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

[benedictus2]

• OK you are correct, this is not really all that “new” in theology. The thing is Protestants and even non Christian scholars look at these sources to say that from this or that perspective Jesus would have… *

But wouldn’t it have been more in line with defending the Catholic faith to have answered with a good rebuttal which is readily available with a quick google instead of saying that this is the latest theological opinions among catholics?

The thing I find rather strange, putting that forth as the latest “theological view point” is that it gives the impression that somehow that is the correct viewpoint, when theologians and Catholic scholars have already debunked that notion. Why would a priest in the Catholic Church even do that?

The problem for most of us with your post is that instead of explaining the Catholic position you instead gave credence to the protestant position. Something that is quite easily debunked.

 

[benedictus2]

FrJohnB; 6728255:

If Jesus was by another father, (the Holy Spirit) any brothers that Jesus would have had, be they from Mary or from a former marriage of Joseph would be “Half brothers” as they did not have both parents do the conception. Lets us say that today your wife has a child out of wedlock and children naturally; they would be half brothers or half sisters. If you had children by a former marriage and you married again and had children the siblings of each would be called “half brother or sister” also.

But there again Father, THAT does not explain it at all. Every one knows what half brother means. What you were saying however with your post is that the brothers were Jesus’s half brothers BY Mary and not BY Joseph. Hardly the Church’s position on this matter.

The proto Evangelium of James though not canonical was written in 150 AD and is the earliest source we have of Mary’s perpetual virginity. This gives a more plausible explanation that these half-brothers were half-brothers by Joseph and not by Mary.

Jesus if he was “firstborn” as the Gospels tell us would have had primary responsibility to take care of the widow Mary in her old age. I say “widow” as the church tradition says that Joseph dies prior to Jesus’ baptism by John. The firstborn of Jewish culture of that day was the one who took care of elderly parents. With this in mind it is no real leap of faith that Jesus places Mary in the care of John the beloved disciple. I would think that Jesus being Lord would know that John would be the last to die and James the “brother of Jesus” according to the Bible would be martyred. Thus the need to place Mary in the Hands of John to “take care of her.” You can also look at it is that Jesus was giving her to John as saying that she was a gift to all humanity as mother.

Well not necessarily. What “first born” means is the child who opens the womb of the mother. First born does not necessarily mean there are second and third borns.

Also your reasoning that it is the first born who took care of the mother is true so long as that child is alive. When the eldest dies, care of the mother passes on to the remaining family members. Notice that when they speak of these brothers it is plural so if your reasoning is correct there would have been a few of them who would have been at the crucifixion ready to look after Mary. These brothers may abandon Jesus probably thinking He is a lunatic but I doubt they would abandon Mary because of Jesus.

If John was going to be martyred as you say, and Jesus had brothers, it is even more incomprehensible to leave his Mother to a disciple who would die soon when the immediate family will not be martyred…

 

[Leeann]

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

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

  So going back to scriputre, what has God WILLED?

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

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

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

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

Well, thank you for your opinion on what you believe to be God’s Will…based on what you believe to be what *I *think His Will is, without me ever having mentioned it to you in the first place. (see highlighted sentences above…you had your own little whirlwind conversation going there… )

I do love scripture however…especially in Colossians where the believers in that early church were instructed to hold one to what they **had been **taught…especially in
Col 2 :

9 / For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily 10/ and you are complete in Him, who is the head of all principality and power.

 

[benedictus2]

Well, thank you for your opinion on what you believe to be God’s Will…

No, not my opinion, totally scriptural Matthew 16:18. And yes, based on that, one can rightly conclude this is Christ’s will or He would not have said so. You do believe in the gospels don’t you?

based on what you believe to be what *I *think His Will is, without me ever having mentioned it to you in the first place. (see highlighted sentences above…you had your own little whirlwind conversation going there… )

Actually I don’t think I ever made a conjecture at all on what I think you think His will is :)

As for the highlighted sentences, well, I wonder, do you think they are not true somehow? Unscriptural? Maybe you could come up with a proper rebuttal instead of a comment goes nowhere ?

I do love scripture however…especially in Colossians where the believers in that early church were instructed to hold one to what they **had been **taught…especially in
Col 2 :

9 / For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily 10/ and you are complete in Him, who is the head of all principality and power.

Yes, that is good. But  to add a little bit more information on that one. The “YOU” Paul is addressing here are the Catholics in Collosus, not the lone rangers who picked up scripture and said this is what I believe.

Ooops, of course they couldn’t have done that, there was no Bible then. The Catholic Church had not yet come up with the Bible. .

I love Scripture too, especially the Gospels, you know when you actually hear it from Jesus Himself.

Matthew 16
John 6
John 20

John 21

And this is what I find rather curious. Protestants quote from Paul all the time but rarely from the gospels. I wonder why that is? But yes, I love Paul too.

1Tim 3:15
2 Thessalonians 2:15

 

[Padrej]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who say this? Quote please? Scripture and verse too. I have NEVER heard a Protestant say that Christ denied Mary. Where did you get this?

 

[Padrej]

But wouldn’t it have been more in line with defending the Catholic faith to have answered with a good rebuttal which is readily available with a quick google instead of saying that this is the latest theological opinions among catholics?

The thing I find rather strange, putting that forth as the latest “theological view point” is that it gives the impression that somehow that is the correct viewpoint, when theologians and Catholic scholars have already debunked that notion. Why would a priest in the Catholic Church even do that?

The problem for most of us with your post is that instead of explaining the Catholic position you instead gave credence to the protestant position. Something that is quite easily debunked.

Why do you keep reading into the post MORE THAN WAS THERE. Are you so determined to be right that you will banter and badger until you get thee answer you wish?

I understood perfectly that this was not the intention of what was said. Even the faith sections of the CAF put forth the latest theological points of view, yet I do not see you claiming they are wrong. Why is this continuing???

 

[Padrej]

But there again Father, THAT does not explain it at all. Every one knows what half brother means. What you were saying however with your post is that the brothers were Jesus’s half brothers BY Mary and not BY Joseph. Hardly the Church’s position on this matter.

The proto Evangelium of James though not canonical was written in 150 AD and is the earliest source we have of Mary’s perpetual virginity. This gives a more plausible explanation that these half-brothers were half-brothers by Joseph and not by Mary.
Well not necessarily. What “first born” means is the child who opens the womb of the mother. First born does not necessarily mean there are second and third borns.

Also your reasoning that it is the first born who took care of the mother is true so long as that child is alive. When the eldest dies, care of the mother passes on to the remaining family members. Notice that when they speak of these brothers it is plural so if your reasoning is correct there would have been a few of them who would have been at the crucifixion ready to look after Mary. These brothers may abandon Jesus probably thinking He is a lunatic but I doubt they would abandon Mary because of Jesus.

If John was going to be martyred as you say, and Jesus had brothers, it is even more incomprehensible to leave his Mother to a disciple who would die soon when the immediate family will not be martyred…

This is RICH now you are calling the Epistle of James not canonical a position that is clearly LUTHERAN in position.
If you studied the Jewish customs of that time you would also know that Firstborn meant there were other children. The only reason they were not at the crucifixion, IF YOU EVEN READ YOUR BIBLE, is because of the prophesy fulfilled “I will strike the shepherd and scatter the sheep.” A point you have conveniently chosen to ignore in your crusade to keep this argument going against FrJohn.

Fr John did NOT say John was going to be martyred, he implied that he knew he was not. you are clearly either misreading here or just trying to make your point by discrediting others. I have this very same problem in some of my Churches now and again.

 

[Padrej]

This is RICH now you are calling the Epistle of James not canonical a position that is clearly LUTHERAN in position.
If you studied the Jewish customs of that time you would also know that Firstborn meant there were other children. The only reason they were not at the crucifixion, IF YOU EVEN READ YOUR BIBLE, is because of the prophesy fulfilled “I will strike the shepherd and scatter the sheep.” A point you have conveniently chosen to ignore in your crusade to keep this argument going against FrJohn.

Fr John did NOT say John was going to be martyred, he implied that he knew he was not. you are clearly either misreading here or just trying to make your point by discrediting others. I have this very same problem in some of my Churches now and again.

benedictus2
The reason I posted this way is to show you that this is how you have been responding to FrJohn. By only reading half of what is written you can make the statements made sound like something that they are not.
I am well aware that the proto Evangelium of James is not canonical but the epistle of James is. One can read half and interpret what you say to meant totally different that what is actually posted or miss the intent entirely of the posting.

 

[benedictus2]

Why do you keep reading into the post MORE THAN WAS THERE. Are you so determined to be right that you will banter and badger until you get thee answer you wish?

Because there is more to it than was there.

Even with the succeeding replies, the kind of theology he is proposing still does not sound right.

And I can’t understand why you are so upset. What’s with that? People who join this forum can defend themselves.

What I do not get is why a Catholic priest should be espousing protestant doctrine, and actually be defending that view point. And if you have a look around, it is not just me who got that impression.

I understood perfectly that this was not the intention of what was said. Even the faith sections of the CAF put forth the latest theological points of view, yet I do not see you claiming they are wrong. Why is this continuing???

But that is just the point! Even Fr John has agreed that it is not exactly the latest theological point of view.

This is a point of view that has been debunked. Yet nowhere in his post has he actually explained the refutation that has been offered by quite a few apologist. I have done that. Someone else did something similar. But not Fr John.

For goodness, sake, Fr John can defend himself Let him.

 

[benedictus2]

This is RICH now you are calling the Epistle of James not canonical a position that is clearly LUTHERAN in position.

Oh my goodness, if you are going to refute a claim I made I think you better read the post first. I am not referring to the Epistle of James but to the protoevangelium of James. Two different things. I suggest google it.

If you studied the Jewish customs of that time you would also know that Firstborn meant there were other children.

No. It is not necessarily so. First born simply refers to the child who opens the womb of the mother. But common usage is that first born is means just that because large families are the order of the day.

The only reason they were not at the crucifixion, IF YOU EVEN READ YOUR BIBLE, is because of the prophesy fulfilled “I will strike the shepherd and scatter the sheep.”

If you actually know how to INTERPRET YOUR BIBLE, THE SHEEP BEING REFERRED TO THERE ARE HIS FOLLOWERS, THE APOSTLES.

A point you have conveniently chosen to ignore in your crusade to keep this argument going against FrJohn.

Nope. A point you have conveniently erroneously misinterpreted.

 

[FrJohnB]

Because there is more to it than was there.

Even with the succeeding replies, the kind of theology he is proposing still does not sound right.

And I can’t understand why you are so upset. What’s with that? People who join this forum can defend themselves.

What I do not get is why a Catholic priest should be espousing protestant doctrine, and actually be defending that view point. And if you have a look around, it is not just me who got that impression.

But that is just the point! Even Fr John has agreed that it is not exactly the latest theological point of view.

This is a point of view that has been debunked. Yet nowhere in his post has he actually explained the refutation that has been offered by quite a few apologist. I have done that. Someone else did something similar. But not Fr John.

For goodness, sake, Fr John can defend himself Let him.

I am at a loss also as to what you are actually getting at myself, what answer are you seeking by trying to keep this line of questioning going. If it was understood by others that I answered the questions posed what different answer do you seek? By re-posting the same questions what different answers do you hope to elicit so that you can say “AHAH there I got him he makes my point that he is not Catholic.”

 

[benedictus2]

I am well aware that the proto Evangelium of James is not canonical but the epistle of James is. .

And if you actually bothered to read my post properly you would see that I was referring to the Proto evangelium no to the Epistle

 

[FrJohnB]

Oh my goodness, if you are going to refute a claim I made I think you better read the post first. I am not referring to the Epistle of James but to the protoevangelium of James. Two different things. I suggest google it.

No. It is not necessarily so. First born simply refers to the child who opens the womb of the mother. But common usage is that first born is means just that because large families are the order of the day.

If you actually know how to INTERPRET YOUR BIBLE, THE SHEEP BEING REFERRED TO THERE ARE HIS FOLLOWERS, THE APOSTLES.

Nope. A point you have conveniently erroneously misinterpreted.

Padrej was referring to the apostles any fool could see that. This is why I am wondering what you seek and why you keep questioning.
Padrej also said in a subsequent post that the Epistle of James was different, he did that to show how you were attacking without reading everything. See post 470

 

[benedictus2]

I am at a loss also as to what you are actually getting at myself, what answer are you seeking by trying to keep this line of questioning going. If it was understood by others that I answered the questions posed what different answer do you seek? By re-posting the same questions what different answers do you hope to elicit so that you can say “AHAH there I got him he makes my point that he is not Catholic.”

No Father, that is not the point at all.

You made a few claims that somehow suggested that what you posted is the latest theological viewpoint of the Church which clearly was not.

That is the point I was getting at.

I truly cannot understand why you would even claim it to be so when as I have said before , even before you posted it, Catholic apologists have already put forward clear and logical refutations of these so called “latest theological” claims.

Even with your latest reply, you still somehow insist that the “brothers of Jesus” are Mary’s children and that this is actually the current thinking in Catholic theological circles.

I hope that makes my point clear.

 

[benedictus2]

Padrej was referring to the apostles any fool could see that. This is why I am wondering what you seek and why you keep questioning.
Padrej also said in a subsequent post that the Epistle of James was different, he did that to show how you were attacking without reading everything. See post 470

Well then he was a fool to post it that way.

I was replying to his post in sequence.

 

[Loboto-Me]

Well I know that I’m certainly stumped! At least this made me look deeper so there’s good to be had. I like to think of it as a teaching moment. Benedictus you’re doing a fine job protecting Our Lady’s reputation … not that it should need to be.

 

[Leeann]

No, not my opinion, totally scriptural Matthew 16:18. And yes, based on that, one can rightly conclude this is Christ’s will or He would not have said so. You do believe in the gospels don’t you?

Oh I believe in the gospels…just not your opinion…or I should say the Catholic church’s opinion of what that verse means.

Actually I don’t think I ever made a conjecture at all on what I think you think His will is :)

Of course you don’t…please forgive me if I misunderstood you.

In an earlier post - **#457 **– your referred to me as a “lone ranger orphan”….and in this post you also referred to “lone rangers”……

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

As for the highlighted sentences, well, I wonder, do you think they are not true somehow? Unscriptural? Maybe you could come up with a proper rebuttal instead of a comment goes nowhere ?

Well - sorry - I’m quite satisfied with the comment I made and I don’t think my comment went “nowhere”.

Leeann:I do love scripture however…especially in Colossians where the believers in that early church were instructed to hold one to what they had been taught…especially in
Col 2 :
**9 / For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily 10/ and you are complete in Him, who is the head of all principality and power. **

Response Benedictus 2Yes, that is good. But to add a little bit more information on that one. The “YOU” Paul is addressing here are the Catholics in Collosus, not the lone rangers who picked up scripture and said this is what I believe.

‘Good’…???..lolol…It is WONDERFUL! We are complete in Him – the head of all principality and power.

This is what the Christians in Collosus were told and what all true and faithful believers can hold on too.

Ooops, of course they couldn’t have done that, there was no Bible then. The Catholic Church had not yet come up with the Bible. .

I love Scripture too, especially the Gospels, you know when you actually hear it from Jesus Himself.

Matthew 16
John 6
John 20

John 21

And this is what I find rather curious. Protestants quote from Paul all the time but rarely from the gospels. I wonder why that is? But yes, I love Paul too.

1Tim 3:15
2 Thessalonians 2:15

Beautiful, powerful scripture – thank you for posting it.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

h I believe in the gospels…just not your opinion…or I should say the Catholic church’s opinion of what that verse means.

Wait a minute, LeeAnn. So you and the Catholic Church hold different views of what Scripture says?

Why then do you claim that your interpretation is more ‘authoritative’ than the Church’s?

If Scripture is self-interpreting or able to be easily understood by ‘all’, then ‘all’ should have the same ‘understanding’ of a given verse.

But you’re saying you have a different 'understanding of Matthew 16:18. Where exactly is the support for your interpretation? Certainly not in the history of Christendom itself.

Why do we have to accept ‘your’ interpretation? Where is your authority?

 

[benedictus2]

Oh I believe in the gospels…just not your opinion…or I should say the Catholic church’s opinion of what that verse means.

I know this will not sit well with you but the Catholic Church’s position is the right one. Someday you’ll come around to that thinking. Perhaps not just yet.

If you like you can start another thread on Matthew 16:18 or even just check out the many threads that have had that for topic here at CAF.

Oh and another thing, I suppose your opinon on this is so much more credible than the saints and doctors of the Church of the past 2000 years.

In an earlier post - **#457 **– your referred to me as a “lone ranger orphan”….and in this post you also referred to “lone rangers”……

That is based on your religion which you simply wrote “believer” from which I concluded that you belong to the religion called Leannism.

Well - sorry - I’m quite satisfied with the comment I made and I don’t think my comment went “nowhere”.
Actually, nowhere is good if you haven’t got anything else to contribute.

‘Good’…???..lolol…It is WONDERFUL! We are complete in Him – the head of all principality and power. This is what the Christians in Collosus were told and what all true and faithful believers can hold on too.

Yes, the faithful part is the problem. Can one call oneself faithful and remain apart from His Church, when He specifically established one?

Beautiful, powerful scripture – thank you for posting it.

You’re welcome!

 

[benedictus2]

Something someone posted on another thread which is quite timely I think.

This is the first time I’ve heard of it. It says that it is an approved apparition but I haven’t completely verified that so there’s my disclaimer.

catholicdigitalstudio.com/miracleofdamascus.htm