What do YOU think about Us Catholics and our veneration of Mary

[PJM]

Thank you for your reply;

Consider this:
When we die our bodies return to DUST

“In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread till thou return to the earth, out of which thou wast taken: for dust thou art, and into dust thou shalt return.”
[Genesis 3:19]

It is the HUman Soul which remains RATIONAL that merits eternal heaven or hell based on out life choices.

So when the Bible teaches we will “see God face to face”; it is a metaphorical expression; It means that we will KNOW God intuitively.

That is true also of what you quoted. The Saints will know us well; but intuitively. And yes they Can "hear " us which means KNOW what we are petitioning for.

Hope this is of help to you,

Continued Blessings
Patrick

 

[meltzerboy2]

It’s not an issue of asking for intercession because Mary is in heaven. Rather, it is because not only is she a saint, but the Mother of G-d. Neither Moses nor Elijah have that distinction. Besides, Jews do not ask (and are not permitted to) for the intercession of Moses, their greatest prophet by far, nor of Elijah; so why should Catholics?

 

[Agathon]

It’s not an issue of asking for intercession because Mary is in heaven. Rather, it is because not only is she a saint, but the Mother of G-d. Neither Moses nor Elijah have that distinction. Besides, Jews do not ask (and are not permitted to) for the intercession of Moses, their greatest prophet by far, nor of Elijah; so why should Catholics?

Mark seems to indicate that first century Jews did these things.
From noon until three o’clock it was dark over all the land. At three o’clock Jesus cried with a loud voice, “My God, My God, why have You left Me alone?” When some of those who stood by heard that, they said, “Listen! He is calling for Elijah.”

 

[mcq72]

HEAR us For SURE; see us; not so much.

how about talk back to us, guide us via some kind of communication (other than by example ) ?

 

[mcq72]

indeed His blood cleanses us from all unrighteousness. We are immaculate enough to be indwelt by the Godhead. We are His monstrances, as an early father said.

 

[mcq72]

There is nothing in scripture that contradicts any of the doctrines about Mary either.

Well, for “all have sinned” has come to many minds, even St Augustine, (and please don’t tell me it doesn’t mean “all”, that Jesus is just one example of exception, as some have posted elsewhere…Writ is very, very uniquely explicit that Christ is the exception, that “He was without sin…”, yet Augustine acquiesces to sentiment of the church at the time, as being some kind of exception to that writ, that she was without sin (though not sure his exact meaning, ie original sin etc.)

Not sure "full of grace " qualifies for explicit sinlessness. I mean it could be , but it could be that full of grace is for immaculateness despite sin nature, hence the epitome of grace, undeserved perfection.(Job was said to be perfect and upright…does that mean sinless ?)

 

[Elizabeth3]

Augustine wasn’t the only one to talk of Mary being sinless. You mentioned the “full of grace” name given her by the angel. That is the first evidence, when studied as to the proper interpretation of that greeting, as referring to her being immaculate and therefore, sinless. This, of course, was for Christ’s sake who would take on his human nature from her, rather than it being for her sake alone. There were many other bishops and Church Fathers who spoke of or implied this very early on in Christianity.

So that leaves us with Scripture which says “all have sinned” and yet refers to Mary as “full of grace” which no one would have been before Christ unless they were somehow highly favored by God for some purpose.

Because Scripture can’t contradict itself, we can only conclude as the Church has, “all” doesn’t mean “all.”

Personally, I’m glad the interpretation of these things isn’t on my shoulders to untangle but that Christ left us a Church with the authority to interpret Scripture and to guide the faithful. I’m also glad that we have Tradition which predates the Bible and informs the Church as well.

If you don’t fancy those interpretations then you are free to reject them or perhaps if you are seeking as to whether they are true or not, ask God to make things more clear to you. Seek and you shall find.

 

[SuperLuigi]

It’s really nice to have someone to help pray for us to get out of Purgatory, which does exist. People do not automatically get a berth into heaven just for the fun of it.

It’s time for other religions to recognize this and align themselves appropriately with Catholics.

There is no time to lose arguing over the matter, either.

 

[PJM]

God Listens always and answers most of the time; and MOST of the time we fail to “hear” {recognize} His answer which can be

Yes

No

Not not

yes but NOT as you asked

And is very often like that soft whisper in the cave. God seldom SHOUTS His reply.

Eons ago I had a teacher who used to tell me: "Patrick you’d hear better if you shut your mouth."

When I got REALLY old I begin to understand the wisdom in that advice.

God Bless,
Patrick

 

[mcq72]

This, of course, was for Christ’s sake who would take on his human nature from her, rather than it being for her sake alone.

Actually, as has been posted by others, Imaculatemess was not out of necessity, or for Christs sake. I mean Christ would touch other flesh, and walk on a fallen earth, and He even inhabits us, being cleansed by the faith in His blood, not to mention OT cleansing of/with same said faith. Fitting is not "necessity’’.

If you follow the logic, that Mary had to be immaculate to receive and carry a Holy Christ, then how was Mary conceived holy and sinless in a fleshly sin natured mother ?

So that leaves us with Scripture which says “all have sinned” and yet refers to Mary as “full of grace” which no one would have been before Christ

Yet we must ponder the nature of an Enoch, or Elijah, going straight into eternity, or a "perfect and upright’’ Job

Seek and you shall find.

double edged sword. You will find what you seek…but agree , for “it is God who puts understanding in the spirit of a person”: (Job 32;8)

Personally, I’m glad the interpretation of these things isn’t on my shoulders

But it is… .we all must choose,and as Christ asks the apostles, He asks all, "What do you think ?’’ as He did about whom we think He is…and John says we, as children, know all things, receiving unction from the Holy Ghost.

I’m also glad that we have Tradition which predates the Bible and informs the Church as well.

Yet Tradition let you believe either way, until 1871

peace

 

[Elizabeth3]

Actually, as has been posted by others , Imaculatemess was not out of necessity, or for Christs sake. I mean Christ would touch other flesh , and walk on a fallen earth, and he even inhabits us, being cleansed by the faith in His blood, not to mention OT cleansing of same said faith. Fitting is not "necessity’’.

Touching other flesh is not the same as it being His flesh which is inseparable from His divine nature. (the hypostatic union) Can that which has the divine nature of God share also a human nature which is tainted by sin?

if you follow the logic, that Mary had to be immaculate to receive and carry a Holy Christ, then how was Mary conceived holy and sinless in a fleshly sin natured mother

She had to be immaculate so that the human nature that she passed on to Christ was not tainted by sin as He was also fully God as well as fully Man. In 1854, Pope Pius IX pronounced the Dogma like this “… the Most Blessed Virgin Mary was in the first instant of her conception, by the singular grace and privilege of God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin.”

Here is a very thorough explanation of Catholic belief regarding Mary that will address your other points of OT figures as well. It is much more in depth and instructive than I can be on a forum.

http://www.catholicbridge.com/catholic/mary_conceived_without_sin_immaculate_conception.php

But it is… .we all must choose,and as Christ asks the apostles, He asks all, "What do you think ?’’ as He did about whom we think He is…and John says we, as children, know all things, receiving unction from the Holy Ghost.

No, I’m not responsible for the interpretation if I believe, as I do, that Christ left us a Church bestowed with His authority to interpret Scripture. My choice is in whether to be obedient or not.

More in next post as I’ve exceeded the character limits.

 

[Elizabeth3]

Yet Tradition let you believe either way, until 1871

Well, not me personally. The doctrine or teaching of the Immaculate Conception was formally defined in 1854 but it was considered doctrine before it was formally defined.

Besides, it’s ok that there was a time in which certain things were not understood in their fullness because the Church doesn’t just hand on a static Revelation but believes in the active, continuous work of the Holy Spirit down through the ages. An analogy I heard recently as to the nature of the Church is that we Catholics believe the Church is a living being -the Body of Christ - that is growing in maturity and understanding as time goes on. The early Church can be likened to an acorn that eventually grows up into a tree with many branches. We don’t think that everything has to remain as it was in acorn form in the beginning nor do we try to always get back to just being the roots. We look back at the acorn and those early roots for sure but we don’t cut away all that has developed from them so we can go back to just being the seed of the early Church. There is some pruning here and there but for those things that are given us as what the Church says we must accept as true, those are the results of the growth and full flowering of teachings that began as that acorn.

 

[mcq72]

Can that which has the divine nature of God share also a human nature which is tainted by sin?

Not sure, but it is our spirit that is born injured more than our flesh, especially for female who may be more genetically intact than man, for thru woman we are saved (or her childbearing)…dont believe we pass on “spirit” at conception ( isn’t that Gods doing?) and I would think Jesus’s spirit would be whole at conception, and half his fleshly dna/ genes would be from Mary, and not sure “half” carries sin, and surely what the Holy Spirit made was not sin carrying either…as to flesh, it says His flesh was like yours and mine, and apparently he aged like his counterparts (isn’t ageing different after the fall?)

 

[mcq72]

preserved immune from all stain of original sin.”

So the merits/cleansing of Christs’ blood only began working premptively with Mary? Not Adam, or Abraham, Moses, Enoch, David, Elijah, Elizabeth or John ? No temporary indwelling from the Holy Spirit, (from time to time) yet Satan could in OT?

How do you answer the fact that we are indwelt by God also more permanently in NT, despite our fleshly imperfections, and even venial sins from time to time?

 

[Elizabeth3]

Not sure, but it is our spirit that is born injured more than our flesh…

Catholics don’t have that view of body and soul. What affects one, affects the other because of the unity of the two.

Catechism of the Catholic Church
"The unity of soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the “form” of the body:234 i.e., it is because of its spiritual soul that the body made of matter becomes a living, human body; spirit and matter, in man, are not two natures united, but rather their union forms a single nature. "

There is no half of this or that.

it says His flesh was like yours and mine,

He was fully human like us in all things but sin.

 

[Elizabeth3]

So the merits/cleansing of Christs’ blood only began working premptively with Mary? Not Adam, or Abraham, Moses, Enoch, David, Elijah, Elizabeth or John ? No temporary indwelling from the Holy Spirit, (from time to time) yet Satan could in OT?

Mary had a singular and unique grace given her as she was the highly favored one who would carry the Son of God. From no one else did any part of the divinity take on human likeness. It was singular and unique because her role in salvation history was like no other.

How do you answer the fact that we are indwelt by God also more permanently in NT, despite our fleshly imperfections, and even venial sins from time to time?

As I said, God isn’t taking human flesh from us. He lives in us and transforms us to grow in holiness.

Again quoting the CCC

"The Word became flesh to make us “partakers of the divine nature”:78 "For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God."79 "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God."80 "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods."81

Christ doesn’t take something from each of us personally, as he took his human nature from Mary. Rather he shares His divinity with us to transform us to receive divine sonship.

 

[mcq72]

Christ doesn’t take something from each of us personally, as he took his human nature from Mary. Rather he shares His divinity with us to transform us to receive divine sonship.

Ok, thank you…just not sure how much dna/genes (which we think He took from Mary…He may have even provided all dna/genes, and none from Mary) carry sin

 

[Elizabeth3]

just not sure how much dna/genes (which we think He took from Mary…He may have even provided all dna/genes, and none from Mary) carry sin

He was fully human like us in all things but sin. That means He took his humanity from His mother just as all human babies do. If He was going to provide all dna/genes without Mary, why even come to us as a baby at all? He could have just appeared as a fully grown man to start His ministry. It was all her dna/genes, which being preserved from original sin at her conception in anticipation of her role, which leads to the Scripture that he was like us in all things but sin.

When we pass on dna/genes, we pass on original sin which all humanity has received through Adam and Eve. That is how original sin is passed to everyone down through the generations. It affects both our body and soul because they are profoundly united. One can’t be more or less affected than the other.

 

[mcq72]

Interesting…dont want pin God down on how exa tly he did it…we know he was to descend from eve to abraham to david…genealogy…so i would think Mary provided half the genes, but needed other half (she knew no man), and Holy Spirit provided other half…as to keeping the genes pure (of which there is no prophecy of such necesity…just had to be jewish virgin), he could have just purified her “egg”, and not her whole being.(yet her whole being could be made pure before God, justified by her jewish faith and walking in accordance to the law and rituals instituted by God.)…remember to that a baby is pretty much a totally seperate being from the mother…no inter mixing of cells beyond her egg…

Would have to study the different views on just how speration from God is passed on,just how original sin operates…dont want to say flesh is evil in itself, or even dna/ gene molecules…it is God that puts the His breath into a soul, and puts a spirit into the fertilized egg, not the man or woman

 

[Elizabeth3]

so i would think Mary provided half the genes, but needed other half (she knew no man), and Holy Spirit provided other half…

The spirit doesn’t pass on genes. Only human nature has genes to pass on.

he could have just purified her “egg”, and not her whole being

Every cell of our whole being, being united to our soul, is affected by original sin so that would include the egg. He could have just purified her “egg” but Christ isn’t in the business of sanctifying body parts, he saves the whole person. Which would be more fitting for Christ to take His human nature from? An egg that had once been tainted by original sin or one that had been preserved from that taint to begin with? If Christ is about saving humanity, then it was fitting that Mary was preserved from sin by the merits of the Cross from the beginning.