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

[prodigalson12]

The higher accountability argument is a weak defense my friend. ALL Christians are held to a higher accountability, some more than others. OK IF she is more than a laymen as you suggest, than I would say that she should understand as did Padrej who is more than a layman and also the layperson Benidict. Why was it they could get my points and not her? I do presume that you are talking about the person I responded to in these recent posts.

What mistake do you accuse me of by the way? Is it posting what others may believe that is also on the CAF in the faith section that we know has been refuted? This seemed to be the focus of what everyone has been attacking me on. They focus NOT on what I posted that was in line with the Church but only on the explanation I was using that spreads the whole belief system of everyone out so that a clear comparison could be made. The person I was responding to kept pushing the same question again and again and I am not going to play dirty cat and mouse games with someone like that. When a person does this they are trying to get the person to step out of line to pounce and say, “AHAH you see I was right he does believe this way because…” This is why I kept asking the person to go back to what was already on the CAF and they would see that what I put forth is also there. I told then I did not believe the “modern theology” but what the church’s position on this was, but NO that was not good enough. The focus was on the other beliefs that I posted to show comparison with the accusation that I believed such. You speak of higher responsibility, how about the responsibility of those to pray for and support the priesthood rather than tear them apart at every chance because they do not think they said something in a proper way. This was what got Jesus in trouble with the Pharisees because he did not follow the way THEY thought he should be saying to bolster their position. Many times I have explained over the 25 + years in the priesthood to people church doctrine but there will always be one or two that will say, “you said that wrong” or “that is not the way this reads” when I said the basic same things, just in a way that THEY were not used to hearing it.

Not going to address the cat and mouse element you discussed, it would be pointless to go into that area, the dialog would be largely lost with anybody reading it.

I know for certain, being of leadership and wearing the collar, you automatically are a far greater target and face larger struggles then the laymen, it’s even worse when you are not in that offical office, and entirely on your own yet are still called. Nobody to support you what so ever, and it’s a horrible place to be.

I won’t go back to some other thread I started, but in a nutshell, I have brought up people needing to pray for priests that have fallen away, gotten side tracked, etc. more so then the rest entirely because of what they have to put up with, staying within the confines of what’s in place “the reason I will not give in to my calling as a priest myself”, and what they are being under attack for by the evil one, simply because they are priests. The higher accountability element, what you say and do get’s followed up upon by all that follow you, so if you make a mistake and call it good, all that follow you make that same mistake. This is also all faiths in that regard, Catholic, protestant, muslem, etc. the leaders set the tone and understanding for who follow them, and the leaders are also naturally held into higher accountability, just as a manager or ceo of any company if you want to get into the secular world to boot for an example.

Are we perfect, absolutely not, but what we lack in our imperfections should be made up with our love, compassion and empathy. I can attest here, if I were to judge the local dioceses for the latter, most of them would be out on their can in a heartbeat…thus the reason for the Popes last statement, telling all priests they need to be shepherds, he could have said much more on it, but showed restraint in the matter, knowing full well it’s not necessary. I can fill you in on the rest of it, and in a nutshell it would have stated how most are miserable shepherds…and God himself is about to step in and lead his flock himself in person unless they take action here…

Don’t buy into the world and how the parish wants you to lead, lead by tradition and know what you are talking about and leading with, in the first place, and we live in dangerous times these days, it’s too easy to be led astray, you are in charge of your flock, don’t lead it astray, which is why she’s pushing forward on this agenda here, souls are at stake and ego’s need to be put onto the side in the process, your’s mine and her’s, the truth must be what counts, the rest are purely semantics.

 

[prodigalson12]

Does this mean that Benedictus 2 is ordained to the priesthood? You refer to her as “She” I thought that in order to have credentials that equaled she would also have to be a priest. Or were you referring to “education” as if you know what degrees any of us have.
Just wondering

A nun is the same level as a priest, in credentials in this regard to theology and debate, just fyi, and she used to be one, and in my opinion, she very much may be residing in the world, she’s clearly not of the world, just as the priest in this dialog.

 

[benedictus2]

Funny you are the only one who is still badgering me about it after I have tried to clear the air.

Maybe the others just got tired.

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

Then what is the problem???

I know it has been debunked as you say, but it is funny that you do not catch that in my posts.

If you knew it has been debunked why did you post it in the first place? And why not post the debunking? All you did was offer a link a little late in the piece.

Okay, Father, to put this matter to rest, this will be my last post on the matter but I will show you exactly why I and others (they probably got tired of arguing with you) found something terribly wrong with your posts.

You tried to excuse it by saying that you were replying to a Baptist but that does not really explain the nature and tone of your post at all. I will number the points so I can address them individually.

Your post 145:

• It is tradition, hate to burst bubbles here, that Mary remained a virgin. The Bible does say that she did not have relations with Joseph until after she brought forth her “FIRSTBORN son,”** thus indicating there were relations. **
• **Those words alone indicate there were other siblings. **
• NOW, church tradition says that these would have been Josephs by a former marriage,
• BUT, by Jewish culture of the time the eldest son had the responsibility of taking care of the mother and father in their old age, hence Jesus places John in the care of Mary, his earthly mother. This verse alone would contradict that Mary was ever virgin.
• as I say, church tradition and early church fathers **dictated **that the Biblical named siblings of James and Joses and the un-named sisters were half sisters or cousins by virtue that Jesus was of the Holy Spirit and they were not.
  
  Notice your use of the words in no1 “thus indicating” not “seems to be indicating”
  By saying this, you are practically saying that this is the correct conclusion, that there were relations.
  
  Then you move to point 2 with the same word usage, which means that because of the relations that you believe point 1 makes obvious, the siblings came.
  
  Here you do not offer any refutation at all. No explaining how the Catholic Church refutes these “seeming” proof from the protestant viewpoint.
  
  Then you get to point 3 which makes Catholic tradition sound stupid because if as you say the term FIRSTBORN is indicative of marital relations between Joseph and Mary, then how can the siblings be from Josephs’s marriage?
  
  Here again you do not even explain how that could be possible.
  
  Then after offering that rather bland (non)explanation of our Catholic belief in point 3 you go back to attacking this very thing by putting forth point 4, which again is easily debunked as I have shown in previous posts but you don’t offer any.
  
  Then you go to point 5 saying the Church Father “DICTATED” this belief. Again not offering any explanation for this DICTATION”.
  
  Congratulations Father. You have just shown that Catholic Tradition contradicts the Scripture.
  
  And it gets worse. (continued on next post)

 

[benedictus2]

Continuation of reply to Fr John B

**Your post 149: **

1.  **Here is the problem with the Marian dogma** according to scripture that we Catholics are asked to take on faith: Joachim and Anna who are believed to be Mary's parents (again we have holy tradition) are believed to have conceived Mary without the stain of original sin.

2. What happened to "In Sin was I born and in Sin did my Mother conceive me" from Psalm 51? I believe Ronin67 pointed out another point in Romans where we are all born into sin.

3. Most Protestants have NO problem believing Jesus was immaculately conceived but when it comes to Mary** the Bible tells us that we are all born into original sin. **
4. ** By tradition and dogma we Catholics are asked to believe otherwise in Mary’s** case. Even most Eastern Orthodox do not believe Mary was immaculately conceived (which means to be conceived without sin) as that dogma is heresy to them. They call Mary Theotokos or God bearer or Mother of God as she was earthly mother to him. Now be filled with Grace of God that is 100% possible by scripture so that she could bear the Christ child.
5. As to Jesus having “blood brothers” not by the Holy Spirit, but of Mary the Biblementions them by name, that is why the Catholic church does not call them Jesus’ brothers because Jesus was only begotten of the Father so he could not have any other brother. His earthly brothers, by name they are mentioned. Technically they would be only half brothers.

You open your post with a “Here is a problem with the Marian dogma”. Jimmy B was so very right to you up on that. Why is it a problem? We are asked to take this based on tradition, why is that a problem? Is it merely tradition? Have you actually investigated the other reasons and scriptural support that the Church has given for this dogma.

Do you know that protestants who have converted to Catholicism have easily explained the “seeming’ contradiction with the verses that you pointed in points 3 and 4. Visit any Mary thread and you will find how Catholics have valiantly and rationally explained how that is possible.

I myself came up with an analogy in which I posted on another thread only to be told by a new convert that this analogy was actually something that has been around for a 1000 years to explain Mary’s sinlessness. Yet all you pose here is a problem. No offer of an explanation as to how the Church explains this seeming contradiction.

At point 4, you once again made it appear as it Tradition and Scripture contradict each other, “By tradition and dogma we Catholics are asked to believe otherwise”

And the piece de resistance – point 5. You basically affirmed what you wrote in post 145 at points 1 and 2 by saying that the brothers were actually half-brothers BY MARY.

Nowhere in the above did you offer any explanation of why we believe this to be so.

When the Catholics here started complaining you feel hurt indignation, which seems rather absurd in the light of the fact that you have practically just said that this dogma is inconsistent with scripture.

Your first offer of a link where the theologians were mentioned was in response to Kathleen on whether Mary went through labour pains.

You gave the preface which said that modern authors and theologians are leaning towards Mary having gone through labour pains NOT about Jesus’s half brothers.

But it would have been fitting of a Catholic priest who is supposed to be defending the church to have posted the conclusion on that article which went:

It is therefore clear that the weight of Scripture, Tradition, and Church teachings, falls heavily on the belief that the Blessed Ever-Virgin Mary, in giving birth to Our Lord Jesus Christ and afterwards, retained every aspect of her virginal state and thus experienced no labor pains, not only because Our Lord, in being born, did not alter or damage her womb, but also because she was conceived without the stain of original sin and is therefore exempt from suffering the consequences of sin, which include labor pains for women. This is, in no uncertain terms, a dogma of the Church.

You apologized for the chaos that your post has caused but you never even offered corrections save to provide links.

You are angry that we are upset but why shouldn’t we be? You’ve basically barracked for the Protestants and bolstered their belief that Catholic Tradition does conflict with Scripture!

And you wonder why I keep pressing this? THAT is why.

You said in your post 348 that “, I want to know all sides of the argument from both sides”.

It would have been nice to see OUR side presented well.

 

[benedictus2]

The higher accountability argument is a weak defense my friend. ALL Christians are held to a higher accountability, some more than others. OK IF she is more than a laymen as you suggest, than I would say that she should understand as did Padrej who is more than a layman and also the layperson Benidict.

I may be wrong but I doubt that Benedict got your excuses as well. He is just a very respectful person and he is keeping silent in deference to you.

Padrej would get your point. He’s protestant.

 

[benedictus2]

** The question is: If you believe that you are being guided by the Holy Spirit, how do you know with certainty that it is specifically the Holy Spirit, and not another spirit…even one of a nefarious nature?**Its a serious question.

But how do you know that? That was my question. How do you know that for a fact on matters where your “belief” is in conflict with Catholic interpretation? The Church, mind you, who gave the worlrd the Bible through which you came to know Christ.

If I were to extend your line of thinking, the leaders of the Davidian Sect and People’s temple claimed the same thing.**

Over the years, it has been brought to my attention….too often I’m ashamed to say, that while I can fool others most of the time and myself some of the time and even those times when I “feel” that I’m being as open and honest with Him as I possibly can be…it has been brought to my attention, that His knowledge of me goes even beyond that.

I can never fool Him…He knows my motives and the intentions of my heart, mind and spirit…stripped bare…and He still loves me.

So with faith and confidence, but with a very naked and humble spirit, I approach His throne of grace in prayer before reading the Bible and ask that He will reveal His truth to me and also that He enable me, by the leading of the HS to be able to understand/comprehend and apply His truth to my life.

**
How can you say that it is with a humble spirit that you surrender to Him when by your own will and choice you are intentionally remaining outside of the the Church He established on earth. How can you ever say that it is humility, to affirm by the way you live your faith, that YOU are the authority when it comes to matters of faith? Isn’t that rather the height of pride?**

(no matter how hard it may be for me to want to accept it - as at times it may not be what I want to hear)

**Well then, put that to the test. Examine the claims of the Church that she is indeed the Church of Christ.
On another thread, I offered the protestants I was debating with to send them a book called Surprised by Truth. These are the stories of Protestants who have indeed been Surprised by Truth and was led home to the Catholic Church. Here you will see their agonizings over doctrine, their soul searching and how finally the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth led them home.

So I make that same offer to you. PM me an address to send it to and I will send you a copy. It is not cheap. It will cost me but I extend that offer to you.Someone else took me up on that offer. I hope he is reading it.

 

[Esdra]

Where do you get these errant ideas ? Don’t you read scripture and accept it literally ?

Did not Christ teach all converts become reborn as his brothers / sisters ? Can you accept that we are now in the Kingdom age ? What does the Lord’s prayer teach us on this Kingdom topic ? Did not Christ commune directly with Moses and Elijah on the Mount ?

Of course we are reborn as brothers and sisters in Christ Jesus! We ARE in the kingdom age! Chirst did so, yes.
BUT, tell me one thing, what does this have to do with honoring Mary and the Saints?

Its only ‘senseless’ for you because you don’t accept the scriptures … and have faith in them. Reexamine your beliefs … and ditch those that are errant. Listen to Paul in 2 Timothy 2:15. " Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman who need not be ashamed, rightly dividing the Word of Truth".

I do read the bible.

 

[benedictus2]

For those interested on a Q & A on Mary’s Perpetual Virginity here’s one taken from this link

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=6956&CFID=40362542&CFTOKEN=46291890

**Was Mary a Perpetual Virgin? by Christine Pinheiro
**

                                                             ** Objector: ** I went to Mass with one of my friends, and I noticed that during the Penitential Rite, Catholics ask for prayers from "the Blessed Mary, ever Virgin." This is an obvious example of Catholics adding teachings that contradict the clear witness of Scripture.

** Catholic: ** On the contrary, the belief that Mary was always a virgin has been held since the earliest days of Christianity. Many of the early Church Fathers, including Athanasius, Jerome, and Augustine, expressed this belief. To give just one example, Augustine said in A.D. 411 that Mary was “a Virgin conceiving, a Virgin bearing, a Virgin pregnant, a Virgin bringing forth, a Virgin perpetual.”
** Objector: ** Well, I definitely respect Augustine, but just because he said something doesn’t mean that it’s true. He was a great theologian, but he wasn’t infallible. This is one case where I’ll have to disagree with him. By the time Augustine said this, over three hundred years had gone by since Mary had lived.
** Catholic: ** I understand that Augustine was fallible, but I don’t think you should dismiss his testimony so easily, especially because what he says is supported by many other early Fathers. Another source that supports belief in Mary’s perpetual virginity is the * Protoevangelium of James *. It was written around A.D. 120, when some of those who had known the apostles were still alive. It records that Mary was dedicated before her birth to serve the Lord in the temple, as Samuel had been dedicated by his mother (1 Sam. 1:11). This required perpetual virginity of Mary so that she could completely devote herself to the service of the Lord.
** Objector: ** But if Mary wasn’t supposed to get married, why do we read that that Mary was engaged to Joseph (Luke 1:27)?
** Catholic: ** Again according to the * Protoevangelium of James *, concerns about ceremonial cleanliness required that Mary have a male protector who would respect her vow of virginity. Joseph was “chosen by lot to take into [his] keeping the Virgin of the Lord.” His duty to guard Mary was taken so seriously that when Mary conceived, Joseph had to answer to the temple authorities. So Mary’s betrothal to Joseph was not in conflict with her vow of virginity.
** Objector: ** This is very interesting, but there were many things written early in the history of Christianity that did not express what Christians actually believed, such as the Gnostic gospels. Like these, the * Protoevangelium of James * expresses a belief that is contrary to what has been revealed in Scripture.
** Catholic: ** I agree that we should use caution when relying on extrabiblical accounts, but we can also see evidence in the biblical texts that Mary had chosen to be a virgin. When the angel Gabriel tells Mary that she will bear a son, Mary asks, “How shall this be, since I have no husband?” (Luke 1:34). At this point, Mary was engaged to Joseph. Why would she then be so surprised at being told she would conceive? If she were planning on having children with Joseph in the usual way, it wouldn’t make sense for her to ask how she would be able to have a child. This question makes sense only if Mary was already planning to remain a virgin.
**Objector: **Maybe if you read this in light of the *Protoevangelium of James *, this passage could be read as an indication that Mary was planning on remaining a virgin. But why should we rely on ambiguous biblical passages and extrabiblical evidence when the Bible itself clearly states that Jesus had siblings? For example, Matthew records that “while [Jesus] was still speaking to the people, behold, his mother and his brothers stood outside, asking to speak to him” (Matt. 12:46). His listeners ask, “Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?” (Matt. 13:55). Jesus is even advised by his siblings: “So his brothers said to him, ‘Leave here and go to Judea, that your disciples may see the works you are doing. For no man works in secret if he seeks to be known openly. If you do these things, show yourself to the world’” (John 7:3-4).
**Catholic: **Although the Bible says that Jesus had brothers, this doesn’t mean that they were necessarily sons of Mary. If we accept the theory put forth in the *Protoevangelium of James *and accepted by many in the early Church, Jesus’ brothers would be stepbrothers, sons of Joseph but not of Mary. This would explain why Jesus’ “brothers” felt that they could admonish him, as they do in John 7:3-4. In Near Eastern society of that time, it was normally unacceptable for younger siblings to give advice to older ones.

 

[benedictus2]

**Continuation of **
Was Mary a Perpetual Virgin?by Christine Pinheiro

**Objector: ** But not all of the early Church Fathers believed that Joseph had children. St. Jerome said, “I claim that Joseph himself was a virgin.”
** Catholic: ** It is interesting that you quote St. Jerome, who adamantly defended the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity. It is certainly possible for Catholics to believe that Joseph did not have children of his own. In this case, the brothers of Jesus could be other relatives, such as cousins. Aramaic, the language spoken by Jesus and his apostles, had no word for “cousin,” so cousins and other close relatives were often referred to as brothers. For example, Abraham’s nephew Lot was called his brother (Gen. 14:14).
** Objector: ** There’s a problem with your reasoning here. Although cousins may have been referred to as brothers, it’s clear that in this case, the word * brothers * means blood brothers of Jesus — sons of Mary. We read in Matthew’s Gospel that Joseph “had no marital relations with her until she had borne her firstborn son” (Matt. 1:25). This implies that Joseph did have relations with her after she had given birth.
** Catholic: ** The word * until * here just says what happened up to the time of Christ’s birth. It doesn’t imply anything about what happened after that, although our modern use of the word * until * seems to imply that. For an example of this, look at 2 Samuel 6:23, which says, “Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death.” We’re obviously not supposed to assume that she had children after she died.
** Objector: ** In this case, it’s obvious that Michal could not have had children after her death. The situation of Mary and Joseph is quite different. We see that in the same verse, Jesus is called Mary’s firstborn son. If Jesus is designated as Mary’s firstborn son, that shows that she had other children. My mother wouldn’t call me her oldest child if I were her only child.
** Catholic: ** This is another case where our modern understanding of terms interferes with understanding what the Bible meant at the time it was written. In biblical times, the term * firstborn * had great importance. The firstborn was to be consecrated to the Lord (Ex. 13:2); the parents were to redeem every firstborn son (Ex. 34:20). They weren’t supposed to wait until they had a second child to redeem the firstborn, and so the first son born to a woman was called the firstborn regardless of whether or not she had other children later on.
** Objector: ** It seems to me like you’re using a lot of complicated reasoning to ignore the obvious statements in Scripture that show that Jesus had brothers and that Mary therefore could not have remained a virgin. You’re going to the passages with the idea that Mary was a virgin, and you’re reading that idea into the passages instead of drawing it from them. Even if the passages in question could be interpreted the way you see them, I don’t see any evidence in Scripture that they * should * be interpreted that way.
** Catholic: ** On the contrary, I think there is evidence (even beyond what I’ve shown you already) that it is very reasonable to interpret the texts as showing that Jesus did not have brothers. If Jesus did have brothers, why would he have entrusted Mary to the beloved disciple, John, at the foot of the cross (John 19:26-27)? He would have had surviving siblings who would have taken care of her. It would be surprising for Jesus to release his brothers from their obligation to their mother, especially because he criticized the Pharisees for neglecting the support of their own parents in Matthew 15:3-6.
** Objector: ** But how could Mary and Joseph have had a loving marriage if she always remained a virgin?
** Catholic: ** Granted, a life of complete abstinence is not the recommended way for ordinary married couples to interact. But Mary and Joseph were not an ordinary married couple. They were entrusted with raising the Son of God. This circumstance was so unusual that their marriage could not have been an ordinary one, because the child they nurtured was no ordinary child.
** Objector: ** I still don’t see why the Church requires Catholics to believe that Mary remained a virgin instead of allowing them to have their own opinions. Does it really matter if Mary had other children?
** Catholic: ** Actually, it does matter. Every doctrine about Mary tells us something about Christ or something about ourselves or the Church. Mary’s perpetual virginity demonstrates her purity of heart and total love for God. In 388, St. Ambrose of Milan wrote that Mary’s virginity was “so great an example of material virtue” because it demonstrated her total devotion to Jesus. In Mary, we see an example of the purity our own hearts must have in total dedication to God. Her virginity also tells us something about the Church, which, like Mary, is both mother to the faithful and “pure bride to her one husband” (2 Cor. 11:2)

 

[Esdra]

I do not think there there is a Catholic alive who would not agree that Jesus is the only mediator and advocate. However, you do I assume ask others to pray for you here on earth do you not?
I do, yes.If you take that a step further my grandmother’s prayers for me did not stop being answered the moment of her death; why because Jesus said that God is a God of the LIVING.
Absolutely. Christ is the God of the LIVING. Not the dead (like for example the ancient Egyptian God Anubis or Osiris!) Why then would you not want somebody who is already next to God to continue praying for you?
You said it correctly. God is the God of the Living. So the Dead can’t pray for the Living. In my opinion they are not interested at all in the Living. Why should they? Or otherwise show me a verse in the Holy Bible that supports that the Saints, the Dead and Mary pray for us in heaven! This is what Mary does for us.
Where does it say so? Why should she? She is not a Goddess. She doesn’t know what we need, unlike God. Christianity originially was a religion of the Living. In the meantime I often think the CC is more a religion of the Dead!
She is not dead but living in the presence of God so why not ask her or any other saint to “pray for me” because they are already there.
BUT they are not God. Only God knows everything. The Dead, the Saints and Mary don’t know.You can still go to Jesus but you also have the words of Jesus that when two agree touching anything that it will be done in heaven also.
And this is what I do: Going directly to Jesus or His father, God!Why not have one of those “two” be somebody already in God’s presence?

 

[benedictus2]

I mean Mary is the mother of our Savior Christ Jesus. So why should I hate here?

But on the other hand, why should I honor her, or pray to her?

Because in doing so you are immitating Jesus. Jesus was a jew who kept the law perfectly. He would have kept the law regarding honouring one’s father and mother. So Jesus honoured her first and we follow His example.

The word used in Hebrew for this commandment is “kovoda” which translates to “to give glory”. So Jesus in obeying this commandment actually gave glory to His mother.

 

[Cinette]

Hi

who said that you are not allowed to love Mary?

I at least never claimed that.

I mean Mary is the mother of our Savior Christ Jesus. So why should I hate here?

But on the other hand, why should I honor her, or pray to her?

*God commanded us to

Honour thy Mother and thy Father!

Jesus loved and honoured His Mother - so why should we not?

You know Esdra, you believe what you want to believe - one day you might see the light!

Cinette*

 

[Esdra]

*God commanded us to

Honour thy Mother and thy Father!

Jesus loved and honoured His Mother - so why should we not?

You know Esdra, you believe what you want to believe - one day you might see the light!

Cinette*

Well, actually Mary is not our mother. But the mother of Jesus!
That she is also our mother is only a missinterpretation of “See, your mother.” “See your son”.
Mary became actually some kind of Goddess. When the Christians started, as the main religion of the Roman Empire, to swallow several cults existing at this time.
and I am convinced about that!! 100%

 

[benedictus2]

Esdra; 6735251:

You said it correctly. God is the God of the Living. So the Dead can’t pray for the Living. In my opinion they are not interested at all in the Living. Why should they? Or otherwise show me a verse in the Holy Bible that supports that the Saints, the Dead and Mary pray for us in heaven!

Aaah, this is where your theology fails.

Are you then saying that once we die and go to heaven, we are dead in heaven? Is that what you really believe? Then what is the point of the resurrection if we remain dead anyway? Those in heaven are much, much more ALIVE than we are. They are no longer bound by space and time. They are seeing God face to face right now. If God listens to our supplications, we who are sinners and mere mortals how much more those who have actually reached His presence.

Isn’t it written that the prayers of the just are efficacious? Well, no one on earth could be more just than those who are already in heaven.

Where does it say so? Why should she? She is not a Goddess.

And we never said so. So you believe only Goddesses can answer prayers. My, my, you actually believe there are goddesses who hears and answers prayers?

She doesn’t know what we need, unlike God.

Oh yes she does. The innumerable miracles that has happened because of her intercession prove that she does.

Christianity originially was a religion of the Living. In the meantime I often think the CC is more a religion of the Dead!

Actually, you are the one who has just said that Christianity is a religion of the dead because you implied that once one dies, one remains dead even when one gets to heaven. So try to get out of that quandary.

BUT they are not God. Only God knows everything.

Yes, and He allows them to know our needs. He can will what He wants and it seems He does will this by the countless cures, miracles, helps that people have received from God through her intercession.

The Dead, the Saints and Mary don’t know.

You have got no way to prove that. We on the other hand have a lot of evidence that they do.

You can still go to Jesus but you also have the words of Jesus that when two agree touching anything that it will be done in heaven also.

That is not quite what Jesus said.  Jesus said that when two or three are gathered in His name He will be there in their midst.

When He said that it will be done in heaven, this is actually when He was giving Peter and the apostle the right to bind and lose.

And this is what I do: Going directly to Jesus or His father, God!

And that is very good. I go directly to Jesus too but I also go to Mary and the Saints. For a long while it was like that. Then one day I went to a Benedictine Monastery and there I felt the Fathers’ presence. I actually had a little fear because I thought I was losing Jesus but then I remembered that He said He will show us the Father.

A friend of mine when she was first converted just prayed mainly to Jesus. And this went on for a while. Then one day she was praying and a voice said to her “You don’t know my mother”. From then on it was as if she was led to Mary by her Son.

You know what it’s like, Jesus loves His mother. He chose her to be His mother. She is God’s masterpiece. When we love her, it does not detract at all from the love we give to Jesus.

An artist will never be upset that you give praise for his magnum opus.

And Christ gives her to us. When we do not honour her, we are refusing God’s gift.

 

[Esdra]

Because in doing so you are immitating Jesus. Jesus was a jew who kept the law perfectly. He would have kept the law regarding honouring one’s father and mother. So Jesus honoured her first and we follow His example.

The word used in Hebrew for this commandment is “kovoda” which translates to “to give glory”. So Jesus in obeying this commandment actually gave glory to His mother.

Where in scripture does that say? Okay, yes, as a faithful Jew he certainly did so - but the is no prove from scripture actually.
By the way at the marriage in canaaan Jesus was quite “rude” to her:

**John 2:4

Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come. **

there are also other examples that he didn’t always honor her, like when He said as a twelve year old:
"48 And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing.
49 And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father’s business? (Luke 2:46+47)

I mean imagine that: A twelve year old ran away, sort of, from his parents and then even asked them WHY they searched him. Is this really perfect honoring of father and mother?

Esdra

 

[benedictus2]

Well, actually Mary is not our mother. But the mother of Jesus!
That she is also our mother is only a missinterpretation of “See, your mother.” “See your son”.
That is how the Church has always interpreted that.That in entrusting Mary to John and John to Mary, He is in fact giving us Mary to be our mother. The misinterpretation came with some of the protestants.

Mary became actually some kind of Goddess.

Then I hate to say this but you are very ignorant about history. I suggest you pick up a history book about European civilization.

 

[KathleenGee]

Benedictus2,

Thank you for your skilled concern addressed to FrJohnB…that is exactly how I was reading his posts, and even wondered if he was a Roman Catholic priest…I am having eye issues and cannot hold my attention to read thoroughly fine points in disputes.

Joachim and Anna did not make Mary sinless. Mary’s Immaculate Conception was the work of the Heavenly Father Himself. I have been taught in the Catholic Church that Mary is a creature like us. And…we do not know in this life how profound the effect of sin is on our soul.

Our Heavenly Father provided Christ the sinless flesh and blood of Mary…through His life, death and resurrection, and our faith in the Eucharist – we owe honor to Mary in her life’s work of being His mother and through her ‘yes’, we receive Christ in the sacraments.

Mary had to grow in faith and wisdom throughout her life. She suffered as if a sword pierced her soul. The suffering of a mother for her innocent child is the worst suffering. But Jesus was innocent His whole life. I can only imagine the suffering she experienced her whole life with Him, He having a price on His life since He was an infant. And to suffer spiritually – the sacrileges committed to abuse Him – we don’t know, He could have been abused by others His entire life while He loved and served others continually, is a suffering of the soul…and seeing the loss of God in the lack of faith in men.

Mary was no stranger to suffering; her suffering was immense. But she did not sin. And as Jesus was the atonement of sin, and she His sinless mother, she followed in His path and was assumed into heaven. For so great a mother as she, we can find no tomb.

There are countless titles of Mary, but the one I like best of her is ‘Mother’.

 

[KathleenGee]

There is always abuse on objects we venerate. I think it a great abuse to misuse the Word of God and use it to divide, hate, deliberately lie and condemn people. The Word of God is for us to learn and to seek the truth about Him – and others, and to help restore people in the Lord.

The other is we can abuse veneration of Mary. But some times the excesses you see are rather the result of personality issues. I know some people who are very kind but go overboard in seeing Mary as the Fifth Gospel…she reminding us to pray, practice self denial and do penance. These same people have a legalistic view to Church laws.

There is abuse among Christians in all sorts of communities and denominations.

 

[benedictus2]

Where in scripture does that say? Okay, yes, as a faithful Jew he certainly did so - but the is no prove from scripture actually.
By the way at the marriage in canaaan Jesus was quite “rude” to her:

**John 2:4

Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come. **

Rude to her? So you are saying that Jesus the Son of God was rude to His mother? Are you quite serious about that? If that is the case, since we are suppsed to follow His example, then it is okay if we are also rude to our mothers. You really need to think that through.

Do you know that in calling her Woman He was echoing genesis. And what did He do after He said my time has not yet come? He did exactly what she asked Him to do. Think about that. It was not His time and yet at her request, He does it.

there are also other examples that he didn’t always honor her, like when He said as a twelve year old:
"48 And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing.
49 And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father’s business? (Luke 2:46+47)

And how was that being rude?

I mean imagine that: A twelve year old ran away, sort of, from his parents and then even asked them WHY they searched him. Is this really perfect honoring of father and mother?

But, that passage continues with : He went down with them and came to Nazareth, and was obedient to them; and his mother kept all these things in her heart. (Luke 2:51)

 

[Esdra]

That is how the Church has always interpreted that.That in entrusting Mary to John and John to Mary, He is in fact giving us Mary to be our mother. The misinterpretation came with some of the protestants.
Well, protestants believe that this was only for John, because Jesus loved him most of all of all disciples to take care of her. Maybe his brothers, and Joseph have already died. At least I assume so, because the bible doesn’t tell us about them by then. At least one can’t be sure about it. (Could be I tell you nonense also. Remember: I am not a theologian (yet)!

No she didn’t and you know you can’t prove that statement so why say it ?

Well, when I have a look at all those churches dedicated to Mary or Places like Medjugorje or Fatima - this thought is quite clear to see.

Then I hate to say this but you are very ignorant about history. I suggest you pick up a history book about European civilization.

You know what? I HAVE STUDIED History for a year in University. Just to consider.
And I have studied the Holy Bible since I am 16 years old (8 years so far!)
And by studying the Holy Bible I found out that it must be like I said: The Ancient Christians WERE NOT CATHOLIC. For sure not!

esdra

I am afraid I must say that I can’t compete with you on this topic. I haven’t heard much about Mary since I am Baptist. She is simply not important. Well, she bore Christ - and she was a Virgin doing so, but that’s all…

Well, I am leaving this forum now. I have to watch football!
Until later or so