Why is it wrong to love Mary, the Mother of God?

[Jimmy_B]

just a quick question. hopefully its not off topic. but what is the history of of anti-marian theology? for lack of a better term. i though Martin Luther, and John Calvin never gave up their Catholic beliefs about Her. i could be wrong.Peace

This is a great question!

 

[Cinette]

This is a great question!

*Absolutely! This is a question we need to have answered. Perhaps there are some Protestants here who have the answer because I know for sure that Luther, Calvin and Zwingli ALL believed Mary to be the MOTHER OF GOD.

So when did that change? When did Protestants reject this belief?

Looking forward to the answer. In fact Jimmy and Benedictus you should start a whole new thread with this question so that it can attract more Protestants.

We are looking for answers.

Blessings to all
Cinette*

 

[Jimmy_B]

First, there is supposedly a problem with Catholics who “worship Mary”, which I have never witnessed and now, a problem with Catholics who supposedly pray the Rosary during Mass. I have seen people pray the Rosary before Mass… I’ve done that… and I’ve seen Catholics hold their Rosaries during Mass but I have never observed Catholics actually pray the Rosary during Mass.

With everything going on during a Catholic Mass, I would think that there would be too many distractions to pray the Rosary.

Because, the order of the Mass requires participation of the faithful, I don’t know when one would have an opportunity to pray the Rosary and if someone did, it would be very noticeable, especially if that person didn’t stand , kneel, respond, pray, give the sign of peace or take communion at the appropriates times.

It takes about, or at least, 45 minutes to pray the Rosary (1 mystery) and a Catholic Mass is right around an hour.

Is it just me, or does it seem that you and a couple others here, are either making a bigger deal out of this “Mary problem” than what really exists… Or, are you guys experiencing something different than I and many other Catholics here have experienced… That is not the Catholic Church that I know…

I was also struck by your comment regarding Mother Angelica from EWTN, with your almost, gleeful response to her alleged chastisement by a priest, on television and in front of a live audience (I’ve seen her show before), by saying… the look on her face was “priceless”… That seems a little odd, coming for a “Catholic priest”… to say something like that about a Catholic nun, let alone, a Mother Superior…

What did you mean by “priceless”?

Finally, did you inferred that Mother Angelica broke the first Commandment, or that she worship’s Mary?..You don’t actually believe that, do you?

Please correct me, If I have misunderstood any of your comments here.

Thank you.

Additionally, if someone were praying the Rosary during Mass and they were not praying aloud, how would anyone know whether or not, they were actually praying the Rosary during Mass, opposed to, holding a Rosary, while praying the Mass?

Moreover, whenever I have attended Mass, the priest or bishop seem to be focused on Christ, the readings, the prayers, the Eucharist and so on and not the audience, the faithful…And, I’ve attended a Mass with a Cardinal, Archbishop and less than 30 people…

 

[Cinette]

*Sorry Benidict - got you mixed up - this is your question.

Cheers
Cinette*

 

[benidict]

Additionally, if someone were praying the Rosary during Mass and they were not praying aloud, how would anyone know whether or not, they were actually praying the Rosary during Mass, opposed to holding a Rosary, while praying the Mass?

exactly. i can pray it in my head and on my ten fingers without making a sound. i do it on ruck marches sometimes, to make it through the pain, and offer it up as a sacrifice. the pain doesnt always go away, but i can deal with it. and just for the record to all our protestant friends out there. Mary is not Dead. Peace

 

[benidict]

*Sorry Benidict - got you mixed up - this is your question.

Cheers
Cinette*

quite alright peace

 

[Linda_Marie]

What are the signs: OK those I have noticed are more devotion to Mary than the Eucharist. More prayers to Mary and giving her ALL credit as if she is the God who helped the person out of “x” situation. Missing mass because of a novena to Mary (that one I can give on some because you are still praying). No other saint is asked to intercede only Mary. Rejecting the prayers of other faithful in favor of only praying to Mary (hey if I am sick or in trouble I want ALL the prayers I can get). I have seen people refuse to do the stations of the cross in favor of just staying in front of a Marian altar.
Does this give you an example of “crossing the line”?

I have never witnessed this kind of behaviour and I have been to Mass in many parts of the world. The only place that might have exhibited ‘excessive’ zeal for Mary was Fatima, Portugal. However, the highpoint of the pilgrimage was the Mass and the reception of the Eucharist, even though it was a pilgrimage in honour of Mary. Some of the Portuguese walked on their knees to the altar, but it was all offered to Jesus, per the message of Fatima. My pilgrimage was in thanksgiving. Our Lady of Fatima was instrumental in bringing me to the Church, that is, to the Body of Christ.

I was baptised in Houston, then went to Scotland, I have relatives in Canada, Barbados, Florida, and England and I have been to Mass in all these places. I’ve been to Mass in Perth and Fremantle, over east in Wagga Wagga and here at home (my home parish is extremely multinational, our parish priest is from India, 1st assistant priest is from the Phillipines, 2nd assistant priest is from Kenya, and the congregation, I think you’d be hard pressed to find a place that wasn’t represented). I have never seen Catholics worship Mary, nor behave as you describe.

The point of my quote from the CCC was to show that Mother Angelica was right in saying that Mary is also a mediator and is so declared in the CCC. We are all mediators in the same way that Mary is, although Mary is the best among us to ask since she was Assumed body and soul into heaven.

 

[guanophore]

My point to this Eve thing is we can’t take everything literal in the Bible. If we do then that is what one would say about that verse. Mary being born without sin using the word “Kecharitomene” not only means “having been graced” or “full of grace.” It also means “favor” or “kindness.” So one could translate that verse as not being without sin, depending what meaning you want to use.

Yes, there are as many interpretations as there are belly buttons.

However, Catholics read the Scripture in the light of what the Apostles believed and taught, so we understand it differently, especially passages such as these. We see here the faith of the Church reflected.

Catholicism is not a “bible based church”. Our faith is not extracted from the Scriptures. It is built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Himself being the cornerstone.

Now something that should be take literally is the verse that says “she remained a virgin “until” her son was born,” how else but literally can you take this verse. In Greek the words for until is “heos” or “mechris” and the Hebrew word “'ad” which means that same then as it does today.

I agree that it should be taken literally. It means the same as it does in the verse “Michal (Saul’s daughter) bore no children up until the day she died”. The use of this word makes no implication about what happens afterward.

Until-Up to the time of. To the time when, to the degree or place.The footnote on St. Matthew 1,25 from the Douai-Rheims here St. Jerome uses the word “till” to say Mary remained a virgin all her life. Now the word “till” means the same as until in both Greek, Hebrew and today.

There are times when it is used differently, and the same is done today. However, this is not one of them. Jerome wrote that in his footnote because the Teaching we received from the Apostles is that she remained a virgin all her life. Dont’ you think they would know?

 Now there are some Catholic commentators like St. Thomas Aquinas that actually hold that the Virgin Mary had made a formal vow of perpetual virginity together with St. Joseph. This vow that they held would help explain why the virgin Mary stayed a virgin all her life, but there is no evidence that this vow took place.

There is none for those who reject the once for all deposit of faith given to the Church.

Mary was a perpetual virgin. She had no intention of relinquishing her virginity during her marriage. That is why she asked the angel “how shall this be”? Any young woman engaged to be married certainly has been instructed in how babies are made. If she expected to do the things that make babies, she would not need to ask this.

 

[guanophore]

Ok lets put the whole thing in context.

The word “until.” The Greek compound word used in Matthew 1:25 is “Heos-hou.” Heos-hou is an abbreviation of the longer Greek phrase “heos hou chronou en hoi” which means “Until the time when.” Another, shorter word for “until” in Greek is “heos.” Both “heos” and the longer “heos-hou” means the same thing “until.”

I have read the Affirmative Argument. Just because Mary said, how can this be, I have not known a man. This don’t mean she was going to stay a virgin the rest of her life.

I agree. But, since we know that she took a vow of perpetual virginity, this sheds light on the meaning of the verse.

She said this because she was told she was going to have a child and she knew she had not been with a man, she knew she was still a virgin, so how could she be pregnant?

C’mom rev! She was betrothed! Why would she NOT expect to have relations with her husband?

What would make her think that she would not bear a son after the manner of all women?

Its like tell a virgin today that she is going to have a child, she would say, no I’m not, I haven’t slept with anyone, so I can’t be pregnant.

No, it is like telling a young woman who is engaged and looking forward to marriage.

It don’t mean she is going to stay a virgin all her life. It means I’m still a virgin. Nothing more and nothing less. Mary did not say, how can this be, because I’ll never know a man.

That is exactly what she meant.

Now this would indicate that Mary had intended to stay a virgin the rest of her life, but she did not say that.

We understand that she meant this because we already know she remained a virgin all her life.

Joseph did not know Mary until she gave birth to her first-born son. Once again how do you see that Joseph and Mary would not have relations later. Its like saying I’m not going to have relations with my wife until our child is born. The intent is to have relations after the child is born just like the intent of Mary and Joseph were to have relations after Jesus was born.

Except that he had no such intent. He received her vow for perpetual virginity, and received her for safekeeping, not for sexual relations. Virgins who reached the marriagable age were placed in custody of a male relative, or a husband. Legally they had no rights. Only prostitutes were women that were not in the custody of a man.

It don’t say that Joseph would not know Mary ever even after she gave birth to her first-born son. The intent was to wait until Jesus was born, then have marital relations.

No, rev kev. There was no such intent. You are speculating, because you don’t want to receive the teaching that was handed on to us by the Apostles.

 

[guanophore]

Ok lets play!

Jesus was indeed 100% human but don’t forget he is also God who is not 100% human. Remember God and Jesus are the same. That would be saying that God is 100% human and not divine.

No it would not mean Jesus, You are trying to put Jesus as only human when he’s not. That is a insult to Jesus.

Wrong again. Don’t forget who the Father of Jesus is. God so Jesus could not be included.

Once again your wrong. This would not include Jesus because Jesus is the Son of God, the divine Son of God.

You can’t include Jesus in any of this because Jesus is God and that would be saying that God is less than divine. That God is merely a human and not the divine one. To put God or Jesus in the same catigory is insulting them and reducing them down to being only human and not divine. :tsktsk:

Oh Nicea325–How can you reduce God/Jesus to mere humans and not divine. Acknowledge your error and repent.

This is one of the instances where the use of “all” does not mean “all”.

In fact, if you go back and look at the OT where that passage originated, it is clear that “all” does not mean all. The Psalm is very specific that the “all” refers to sinners. The passage goes on to extol the “righteous” who are faithful and obedient to God, and the blessings they inherit.

 

[guanophore]

Love is active, see I Cor 13. I am not exactly sure how one on earth can serve one in heaven.

Are you not a servant of Christ? where do you think He is?

 

[guanophore]

Beautiful Poem Sir!
Im curious as to when “loving Mary” becomes “worshiping Mary” is there a fine line sir?
YIC

I think that idolatry is endemic in human nature. One can idolize their spouse, their job, their physique, any number of things.

 

[guanophore]

As to Jesus having “blood brothers” not by the Holy Spirit, but of Mary the Bible mentions them by name, that is why the Catholic church does not call them Jesus’ brothers because Jesus was only begotten of the Father so he could not have any other brother. His earthly brothers, by name they are mentioned. Technically they would be only half brothers.

Except that they are also said to be children of “the other Mary” (also called the sister of the Mother of our Lord) whose father is Clopas (Alphaus), not Joseph…

 

[guanophore]

What I am finding odd is

1. Your name (FatherJohnB) Are you a priest?
2. Your demonination (Catholic) Nothing you say here is Catholic dogma.

Unfortunately lapsed Catholics include the clergy as well as the laity.

 

[guanophore]

If I post something that some do not agree with funny the Catholics come after me and question my being a priest and throw innuendo out about people being protestants in Catholic clothing and the like. Look up your own dogmas and study their history, you will find what I am posting is merely the contrast of them so that a Protestant will know what we take on FAITH outside of what is clear in scripture.

We are just observing that your “faith” did not express itself in your posts.

 

[guanophore]

Let me challenge you to look at how the church has labeled these people in light of Mary and ask if it is at all possible that the virginity that we speak about is her chaste-ness. We speak of Joseph in liturgical prayers as “her most chaste spouse” so where did this come from?

This site goes on BTW to mention that this TRADITION goes back to the first century.

It sounds like you agree with our separated brethren that she had relations with Joseph, and that Mary produced offspring from him.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Get used to it in here, Father. After a while you might even be accused of not having enough faith in Christ or being a “cafeteria Catholic.” There are many labels and litmus tests abounding in CAF by people who disagree. It’s unfortunate. And often when you ask a question, you’ll get a socratic-style question to answer your question. Good times…

If I post something that some do not agree with funny the Catholics come after me and question my being a priest and throw innuendo out about people being protestants in Catholic clothing and the like. Look up your own dogmas and study their history, you will find what I am posting is merely the contrast of them so that a Protestant will know what we take on FAITH outside of what is clear in scripture.

 

[Jimmy_B]

Get used to it in here, Father. After a while you might even be accused of not having enough faith in Christ or being a “cafeteria Catholic.” There are many labels and litmus tests abounding in CAF by people who disagree. It’s unfortunate. And often when you ask a question, you’ll get a socratic-style question to answer your question. Good times…

Yep… we have all been there, including me but I don’t think that it is “unfortunate” to use the Catechism to correct a falsehood, nor do I think it’s “unfortunate”, to defend ones faith, or to defend St. Mary, the Mother of God.

Sometimes, people have questions and that includes questions to comments made here and usually, over several posts, if the member was misunderstood, the comment or any confusion is cleared up.

Isn’t that why this forum is called Catholic Answers, because people have questions?

I’m a member of the Knights of Columbus, so I will always defend and pray for our priests and our Pope.

However, it is possible for a member of our Church, to be in error and to deviate from the teachings and beliefs of the Catholic Church. Christ, The Church, Our infallible Pope and Christian truth, always come first.

Sometimes, the most informative threads here, are those where Catholics are having a lively debate… people do their research, find credible sources and the truth usually prevails… right?

For example, I’ve learned a lot from you, over the years here.

I read a post here where a member apparently had a problem with Mother Angelica and with Mary, as “Mediatrix” or “co-Redeemer”, which is clearly addressed in the Catechism.

I am rooting for FrJohnB and I hope that he can clear up any concerns here…

Catechism of the Catholic Church
**970 **“Mary’s function as mother of men in no way obscures or diminishes this unique mediation of Christ, but rather shows its power. But the Blessed Virgin’s salutary influence on men . . . flows forth from the superabundance of the merits of Christ, rests on his mediation, depends entirely on it, and draws all its power from it.” “No creature could ever be counted along with the Incarnate Word and Redeemer; but just as the priesthood of Christ is shared in various ways both by his ministers and the faithful, and as the one goodness of God is radiated in different ways among his creatures, so also the unique mediation of the Redeemer does not exclude but rather gives rise to a manifold cooperation which is but a sharing in this one source.”

**969 **“This motherhood of Mary in the order of grace continues uninterruptedly from the consent which she loyally gave at the Annunciation and which she sustained without wavering beneath the cross, until the eternal fulfillment of all the elect. Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation. . . . Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix.”

Thank you for your post.

Your thoughts?

 

[benedictus2]

Here is the problem with the Marian dogma according to scripture that we Catholics are asked to take on faith: Joachim and Anna who are believed to be Mary’s parents (again we have holy tradition) are believed to have conceived Mary without the stain of original sin. What happened to “In Sin was I born and in Sin did my Mother conceive me” from Psalm 51? I believe Ronin67 pointed out another point in Romans where we are all born into sin. Most Protestants have NO problem believing Jesus was immaculately conceived but when it comes to Mary the Bible tells us that we are all born into original sin. By tradition and dogma we Catholics are asked to believe otherwise in Mary’s case. Even most Eastern Orthodox do not believe Mary was immaculately conceived (which means to be conceived without sin) as that dogma is heresy to them. They call Mary Theotokos or God bearer or Mother of God as she was earthly mother to him. Now be filled with Grace of God that is 100% possible by scripture so that she could bear the Christ child.

If you think about it, what does it mean to be full of grace? If we are saved by grace which is poured out on us by Christ’s redemptive sacrifice, well, Mary was already “full of that grace” even prior to Jesus’s conception.

As to Jesus having “blood brothers” not by the Holy Spirit, but of Mary the Bible mentions them by name, that is why the Catholic church does not call them Jesus’ brothers because Jesus was only begotten of the Father so he could not have any other brother. His earthly brothers, by name they are mentioned. Technically they would be only half brothers.

The mention of Jesus’s brothers indicate that these “brothers” are older than him by the way they were ordering him. So how can that be when Jesus is the first born?

Also, at the presentation of the temple, Jesus was already twelve and there is no mention of siblings.

 

[benedictus2]

Unfortunately lapsed Catholics include the clergy as well as the laity.

You can say that again. My parish priest is into new age and find’s nothing wrong with panentheism.