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

[Tomster]

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.

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?

 

[Big_Dummy]

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

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

Look instead of saying I’m wrong and that it pains heaven and earth to hear such things, because they are not of the Catholic faith, show me different. Show me in the Bible where it says that Mary was born without sin, and don’t give me the full of grace thing thats intended to prove she was without sin. And while you’re at it show me where it says she stayed a virgin after Jesus was born. I await your answers.

Wonderful warriors for God that they are, this is where Bible-only Christians fail and rebel.

The very word Protestant comes from Protest. Who was the first Protestor? Hint: it wasn’t Luther!

Do you know Luther’s history?

Hail, Mary, for leading me to your Child Jesus. Even as a pagan I painted images of you with your Holy Son in your arms.

Pray for us sinners, especially those who rebel.

 

[Nicea325]

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.

How interesting,but I do not accept your Baptist interpretations. No wonder Protestanism is a mess. Thousands upon thousands different sects all interpretating scripture differently and all claiming they have it right. You include Mary in the word “all” but exclude Jesus. And why? Because it conflicts with your “Johnny-come-lately” church traditions.

Wake up and smell the roses Rev Kevin. Every Protestant church was founded by a mere mortal,not God.

You said “ALL” and Jesus is part of ALL. Either he was 100% human or not!

I have no need to repent,I am not the one who places limits on God as Protestanism is riddled with and I most certainly do not obey any man-made church.

 

[Tomster]

Look instead of saying I’m wrong and that it pains heaven and earth to hear such things, because they are not of the Catholic faith, show me different. Show me in the Bible where it says that Mary was born without sin, and don’t give me the full of grace thing thats intended to prove she was without sin. And while you’re at it show me where it says she stayed a virgin after Jesus was born. I await your answers.

rev kevin,

It appears that you have a very limited understanding of the nature of original sin and how original sin has been transmitted since Adam’s fall.

What I think you are missing is the fact that in the 16th century the Protestant religious leaders (your spiritual forefathers) did not deny the doctrine of original sin. But while they kept the sound form of words, they understood them in a new way, and the nature of their doctrinal content was altered and degraded.

Adam was put into the supernatural order and enriched with many gifts, with sanctifying grace, integrity, and potential or conditional immortality. By his sin he lost all of these and, though he reprented and recovered grace, it is Catholic teaching, that as a result of his sin, all men, except Jesus Christ and his mother, are born without these gifts, which, but for Adam’s sin, they would have possessed, born, therefore, subject to death and concupiscence, and deprived of grace.

 

[Terry_McCann]

How can you not love Mary? Even when I am in a rage at the church over various of it’s serious problems, I have to calm myself down when Mary comes into the equation (largely because she is a woman and I am extra sensitive with women).

 

[sixofseven]

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

As far as your last question, your answer would not be my answer and my answer would not be your answer.

But the angel didn’t say ‘hey Mary, you’re pregnant’, he said ‘You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus’ - he doesn’t say when this will happen or that it has already happened. Mary doesn’t understand, ‘how can this be?’ as if she knows she will NEVER be with child - as some bible translations say, rather than ‘since I know not man’, she says ‘how can this be, since I am a virgin?’ - Logic would say that she wouldn’t always be a virgin, sounds easy enough, so why was she so confused by the angel’s greeting - it’s because she had chosen to remain a virgin her whole life.

Rev Kevin, take a good look at Luke 1:37 - For nothing is impossible with God

 

[T_More]

Hail Mary, full of grace…

When someone is full of grace, there is no room for sin. If you were God and could create the mother of Christ, why wouldn’t He have her without sin to carry His Son?

As for remaining a virgin, the Jewish law at the time was that one was allowed only one spouse. Mary became the spouse of the Holy Spirit when she carried the Son of God. Mary and Joseph knew this. Think about. How do you think Joseph would feel about Mary after giving birth to the Son of God?

God needed Mary to carry His Son. Why? Couldn’t Christ just come down from heaven and take the form of a man without Mary? He’s God, He can do whatever, whenever He wants. So why would He need Mary?

 

[BryanM27]

Though I most certainly believe in the Immaculate Conception, your argument is not a very good one. Then the argument would therefore need to be true of Mary’s parents and so forth. It is indeed proper that Mary be sinless, but not necessary.

“The Most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the Human Race, preserved immune of all stain of original sin.” -Pope Pius IX, 1854.

Obviously non-Catholics can dispute this teaching, but Catholics should not. This quote was pulled from Paragraph 491 of the Cathechism, and is one of the rare instances of Papal infalability.

 

[Linda_Marie]

Jesus loves His mother. She is definitely held in extremely high regard by the Creator of the Universe. She is Loved by God, in a most special way. God calls her Full of Grace or Highly Favoured.

God is love, and following God means loving, especially loving that which God loves. God loves Mary. Shouldn’t I also, then, love Mary? Where are we commanded to love everyone except Mary?

How can I disregard her as if she were only a receptacle to be used and discarded afterwards? How does this sort of action reconcile with a loving God, that He would use Mary and throw her away? What would that mean for the rest of us, if the person who most obediently and lovingly heard the Word of God and did it, gets tossed away in the trash afterwards?

Loving Mary takes nothing away from Jesus, but rather enhances and increases the love among us all.

Love is the only thing that increases the more you give it away.

 

[benidict]

Hail Mary, full of grace…

When someone is full of grace, there is no room for sin. If you were God and could create the mother of Christ, why wouldn’t He have her without sin to carry His Son?

As for remaining a virgin, the Jewish law at the time was that one was allowed only one spouse. Mary became the spouse of the Holy Spirit when she carried the Son of God. Mary and Joseph knew this. Think about. How do you think Joseph would feel about Mary after giving birth to the Son of God?

God needed Mary to carry His Son. Why? Couldn’t Christ just come down from heaven and take the form of a man without Mary? He’s God, He can do whatever, whenever He wants. So why would He need Mary?

praise be to God for revealing this to you. flesh and blood have certainly not. only the Holy Spirit can truly open our eyes to these mysteries. God bless you an yours peace

 

[benidict]

i love Mary. the ark of the covenant was Holy. if anyone touched the ark,except for the priests, they would incur Gods judgment and die. inside the ark, we had the manna, the staff of aaron, and the tablets of the law. someone please correct me if i missed anything. how much more Holy is Mary. for within her womb, she carried the Bread of Life, Our High Priest, and the One Who gave the Law to Moses. the ark went before the congregation into the promised land. i could go on. but this subject really gets me ecstatic, and i will start to ramble. needless to say, Hail Mary, Full of Grace. the Lord Is WITH YOU. BLESSED ARE YOU AMOUNG WOMEN, AND BLESSED IS THE FRUIT OF YOUR WOMB JESUS. Holy Mary, Mother of God. Pray for us sinners now, and at the hour of our death. not theological conjecture on my part my friends. the buisness i am in is risky, and dying is a real possibility. the Catholic Church is right. not only about this, but in All matters of faith. peace to all, and Gods love upon you all

 

[E.E.N.S]

“The Most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the Human Race, preserved immune of all stain of original sin.” -Pope Pius IX, 1854.

Obviously non-Catholics can dispute this teaching, but Catholics should not. This quote was pulled from Paragraph 491 of the Cathechism, and is one of the rare instances of Papal infalability.

Indeed, but I don’t think there have been any Catholics in this thread who have been disputing this truth.

 

[BryanM27]

Indeed, but I don’t think there have been any Catholics in this thread who have been disputing this truth.

Thought I saw one, but either way it is helpful to have it.

For everyone, how about Luke 1:42-43? “…‘blessed are you amongst women, and blessed is th fruit of your womb. And why has this happened to me, that the mother of my Lord comes to me?’”

 

[Mamanurse]

I have read many of the respones, but not all of the them, so this may have already been said…but to those who claim that Mary went on to have intercourse with Joseph, I have to ask this… If you were told by your future bride that she was pregnant with the Son of God and this was also reiterated to you in a very real dream, would you really feel worthy to even touch her body? She was the vessel in order to bring Christ into this world…as her husband, would you feel that you deserved to be with her sexually when she and Joseph had the task of rearing the son of man? I don’t have to find a passage in the scripture to make me see common sense when I see it.

(even my husband, who is non catholic/non practicing anything, got this.)

 

[benidict]

I have read many of the respones, but not all of the them, so this may have already been said…but to those who claim that Mary went on to have intercourse with Joseph, I have to ask this… If you were told by your future bride that she was pregnant with the Son of God and this was also reiterated to you in a very real dream, would you really feel worthy to even touch her body? She was the vessel in order to bring Christ into this world…as her husband, would you feel that you deserved to be with her sexually when she and Joseph had the task of rearing the son of man? I don’t have to find a passage in the scripture to make me see common sense when I see it.

(even my husband, who is non catholic/non practicing anything, got this.)

 

[sinner123]

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

 

[benidict]

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

hello my friend, plz clarify. what poem?the one jimmy wrote? i may have missed it, and i would love to read it. peace

 

[TobyLue]

I haven’t finished reading through all the posts but this one really caught my eye

If love conveys praying to and talking and kissing and burning candles and** worship her as a deit**y, then that is heretic, not love

Since I was child (and that was a long, long time ago) I have never ever heard of anybody in the church telling us to worship Mary as a deity. My grandmother, God rest her soul, would always tell us that we should never ever put Mary above God. And, she had a great devotion to Our Blessed Mother. Many confuse the word “pray”. They have the wrong definition of that word. Words can change meaning over the years. Just looking at the Christmas song that says in part: “Now we don our gay apparel, fa la la la laaaa, la la la la.” How is the underlined word defined now-a-days? Pray not only means to offer a petition, or praise, but it also means to ask. As in “I pray to pass me the salt”. When Catholics pray to Mary, they are in no way putting Mary above God. As a matter of fact, the Church forbids that and has always done so. Protestants see a person kneeling before a statue and lighting a candle and think that the person is worshiping an idol. We as Catholics know that the statue is just that, a statue, made out of plaster or some other material. We do not think that that statue is some form of a god. NEVER. !!!

Regretfully, many Protestants have been brainwashed into believing that the Catholic Church and Catholics are worshiping statues. This has been covered ad naseaum over and over and over thousands of times, but many Protestants cannot get over it and prefer to bring that up over and over again. No matter how many times its explained, they will turn around and say “Catholics worship Mary and worship statues and light candles and place Mary on par or above God”

NOTE THIS AND PLEASE UNDERSTAND IT. CATHOLICS DO NOT, I REPEAT DO NOT, WORSHIP MARY as a God, or Goddess. Is this understood?

From the CCC **2114 **Human life finds its unity in the adoration of the one God. The commandment to worship the Lord alone integrates man and saves him from an endless disintegration. Idolatry is a perversion of man’s innate religious sense. An idolater is someone who “transfers his indestructible notion of God to anything other than God.”
CCC **2132 **The Christian veneration of images is not contrary to the first commandment which proscribes idols. Indeed, “the honor rendered to an image passes to its prototype,” and “whoever venerates an image venerates the person portrayed in it.” The honor paid to sacred images is a “respectful veneration,” not the adoration due to God alone:
Religious worship is not directed to images in themselves, considered as mere things, but under their distinctive aspect as images leading us on to God incarnate. The movement toward the image does not terminate in it as image, but tends toward that whose image it is.

Catholics know full well that The Blessed Virgin is NOT divine. She is not God, a god, nor a goddess. So please don’t tell us Catholics that we do something that we know we DON"T do.

If Jesus had been born from a sinful woman, he would have had to purify himself before, or after, or during his time in Mary’s womb, and THAT would have meant that Jesus had inherited sin, which we know he did not have in him. That’s why Mary had to be sinless as she was passing her genes to Jesus. God had to dwell in a sinless house.

The hypostatic union.:God the Son, Jesus Christ took on a human nature, but remain fully God. God was in Mary’s womb. Mary gave birth to God the Son Jesus. She did not give birth to a nature. You cannot separate Jesus Christ the divine and Jesus Christ the man. By saying that there is no way that Mary is the Mother of God, you are separating the two natures of Jesus and thus fall into the heresy of Nestorianism.

Mary is the daughter of God the Father, spouse of God the Holy Spirit and Mother of God the Son.
BUT yet there is only one God.

Impossible you say? But listen to the words of the Archangel Gabriel “…nothing is impossible with God”

 

[TobyLue]

In regards to Mary being ever-virgin I will post this from an Orthodox website “Orthodox Christian Information Center” regarding the word “until”.

“After the birth of Jesus,” said the false teacher Helvidius in the 4th century, and likewise many others before and after him, “Mary entered into conjugal life with Joseph and had from him children, who are called in the Gospels the brothers and sisters of Christ.” But the word “until” does not signify that Mary remained a virgin only until a certain time. The word “until” and words similar to it often signify eternity. In the Sacred Scripture it is said of Christ: *In His days shall shine forth righteousness and an abundance of peace, *until *the moon be taken away *(Ps. 71:7), but this does not mean that when there shall no longer be a moon at the end of the world, God’s righteousness shall no longer be; precisely then, rather, will it triumph. And what does it mean when it says: *For He must reign, *until *He hath put all enemies under His feet? *(ICor. 15:25). Is the Lord then to reign only for the time until His enemies shall be under His feet?! And David, in the fourth Psalm of the Ascents says: *As the eyes of the handmaid look unto the hands of her mistress, so do our eyes look unto the Lord our God, *until *He take pity on us *(Ps. 122:2). Thus, the Prophet will have his eyes toward the Lord until he obtains mercy, but having obtained it he will direct them to the earth? (Blessed Jerome, “On the Ever-Virginity of Blessed Mary.”) The Saviour in the Gospel says to the Apostles (Matt. 28:20): *Lo, I am with you always, even *unto *the end of the world. *Thus, after the end of the world the Lord will step away from His disciples, and then, when they shall judge the twelve tribes of Israel upon twelve thrones, they will not have the promised communion with the Lord? (Blessed Jerome, op. cit.)
It is likewise incorrect to think that the brothers and sisters of Christ were the children of His Most Holy Mother. The names of “brother” and “sister” have several distinct meanings. Signifying a certain kinship between people or their spiritual closeness, these words are used sometimes in a broader, and sometimes in a narrower sense. In any case, people are called brothers or sisters if they have a common father and mother, or only a common father or mother; or even if they have different fathers and mothers, if their parents later (having become widowed) have entered into marriage (stepbrothers); or if their parents are bound by close degrees of kinship. In the Gospel it can nowhere be seen that those who are called there the brothers of Jesus were or were considered the children of His Mother. On the contrary, it was known that James and others were the sons of Joseph, the Betrothed of Mary, who was a widower with children from his first wife. (St. Epiphanius of Cyprus, Panarion, 78.) Likewise, the sister of His Mother, Mary the wife of Cleopas, who stood with Her at the Cross of the Lord (John 19:25), also had children, who in view of such close kinship with full right could also be called brothers of the Lord. That the so-called brothers and sisters of the Lord were not the children of His Mother is clearly evident from the fact that the Lord entrusted His Mother before His death to His beloved disciple John. Why should He do this if She had other children besides Him? They themselves would have taken care of Her. The sons of Joseph, the supposed father of Jesus, did not consider themselves obliged to take care of one they regarded as their stepmother, or at least did not have for Her such love as blood children have for parents, and such as the adopted John had for Her.
Thus, a careful study of Sacred Scripture reveals with complete clarity the insubstantiality of the objections against the Ever-Virginity of Mary and puts to shame those who teach differently."

Thanks to our Orthodox brothers…