Why is it wrong to love Mary?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jimmy_B
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
justasking4 said:
Is this the proper way to think of Mary? Does this lead to more love for Mary?

THE GLORIES OF MARY
by
St. Alphonsus de Liguori
Doctor of the Church

Vita, Dulcedo.
OUR LIFE, OUR SWEETNESS.
I.
MARY, OUR LIFE, OUR SWEETNESS.

Mary is our life, because she obtains for us the Pardon of our Sins.
To understand why the holy Church makes us call Mary our life, we must know, that as the soul gives life to the body, so does divine grace give life to the soul; for a soul without grace has the name of being alive but is in truth dead, as it was said of one in the Apocalypse, Thou hast the name of being alive, and thou art dead (“Nomen habes quod vivas, et mortuus es”—Apoc. iii. 1). Mary, then, in obtaining this grace for sinners by her intercession, thus restores them to life.
Click to expand...
I thought that Jesus did all of that.
 
peary said:
**Roy - you get it wrong EVERY TIME!!
  1. Although it appears as though the Rosary focuses on Mary, it doesn’t. It focuses on Christ through the Divine Mysteries - Joyful, Sorrowful, Glorious, and Luminous. These are ALL sacred moments in the life of Christ, taken from Scriptures. THESE are what is meditated upon and prayed over.
  2. The letters came before the Gospels. And Mary is NOT part of Catholic worship of God. She is Mother of the Church and a saint in heaven belonging to the Communion of Saints who pray for us. She mentioned - MENTIONED - twice at Mass, that’s it.
  3. Mary is not a ‘goddess’ and no Catholic in his or her right mind would EVER consider that. She is a creature of God, albeit a highly favored human being, being chosen by God to be the mother of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. As such, she is also saved by Christ as we are.
  4. Although the Church encourages petitioning the Communion of the Saints, and encourages us to ask them to continuously pray for us to persevere in this life, the Church does not ‘demand’ that anyone does. The focus in the life of the Church is Christ, front, back and center. It’s fine with the Church for you, say, to focus on Christ, which is what one should be doing anyway.
We’ve covered all of this before. Why don’t you “get it” yet?**
Click to expand...
I think that the sum total of Mariology (Mariolotry to many) is far more than this.

The rosary uses the hail mary prayer as its basis. Many people concentrate on the joyful, glorious and sorrowful mysteries of MARY, not Jesus.

The dogmas of the assumption and the immaculate conception and de-facto co-mediatrix elevate Mary to far above the saints–the the level of a god or goddess. No original sin, and she didn’t even die, or if she did, she was immediately resurrected. *Jesus *was dead for 3 days. All of this makes her only slightly below Jesus himself.

All of the visions of Mary, not technically required by faith, but certainly widely believed, elevate Mary as co-mediatrix and a fountain of mercy able to obtain what otherwise God won’t give. Mary is portrayed as the obtainer of graces that otherwise mere mortals cannot obtain. She can ‘get around’ God.

Protestants believe that God is all wise, all powerful, and all loving. All gifts and grace come directly from God. If they believe that Jesus is God, then the gifts come through Jesus as God. No one else.

It’s not a matter of “getting it”. What you describe and what is common practice and devotion are two entirely different things.

Saying doesn’t make it so.
 
I think there are misconceptions in loving and praying with the Mother of God. Catholics in no way would equal Mary to God. Catholics know that Mary is Blessed to be chosen by God. Being the mother of God means she is also the mother of the Church where the Church is the communion of the body and blood of Jesus Christ. The Virgin Mother is for sure not standing idle somewhere. I am sure she is looking down upon us with mercy, to help us cope with our lives to become like her submitting to the will of the Lord. Asking for her intercession is not an evil act. Anything good is pleasing to God. Loving Mary is good, and there’s nothing wrong about it. Praying the Rosary is an act of honoring Mary like offering her flowers and thanking her for the goodness she made in submitting to the will of God.
 
1234 said:
I think that the sum total of Mariology (Mariolotry to many) is far more than this.

The rosary uses the hail mary prayer as its basis. Many people concentrate on the joyful, glorious and sorrowful mysteries of MARY, not Jesus.

The dogmas of the assumption and the immaculate conception and de-facto co-mediatrix elevate Mary to far above the saints–the the level of a god or goddess. No original sin, and she didn’t even die, or if she did, she was immediately resurrected. *Jesus *was dead for 3 days. All of this makes her only slightly below Jesus himself.

All of the visions of Mary, not technically required by faith, but certainly widely believed, elevate Mary as co-mediatrix and a fountain of mercy able to obtain what otherwise God won’t give. Mary is portrayed as the obtainer of graces that otherwise mere mortals cannot obtain. She can ‘get around’ God.

Protestants believe that God is all wise, all powerful, and all loving. All gifts and grace come directly from God. If they believe that Jesus is God, then the gifts come through Jesus as God. No one else.

It’s not a matter of “getting it”. What you describe and what is common practice and devotion are two entirely different things.

Saying doesn’t make it so.
Click to expand...
Hi

I agree with you that this elevates Mary, knowingly or unknowingly, above Jesus.

In my opinion the Protestant view point in this connection is more reasonable. The Catholics should also look into it more thoroughly. Paul never mentioned about Mary anything, to my knowledge, although he must have known that Mary mother of Jesus did exist, but he never acknowledged her or went to visit her ; he did not even see an apparition of Mary; at least it is not on record in the Vatican’s approved list.

In my opinion that makes this whole thin only a matter of superstition or an illusion or some sort of phsychological happenings. Needs a rational probe by Catholics and Protestants, to my knowledge, don’t see any apparitions of Mary.

Thanks
 
1234 said:
I think that the sum total of Mariology (Mariolotry to many) is far more than this.

The rosary uses the hail mary prayer as its basis. Many people concentrate on the joyful, glorious and sorrowful mysteries of MARY, not Jesus.
Wrong.
The dogmas of the assumption and the immaculate conception and de-facto co-mediatrix elevate Mary to far above the saints–the the level of a god or goddess.
Wrong again.“Saying doesn’t make it so”
No original sin, and she didn’t even die, or if she did, she was immediately resurrected. *Jesus *was dead for 3 days. All of this makes her only slightly below Jesus himself.
Correct.
All of the visions of Mary, not technically required by faith, but certainly widely believed, elevate Mary as co-mediatrix and a fountain of mercy able to obtain what otherwise God won’t give. Mary is portrayed as the obtainer of graces that otherwise mere mortals cannot obtain. She can ‘get around’ God.
Correct except she doesn’t “get around”. God uses her and works through her.
Protestants believe that God is all wise, all powerful, and all loving. All gifts and grace come directly from God. If they believe that Jesus is God, then the gifts come through Jesus as God. No one else.
Your point? That which comes from Mary must first come from God.
It’s not a matter of “getting it”. What you describe and what is common practice and devotion are two entirely different things.

Saying doesn’t make it so.
Click to expand...
Unless your God and you aren’t.😉
 
hi 1234 how do you what many people concentrate on? each of the joyfulsorrowful and gloriuos mysteries have ther own reference in scripture.it is no where stated that Mary was resurrected.she was "assumed"into heaven.meaning when she died God took her body and soul into heaven.who said God wasn’t going to give His grace in the first place?mortals can’t obtain grace only recive it.Mary doesn’t go around God but through Him.what is the point of praying for some one else then if only God can do things. it is through mary and the saints that God works.how do you think evangalization works?it works because God is working through the believer.
 
fbl9 said:
she was "assumed"into heaven.
Click to expand...
Hi

Kindly quote from the Scriptures for ASSUMPTION of Mary. I think it is not mentioned anywhere.

I think Paul also did not believe in it. How could he believe this when Mary had gone to India alongwith Jesus at that point of time. According to some tradition Mary died in Indian Sub-Continent and her grave is in Murree ( a hilly resort named after her) near Islamabad, Pakistan.

I love Jesus and Mary

Thanks
 
paarsurrey said:
Hi

Kindly quote from the Scriptures for ASSUMPTION of Mary. I think it is not mentioned anywhere.
She didn’t die until after most of scripture was written.
I think Paul also did not believe in it.
It hadn’t happened yet.
How could he believe this when Mary had gone to India alongwith Jesus at that point of time. According to some tradition Mary died in Indian Sub-Continent and her grave is in Murree ( a hilly resort named after her) near Islamabad, Pakistan.
YOU want proof from US from the BIBLE even though YOU belive in the QU’RAN so it makes NO difference what so ever. IF there was a long lost bible passage that stated this, it would mean little to you, so why bother asking?
I love Jesus and Mary

Thanks
Click to expand...
 
1234 said:
I think that the sum total of Mariology (Mariolotry to many) is far more than this.

The rosary uses the hail mary prayer as its basis.

So did God’s Messenger, the Archangel Gabriel.

Many people concentrate on the joyful, glorious and sorrowful mysteries of MARY, not Jesus.

There is nothing in the bible about the joyful, glorious or sorrowful ‘mysteries’ of Mary. That you even place it in such context shows an ignorance of both the rosary and particularly scripture as well.

The dogmas of the assumption and the immaculate conception and de-facto co-mediatrix elevate Mary to far above the saints–the the level of a god or goddess. No original sin, and she didn’t even die, or if she did, she was immediately resurrected. *Jesus *was dead for 3 days. All of this makes her only slightly below Jesus himself.

**The Lord didn’t do for her what He promised to do for us. Her immaculate conception was because of the saving power of Christ whom she bore in her womb. We begin our journey in salvation with Baptism, which washes away sin in the soul. **

The assumption is what we will experience on the Last Day at the Second Coming. To negate this is to deny your own Faith. Also, no where in the Church’s teachings does it ever say that Mary resurrected “immediately”.

Mary’s role in the Communion of Saints is similar to the original orthodox view of the office of Peter - “first among equals.” She is also Mother of the Church and our mother because WE are the Body of Christ on earth just as the saints are the Body of Christ in heaven, and because Mary was His first disciple as His own mother. Also, as God placed a woman at the beginning of salvation history (Eve), He placed a woman at the beginning of the fulfillment of that history through Mary.

The Church does not teach that Mary is a “goddess”, or that she is co-mediatrix. Co-mediatrix does not mean that she mediates equally with Christ. It means that under Him, the graces that she* receives from Christ *she gives to us willingly and freely, the same as God working through us in the lives whom we touch around us.

Protestants believe that God is all wise, all powerful, and all loving. All gifts and grace come directly from God. If they believe that Jesus is God, then the gifts come through Jesus as God. No one else.

The Catholic Church believes that God is all-wise, all-powerful, and all-loving. All gifts and grace come directly from God. The Catholic Church teaches that Jesus is God, and that all the gifts of grace come through Jesus as God, and no one else. But it doesn’t ignore the fact that Jesus sends His gifts and graces through us also so that we may build up the Kingdom of God on earth, and that, through us, we also touch the lives of others for God.
Click to expand...
 
Goth_Catholic said:
She didn’t die until after most of scripture was written.
Click to expand...
Something that struck me when I read this…

Since much of the scriptures that we have today were written at different times and they weren’t compiled into the bible until MUCH later doesn’t it seem weird that something THAT important would not be mentioned in any writing at all except from people who were not present and lived later, after the fact? We know, what we know of Christ because it was written. From what I can tell there are no stories told of Him that you cannot find in the bible. What we know of Peter and Paul are found in the bible. Why, then, would there be stories of Mary that are not in the bible?😊
 
Singinbeauty said:
Something that struck me when I read this…

Since much of the scriptures that we have today were written at different times and they weren’t compiled into the bible until MUCH later doesn’t it seem weird that something THAT important would not be mentioned in any writing at all except from people who were not present and lived later, after the fact? We know, what we know of Christ because it was written. From what I can tell there are no stories told of Him that you cannot find in the bible. What we know of Peter and Paul are found in the bible. Why, then, would there be stories of Mary that are not in the bible?😊
Click to expand...
**The fact is, there is no historical evidence as to when Mary the mother of Jesus died. All we have is the Church’s tradition which states that what has come down to us is after the Ascension, both Mary and John the disciple went to live near Ephesus as he took care of an emerging Christian community there. It is said that she lived to the age of 49, which would be about sixteen years after the Resurrection. She lived a remote and quiet life there.

If that is the case, then there is no reason to have included stories about Mary in the Bible. There are very few stories of the individual apostles in the bible and where they went and how they died is also based on the Church’s tradition which has come down to us.**
 
peary said:
**The fact is, there is no historical evidence as to when Mary the mother of Jesus died. All we have is the Church’s tradition which states that what has come down to us is after the Ascension, both Mary and John the disciple went to live near Ephesus as he took care of an emerging Christian community there. It is said that she lived to the age of 49, which would be about sixteen years after the Resurrection. She lived a remote and quiet life there.

If that is the case, then there is no reason to have included stories about Mary in the Bible. There are very few stories of the individual apostles in the bible and where they went and how they died is also based on the Church’s tradition which has come down to us.**
Click to expand...
She lived 16 years after the resurrection? Weren’t there books of the bible written long after that? So then why, if she was such an integral part of Christianity, isn’t there something written in one of the books regarding her assumption? You would think, with the emphasis that catholics put on her, that it would have been a major event written about for christians to know what had happened to the mother of Christ - their mother. 😊
 
Singinbeauty said:
She lived 16 years after the resurrection? Weren’t there books of the bible written long after that? So then why, if she was such an integral part of Christianity, isn’t there something written in one of the books regarding her assumption? You would think, with the emphasis that catholics put on her, that it would have been a major event written about for christians to know what had happened to the mother of Christ - their mother. 😊
Click to expand...
Rev 12:1
 
Singinbeauty said:
That says nothing about the assumption nor that it is Mary being spoken about…
Click to expand...
It says everything about the assumption. Mary appears first and foremost in heaven, secondly crowned, and third pregnant with the male child that will rule all nations.
 
Goth_Catholic said:
It says everything about the assumption. Mary appears first and foremost in heaven, secondly crowned, and third pregnant with the male child that will rule all nations.
Click to expand...
This was a vision after Christ had been crucified. How is she pregnant with Christ even though He had already been raised from the dead? 🤷 Especially after she had ‘died’ and been assumed into Heaven? It makes no sense if this was a vision of her assumed into Heaven that would have happened after her life on earth of which she had already lived, gave birth to Christ, and watched Him die on the cross. So how, after she was assumed into Heaven, would she be pregnant with Christ? :confused: Plus, is there any doubt that she is in Heaven, it doesn’t say that she was assumed to Heaven, only that she appeared. So if this is Mary it doesn’t indicate how she got there only that she was.

It doesn’t prove the assumption… Because it doesn’t say that the woman is Mary (first off). It is odd that if it was Mary why the author - having been close to Christ - would not have recognized her and said it right off. He named Micheal and odds are he had never met this angel so why would he name an angel he had never met but left Mary’s name out when he had met her? Why would he call her ‘the woman’ rather than Mary?
 
Singinbeauty said:
This was a vision after Christ had been crucified. How is she pregnant with Christ even though He had already been raised from the dead? 🤷 Especially after she had ‘died’ and been assumed into Heaven? It makes no sense if this was a vision of her assumed into Heaven that would have happened after her life on earth of which she had already lived, gave birth to Christ, and watched Him die on the cross. So how, after she was assumed into Heaven, would she be pregnant with Christ? :confused: Plus, is there any doubt that she is in Heaven, it doesn’t say that she was assumed to Heaven, only that she appeared. So if this is Mary it doesn’t indicate how she got there only that she was.
God showed John Satan’s anger toward Christ and Christians. The point isn’t that Mary was pregnant, it’s that she gave birth to Christ. In order to identify her as Christ’s mother and eventually the Mother of all belivers, she appears first as pregnant with Christ.
It doesn’t prove the assumption… Because it doesn’t say that the woman is Mary (first off). It is odd that if it was Mary why the author - having been close to Christ - would not have recognized her and said it right off. He named Micheal and odds are he had never met this angel so why would he name an angel he had never met but left Mary’s name out when he had met her? Why would he call her ‘the woman’ rather than Mary?
Click to expand...
In John’s gospel Jesus always calls his mother “Woman”, a term of endearment. So John, being the author of both the Gospel of John and Revelation, identifies her as Christ did.
 
peary said:
**Roy - you get it wrong EVERY TIME!!

(text deleted…)

We’ve covered all of this before. Why don’t you “get it” yet?**
Click to expand...
Peary,

Get off your high horse.

This isn’t a college entrance exam.

You’re not in charge here.

A forum is a free-for-all, in case you haven’t guessed.

No one is obliged to “get it” from you or anybody else.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top