What Can We Say About The Virgin?

[Swiss_Guard]

Someone will eventually conclude that they (the Catholics) actually do worship Mary. Even if they stopped and explained it, I’m sure it still amounts to idolatry because they make claims about Mary which seems as if she were a God.

Parker

Someone will eventually conclude that you hate Mary, the woman chosen by Almighty God Himself to be His mother! Even if you stopped and explained it, I’m sure it still amounts blasphemy because you say things about Mary that go against everything God has done, thus offending and insulting God.

Now, what’s wrong with my opening paragraph? I’m assuming that you hate Mary. Did you say you hate her? No. In fact, you went out of your way to present Mary as you interpret the New Testament presents her.

What’s more important is that I’m making a claim that I know what is in your heart. Only God knows what’s in a person’s heart. I can’t know if you hate Mary, or anyone else, unless you explicitly tell me. I’m making a rash judgment about you because ***you don’t interpret the New Testament and honor the Blessed Virgin Mary the way I do. ***

---

I reject any explanation you give about why you act the way you do by saying that your understanding of Mary amounts to blasphemy.

The point I’m making is the problem I have with your comments about Mary I made in the first paragraph isn’t really with you, it’s with me. I’m looking at your comments from my point of view. I’m saying there is no possible way my understanding of anything is wrong, it’s your understanding that’s wrong. Don’t try to explain your understanding of Mary, because there’s nothing you can say to prove you don’t hate Mary. I have acted as judge and jury and convicted you of hating Mary and blaspheming God.

Go back and read again what you said about Catholics worshipping Mary and how you have convicted Catholics of idolatry no matter what we say. You don’t understand our veneration of Mary, therefore we are guilty of idolatry.

You can’t read anyone’s heart and to say otherwise is to be guilty of pride. Pride is one of the seven capital sins. It’s the sin that thrust Lucifer into hell. It’s the sin that caused Eve to believe the devil rather than trust God. It’s the sin that says human beings are God.

It’s one thing to disagree with Catholic doctrine. It’s quite another to convict Catholics of idolatry because you think you know what is in our hearts.

You imitate the one who said to God, “I will not serve” when you commit the sin of pride. You imitate the One who humbled Himself by taking on our human nature and being “obedient unto death, even death on the cross” when you practice humility.

 

[guanophore]

Mary is as close as a non-hypostatically united person can come to God in her perfection. She is elevated (by the grace of God mind you) above all the Angels and Saints.

The only person that’s characterized that way was Jesus himself and he alone. I don’t see it any other way unless you can tell me if there’s a mention of her in Hebrews Chapter One.

This seems like a silly requirement for “proof”, as if matters of faith could be “proven” anyway. No, it is in Heb 12:1. and, since you cannot accept any testimony outside the scripture, your understanding of these deeper matters may be entirely hindered.

Right but that doesn’t merit a vast knowledge of the world.

It seems to me rather presumptuous for you to be the one to determine what Mary does, and does not know! Where do you think he spent the first 30 years of His life? Don’t you think, in all those years, he might have revealed a few things to Mary?

We know from Deuteronomy that we’re not supposed to contact “familiar” spirits.

OHMYGHOD!!! Are you now saying that Mary, the mother of GOD is some kind of “familiar spirit” of the devil!!?!?!?!?

Intercession of the saints are only commanded to those who are living on earth. If you examine the epistles Paul writes, he only commands only the people who are alive to pray for each other.

Then, what does Heb 12 mean, if we are not to be conscious of the commmunion of saints? IF they cannot see us, how are they witnesses?

I want proof.

Since you don’t accept the testimony of faith from those who came before you, there is not much help for you on that.

 

[guanophore]

What would have happened if Mary had said ‘no’ to Gabriel?

I don’t think she had a choice.

OHMYGHOD again!!! First she is a familiar spirit, and now she is a victim of RAPE???

It is one thing to fail to honor and account her Blessed, as the scriptures clearly state we should do. But this is getting into blasphemy against the Holy Spirit!

Mary, by accepting God’s will, aided in redemption.

No she didn’t. Where do you see “You have my permission to use my body” out of Luke 1:38? It says “Look! The slave of the Lord! May it be to me according to your word” (Analytical-Literal Translation) Oh how the words differ.

How your perception differs, when it is clouded so.

(Look at Revelation 12:1 on biblical evidence of the Assumption and Queenship of Mary.

How so? You’re jumping the gun with this verse.

REally? Do you think you should wait another 2000 or so years until the gun goes off for you?

You got some work to do if you’re planning on showing the “assumption” of the church.

Did you mean to say, Assumption of Mary?

The Assumption of Mary was one of the earliest feasts in the Church.

Bologna.

Since you have clearly not yet finished your study of the early fathers and liturgies, let’s assume, for the sake of discussion, what if it WAS one of the earliest feasts? What would that mean?

The only way I’ll ever understand is when I agree to your position which isn’t going to happen.

I am not sure this is true, becuase , I think if you approached it a little more open mindedly, you could at least see where this position has evolved. As it is, you have so much prejudice and invective for the Lord and His mother, it would be hard for you to understand.

There is no such thing as a “married” virgin. According to the Analytical-Literal Translation, Luke 1:34 is supposed to be taken as a figure of speech. In other words, she’s saying “How is this possible since I never had sex!!” Hmmm… a different take st stake’s going here!

Since you don’t dispute that Mary was given to Joseph in betrothal for marriage, why do you think she would respond this way? If she was planning to be married, and have sex, wouldn’t she just naturally assume that is how she would conceive?

She’s not saying that in Luke 1:34. Secondly, you’re assuming that one would stay a viring during the course of a marriage. I have no idea what person that’s marriage would plan to stay a virign.

Consecrated virgins were given in marriage to a guardian, who could protect and care for them. The marriage protected them legally and morally so that they could fulfill their sacred vows.

I never said that. If you’re going to issue the Bodily Assumption, Perpetual Virign, Immaculate Conception, as “eternal” truths, then I can assure you’re full of yourself.
Parker

You know where assumptons get you! Anyway, these are not personal beliefs, but the teachings of the church from the Apostles. By insulting them, and those that espouse them, you insult individual CAtholics, the Apostolic Fathers, the Blessed mother, Jesus her Divine Son, and the Holy Spirit, who overshadowed her.

 

[Tomster]

Observing4Grace:
Parker,

Mary is the Mother of God! Obviously, you haven’t fully grasped this.

Tomster

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

The only person that’s characterized that way was Jesus himself and he alone. I don’t see it any other way unless you can tell me if there’s a mention of her in Hebrews Chapter One.

The Church doesn’t say that Mary is equal to or above Jesus – you should know this by now. But Mary is given great glory, for she is the spouse of the Holy Spirit, she is the Mother of God. Here are some things in the Scriptures that are written of her:

The righteous flourish like the palm tree, and grow like a cedar in Lebanon. (Psalms 92, 13)

Come with me from Lebanon, my bride; come with me from Lebanon. (Canticles 4:8)

Thy lips, my spouse, are as a dropping honeycomb, honey and milk are under thy tongue; and the smell of thy garments, as the smell of frankincense. My sister, my spouse, is a garden enclosed, a garden enclosed, a fountain sealed up. Thy plants are a paradise of pomegranates with the fruits of the orchard. Cypress with spikenard. Spikenard and saffron, sweet cane and cinnamon, with all the trees of Lebanon, myrrh and aloes with all the chief perfumes. The fountain of gardens: the well of living waters, which run with a strong stream from Lebanon. (Canticles 4:11-15)

It shall bud forth and blossom, and shall rejoice with joy and praise: the glory of Lebanon is given to it: the beauty of Carmel, and Sharon, they shall see the glory of the Lord, and the beauty of our God. (Isaiah 35:2)

I was exalted like a cedar in Lebanon, and as a cypress tree on mount Sion. (Sirach 24:13)

These are just a small handful of the Scriptures written of Mary.

This isn’t modern. It’s common sense.

Far from it. The spiritual hearing of the Saints and Angels can’t be thought of like mail, or e-mail, or telephone calls, or any other quirky analogies. It is a supernatural revelation and understanding that we cannot fully understand here on earth.

Right but that doesn’t merit a vast knowledge of the world.

Who made you supreme judge and arbiter to determine what one merits or doesn’t merit, what they deserve and don’t deserve? It is not up to you to grant or deny these things.

We know from Deuteronomy that we’re not supposed to contact “familiar” spirits. Intercession of the saints are only commanded to those who are living on earth. If you examine the epistles Paul writes, he only commands only the people who are alive to pray for each other.

Mary is NOT a familiar spirit. Please do not insult the Mother of God so.

You are write that Paul says to pray for each other. Those in Heaven and Purgatory are still part of the Church, and can still pray for us.

 

[JMJ_coder]

continued…

I want proof.

I doubt you would listen to the proof, but here are two:

From a prayer by Saint Lomman:

1. Envy of the fallen prince.
   Satan fears thee and awaits for thy heel;
   He alone fears thee, for he never knew thee.
   Thy name is a scourge that scars him more than fire.
   The lost one in the pit groans;
   His throne rocked at thy coming.
   The beauty of thy countenance fills him with terror.
   He flies before thee; he fears the Light.
   Mary, thou art terrible in battle.
   Hell trembles at thy name.

And from True Devotion to Mary by Saint Louis de Montfort:

1. God has established only one enmity - but it is an irreconcilable one - which will last and even go on increasing to the end of time. That enmity is between Mary, his worthy Mother, and the devil, between the children and the servants of the Blessed Virgin and the children and followers of Lucifer.
   Thus the most fearful enemy that God has set up against the devil is Mary, his holy Mother. From the time of the earthly paradise, although she existed then only in his mind, he gave her such a hatred for his accursed enemy, such ingenuity in exposing the wickedness of the ancient serpent and such power to defeat, overthrow and crush this proud rebel, that Satan fears her not only more than angels and men but in a certain sense more than God himself. This does not mean that the anger, hatred and power of God are not infinitely greater than the Blessed Virgin’s, since her attributes are limited. It simply means that Satan, being so proud, suffers infinitely more in being vanquished and punished by a lowly and humble servant of God, for her humility humiliates him more than the power of God. Moreover, God has given Mary such great power over the evil spirits that, as they have often been forced unwillingly to admit through the lips of possessed persons, they fear one of her pleadings for a soul more than the prayers of all the saints, and one of her threats more than all their other torments.

1. What Lucifer lost by pride Mary won by humility. What Eve ruined and lost by disobedience Mary saved by obedience. By obeying the serpent, Eve ruined her children as well as herself and delivered them up to him. Mary by her perfect fidelity to God saved her children with herself and consecrated them to his divine majesty.

1. God has established not just one enmity but “enmities”, and not only between Mary and Satan but between her race and his race. That is, God has put enmities, antipathies and hatreds between the true children and servants of the Blessed Virgin and the children and slaves of the devil. They have no love and no sympathy for each other. The children of Belial, the slaves of Satan, the friends of the world, - for they are all one and the same - have always persecuted and will persecute more than ever in the future those who belong to the Blessed Virgin, just as Cain of old persecuted his brother Abel, and Esau his brother Jacob. These are the types of the wicked and of the just. But the humble Mary will always triumph over Satan, the proud one, and so great will be her victory that she will crush his head, the very seat of his pride. She will unmask his serpent’s cunning and expose his wicked plots. She will scatter to the winds his devilish plans and to the end of time will keep her faithful servants safe from his cruel claws.

But Mary’s power over the evil spirits will especially shine forth in the latter times, when Satan will lie in wait for her heel, that is, for her humble servants and her poor children whom she will rouse to fight against him. In the eyes of the world they will be little and poor and, like the heel, lowly in the eyes of all, down-trodden and crushed as is the heel by the other parts of the body. But in compensation for this they will be rich in God’s graces, which will be abundantly bestowed on them by Mary. They will be great and exalted before God in holiness. They will be superior to all creatures by their great zeal and so strongly will they be supported by divine assistance that, in union with Mary, they will crush the head of Satan with their heel, that is, their humility, and bring victory to Jesus Christ.

 

[JMJ_coder]

continued…

I don’t think she had a choice.

That would negate free will. God does not possess and force people to do anything – not like demons who possess their victims. Mary had to freely choose to obey God.

No she didn’t. Where do you see “You have my permission to use my body” out of Luke 1:38? It says “Look! The slave of the Lord! May it be to me according to your word” (Analytical-Literal Translation) Oh how the words differ.

Mary acknowledges that she is a servant of God. This was not forced, coerced, blackmailed, etc. Mary out of obedience choose to say yes to God. It was the second great fiat, complete free and self giving. Mary said yes where Eve said no, Mary obeyed where Eve disobeyed. And Mary did not grant use of her body as if she were a surrogate mother. Jesus derived His human nature from her, she is His mother.

How so? You’re jumping the gun with this verse.

When shall you like to discuss this? That is the proper interpretation of this verse. We see Mary body and soul in Heaven (Assumption) and she is clothed in royal clothing (Queenship).

 

[JMJ_coder]

continued…

I read St. Clement, Polycarp, Ignatius, & Barnabus. I need time to read Justin Martyr. You got some work to do if you’re planning on showing the “assumption” of the church.

Keep reading. Here are some of the Church Fathers:

Pseudo – Melito
If therefore it might come to pass by the power of your grace, it has appeared right to us your servants that, as you, having overcome death, do reign in glory, so you should raise up the body of your Mother and take her with you, rejoicing, into heaven. Then said the Savior [Jesus]: “Be it done according to your will” (The Passing of the Virgin 16:2-17 [A.D. 300]).

Timothy of Jerusalem
Therefore the Virgin is immortal to this day, seeing that he who had dwelt in her transported her to the regions of her assumption (Homily on Simeon and Anna [A.D. 400]).

John the Theologian
The Lord said to his Mother, “Let your heart rejoice and be glad. For every favor and every gift has been given to you from my Father in heaven and from me and from the Holy Spirit. Every soul that calls upon your name shall not be ashamed, but shall find mercy and comfort and support and confidence, both in the world that now is and in that which is to come, in the presence of my Father in the heavens”. . . And from that time forth all knew that the spotless and precious body had been transferred to paradise (The Dormition of Mary [A.D. 400]).

Gregory of Tours
[T]he Apostles took up her body on a bier and placed it in a tomb; and they guarded it, expecting the Lord to come. And behold, again the Lord stood by them; and the holy body having been received, He commanded that it be taken in a cloud into paradise: where now, rejoined to the soul, [Mary] rejoices with the Lord’s chosen ones. . . (Eight Books of Miracles 1:4 [A.D. 575]).

Theoteknos of Livias
It was fitting … that the most holy-body of Mary, God-bearing body, receptacle of God, divinised, incorruptible, illuminated by divine grace and full glory … should be entrusted to the earth for a little while and raised up to heaven in glory, with her soul pleasing to God (Homily on the Assumption [ca. A.D. 600]).

Modestus of Jerusalem
As the most glorious Mother of Christ, our Savior and God and the giver of life and immortality, has been endowed with life by him, she has received an eternal incorruptibility of the body together with him who has raised her up from the tomb and has taken her up to himself in a way known only to him (Encomium in dormitionnem Sanctissimae Dominae nostrae Deiparae semperque Virginis Mariae [ante A.D. 634]).

Germanus of Constantinople
You are she who, as it is written, appears in beauty, and your virginal body is all holy, all chaste, entirely the dwelling place of God, so that it is henceforth completely exempt from dissolution into dust. Though still human, it is changed into the heavenly life of incorruptibility, truly living and glorious, undamaged and sharing in perfect life (Sermon I [A.D. 683]).

John Damascene
It was fitting that the she, who had kept her virginity intact in childbirth, should keep her own body free from all corruption even after death. It was fitting that she, who had carried the Creator as a child at her breast, should dwell in the divine tabernacles. It was fitting that the spouse, whom the Father had taken to himself, should live in the divine mansions. It was fitting that she, who had seen her Son upon the cross and who had thereby received into her heart the sword of sorrow which she had escaped when giving birth to him, should look upon him as he sits with the Father, It was fitting that God’s Mother should possess what belongs to her Son, and that she should be honored by every creature as the Mother and as the handmaid of God (Dormition of Mary [A.D. 697])

Gregorian Sacramentary
Venerable to us, O Lord, is the festivity of this day on which the holy Mother of God suffered temporal death, but still could not be kept down by the bonds of death, who has begotten Thy Son our Lord incarnate from herself (Gregorian Sacramentary, Veneranda [ante A.D. 795]).

Bologna.

The feast was established by the time of the Council of Ephesus. And it was being celebrated by at least 500 A.D.

So? what’s your point?

The point is if there was a burial site, or relics then Churches would be dedicated to them, there would be pilgrim roads, etc. There are none of these things because Mary didn’t leave a tomb or relics behind – this means she was assumed into Heaven.

The only way I’ll ever understand is when I agree to your position which isn’t going to happen.

Well if you have already judged and determined that you won’t even listen then why waste anymore of your time here?

 

[JMJ_coder]

continued…

There is no such thing as a “married” virgin. According to the Analytical-Literal Translation, Luke 1:34 is supposed to be taken as a figure of speech. In other words, she’s saying “How is this possible since I never had sex!!” Hmmm… a different take st stake’s going here!

Exactly! The expectation would have been that she would have relations and then bear children. There would not have been the wonder of how can this be since she would have naturally expected to bear children – Mary knew that children were a product of marriage and she was married when the Angel came to her.

She’s not saying that in Luke 1:34. Secondly, you’re assuming that one would stay a viring during the course of a marriage. I have no idea what person that’s marriage would plan to stay a virign.

Mary did stay a virgin throughout her entire life.

I never said that. If you’re going to issue the Bodily Assumption, Perpetual Virign, Immaculate Conception, as “eternal” truths, then I can assure you’re full of yourself.

I issue nothing. I proclaim what the Church proclaims as Truth!

Sorry doesn’t work that way.

Which are you not sure of - that of the procession or of the Eucharist being worshipped?

Did you get my previous message or you’re deliberately make use of the latter quote?

huh?

I do but you’re missing the point. These are not doctrines of the Christian faith. If that were so I can understand but this is entirely different.

O.K. Where does the Bible say ‘Trinity’? Where does it say that we are justified by faith ‘alone’? Where does it say what books are to be included in the Bible (why not the other letters of Paul, or some of the other Gospels, or the letters of Clement in the New Testament)? Where does it say that the Bible is to be your sole authority of faith?

Do you not get what I tell you? It seems like you don’t read what I write. I said, in the matters of birthdays and other celebrations, that as LONG AS YOU DON’T ATTRIBUTE GOD-LIKE CHARACTERISTICS TO THEM, THERE’S NOTHING WRONG WITH IT! In this case, when holding feasts, sing praises, saying she can hear the living, been bodily assumed, claiming she’s immaculately conceived, a perpetual virgin, and adding those 30+ titles, it is in essence, despite whatever the church says is AN ACT OF WORSHIP! Why? Because of those conditions THAT ARE ADDED TO MARY and the consistent elevation she receives, I can easily say without a doubt that it’s worship, NO MATTER WHAT YOU SAY!

If you are going to keep telling us what we proclaim as Catholics and that even if we say one thing, we really mean another, even if we don’t realize it – then this is going to go nowhere really fast.

Spiritually speaking.

Really and truly speaking. They are more alive than you or I.

You’re missing the point to the whole thread.

No, I think it is fundamental that we speak a common language. If we have different meanings of even basic terms like worship we will cause more harm than good.

I’m saying it’s not.

Well, at least that is something. True, Catholicism has Scriptures, Tradition, and the Magisterium.

I have no problem with it. It’s just that your sacred tradition should have a firm ground in what it teaches.

And it does – its foundation is in the Truth.

That’s just what you think.

That is what I have observed.

Now since you mentioned it, I want to know where are there exceptions, nothing further.

Exceptions to idolatry – there are none. But the commandment does not prohibit the veneration and honor given to others. There can be no exceptions to something not commanded.

That’s why there are specific conditions used in the first commandment. If you’re not aware of it, then it’s not my fault for your lack of understanding.

The condition (singular) is don’t commit idolatry. I suggest reading on the Second Council of Nicea held in 787 A.D. which dealt with the issue of iconoclasm.

You misunderstood my definition, then.

Then please, do clarify yourself.

 

[Observing4Grace]

That’s false a understanding of history.

Catholic Answer: No. It is historical fact. Historical records show that the Church decreed in the Council of Rome 382 73 Old Testament Books and 27 NT Books, which is affirmed in the Council of Hippo, Council of Carthage, and Council of Trent.

**I didn’t say they didn’t make those decrees. I’m saying the books were in existence. Secondly, those councils relied on the Eastern Churches for a proper list. Period. **

How do we know the 27 NT are inspired Word of God? Yes, there was Scripture before the Church but this Scripture was only the Old Testament and they come in manuscripts or scrolls. The one we have now are only copies not the original.

**Ahhh… that’s more like it. I like your spunk! Just like the OT fathers, they determined which book belonged by the use of Hermaneutics and history. In this case since we have the NT we can apply the exact same principles used by the OT. Historically speaking, the NT was used by the ECF’s and they referred extensively to the basic truths found in the OT itself. There’s nothing wrong with doing that. The ECF’s didn’t need to wait on a Holy Council to figure that out. If that were the case, then tell me, Mannyfit, how do you suppose St. Clement knew which books belonged and which ones didn’t without the all Holy Councils? **

If you say the Bible we have today existed at the time of the Apostle, you are wrong.

**How so? The OT is part of the Bible. **

The Gospel of Jesus was spread orally and Jesus himself did not write anything except what he wrote on the dirt.

Of course Jesus didn’t write himself. He’s God! Besides the Gospel was also written.

Go to Deutrocanononical Books Apologetics.

**That’s a different subject. **

You just neither have a difficult time understanding this fully because you are not Catholic nor raise Catholic, or if you were an Ex-Catholic, you are poorly catechized since only poorly catechized Catholics leave the Church.

**I’ll take the later part of it because I wasn’t raised as a practicing Catholic. However, it doesn’t mean that what I learn now about what the RCC says and how she plans to defend herself through ambiguous uses of scripture makes me poorly educated. **

 

[Observing4Grace]

But the doctrines would give a notion but it doesn’t. Second, 2 Thess. gives us an option because the teachings would be FULLY contained in both.

**Right. But, since the apostles are dead. It cannot be no passed down orally no longer. If the traditions are contained both scripture and tradition you must prove that what is taught by the Catholic Church can easily be found the bible. This includes:

-Marriage as a sacrament
-Bodily Assumption of Mary
-Immaculate Conception
-Papal Infallibility
-Peter As Pope

Since not one single shred of evidence can be used to uphold any of these positions without trying to look carefully within scriptures using a fine a comb, I’m going to take the position that this is false. **

Catholic Answer:

I would have to disagree with you. The NT epistles were written to make corrections.

Since they’re scriptures, they should contain all sorts of data. Including what the apostles knew and doctrines they teached. All of them.

For one in 1 Corin 11, Paul warn the Corinthians not to received the Body and Blood of the Lord unworthily. So yes these letters were written to correct abuses and to show the faithful to remain faithful to the teachings.

**Agreed. **

Catholic Answer:

Jesus use Scripture as in the Old Testament Text. He used to justify that he is the coming Messiah. Paul used Scripture and cited 2 Tim 3:16 that all of Scripture is God’s breath. John also said in his writings that there other things concerning Jesus not written in these books.

**Would you like to know why, Manny? Because he says in 1 John 5:13 “I have written these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life.” There was no hidden doctrine Jesus forgot to mention because all of them are vitally important. Since Papal Infallibility would be one of them, Jesus would say something or it would be written as well. **

Paul also said that we should hold fast the tradition either by letter or word of mouth. He used both oral and written Word of God. He did not negate the two (unfortunately Protestants like you just completely ignore the ENTIRE Word of God).

**You do realize that the whole word of God was written in both scripture and tradition. Hence they should both be eqally balanced and both complement each other. Since Catholic Sacred Tradition contradicts scripture entirely, tell me where does it stop? **

Catholic Answers:

Peter himself warned us that there are things written in Paul Letters difficult to understand, and that the ignorant will use to their own destruction.

But that’s not say we should apply that to all scripture or for that matter hold any of what the Catholic Church says to be true.

We see this in Protestantism with their variety of doctrines.

**I do too. However, a perfect book will not guarentee to produce non-ignorant readers. **

The only sole interpreter of the Bible is the Church, the Catholic Church who gave us the Bible.

Again, show me where in History has the Catholic Church given us the OT?

Catholic Answers:

Yes the Catholic Church did. It was the Church in the Council of Rome in 382 that canonized 27 Books of the New Testament. Prior to that there other Gospels floating around like the Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Judas, Acts of Peter, Gospel of Mary, these books were rejected by the Church.
**
No they didn’t.The books were around before the Gnostic gospels were written. In addition, see what I said earlier. **

It’s that Tradition that tells us the things associated with a particular teaching. Who better to explain those things than the entity whose members produced and bound/canonized the bible?

**Well if Paul wrote the epistles then he should be easily seen. Ironically for the Church to say these things, there would be support and obvious evidence. The reality is, there isn’t. The church has to use a fine comb and use an ambiguous interpretation to get someone to believe it. Mary is a married virgin has been the most bogus teaching since the beginning course of history.

Parker**

 

[Observing4Grace]

Someone will eventually conclude that you hate Mary, the woman chosen by Almighty God Himself to be His mother!

**It’s amusing to hear how you claim I hate Mary. No I don’t hate her but I don’t think I would go so far to commit idolatrous acts of worship in order to gain favor in front of God. **

Even if you stopped and explained it, I’m sure it still amounts blasphemy because you say things about Mary that go against everything God has done, thus offending and insulting God.

Care to explain what the difference between what you say about Mary and Jesus? The songs, claims, feasts, Holidays, devotional items and all other sorts of Mary Memorabilia?

Now, what’s wrong with my opening paragraph? I’m assuming that you hate Mary. Did you say you hate her? No. In fact, you went out of your way to present Mary as you interpret the New Testament presents her.

Thank you, Thank you, it’s about time you get my objective.

What’s more important is that I’m making a claim that I know what is in your heart. Only God knows what’s in a person’s heart. I can’t know if you hate Mary, or anyone else, unless you explicitly tell me. I’m making a rash judgment about you because ***you don’t interpret the New Testament and honor the Blessed Virgin Mary the way I do. ***

**I think you’re getting deluded here. It’s the course of history that suggests how we should honor her and no where does the NT command or even ask us to do that in her honor. Sadly, we find one such commandment to worship/honor Jesus. **

I reject any explanation you give about why you act the way you do by saying that your understanding of Mary amounts to blasphemy.

What do you mean?

The point I’m making is the problem I have with your comments about Mary I made in the first paragraph isn’t really with you, it’s with me. I’m looking at your comments from my point of view. I’m saying there is no possible way my understanding of anything is wrong, it’s your understanding that’s wrong. Don’t try to explain your understanding of Mary, because there’s nothing you can say to prove you don’t hate Mary. I have acted as judge and jury and convicted you of hating Mary and blaspheming God.

You’re right! You’re absolutely right! Because I don’t make these claims about her, hold giant feasts, say she’s immaculately conceieved, bodily assumed, and don’t agree with the defenses claimed by the one catholic church, I’m so guilty of “hating” her. Boy you’re quite an amusement.

Go back and read again what you said about Catholics worshipping Mary and how you have convicted Catholics of idolatry no matter what we say. You don’t understand our veneration of Mary, therefore we are guilty of idolatry.

Do you bother to understand my reasoning or is it that you don’t like what I say?

You can’t read anyone’s heart and to say otherwise is to be guilty of pride. Pride is one of the seven capital sins. It’s the sin that thrust Lucifer into hell. It’s the sin that caused Eve to believe the devil rather than trust God. It’s the sin that says human beings are God.

**I’m to sorry to say this but sin is sin. There is no “mortal/venial” sins. That’s an entirely different subject to discuss but the main point is this. I can’t look into anyone’s hearts but these actions and claims the church takes are acts of worship. There is nother way to say it. **

It’s one thing to disagree with Catholic doctrine. It’s quite another to convict Catholics of idolatry because you think you know what is in our hearts.

**I didn’t say that. You’re upset that one make a huge disagreement about it.

Parker**

 

[Observing4Grace]

This seems like a silly requirement for “proof”, as if matters of faith could be “proven” anyway. No, it is in Heb 12:1. and, since you cannot accept any testimony outside the scripture, your understanding of these deeper matters may be entirely hindered.

**Faith requires a firm foundation in the scriptures. No where else. **

It seems to me rather presumptuous for you to be the one to determine what Mary does, and does not know! Where do you think he spent the first 30 years of His life? Don’t you think, in all those years, he might have revealed a few things to Mary?

**Well if it was something important, then it would mentioned. Second, there would would be some kind of scriptural evidence to support what you said. **

OHMYGHOD!!! Are you now saying that Mary, the mother of GOD is some kind of “familiar spirit” of the devil!!?!?!?!?

**No. **

Then, what does Heb 12 mean, if we are not to be conscious of the commmunion of saints? IF they cannot see us, how are they witnesses?

**They are witnesses to the facts of the unseen by what THEY DID, not what they’re doing in heaven. **

Since you don’t accept the testimony of faith from those who came before you, there is not much help for you on that.

**Evidence should come from scriptures and ECF’s. There is none. Therefore, the Church is making it up.

Parker**

 

[LilyM]

O4G, just on one of your points - you dispute the doctrine of bodily assumption of Mary, and use it as one instance of us ‘attributing God-like characteristics’ to her. Bodily assumption of certain individuals favoured of God is well-accepted doctrine. It is, for example, the fate accorded to both Enoch and Elijah in the Old Testament.

Do you think the writers of the OT were ascribing God-like characteristics to those two individuals? No. It is made clear that they were assumed by God’s power, not their own, and that such did not add any God-like characteristics to themselves. This is exactly the same as the Church teaches on the Assumption of Mary, that God took her bodily to heaven.

Indeed, most Christians believe that we will ALL physically be raised from the dead on the last day and the righteous taken up to heaven, some even believe that some of the living will be ‘raptured’ up beforehand! Disagreement with the doctrine of the Assumption in particular has always puzzled me, given the points I’ve just made.

 

[crocetta]

There is a website about House of Virgin Mary where also Popes have made pilgramige. I highly recommend you.
www.traveltofaith.com

 

[puzzleannie]

Hello Friends,
Ever heard of the fabulous nursery rhyme, Mary Mary Quite Contrary? If you can remember it well, I believe the story went off something like this:

Mary, Mary
Quite Contrary,
**How does your garden grow? **
**With Silverbells and Cockelshells **
And Pretty Maids All in a Row

Nobody dares to consider the thought until they apply this to what the Catholic Church teaches about Mary. Parker

other sources have alternative explanations for this rhyme, and consider it a disparaging description of Mary Tudor, the (Catholic) daughter and successor of Henry VIII.

 

[guanophore]

Faith requires a firm foundation in the scriptures. No where else.

In reading through this thread, I find many topics upon which you have not been properly educated. I chose this one because it was convenient, and glaring. Where does it say this in your bible ?

How do you account for the stories in the gospels where average people, most of whom could not read, and did not know their bible (before the NT was even written) are healed by their faith ?

It seems to me rather presumptuous for you to be the one to determine what Mary does, and does not know! Where do you think he spent the first 30 years of His life? Don’t you think, in all those years, he might have revealed a few things to Mary?

Well if it was something important, then it would mentioned. Second, there would would be some kind of scriptural evidence to support what you said.

You are suffering a lack because of the error of sola scriptura. The Bible was never written to contain everything, and the bible itself testifies to this. The bible also states in itself that there are important things that were not written down.

Then, what does Heb 12 mean, if we are not to be conscious of the commmunion of saints? IF they cannot see us, how are they witnesses?

They are witnesses to the facts of the unseen by what THEY DID, not what they’re doing in heaven.

The verse says that we are, right now, surrounded by a great cloud of witnesses. These are those that have gone before us in the faith. they are not dead, including Mary. “For all are alive unto Him”.

Evidence should come from scriptures and ECF’s. There is none. Therefore, the Church is making it up.

Parker

I am glad to hear that you are open to the testimony of the ECF, however, I can tell that you are unfamiliar with these writings, because you deny the content of what is written in them. I hope that you will continue to grow in knowledge, and do so in a less hostile and narrow minded manner.

May the Peace of Christ be with you.

 

[Observing4Grace]

O4G, just on one of your points - you dispute the doctrine of bodily assumption of Mary, and use it as one instance of us ‘attributing God-like characteristics’ to her. Bodily assumption of certain individuals favoured of God is well-accepted doctrine. It is, for example, the fate accorded to both Enoch and Elijah in the Old Testament.

**Whether or not the general public feels it’s an acceptable doctrine doesn’t make it true. The main point I’m trying to get across is this: If the Bodily Assumption is True, then there should be some evidence from the Bible and history saying this has happened. **I’m not looking for the Bible to spell out “Mary was bodily assumed shortly after Jesus died” but something that hints to that phrase.

Do you think the writers of the OT were ascribing God-like characteristics to those two individuals? No. It is made clear that they were assumed by God’s power, not their own, and that such did not add any God-like characteristics to themselves. This is exactly the same as the Church teaches on the Assumption of Mary, that God took her bodily to heaven.

**But the OT writers never described Moses, Elijah and Enoch as individuals who could hear prayers, were preserved from sin, given beatific vision, etc. If they did, there would be something wrong. **

Indeed, most Christians believe that we will ALL physically be raised from the dead on the last day and the righteous taken up to heaven, some even believe that some of the living will be ‘raptured’ up beforehand! Disagreement with the doctrine of the Assumption in particular has always puzzled me, given the points I’ve just made.

**The rapture is different. The bible talks about it and give references to it. The bodily assumption of Mary isn’t mentioned or even talked about. You’re making a faulty conclusion based on something that’s not there.

Parker **

 

[Observing4Grace]

In reading through this thread, I find many topics upon which you have not been properly educated. I chose this one because it was convenient, and glaring. Where does it say this in your bible ?

**I think what you just said clearly demonstrates what I mean by selective quoting. But to answer your question, you misunderstand the point Sola Scripture. No, the Bible doesn’t tell you everything but supplies sufficient information for you to get into heaven. That’s it’s main point. To call me poorly educated is for you to understand what we mean by SS but that’s another can of worms to solve on another day. **

How do you account for the stories in the gospels where average people, most of whom could not read, and did not know their bible (before the NT was even written) are healed by their faith ?

**I don’t most of them couldn’t read exactly. I’m sure there were plenty that did. The parables were used to illustrate the message and what heaven was like. **

It seems to me rather presumptuous for you to be the one to determine what Mary does, and does not know! Where do you think he spent the first 30 years of His life? Don’t you think, in all those years, he might have revealed a few things to Mary?

Mary isn’t wonder woman. Jesus did reveal certain truths but they weren’t vitally important. As John said on the last verse, [paraphrasing here] “If we were to tell you all the things he did, I suppose there wouldn’t be enough books to contain what he did” So the gospels are written to provide the reader the most important information necessary for you to get into heaven. Period.

You are suffering a lack because of the error of sola scriptura. The Bible was never written to contain everything, and the bible itself testifies to this. The bible also states in itself that there are important things that were not written down.

Right. But Sola Scriptura never said that in the first place. The Bible isn’t a phone book or a catalogue of all religious knowledge, it’s main purpose was to provide you, the reader with the most vitally important information. Nothing else. As to what I said earlier, if the doctrines like the Bodily Assumption were vitally important, then it would mentioned. So just as I’ve mentioned, it’s not.

Then, what does Heb 12 mean, if we are not to be conscious of the commmunion of saints? IF they cannot see us, how are they witnesses?

Their actions are witnesses or examples of the faith we live.

The verse says that we are, right now, surrounded by a great cloud of witnesses. These are those that have gone before us in the faith. they are not dead, including Mary. “For all are alive unto Him”.

They are physically dead, not spiritually. You should try to focus on what kind of deaths the scriptures speak of because there are two.

I am glad to hear that you are open to the testimony of the ECF, however, I can tell that you are unfamiliar with these writings, because you deny the content of what is written in them. I hope that you will continue to grow in knowledge, and do so in a less hostile and narrow minded manner.

**I’m currently running down through each one up to the point of the council of Nicea. There isn’t any mentions of her assumption or any allusions to any point in history. Maybe I’m not there yet but I hope I’ll find something. If there isn’t, I know I’m right. **

May the Peace of Christ be with you.

**Alrighty.

Parker**

 

[Randy_Carson]

The main point I’m trying to get across is this: If the Bodily Assumption is True, then there should be some evidence from the Bible and history saying this has happened. I’m not looking for the Bible to spell out “Mary was bodily assumed shortly after Jesus died” but something that hints to that phrase.

Why?

Do you believe that public revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle?

Does the Bible say anything at all about this?

If it doesn’t, then must we conclude that public revelation has not ended and that the canon is not closed? (Watch for the Mormon stampede…)

Hope this helps. :tiphat: