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

[Cinette]

The Protestants do not believe how much power, presence, and grace there is in Christ through the sacraments, even if we fall into habit of receiving Him…

I hear Protestants always draw on the great heros of faith of the Old Testament, but I perceive an incomplete understanding of Christ when they do not recognize how He works through extraordinary people - the saints…

How much time to spend on Scripture…how much time to share with them the lives of the saints. It is difficult. My daughter married a fine young man who went to a Baptist college and is evangelical. His mother is 4 Square. We pray together. But one day I was afflicted because she began praying with me for the Lord to cast out ‘demons of religion’…she is a Kenneth Copeland follower and I don’t know what that entails. She came to our Marian Mother’s Day luncheon and could understand our relational nature with Mary…I think alot of that has been resolved, but she has these strange ideas that have been pushed on her, and when I see the damage it has done to her spiritually, it makes me think these are false teachers.

I see Christ in the faith of fundamentalists but I don’t think they see much faith – in the devout. I think the best thing to do is to invite them. My sister in Christ has never been to a Catholic Mass…she is leery, but I am sure she will come some day.

*In the last 11 years of my husband’s journey to the Church he attended Mass with me on Sundays. I never once asked him when he would convert - believe it or not I was shy to do so. One day, a lady who always sat close by turned to him after Mass and asked him when he was going to convert!

Sometimes it is necessary to ask the question!

Cinette*

 

[Leeann]

LeeAnn, you only responded to a part of my post, and at that, you simply reiterated that you ‘knew your friends better than I’.

Nobody is arguing that you don’t know your friends.

I apologize Tantum. From what you posted, and the way you singled out the word ‘think’ – I was attempting to clarify that it is not something that I ‘think’, but that I ‘know’ based on actually ‘knowing’ them and the situation better than you.

*Tantum:*Because you ‘think’ your friends are paying more 'attention "to Mary than Christ does not make it so.
Leeann:
I understand what you are saying Tantum….but in this particular case, I ‘know’ them better than you.
There are others – Catholics - right in this thread that have stated that they have witnessed the same kind of thing, or something similar….so it does occur within the Catholic church.

But you ignored the rest of my post.

I didn’t ignore the rest of your post – I posted that I understood what you were saying.

And you’re also ignoring the fact that a person getting something ‘wrong’ (and if your friends are truly confused and actually consider Mary as divine they ARE confused because the Church DOES NOT TEACH THIS). . .does not mean that the teachings themselves are wrong.

I believe if you read through my posts, you will see that I’ve actually addressed that point…about the confusion arising from either them not grasping the concept properly themselves or from poor catechizing on the part of their teachers within the CC…(which other Catholic posters have also mentioned)…as it does happen.

What teachings are you asking me about???

Tantum ergo: If you go to your doctor and he tells you that you can eat a moderate diet, and your idea of ‘moderate’ is on the order of 6 full meals a day, then your doctor’s advice is not wrong. . .your idea of ‘moderate’ is what is wrong.

If the doctor makes it clear that by ‘moderate’ he means that you need not cut out a particular food, and if there are plenty of handouts in his office where you can find out the food pyramid, the average calorie counts a person needs to maintain a given weight, etc., but you don’t bother to look, or you look but think, "that’s not right, I know better’. . .it is not your doctor’s fault if you don’t abide by his advice, and his advice is still correct. The problem is you and you not following the advice properly.

Yes…and as I stated before Tantum…I understand what you are saying.

 

[Leeann]

*You are so gracious - :hug3:

Thank you
Cinette*

Oh no I’m not Cinette…at times I’m downright belligerent…not something I’m proud of at all, but it is something that the Lord is working on in me…but I do love your posts, they seem so genuine and straight from your heart and your faith is so evident in each one.

 

[benidict]

Oh no I’m not Cinette…at times I’m downright belligerent…not something I’m proud of at all, but it is something that the Lord is working on in me…but I do love your posts, they seem so genuine and straight from your heart and your faith is so evident in each one.

nothin wrong with that. youd make a good soldier… peace

 

[BryanM27]

nothin wrong with that. youd make a good soldier… peace

I daresay that no one makes a good soldier. if they did, they’d be Marines! jk, benidict you know i’ve got love for you guys

 

[benidict]

I daresay that no one makes a good soldier. if they did, they’d be Marines! jk, benidict you know i’ve got love for you guys

that is a good one. here are some acronyms for you bro. marine= muscles are required, intelligence not encouraged. army= aint really marines yet. peace

 

[BryanM27]

that is a good one. here are some acronyms for you bro. marine= muscles are required, intelligence not encouraged. army= aint really marines yet. peace

i almost put the one about ARMY in the previous post! great minds think alike

 

[benedictus2]

Yes…none of us should forget that it is the Holy Spirit with the authority and power to bring us into check.

And the power that was given to the Church.

 

[benedictus2]

So what’s happening here…a Catholic poster has stated that his priest is into “New Age”…some other Catholic posters are arguing with a priest that some of his opinions do not line up with what the CC proclaims…other posters site poor catechizing as the reason that there may be some “Mary Worshippers” floating around out there…

And yet Protestants are told that they have ‘confusion’ and ‘chaos’ because of all their denominations…

I think you got that confused. Protestant denominations have differing beliefs which ended up in an I/Me/Myself kind of splingtering bunch of churches.

The differing opinions here are that of those who are faithful to the teaching of the magisterium and those who are not. The members are Catholic but they they by themselves do not make up the Catholic church.

 

[benedictus2]

Keep on being disrespectful to the Clergy of the church. I notice that there was no answer to calling what HE QUOTED FROM THIS FORUM heresy. So what you and Saintlucy are saying is that this forum does not follow the Magesterium either by her OWN WORDS AND YOUR AGREEMENT.

How is that so? Just quoting a theologian mean zilch if that theologian is not in agreement with the magisterium.

Father John seems to be saying that the brothers mentioned where Mary’s children with St Joseph. Hardly Church teaching.

We are not attacking Fr John. We are having an issue with some of the opinions he is spreading here which are not exactly in line with Catholic Teaching. Hardly something one would expect from a Catholic priest.

 

[benedictus2]

The Following excerpt is from the catholic Encyclopedia online edition on the Immaculate Conception doctrine. newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm
*
In regard to the sinlessness of Mary the older Fathers are very cautious: some of them even seem to have been in error on this matter.

* Origen, although he ascribed to Mary high spiritual prerogatives, thought that, at the time of Christ's passion, the sword of disbelief pierced Mary's soul; that she was struck by the poniard of doubt; and that for her sins also Christ died (Origen, "In Luc. hom. xvii").
* In the same manner St. Basil writes in the fourth century: he sees in the sword, of which Simeon speaks, the doubt which pierced Mary's soul (Epistle 259).
* St. Chrysostom accuses her of ambition, and of putting herself forward unduly when she sought to speak to Jesus at Capharnaum (Matthew 12:46; Chrysostom, Homily 44 on Matthew).

But these stray private opinions merely serve to show that theology is a progressive science. If we were to attempt to set forth the full doctrine of the Fathers on the sanctity of the Blessed Virgin, which includes particularly the implicit belief in the immaculateness of her conception, we should be forced to transcribe a multitude of passages. In the testimony of the Fathers two points are insisted upon: her absolute purity and her position as the second Eve (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:22).*

Please notice the phrase “some of them even seem to have been in error on this matter” which is the very thing Fr John is being accused of. Please also note the line “But these stray private opinions merely serve to show that theology is a progressive science” which persons on this thread are also not willing to admit. FrJohn was merely pointing out things also that were evolving in theology, is that wrong now to point those things out? I would like to know before you start going after my Protestant theology if you think that I am misquoting it.

I think you are completely missing the point here. The Immaculate Conception is now dogma. We are in 2010 not 1853.

If one were to come up with the Nestorian heresy in this forum, would it be a good exlanation to say “Oh but the bishop Nestorius believed such and such”. The Trinity as dogma has already been decreed. So with the Immaculate Conception.

As a faithful Catholic we are supposed to believe this.

And to quote from the rest of the New Advent article.

*St. John Damascene (Or. i Nativ. Deip., n. 2) esteems the supernatural influence of God at the generation of Mary to be so comprehensive that he extends it also to her parents. He says of them that, during the generation, they were filled and purified by the Holy Ghost, and freed from sexual concupiscence. Consequently according to the Damascene, even the human element of her origin, the material of which she was formed, was pure and holy. This opinion of an immaculate active generation and the sanctity of the "conceptio carnis" was taken up by some Western authors; it was put forward by Petrus Comestor in his treatise against St. Bernard and by others. 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.*
* *

From this summary it appears that the belief in Mary’s immunity from sin in her conception was prevalent amongst the Fathers, especially those of the Greek Church. The rhetorical character, however, of many of these and similar passages prevents us from laying too much stress on them, and interpreting them in a strictly literal sense. The Greek Fathers never formally or explicitly discussed the question of the Immaculate Conception.

 

[benedictus2]

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

It isn’t wrong to love Mary…it is wrong however to elevate her to a status that borders (or is in some cases ) on worship or transfers the attributes of the Holy Spirit to her.

We don’t worship Mary nor transfer the attributes of the Holy Spirit to her. But she is referred to as the Bride of the Holy Spirit.

 

[benedictus2]

Bring him over here!

It would be good if he wood. I am sure a few here would make him see the light.
The whole problem is most of the active ladies at my parish are the same way inclined.

 

[benedictus2]

More talking/praising of and about Mary than Jesus/God - (if anything about Jesus/God) - I guess you’d call them “shrines” in entranceway halls (*Marian statues/bowls of Marian prayer cards and complete bedrooms with pictures/statues…of Mary * - but it’s the **complete focus **that is given to her with regards to what ‘she can do’…

If there is a lot of focus on Mary then God willed that to be so. God seems to be sending her a lot to bestow His favours on us through her. All these are very well documented. Take for example Fatima, Lourdes, the Miraculous Medal, etc.

For some reason it pleases God to dispense of His Graces through her. This is HIS WILL.

If you have an issue with that, then you have an issue with God.

Those who are truly Marian are also truly Christocentric because that is what Mary does, she leads us to her son. Like that time at the wedding at Cana, she says to all of us " Do whatever He tells you"

I don’t doubt that some can go over board with that ( I know some who are like that) but that is not what the Church teaches.

 

[benedictus2]

Well…one man’s “Truth”…is another man’s “Deception”.

Nope. There is objective truth, and it is to a degree knowable. You buy into that relativistic rubbish?

Hhhhmmm…sounds horrible for you guys. Hope you work it out.

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

 

[benedictus2]

The whole purpose of sanctification is to transfer attributes of the HS into us. In the East, we call it Theosis. It is being conformed daily into Christ.

This process of becoming that which He has already declared us to be does not detract from Him, but glorifies Him.

Mary’s soul “magnifies the Lord”. When we look at her, we see Him enlarged and more visible. This is God’s intention for all of us.

Great post!

 

[Padrej]

I think you are completely missing the point here. The Immaculate Conception is now dogma. We are in 2010 not 1853.

If one were to come up with the Nestorian heresy in this forum, would it be a good exlanation to say “Oh but the bishop Nestorius believed such and such”. The Trinity as dogma has already been decreed. So with the Immaculate Conception.

As a faithful Catholic we are supposed to believe this.

And to quote from the rest of the New Advent article.

*St. John Damascene (Or. i Nativ. Deip., n. 2) esteems the supernatural influence of God at the generation of Mary to be so comprehensive that he extends it also to her parents. He says of them that, during the generation, they were filled and purified by the Holy Ghost, and freed from sexual concupiscence. Consequently according to the Damascene, even the human element of her origin, the material of which she was formed, was pure and holy. This opinion of an immaculate active generation and the sanctity of the "conceptio carnis" was taken up by some Western authors; it was put forward by Petrus Comestor in his treatise against St. Bernard and by others. 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.*
* *

From this summary it appears that the belief in Mary’s immunity from sin in her conception was prevalent amongst the Fathers, especially those of the Greek Church. The rhetorical character, however, of many of these and similar passages prevents us from laying too much stress on them, and interpreting them in a strictly literal sense. The Greek Fathers never formally or explicitly discussed the question of the Immaculate Conception.

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.

 

[benedictus2]

Well…perhaps *you *are okay…I thought you were one big happy ‘family’…what about those who have been poorly taught (as it has been indicated in this forum by a poster(s) that this happens to some… )…they’re not “a-ok”…

You have to differentiate between the Church as the Body of Christ and the individual members. The Church is okay, it will always be because she is Christ’s Body and Bride. Some of her members are not okay. Actually we are all not okay in one sense because we all a downright sinful lot (which of course applies to you as well and every Tom, Diana and Harriet). But the thing is, we have the Sacraments, channels of the grace of God that somehow makes us all ok even though we’re not. Such is the power of God’s grace.

 

[FrJohnB]

Our relationship with Jesus Christ involves the whole Body of Christ, not just the head of the Body who is Jesus Christ. To want nothing to do with His mother who He gave to us when he said, “Behold your mother” to the disciple, is to want nothing to do with the rest of His Body. Those in heaven are part of His Body. They are not just dead people who have nothing to do with us. We are all members and interconnected through our prayers. We are all conected in a very personal relationship. The concept of the Communion of Saints and the Body of Christ seems to be lacking in most non-Catholic Christians.

Many Protestants have a concept of a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, yet want nothing to do with the concept of a personal relationship with the rest of His Body. The Church is One. This is what Jesus prayed for__the Church on Earth, the Church in Heaven, and the Church on their way to Heaven, in Purgatory. We can’t have Jesus all by Himself, just Him and me. Mary is part of His Body. We are all spritual relatives.

I would dare say, that some Catholics do the same. They are Protestant and we want nothing to do with them, Or they do not believe the way I do so I am not going to associate. I think there is enough guilt going around
I am also curious how you are going to answer Padrej’s question of where you find that Jesus prayed for the souls in Purgatory.

 

[benedictus2]

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.

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.

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.

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?