Why is it wrong to love Mary?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jimmy_B
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
“Honoring Mary”, which in the Catholic church translates as worship, has nothing to do with contraception or abortion.
I am not sure what your purpose is in being on the forum. Maybe you just want to pander your hatred against the Catholic Church. Maybe you are not interested in remaining, an maybe you really do want to “hit and run”. Whatever the reason, if you do want to stay in the forum, then I have to tall you that misrepresenting Catholic beliefs by bearing false witness, perpetrating lies agains the Church, and making derogatory remarks about the Faith will eventually result in getting yourself banned. The purpose of the forum is to answer questions about the Catholic faith. You have posted no question above, but stated a blatant falsehood. It is your opinion, of course, but you might do better to take it elsewhere, because it is not welcome here.

Honoring Mary does impact attitudes of women toward fertility and childbirth. People who use contraception have an attitude opposite of that our Blessed mother had. Luke 1:38
38 And Mary said, “Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word.”

It is a physical, mental, and emotional way of saying “be it done to me according to MY will.”

The rest of the post I answered over in the contraception thread, since they are not really related to Loving Mary.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=3326350#post3326350
 
The Church recognizes that divorce may be a solution to an abusive relationship and separation would be a valid option. If one or both partners want to pursue an annulment, they can go through proper channels via their parish. What the Church does not condone is divorce for divorce’s sake and re-marriage outside of the covenantal bond.
Is this your text, or am I confusing it with someone you quoted? The Church does not recognize divorce in the case of abuse. The Church will support civil divorce, and separation from the abuser, but the persons are still considered sacrimentally married to one another, and remarriage is still considered adultery.

An annulment is a statement that a valid marriage never took place, and is not based on the misbehavior of persons after marriage, but their intentions prior to that. The Church does not condone divorce at all. Jesus said it is caused by hardness of heart.

If I have misattributed these words to the wrong poster, please exuse me. I could not tell which belonged to whom!
Code:
I still think the celebacy of the preisthood is due to Gregory trying to put them under his control rather than allowing for the European kings having the ability to pass title and lands to the clergy.  This way the clergy is firmly under his control politcally and titles could not be passed on to heirs as in the past and must come from a representative of Rome.
These are certainly factors in the discipline in the Latin rite. Celibacy has always been valued in those who “become eunuchs for the Kingdom of God”, but certainly politics have played a strong role in West. Another factor is the Church supporting both legitmate and illegetimate offspring of the clergy.

What does any of this have to do with loving Mary??? :confused:
 
Code:
 A few brief points.

 (1) Someone unfortunately moved my answers to the questions re St. Paul. See #800 to check it out. I prefer not to start answering these three questions from scratch again.
Actually, I did not move your answers. I copied your post to a more approptiate topic thread and answered them over there. I do not have “moving” privileges here, only moderators. It is not unfortunate, though, because if we don’t stay on topic, the whole thread will get closed! 😃
Code:
 (2) I always have interpreted Matt 1:18, 25 as indicating that Mary and Joseph, after the birth of Jesus, did live together as husband and wife, including conjugal relations. Besides, the Bible suggests that Jesus had siblings. I know that Catholicism makes them out to be cousins, etc., but that always appeared to me to be a dodge, a desperate effort to defend the perpetual virginity of Mary. I don't understand why it's so important for Mary, a married woman, to be a lifelong virgin. What a better role model if she lived the life of a faithful, loving spouse.
Who are you to decide what is a “better role model” from God’s point of view? The Catholic Church produced the scriptures, and understands best what was meant in their pages. Catholicism “makes them out” this way because that is the Teaching we have from the Apostles. 👍
Code:
  (3) The idea that celibacy + chastity is a 'nobler state' than marriage is absurd. As a father myself, I know the love, work and sacrifices required of good fathers. The first commandment found in the Bible was "be fruitful and multiply". God ordained marriage. There is nothing wrong, of course, with being celibate, but to honor it as superior to marriage - a ridiculous statement. As someone said, the Eastern Rite has married priests.
I think you need to re-read the NT on this matter. Jesus stated that those to whom this gift is given should receive it. Paul clearly taught that celibacy for the sake of the Kingdom was a superior state. No one is saying that marriage is not holy and good. Mary made a vow of perpetual virginity, she wanted to offer her whole self to God, and this is to be commened no matter who does it!
Code:
 (4) Church annulments are church divorces pure and simple.
This has nothing to do with this thread, and if you don’t move it to another thread, it is either going to get pruned for being off topic, or the thread will be closed. An annulment is not a church divorce.
And to declare a marriage invalid after 4-5 children is silly. It reminds me a bit of Muslim shariah law, where a religion has its own courts, etc. Orthodox Judaism has much of this, too.
I suppose there are many truths about Christianity that the modern man will find “silly”. You have proven this is the case.
 
I would like to address the question of how loving Mary is associated with being open to and welcoming of life (that is, following the Church’s teaching regarding human sexuality). I like listening to Christopher West’s explanations of John Paul II’s “theology of the body.” If we truly love Mary, we will imitate her in her love of God. We can’t imitate her exact calling, obviously, but we can imitate her fruitful openness to God’s love in our own calling and state in life, no matter what that may be.

So the answer to the question, “Why is it wrong to love Mary?” is: Far from being wrong to love Mary, love of Mary leads us to imitate her fruitful love for God. As Mary said at the wedding in Cana, “Do whatever He tells you.” Loving imitation of Mary’s openness to God’s life and love brings joy into our lives and into our marriages (if we are called to marriage). Loving imitation of Mary in giving our fertility over to God in celibacy (for example in the religious state) makes us spiritually fruitful, bringing souls to eternal life through the motherly intercession of Mary.
 
40.png
rikkk1958:
That’s very good! God bless you.
Cathy
 
I would like to address the question of how loving Mary is associated with being open to and welcoming of life (that is, following the Church’s teaching regarding human sexuality). I like listening to Christopher West’s explanations of John Paul II’s “theology of the body.” If we truly love Mary, we will imitate her in her love of God. We can’t imitate her exact calling, obviously, but we can imitate her fruitful openness to God’s love in our own calling and state in life, no matter what that may be.

So the answer to the question, “Why is it wrong to love Mary?” is: Far from being wrong to love Mary, love of Mary leads us to imitate her fruitful love for God. As Mary said at the wedding in Cana, “Do whatever He tells you.” Loving imitation of Mary’s openness to God’s life and love brings joy into our lives and into our marriages (if we are called to marriage). Loving imitation of Mary in giving our fertility over to God in celibacy (for example in the religious state) makes us spiritually fruitful, bringing souls to eternal life through the motherly intercession of Mary.
Beautifully said, thanks! 👍
 
I would like to address the question of how loving Mary is associated with being open to and welcoming of life (that is, following the Church’s teaching regarding human sexuality). I like listening to Christopher West’s explanations of John Paul II’s “theology of the body.” If we truly love Mary, we will imitate her in her love of God. We can’t imitate her exact calling, obviously, but we can imitate her fruitful openness to God’s love in our own calling and state in life, no matter what that may be.

So the answer to the question, “Why is it wrong to love Mary?” is: Far from being wrong to love Mary, love of Mary leads us to imitate her fruitful love for God. As Mary said at the wedding in Cana, “Do whatever He tells you.” Loving imitation of Mary’s openness to God’s life and love brings joy into our lives and into our marriages (if we are called to marriage). Loving imitation of Mary in giving our fertility over to God in celibacy (for example in the religious state) makes us spiritually fruitful, bringing souls to eternal life through the motherly intercession of Mary.
Cathy, great post, I especially liked:

If we truly love Mary, we will imitate her in her love of God*.”*

And

*"As Mary said at the wedding in Cana, “Do whatever He tells you.” *

BTW, I do truly love Mary, but I have a long ways to go as far as “imitating her in her love of God”, I’ll keep trying though….

Loving God means obeying Him…

Please pray for me.
 
Is this your text, or am I confusing it with someone you quoted? The Church does not recognize divorce in the case of abuse. The Church will support civil divorce, and separation from the abuser, but the persons are still considered sacrimentally married to one another, and remarriage is still considered adultery.

**CCC: 2383 The separation of spouses while maintaining the marriage bond can be legitimate in certain cases provided for by canon law.177 (Cf. CIC, cann. 1151-1155.)

If civil divorce remains the only possible way of ensuring certain legal rights, the care of the children, or the protection of inheritance, it can be tolerated and does not constitute a moral offense. **

But you didn’t read my follow-up statement that if one or both of the couple want to pursue annulment, they can do so via help from their own parish. Annulment means that a covenant relationship between the two never occurred.

:blessyou:
 
Is this your text, or am I confusing it with someone you quoted?
guanophore;3326385:
The Church does not recognize divorce in the case of abuse. The Church will support civil divorce, and separation from the abuser, but the persons are still considered sacrimentally married to one another, and remarriage is still considered adultery.
Yes, that is my text.

**CCC: 2383 The separation of spouses while maintaining the marriage bond can be legitimate in certain cases provided for by canon law.177 (Cf. CIC, cann. 1151-1155.)

If civil divorce remains the only possible way of ensuring certain legal rights, the care of the children, or the protection of inheritance, it can be tolerated and does not constitute a moral offense. **
Legal separation or civil divorce does not annul the sacrament. The couple is still considered sacramentally married in the Church, even if they are separated or civally divorced.
But you didn’t read my follow-up statement that if one or both of the couple want to pursue annulment, they can do so via help from their own parish. Annulment means that a covenant relationship between the two never occurred.

:blessyou:
I did read that annulment could be pursued, but it will not be granted on the basis of what happened after the marriage. It is based on what happened at the time of marriage. If, at that time, it can be shown the spouse never intended to be faithful or held to the tenets of sacramental marriage, it may be annulled.

A true sacramental marriage is what Mary had with the HS!
 
guanophore;3322206]
Originally Posted by peary
The Catholic Church teaches and has ALWAYS taught that Mary receives her spiritual gifts and charism from the Holy Spirit, as we do. It is Christ working in and through her that protects us under the mantle of her motherhood.
“Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go to the Father. And whatever you ask in My name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son” (John 14:12,13).
You don’t take Christ at His word, do you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
The problem is that there is no such teaching for this in the NT.

guanophore
Please explain why you think the above ideas are not in the NT.
There is no such Marian theology in the NT. No one makes any claim that “Mary receives her spiritual gifts and charism from the Holy Spirit, as we do. It is Christ working in and through her that protects us under the mantle of her motherhood.” You won’t find any statements that come close to this assertion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
How could the apostles (who were closes to Christ and knew Mary personally) be totally unaware of such a truth?
guanophore
You just admitted in another post that we have know way of knowing what Paul taught DAILY for two years at Tyrannus.
In saying this, you admit that not all of what the Apostles taught is found in scripture.
Therefore, you cannot say that any of the Apostles were “unaware” of these things, just because you cannot see them in your Bible.
Of course i can. Even though the apostles taught orally does not mean that they taught marian doctrines. We have no reason to think so since we have no documentation to back this claim up with. Anyone who claims that the apostles taught aspects of the marian doctrines is speculating.
Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
The quote you use says nothing about appealing to Mary for anything. In fact this passage demonstrates clearly why there is no need to appeal to Mary for anything since Jesus Himself is our High Priest and advocate before the Father.
guanophore
Do you not believe that Jesus allows us to partake in the ministry of reconciliation?
Yes but not in the priest sense i.e. confessing to a priest to receive absolution.

 
**
BTW, I do truly love Mary, but I have a long ways to go as far as “imitating her in her love of God”, I’ll keep trying though…. **

Loving God means obeying Him…

Please pray for me.

Thank you for the compliment.

My love for God, His Mother and His Church is a gift from God after the prayers for my conversion of some beautiful Catholic friends, including a retired priest. My sponsor in RCIA gave me St. Louis de Montfort’s book, True Devotion to Mary, which explains how Mary brings us close to her divine Son, Jesus. I owe many of my thoughts on Mary to this beautiful little book, which is based on Scripture and is faithful to it.

I will be happy to pray for you, Jimmy. Please pray for me, too.

Your sister in Christ,
Cathy
 
There is no such Marian theology in the NT. No one makes any claim that “Mary receives her spiritual gifts and charism from the Holy Spirit, as we do. It is Christ working in and through her that protects us under the mantle of her motherhood.” You won’t find any statements that come close to this assertion.
This is baffling to me, ja4. If Mary does not get her grace, gifts, and everything she has from the HS, then where? Do you think she is not even as qualified as any other believer to receive the gifts of the Spirit? She was in the upper room at Pentecost…

Do you not think that Jesus is as capable of working through Mary as He is you and I? 🤷
Of course i can. Even though the apostles taught orally does not mean that they taught marian doctrines. We have no reason to think so since we have no documentation to back this claim up with. Anyone who claims that the apostles taught aspects of the marian doctrines is speculating.
But you did agree that not all of what the Apostles taught is in scripture, did you not? Or did you think that Paul just read his letters to Corinth aloud every day?

We do have evidence in the Fathers that these doctrines were taught. Do you think they just invented them out of thin air? And if so , why was there not an outcry about it, like there was against all other heresies that came up that way?🤷
Yes but not in the priest sense i.e. confessing to a priest to receive absolution.
Ok, but I was talking about Mary participating, and she does not do it in the priestly manner either. she has a different ministry of reconciliation in the world.
 
😃 the OP made a mistake this thread should have been called “why it is right to love Mary”…ja4 if you were to pray for twenty minutes,how many times would you say our Lord’s name?may also ask would the mother of our Lord betray one to Jesus or to satan?one more question,if i may,do you when you pray contemplate on the life of Jesus?
 
guanophore;3328067]
Originally Posted by justasking4
There is no such Marian theology in the NT. No one makes any claim that “Mary receives her spiritual gifts and charism from the Holy Spirit, as we do. It is Christ working in and through her that protects us under the mantle of her motherhood.” You won’t find any statements that come close to this assertion.

guanophore
This is baffling to me, ja4. If Mary does not get her grace, gifts, and everything she has from the HS, then where? Do you think she is not even as qualified as any other believer to receive the gifts of the Spirit? She was in the upper room at Pentecost…
During her life during the NT times yes. However what you are doing is assuming that she has some interaction with catholics today. That is not what the scriptures teach. What the Scriptures teach quite clearly in Acts and throughout the NT letters is that Jesus is with us today and not anyone who has died.
Do you not think that Jesus is as capable of working through Mary as He is you and I?
You have to assume that she is being used in today’s world. Thats the difference between us. You assume that she and the Christians who have died can still interact in this world. That idea goes far beyond Scripture.
It is true that Christ can work through any believer in today’s world.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Of course i can. Even though the apostles taught orally does not mean that they taught marian doctrines. We have no reason to think so since we have no documentation to back this claim up with. Anyone who claims that the apostles taught aspects of the marian doctrines is speculating.
guanophore
But you did agree that not all of what the Apostles taught is in scripture, did you not? Or did you think that Paul just read his letters to Corinth aloud every day?
We don’t know specifically what they taught here because we have no record of it. Without some documentation from this all we can do is speculate.
guanophore
We do have evidence in the Fathers that these doctrines were taught. Do you think they just invented them out of thin air? And if so , why was there not an outcry about it, like there was against all other heresies that came up that way?
Are you saying some father in the 2nd century taught marian doctrines? If so, who? What was his source since they are not found in Scripture?
Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Yes but not in the priest sense i.e. confessing to a priest to receive absolution.
guanophore
Ok, but I was talking about Mary participating, and she does not do it in the priestly manner either. she has a different ministry of reconciliation in the world.
Again you must assume this. Secondly any kind of ministry like this would be unnecessary since Christ Himself is our Great High Priest Who intercedes for us before the Father. Read Hebrews where this is clearly taught.
 
During her life during the NT times yes. However what you are doing is assuming that she has some interaction with catholics today. That is not what the scriptures teach. What the Scriptures teach quite clearly in Acts and throughout the NT letters is that Jesus is with us today and not anyone who has died.

You have to assume that she is being used in today’s world. Thats the difference between us. You assume that she and the Christians who have died can still interact in this world. That idea goes far beyond Scripture.
It is true that Christ can work through any believer in today’s world.
Hebrews, chapter 11 describes some of the people who once died who now make up the “cloud of witnesses” which surrounds us (Hebrews 12:1). In Christ and through Christ, Who is the same yesterday, today and forever, we all are united in one Body. Therefore the communion of saints is real, and the saints are present with us as members of the same Body when we are in Christ, Who is the Head.
 
Originally Posted by justasking4
During her life during the NT times yes. However what you are doing is assuming that she has some interaction with catholics today. That is not what the scriptures teach. What the Scriptures teach quite clearly in Acts and throughout the NT letters is that Jesus is with us today and not anyone who has died.

You have to assume that she is being used in today’s world. Thats the difference between us. You assume that she and the Christians who have died can still interact in this world. That idea goes far beyond Scripture.
It is true that Christ can work through any believer in today’s world.

Cathy
Hebrews, chapter 11 describes some of the people who once died who now make up the “cloud of witnesses” which surrounds us (Hebrews 12:1). In Christ and through Christ, Who is the same yesterday, today and forever, we all are united in one Body. Therefore the communion of saints is real, and the saints are present with us as members of the same Body when we are in Christ, Who is the Head.
Hebrews 11 and 12 don’t support what many catholics think it does. There is no mention here of any kind of “communication” between the “cloud of witnesses” and the living. The writer of Hebrews is not teaching some kind of communication but that these are examples of those who have suffered for the faith.
 
Hebrews 11 and 12 don’t support what many catholics think it does. There is no mention here of any kind of “communication” between the “cloud of witnesses” and the living. The writer of Hebrews is not teaching some kind of communication but that these are examples of those who have suffered for the faith.
**We are not talking about ‘communicating.’ Catholic Christians do not ‘communicate’ with the dead. That is against scripture and is against Church teaching. We ask for their intercession, much the same as we ask for the intercession of others living by their prayers for us. **
 
**
Originally Posted by justasking4
Hebrews 11 and 12 don’t support what many catholics think it does. There is no mention here of any kind of “communication” between the “cloud of witnesses” and the living. The writer of Hebrews is not teaching some kind of communication but that these are examples of those who have suffered for the faith.

peary
We are not talking about ‘communicating.’ Catholic Christians do not ‘communicate’ with the dead. That is against scripture and is against Church teaching. We ask for their intercession, much the same as we ask for the intercession of others living by their prayers for us. **
Praying to people who have died and expecting them to hear your prayers is a form of comunication. It is not the same as asking a living breathing Christian who is alive in this world to pray for you. You have no way of knowing the person you have prayed to can hear your prayers or is even conscious of your request. Jesus is the only One you can pray to with confidence since He and He alone is our great High Priest and Intercessor before the Father. See Hebrews 4:14-16 as one of many examples.
 
Praying to people who have died and expecting them to hear your prayers is a form of comunication. It is not the same as asking a living breathing Christian who is alive in this world to pray for you. You have no way of knowing the person you have prayed to can hear your prayers or is even conscious of your request. Jesus is the only One you can pray to with confidence since He and He alone is our great High Priest and Intercessor before the Father. See Hebrews 4:14-16 as one of many examples.
**You have an incredibly narrow understanding of what it means to be the Body of Christ.

It is clear from Revelation 5:8 that the saints in heaven do actively intercede for us. We are explicitly told by John that the incense they offer to God are the prayers of the saints. Prayers are not physical things and cannot be physically offered to God. Thus the saints in heaven are offering our prayers to God mentally. In other words, they are interceding.And if the saints in heaven are offering our prayers to God, then they must be aware of our prayers. They are aware of our petitions and present them to God by interceding for us.

Immediately preceding 1 Timothy 2:5, Paul says that Christians should interceed: “First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all men, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life, godly and respectful in every way. This is good, and pleasing to God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim. 2:1–4). Clearly, then, intercessory prayers offered by Christians on behalf of others is something “good and pleasing to God,” not something infringing on Christ’s role as mediator.

As for your contention that it is ‘communication’ with the dead, Deut. 18:10–15 specifically indicates that one is not to conjure the dead for purposes of gaining information; one is to look to God’s prophets instead. Thus one is not to hold a seance. But anyone with an ounce of common sense can discern the difference between holding a seance to have the dead speak through you and a son humbly saying at his mother’s grave, “Mom, please pray to Jesus for me; I’m having a real problem right now.” The difference between the two is the difference between night and day. One is an occult practice bent on getting secret information; the other is a humble request for a loved one to pray to God on one’s behalf.

As far as those in Heaven ‘hearing’ our prayers, if being in heaven were like being in the next room, then your objections would be valid. A mortal, unglorified person in the next room would indeed suffer the restrictions imposed by the way space and time work in our universe. But the saints are not in the next room, and they are not subject to the time/space limitations of this life. This does not imply that the saints in heaven therefore must be omniscient, as God is, for it is only through God’s willing it that they can communicate with others in heaven or with us.

The problem here with you is one of what might be called a primitive or even childish view of heaven. A good introduction to the real implications of the afterlife may be found in Frank Sheed’s book Theology and Sanity, which argues that sanity depends on an accurate appreciation of reality, and that includes an accurate appreciation of what heaven is really like. And once that is known, the place of prayer to the saints follows.

Maybe someday you’ll “get it.”**
 
**You have an incredibly narrow understanding of what it means to be the Body of Christ.

It is clear from Revelation 5:8 that the saints in heaven do actively intercede for us. We are explicitly told by John that the incense they offer to God are the prayers of the saints. Prayers are not physical things and cannot be physically offered to God. Thus the saints in heaven are offering our prayers to God mentally. In other words, they are interceding.And if the saints in heaven are offering our prayers to God, then they must be aware of our prayers. They are aware of our petitions and present them to God by interceding for us.

Immediately preceding 1 Timothy 2:5, Paul says that Christians should interceed: “First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all men, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life, godly and respectful in every way. This is good, and pleasing to God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim. 2:1–4). Clearly, then, intercessory prayers offered by Christians on behalf of others is something “good and pleasing to God,” not something infringing on Christ’s role as mediator.

As for your contention that it is ‘communication’ with the dead, Deut. 18:10–15 specifically indicates that one is not to conjure the dead for purposes of gaining information; one is to look to God’s prophets instead. Thus one is not to hold a seance. But anyone with an ounce of common sense can discern the difference between holding a seance to have the dead speak through you and a son humbly saying at his mother’s grave, “Mom, please pray to Jesus for me; I’m having a real problem right now.” The difference between the two is the difference between night and day. One is an occult practice bent on getting secret information; the other is a humble request for a loved one to pray to God on one’s behalf.

As far as those in Heaven ‘hearing’ our prayers, if being in heaven were like being in the next room, then your objections would be valid. A mortal, unglorified person in the next room would indeed suffer the restrictions imposed by the way space and time work in our universe. But the saints are not in the next room, and they are not subject to the time/space limitations of this life. This does not imply that the saints in heaven therefore must be omniscient, as God is, for it is only through God’s willing it that they can communicate with others in heaven or with us.

The problem here with you is one of what might be called a primitive or even childish view of heaven. A good introduction to the real implications of the afterlife may be found in Frank Sheed’s book Theology and Sanity**, which argues that sanity depends on an accurate appreciation of reality, and that includes an accurate appreciation of what heaven is really like. And once that is known, the place of prayer to the saints follows.

Maybe someday you’ll “get it.”
You bring up some interesting points that i think are worth discussing but this is not the place to do so. Maybe starting another thread would help…👍
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top