercy based.

The threats to his theology are many. Any show of free will in scripture, such as Mary’s consent must be explained away. Any view of merit on the behalf of man must be explained away. Any view of the value of Good works or of love must be explained away.
The sacraments are a threat to Moondweller, because it requires action in addition to faith. The church and the communion of saints are a threat to Moondweller because if we can help each other, then we are not relying solely on God’s mercy.

Very well said, Paul C…:tiphat:

 

[lil_flower_luv]

What I find shocking is the unimportance of Mary among those who have twisted scripture and fashioned their own theology. Do they believe that God erred in using Mary to bring Jesus forth? How much truth are they willing to discard in order to be comfortable? And, my, how they have kicked Luther and Calvin under the bus! I guess Martin and Jean just looked a little “too Catholic” for modern tastes.

Catholics have the wonderful grace of just being Catholic 100% of the time. All others must split their time between being anti-Cathoilc and then their denomination after. It is a shame.

Pray for them! Their problem is not with the Catholic Church, but with God.

Their problem is also with what they think the Catholic Church is! We’d have a lot more converts to the Faith if people would just stop the lies already!

 

[adrift]

The word seed is used over 200 times in the OT in like-manner, so the explanation is fallible from the start. To say Jesus represents “enmity” here is blasphamous. The clear meaning is God will put “hostility” between man and Satan, hostility between God and Satan previously existed.

Does the “Apocalypse of St. John” hold more weight than Scripture in the Catholic church? If not, then why post that which contradicts Scripture?

I realize that Calvin has been banned and I am sorry since there are things in his post that need to be addressed. Obviously he did not understand that the Apoclypse is another name for Revelation which is part of Scripture.

 

[adrift]

Is that in Scripture; Mary prays for who? Why do Catholics tell non-Catholic that they venerate instaed of worship; is it PC? Veneration is worship you know; look it up if you don’t believe me and God spoke something on that issue somewhere in both the OT and NT.

I did look it up in Websters

1: respect or awe inspired by the dignity, wisdom, dedication, or talent of a person

That is not the definition of Worship but this is

2: reverence offered a divine being or supernatural power; also : an act of expressing such reverence

It is because the definition of Worship is not used that we are often accused of worshiping Mary.

 

[EricFilmer]

Show me in the text where Gabriel asks for Mary’s consent.

Generally speaking, consent can be requested in two different ways, and we see examples of both all the time in everyday life:

1. I can ask for consent using an interrogative statement.
   For example: I can say to you, “Moondweller, will you please answer my list of questions from Post #127?”
2. I can express to someone a plan that involves him, and await for him to either accept the plan or reject it.
   For example: I can say to you, “Moondweller, I envision this forum as being a scholarly debate in which you answer the questions I posted in #127.”
   Unless I intend to force you to comply (and naturally it is impossible for me to do so) it is obvious that you have a choice, and that you can either consent or not consent to the stated plan.

Acceptance and rejection to either method can be done by word (i.e., saying either “yes” or “no”) and/or deed (i.e., simply acting in accordance with the proposed plan or refusing to).

In both #1 and #2 above, I “asked” you for consent, it’s just a matter of how.

The dialog between Mary and Gabriel demonstrates what I described in #2. Because Gabriel would not force Mary to comply, Gabriel presented her with the plan and then waited for her to accept or reject it.

Keep in mind that Gabriel stated that Mary had been chosen to be the mother of the Messiah, but at the time he revealed this, she was not yet the mother. In other words, the plan was not already in effect, it was in the proposal stage. The details of the plan were in the future tense: “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you.” The Gospel of Luke shows the expression of a plan with the presentation of a choice to consent or not consent. So yes, along the lines of what I stated above in #2, Scripture demonstrates Gabriel asking Mary for consent. It just was not in terms of an interrogative statement.

 

[EricFilmer]

Kepha,
this is exactly the problem. Moondweller denies that man has free will. In his theology, God has a plan and the people are mere puppets, pre-ordained before time to heaven or hell regardless of their actions…

Hey Paul (and everyone else participating in this discussion),

Although this was addressed to Kepha, I would like to comment on it.

First of all, I think anyone who has read MD’s comments has a rational reason for interpreting his theology as such (after all, he has given us precious little reason to interpret his theology in any other way). If this is not an accurate assessment of what MD actually believes then he is, of course, free to clarify his position in this forum. If MD chooses to then I hope that he provides some clear (name removed by moderator)ut rather than simply making statements like, “You are taking me out of context” (without any further elaboration). After all, when his interpretation of the Gospel of Luke was deemed as a kind of rape, he complained that he was taken out of context, but consistently refused to clarify how his interpretation did not constitute rape (or even a serious crime).

On the other hand, if this is, indeed, an accurate representation of MD’s theology (i.e., that he believes in some sort of predestination) , then from his own point of view this whole discussion would have to be pointless. For example:

Why did MD start this thread? Because he was predestined to.
Why do Catholics believe what we do about Mary? Because we are predestined to.
Will other people in this thread end up accepting MD’s theology? Those who are predestined to will, those who aren’t won’t.
Will MD end up accepting what Catholics believe about Mary? It depends on whether or not he is predestined to.

And let us not forget the whole topic of the entire thread:

Can there be a Catholic Faith without Mary? To answer that we would have to know whether or not God predestined there to be a Catholic Faith without Mary. Apparently, that is unknowable to any human, so why did MD even start this thread to begin with? (Oh, wait, I forgot: because he was predestined to)

You see what I mean?

Anyway, I am just throwing all this out there as “food for thought” to everyone who is participating in this thread discussion.

 

[Matorin]

Yeesh, four against 1? I can’t imagine how moondweller keeps up!

There’s a lot of misrepresentation (i.e. strawmen) being sat up and knocked down here, and it’s a bit disturbing to see…if I may touch on two things:

One:

1. The New Testament teaches that Christians become brothers and sisters of Christ.
2. Therefore we, in turn, become adopted children of his Father.
3. If by becoming brothers and sisters of Christ his Father becomes our Father, then likewise his mother becomes our mother.
4. God’s law requires us to honor our mothers.

---

1. You are referring to Hebrews 2, yes?
2. There is no “therefore” or “in turn” here, these things either happen at the same time or we are adopted prior to, but certainly 1) is not before 2)
3. So here we have five (although six implicitly) types of relationship.

a) God the creator’s relationship with God the logos.
b) God the creator’s relationship with humans
c) God the logos’ relationship with humans
d) Mary the human’s relationship with God the logos
e) Mary’s the human’s relationship with humans
implicitly f) Mary the human’s relationship to God the creator

Can you explain to me (and it’s going to have to be philosophically because as far as I can tell, it’s not super evident from Scripture directly) why these relationships are all associative if they differ by nature?

1. What do you mean by honor here? If you could completely define, including actions corresponding to, the word “honor” as it is meant by Jesus, meant by Moses (if there is a difference), and how you are using it here (if there is a difference).

Two:

1)Mary is the mother of Jesus?
2) Jesus the head of the Church?
3) We are the body of the Church?
4) The mother of the head is likewise the mother of the body.
5) Mary is the mother of the head of the Church

If you would be willing to explain how, becaue syllogisms are not 100% accurate if the essence of three things are different, the combination of physical mother, divine logos, and relationship of human soul to divine logos

I have also heard it said that Mary is the neck of the church through which all Grace’s flow. According to these syllogisms and your own personal thought, is this an accurate description.

 

[EricFilmer]

Yeesh, four against 1?

It was four against two, but Calvin got banned. Although I don’t question such decisions the moderators make, I personally wanted Calvin to continue the discussion.

I can’t imagine how moondweller keeps up!

In my case he keeps up very well, because he simply leaves 99% of my questions unanswered.

One:

1. The New Testament teaches that Christians become brothers and sisters of Christ.
2. Therefore we, in turn, become adopted children of his Father.
3. If by becoming brothers and sisters of Christ his Father becomes our Father, then likewise his mother becomes our mother.
4. God’s law requires us to honor our mothers.

---

1. You are referring to Hebrews 2, yes?

Naturally I should have cited my Scripture verses in my past post (so I was getting sloppy).

Yes, Hebrews 2 presents statements about Christ as our brother.

In terms of being children of God, Jesus is the only true Child of God. Humans, therefore, are creatures of the Creator. According to St. Paul, the Spirit we receive as Christians transforms us into adopted children of the Father:

“So with us; when we were children we were slaves to the elemental spirits of the universe. But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons. And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, ‘Abba! Father!’ So through God you are no longer a slave but a son, and if a son then an heir.” (Galatians 4:3-7, RSV)

“For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the spirit of sonship.” (Romans 8:14,15, RSV)

“He destined us in love to be his sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace which he freely bestowed on us in the Beloved.” (Ephesians 1:5 & 6, RSV)

1. There is no “therefore” or “in turn” here, these things either happen at the same time or we are adopted prior to, but certainly 1) is not before 2)

Then let us leave out those terms. It suffices to simply say that as Christians we become brothers and sisters of Christ, and adopted children of the Father.

1. So here we have five (although six implicitly) types of relationship…

Can you explain to me (and it’s going to have to be philosophically because as far as I can tell, it’s not super evident from Scripture directly) why these relationships are all associative if they differ by nature?

We can get philosophical if you wish, but it is not necessary. It goes like this:

1. Jesus (Logos) is a divine person with a divine nature. As such he is eternal.
2. At the Incarnation, Jesus took on an additional human nature, which was derived from his mother.
3. The Incarnation allowed the divine Logos to truly be a representative of the human race (the “New Adam”) and share in our humanity.
4. By being one with Jesus, and because we share in all the aspects of his humanity, we likewise share in his relationship with Mary, which is that of mother and Son.

1. What do you mean by honor here? If you could completely define, including actions corresponding to, the word “honor” as it is meant by Jesus, meant by Moses (if there is a difference), and how you are using it here (if there is a difference).

As a first step, maybe individual Christians should contemplate this based upon their own understanding of the term “honor.” Everyone knows the various things that Catholics do to honor Mary, but we are often accused of “going too far.” I say that others “don’t go far enough.” Whatever the word “honor” means, in this context it is a verb, an action. Hence, it is not supposed to be a passive awareness of Mary being the mother of the Messiah.

1)Mary is the mother of Jesus?
2) Jesus the head of the Church?
3) We are the body of the Church?
4) The mother of the head is likewise the mother of the body.
5) Mary is the mother of the head of the Church

If you would be willing to explain how, becaue syllogisms are not 100% accurate if the essence of three things are different, the combination of physical mother, divine logos, and relationship of human soul to divine logos.

What I stated above applied here also. The essence that we are considering here is the human nature of Jesus and how we, as humans, share in it.

Christ has a mother (Luke 1:31).
We are one in the body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:27).
Christ is the head of the Church (Colossians 1:18).
The mother of the head is likewise the mother of the body. (No specific Scripture citation, just simple deduction)

Whatever you are saying about a difference in essences here, the fact remains that in a mystical way, we share in the physical, biological body of Christ’s human nature. If this is not so then we are all in trouble, because it was his physical, biological body that died on the cross for our sins. Scripture labels this sharing in Jesus as him being our brother. Our brother’s mother is ours as well.

I have also heard it said that Mary is the neck of the church through which all Grace’s flow. According to these syllogisms and your own personal thought, is this an accurate description.

This sounds like a “Mary as Mediatrix of All Grace” statement. I personally don’t have a “horse in that race” and will let the theologians work it out. But I don’t see where this bears on what I have been posting. My focus is on how we, as Christians, honor Mary, not on how Mary channels grace into our lives.

 

[po18guy]

2 Peter 3:15-16
“And count the forbearance of our Lord as salvation. So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures”.

The wages of anti-Catholicism is ignorance - the ignorance of God’s revealed truth.

 

[moondweller]

GreggAlvarez:

I would like you to show me where God instructs anyone to NOT “honor” Mary.

By turning it around and asking me to prove a negative you’re admitting that you can’t point me to any Scripture where the Father, Christ, or the Apostles instruct us to “honor” Mary.

When was the last time you ever called Mary “blessed”? I have never heard a non-Catholic say Blessed Mary… EVER!!!

Why would I have to SAY “blessed Mary?” I “count” (consider) her blessed because of what was told TO her by Gabriel and what was fulfilled THROUGH her. That’s why all generations count her “blessed.” Only one woman could be chosen to give birth to the Messiah. And the one chosen truly is blessed. She’s not “blessed” because you or I call her “blessed.” She’s blessed because of what was told TO her and what was fulfilled THROUGH her. That’s why all generations count her “blessed.”

 

[moondweller]

EricFilmer:

The following are statements made from Protestant Commentaries on the Gospel of Luke. Some are historical, some are modern. I’m adding the underlines for emphasis:

Of all of them only John Wesley used the word consent (yet it’s nowhere found in the Scriptural text itself). And that doesn’t surprise me. However:
(1) “assented” is not “consented”
(2) “acquiesced” is not “consented”
(3) “accepted” is not “consented”
(4) “cooperate” is not “consented”

So how about all these other people I quoted, Moondweller? Are they “story tellers” too? So did John Wesley not know what he was talking about?

Do you think John Wesley found the word “consented” in the Biblical text? Did he show you in his commentary where Gabriel asked for Mary’s consent/permission? Assented, acquiesced, accepted and cooperated all relate to humble belief in what the angel told her. Consent does not. “Consent” is out of the realm of humble belief. That’s why you don’t find that word in the text, but rather that she “believed” that there would be a fulfillment of what had been spoken TO her (Lk. 1:45). Maybe it’s time you acquiesced and humbly believed the text. How bout it?

 

[StTommyMore]

By turning it around and asking me to prove a negative you’re admitting that you can’t point me to any Scripture where the Father, Christ, or the Apostles instruct us to “honor” Mary.Why would I have to SAY “blessed Mary?” I “count” (consider) her blessed because of what was told TO her by Gabriel and what was fulfilled THROUGH her. That’s why all generations count her “blessed.” Only one woman could be chosen to give birth to the Messiah. And the one chosen truly is blessed. She’s not “blessed” because you or I call her “blessed.” She’s blessed because of what was told TO her and what was fulfilled THROUGH her. That’s why all generations count her “blessed.”

The point is you don’t consider her blessed because your actions do not follow through with your professed belief. How you act is how you believe. Everyone who has faith in the Scriptures demonstrate their faith through action. You say that you call her blessed, but your actions say otherwise. If you truly gave the Blessed Mother the respect she deserves, then you would have no problems with the dogmas. The truth is you do not respect her at all.