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

[E.E.N.S]

I’m sorry but all this has to do with common sense, …

Give me chapter and verse from the Bible…

How come you expect people to provide Scripture verses for every little thing, yet when asked the same of you you reply with “common sense”? Double standard?

 

[E.E.N.S]

Here’s a decent post to read, a bit lengthy so I am not copying it here, but for those interested in learning, here’s the link:

chnetwork.org/forum/mary-and-the-saints/biblical-argument-for-the-immaculate-conception-of-mary/

 

[UtSuShImI]

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.

Lol… even things a normal person can do need proof?
Here’s a verse that can answer all of your questions:

Romans 8:22

We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time.

The pain from childbirth didn’t disappear. Not for anyone. Even Mary. Hence the statement “right up to the present time”.
If Mary had the pains of childbirth, then she is part of creation.
And if she is part of creation, she also came from the bloodline of Adam and Eve.
If she came from the bloodline of Adam and Eve. She has sin.

Romans 5:12
Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned–

And what don’t you understand in this verse?
Romans 3:23
for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God
THERE IS NO HIDDEN WORDS THAT SAY "EXCEPT MARY"

P.S. ** Mary is not the mother of God. If she was, then God would be a new creation. Since God came from Mary. Which would be unbiblical because:

John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

There was no Mary in that verse either. **

 

[rev_kevin]

How come you expect people to provide Scripture verses for every little thing, yet when asked the same of you you reply with “common sense”? Double standard?

I quess its the same way people expect me to provide Scripture verses for every little thing like MelanieAnne asked of me, but you say nothing about that or anyone else who askes to provide the chapter and verse. Talk about a double standard. Its not a double standard on my side its on your side [meaning the Catholics here] If you read the post its clear that I can’t provide scripture verses thats why I said “I’m sorry it all has to do with common sence.” or do you need the CC to tell you what it means because my interpretation of it might be wrong.But since I was asked to supply chapter and verse for something that has no chapter and verse for it I thought I would ask the same stupid question to MelanieAnne about how Jesus grew up. See if its good for one to ask then its good for the other to ask. Or its a double standard when you ask a question and they answer with a question but if I do it then its somehow wrong. Hmmm, its ok for ya’ll to but not for us. If you want to look for double standards start looking at your own people or in your own back yard. Now can you answer the question for MelanieAnne after all you answered this one, well not really its another answer with a question thing. Double standard. You’re so funny, you make me laugh.

 

[E.E.N.S]

Lol… even things a normal person can do need proof?

I think she was trying to make a point, that just because scripture may be silent on an issue, doesn’t mean it is wrong. (And she may have been trying to make another point, that Kevin always asks for Scripture verses for everything, yet supplies none to bolster his own points.) I could be wrong on these points though, as I was not the poster here.

Romans 8:22

We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time.

The pain from childbirth didn’t disappear. Not for anyone. Even Mary. Hence the statement “right up to the present time”.
If Mary had the pains of childbirth, then she is part of creation.
And if she is part of creation, she also came from the bloodline of Adam and Eve.
If she came from the bloodline of Adam and Eve. She has sin.

Interestingly enough, it has long been believed that St. John the Baptist was born (not conceived) without sin, as we believe that he was sanctified in the womb of his mother at the visitation of Jesus in the womb of Mary.

Saying this, I understand that not all Protestants view it this way, but I do know that some do as well. If John the Baptist could be sanctified in the womb due to the future merits of Christ, then couldn’t the same thing be said could happen to Mary, only but a few months sooner, (at conception)?

Romans 5:12
Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned–

Elijah was taken up into heaven without dying, so “all” doesn’t mean all, now does it?

And what don’t you understand in this verse?
Romans 3:23
for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God
THERE IS NO HIDDEN WORDS THAT SAY "EXCEPT MARY"

One could also say that there are “no hidden words that say ‘except Jesus’” too, so that argument in itself really doesn’t hold water in and of itself.

Have all people committed actual sins? Consider a child below the age of reason. By definition he can’t sin, since sinning requires the ability to reason and the ability to intend to sin. This is indicated by Paul later in the letter to the Romans when he speaks of the time when Jacob and Esau were unborn babies as a time when they “had done nothing either good or bad” (Rom. 9:11).

We also know of another very prominent exception to the rule: Jesus (Heb. 4:15). So if Paul’s statement in Romans 3 includes an exception for the New Adam (Jesus), one may argue that an exception for the New Eve (Mary) can also be made.

catholic.com/library/Immaculate_Conception_and_Assum.asp

P.S. ** Mary is not the mother of God. If she was, then God would be a new creation. Since God came from Mary. Which would be unbiblical because:** Are you familiar with the Nestorian heresy?
Link: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestorianism

John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

There was no Mary in that verse either.

And she isn’t in THOUSANDS of other verses either.

 

[MelanieAnne]

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?

Kevin, the point was that people in this thread have quoted scripture to you, have quoted the actual Greek words of certain passages and have precisely defined what those words meant and which show that Mary was set apart by God like no other figure in the Bible. But because those things that were shown to you do not support your belief about Mary, you discarded them out of hand.

As a Baptist, I would have thought the Bible would be important to you and that the precise meaning of passages of scripture would be important, but instead, you appear to have ignored at least some parts and tossed them away, then went on to state all your beliefs about Mary.

So I asked you to provide scriptural basis for those beliefs, and you can’t. I didn’t ask for that because the beliefs were unreasonable, and I wasn’t suggesting that Mary’s parents were aliens from outer space, that’s just silly. I asked because you made this list of her attributes and so I was interested to see if you could support that list from scripture, and you can’t. If you want to ridicule the idea that beliefs should be based on scripture, that’s up to you, but I wouldn’t think that any Christian would truly want to take that position.

Well, you have been provided scriptural evidence of the purity of Mary, the Mother of God, and at the same time you cannot prove your beliefs with any scriptural reference, so it would appear that, at least if anyone wants to go by the Bible, that Mary’s purity is based on scripture and the view that she was ordinary is not.

 

[MelanieAnne]

Lol… even things a normal person can do need proof?
Here’s a verse that can answer all of your questions:

Romans 8:22

We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time.

The pain from childbirth didn’t disappear. Not for anyone. Even Mary. Hence the statement “right up to the present time”.
If Mary had the pains of childbirth, then she is part of creation.
And if she is part of creation, she also came from the bloodline of Adam and Eve.
If she came from the bloodline of Adam and Eve. She has sin.

Romans 5:12
Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned–

And what don’t you understand in this verse?
Romans 3:23
for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God
THERE IS NO HIDDEN WORDS THAT SAY "EXCEPT MARY"

P.S. ** Mary is not the mother of God. If she was, then God would be a new creation. Since God came from Mary. Which would be unbiblical because:

John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.**

There was no Mary in that verse either.

Mary IS the Mother of God. Jesus is God, Mary is his human Mother. Therefore Mary is the Mother of God.

As for all the rest, it may be that Mary experienced the pain of child birth, and of course she is part of God’s creation. No one is saying that she was not born within the bloodline of Adam and Eve and ordinarily that would mean that original sin would attach to her.

But God made Mary sinless for a purpose, for the Incarnation. I trust you’re not alleging that God cannot do that if He so chooses? God can do whatever He chooses because He is God. So if He chooses to have a Holy Vessel for the Incarnation, He can do that.

 

[SirThomasMore]

You may love mary if you wish but mary was not perfect. She was a sinner like the rest of us who needed salvation.

Prove it

 

[E.E.N.S]

Prove it

I will save time by playing it out briefly:

Protestant: " Luke 1:47 ‘…and my spirit rejoices in God my savior.…’"

Catholic: “Consider an analogy: Suppose a man falls into a deep pit, and someone reaches down to pull him out. The man has been “saved” from the pit. Now imagine a woman walking along, and she too is about to topple into the pit, but at the very moment that she is to fall in, someone holds her back and prevents her. She too has been saved from the pit, but in an even better way: She was not simply taken out of the pit, she was prevented from getting stained by the mud in the first place. This is the illustration Christians have used for a thousand years to explain how Mary was saved by Christ. By receiving Christ’s grace at her conception, she had his grace applied to her before she was able to become mired in original sin and its stain.”

 

[regression]

Just to throw my 2 cents in, for whatever it is worth…

I have heard arguments along the lines: “it is not normal for a married couple to not have relations at all, therefore, Mary could not have remained a virgin.” That argument is presented as being 100% correct. At least that is now I read it.

However, just because something is not normal, that does not mean with 100% certainty it did not happen. For example, I do not think it is normal to cure a blind man by rubbing mud in his eyes. I do not think it is normal for a woman to become pregnant without a man. I do not think it is normal for someone to walk on water. However, I do believe those things happened, and I hope everyone here believes that as well.

I am just pointing out that if something is not normal, or is unusual, one shouldn’t automatically dismiss the idea as not being true.

 

[Joshua27]

I see the point Melanie (and her supporters) are making…and I also see the point Kevin (and his supporter) is making…and I am by no means the Arbitrator of this argument, but E.E.N.S. brings up an interesting viewpoint that begs a few questions:

If *“Mary was perpetually a Virgin and without Sin but she is still a created being and infinitely inferior to her creator…”, *meaning she was not subject to sin (i.e. “Saved” in a different way) all of her life (at least until after the birth of Christ), that means God could’ve created all of us as equally perfect if he so chose (also “saving” us in this different way).

If we follow this logic, we are only subject to sin because God wants us all this way except for his “favorites”, which would also mean that Christ’s birth wasn’t really necessary to save any of us because we all could’ve just been created perfect if God so willed it.

This line of thought begs the assumption that there is more than one “way” (to salvation from sin)…even though this view isn’t supported by scripture, as Christ has declared - several times in scripture - that he is “THE Way”, as in “there is no other way but him”.

So was Christ sent to also save Mary (from sin)? Did mary need saving at all?

If the answer is “no”, why not just save all the rest of us the same “way” God saved Mary; why not create all of us in the same manner as he created Mary?

This is why many argue that Mary wasn’t sinless. Not taking anything else away from her importance (because she was indeed greatly important)…but if she was sinless, another “way” to salvation is proven which nulifies the reason for Christ’s mission, doesn’t it?

---

Tying this back to the topic of this thread; I don’t think it’s wrong to love Mary, as I love every other God-fearng woman in this world (“love your neighbor as your self”). But a problem developes when we elivate this love to a status higher that that of any other God-fearing woman…as if she’s more special than any of you God-fearing women; as if she’s earned more love than others simply because God presumably chose her over them, as she (herself) had nothing to do with the choice to carry Christ.

If we say that Christ’s required bloodline to king David is through his adoptive father (Joseph) then did God NEED to choose Mary at all? If the most important one in this equation is Joseph (because of his blood), then isn’t it true that WHOMEVER Joseph planned to marry would’ve immaculately concieved because it was HIS bloodline that was important? to fulfill scriptural prophecy?

Also, there were many other families from the bloodline of David who were still alive there (after the babylonian captivity the royal family was allowed to return to Judah, though no longer in power). He could’ve chosen any other God-fearing, obedient woman from that clan.

Loving Mary isn’t wrong, but when we love her MORE than any other God-fearing woman (who had and has the same power to equally carry Christ into this world) we elivate Mary to a status GREATER than that of other God-fearing women for a situation that was not in her control.

 

[E.E.N.S]

I see the point Melanie (and her supporters) are making…and I also see the point Kevin (and his supporter) is making…and I am by no means the Arbitrator of this argument, but E.E.N.S. brings up an interesting viewpoint that begs a few questions:

If *“Mary was perpetually a Virgin and without Sin but she is still a created being and infinitely inferior to her creator…”, *meaning she was not subject to sin (i.e. “Saved” in a different way) all of her life (at least until after the birth of Christ), that means God could’ve created all of us as equally perfect if he so chose (also “saving” us in this different way).

If we follow this logic, we are only subject to sin because God wants us all this way except for his “favorites”, which would also mean that Christ’s birth wasn’t really necessary to save any of us because we all could’ve just been created perfect if God so willed it.

This line of thought begs the assumption that there is more than one “way” (to salvation from sin)…even though this view isn’t supported by scripture, as Christ has declared - several times in scripture - that he is “THE Way”, as in “there is no other way but him”.

So was Christ sent to also save Mary (from sin)? Did mary need saving at all?

If the answer is “no”, why not just save all the rest of us the same “way” God saved Mary; why not create all of us in the same manner as he created Mary?

This is why many argue that Mary wasn’t sinless. Not taking anything else away from her importance (because she was indeed greatly important)…but if she was sinless, another “way” to salvation is proven which nulifies the reason for Christ’s mission, doesn’t it?

…

Ah ha! My Dear Watson! You bring up a good point, Jesus is THE Way, the One and Only Way to salvation…and then how could Mary be saved through a different means, if the only Way is Christ’s salvific act? As presented in my post above, you will see that Mary DID need a savior, and that she was indeed saved by the merits of Christ’s one salvific act, (as is anyone who is saved), but these merits were applied to her in a unique fashion, i.e., her conception. Jesus is still the absolute Way that Mary attained salvation. (Note: You will notice, if you’ve read all my posts in this particular thread, that I mention that this grace applied to Mary is not in and of itself necessary, but that it is indeed fitting.)

 

[E.E.N.S]

If we say that Christ’s required bloodline to king David is through his adoptive father (Joseph) then did God NEED to choose Mary at all? If the most important one in this equation is Joseph (because of his blood), then isn’t it true that WHOMEVER Joseph planned to marry would’ve immaculately concieved because it was HIS bloodline that was important? to fulfill scriptural prophecy?

No, it was not necessary, but it was, undeniably, Divine Providence.

In my opinion, this says more for Mary being the Immaculate Conception, than against it, as it was in God’s will from the beginning that it should be so. What is said of Jeremiah, “before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart…” tells only a glimpse towards God’s grand and mysterious Divine Providence.

 

[Joshua27]

Ah ha! My Dear Watson! You bring up a good point, Jesus is THE Way, the One and Only Way to salvation…and then how could Mary be saved through a different means, if the only Way is Christ’s salvific act? As presented in my post above, you will see that Mary DID need a savior, and that she was indeed saved by the merits of Christ’s one salvific act, (as is anyone who is saved), but these merits were applied to her in a unique fashion, i.e., her conception. Jesus is still the absolute Way that Mary attained salvation. (Note: You will notice, if you’ve read all my posts in this particular thread, that I mention that this grace applied to Mary is not in and of itself necessary, but that it is indeed fitting.)

Yes, you are a crafty one indeed, Holmes!

BTW- I apologize for failing to read your earlier posts…Next question:

Are you saying that Christ’s salvific act (“dying on the cross”) was applied to Mary’s conception (as in the “nine-month gestation period leading up to she entering into this world through birth”) *?

I’m asking this because the two prophecies in discussion are (in no particular order):

1. Virgin Birth

Scripture says [Isaiah 7:14], “Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.”

I know it’s obvious, but I just want to point out anyway that it does not say “a Mary shall conceive, and bear a son…”. It HAD to be “a virgin” but no where does it say it HAD to be “a Mary”.

1. Bloodline of King David

Christ HAD to be from the bloodline of King David. And so we read two lineages from the gospels that speak of Joseph’s bloodline, as he was the carrier…

Matthew 1: 1-17 and Luke 3:23-38

…So by Divine Providence, the Immaculate Conception of Mary would not have happened without the act of Joseph’s betrothal to her, right, since it also HAD to be Joseph (because of his bloodline)?

So again, isn’t it true that WHOMEVER (virgin) Joseph planned to marry would’ve immaculately concieved? My point is, specific Bloodlines are unique to specific people, but being a Virgin is not. You’re either a virgin or you lose your virginity.

Society back then was patriarchial; so a man chose his wife…and would typically choose an undefiled virgin. If “the sceptre will not leave the house of David”, and Joseph carried this Davidic bloodline, then Christ was destined to be conceived by the virgin Joseph chooses as his wife…

Framed into a question; If Mary was destined (through Divine Providence) to be the mother of Christ, could just anyone have chosen to be her husband? Again, if it HAD to Joseph, then he is as equally important as she is and many should venerate him as earnestly as they do Mary…but they do not, which means Mary is inequitably given higher status, correct?*

 

[E.E.N.S]

Yes, you are a crafty one indeed, Holmes!

BTW- I apologize for failing to read your earlier posts…Next question:

Are you saying that Christ’s salvific act (“dying on the cross”) was applied to Mary’s conception (as in the “nine-month gestation period leading up to she entering into this world through birth”) *?

I’m asking this because the two prophecies in discussion are (in no particular order):

1. Virgin Birth

Scripture says [Isaiah 7:14], “Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin* shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.”

I know it’s obvious, but I just want to point out anyway that it does not say “a Mary shall conceive, and bear a son…”. It HAD to be “a virgin” but no where does it say it HAD to be “a Mary”.

1. Bloodline of King David

Christ HAD to be from the bloodline of King David. And so we read two lineages from the gospels that speak of Joseph’s bloodline, as he was the carrier…

Matthew 1: 1-17 and Luke 3:23-38

…So by Divine Providence, the Immaculate Conception of Mary would not have happened without the act of Joseph’s betrothal to her, right, since it also HAD to be Joseph (because of his bloodline)?

So again, isn’t it true that WHOMEVER (virgin) Joseph planned to marry would’ve immaculately concieved? My point is, specific Bloodlines are unique to specific people, but being a Virgin is not. You’re either a virgin or you lose your virginity.

Society back then was patriarchial; so a man chose his wife…and would typically choose an undefiled virgin. If “the sceptre will not leave the house of David”, and Joseph carried this Davidic bloodline, then Christ was destined to be conceived by the virgin Joseph chooses as his wife…

Framed into a question; If Mary was destined (through Divine Providence) to be the mother of Christ, could just anyone have chosen to be her husband? Again, if it HAD to Joseph, then he is as equally important as she is and many should venerate him as earnestly as they do Mary…but they do not, which means Mary is inequitably given higher status, correct?
Yes, it could’ve been anyone, it just so happened that God knew from the foundation of the world that it would be Mary, (interesting how free will, predestination and Divine Providence intermingle, no? )

In regards to Joseph, he is highly honored, but he did not give Our Lord His flesh, which died for us on the cross.

 

[Joshua27]

Yes, it could’ve been anyone, it just so happened that God knew from the foundation of the world that it would be Mary, (interesting how free will, predestination and Divine Providence intermingle, no? )

I’ll agree to that as well.

 

[E.E.N.S]

I’ll agree to that as well.

Elementary, My Dear Watson.

 

[PamS]

This is a common misconception of many non-catholics. A few weeks ago my cousin’s sunday school teacher (she goes to AOG) said that Catholics teachings are wrong because they worship Mary more than Jesus! It’s this ignorant bahaviour that is preventing people frome really understanding our faith. They only hear mixed up snippets of our beliefs and assume that is all we do. My cousin attends a girl’s only Catholic school and is really enjoying learning about the Catholic faith. She told her parents that she’s considering converting and my Aunty and Uncle said over their dead bodies. Honour thy Father and thy Mother, they argue. I’m stumped.

 

[sixofseven]

He was to be born like the rest of us with only one exception, Mary did not have relations with a man when she concieved Jesus. He was concieved by the Holy Spirit. So she was pure in that aspect. No man penetrated her so that would make her a perfect vessel. She has not been violated by a man in sexual relations. It don’t mean she was born without sin. There is nothing to back up the assumption of her being born without sin.

I haven’t read all the posts in this thread yet, got to this one and just had to reply, not sure if this has been covered yet and my apologies if it has.

There is something to back up the ‘assumption’ of Mary being born without sin. It is foretold in Genesis.

In Genesis 3 you will see God saying to the serpent:
“And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel.”

What does the word ‘enmity’ mean? Opposition.
We know that Jesus is the seed of the woman so the woman is Mary.
How could Mary be opposite of the Devil when the Devil is full of sin? The only way is if she ISN’T full of sin but FULL of grace - there is no room for sin in her.
The enmity between the woman (Mary) and the serpent (Satan) is the same emnity between her seed (Christ) and the serpent’s seed (Sin).
If Mary were to sin, that would be COOPERATING with the Devil to some degree and there wouldn’t be any enmity.

She refers to Christ as her saviour, and indeed He is as He is ours. We have been ‘saved’ from sin by Christ, Mary was ‘preserved’ from Sin by Christ.

 

[UnityofTrinity]

There is nothing wrong with loving Mary, in fact most Christians greatly respect Mary as one of the most influencial women in the Bible. But what to discuss here is what type of love, how to love? If love conveys praying to and talking and kissing and burning candles and worship her as a deity, then that is heretic, not love. The Bible indeed does talk about honoring your mother and father but I think the Catholic Church had twisted it in a great degree. If we talk base on the Bible, then the meaning of honoring thy mother and father literally means honoring thy mother and father, that means that I have to do good, and respect, and obey my parents. Since I don’t even know Mary, since she didn’t give birth to me, nor adopted me, nor takes care of me like a mother, how can I honor her? How can I actually praise her as my mother? According to the Bible there are only 2 people that do that: Jesus and later on, St.John. So why should I honor her as my mother? An unanswered question.

Secondly, you guys have to change your arguments for Immaculate Conception. Just because Jesus was born sinless doesn’t mean Mary have to be sinless, or full of Grace. The definition of the word Grace is giving someone something he or she does not deserve. God performing a miracle in preserving Jesus from sin is not “grace.". Jesus Himself is God and divine, so if He is God, He is sinless and pure and perfect even before Mary conceived Him. Then the question being asked for Catholics is that if Jesus is already perfect and sinless, why couldn’t He come to earth with his already sinless and pure form? Why did He even need the grace inside Mary to preserve His sinlessness? Even you know it’s unreasonable.