What causes misunderstanding of Mary?

[Reuben_J]

So your devotion and reverence to Mary sometimes doesn’t have to do with Christ but with just Mary herself?

All devotion and prayer would ultimately have Christ as the objective and focus.

Veneration and reverence are accorded to the saints primarily I would say for what they are in Christ. We really cannot separate the two but reverence and veneration are not necessarily devotion as in devotion spirituality. Devotion is optional prayer practice.

 

[concretecamper]

JonNC:

Quote:

Originally Posted by concretecamper

Is there a difference in the Church Triumphant praying for the Church Militant as a whole vs something more specific?

A number of years back I was diagnosed and treated for prostate cancer. Since then I have kept a likeness of St Peregrine in my wallet. While I do not pray to him, I do pray to God to hear his prAyers on behalf of those of us with cancer.
So, yes, I believe the prayers of the saints in Heaven can be specific

Jon

I trust God heard your prayer and St. Peregrine’s prayer for you…praise Jesus! And carrying a prayer card in your wallet is an awesome reminder to that Saint that we are thinking of them and asking for their intercession (whether we verbalize it or not).

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android

 

[Contarini]

I must take the strongest offense to this statement “No Mary - No Jesus … Know Mary - Know Jesus”. Our Lord was and is in no way dependent on Mary. While I am the first to admit that within Mary all of the fullness of God did dwell in the person of Jesus she is not necessary to the plan of salvation. To say other wise demeans our Lord by saying a created being (Mary) in any way was or is responsible for salvation.

The Incarnation means that God, in some sense, chose to become dependent on His own creation. That’s why Muslims don’t believe in it. You want to believe in it but deny some of the implications the historic Church has drawn from it. I’m not saying that this is logically incoherent. I’m just asking you to think about the question in these terms and see if that presents any challenges for you. Perhaps it doesn’t.

Edwin

 

[concretecamper]

The Incarnation means that God, in some sense, chose to become dependent on His own creation.

Edwin

This is what your denomination teaches???

 

[Contarini]

This is what your denomination teaches???

Anglicanism doesn’t really have a distinctive teaching on most points, although we do tend to emphasize the Incarnation.

This is what orthodox Christianity as a whole teaches, yes.

Note the “in some sense.” Explaining the “in some sense” took several centuries and a lot of Councils, and probably still needs work. But to deny it altogether is to deny orthodox Christianity.

God was born of Mary.
God died on the Cross.

These paradoxes are at the heart of our faith. Marian devotion–indeed all the stuff that looks “pagan” to quasi-Islamic Christians (i.e., Protestants)–flows from these paradoxes.

To put it another way: was Eliphaz the Temanite right or wrong (in Job 15:15) when he said that God puts no trust in HIs holy ones?

The ending of the book of Job seems to indicate that he was wrong, does it not? Why then do Protestants side with him?

Edwin

 

[concretecamper]

Anglicanism doesn’t really have a distinctive teaching on most points, although we do tend to emphasize the Incarnation.

This is what orthodox Christianity as a whole teaches, yes.

Note the “in some sense.” Explaining the “in some sense” took several centuries and a lot of Councils, and probably still needs work. But to deny it altogether is to deny orthodox Christianity.

God was born of Mary.
God died on the Cross.

These paradoxes are at the heart of our faith. Marian devotion–indeed all the stuff that looks “pagan” to quasi-Islamic Christians (i.e., Protestants)–flows from these paradoxes.

To put it another way: was Eliphaz the Temanite right or wrong (in Job 15:15) when he said that God puts no trust in HIs holy ones?

The ending of the book of Job seems to indicate that he was wrong, does it not? Why then do Protestants side with him?

Edwin

I think you missed my question. Your denomination teaches that God “in some sense” chose to become dependent on His creation?

 

[Della]

I think you missed my question. Your denomination teaches that God “in some sense” chose to become dependent on His creation?

We teach the same thing in that God became man in the womb of a woman and depended on her and on Joseph to sustain his life, bring him up, guard him and nurture him. It doesn’t mean that God absolutely became dependent on human beings, only in that he took on human nature.

 

[YADA]

This is what your denomination teaches???

Truly - the Incarnation of God is a great mystery and man can only attempt to grasp it fully. And any explanations fall victim of our ability and inability to express in words that the mystery.

Read the dialogues between Tertullian and Marcion and you will see how the early church fathers had to wrestle with the Divinity and Humanity of Christ - and those who would deny one or the other …

Jesus was born of a woman [Mary] and he obtained all of his humanness from her - like Adam and Eve in reverse - where Eve was bone of bone and flesh of flesh of Adam - Jesus’ flesh and bones are Mary’s in whose womb He was nourished - WOW … The Creator God - the Alpha and the Omega - who existed from the creation of the Word - emptied Himself to become mere man - to hunger, thirst and suffer death - a hideous death on a cross. He was spat upon, abused and sweat blood. He cried over the loss of a friend … He grew weary … he was in every respect a man - a human person … WOW - WHY - HOW???

At the same time - Jesus is God - fully divine … two natures OH MY -

Was this the only way to bring about the salvation the world? I would never limit God … so no … God could have brought about salvation in any way He desired … God chose this way … God set this path to salvation in motion - thus God determined that dependence upon humanity would be a component of salvation history … And Mary is unique in the role she was given in this mystery … she deserves our respect - and love - if only because Jesus loved her - Jesus respected her - Jesus gave her to us for our spiritual mother and that is good enough for me

So we are left to spread the Good News of Salvation to the world … with a trust us - its the most unbelievable story ever told …

Really our God - Jesus - became man was murdered for crimes that were non existent, died, buried, came back to life , went to heaven and loves you and wants to take you to heaven too … and until He takes you there he left a heavenly meal of His Body and Blood for you to eat and drink

And yet - we do believe - we do share the love of Christ, try to follow His path for us, we do partake of the Eucharist - our heavenly sustenance - We believe because as wild as it is - it is the Truth …

 

[Contarini]

I think you missed my question. Your denomination teaches that God “in some sense” chose to become dependent on His creation?

No, I answered the question, explaining that it was not a peculiar teaching of “my denomination” (though Anglicans do tend to emphasize it) and giving more particulars on what “sense” I had in mind.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

We teach the same thing in that God became man in the womb of a woman and depended on her and on Joseph to sustain his life, bring him up, guard him and nurture him. It doesn’t mean that God absolutely became dependent on human beings, only in that he took on human nature.

Exactly.

 

[bgfischer]

NovusAugustus, I very much like your: “The Church is the legacy of Mary until the end of ages.” After all, without her fiat there would have been no Redeemer, no Church, no salvation through her Son. Of course, God could have had something else in mind if Mary had said no–some other yet deeper way of humility to bring us back to himself. But since Mary said yes, we must recognize that without her we would not be who we are nor have what we have.

I am new to the site and my intention is not to offend. My only agenda is that I want to understand more of the Catholic faith because half of my family is Catholic but cant answer many questions. Naturally being raised LCMS praying through Mary or anyone else is not our doctrine. I cannot speak for other Lutherans but for me the misunderstanding comes from statements like “The Church is the legacy of Mary until the end of ages.” I don’t remember reading where Gabriel asked Mary to bear The Son. Mary was chosen by God because she was favored by Him and is/was blessed among all women. I do believe She prays for us sinners along with other Saints.

 

[Della]

I am new to the site and my intention is not to offend. My only agenda is that I want to understand more of the Catholic faith because half of my family is Catholic but cant answer many questions. Naturally being raised LCMS praying through Mary or anyone else is not our doctrine. I cannot speak for other Lutherans but for me the misunderstanding comes from statements like “The Church is the legacy of Mary until the end of ages.” I don’t remember reading where Gabriel asked Mary to bear The Son. Mary was chosen by God because she was favored by Him and is/was blessed among all women. I do believe She prays for us sinners along with other Saints.

It was like Gabriel simply expected her to say yes, isn’t it? Of course, knowing, as he also announced, that she was “full of grace” I suspect he wouldn’t have expected any other reply. Still, she had free will and was a free agent, not a puppet. She could have said no and then where would we have been? Remember, God didn’t create a new Adam and a new Eve because they said no to him. Rather, he took their word for themselves and their descendants. Mary had been especially prepared to be the Mother of God, but if she had declined, it’s very possible God would have abided by her decision and Jesus would not have been born. It’s a scary thought, I know, but a very real possibility. We therefore have her to thank for her fiat and it does not go too far to say that the Church is her legacy.

 

[bgfischer]

It was like Gabriel simply expected her to say yes, isn’t it? Of course, knowing, as he also announced, that she was “full of grace” I suspect he wouldn’t have expected any other reply. Still, she had free will and was a free agent, not a puppet. She could have said no and then where would we have been? Remember, God didn’t create a new Adam and a new Eve because they said no to him. Rather, he took their word for themselves and their descendants. Mary had been especially prepared to be the Mother of God, but if she had declined, it’s very possible God would have abided by her decision and Jesus would not have been born. It’s a scary thought, I know, but a very real possibility. We therefore have her to thank for her fiat and it does not go too far to say that the Church is her legacy.

I see. I guess it never crossed my mind that Mary could have said “no”. She really stepped up. She truly is Blessed among all women.
Thanks Della

 

[NovusAugustus]

I am new to the site and my intention is not to offend. My only agenda is that I want to understand more of the Catholic faith because half of my family is Catholic but cant answer many questions. Naturally being raised LCMS praying through Mary or anyone else is not our doctrine. I cannot speak for other Lutherans but for me the misunderstanding comes from statements like “The Church is the legacy of Mary until the end of ages.” I don’t remember reading where Gabriel asked Mary to bear The Son. Mary was chosen by God because she was favored by Him and is/was blessed among all women. I do believe She prays for us sinners along with other Saints.

My statement is not actual Church doctrine, it is just a poetic statement of that doctrine. When I say the Church is Mary’s legacy, I am simply saying that Mary was the first Christian. Mary did not save, and neither does the Church, but both Mary and the Church respond to God’s will by starting (Mary) and continuing (the Church) the work of salvation. Mary, like the Church, exists to devote herself to Christ. That is why we honor (or, using the archaic sense of the word, “worship”) Mary.

 

[concretecamper]

Exactly.

Your “in some sense” confuses me. It is or is not. Sorry for my thick headedness.

 

[Contarini]

Your “in some sense” confuses me. It is or is not. Sorry for my thick headedness.

I tried to explain.

God, in the person of Jesus, was born of the Virgin Mary. A newborn baby is about as dependent as anyone can be, right?

God, in the person of Jesus, hung on the Cross, totally helpless.

God didn’t need to do these things. The divine nature is totally independent of us and does not need us. God created the world purely out of generosity.

But having done this, and having created human beings with free will, and having allowed us to misuse our free will to get ourselves and all of creation into a terrible mess, God chose to become one of us and thus, in a qualified sense, “dependent” on us.

Edwin

 

[NovusAugustus]

Your “in some sense” confuses me. It is or is not. Sorry for my thick headedness.

I am not Contarini, but as I agree with the poster for the most part I will pitch in.

Christ could have come into the world however he wanted. In fact, God the Father could have simply preached directly to the Jews if he wanted–he had no trouble speaking to Moses, after all. But instead, in the Incarnation, he chose to let a human–albeit Mary, a very blessed human–use her free will to accept Christ onto Earth. Even if Mary had refused, Christ could still have come and the work of salvation could have been carried out. Thus, in some sense, God was dependent on Mary, but in another sense he obviously could have done whatever he wanted. This is true wherever God interacts with humans. When God calls a man to the priesthood because he plans to use this man to bring the Word of God to many people, God isn’t dependent on that man, but if the man responds to the call and becomes a priest then we could still say that God, in a sense, is depending on that man to carry out his work, even if he could do it even without the man’s help.

 

[Della]

I see. I guess it never crossed my mind that Mary could have said “no”. She really stepped up. She truly is Blessed among all women.
Thanks Della

It’s sobering thought, isn’t it? And you’re welcome.

NovusAugustus:

My statement is not actual Church doctrine, it is just a poetic statement of that doctrine. When I say the Church is Mary’s legacy, I am simply saying that Mary was the first Christian. Mary did not save, and neither does the Church, but both Mary and the Church respond to God’s will by starting (Mary) and continuing (the Church) the work of salvation. Mary, like the Church, exists to devote herself to Christ. That is why we honor (or, using the archaic sense of the word, “worship”) Mary.

If we keep in mind that our salvation is what Jesus made possible through his redemptive life, death and resurrection, then we can say that Mary and the Church save us because they aid in our salvation. Mary by her fiat and continued prayers and heavenly aid, and the Church by providing the sacraments, it’s prayers, and preaching God’s word. We are all co-workers with Christ in the business of salvation.

 

[bgfischer]

Thanks. I appreciate the explanation. Love the part of Mary being the first Christian! Totally true.

 

[EIF5A]

Growing up Protestant, it was never taught to me that God gave Mary a choice. I always assumed Christ was Incarnate before Mary even knew and that the angel Gabriel basically told her, “Congratulations, you’ve been selected as a special human being, and you’re carrying the Savior.”