The Importance of Mary in Catholicism

  • Thread starter Thread starter moondweller
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Well, at least Moondweller equates salvation with Catholicism. A little off in definition but we are getting somewhere. Redrosetea said “all of salvation…” and Moondweller said, “All of Catholicism…” I agree with you on this one thing about Catholicism, Moondweller. I would word it a little differently but that works too.

Anyway, for the non-Catholics who are still in disagreement, why even think things like “without Mary?” We would never think “without Jesus,” without Creation," “without Christianity,” “without God”… That is like saying God does things by chance. You have the burden of proof on why God chose Mary and nobody else to be Mother of God. Saying “He could have chose someone else” is undeniable but that does not change the fact that He chose Mary. Nothing in the Bible happened by chance but when it comes to Mary, people seem to think there was no reason. That just “happened” to be who He picked.

And Mary is Mother of God. Nobody ever said she was Mother the Holy Trinity. The law of non-contradiction is useful. Jesus is not the Trinity. Jesus is not the Father. Jesus is not the Holy Spirit. Jesus is Jesus. Jesus is God. Mary is Mother of Jesus. Mary is Mother of God. Through Mary, God was born. One cannot separate His divinity from His humanity. Ok, I can understand why the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption of Mary and veneration of Mary are difficult to grasp (not for me but for non-Catholics). They are very biblical but I can see why one would think they are not. But really… Why is the “Mother of God” doctrine so terrible? We are not claiming ontological motherhood. It is amazing how many non-Catholics assume we mean this. Are His divinity and humanity separable or inseparable? If you claim the latter, then why separate them? If you claim the former, then if you separate His divinity from His humanity, then He is no longer God. If you claim this last statement, 1. You are not Christian and 2. This mentality is actually a lot easier to refute.
 
StTommyMore said:
But Jesus was born as well, with a human nature. I guess by your argument that Jesus sinned.
Click to expand...
You need to read the Scriptures, STM. It’s stated in them that He knew no sin but became sin (our sins) on our behalf, so that we might (through personal faith in Him) become the righteousness of God in Him. (2 Cor. 5:21). “In Him” refers to the other Biblical fact that He Himself is another “Adam” (1 Cor. 15:45). Not a mere living soul, but a life-giving spirit. Totally unlike the first Adam who “sinned.”
 
moondweller said:
You need to read the Scriptures, STM. It’s stated in them that He knew no sin but became sin (our sins) on our behalf, so that we might (through personal faith in Him) become the righteousness of God in Him. (2 Cor. 5:21). “In Him” refers to the other Biblical fact that He Himself is another “Adam” (1 Cor. 15:45). Not a mere living soul, but a life-giving spirit. Totally unlike the first Adam who “sinned.”
Click to expand...
I have probably read them more than you. I suggest you take a break from the forums, because you are ceasing to make rational arguments, and instead are opting for the personal attack.
 
GreggAlvarez said:
Well, at least Moondweller equates salvation with Catholicism.
Click to expand...
I did? :nope:
A little off in definition but we are getting somewhere. Redrosetea said “all of salvation…” and Moondweller said, “All of Catholicism…” I agree with you on this one thing about Catholicism, Moondweller. I would word it a little differently but that works too.
Click to expand...
No matter how you word it, Gregg, you too would also make Mary preeminent, as did Redrosetea.
 
StTommyMore said:
I have probably read them more than you. I suggest you take a break from the forums, because you are ceasing to make rational arguments, and instead are opting for the personal attack.
Click to expand...
What was irrational was your statement that my argument assumed that Jesus also sinned simply because He was born. Such a statement would lead me to think you hadn’t read those Scriptures that clearly state otherwise. Else why would you make such a statement?
 
moondweller said:
What was irrational was your statement that my argument assumed that Jesus also sinned simply because He was born. Such a statement would lead me to think you hadn’t read those Scriptures that clearly state otherwise. Else why would you make such a statement?
Click to expand...
To show how your selective hermeneutic makes no sense.
 
Moondweller, if you can legitimately refute this, I will stop trying to prove our case even though it is right. And I mean LEGITIMATELY! Airtight arguments. Ones that I nor anybody else can argue.

In the hypothetical world where we can be without things that do exist and ifs are just as real as reality… Without Mary, there is no Jesus because there is no other possibility according to Scripture because Scripture never said Jesus was born of anybody else. If you claim that it may be possible in this other world, you are claiming that God is doing things by chance. Let us assume that our God is the same God in this hypothetical world, Scripture would have been the same. Agreed? Agreed. However, I will give you one bit of leeway and that is that Mary did not exist. If Mary did not exist, then Jesus would not exist because Scriptures in this world say Mary and nobody else. Remember… We cannot change the name in the other world because that would mean God used chance. Now, I will grant you another bit of leeway (is that how it is spelled?) and that is Mary did exist but did not consent. If she did not consent (“Let it NOT be done…”), then there is no Jesus. I suppose one could argue that Jesus could have just appeared somewhere but the Old Testament clearly says that the Messiah will be “born” of a woman. And in this world, Scriptures would be the same because God is our God and the Word of God would be the same.

And this brings me back to my original thesis. Without Mary, there is no Jesus. Without Jesus, no Christianity. And that is equivalent to “no Catholicism”. I can already see some major cataclysmic debates about that last statement but that is fine.
 
moondweller said:
I:No matter how you word it, Gregg, you too would also make Mary preeminent, as did Redrosetea.
Click to expand...
Moondwelller,
this is a lame discussion. You are trying to make the argument that Catholics put Mary above Jesus for some reason. This is frankly a huge misconception on your part. Jesus is our Lord and savior. If not for him, we wouldn’t be talking about Mary at all. Jesus is the center and the reason for the Catholic Faith, no matter what your perception is. Go to a Catholic mass once and pay attention. You will no longer have this perception.

If you want to test your supposition, ask the question directly. Who is more important to Catholicism, Mary or Jesus? Do you really think there would be anyone who would say Mary?

Some personal advice for you. You don’t have to bring Mary down to build Jesus up. Jesus is already God. He can’t get any higher.
 
StTommyMore said:
I KNOW He was without sin. You are about two ridiculous posts away from my ignore list.
Click to expand...
Patience… Moondweller is a valuable poster here. He provides questions that are the basis for our teaching the Catholic Faith to those that want to understand it Remember, the beneficiaries are often not the people that we are responding directly to…
 
Moondweller,

Yes, you did equate salvation with Catholicism. Redrosetea said “all of salvation…” and you said, “IOW, all of Catholicism…” I explained it earlier but, as usual, you disregard explanations.

Anyway, I do not care nor do I think about what you think I think is preeminent. I know what I think. By YOU telling ME what I think, you are running low on arguments.

I am about to use your logic here. “Romans 3:23 says all have sinned. There are no exceptions except for Jesus because Paul says somewhere else that Jesus knew no sin.” Romans 3:23 contradicts that other statement because Jesus would be included in that “all” in this verse. If Paul meant there to be absolutely no exceptions, he would have said, “All have sinned except for Jesus.” But this is why we say there are exceptions because if there were no exceptions, then two things are contradictory: 1. Jesus sinned and 2. Jesus knew no sin.
 
GreggAlvarez said:
And this brings me back to my original thesis. Without Mary, there is no Jesus. Without Jesus, no Christianity. And that is equivalent to “no Catholicism”.
Click to expand...
But would you say without Mary there’s no Catholicism?
 
moondweller said:
But would you say without Mary there’s no Catholicism?
Click to expand...
I think what you are trying to do here is make one of us sound like Catholicism is Mary centered instead of Christ centered, which it isn’t. Mary is crucial, as her consent was needed. God did not rob her of her free will.
 
GreggAlvarez said:
Moondweller,

Yes, you did equate salvation with Catholicism. Redrosetea said “all of salvation…” and you said, “IOW, all of Catholicism…” I explained it earlier but, as usual, you disregard explanations.

Anyway, I do not care nor do I think about what you think I think is preeminent. I know what I think. By YOU telling ME what I think, you are running low on arguments.

I am about to use your logic here. “Romans 3:23 says all have sinned. There are no exceptions except for Jesus because Paul says somewhere else that Jesus knew no sin.” Romans 3:23 contradicts that other statement because Jesus would be included in that “all” in this verse. If Paul meant there to be absolutely no exceptions, he would have said, “All have sinned except for Jesus.” But this is why we say there are exceptions because if there were no exceptions, then two things are contradictory: 1. Jesus sinned and 2. Jesus knew no sin.
Click to expand...
Hi Greg, Paul’s statement in Rom 3:23 can be considered absolute without any exceptions or contradictions because through one man, Adam sin came into the world (see Rom 5). But Jesus was born after God not Adam so there is no sin issue there. Remember we all have earthly fathers after the sin laden lineage of Adam therefore we are all sinners from conception. Jesus’ father is God who is Holy and without sin so there is no earthly connection to sin in His lineage. So see there is no contradiction in Rom 3:23! Hope this helps.
 
jericho777 said:
Hi Greg, Paul’s statement in Rom 3:23 can be considered absolute without any exceptions or contradictions because through one man, Adam sin came into the world (see Rom 5). But Jesus was born after God not Adam so there is no sin issue there. Remember we all have earthly fathers after the sin laden lineage of Adam therefore we are all sinners from conception. Jesus’ father is God who is Holy and without sin so there is no earthly connection to sin in His lineage. So see there is no contradiction in Rom 3:23! Hope this helps.
Click to expand...
3:23 cannot be considered absolute because Jesus was not God who simply appeared as a man (as the Gnostics believe), neither were his Human and Divine natures untied extrinsically (as Nestroians hold) but he his both fully God and fully man. Romans 3:23 does not say “all except Jesus,” therefore “all” means" “as a general principle but not absolutely all.” This does not mean it is common, for the Church also teaches that the only way this is possible is through spechial divine graces.
 
StTommyMore said:
I think what you are trying to do here is make one of us sound like Catholicism is Mary centered instead of Christ centered, which it isn’t. Mary is crucial, as her consent was needed. God did not rob her of her free will.
Click to expand...
Well, he finally said it himself:
IOW, you’re stating that ALL of Catholicism rests on Mary, its polestar. Hence, without Mary there is no Catholicism.
Click to expand...
He’s frustrated that he can’t find one Catholic to say it.

Very sad that MD is such an angry person. What kind of Christianity does one have that makes them angry and accusatory all the time?
 
Mary always leads us right ot her son…even the angels know she is special…hail full of Grace…I always wonder what Christ thinks of people who dis His mother and God’s personal choice of all the women that would ever live???

You can’t love the Son. and insult His mother. at the same time
 
JustaServant said:
Well, he finally said it himself:

He’s frustrated that he can’t find one Catholic to say it.

Very sad that MD is such an angry person. What kind of Christianity does one have that makes them angry and accusatory all the time?
Click to expand...
Anger? Does this cute face look like the face of anger: 😃
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top