The Importance of Mary in Catholicism

[Philthy]

Moondweller,
You claimed in a post yesterday that you beleived Mary had free will. So, why wouldn’t that free will apply here? Was she or was she not free to accept the role of Mother of Jesus? From her own words from scripture, isn’t it clear that she took on this role willingly and that it was not forced on her? No where do we see her complain, do we?

As for Gabriel asking for Mary’s consent - you are right that scripture does not record it being asked as a question. But that doesn’t mean that Mary didn’t consent. Its like someone telling you that you won the lottery. You still need to accept it, even though it is assumed by the messenger that acceptance is a foregone conclusion.

You are correct! It was BOTH a decree AND a consent of the will! This reality, portrayed numerous times in both the OT and NT Scriptures is a mystery that entirely escapes the mind of the “faith alone” adherent. They can’t see it for what it is because they have closed themselves from seeing what *they *have limited it to being. There is not one instance in the entirety of Scripture where faith and the consent of the human will do not unite to have their salvific effects. But if one is committed to, and blinded by, the belief that there is faith independent of the will (ie faith alone), then they will never see it no matter how many times it is presented to them.

Blessings!

 

[Philthy]

Hi Jenny!

If you say so; but that is obviously not true…but have it your way. God won’t see it as you do-I am certain of that.

You are not at all certain about what God sees in this respect Jenny - you merely have strong beliefs. Confusing what you are “certain” about and what you hold as an article of “faith” is something that those unwilling to genuinely engage in apologetic debate do.

You were not able to refute the fact that Mary called Jesus her Savior while in her womb; which I can’t imagine anyone who calls themselves a Christian could dispute that the Savior mentioned in the Bible is the One who saves the lost sinner.

So what you are saying is that since you “can’t imagine” it, then it cannot be true? Do you really hold yourself out to be on an intellectual par with some of the great minds that have agreed with the IC - say, Aquinas? You should give that some humble consideration…
It’s really not that complicated: by a singular divine act, Mary was “saved” at the moment of her conception. From what was she saved? She, like all humanity, would have been born into “condemnation” as a descendant of Adam (cf Rom 5). She did not actually “commit” a sin, much like an infant has not committed a sin. And yet, she still required a “saviour” due to her lineage from Adam. And had not God intervened to “save” her from that she would have gone on to live a life similar to the rest of us: committing actual sin. But she didnt, and the reason she didnt is because God “saved” her in advance of her sins(unique act of God) rather than after she committed them (how the rest of us are saved).
And it (the IC) really isnt so much about Mary as it is about Christ - one must always keep that foremost in their mind…these doctrines are nothing without their testimony to who Christ is.

Nor can anyone dispute that Mary called Jesus her Savior.

On technical grounds I will dispute it: she calls God her Saviour, not Jesus. More to the point, though, is the discussion above, which resolves the “obvious contradiction” you refer to.

 

[Fair_Lady]

Does it concern anyone else here that when the focus is on Mary, it takes away the focus on Jesus?

COLOSSIANS 1:15-18: (NKJ)
15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.
16 For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him.
17 And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist.
18 And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence.

If we contemplate fully on the above passage, which is just one very small part of what the Bible says about Christ, why would we need/want our focus to be on someone outside our Triune God? As Isaiah 9:6 so powerfully states it - “his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.”

 

[StTommyMore]

Does it concern anyone else here that when the focus is on Mary, it takes away the focus on Jesus?

This is the silliest argument of all. Why do we honor Mary? Not for her own sake but because she is the Mother of God. When we pray the Rosary, we are meditating on the Scriptures. Our devotion to Mary is devotion to the Son.

 

[Fair_Lady]

This is the silliest argument of all. Why do we honor Mary? Not for her own sake but because she is the Mother of God.

No, Mary is not the mother of God. In His humanity, Jesus’ mother was Mary. But He existed eternally before she was born. He is eternal as are the Father and Holy Spirit, so no - Mary is not the mother of God. To say that implies that the godhead - the Father, Son and Holy Spirit had Mary as their mother.

Our devotion to Mary is devotion to the Son.

No. Devotion to Mary is devotion to Mary. She was a separate entity from Jesus

 

[StTommyMore]

No, Mary is not the mother of God. In His humanity, Jesus’ mother was Mary. But He existed long before she was born. He is eternal as the Father and Holy Spirit, so no - Mary is not the mother of God.

No. Devotion to Mary is devotion to Mary. She was a separate entity from Jesus

Jesus is God, ergo Mary is the mother of God. Do you say that your mother is just the mother of your body? Of course not. Mary was the Mother of Jesus, who had a human nature and a divine nature united intrinsically (hypostatic union). She was a creation, and at the same time Mother of God. I for one dislike your close-mindedness. It is rude to come on a Catholic website, accuse us of heresy, and reject any and all explanations. THat is not how dialog works,

 

[StTommyMore]

This is my blogpost on Mary. This explains things much better.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Does it concern anyone else here that when the focus is on Mary, it takes away the focus on Jesus?

When you are looking at a great painting and remarking to others about how awesome it is, does the artist rush over and say, “Hey, what are you praising that painting for? I’m the one you should be looking at?”

Hardly.

Mary is God’s greatest creation; she (having no sin) is what all of us were supposed to be like if not for the fall of Adam and Eve.

Consequently, when we marvel at God’s creation, we are implicitly glorifying the Creator, and He’s not jealous one bit about that.

 

[Randy_Carson]

No, Mary is not the mother of God. In His humanity, Jesus’ mother was Mary. But He existed eternally before she was born. He is eternal as are the Father and Holy Spirit, so no - Mary is not the mother of God. To say that implies that the godhead - the Father, Son and Holy Spirit had Mary as their mother.

You are incorrect on multiple levels.

Mary is not the mother of the Godhead. However, the following is also true:

1. Mary is the mother of Jesus.
2. Jesus is fully God.
   Therefore, Mary is the mother of God.

To deny this is to fall back into an ancient heresy which the Church defeated in the earliest centuries. Don’t go back to wallowing in that error.

 

[Randy_Carson]

No, Mary is not the mother of God. In His humanity, Jesus’ mother was Mary. But He existed eternally before she was born.

Not as man, he didn’t.

Calling Mary “Mother of God” Tells Us Who Jesus Is
by Marcellino D’Ambrosio, Ph.D.
catholicexchange.com/2010/01/02/125718/

The mother of the messiah has been called many things in the last 2000 years — the Virgin Mary, Our Lady, the Blessed Mother. But call her “the Mother of God” and you’ll see some Christians squirm.

This is nothing new. One day in the early fifth century, a priest preached a stirring sermon in the presence of the patriarch of Constantinople. His subject was the holy mother of Jesus. The preacher continually referred to Mary as the “Theotokos” meaning “God-bearer” or mother of God. This was no innovation — Christians had invoked Mary under this title for at least two hundred years. Nevertheless, at the close of the sermon, the patriarch ascended the steps of the pulpit to correct the preacher. We should call Mary the Mother of Christ, said Patriarch Nestorius, not the Mother of God. She was the mother of his human nature, not the mother of his divinity.

His comment sparked a riot. And the dispute rocked not only the congregation, but the entire empire. Cyril, patriarch of Alexandria, Egypt, immediately recognized that Nestorius’ Marian theology was a symptom of a much deeper problem, a problem with the incarnation itself. For to deny Mary the title “Mother of God” makes of Jesus a dichotomy, a split personality. It would mean that God had not really embraced our humanity so as to become human. Rather, the humanity of Christ is hermetically sealed off from the divinity, as if Jesus were two persons, as if human nature was so distasteful that God, in Christ, had to keep it at arm’s distance. It is okay, according to Nestorius, to say that in Jesus, God raised Lazarus, or multiplied the loaves, or walked on water. But it is not okay to say that in Jesus God is born or that God died.

Cyril, aware that this was a challenge to the heart of our faith, demanded that an ecumenical council be called to settle the matter. So in 431, the Council of Ephesus met, under Cyril’s leadership, and solemnly proclaimed that Mary is indeed rightly to be honored as the Theotokos, the Mother of God. It proclaimed that from the moment of his conception, God truly became man. Of course Mary is a creature and could never be the origin of the eternal Trinity, God without beginning or end. But the second person of the blessed Trinity chose to truly become man. He did not just come and borrow a human body and drive it around for awhile, ascend back to heaven, and discard it like an old car. No, at the moment of his conception in the womb of Mary, an amazing thing happened. God the Son united himself with a human nature forever. Humanity and divinity were so closely bound together in Jesus, son of Mary, that they could never be separated again. Everything that would be done by the son of Mary would be the act both of God and of man. So indeed it would be right to say that a man raised Lazarus from the dead and commanded the wind and waves, that God was born that first Christmas day and that, on Good Friday, God died.

The Council of Ephesus, once confirmed by the Pope, became the third ecumenical council of the Catholic Church, and its teaching in this matter is dogma, truth revealed by God which all are bound to accept.

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

Sorry, counselor. If the witness to a crime can be demonstrated to have POSSIBLY been in error regarding his or her testimony, then the element of reasonable doubt has been introduced.

I don’t think that analogy works. It’s not that Paul is “possibly” in error. It’s just that there is more than one “possible” way to read the “all” in “all have sinned.” Which way you read it has to be argued for, not assumed.

In the case at hand, it has been demonstrated that “all” cannot be thought to mean literally “all”.

You’re overstating your success here. You’ve only demonstrated that “all” doesn’t have to be “all without exception.” But since I never disputed that point, you really haven’t advanced the argument any further.

Consequently, Romans 1:28 does not provide you with an iron-clad refutation of the Immaculate Conception.

I never said it did. (When did I cite Romans 1:28 to that effect?) Perhaps you’re referring to Romans 3:23. If so, then you’re still misrepresenting my position. I didn’t say it’s “iron-clad” refutation. I said that while it might admit of exceptions, Mary probably isn’t one of those exceptions in Paul’s thinking. And I also gave supporting reasons for that, which I won’t get into here.

The burden of proof is on you to PROVE that Paul meant to include even Mary in this discussion.

Recall that the burden of proof rests with the one taking the affirmative. Rome affirms Mary’s sinlessness from conception. I deny that. Since you take Rome’s view, you have the burden of proof here. I don’t have to prove that Mary isn’t an exception (although I can) You have to prove that she is (and so far have not even come close).

But Paul is painting with a very broad brush and there is obvious reason to believe that had he been queried about the matter more closely, he would have conceded multiple exceptions as previously explained.

Previously you pointed out that there are people whom the Bible calls “righteous.” But being “righteous” doesn’t mean “sinless.” As I previously responded, even Paul calls himself righteous with respect to the Law. Thousands of people could call themselves “blameless” as Paul did. But Paul says each and every one of them is a sinner. Since, in Romans 3, Paul seems to be thinking of “actual sins,” (in Catholic parlance) rather than original sin, then we might safely infer that Paul does not have those incapable of sin in mind at this point (such as infants, those of diminished capacity etc.) But that’s just an inference. Because when we also join his discussion in Romans 3 with what he goes on to develop in Romans 5, and when we bring in other scriptures such as, Psalm 51:5 (“in sin my mother conceived me”), then we can ask if Paul would have thought of those babies / people of diminished capacity as being born with a sinful nature, and he certainly would say yes. So “all have sinned” may not describe every human being at the moment, but it is an apt description for everyone who lives long enough to be capable of sin. Since Mary is both a human being and of age, she certainly would seem to be in the category of sinner for Paul.

 

[redrosetea]

So, without Mary there is no Catholicism? She’s preeminent. All of Catholicism rests on the consent of a woman.

All of salvation rest on the consent of a woman…Without a mother, there can be no son

 

[Randy_Carson]

You’re overstating your success here. You’ve only demonstrated that “all” doesn’t have to be “all without exception.” But since I never disputed that point, you really haven’t advanced the argument any further.

Fine. All I have done is to demonstrate that “all” does not necessarily mean “all without exception”. Romans 3:23 is not the proof-text against the Immaculate Conception that many non-Catholics think it is.

I never said it did. (When did I cite Romans 1:28 to that effect?) Perhaps you’re referring to Romans 3:23. If so, then you’re still misrepresenting my position. I didn’t say it’s “iron-clad” refutation. I said that while it might admit of exceptions, Mary probably isn’t one of those exceptions in Paul’s thinking. And I also gave supporting reasons for that, which I won’t get into here.

First, Romans 3:23 was what I had in mind…dunno what I was thinking of. Second, the “probably” in your statement is the problem. We have no way of knowing what Paul did or didn’t know of Mary’s sinlessness. Either way, I’m content to have demonstrated that “all” does not mean “all without exception”. Another Protestant proof-text deflected. :dancing:

Recall that the burden of proof rests with the one taking the affirmative. Rome affirms Mary’s sinlessness from conception. I deny that. Since you take Rome’s view, you have the burden of proof here. I don’t have to prove that Mary isn’t an exception (although I can) You have to prove that she is (and so far have not even come close).

I disagree. This is a Cathlic Apologetics forum, and Catholic doctrines are assumed to be correct. We have home court advantage. If you want to deny a Catholic position, then state your premise and make your case. You might try something like, “The Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is unbiblical”, for example. I mean, that IS your position, isn’t it? Well, sir, take the affirmative and prove it.

Previously you pointed out that there are people whom the Bible calls “righteous.” But being “righteous” doesn’t mean “sinless.” As I previously responded, even Paul calls himself righteous with respect to the Law. Thousands of people could call themselves “blameless” as Paul did. But Paul says each and every one of them is a sinner. Since, in Romans 3, Paul seems to be thinking of “actual sins,” (in Catholic parlance) rather than original sin, then we might safely infer that Paul does not have those incapable of sin in mind at this point (such as infants, those of diminished capacity etc.) But that’s just an inference. Because when we also join his discussion in Romans 3 with what he goes on to develop in Romans 5, and when we bring in other scriptures such as, Psalm 51:5 (“in sin my mother conceived me”), then we can ask if Paul would have thought of those babies / people of diminished capacity as being born with a sinful nature, and he certainly would say yes. So “all have sinned” may not describe every human being at the moment, but it is an apt description for everyone who lives long enough to be capable of sin. Since Mary is both a human being and of age, she certainly would seem to be in the category of sinner for Paul.

I’m not sure what Paul did or did not know in the middle of the first century is really relevant. Paul was obviously aware of the many miracles God had performed in the Hebrew scriptures, and he knew that Jesus was alive after being crucified. Clearly, his mind had been expanded somewhat. Do you think Paul would have been surprised to learn that the God who created Adam and Eve without sin would also prevent Mary from inheriting that sin? I don’t think so.

Either way, there is nothing in the Bible that contradicts the Immaculate Conception.

 

[moondweller]

All of salvation rest on the consent of a woman…Without a mother, there can be no son

IOW, you’re stating that ALL of Catholicism rests on Mary, its polestar. Hence, without Mary there is no Catholicism.

 

[Randy_Carson]

IOW, you’re stating that ALL of Catholicism rests on Mary, its polestar. Hence, without Mary there is no Catholicism.

I believe what he said is that without Mary, there would have been no redeemer for any of us, Moondweller. IOW, if Jesus had not been born, he could not have died on the cross for you. You would still be dead in your sins.

It’s a BIGGER deal than you have stated.

 

[moondweller]

Fine. All I have done is to demonstrate that “all” does not necessarily mean “all without exception”. Romans 3:23 is not the proof-text against the Immaculate Conception that many non-Catholics think it is.

Oh but it is. It is the absolute proof-text.

In 3:23 the verb “sinned” in the Greek is in aorist tense, not perfect. Hence, it should be rendered “all SINNED,” not “all have sinned” See the same in Rom. 5:21. In both Rom. 3:23 and 5:12 God is looking back at Adam’s federal headship. IOW, “all sinned” in Adam. There is no distinction between Jew and Gentile: “all sinned” in Adam. It’s in reference to the whole human race born in Adam, Jew and Gentile alike. Consequently, that would include Mary. There’s no getting around it.

Then there’s a change in tenses to the present tense: “…and are falling short of the glory of God.” Look at it this way, Randy. When Adam had once sinned, in Eden, he continually fell short, outside of Eden, as did his whole race, by him and after him.

Then Paul presents the remedy for Adam’s hopeless and helpless race in verse 24: “being justified as a gift by His grace (how?) through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus;”

The only way Mary could possibly escape the indictment in Rom 3:23 is to have been a wholly separate creation of God. She was not. She was BORN, not created. She belonged to Adam’s ungodly race but was justified along with all true believers, “…as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus.” And for this reason, and this reason alone, she calls the Lord her Savior.

 

[StTommyMore]

Oh but it is. It is the absolute proof-text.

In 3:23 the verb “sinned” in the Greek is in aorist tense, not perfect. Hence, it should be rendered “all SINNED,” not “all have sinned” See the same in Rom. 5:21. In both Rom. 3:23 and 5:12 God is looking back at Adam’s federal headship. IOW, “all sinned” in Adam. There is no distinction between Jew and Gentile: “all sinned” in Adam. It’s in reference to the whole human race born in Adam, Jew and Gentile alike. Consequently, that would include Mary. There’s no getting around it.

Then there’s a change in tenses to the present tense: “…and are falling short of the glory of God.” Look at it this way, Randy. When Adam had once sinned, in Eden, he continually fell short, outside of Eden, as did his whole race, by him and after him.

Then Paul presents the remedy for Adam’s hopeless and helpless race in verse 24: “being justified as a gift by His grace (how?) through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus;”

The only way Mary could possibly escape the indictment in Rom 3:23 is to have been a wholly separate creation of God. She was not. She was BORN, not created. She belonged to Adam’s ungodly race but was justified along with all true believers, “…as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus.” And for this reason, and this reason alone, she calls the Lord her Savior.

But Jesus was born as well, with a human nature. I guess by your argument that Jesus sinned.

 

[moondweller]

I believe what he said is that without Mary, there would have been no redeemer for any of us, Moondweller. IOW, if Jesus had not been born, he could not have died on the cross for you. You would still be dead in your sins.

It’s a BIGGER deal than you have stated.

But like you he put the whole focus on Mary: “All of salvation rests on the consent of a woman…” What he is saying is that if not for the “woman” I’d still be dead in my sins. His statement goes back further than Christ and rests solely on the woman. He stated the Catholic view.

 

[StTommyMore]

But like you he put the whole focus on Mary: “All of salvation rests on the consent of a woman…” What he is saying is that if not for the “woman” I’d still be dead in my sins. His statement goes back further than Christ and rests solely on the woman. He stated the Catholic view.

It is the Woman who will crush the head of the Serpent.

 

[davidv]

But like you he put the whole focus on Mary: “All of salvation rests on the consent of a woman…” What he is saying is that if not for the “woman” I’d still be dead in my sins. His statement goes back further than Christ and rests solely on the woman. He stated the Catholic view.

Just like, all salvation rested on the consent of Abraham, or Moses, or any other pivotal person in salvation history.