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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jimmy_B
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
No, not at all. If you aren’t going to read the posts, then please do not respond to them.

Our Lord prayed that we be as one as one of His last prayers, so if you would like to work towards that goal, please act accordingly by at least responding with a level of charity and honesty. On the other hand, if you just want to continue to divide, then by all means continue responding with obstinate, intellectual dishonesty.

The post that you responded to would merit your response had you actually read it, as it breaks down the word “Kecharitomene”, (you even said yourself that the Greek word to describe Stephen was “plaras charitos”.) However, if the post was too long for you to take the time to read, then you shouldn’t be posting in this thread (or on these fora for that matter) in the first place.
Look I read the posts that I respond to. If you don’t like what I post then don’t respond to them. Say what you will but I am responding honestly its just that you don’t agree with what I post. I believe I read the post but if you want to be a “A” then be one. I will post and respond to whatever I want to like it or not. See you are a nobody to tell me not to post in this thread or anyother thread as far as that goes and you are a nobody to tell me that I shouldn’t post on this form eather. See its Catholics like you that make the rest look bad. Telling others what they should and should not post or what forums to be on.
But to be honest Mary was not born without sin, she never stayed a virgin after Jesus was born. She was a human like all the rest, born with sin and had relations with her husband Joseph. We should love her because she was the mother of our savior, but to say she was born without sin or the stayed a ever virgin is laughable.
 
You are wrong, and it pains heaven and earth to hear such things that seem to arise from a spirit of rebellion.

IF you read the Bible as it was meant to be read—you would know this.

Hail Mary, full of Grace! Pray for us who have recourse to thee. Forgive them, Father, they know not what they do.
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.
 
Look I read the posts that I respond to. If you don’t like what I post then don’t respond to them. Say what you will but I am responding honestly its just that you don’t agree with what I post. I believe I read the post but if you want to be a “A” then be one. I will post and respond to whatever I want to like it or not. See you are a nobody to tell me not to post in this thread or anyother thread as far as that goes and you are a nobody to tell me that I shouldn’t post on this form eather. See its Catholics like you that make the rest look bad. Telling others what they should and should not post or what forums to be on.
But to be honest Mary was not born without sin, she never stayed a virgin after Jesus was born. She was a human like all the rest, born with sin and had relations with her husband Joseph. We should love her because she was the mother of our savior, but to say she was born without sin or the stayed a ever virgin is laughable.
Kevin, it’s not that anyone is telling you that you should or should not post something, or should or should not believe something, it’s that your interpretation of the scripture is wrong based on the very words you cite, as well as other words in the text. The original Greek words do not mean what you have stated they mean. The relationships between various texts that you have made are incorrect, based on the original Greek texts.

You may sincerely want to believe what you have stated, but it is not supported in scripture. It may be supported in some translation of scripture, but not in the original text. In addition it is not supported by the traditions of the early church. Hence, your opinion may work for you, in your faith tradition, but it is not based on fact or on the Bible. I would think that the fact that it doesn’t actually square with the Bible would be important to you.

Learning something new, outside our experience, may be difficult to reconcile with other things we already know. But if that something new is truth, and if we are interested in truth, then we are bound to follow that truth, even if that means upsetting some of our pre-conceived notions.
 
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.
Hello rev kevin,
I’ve been lurking around some threads you’ve posted in here and there. It’s funny because I seem to always lurk in the ones you post in 😉
I’m not posting here to argue with you or debate you. You being an ex Catholic are very well aware of what we believe and no amount of debating will change our beliefs 🙂
What I will do, is pray for you.
I’ll also ask Our Most Blessed Mother to pray for you as well. :signofcross:
:hug1:
 
Look I read the posts that I respond to. If you don’t like what I post then don’t respond to them. Say what you will but I am responding honestly its just that you don’t agree with what I post. I believe I read the post but if you want to be a “A” then be one. I will post and respond to whatever I want to like it or not. See you are a nobody to tell me not to post in this thread or anyother thread as far as that goes and you are a nobody to tell me that I shouldn’t post on this form eather. See its Catholics like you that make the rest look bad. Telling others what they should and should not post or what forums to be on.
But to be honest Mary was not born without sin, she never stayed a virgin after Jesus was born. She was a human like all the rest, born with sin and had relations with her husband Joseph. We should love her because she was the mother of our savior, but to say she was born without sin or the stayed a ever virgin is laughable.
Wow, someone sounds angry, lol…take a deep breath. 😛

In all seriousness though, you either did not read what I wrote, or you are just being obstinate in what you want to say, as it makes no sense to respond the way you did in light of what was posted. You are addressing *plaras charitos *yet my post was clearly speaking of *Kecharitomene. *(I even color-coded it to make it easier for you. ;))
 
There’s always a balance somewhere. I cringe at the excessive Marian devotion that you point to (by Montfort and Liguori, most notably). I mean this in the most God honoring way possible, and not as an offense to Catholics. Some of the prayers they wrote were blasphemy to the Triune God. To ever use language like that of the Holy Virgin is never warranted and were she able to hear them, she would feel the same.

However, that is not to say that praise of Mary’s virtues can never be expressed. It is in this that fundamentalists and Protestants of other stripes go too far in the other direction. By reacting to any praise or honor of Mary is nothing but simplistic over reaction to Catholicism. They go so far as to let their degradation of the Virgin have them make Christological errors by refusing to acknowledge her as the Mother of God, or as the Ever-Virgin. On the immaculata, they almost make Mary’s sinfulness the cause of our salvation instead of the sinlessness of Christ. Both extremes are to be rejected.
Yes, of course there is a balance, but you should be able to admit that they lived in a very different time and culture than us, and also had a different language. For example, when they use words like “worship” they do NOT mean it in the same sense as we mean it today. (In fact, they would use the same word for judges, as we call them today “Your Honor.”) If one takes the time to read what they teach, you will quickly find that they (de Montfort and Liguouri) rightly condemn the adoration/worship of Mary (when used in the proper sense, as adoration due to God alone.) If you do not want to take the time to read their writings (which is understandable), I would suggest a brief study on these words; “dulia”, “hyper-dulia” and “latria”.

But not need to digress this thread further, just wanted to mention that 99.9% of the time when you see something like this it is a misunderstanding or misconception.
 

Actually, for the edification of the reader, I will provide a little clip on the above mentioned vocabulary:​

Latria vs. Dulia and Hyperdulia

Latria is sacrificial in character, and may be offered only to God. Catholics offer other degrees of reverence to the Blessed Virgin Mary and to the Saints; these non-sacrificial types of reverence are called Hyperdulia and Dulia, respectively. Hyperdulia is essentially a heightened degree of dulia provided only to the Blessed Virgin. This distinction, written about as early as Augustine of Hippo and St Jerome, was detailed more explicitly by Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologiae, A.D. 1270, II II, 84, 1: “Reverence is due to God on account of His Excellence, which is communicated to certain creatures not in equal measure, but according to a measure of proportion; and so the reverence which we pay to God, and which belongs to latria, differs from the reverence which we pay to certain excellent creatures; this belongs to dulia, and we shall speak of it further on (II II 103 3)”; in this next article St. Thomas Aquinas writes: “Wherefore dulia, which pays due service to a human lord, is a distinct virtue from latria, which pays due service to the Lordship of God. It is, moreover, a species of observance, because by observance we honor all those who excel in dignity, while dulia properly speaking is the reverence of servants for their master, dulia being the Greek for servitude.” From St. Thomas it is apparent that a clear distinction exists among latria and forms of dulia within Catholic theology.
edit] Linguistic distinctions in English

Generally, in English, the word adoration is reserved for God alone and therefore it aptly translates latria. The word worship is a contraction of ‘worth-ship’ – the state ("-ship") of being worthy – and can be used in a strong sense in relation to God (latria), but also in a weak sense in relation to man: for instance, “His Worship the Mayor”, or “Your Worship” (when addressing a magistrate in Court), or the worship of the saints (dulia) as distinct to the adoration of God (latria). Adoration provides a clear and unequivocal, and therefore better, translation of latria and expression of the absolute sacrificial reverence due to God alone. “This worship called forth by God, and given exclusively to Him as God, is designated by the Greek name latreia (Latinized, latria), for which the best translation that our language affords is the word Adoration. Adoration is different from other acts of worship, such as supplication, confession of sin, etc., inasmuch as it formally consists in self-abasement before the Infinite, and in devout recognition of His transcendent excellence.”[1]
Catholics, and Eastern Orthodox Christians especially adore with latria during their religious service, the Mass or Divine Liturgy. Other religious groups, such as Protestants and Muslims, do not have a Eucharistic sacrifice; Catholics consider that they literally participate in the sacrifice at the foot of Calvary, that what Christ offered once “participates in the divine eternity” (CCC § 1085), and thus have a very active sense of the worship of latria.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latria#Latria_vs._Dulia_and_Hyperdulia
 
Yes, of course there is a balance, but you should be able to admit that they lived in a very different time and culture than us, and also had a different language. For example, when they use words like “worship” they do NOT mean it in the same sense as we mean it today. (In fact, they would use the same word for judges, as we call them today “Your Honor.”) If one takes the time to read what they teach, you will quickly find that they (de Montfort and Liguouri) rightly condemn the adoration/worship of Mary (when used in the proper sense, as adoration due to God alone.) If you do not want to take the time to read their writings (which is understandable), I would suggest a brief study on these words; “dulia”, “hyper-dulia” and “latria”.

But not need to digress this thread further, just wanted to mention that 99.9% of the time when you see something like this it is a misunderstanding or misconception.
Yes, but I find the distinctions that they make Scripturally untenable (latria, dulia…“No, honestly, Ezekiel, I was only offering the baals dulia” 😉

I wasn’t referencing their use of the word worship per se, but the way in which they instruct Christians to repose themselves on Mary’s beneficence, mercy, and protection from Christ’s wrath (!). It’s all unnecessary extravagance that has no place within Christian piety. Not all Marian devotion is like this and I’ve read some quite good meditations on the witness of Mary from Roman Catholic authors (most especially, BXVI). Marian devotion can be a wonderful thing, as can devotion toward any of the saints. From a confessional Lutheran perspective… it’s the overemphasis that’s the problem. Something good is taken and run with to an end that it was never meant to be taken to.

But let me restate, too… I find the anti-Mary attitude taken by many, not all, Protestants, to be equally misguided.
 
Kevin, it’s not that anyone is telling you that you should or should not post something, or should or should not believe something, it’s that your interpretation of the scripture is wrong based on the very words you cite, as well as other words in the text. The original Greek words do not mean what you have stated they mean. The relationships between various texts that you have made are incorrect, based on the original Greek texts.

You may sincerely want to believe what you have stated, but it is not supported in scripture. It may be supported in some translation of scripture, but not in the original text. In addition it is not supported by the traditions of the early church. Hence, your opinion may work for you, in your faith tradition, but it is not based on fact or on the Bible. I would think that the fact that it doesn’t actually square with the Bible would be important to you.

Learning something new, outside our experience, may be difficult to reconcile with other things we already know. But if that something new is truth, and if we are interested in truth, then we are bound to follow that truth, even if that means upsetting some of our pre-conceived notions.
I’m looking into this full of grace in more depth then what I understand it to be. I do understand that I will always be wrong because of our differences in beliefs. But if I’m wrong I will be the first to admit it. I’m not here to argue with anyone.
 
And while you’re at it show me where it says she stayed a virgin after Jesus was born. I await your answers.
Where does Scripture says that she DIDN’T remain a virgin? (It doesn’t.)

Where does Scripture even say that you need to find EVERYTHING you are to believe in Scripture? (It doesn’t.)

We do know that Christ told us that we know how we should act and believe because He established the Church to do so, and that this Church would be the “pillar and foundation of truth”, and that whatsoever this Church binds, would be bound both on earth and heaven. (cf., Matt 18: 16-18)

But again, these are digressions from the OP. This thread isn’t about whether or not she was immaculately conceived, or if she was a perpetual virgin, but whether or not she should be loved by faithful Christians. If you would like to discuss one/both of the other topics, there are plenty of other threads that do so already.

Honestly though, I doubt if any real Christian would ever say it is wrong to love Mary anyway, so this thread probably didn’t need to be this long in the first place, lol. 😛
 
Hello rev kevin,
I’ve been lurking around some threads you’ve posted in here and there. It’s funny because I seem to always lurk in the ones you post in 😉
I’m not posting here to argue with you or debate you. You being an ex Catholic are very well aware of what we believe and no amount of debating will change our beliefs 🙂
What I will do, is pray for you.
I’ll also ask Our Most Blessed Mother to pray for you as well. :signofcross:
:hug1:
Hello
I know that no amount debating will change ya’lls mind. That is not my intent. I’m here to learn more about the Catholic faith and why they blieve what they believe. Even when I was a Catholic I could not understand the way they see things. As I do research on things I find out that alot of it comes from Popes and their interpretation of what it means. I don’t know how they come up with some of the things they say to be true. Some seems far fetched. Thanks for the prayers.
 
Yes, but I find the distinctions that they make Scripturally untenable (latria, dulia…“No, honestly, Ezekiel, I was only offering the baals dulia” 😉

I wasn’t referencing their use of the word worship per se, but the way in which they instruct Christians to repose themselves on Mary’s beneficence, mercy, and protection from Christ’s wrath (!). It’s all unnecessary extravagance that has no place within Christian piety. Not all Marian devotion is like this and I’ve read some quite good meditations on the witness of Mary from Roman Catholic authors (most especially, BXVI). Marian devotion can be a wonderful thing, as can devotion toward any of the saints. From a confessional Lutheran perspective… it’s the overemphasis that’s the problem. Something good is taken and run with to an end that it was never meant to be taken to.

But let me restate, too… I find the anti-Mary attitude taken by many, not all, Protestants, to be equally misguided.
Again, completely understandable! 🙂 I only want to continue to say that there needs to be more consideration from their actual teachings on the matter, as well as the time/culture/language of those particular writers. I know what I thought of them from a Protestant standpoint, as well, as a new convert, and how I feel about them today. My perspective has changed, but that is do to a large amount of study on them and their writings, and I can comfortable say that it is simply not the case, (as hard as that may seem from a “pretextual” standpoint.) In fact the preface to de Montfort’s book even “warns” the reader of this type of over-literalism. 😉
 
I’m looking into this full of grace in more depth then what I understand it to be.
It’s not so much the English “full of grace” that’s important, but the more in-depth meaning of the Greek word Kecharitomene that was mentioned in posts 49 and 50 (as well as others.) You are right when you say that it doesn’t literally say “full of grace”, however it means quite a bit more, (please refer to post 50 for the elaboration.)
 
I’m looking into this full of grace in more depth then what I understand it to be. I do understand that I will always be wrong because of our differences in beliefs. But if I’m wrong I will be the first to admit it. I’m not here to argue with anyone.
Kevin, we don’t want you to feel “wrong” because of your beliefs. We want you to look at the words. Maybe I’m like you, I don’t read Greek, so I am stuck with what others explain to me. And many have done a very good job. Others have defined and described the words in great depth. And one of the results is that we know that the description of Mary is unique in scripture, it cannot be likened to anything else. That alone makes her unique, at least in SOME way.

But Kevin, if understanding of the actual Scripture changes your understanding of things, then I am here, first to tell you, that you have to do something about it. But it’s not easy. The scariest thing in the world is to act on Truth. It’s hard. I think (and this is the “gospel according to me”) that some people stop short of praying for truth because they don’t want to REALLY know the answer, cuz then they would have to do something!

And now I’ll quote one of my favorite priests (although the fact that he is a priest does not affect the message) ~ “Truth, in its essence, is not a someTHING, it is a someBODY, His name is Jesus Christ. When Truth is called a lie, the lights go out, darkness falls, and, indeed, if your light is darkness, how very deep will the darkness be.”

Pray for Truth. Follow Truth, even if it leads you where you don’t want to go. Truth is Truth.
 
Yes, of course there is a balance, but you should be able to admit that they lived in a very different time and culture than us, and also had a different language. … But not need to digress this thread further, just wanted to mention that 99.9% of the time when you see something like this it is a misunderstanding or misconception.
I think there are many misunderstandings and misconceptions between Catholics and Protestants. Some of these, I believe, would be cleared up if people on both sides took the time to dig deeper to understand where the other party is coming from.

Thanks for the word studies as well. Although I’m still not comfortable with what seems to me to be excessive Marian devotion, I appreciate your sharing the various distinctions drawn by Catholic theologians/doctors.
 
I think there are many misunderstandings and misconceptions between Catholics and Protestants. Some of these, I believe, would be cleared up if people on both sides took the time to dig deeper to understand where the other party is coming from.

Thanks for the word studies as well. Although I’m still not comfortable with what seems to me to be excessive Marian devotion, I appreciate your sharing the various distinctions drawn by Catholic theologians/doctors.
Agreed. We should, as Christians, work harder toward that unity that Our Lord prayed for, rather than tearing at the body with divisiveness. The truth is out there, we just need to not allow our own personal bias be a stumbling block.
 
Rev Kevin:

She was a human like all the rest, born with sin and had relations with her husband Joseph. We should love her because she was the mother of our savior, but to say she was born without sin or the stayed a ever virgin is laughable.

Wow! Laughable? What is more laughable is hearing another mere creature truly believe that Mary could NOT HAVE or that it was IMPOSSIBLE to have remained an ever-virgin.

Perhaps you could not or chose not to remain an ever-virgin,but many do,so what is the problem?

Mary born with sin? Wow! I love how you can tell us all what God can, cannot do or would not do? Amazing! I guess it IS impossible or unthinkable for God not to allow one of his own creations (Mary) not be stained with original sin?

Explain to us why God would not do such a thing for the woman who would conceive his perfect Son?
 
Rev Kevin:

She was a human like all the rest, born with sin and had relations with her husband Joseph. We should love her because she was the mother of our savior, but to say she was born without sin or the stayed a ever virgin is laughable.

Wow! Laughable? What is more laughable is hearing another mere creature truly believe that Mary could NOT HAVE or that it was IMPOSSIBLE to have remained an ever-virgin.

Perhaps you could not or chose not to remain an ever-virgin,but many do,so what is the problem?

Mary born with sin? Wow! I love how you can tell us all what God can, cannot do or would not do? Amazing! I guess it IS impossible or unthinkable for God not to allow one of his own creations (Mary) not be stained with original sin?

Explain to us why God would not do such a thing for the woman who would conceive his perfect Son?
What is so far fetched about her not remaining a ever virgin?
No problem except that to say that she never had relations with her husband. You don’t know for a fact that she didn’t.
Well I guess its like the CC telling you what God can, cannot do or would not do. Now the difference is I never said that about God and the CC has.
How do you know for a fact that she was born without sin?
Lets see, Mary was born like the rest of us. She had a earthly mother and father. She grew up, according to history, like any other person during her time. She did ordinary things like getting water from the well, cooking and such. Seems to be pretty ordinary wouldn’t you say. The only exception is that God had chosen her to be the mother of his son and that when she got pregnant with Jesus she had no human male contact. She went through the pain of child birth, like all women do. She raised Jesus according to the Jewish customs of the time. That sounds pretty ordinary to me.
Nothing is impossible with God and I never said different.
I can’t speak for God, like the CC does, Mary not having relations with a man, meant she had not been violated, had sex that would make her impure, her womb would be impure and having a impure womb would not be the right place for Jesus.
See every thing you say here can be said against the CC.
What makes the CC believe that Mary stayed a ever virgin?
What makes the CC believe that its impossible for Mary to have relations with Joseph her husband?
Perhaps one could chose to not stay a virgin like a lot have, Mary did so, so what the problem?
 
What is so far fetched about her not remaining a ever virgin?
No problem except that to say that she never had relations with her husband. You don’t know for a fact that she didn’t.
Well I guess its like the CC telling you what God can, cannot do or would not do. Now the difference is I never said that about God and the CC has.
How do you know for a fact that she was born without sin?
Lets see, Mary was born like the rest of us. She had a earthly mother and father. She grew up, according to history, like any other person during her time. She did ordinary things like getting water from the well, cooking and such. Seems to be pretty ordinary wouldn’t you say. The only exception is that God had chosen her to be the mother of his son and that when she got pregnant with Jesus she had no human male contact. She went through the pain of child birth, like all women do. She raised Jesus according to the Jewish customs of the time. That sounds pretty ordinary to me.
Nothing is impossible with God and I never said different.
I can’t speak for God, like the CC does, Mary not having relations with a man, meant she had not been violated, had sex that would make her impure, her womb would be impure and having a impure womb would not be the right place for Jesus.
See every thing you say here can be said against the CC.
What makes the CC believe that Mary stayed a ever virgin?
What makes the CC believe that its impossible for Mary to have relations with Joseph her husband?
Perhaps one could chose to not stay a virgin like a lot have, Mary did so, so what the problem?
No problem Kevin. But there’s just one little part you need to provide.

You’ve made a long list of things you are asserting about Mary, the Mother of God.

Please provide, for each one, your proof from Scripture. Not your opinion, not the opinion of anyone else, proof from scripture.

Because the scripture you attacked and called false, was actually true, and was there for everyone to see.

So please provide the scriptural facts to support:
  1. Mary was born like the rest of us.
  2. She had a earthly mother and father.
  3. She grew up like any other person during her time.
  4. She did ordinary things like getting water from the well, cooking and such.
etc.

Please supply the chapter and verse in the Bible to support your claims. Otherwise, it’s just your opinion, correct?

Interesting that the things you claim to be “false” can be proven to be true. We’ll wait to see about your proofs about the sort of things you have claimed to be true.
 
No problem Kevin. But there’s just one little part you need to provide.

You’ve made a long list of things you are asserting about Mary, the Mother of God.

Please provide, for each one, your proof from Scripture. Not your opinion, not the opinion of anyone else, proof from scripture.

Because the scripture you attacked and called false, was actually true, and was there for everyone to see.

So please provide the scriptural facts to support:
  1. Mary was born like the rest of us.
  2. She had a earthly mother and father.
  3. She grew up like any other person during her time.
  4. She did ordinary things like getting water from the well, cooking and such.
etc.

Please supply the chapter and verse in the Bible to support your claims. Otherwise, it’s just your opinion, correct?

Interesting that the things you claim to be “false” can be proven to be true. We’ll wait to see about your proofs about the sort of things you have claimed to be true.
I’m sorry but all this has to do with common sense,
How else would Mary be born if not like the rest of us? Did she suddenly appear out of nowhere?
Now if her parents were not eartly then how were her parents? Some beings from another planet?
She grew up like any other person did. What she just sat around doing nothing to help the family like all others did? Since there is no proof that she had earthly parents them its possible that she grew up like the ones from another planet?
If she didn’t do ordinary things then what did she do? Nothing? She did not help her family if she had a family with the daily things that needed to be done? Do you think that God would let some lazy girl to be the mother of his child?
If you know so much about Mary and how she grew up then you tell me. See there is not much that is known about Mary and how she grew up. We can go by what was expected of them during her time.
Answer me this, how did Jesus grow up? What did he do from birth till he reached the age of 12? What did Jesus do from the age of 12 till he was baptized by John the Baptist?
Give me chapter and verse from the Bible.
I never called scripture false so please don’t say something that I did not say. Just because I don’t see things how the CC sees them don’t mean I call them false or that I’m attacking them. Its not a attack if that is what one believes. I could say the same thing about the way the CC says what scripture says. So please don’t put words in my mouth.
Earler you said, “Kevin, we don’t want you to “feel” wrong about your beliefs.” Then you say the scripture I “attack” and call “false.” Which is it?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top