The Virgin Mary

[justasking4]

Part 1

Good Fella;2754499]“For he has looked upon his handmaid’s lowliness;
behold, from now on will ages call me blessed.
The Mighty One has done great things for me,
and holy is his name.” {Luke 1:48-49}

“And how does this happen to me,
that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” {Luke 1:43}

When the wine ran short, the mother of Jesus said to him, “They have no wine.” {John 2:3}

How does it follow from this that you now have a Mary that is queen of heaven, mother of the church and mankind, prayed to, etc? No apostle ever makes the claims that the catholic church does about her. They never taught such doctrines.

You embrace the false principle ‘sola Christus’ (Christ alone) which derives from the equally false doctrine ‘sola fide’ (faith alone). As a result, you deny any role for human beings in God’s plan of salvation, including Mary. Ironically, these concepts you hold are unscriptural, not our Marian doctrines. :nope:

Are you saying here that Christ alone is not enough to save me and to conform me into His image? Do i need Mary or the saints to be forgiven of my sins?

We are all saved by participating in Christ’s work.

What do you mean by this?

Mary participates along with the rest of us in her unique way, a special privilege granted her by our heavenly Father.

If you are referring to bring Christ into this world then i agree. If you mean something more then are you referring to all the marian doctrines?

She must me viewed in light of the saving activity of the Holy Trinity in human history. Paul says that he magnifies his ministry to make the Jews jealous and thus save some of them. He adds that he is the one who is doing the saving, but what he means is that he participates in Christ’s salvific work ( Rom 11:13-14). The apostle also indicates that a wife can save her husband and a husband his wife, for we are lesser mediators in Christ’s work ( 1Cor 7:16). We have become all things to men that we might save some. Only God saves, but his children participate in his salvation. God desires that we join him in love and faith ( 1Cor 9:22; Prov 16:6). Paul tells Timothy that he will save both himself and his hearers. Christ is the only Saviour, but he wants us to participate in his atonement for our sins, for we are members of one body in Christ ( 1Tim 4:16). Indeed, if we bring back a sinner to God, we will save our own souls from death, for we have acted in faith and love in the Lord’s name. We are saviours in the Saviour, our Lord Jesus Christ (James 5:20). “My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord. My spirit rejoices in God my saviour” (Luke 1:46-47). We are instructed to save some people by snatching them out of the fire ( Cf. ‘The Glories of Mary’). We participate in our salvation and that of others (Jude 22-23).

justasking4 Are you aware that the scriptures never speak of her “not” like this?

The truth about Mary’s role in the economy of salvation can come only from a full understanding of the scriptures and the portrayal of Mary in Scripture. This full realization results from a deep study of the two covenants between God and his people. Mary is the bridge between the Old and New Covenants.

Did any church father teach “Mary is the bridge between the Old and New Covenants”?

 

[justasking4]

Part 2

"

The two covenants are essential to God’s plan of salvation, and Mary’s role in God’s saving work becomes obvious when we see that she is the living embodiment of fundamental themes in the Old and New Testaments: as Daughter of Zion, the Ark of the Covenant, and the new Eve working with the new Adam.

 

[cranster]

Ginger2,
I understand your question, and your answer. “If not for the immaculate conception, would Jesus still be sinless? The answer is “yes”.” But the actual answer is “It is not possible for God to put a sinless Jesus in a sinful womb!”

Let me give you the reasoning.

There is an excellent series called finding God through faith and reason by Fr. Robert Spitzer SJ. He talks about God being perfect and infinite beauty, perfect simplicity (essentially saying that God can not be bound by any restrictions) perfect and infinite will, perfect and infinite intellect, perfect and infinite love, and pure acting power. God simply can’t change, because everything in God is perfect, and any change would be less than perfect. Now God from his perfect intellect, wisdom, and will decided to create Mary sinless in the womb, and I understand you’re not disputing that. That’s established. She was immaculately conceived because God willed it so. Where the problem lay is whether God would make a decision different than the one he made out of his perfection. It’s utterly impossible. The decision He made from his perfect will is not subject to change. Only a creature such as man with finite understanding and intellect would even ask such a question. This would not occur to God. All thoughts outside of his perfect and infinite will and intellect would be simply imperfect therefore utterly impossible.

So yes, God can only put a sinless Jesus in a sinless womb. There are simply no other possibilities.

God Bless

 

[jmcrae]

Did any church father teach “Mary is the bridge between the Old and New Covenants”?

Yes, quite a few of them refer to her in that way.

 

[jmcrae]

Are you aware that there is no support for this in Scripture? I suspect also this was totally unknown for most the history of the catholic church. How can it be that with all the great catholic theologians of the past missed this insight?

You should get The Faith of the Early Fathers, Volume I, edited by William Jurgens. These phrases appear repeatedly throughout the writings of the first and second century Fathers.

Not so. There is no such idea in the scriptures that Mary was ever regarded as queen of heaven, prayed to or assumed into heaven. These things did not originate in the infant apostolic church. You must go centuries before you see these ideas appearing and ultimately being embraced by the catholic church.

Decades, at the outside. Not centuries, by a long shot. We had the full set of Marian doctrines before we knew that the Book of Revelation was part of the New Testament. (Which means that the Church who gave you your New Testament believed everything that we Catholics today believe about Mary. )

 

[cranster]

Justasking,

I’ve followed the other thread on Mary that you were involved in. Here’s what I’ve observed. You have made an endless cycle of circular reasoning based from Sola Scriptura. Although you’ve attempted to divorce Sola Scriptura from your argument every argument you have made is from Sola Scriptura. Since you can only make your arguments from the context of Sola Scriptura which has been roundly defeated You can’t possibly make any ground, and no one here will accept your reasoning from that perspective. You quote scripture then you get the rebuttal or you say that it can’t be found in Scripture, and it is shown to you over and over and over… You seem to simply lack the capacity to accept any answer given you because you reject the Jesus given authority of His Church. So round and round you will go until someone finally closes the thread.

I have the very strong impression that you feel that you have a mission to save Catholics from their heresies. My friend I sincerely pray that some day you will consider how gravely you are jeopardizing your own soul.

God Bless

 

[rlg94086]

Then this puts me in the same camp as Jesus and the rest of His apostles because they never beleived nor taught these things about Mary.

That is a rather presumptious statement. Do you believe that every thought and word of Jesus and the Apostles is recorded in the Bible? It is one thing to say there is no evidence of something in the Bible, but to claim that “they never believed nor taught these things” would require you to know everything they believed and taught. Can you prove your claim? I think not…

 

[cranster]

I’ve been following these Marian threads over the last couple days. I’ve watched the sola scriptura circular reasoning go round and round and round.
Nothing will satisfy Justasking short of the bible explicitly stating in large bold readers digest style print that…
Mary is the Queen of Heaven
Mary was Immaculately conceived
Mary was Assumed into Heaven
etc… etc… It never will explicitly but it always has implicitly. Trust me it’s been shown over and over.
And since CNN didn’t have a Jerusalem Bureau in 0-100 A.D. and was’nt able to record these verbal traditions they couldn’t have possibly been said or believed. The only thing that’s changed over countless posts is it’s a new group of people making the same arguments as the last group. Justasking my friend you are definitely going on my Rosary list because I think at this point it’s time for prayer. Do you have a first name so I know who I’m praying for?

 

[Good_Fella]

.And I never said He was two "persons."More accurately, co-habiting one PERSON.

The God-breathed (theopneustos) Scriptures never call Mary the “Mother of God.” She is always referred to as the mother of Jesus. Divinity has no mother - then, now or ever. It is true that Jesus is ONE Person with TWO natures, but Mary is biologically connected to only one of them. Hint - she’s not divine.

How can one Person with two natures cohabit another person who is supposed to have two natures as well?

Do you honestly believe that Jesus cohabited one person? How does one Person cohabit another person, one entity another entity? It’s metaphysically impossible unless the Son of God took possession of a man who had already existed before He came into the world. But Luke doesn’t tell us this happened. The Bible teaches us that demons can cohabit a person’s body. And John tells us “The Word became flesh.” The Son of God fully took on our humanity. He acquired a human soul, human mind, and a human will which still co-exists with his divine being, divine mind, and divine will in glory in heaven. He was in all things like us but sin (Heb 4:15). It appears you are not Nestorian after all. You are a Monophosyte. You cannot believe Jesus had two natures and also claim that He cohabited another person. (We are talking about two persons now, for it takes two individuals to cohabit space.) To avoid this contradiction you must logically conclude that there was only one nature in Jesus - a divine nature - and that the human narure of our Lord was absorbed into his divine nature. This is the crux of the heresy of Monophysitism, which was condemned by Pope Leo the Great in 449 A.D. You did say that Mary could not possibly be the mother of a divine person, so Jesus must have had only a divine nature. Or is it two persons now? Or maybe women are mothers of human natures after all and not persons?

Hint: She is not divine, but her Son Jesus is. She gave birth to Jesus who is a divine Person with a human nature he took on. Since she gave birth to him and he is divine, she must be the mother of God the Son. Elizabeth addressed Mary as “mother of my Lord” (‘adonis’ which in Hebrew means Lord God, as does the Greek ‘kyrios’) She did not call her “mother of my human Jesus.” You’re playing with words. (You still beg the logical conclusion that there must have been two persons in Jesus, because a woman cannot be a mother of a person’s nature. Mothers give birth to persons.) The Catholic Church promulgated the dogma of Mary invoked as Mother of God in the Council of Chalcedon with the apostolic authority bestowed on her by Christ through Apostolic succession.

There is much implicit revelation concerning the role of Mary in the economy of salvation in both the Old and New Testaments which must be taken together as a whole. The Gospels of Luke and John are clear enough. We know what the authors had in mind when they wrote about the events surrounding Mary. You erroneously believe that revelation is only to be taken literally and explicitly. You begin with a false premise, you come to a faulty conclusion. The suffering Servant in Isaiah is an implicit revelation unveiled by the Apostolic Church. The prophet and the Jews to this day see the suffering servant as Israel.

Bible scholars distinguish between two voices of a person in revelation: the ‘ipsisima verba’ (the exact words of a person) and the ‘ipsisima vox’ ( the true words only expressed differently by another person). With respect to Apostolic Scripture and Apostolic Tradition, we could say that Scripture gives us the ipsisimus verba of God, while Tradition gives us the ipsisimus vox of God. (When we relay a telephone message, it is the exact message but in our own words.) Both reveal the Word of God: Scripture is the exact Word determined by God; Tradition reveals what the Word of God means expressed in other words. Luke 1:28 implicitly reveals the Immaculate Conception. God is revealing to us that Mary was preserved free from original sin. Luke tells us this in the expression he wrote: “Hail, full of Grace.” ( ‘Chaire kecharitomene’) Scripture is “God breathed” but we need the Apostolic Church to comprehend and express to the faithful what God is exactly revealing to us. Apostolic Tradition is a sure way the Church receives and passes on the exact message from God. (See my reply above on the subject of apostolic succession and the charism of infallibilty.) Apostolic Tradition is not inspired as Scripture is, but it is trustworthy in inerrantly interpreting the Scriptures. The Catholic Church has Christ’s guarantee that she won’t err.

“To be deep in history is to cease being Protestant.”
Cardinal John H Newman

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[Good_Fella]

I’ve been following these Marian threads over the last couple days. I’ve watched the sola scriptura circular reasoning go round and round and round.
Nothing will satisfy Justasking short of the bible explicitly stating in large bold readers digest style print that…
Mary is the Queen of Heaven
Mary was Immaculately conceived
Mary was Assumed into Heaven
etc… etc… It never will explicitly but it always has implicitly. Trust me it’s been shown over and over.
And since CNN didn’t have a Jerusalem Bureau in 0-100 A.D. and was’nt able to record these verbal traditions they couldn’t have possibly been said or believed. The only thing that’s changed over countless posts is it’s a new group of people making the same arguments as the last group. Justasking my friend you are definitely going on my Rosary list because I think at this point it’s time for prayer. Do you have a first name so I know who I’m praying for?

Let him keep repeating himself. We desire mass conversions of Protestants who are following this thread to Catholicism.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[Good_Fella]

Part 1

How does it follow from this that you now have a Mary that is queen of heaven, mother of the church and mankind, prayed to, etc? No apostle ever makes the claims that the catholic church does about her. They never taught such doctrines.

Revelation 12

Are you saying here that Christ alone is not enough to save me and to conform me into His image? Do i need Mary or the saints to be forgiven of my sins?

Only God can forgive sins. Only human beings can pray for each other that God does forgive us our sins.

What do you mean by this?

Ask St. Paul. He’s the one with apostolic authority, not I.
If you pray to him, he might tell you.

If you are referring to bring Christ into this world then i agree. If you mean something more then are you referring to all the marian doctrines?

Mary can accomplish nothing apart from Christ. She has been together with Him ever since the Annunciation.

Did any church father teach “Mary is the bridge between the Old and New Covenants”?

I thought you thought the teachings of the Church Fathers were only human opinion and speculation?

Pax Vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[Ginger2]

I am so offended when Catholics compared Mary to old wine skins and say

God cannot/could not; it is impossible (for God)

Your faulty logic testifies against you.

With God all things are possible. - Matthew 19:26

How can Rev 12: be a proof of Mary? The woman gives birth in pain: 2 She was with child and wailed aloud in pain as she labored to give birth.

 

[cranster]

Let him keep repeating himself. We desire mass conversions of Protestants who are following this thread to Catholicism.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

Good point, and I’m sure there are alot of people already praying for justasking. Besides, just because the fruit of the seeds of truth being planted in his heart can’t be seen doesn’t mean that they are not taking root.

 

[apophasis]

How can one Person with two natures cohabit another person who is supposed to have two natures as well?

Who might this be? (even more confused)

Do you honestly believe that Jesus cohabited one person?

Jesus is the name of a Person. He didn’t “cohabit” anyone. I think you’ve lost it, my friend. I believe the original discussion was about natures, not persons. You said something about two natures “cohabiting” one body. “BODY” is part of the human nature. Now just sit back and think for a while. Don’t quickly go search the internet for some kind of response.

 

[cranster]

Your faulty logic testifies against you.

With God all things are possible. - Matthew 19:26

would you then say it’s possible for God to contradict Himself?
If God would put new wine into an old wineskin implies a contradiction

 

[Ginger2]

Mary was a Virgin, she is not used and old.

 

[cranster]

The old refers to a sinful nature, and the new refers to a sinless nature. Therefore God put new wine into a new wineskin… His sinless self into His sinless Mother.

 

[Peter_Da_Rock]

I am so offended when Catholics compared Mary to old wine skins and say

God cannot/could not; it is impossible (for God)

Your faulty logic testifies against you.

With God all things are possible. - Matthew 19:26

How can Rev 12: be a proof of Mary? The woman gives birth in pain: 2 She was with child and wailed aloud in pain as she labored to give birth.

Can you cite a specific source. I would find this offensive as well.

But I know also that God would not contradict himself.

God said not to put new wine in an old wine skin. You denial of the conception of Mary makes the claim that God did put New wine in an Old wine skin.

 

[Ginger2]

Peter,

I am referring to this thread. Just the comparison of Mary that way offends me.

Mary was a Virgin.

 

[cranster]

Of course Mary was and is a virgin, who is implying that she’s not?