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

[FrJohnB]

It think you missed my point. First of all I fully understand that the immaculate conception is dogma. What I was pointing out in defense of Fr John was the theology continually evolves. This is why I posted the section of early church fathers on the matter. What Fr John was putting forth IF YOU WERE PAYING ATTENTION and not trying to keep this argument going, was the newer thoughts on the matter in the evolution of even Catholic theologians. OH but because he puts forth those Ideas, you think he does not sound like a Catholic. IT is also apparent from this being brought up from the mud again that you did not read his explanations on the matter of trying to put forth ALL points of view on the matter so that you can better defend your stance and current position.

You also have hit here on the “problem” for us Protestants that Fr John was trying to refer to and that was much of catholic dogma in this area is not taken directly from scripture but early Christian writings which are not part of the canon of scripture. Catholics have to take those area on faith. For example: yous said "Some writers even taught that Mary was born of a virgin and that she was conceived in a miraculous manner when Joachim and Anne met at the golden gate of the temple (Trombelli, “Mari SS. Vita”, Sect. V, ii, 8; Summa aurea, II, 948. Cf. also the “Revelations” of Catherine Emmerich which contain the entire apocryphal legend of the miraculous conception of Mary" Where in sacred scripture do you find these things mentioned. This is the “problem” that Fr John was referring to because Catholics, if you wish to win a Protestant, need to prove certain things from scripture. Notice you also say this is an “apocryphal legend.” This is another “problem” for Protestants, we look at scripture that tells us that we should not follow “cunningly devised fables” and yet a Catholic would take stuff like this as (pardon the expression) like “Gospel Truth” when it is part of dogma. As you said, “As a faithful Catholic we are supposed to believe this.” Now considering that the idea behind Catholicism is to bring people “home” and into the fold of the Catholic church do you not feel that if you looked at certain things as mentioned above that they could produce a “problem” when trying to convince a Protestant of your sincerity? So why would you (or others) say that a Roman Catholic priest would never say such? He is trying to explain this in ways that we can understand.

I think part of the reason why I am getting such flack over my “problem” post is that
#1 I could have explained myself better as you have just done.
#2 there are some in the Catholic church who do not see that others should have a “problem” with what we as Catholics take on face value as pert of the faith. They do not think that there would be a “problem” with a Protestant wanting to know where in scripture X is because they view it differently that we do. The do not think there is a “problem” in explaining to Protestants when it comes to the Marian dogmas that we rely on sources outside of scripture. These same people wonder why there are not more Catholic converts. It is because sometimes we as a church do not explain things knowing how the other believes and might view a situation and we wind up being the proverbial bull in the china closet when it comes to letting someone know about us. Admittedly, I am sure that you would agree with this being a Protestant minister, that Protestants are guilty of the same things when it comes to us.

 

[benedictus2]

Medjugorje was the “tipping point” for one my friends - the “fruit” is worship of Mary.

Yes, I must agree with that. I too went to Medjugorje before I knew better. I was with a lady who said she was so happy (after shaking hands with Vicka) because she had touched the hand that touched Mary .

Medjugorje is not an approved apparition site and people have been advised not to make pilgrimages there but still they come.

True veneration of Mary leads one to a close relationship of Jesus and closer relationship with Jesus which leads to a closer relationship with the Father. But when I said to the lady that she can pray directly to Jesus, she said “oh no, I just pray to Mary and she can take that to Jesus”, which is sad and something that I don’t think Mary herself would approve of.

 

[FrJohnB]

I did read his explanation of putting out the possible explanations out there, but I am not answering his post but yours. And as to why now, because I have not participated in this thread for a few days.

Yes theology evolves but once a dogma is pronounced, you cannot say that theology on that will evolve the other way.

If Mary is Immaculately Conceived and pronounced to be so, no matter how much evolution theology grows through, that doctrine will remain.

And as StLucy said, theologians are not the magisterium.

But the Canon of Scripture was determined by the Catholic church, and not the other way around.The NT was written by her members.

That is the point that protestants don’t get. The Church came first. If she is infallible in her pronouncement about the canon, then she is infallible about her pronouncement regarding the Immaculate Conception.

This is why the main contention between Catholics and Protestants is not Mary, not the sacraments or whatever else dogma, but rather the doctrine on infallibility. Because that is what it all boils down to. If the Church is infallible with regards to faith and morals, then it follows that all her doctrines are true.

G K Chesterton said it much better:

The ordinary sensible sceptic or pagan is standing in the street (in the supreme character of the main in the street) and he sees a procession go by of the priests of some strange cult, carrying their object of worship under a canopy, some of them wearing high head-dresses and carrying symbolical staffs, others carrying scrolls and sacred records, others carrying sacred images and lighted candles before them, others sacred relics in caskets or cases and so on. I can understand the spectator saying, “This is all hocus-pocus”; I can even understand him, in moment of irritation, breaking up the procession, throwing down the images, tearing up the scrolls, dancing on the priests and anything else that might express the general view. I can understand his saying, “Your croziers are bosh, your candles are bosh, your statues and scrolls and relics and all the rest of it are bosh”. But in which conceivable frame of mind does he rush in to select one particular group (a scroll which had always belonged to them and been a part of their hocus-pocus, if it was hocus-pocus); why in the world should the man in the street say that one particular scoll was not bosh, but was the one and only truth by which all the other things were to be condemned?

The problem here is that Padrej was defending my stance on Marian dogmas and you are taking it as he is being argumentative. He and I both know well that theology evolves but I must teach what the Magisteruim says, and that I do. Now If I put forth the “problem” in explaining Marian dogmas with things that others may have heard about I can better sell my position as being one of truth.
What you and others seem to focusing on is the things that I put forth that others may have heard about and tried to paint me as being a heretic. At least StLucy admitted that what I posted from the faith section of this forum she believes is heresy but yet nobody goes after her for saying Catholic teaching that are posted to this forum is heresy. I wonder if it is because she did not agree with the “other” stuff I put forth in comparison, which by the way is also mentioned in the faith section of this site.

You do not need to feed Padrej what the church believes, he pretty well knows it so you are wasting your time with the last post. I think it is time that we got back to discussing the premise of the thread instead of tearing one another part.

 

[benedictus2]

This is another “problem” for Protestants, we look at scripture that tells us that we should not follow “cunningly devised fables” and yet a Catholic would take stuff like this as (pardon the expression) like “Gospel Truth” when it is part of dogma. As you said, “As a faithful Catholic we are supposed to believe this.” Now considering that the idea behind Catholicism is to bring people “home” and into the fold of the Catholic church do you not feel that if you looked at certain things as mentioned above that they could produce a “problem” when trying to convince a Protestant of your sincerity? So why would you (or others) say that a Roman Catholic priest would never say such? He is trying to explain this in ways that we can understand.

I think because he did not do a very good job of it. To date he has not explained what he meant by the brothers being “half-brothers” (unless I missed his post reponding to that).

As to explaining the Catholic position to bring people home, then one must approach it from the point that the Catholic Church gave the world the Bible. A lot of protestants seem to have this notion that the Bible came to us in a vacuum. The Church came first.

If I want to convince the Protestants, I would suggest reading the conversion stories of Protestants who know scripture backwards and forwards yet converted. From them you can learn the objections and the reasons why they converted.

And interestingly enough, a lot of them has to do with good solid scripture background but a lot of rational and logical thinking as well.

And taking something as dogma even when you can’t understand it is humility. It is acknowleging that you cannot fully comprehend every single doctrine, and that the Magisterium of the Church knows this so much more than you do and that you will follow her dictates because she is the Church that Christ built upon Peter to whom He promised the guidance of the Holy Spirit and against whom the gates of hell will not prevail.

To be scrutinizing every single doctrine is really nothing more than to say that one’s self is the magisterium.

That is why I find CS Lewis’s decision not to convert rather sad considering that it seems he believes the doctrines of the Church. He was afraid that once he has given assent, he might be asked to give assent to doctrines not yet decreed. It didn’t occur to him that if the Church is indeed the Church of Christ, whatever doctrine she may pronounce later on will still be true because she is the Church of Christ.

 

[benedictus2]

The problem here is that Padrej was defending my stance on Marian dogmas and you are taking it as he is being argumentative. He and I both know well that theology evolves but I must teach what the Magisteruim says, and that I do. Now If I put forth the “problem” in explaining Marian dogmas with things that others may have heard about I can better sell my position as being one of truth.
What you and others seem to focusing on is the things that I put forth that others may have heard about and tried to paint me as being a heretic. At least StLucy admitted that what I posted from the faith section of this forum she believes is heresy but yet nobody goes after her for saying Catholic teaching that are posted to this forum is heresy. I wonder if it is because she did not agree with the “other” stuff I put forth in comparison, which by the way is also mentioned in the faith section of this site.

You do not need to feed Padrej what the church believes, he pretty well knows it so you are wasting your time with the last post. I think it is time that we got back to discussing the premise of the thread instead of tearing one another part.

Then Father, what do you mean when you said that the brothers of Jesus were half brothers?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

As I see it, there is a difference between people who believe and practice Catholic teachings correctly (Marian devotion among them) and people who do not.

There are those who practice the teachings and go ‘overboard’ (perhaps LeeAnn’s friends) to the point that they misunderstand and practice something the Church does not teach.

Of course, there are Protestants who do the same. They get so involved over one ‘point’ that they actually wind up teaching something that Christianity does not itself teach. (One could bring as examples contraception, divorce, homosexuality, female ordination, as well as ‘shunning’, symbolic Eucharist, etc. etc. And while the Catholics disagree with Protestant teaching on the above which contradicts Catholic teaching, Protestants themselves disagree with other Protestants on the same topics, and not just from denomination to denomination. As some of our Lutheran friends for example have posted, they disagree with the ‘direction’ of teaching in their Church.

The thing is, the teachings of the Churches (Protestant and Catholic) are clear. But neither Protestants nor Catholics have a hierarchy which can ‘micromanage’ every single solitary example of a person who somehow ‘gets it wrong.’

I think LeeAnn somehow expects ‘more’ from the Catholic Church than she expects from any other Church. She somehow expects us to do the ‘smackdown’ with all sorts of papal bulls and excommunications for every single person who gets something ‘wrong’. . .otherwise if this is NOT done (in order to get people ‘in-line’ with the true teaching’) she says that it is not ‘fair’ because the ‘appearance’ of these people in holding to incorrect doctrines somehow makes it look as though the Church ‘approves’ or that these really ARE the teachings.

Thing is, the Church teachings are clear. They’re out there. (Just as TULIP etc. are ‘out there’ for Protestants but not always followed). And over and over, bishops as well as priests, and even the Pope, reiterate the correct teachings. Heck, we even have catechisms!

Of course, we should try to get those who get it wrong’ to understand. And we do. But it’s really a little annoying in a way for somebody Protestant to come on and imply (at least) that THEY are more ‘caring’ and ‘concerned’ for these ‘poor misguided Catholics’ than Catholics themselves are.

I really get from LeeAnn’s posts that she is concerned and sincerely so. . .but I also get that she is less concerned that the people are worshipping ‘correctly’ according to Catholic teaching, but rather that she is convinced that Catholic teaching itself is wrong, and the people need to be worshipping according to HER definition. IOW, Catholic teaching should adjust itself to LeeAnn’s idea of what Marian devotion should be. Not that LeeAnn’s ideas are completely wrong, of course–but LeeAnn’s ideas of Marian devotion are mixed, as some of her thoughts are correct and some are not. To adjust to her idea would make us teach SOME things correctly (since LeeAnn understands some things correctly) but it would also make us teach some things incorrectly, as LeeAnn understands some things incorrectly.

 

[FrJohnB]

Then Father, what do you mean when you said that the brothers of Jesus were half brothers?

Sorry that you missed this. The points that I had made on them are things that modern theologians (remember the theology evolves conversations) are thinking on the matter. They come up with these ideas because of certain wording in scripture such as “Firstborn son” would indicate there were other sons to follow. IN their defense this wording follows other portions of scripture where a firstborn meant there is going to be another. Be that as it may, I also put forth some positions of some of the church fathers that these could be “cousins” I was quoting from this section of the CAF
catholic.com/library/Bad_Aramaic_Made_Easy.asp
There is actually no Biblical Greek word for “cousin” or “half brother” just one word that gets translated “brother.”
see
catholic.com/library/Brethren_of_the_Lord.asp

 

[benedictus2]

Sorry that you missed this. The points that I had made on them are things that modern theologians (remember the theology evolves conversations) are thinking on the matter. They come up with these ideas because of certain wording in scripture such as “Firstborn son” would indicate there were other sons to follow. IN their defense this wording follows other portions of scripture where a firstborn meant there is going to be another. Be that as it may, I also put forth some positions of some of the church fathers that these could be “cousins” I was quoting from this section of the CAF
catholic.com/library/Bad_Aramaic_Made_Easy.asp
There is actually no Biblical Greek word for “cousin” or “half brother” just one word that gets translated “brother.”
see
catholic.com/library/Brethren_of_the_Lord.asp

I wonder why you say that modern theologians say this. If you read Catholicism and Fundamentalism by Keating, this was already addressed it seems some time ago.

Even Scott Hahn and Tim Staples have dealt with this in their talks.

That is why I wonder why this kind of theology is being put forth as “new theology” when this is actually “old protestant theology” that has already been addressed.

I checked both links and they are both truly Catholic in view point.

I wonder then why you would suggest that the brothers are Jesus’s half brother by Mary and Joseph’s union?

Another point as well. If Mary had other sons, why would Jesus entrust her to John?

 

[KathleenGee]

FrJohnB,

Benedictus2 echoes my concern and why I asked, no offense intended, if you were truly a priest, as some people come onto CAF not always who they profess to be.

I know of some seminaries in the USA who were known not to teach orthodox Roman Catholic teachings…or teach them in a way that would create a different concept in a layman’s mind when hearing such foundation on Mary.

I don’t see how being blessed with carrying God Himself, sacredness in Himself, would then want to turn around and have an active sex life. There are Catholic couples who take on the promise of celibacy in their relationship as soul mates…so if they can do it, why couldn’t Mary and Joseph…???

Mary is the immaculate conception and perpetual virgin.

 

[FrJohnB]

I wonder why you say that modern theologians say this. If you read Catholicism and Fundamentalism by Keating, this was already addressed it seems some time ago.

 

[FrJohnB]

FrJohnB,

Benedictus2 echoes my concern and why I asked, no offense intended, if you were truly a priest, as some people come onto CAF not always who they profess to be.

I know of some seminaries in the USA who were known not to teach orthodox Roman Catholic teachings…or teach them in a way that would create a different concept in a layman’s mind when hearing such foundation on Mary.

I don’t see how being blessed with carrying God Himself, sacredness in Himself, would then want to turn around and have an active sex life. There are Catholic couples who take on the promise of celibacy in their relationship as soul mates…so if they can do it, why couldn’t Mary and Joseph…???

Mary is the immaculate conception and perpetual virgin.

I am not saying that they could not be celibate.

 

[Loboto-Me]

I guess Jesus would entrust Mary to John because all those half brothers of His were non existent to be entrusted to. You’d figure that if there were true half brothers coming from Joseph’s first family (if there was one) there would have been much more mention of them in the NT. I don’t recall any mention of them. I realize it’s about Jesus’ life, but you’d figure that at least one of those “brothers” would have realized that Jesus is the Messiah and followed Jesus as a disciple. No mention of it as far as I know. Even if one of those brothers had been around, even as a normal jew, you’d think they he would have stepped up to take care of Mary, since she was now part of the family?

 

[Saintlucy]

FrJohnB:
I have no idea who is addressing whom in this post. It looks like a long quote from one person and yet is there are answers from you. I see you and padrej seem to have real bees in your bonnets about me. I will say again. Mary and Joseph did not have offspring. Anything else is heresy.

 

[Leeann]

Yes, I must agree with that. I too went to Medjugorje before I knew better. I was with a lady who said she was so happy (after shaking hands with Vicka) because she had touched the hand that touched Mary .

Medjugorje is not an approved apparition site and people have been advised not to make pilgrimages there but still they come.

True veneration of Mary leads one to a close relationship of Jesus and closer relationship with Jesus which leads to a closer relationship with the Father. But when I said to the lady that she can pray directly to Jesus, she said “oh no, I just pray to Mary and she can take that to Jesus”, which is sad and something that I don’t think Mary herself would approve of.

By jove…I think you’ve got it!

 

[Leeann]

Actually not horrible at all. Just ordinary family squabbling. Much better than the I/Me/Myself stance of a lone ranger orphan.

Not an “orphan” - I refer to your own ‘footnote’ (don’t know if that is the proper name for it…but the quote you have at the end of all your posts).

Let nothing disturb you, let nothing frighten you
All things are passing, God alone never changes
Patient endurance attains all things,
Whoever has God wants for nothing,
God Alone Suffices -St Teresa of Avila

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Of course, it works both ways, so to speak.

It is true that some can go ‘overboard’ and give Mary a false kind of veneration (which the Church emphatically does not approve of.) However, “appearances” are not necessarily reality. IOW, if I were to be seen in a church leaning over to kiss a statue of Mary, some might think, “Oh horrors, that idolatous woman is giving Mary glory that only belongs to God!” But if in my heart I firmly and consistently consider Mary as God’s creature (never God) to be loved and honored as Christ’s mother, I am not taking any glory from God whatsoever; in fact, I am giving Him greater glory through appropriate respect of His mother.

However, it is equally true that some can go ‘underboard’ (so to speak) and believe it or not, detract from the complete worship of Jesus by ignoring, or worse yet, denigrating, His mother.

Sins of ‘omission’ are just as serious as sins of ‘commission’. Omitting to give Christ His complete glory through a false understanding and detraction of His mother is as much a problem in its lack as failing to give Him His glory by ‘giving it to somebody else’.

While our Protestant brothers and sisters might be upset (and of course, we are too) with Catholics who have ‘committed’ the error of giving Mary Christ’s glory, we Catholics are upset when we see Protestants who have ‘omitted’ to give Christ His glory through their treatment of His mother. However, it is harder for Protestants to see this ‘omission’ of theirs, it seems, and they do not seem to accept this as a problem that is as great–in fact, is actually much greater–as that which they accuse some Catholics of.

It is actually much more rare for a Catholic to truly go ‘overboard’ on Marian devotions deliberately than it is for a Protestant to be ‘underboard’, and again, you are far more likely to hear a Catholic, even the most “Marian”, still understand that Jesus is God (even if he or she is spending what looks like more time with Mary). But of the Protestants who absolutely denigrate the mother of God, they actually go out of their way not just to make her anonymous or unimportant, they tend to actually call her not just ‘sinful like anybody else’ (bad enough), but they actually say that Jesus Himself denied her, that she failed Him, that she was nothing but an ‘incubator’, that she was not even the Mother of Christ but only of his ‘human nature’ etc. . . .and they fail to see how this detracts from Christ’s full humanity by the false representation of His mother and His relationship to her.

It is very disturbing to Catholics and while we understand that many if not most Protestants are at least ‘respectful’ of Mary, the kind of language that is used is so ‘dismissive’ of her that it appears to us that they harbor the same kind of fanatic ‘disrespect’ as the more ‘zealous’ of their brothers and sisters.

 

[Cinette]

Of course, it works both ways, so to speak.

It is true that some can go ‘overboard’ and give Mary a false kind of veneration (which the Church emphatically does not approve of.) However, “appearances” are not necessarily reality. IOW, if I were to be seen in a church leaning over to kiss a statue of Mary, some might think, “Oh horrors, that idolatous woman is giving Mary glory that only belongs to God!” But if in my heart I firmly and consistently consider Mary as God’s creature (never God) to be loved and honored as Christ’s mother, I am not taking any glory from God whatsoever; in fact, I am giving Him greater glory through appropriate respect of His mother.
…
While our Protestant brothers and sisters might be upset (and of course, we are too) with Catholics who have ‘committed’ the error of giving Mary Christ’s glory, we Catholics are upset when we see Protestants who have ‘omitted’ to give Christ His glory through their treatment of His mother. However, it is harder for Protestants to see this ‘omission’ of theirs, it seems, and they do not seem to accept this as a problem that is as great–in fact, is actually much greater–as that which they accuse some Catholics of.

It is actually much more rare for a Catholic to truly go ‘overboard’ on Marian devotions deliberately than it is for a Protestant to be ‘underboard’, and again, you are far more likely to hear a Catholic, even the most “Marian”, still understand that Jesus is God (even if he or she is spending what looks like more time with Mary). But of the Protestants who absolutely denigrate the mother of God, they actually go out of their way not just to make her anonymous or unimportant, they tend to actually call her not just ‘sinful like anybody else’ (bad enough), but they actually say that Jesus Himself denied her, that she failed Him, that she was nothing but an ‘incubator’, that she was not even the Mother of Christ but only of his ‘human nature’ etc. . . .and they fail to see how this detracts from Christ’s full humanity by the false representation of His mother and His relationship to her.

It is very disturbing to Catholics and while we understand that many if not most Protestants are at least ‘respectful’ of Mary, the kind of language that is used is so ‘dismissive’ of her that it appears to us that they harbor the same kind of fanatic ‘disrespect’ as the more ‘zealous’ of their brothers and sisters.

*To accuse Jesus of denying Mary is more than an insult to Him. God commands us to “honour thy Mother and thy Father” and then Jesus would deny his Mother? Jesus would honour and elevate His Mother.

I become very upset when non-Catholics “mock” Mary but it is true that there are an increasing number who love her also.

*

 

[rev_kevin]

rev.,

Would you say that Jesus is a human person?

What would you say if I told you I do not believe Jesus is a human person?

Lets see, is Jesus a human person you ask. Well lets see. Jesus was born like a human person, looked like a human person, talked like a human person, walked like a human person, ate like a human person, had all human traits, except he had no sin, he is the Son of God, he was not conceived in the human way, he is divine, he is God. Well Jesus is God who came down as a human who felt things a human feels, had human emotions, did things that a human would do. So yes Jesus was human person and a divine person as well. See he’s both.

What do you want me to say if you told me that you don’t believe Jesus is a human person. I’ll say OK if thats what you believe.

By the way, I do have a good understanding of who Jesus is. Please don’t insult me.

 

[benedictus2]

By jove…I think you’ve got it!

Yes, I know I do. Most Catholics do. Some go over board. Protestants just don’t get it all.

 

[benedictus2]

Not an “orphan” - I refer to your own ‘footnote’ (don’t know if that is the proper name for it…but the quote you have at the end of all your posts).

Let nothing disturb you, let nothing frighten you
All things are passing, God alone never changes
Patient endurance attains all things,
Whoever has God wants for nothing,
God Alone Suffices -St Teresa of Avila

Well not quite. St Teresa of Avila who wrote that was very Catholic. You can’t get any more Catholic than a doctor of the Church .

  When God becomes enough for you, then that means His Will as expressed as in Scripture becomes paramount.

  So going back to scriputre, what has God WILLED?

Did Jesus write a book and say “Here, read this book and follow what I have written?”
No. What He did is build a Church, because He did not intend us to be lone rangers.

  This is something that most protestants just don’t get, especially those who just say believer, or non-denominational.

  Because all that means is that the “I” is still paramount. I/Me/Myself decide. Much like when Adam and Eve grasped for deity.

  Once God alone is sufficient, then the "I" is deposed and one is able to follow Christ and follow what HE HAS WILLED.