Why pray to Mary or anyone other than God?

[Disinherited]

Does anyone have the location of this? This is new to me and fascinating. This would explain a lot!

If we could tone that a bit that would be good. We all have opinions on him, I for one know that he was a man and not without fault. I have great respect for him for standing up for what he believed in under the pain of death.

Labeling is an efficient way to shut open minds. Thank you for your great (name removed by moderator)ut. It has been very valuable to me.

Maybe I was a bit harsh, but you can’t deny that Luther’s ‘reformation’ was a total failure. He didn’t change the teachings of the Catholic Church, he made not 1 religion but a thesis that inspired alot of other false rleigions. I don’t mena to offend since you are a Lutheran and neither do I believe that Lutherans or Protestants are evil (except fundamentlaist fanatics. I just can’t stand those people and their bigotted, irrational hatred of Our Mother Mary). As for standing up for what he believed in, he only made up his own theology so as to be lazy. He was a drunkard, he was filthy and he was a racist too. Since he defected from the Church, the only way I see that he could have been saved if he called upon the Blessed Virgin at the hour of his death and repenting for the evil that he did.

 

[Tiberius1701]

Maybe I was a bit harsh, but you can’t deny that Luther’s ‘reformation’ was a total failure. He didn’t change the teachings of the Catholic Church, he made not 1 religion but a thesis that inspired alot of other false rleigions. I don’t mena to offend since you are a Lutheran and neither do I believe that Lutherans or Protestants are evil (except fundamentlaist fanatics. I just can’t stand those people and their bigotted, irrational hatred of Our Mother Mary). As for standing up for what he believed in, he only made up his own theology so as to be lazy. He was a drunkard, he was filthy and he was a racist too. Since he defected from the Church, the only way I see that he could have been saved if he called upon the Blessed Virgin at the hour of his death and repenting for the evil that he did.

Hey, we’re all entitled to our own opinions of Luther. He was a man 500 years ago, and beyond that, his legacy is in God’s hands. Let’s not get side-tracked by our different histories. The point here is unity and understanding. And that is found in the Chair of Peter and in the Truths of the Faith, not in opinions about long-dead people. The things we’re here to discuss about Mary are Truths of the Faith, facts which God has revealed through Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium. We have no such facts on Luther or the other reformers, and the Church has no interest in their fates - they are in the hands of God. Our calling is to show Truth and love to our brother Stepson here and let God’s grace and his conscience lead him to the decision of where to entrust his eternal soul. Let’s not quibble about non-Catholics past or present. Let’s talk about Mary and the Doctrines of the Faith.

 

[Roy5]

Gosh, I thought that the Catholic position had modified since Vatican II. I recall the harsh denunciations of Luther when I was a child (like by Frs. Rumble and Carty - anybody old enough to remember them?). I was raised in a mixed tradition, and I remember how Luther was so savagely demonized in those days. Going into a Protestant church was such a terrible sin, too, which caused a lot of pain and even alienation among family members who were of different faiths. Thank God for John XXIII!

Anyway, back to Mary. Again, I know of no Christian who doesn't honor Mary as the mother of Christ. Yet, I still have a major problem with what seems to be a Mariology which added more and more to her position of veneration within the church. Take the perpetual virgin belief. To begin with, Mary and Joseph were married. So, why would we expect them not to consummate the marriage? That would be grounds for an annulment today. It also smacks of a demeaning of intimate marital relations, which are a wonderful gift from God, which not only produce children but so often nourish love, romance, joy and bonding between married couples. 

I have checked out Matt. 1:24-25 in various translations and they all seem to suggest that Mary and Joseph had normal marital relations after the birth of Jesus. For example: 'and (Joseph) took unto him his wife, and knew her not till she had brought forth...."  At least two translations I have read use the actual phrases "and they did not have sexual relations until...."

I don't care to argue the point, except that (1) I see no reason why Mary and Joseph as husband and wife should not have had intimate relations and (2) the Bible appears to say that they did.

The entire Mariology question strikes me - forgive this if you see it as profane in any way - as influenced by goddess cults of the ancient world where virgin goddesses who were "Queens of Heaven" gave birth to divine sons. I believe that there were several of them.

 Personally, I am far more attracted to the idea that Mary was blessed because she bore Jesus, but that to start referring to her by a thousand titles, beginning with "Queen of Heaven" but "Our Lady of" an endless number of things, even the airways - well, if you can believe it, fine. I do not argue such things as I respect religious beliefs that I may have trouble with. In reading the earliest Church Fathers, by the way, I find very little reference to Mary. They are rather like the epistles where she is not mentioned by name even once. I can't help but wonder if this emphasis on Mary didn't develop gradually after about 200 or more years after the resurrection. 

 Incidentally, the Church Fathers disappointed me in one sense. They were brilliant for their era, but their writings contain so many errors based on primitive thinking before modern telescopes and microscopes that I have had to take much of what they wrote with a 'grain of salt'.  It's like reading Ptolemy on astronomy or Hippocrates on medicine. They both excelled in their day and place, but I certainly wouldn't rely on them for relevant information today.

Oh, and incidentally, both genealogies of Jesus, in Matthew and Luke, trace him through Joseph. Odd, don't you think? And those genealogies carry the names of very different ancestors. As for the one in Luke, it claims to go back to Adam. Since I find the early chapters of Genesis of questionable historic value (chapters 1-11, at least), I have to question that genealogy, also. 

 You can see that I have trouble with certain important aspects of traditional Christianity, though I profess my faith in Christ and seek to be among his faithful followers. It's Biblical literalism that makes me doubt.... And I guess a good Catholic isn't suppose to do that????

 

[Tiberius1701]

You can see that I have trouble with certain important aspects of traditional Christianity, though I profess my faith in Christ and seek to be among his faithful followers. It’s Biblical literalism that makes me doubt… And I guess a good Catholic isn’t suppose to do that???

Not at all Roy. We can (and do) all have doubts. There’s nothing wrong with doubts; they’re what challenge us to go deeper, to come to a fuller understanding and strengthen our love for and trust of God. Your error isn’t in doubting, it’s in allowing that doubt to make you declare that Truth doesn’t matter. If Truth doesn’t matter, then Jesus doesn’t matter. Or don’t you think it matters that He said, “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me”? He didn’t say, “I am the spineless ‘caring’ that some people call love which actually allows them to become a slave to sin and licentiousness,” Roy. He said, “I am… the Truth… no one comes to the Father but through Me.” They don’t come to God the Father through nihistic relativism, they come to God through Truth.

 

[Tiberius1701]

Let me ask you something, Roy. You sit here and you lecture us on how the Truth is meaningless and irrelevant to salvation. You tell us that you believe in a “big tent Christianity,” and yet you try to correct us. Why? I’m not asking because I want you to be quiet and go away. Not at all, Roy. I just want you to take a long, hard, serious look at your actions. Because they’re shouting at you just as loud as your words are shouting at us… only they’re not saying the same thing, Roy. If you really, truly believed that, so long as we loved Jesus and said to him, “Lord, Lord!” we’d all be welcomed lovingly into your “big tent” then it wouldn’t matter one iota what we believed or didn’t believe about Mary, would it? No! Because nothing matters as far as doctrine is concerned. So… why keep telling us how wrong and confused we are, Roy? Why keep saying, “I don’t see your Marian doctrines here,” or, “stop harping on about Truth, none of it matters”? Your words say, “nothing matters but love and Jesus,” but the fact that you’re here telling us we’re wrong says that, even to you, it does matter! You don’t even believe what you’re saying, Roy, and that is the doubt you need to be listening to. Because that doubt will lead you to seek Truth and to find it in Christ and His Church.

 

[rikkk1958]

Gosh, I thought that the Catholic position had modified since Vatican II. I recall the harsh denunciations of Luther when I was a child (like by Frs. Rumble and Carty - anybody old enough to remember them?). I was raised in a mixed tradition, and I remember how Luther was so savagely demonized in those days. Going into a Protestant church was such a terrible sin, too, which caused a lot of pain and even alienation among family members who were of different faiths. Thank God for John XXIII!

Anyway, back to Mary. Again, I know of no Christian who doesn't honor Mary as the mother of Christ. Yet, I still have a major problem with what seems to be a Mariology which added more and more to her position of veneration within the church. Take the perpetual virgin belief. To begin with, Mary and Joseph were married. So, why would we expect them not to consummate the marriage? That would be grounds for an annulment today. It also smacks of a demeaning of intimate marital relations, which are a wonderful gift from God, which not only produce children but so often nourish love, romance, joy and bonding between married couples. 

I have checked out Matt. 1:24-25 in various translations and they all seem to suggest that Mary and Joseph had normal marital relations after the birth of Jesus. For example: 'and (Joseph) took unto him his wife, and knew her not till she had brought forth...."  At least two translations I have read use the actual phrases "and they did not have sexual relations until...."

I don't care to argue the point, except that (1) I see no reason why Mary and Joseph as husband and wife should not have had intimate relations and (2) the Bible appears to say that they did.

The entire Mariology question strikes me - forgive this if you see it as profane in any way - as influenced by goddess cults of the ancient world where virgin goddesses who were "Queens of Heaven" gave birth to divine sons. I believe that there were several of them.

 Personally, I am far more attracted to the idea that Mary was blessed because she bore Jesus, but that to start referring to her by a thousand titles, beginning with "Queen of Heaven" but "Our Lady of" an endless number of things, even the airways - well, if you can believe it, fine. I do not argue such things as I respect religious beliefs that I may have trouble with. In reading the earliest Church Fathers, by the way, I find very little reference to Mary. They are rather like the epistles where she is not mentioned by name even once. I can't help but wonder if this emphasis on Mary didn't develop gradually after about 200 or more years after the resurrection. 

 Incidentally, the Church Fathers disappointed me in one sense. They were brilliant for their era, but their writings contain so many errors based on primitive thinking before modern telescopes and microscopes that I have had to take much of what they wrote with a 'grain of salt'.  It's like reading Ptolemy on astronomy or Hippocrates on medicine. They both excelled in their day and place, but I certainly wouldn't rely on them for relevant information today.

Oh, and incidentally, both genealogies of Jesus, in Matthew and Luke, trace him through Joseph. Odd, don't you think? And those genealogies carry the names of very different ancestors. As for the one in Luke, it claims to go back to Adam. Since I find the early chapters of Genesis of questionable historic value (chapters 1-11, at least), I have to question that genealogy, also. 

 You can see that I have trouble with certain important aspects of traditional Christianity, though I profess my faith in Christ and seek to be among his faithful followers. It's Biblical literalism that makes me doubt.... And I guess a good Catholic isn't suppose to do that????

Roy, it is easy to read your position, and of course you are trying to argue with logic which if you study more about Mary you will find that your logic is inferior than the facts about Mary. If you read on some of the website regarding the Blessed Mother, keep an open mind and try to remember her as the Mother of Jesus, the Son of God, Son of man because of her. The scriptures will make you understand because it supports her position and because any passages you think that is contrary to her position is inferior to the scriptures that supports her.

Many threads had been in this type of discussion, you can go over them and see for yourself. Let me say something to you; if you believe that everything is possible with God then you will understand that Mary is special, that is why she was chosen to be the vessel, like the Ark who carried the Old Covenant, only this time she carried the New Covenant in the name of Jesus Christ. This vessel must be perfect and sinless. She will be called blessed. Her prayers, interceding for those who asked, and because of her being righteous is powerful and effective. (James 5:16)

 

[pablope]

Gosh, I thought that the Catholic position had modified since Vatican II.

Anyway, back to Mary. Again, I know of no Christian who doesn't honor Mary as the mother of Christ.

 

[ClamDigger]

Gosh, I thought that the Catholic position had modified since Vatican II. I recall the harsh denunciations of Luther when I was a child (like by Frs. Rumble and Carty - anybody old enough to remember them?). I was raised in a mixed tradition, and I remember how Luther was so savagely demonized in those days. Going into a Protestant church was such a terrible sin, too, which caused a lot of pain and even alienation among family members who were of different faiths. Thank God for John XXIII!

Disinherited’s opinion is just that: Dinherited’s opinion. It in no way reflects how the entire Church feels about Luther.

Anyway, back to Mary. Again, I know of no Christian who doesn't honor Mary as the mother of Christ. Yet, I still have a major problem with what seems to be a Mariology which added more and more to her position of veneration within the church. Take the perpetual virgin belief. To begin with, Mary and Joseph were married. So, why would we expect them not to consummate the marriage? That would be grounds for an annulment today. It also smacks of a demeaning of intimate marital relations, which are a wonderful gift from God, which not only produce children but so often nourish love, romance, joy and bonding between married couples.

She was not Joseph’s husband in any sense other than in the worldly sense. Mary was Joseph’s “wife” in the same sense that Jesus was Joseph’s “son”. Mary and Joseph were married because it was convenient, in that time and place, for a woman to be married. People seem to forget that the law of the day was marriage arranged by the parents. Mary and Joseph most likely hardly knew each other before being engaged by their parents. Had Mary not been married, when her father died, she and her mother would have been forced onto the streets as beggars. Also, had Mary not been betrothed when she became pregnant with Jesus, she would have been executed for fornication! In fact, the only thing that saved her from this fate was that Joseph was willing to recognize Jesus as his own child. Had he not done so, Mary would have been charged with adultery and executed. No, Mary and Joseph were not some love-struck couple. They were Middle Eastern people who lived in the first century and were pushed into a marriage for practical reasons, the most important of which was the birth of a male heir to inherit Joseph’s property and titles, which they already had in Jesus. So, your argument that “they were married, so they had to have sex” doesn’t work. Also, coerced marriage (which is what most people entered into in those days) is also grounds for an annulment.

I have checked out Matt. 1:24-25 in various translations and they all seem to suggest that Mary and Joseph had normal marital relations after the birth of Jesus. For example: 'and (Joseph) took unto him his wife, and knew her not till she had brought forth...."  At least two translations I have read use the actual phrases "and they did not have sexual relations until...."

“Until” in Greek does not imply later conduct. The word in Greek is “heos” which literally means “up to that point in time”. It makes no assumptions about later conduct or lack thereof. This is obvious from passages like 1 Corinthians 15.24-25, in which it states, “For [Jesus] must reign, until (heos) he hath put all his enemies under his feet.” Does this imply that Jesus will no longer reign after his enemies are made his footstool? I hardly think so. It is the same with Mary’s virginity. The word heos implies nothing about what Joseph and Mary did or did not do after Christ’s birth, it just serves to guarantee that Joseph had no part whatsoever in Christ’s conception.

I don't care to argue the point, except that (1) I see no reason why Mary and Joseph as husband and wife should not have had intimate relations and (2) the Bible appears to say that they did.

1. Mary and Joseph were in an arranged marriage because it was practical, and
2. the Bible doesn’t appear to say that they did.

The entire Mariology question strikes me - forgive this if you see it as profane in any way - as influenced by goddess cults of the ancient world where virgin goddesses who were "Queens of Heaven" gave birth to divine sons. I believe that there were several of them.

Okay, Jack Chick.
Either that or maybe you are more influenced by atheistic historians who conjecture that Christ was a fictional character based on Dionysus because he was born in a divine manner, changed wine into his blood, and ascended into heaven.

 Personally, I am far more attracted to the idea that Mary was blessed because she bore Jesus, but that to start referring to her by a thousand titles, beginning with "Queen of Heaven"

She is only Queen of Heaven because Jesus is King of Heaven and she is his mother. Just as how Bathsheba was the queen of Israel because her son Solomon was king of Israel.

but “Our Lady of” an endless number of things,

What’s wrong with the title of Lady? We call ladies that we respect on earth “ma’am” (from “madame” or “my lady”) so why wouldn’t we show the same courtesy to the Mother of Christ Our God and call her “My Lady”?

even the airways

Ever hear of the “Flight into Egypt”? Hahaha

 

[ClamDigger]

• well, if you can believe it, fine. I do not argue such things as I respect religious beliefs that I may have trouble with. In reading the earliest Church Fathers, by the way, I find very little reference to Mary.

“The Virgin Mary received faith and joy when the angel Gabriel announced to her the glad tidings that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her and the power of the Most High would overshadow her, for which reason the Holy One being born of her is the Son of God. And she replied ‘Be it done unto me according to your word.’” --Justin Martyr

“Consequently, then, Mary the Virgin is found to be obedient, saying, ‘Behold, O Lord, your handmaid; be it done to me according to your word.’ Eve, however, was disobedient, and, when yet a virgin, she did not obey. Just as she, who was then still a virgin although she had Adam for a husband—for in paradise they were both naked but were not ashamed; for, having been created only a short time, they had no understanding of the procreation of children, and it was necessary that they first come to maturity before beginning to multiply—having become disobedient, was made the cause of death for herself and for the whole human race; so also Mary, betrothed to a man but nevertheless still a virgin, being obedient, was made the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race. . . . Thus, the knot of Eve’s disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. What the virgin Eve had bound in unbelief, the Virgin Mary loosed through faith.” --Irenaeus

“You alone and your Mother are more beautiful than any others, for there is no blemish in you nor any stains upon your Mother. Who of my children can compare in beauty to these?” --Ephraim the Syrian

“Mary’s life should be for you a pictorial image of virginity. Her life is like a mirror reflecting the face of chastity and the form of virtue. Therein you may find a model for your own life . . . showing what to improve, what to imitate, what to hold fast to.” --St. Ambrose

“Come, then, and search out your sheep, not through your servants or hired men, but do it yourself. Lift me up bodily and in the flesh, which is fallen in Adam. Lift me up not from Sarah but from Mary, a virgin not only undefiled, but a virgin whom grace had made inviolate, free of every stain of sin.” --St. Ambrose

These are just a few quotes. Seems to me like the Church Fathers held her in extremely high esteem.

They are rather like the epistles where she is not mentioned by name even once.

The Virgin Birth of Jesus also isn’t explicitly mentioned in the Epistles. Guess we should just ignore it, right?

I can’t help but wonder if this emphasis on Mary didn’t develop gradually after about 200 or more years after the resurrection.

Do you realize that for the first 200 years of the Church, she was being persecuted and hid most of her most sacred doctrines from the public in order to not be made a mockery of? That is why so many pagans had misconceptions about the manner of the Eucharist (they thought we were cannibals) and other things.

 Incidentally, the Church Fathers disappointed me in one sense. They were brilliant for their era, but their writings contain so many errors based on primitive thinking before modern telescopes and microscopes that I have had to take much of what they wrote with a 'grain of salt'.  It's like reading Ptolemy on astronomy or Hippocrates on medicine. They both excelled in their day and place, but I certainly wouldn't rely on them for relevant information today.

Who cares? They aren’t scientists, they are doctors of religion. They reflect their time, which, incidentally, was far closer to the time of Christ and his disciples.

Oh, and incidentally, both genealogies of Jesus, in Matthew and Luke, trace him through Joseph. Odd, don't you think? And those genealogies carry the names of very different ancestors. As for the one in Luke, it claims to go back to Adam. Since I find the early chapters of Genesis of questionable historic value (chapters 1-11, at least), I have to question that genealogy, also.

There are several explanations for the differing in the genealogies. I will include one of them here from the third century thelogian Africanus:
“Matthan and Melchi, having taken the same woman to wife in succession, begat children who were uterine brothers, as the law did not prevent a widow, whether such by divorce or by the death of her husband, from marrying another. By Estha, then—for such is her name according to tradition—Matthan first, the descendant of Solomon, begets Jacob; and on Matthan’s death, Melchi, who traces his descent back to Nathan, being of the same tribe but of another family, having married her, as has been already said, had a son Eli. Thus, then, we shall find Jacob and Eli uterine brothers, though of different families. And of these, the one Jacob having taken the wife of his brother Eli, who died childless, begat by her the third, Joseph—his son by nature and by account. Whence also it is written, ‘And Jacob begat Joseph.’ But according to law he was the son of Eli, for Jacob his brother raised up seed to him.”
Also, if you can’t trust the authors of the New Testament to give accurate information, why on earth are you a Christian?

 

[ClamDigger]

 You can see that I have trouble with certain important aspects of traditional Christianity, though I profess my faith in Christ and seek to be among his faithful followers. It's Biblical literalism that makes me doubt.... And I guess a good Catholic isn't suppose to do that????

No, because it makes no sense. If you don’t trust the authors of the New Testament, go become a Jew, a Hindu, a Buddhist, an animist, a Muslim, a Wiccan, an atheist, or a satanist. No one is forcing you to believe in Jesus.

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

Let me ask you something, Roy. You sit here and you lecture us on how the Truth is meaningless and irrelevant to salvation. You tell us that you believe in a “big tent Christianity,” and yet you try to correct us. Why?.

I have asked Roy this question so often that I got tired of asking it without receiving an answer. From his silence I concluded that his “big tent” Christianity is more closed minded than what he feels the Catholic Church is.

God bless you

 

[Stepson]

Maybe I was a bit harsh, but you can’t deny that Luther’s ‘reformation’ was a total failure. He didn’t change the teachings of the Catholic Church, he made not 1 religion but a thesis that inspired alot of other false rleigions. I don’t mena to offend since you are a Lutheran and neither do I believe that Lutherans or Protestants are evil (except fundamentlaist fanatics. I just can’t stand those people and their bigotted, irrational hatred of Our Mother Mary). As for standing up for what he believed in, he only made up his own theology so as to be lazy. He was a drunkard, he was filthy and he was a racist too. Since he defected from the Church, the only way I see that he could have been saved if he called upon the Blessed Virgin at the hour of his death and repenting for the evil that he did.

God bless you for speaking what’s on your mind. I have immensely value your and other opinions here. I have learned so much, however Bill Cosby once said you can serve two identical steak dinners. One on fine china the other one on a trash can lid. Which one would you like to eat off of? It’s not what you say; it’s how you say it.

To reply to your analysis how Luther stood up to create a lazy theology, I understand it, that he stood up against the practices of selling indulgence for revenue. There is no doubt that the reformation had some undesirable effects. Christian Liberty let the genie out of the bottle, if you will, with Calvinism and Anabaptist popping up, which by the way, Luther opposed.

Luther definitely came up short in some areas, I’ll give you that. Like the sacraments of the Church. Just for an example, I don’t agree with him on absolution and confession. They should be a sacrament. Philip Melanchthon thought so as well. But Luther showed his human emotion here and said although it was spiritually right, but because the Church (of antiquity) used it as a “weapon” he came short of calling it a sacrament.

So to this day, the Lutheran Church MS has absolution and confession in the service but it is not sacrament. ??? That’s like me and my wife refusing to call ourselves married because the backward state of California says the gays are now married. Here Luther threw the baby out with the bathwater in my opinion. This goes for some other sacraments as well.

Getting back to Mary, what shocked me was when I read Luther’s Explanation of the Magnificat 1522. I never knew he had such devotion to Mary. When I read the Magnificat, it was hard for me to see a “filthy drunkard” writing this.

We as Lutherans were taught in school that devotion to Mary was a Catholic teaching and Lutherans simply don’t do that. After reading the Magnificat I knew that was wrong. I called my dad to talk to him about this. He said that the immaculate conception, saying the rosary and the perpetually virginity teachings were a “Catholic thing.” When I read Luther’s writing, where he professes that this was his belief, my dad was speechless. I am not kidding; speechless. He said he had been a Lutheran for over 40 years and never knew Luther believed this.

I also read that Luther meditated on the rosary and had statues of Mary in his church. They remained there for 200 years after his death. So here I am; wanting to learn more from reliable sources about Mary. I do not want to become my like my father. If I am going to call myself a Lutheran, I am going to find out what it means. I am going to read from Luther’s own words and his teachings. Not someone else’s that came 300 years after Luther.

As for the disaster of the Reformation, I think the jury is still out on that. What I mean is that the Reformation is still on going. It has not ended. And from what I read about Luther, if he was alive today and looked at the Catholic Church of today, I believe he would support Lutherans going home (where we belong.) When we end up where we started from, then we can look back and judge the Reformation together in my humble opinion.

Luther himself said that if he knew that a piece of paper (95 Thesis) would have started such a fire, he would have been more careful on some of the points. Sounds like self-reflection and remorse for some of his words/actions. I believe he was a man of God but still a man with vices.

I think the Holy Father said it in such a perfect and eloquent way when he said, while visiting a Lutheran church in Rome, that the Reformation was a result of a sinful situation and that the divisions with the two Churches are due to a mutual “fault.”

I’d eat off of that plate any day! Again, I can’t thank you enough for this dialog! Some of the replies on this subject of Mary have really been an eye opener. I would still love to find that verse in the Old Testament that deals with God being frustrated that there is no one to hold him back when dealing with us sinners.

 

[hazcompat]

To the Father, through the Son, in the Holy Spirit.

peace

 

[Roy5]

Thanks for your efforts to clarify my mind. But, like millions of others, I still have doubts about many things taught by traditional Catholicism as well as evangelical Protestantism. Here are a few quick thought.

1. I’m not trying to correct anybody. I’m well aware that the vast majority here on CAF are devout Catholics who believe that whatever the Magisterium teaches is correct. You believe that the Holy Spirit would not permit it to be mistaken. Fine.
2. Somebody accused me of being a hypocrite for some reason. It had something to do with agreeing that Mary is the Mother of God. I think you will find that I never indicated that Mary is the mother of God. Mary is/was the mother of Christ. Sorry, but my simple mind can’t imagine that God had a mother or father. The human aspect of Christ certainly had a mother, and that was Mary. God is God is God - no mother or father - eternal - not created - not born. Now I believe this may be some heresy - Arianism or Adoptianism or Modalism or Nestorianism - I get my heresies confused. But heresy doesn’t trouble me all that much. I anticipate that I’ll meet a lot of them in the world to come. Certainly the God of love, forgiveness, and mercy isn’t going to condemn us to hell because we honestly have trouble toeing the theological line. (I have real doubts about hell, though perhaps there has to be a place for the Hitlers and Stalins.)
3. In a sense, I am a bit envious (sin?) of those who have all their theological house in order. There might be some advantage to having everything spelled out for me, and I don’t criticize those who have that sort of religion. You’ll find many Protestants and Muslims and probably certain Hindus and Jews who feel that they alone have the truth and everybody else is wrong. Does it make sense to any of you out there that (1) I don’t need that sort of doctrinal certainty, (2) I find it challenging and even exhilarating to let my mind explore all manner of alternative ways of seeing the world and even interpreting the Bible, and (3) it doesn’t bother me for a moment if others don’t agree with me or vice versa? I’m not trying to convert anybody to anything. I think it was John Wesley who said something like: “If your heart is right, if you love God as I love God, let us join hands and walk together.”

4. This doesn't mean I'm any sort of moral relativist, by the way, although the Bible can be confusing on that, too. When I read such chapters as Ex. 22 (see especially verses 18 and 20 as I recall), Lev. 20, and Deut. 22-23 such scriptures sound more like sharia Islam than Christianity. Stoning of women and others - for example - even a disobedient son. I try to follow the Sermon on the Mount though I do accept divorce in some cases and I also have trouble believing that "looking upon a woman with lust in my heart" is equivalent to commiting adultery. Jimmy Carter, as I recall, had trouble with that one. I am strongly committed to peace, justice, racial equality, religious freedom, and many other values that I trace to my Christian heritage. I do think that too often Christians have claimed to promote peace, humility and love while sometimes promoting hostility, arrogance, and bigotry,


5. Now re Mary. Queen Mother. When Bathsheba is mentioned as Queen Mother because she was the mother of Solomon, two bad things come to mind. One is that she was Queen Mother because David had her busband deliberately killed so he could have her. The other is the Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines. I would hardly hold either of them up as models. And there are other problems with those Kings. Did God really command Saul to kill every remaining Amalekite? I see that as genocide and the God I worship would never order such an atrocity. And the praise of David - "Saul has killed his thousands but David his ten thousands" - I have trouble with that verse, too. And there are scores more. With such heinous crimes in the Bible is it any wonder that Christianity has much too often been guilty of fostering hate and even war.

6. Who is this Jack Chick? Anyone I should know? I certainly am not influenced by atheists. I feel a bit badly for Hitchens because I believe he has cancer now, but he and Harris and that third prominent atheist author (hm! can't remember his name at the moment) don't appeal to me at all,. I must confess that I am a bit interested in the heresies of Bishop Spong, though more our of curiosity than anything else. Acquainted with him? My faith in God is strong and steady - never doubted his existence for a moment. It's doctrines and creeds that give me problems. For example, I'm not sure I believe that we go through a phyical resurrection, as the Apostles Creed indicates at its end. And as for Christ sitting on the right hand of God - well, suggests an old 3-tier and monarchial view of the world. Certainly not to be taken literally.

Anyway, thanks for your patience. I am inclined to think that 'no one cometh unto the Father but by me" but I don't interpret that to mean that Jesus keeps out everybody but Christians. I expect to find  Zoroastrians, Shintoists, Rastafarians, shamanists, worshipers of the sun and the moon, and millions of others in the world to come. What an interesting gathering! My honest opinion is that we'll all feel a bit silly because our religious insights have been so narrow. With maybe 100,000,000 stars (or even solar systems) out there in space I somehow doubt if we know very much. "Now we know in part...And the greatest of these is love." I Cor. 13. I do praise God daily for this magnificent, mammoth, mirculous and mysterious world.

God bless everybody.

 

[MartinJordan]

I had for a long time an issue about Mary being the Mother Of God it didn’t make sense until I realized I was “working” backward. It has nothing to do with the Almighty God our Father having a mother ( also that my Brother in Law a protestant was convincing me that Catholics actually believed that ).

Best is to learn from the early Church fathers who were resolute in their beliefs without having to deal with the world that we have now where false information can come at literally the speed of light.

MJ

 

[ClamDigger]

Thanks for your efforts to clarify my mind. But, like millions of others, I still have doubts about many things taught by traditional Catholicism as well as evangelical Protestantism. Here are a few quick thought.

1. I’m not trying to correct anybody. I’m well aware that the vast majority here on CAF are devout Catholics who believe that whatever the Magisterium teaches is correct. You believe that the Holy Spirit would not permit it to be mistaken. Fine.
2. Somebody accused me of being a hypocrite for some reason. It had something to do with agreeing that Mary is the Mother of God. I think you will find that I never indicated that Mary is the mother of God. Mary is/was the mother of Christ. Sorry, but my simple mind can’t imagine that God had a mother or father. The human aspect of Christ certainly had a mother, and that was Mary. God is God is God - no mother or father - eternal - not created - not born. Now I believe this may be some heresy - Arianism or Adoptianism or Modalism or Nestorianism - I get my heresies confused. But heresy doesn’t trouble me all that much. I anticipate that I’ll meet a lot of them in the world to come. Certainly the God of love, forgiveness, and mercy isn’t going to condemn us to hell because we honestly have trouble toeing the theological line. (I have real doubts about hell, though perhaps there has to be a place for the Hitlers and Stalins.)

…And the God who IS God who IS God chose to become man and have a human mother. How dare you deny him what he chose! You might as well spit in the face of his humanity because you apparently consider it less than his divinity. You must be a heretic, because only a heretic would divide Christ into two persons: one is human, the other is divine, and the human is less than the divine. How despicable.

1. In a sense, I am a bit envious (sin?) of those who have all their theological house in order. There might be some advantage to having everything spelled out for me, and I don’t criticize those who have that sort of religion. You’ll find many Protestants and Muslims and probably certain Hindus and Jews who feel that they alone have the truth and everybody else is wrong. Does it make sense to any of you out there that (1) I don’t need that sort of doctrinal certainty, (2) I find it challenging and even exhilarating to let my mind explore all manner of alternative ways of seeing the world and even interpreting the Bible, and (3) it doesn’t bother me for a moment if others don’t agree with me or vice versa? I’m not trying to convert anybody to anything. I think it was John Wesley who said something like: “If your heart is right, if you love God as I love God, let us join hands and walk together.”

Exactly what I’m saying. You don’t believe in the Bible so why are you a Christian? Go become a secular Jew or something if you don’t want to believe in the Bible but still want to lay a claim to it.

4. This doesn't mean I'm any sort of moral relativist, by the way, although the Bible can be confusing on that, too. When I read such chapters as Ex. 22 (see especially verses 18 and 20 as I recall), Lev. 20, and Deut. 22-23 such scriptures sound more like sharia Islam than Christianity. Stoning of women and others - for example - even a disobedient son.

Which is why we have a New Law: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”, “Love your neighbor as yourself.”, “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.”

I try to follow the Sermon on the Mount though I do accept divorce in some cases and I also have trouble believing that “looking upon a woman with lust in my heart” is equivalent to commiting adultery. Jimmy Carter, as I recall, had trouble with that one. I am strongly committed to peace, justice, racial equality, religious freedom, and many other values that I trace to my Christian heritage. I do think that too often Christians have claimed to promote peace, humility and love while sometimes promoting hostility, arrogance, and bigotry,

Who cares what Jimmy Carter had a problem with? Is he some type of authority on the Scriptures? I often have trouble loving my brother as myself. I’m not going to go off and say, “Well, I have trouble with it, so I’ll just ignore it! Jesus loves me anyways!” Jesus wants us to follow his teachings, and among those are not to view women as objects. I’m not saying that I have not had trouble following this teaching (trust me, I have!), I am just saying that Jesus had good reason for ***all ***of his teachings, not just some of them.

 

[ClamDigger]

Thanks for your efforts to clarify my mind. But, like millions of others, I still have doubts about many things taught by traditional Catholicism as well as evangelical Protestantism. Here are a few quick thought.

1. I’m not trying to correct anybody. I’m well aware that the vast majority here on CAF are devout Catholics who believe that whatever the Magisterium teaches is correct. You believe that the Holy Spirit would not permit it to be mistaken. Fine.
2. Somebody accused me of being a hypocrite for some reason. It had something to do with agreeing that Mary is the Mother of God. I think you will find that I never indicated that Mary is the mother of God. Mary is/was the mother of Christ. Sorry, but my simple mind can’t imagine that God had a mother or father. The human aspect of Christ certainly had a mother, and that was Mary. God is God is God - no mother or father - eternal - not created - not born. Now I believe this may be some heresy - Arianism or Adoptianism or Modalism or Nestorianism - I get my heresies confused. But heresy doesn’t trouble me all that much. I anticipate that I’ll meet a lot of them in the world to come. Certainly the God of love, forgiveness, and mercy isn’t going to condemn us to hell because we honestly have trouble toeing the theological line. (I have real doubts about hell, though perhaps there has to be a place for the Hitlers and Stalins.)

…And the God who IS God who IS God chose to become man and have a human mother. How dare you deny him what he chose! You might as well spit in the face of his humanity because you apparently consider it less than his divinity. You must be a heretic, because only a heretic would divide Christ into two persons: one is human, the other is divine, and the human is less than the divine. How despicable.

1. In a sense, I am a bit envious (sin?) of those who have all their theological house in order. There might be some advantage to having everything spelled out for me, and I don’t criticize those who have that sort of religion. You’ll find many Protestants and Muslims and probably certain Hindus and Jews who feel that they alone have the truth and everybody else is wrong. Does it make sense to any of you out there that (1) I don’t need that sort of doctrinal certainty, (2) I find it challenging and even exhilarating to let my mind explore all manner of alternative ways of seeing the world and even interpreting the Bible, and (3) it doesn’t bother me for a moment if others don’t agree with me or vice versa? I’m not trying to convert anybody to anything. I think it was John Wesley who said something like: “If your heart is right, if you love God as I love God, let us join hands and walk together.”

Exactly what I’m saying. You don’t believe in the Bible so why are you a Christian? Go become a secular Jew or something if you don’t want to believe in the Bible but still want to lay a claim to it.

4. This doesn't mean I'm any sort of moral relativist, by the way, although the Bible can be confusing on that, too. When I read such chapters as Ex. 22 (see especially verses 18 and 20 as I recall), Lev. 20, and Deut. 22-23 such scriptures sound more like sharia Islam than Christianity. Stoning of women and others - for example - even a disobedient son.

Which is why we have a New Law: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”, “Love your neighbor as yourself.”, “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.”

I try to follow the Sermon on the Mount though I do accept divorce in some cases and I also have trouble believing that “looking upon a woman with lust in my heart” is equivalent to commiting adultery. Jimmy Carter, as I recall, had trouble with that one. I am strongly committed to peace, justice, racial equality, religious freedom, and many other values that I trace to my Christian heritage. I do think that too often Christians have claimed to promote peace, humility and love while sometimes promoting hostility, arrogance, and bigotry,

Who cares what Jimmy Carter had a problem with? Is he some type of authority on the Scriptures? I often have trouble loving my brother as myself. I’m not going to go off and say, “Well, I have trouble with it, so I’ll just ignore it! Jesus loves me anyways!” Jesus wants us to follow his teachings, and among those are not to view women as objects. I’m not saying that I have not had trouble following this teaching (trust me, I have!), I am just saying that Jesus had good reason for ***all ***of his teachings, not just some of them.

 

[ClamDigger]

5. Now re Mary. Queen Mother. When Bathsheba is mentioned as Queen Mother because she was the mother of Solomon, two bad things come to mind. One is that she was Queen Mother because David had her busband deliberately killed so he could have her. The other is the Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines. I would hardly hold either of them up as models.

Who cares? They were human. They were prone to mistakes. The point is that “Salvation is of the Jews” and the Jews had a monarchy that was a reflection of the Heavenly Kingdom, and this earthly reflection included a Queen Mother, so the Heavenly Kingdom that is reflected must also contain a Queen Mother. That’s the point of the allusion.

And there are other problems with those Kings. Did God really command Saul to kill every remaining Amalekite? I see that as genocide and the God I worship would never order such an atrocity. And the praise of David - “Saul has killed his thousands but David his ten thousands” - I have trouble with that verse, too. And there are scores more. With such heinous crimes in the Bible is it any wonder that Christianity has much too often been guilty of fostering hate and even war.

Go become a Manichaean then. I think they believed that the Creator of Heaven and Earth was the devil. So, yeah, go join them if you’ve got daddy issues with God the Father. I don’t really care.

1. Who is this Jack Chick? Anyone I should know?

A hateful anti-Catholic who made the same claims against Mary that you do.

I certainly am not influenced by atheists. I feel a bit badly for Hitchens because I believe he has cancer now, but he and Harris and that third prominent atheist author (hm! can’t remember his name at the moment) don’t appeal to me at all,. I must confess that I am a bit interested in the heresies of Bishop Spong, though more our of curiosity than anything else. Acquainted with him? My faith in God is strong and steady - never doubted his existence for a moment. It’s doctrines and creeds that give me problems. For example, I’m not sure I believe that we go through a phyical resurrection, as the Apostles Creed indicates at its end. And as for Christ sitting on the right hand of God - well, suggests an old 3-tier and monarchial view of the world. Certainly not to be taken literally.

Atheists also have problems with those pesky “doctrines and creeds”. And, obviously you must be influenced by someone, since any original research on your part would not make you come up with the idea that the Blessed Virgin is a pagan goddess, because, with all of our easy access to information, it’s pretty obvious that the Holy Mother of Jesus Christ is much different from Semele, Leda, Ishtar, Hera, or any of the other “Queens of Heaven” of antiquity, just as how Jesus is much different from Dionysus, Apollo, Tammuz, Zeus and all the other “Saviors” of antiquity.

Anyway, thanks for your patience. I am inclined to think that 'no one cometh unto the Father but by me" but I don't interpret that to mean that Jesus keeps out everybody but Christians.

Didn’t realize anyone said that he does, but okay.

I expect to find Zoroastrians, Shintoists, Rastafarians, shamanists, worshipers of the sun and the moon, and millions of others in the world to come. What an interesting gathering! My honest opinion is that we’ll all feel a bit silly because our religious insights have been so narrow. With maybe 100,000,000 stars (or even solar systems) out there in space I somehow doubt if we know very much. “Now we know in part…And the greatest of these is love.” I Cor. 13. I do praise God daily for this magnificent, mammoth, mirculous and mysterious world.

I’m pretty sure most Catholics feel that way as well…

 

[Roy5]

So much to deal with ClamDigger, and I’m quite sure you’re not interested in my additional reflections. By the way, are you actually a ClamDigger?

As to the ancient Hebrews and the king business. The Bible indicates pretty clearly that God objected to their desire to have a king. After all, God was their sovereign. But because of their desire, they had kings, but only three - well, only three in the united kingdom. So, I don’t see how this monarchial system can be regarded as a model established by God and given to us to imitate. That’s what some of those tyrannical ‘divine right’ monarchs argued for centuries, a system our American Founding Fathers overthrew.

But back to David and Solomon. Human? Prone to make mistakes? Having a man deliberately killed so that you can marry his wife (David already had a number of wives) is more than a mistake. It is a damnable crime! I have never understood why David gets such a high rating when he was guilty of such an evil deed.

And as for Solomon - 700 wives and 300 concubines. Hive me a break! That was more than a mistake. That was polygamy with a vengeance. Yet, Solomon is often tauted as such a wise man! And, as I recall, his faith in God became compromised when he participated in various idolatrous acts because of his marriage to many pagan wives. I Kings 11:1-13 etc.

I guess I have a real problem regarding an act which strikes me as evil or a person commiting evil into something good. This appears to contradict my efforts to follow the example and teachings of Christ.  

One of my problems with scripture is that such people in the OT are held up as examples, men to be honored, when they were notorious scoundrels.

But, for those who can go along with all this - including most Catholics and Protestants and Orthodox - God bless you anyway. We trash Islam because of Muhammad's lifestyle (marrying a child bride, as I recall?), yet we hold Saul, David and Solomon, all miserable examples of virtue, in high esteem.  

Gosh, I seem to have strayed from the Mary theme. Well, not really. So much seems to be made of her being the Queen Mother, based apparently on these OT stories. Was Bathsheba the only Queen Mother in scripture? I can't think of any other off-hand. Strikes me that this one and only example isn't a very forceful or convincing argument. The  circumstances surrounding Bathsheba present a very sordid picture indeed. Identifying Mary in any way with Bathsheba seems like a major insult to Mary.

All the time I have to spare at the moment. God bless.

 

[ClamDigger]

So much to deal with ClamDigger, and I’m quite sure you’re not interested in my additional reflections. By the way, are you actually a ClamDigger?

I have spent time at Lake Monroe, yes.

As to the ancient Hebrews and the king business. The Bible indicates pretty clearly that God objected to their desire to have a king. After all, God was their sovereign. But because of their desire, they had kings, but only three - well, only three in the united kingdom. So, I don’t see how this monarchial system can be regarded as a model established by God and given to us to imitate.

And those three kings were prophets, so obviously God gave sanction to those kings.

That’s what some of those tyrannical ‘divine right’ monarchs argued for centuries, a system our American Founding Fathers overthrew.

Of course the myth of America has to become a part of all of this…

But back to David and Solomon. Human? Prone to make mistakes? Having a man deliberately killed so that you can marry his wife (David already had a number of wives) is more than a mistake. It is a damnable crime! I have never understood why David gets such a high rating when he was guilty of such an evil deed.

Once again, who cares? If you have such a huge problem with David, don’t be a Christian. God chose David to be his prophet and to prophesy the coming of his Annointed One (Acts 2.30-31). Christ even used David to justify his actions (Matthew 12:3)! We do not honor David and Solomon for their actions but for the times that they prophesied the coming of Christ and foreshadowed it.

And as for Solomon - 700 wives and 300 concubines. Hive me a break! That was more than a mistake. That was polygamy with a vengeance. Yet, Solomon is often tauted as such a wise man! And, as I recall, his faith in God became compromised when he participated in various idolatrous acts because of his marriage to many pagan wives. I Kings 11:1-13 etc.

Once again, who cares? Polygamy wasn’t condemned at that time and most people throughout the entire world had multiple wives. And, once again, Solomon falling into sin? Who cares! Solomon was a man. He was prone to sin, just like you and I. You would have a leg to stand on if you were perfect, which I doubt.
Also, Christ said that believers in Solomon would have the power to judge the unrighteous (Matthew 12:42).

I guess I have a real problem regarding an act which strikes me as evil or a person commiting evil into something good. This appears to contradict my efforts to follow the example and teachings of Christ.

Maybe you should follow the teachings of Christ and not judge his prophets. “Judge not, that ye not be subjected to judgment.”

One of my problems with scripture is that such people in the OT are held up as examples, men to be honored, when they were notorious scoundrels.

Who holds them up as men to follow as examples? Many of them did many bad things, but they were the men that God Himself chose to be his prophets and we honor God’s choice. If you don’t like the Biblical God’s choices, then don’t be a Christian, pure and simple!

But, for those who can go along with all this - including most Catholics and Protestants and Orthodox - God bless you anyway. We trash Islam because of Muhammad's lifestyle (marrying a child bride, as I recall?), yet we hold Saul, David and Solomon, all miserable examples of virtue, in high esteem.

I don’t trash Islam for the things that Muhammad did. As a matter of fact, I don’t trash Islam, period.

Gosh, I seem to have strayed from the Mary theme. Well, not really. So much seems to be made of her being the Queen Mother, based apparently on these OT stories. Was Bathsheba the only Queen Mother in scripture? I can’t think of any other off-hand. Strikes me that this one and only example isn’t a very forceful or convincing argument.

The Queen Mother was the mother of the King. The Kings of Israel had so many wives that they were not able to choose among their wives who would be the queen (if they choose the first wife, then what if she bears no heir? if they chose the wife first to bear an heir, what disrespect to the first wife!), so they chose their mother. It’s historic fact that is evidenced in Scripture. Christ is the King of the Israel and the King of Heaven and Mary, his Mother, is the Queen of Israel and the Queen of Heaven. Seems pretty simple to me.

The circumstances surrounding Bathsheba present a very sordid picture indeed. Identifying Mary in any way with Bathsheba seems like a major insult to Mary.

How so? We compare Christ to David and Solomon, the Kings of Israel, as the King of the New Israel. Why would we not compare Mary to Bathsheba, the Queen of Israel, as the Queen of the New Israel?