Why the hostility toward Mary?

[rikkk1958]

The New Ark of Covenant being Our Lady?

And yes I go along with this also, “This the Blood of the New and Everlasting Covenant” refers to Jesus Christ during the Eucharist. . So then what would this make his Blessed Mother Mary? The New Ark of the Covenant no?

I believe that Mary as the mother of the Lord who carried in her womb the new covenant (Jesus) is parallel to the Ark.

 

[PRmerger]

Well if your point is that the Blessed Mother didn’t need be sinless in order for Christ to be sinless. What is, isn’t, could be, would have and should have is sort of contrary to what is. And if this isn’t the thinking, then enlighten us on your thoughts/beliefs. Because I fail to grasp what “your” thinking is?

My point is that you are presenting a very poor argument as a Catholic for the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. You will be caught in the trap of your own words if you argue “It was necessary for Mary to be sinless in order for Christ to be sinless.”

Here’s the argument that’s inevitable if you present the dogma of the IC in the way you have–nonCatholic Christians (NCCs) will validly question your logic:

GT: “How do you explain God born into someone with Sin and not have Sin? God can’t have SIn, Mary can’t have sin.”

NCC: Then how could Mary be born of sinful parents? If Mary can’t have sin, then her parents can’t have sin.

See, Gary? You have no answer to the NCC when he presents that question.

RATHER! What is the best way to present the dogma of the IC is to say: Mary was sinless from the moment of her existence because it was FITTING that she who carried the Divine Presence be made of the “very best material” there is–pure, immaculate, and without stain.

 

[Big_Dummy]

The Mary of Catholics is simply not viewed as the Mary of the Scriptures. We see you as trying to displace Jesus with your Mary of tradition.

 

[PRmerger]

The Mary of Catholics is simply not viewed as the Mary of the Scriptures. We see you as trying to displace Jesus with your Mary of tradition.

When you speak of “we”, who do you mean?

That is, there are many non-Catholic Christians who don’t see us as trying to displace Jesus with the Mary of our tradition. In fact, many NCCs have a great veneration of Mary, ala Martin Luther.

 

[elvisman]

The Mary of Catholics is simply not viewed as the Mary of the Scriptures. We see you as trying to displace Jesus with your Mary of tradition.

As PRmerger has already so aptly inquired - who do you mean by "WE"?
Here is what some of the original Protestants had to say about Mary - and it sounds pretty Catholic. Read carefully:

Martin Luther:
"She is rightly called not only the mother of the man, but also the Mother of God … It is certain that Mary is the Mother of the real and true God."

***“St. Paul says 'God sent his Son born of a woman, ’ These words which I hold for true, really sustain quite firmly that Mary is the Mother of God.” ***
(Martin Luther, Martin Luther’s Works, vol. 7, pg 592)

"This article of faith - that Mary is the Mother of God - is present in the Church from the beginning and*** is not a new creation of the council but the presentation of the Gospel and the Scriptures******." ***
(Martin Luther, Martin Luther’s Works, vol. 7, pg 572)

"It is certain that*** Mary is the Mother of the real and true God******." ***
(Martin Luther, Martin Luther’s Works, vol. 24, pg107)

John Calvin
**It cannot be denied that God in choosing and destining Mary to be the Mother of his Son, granted her the highest honor. … Elizabeth called Mary Mother of the Lord, because the unity of the person in the two natures of Christ was such that she could have said that the mortal man engendered in the womb of Mary as at the same time the eternal God.
**(Calvini Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Braunschweig-Berlin, 1863-1900, v. 45, p. 348, 35) **

John Wycliffe
***“It seems to me impossible that we should obtain the reward of Heaven without the help of Mary. There is no sex or age, no rank or position, of anyone in the whole human race, which has no need to call for the help of the Holy Virgin.” ***[Sermon on Mary]

Ulrich Zwingli
"I esteem immensely the Mother of God".
"The more the honor and love of Christ increases among men, so much the esteem and honor given to Mary should grow".** **The Works of Zwingli, Corpus Reformatorum, Berlin, 1905].

 

[rinnie]

My point is that you are presenting a very poor argument as a Catholic for the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. You will be caught in the trap of your own words if you argue “It was necessary for Mary to be sinless in order for Christ to be sinless.”

Here’s the argument that’s inevitable if you present the dogma of the IC in the way you have–nonCatholic Christians (NCCs) will validly question your logic:

GT: “How do you explain God born into someone with Sin and not have Sin? God can’t have SIn, Mary can’t have sin.”

NCC: Then how could Mary be born of sinful parents? If Mary can’t have sin, then her parents can’t have sin.

See, Gary? You have no answer to the NCC when he presents that question.

RATHER! What is the best way to present the dogma of the IC is to say: Mary was sinless from the moment of her existence because it was FITTING that she who carried the Divine Presence be made of the “very best material” there is–pure, immaculate, and without stain.

PR, no disrespect to what you said, but I personally have no problen with how the previous poster is saying in order for Christ to be without sin he had have a Mother born without sin:shrug:

And the Church explains this quite simple really. I was taught that The Blessed Mothers parents were also born into Original sin, the same as us.

But the reason Jesus was not tainted by Original Sin passed on from his Mother is because she was saved from Origial sin at the moment of her conception.

So it was not passed on to her from her parents because she was saved from it long before it could have ever touched her.

That is why it is the Immaculate Conception. People think that this is regarding Jesus, its not its the Blessed Mother who was saved from sin by a singular Grace at the moment of her conception.

That is why when the Angel Gabriel at the moment of the annunciation salutes her as FULL OF GRACE. She was gifted with this Grace as a gfit from God to fill such a role as the Mother of Christ.

In Fact:

CCC 490 In order for Mary to be able to give the free assent of her faith to the announcement of her vocation, it WAS necessary that she be wholly born by God’s Grace.

If you notice the angel did not say you will BE filled full of Grace the angel said you ARE Full OF GRACE.

I was taught that she was Blessed the Virgin Mother at the moment of her conception by a singular grace and privilege of Almighty God and by the virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ Savior of Human our Human Race preserved immune from ALL STAIN OF ORIGINAL SIN. CCC 491.

 

[PRmerger]

PR, no disrespect to what you said, but I personally have no problen with how the previous poster is saying in order for Christ to be without sin he had have a Mother born without sin:shrug:

Then how do you answer the NCC’s inevitable question: how could Mary have been without sin if her parents had sin?

 

[PRmerger]

And the Church explains this quite simple really. I was taught that The Blessed Mothers parents were also born into Original sin, the same as us.

Exactly.

So if Jesus HAD to be placed into a sinless vessel, why didn’t Mary HAVE to be placed into a sinless vessel?

But the reason Jesus was not tainted by Original Sin passed on from his Mother is because she was saved from Origial sin at the moment of her conception.

Right. So why wasn’t Mary tainted by the Original Sin of her parents?

So it was not passed on to her from her parents because she was saved from it long before it could have ever touched her.

And then why would Jesus, who never had sin, need to be in a sinless vessel?

CCC 490 In order for Mary to be able to give the free assent of her faith to the announcement of her vocation, it WAS necessary that she be wholly born by God’s Grace.

Yes. In order for Mary to give her free assent.

It was NOT necessary for Mary to be sinless so that Jesus could enter her womb.

 

[rinnie]

The Mary of Catholics is simply not viewed as the Mary of the Scriptures. We see you as trying to displace Jesus with your Mary of tradition.

Which is something a Catholic could never understand. If it was not the Mary of Catholic’s that had that complete trust in God, that said Yes to God and obeyed him 100% being fully human as us.

That is why she is our perfect Example of being human and putting complete trust in God. She did not understand everything that was happening, but she never doubted God, nor his love. Even when she was was asked of him to sit back, and watch her baby be killed on a tree, she still had complete faith in God.

How about when he was lost and she found him in the temple teaching. When did she show anger, when did you ever hear her question God. She never did. It was from the Moment the angel appeared to her, the same answer until her death. These simple words. I am handmaid of the Lord, let it be done to me according to your word.

She is our first example of complete trust in God. The reason we admire her so much and love her is because she was our first human example of what God wants us to be.

It is her belief that she is the perfect example and she reacts as the servant of God in the psalm of Praise, the Magnificat, The lowley being singled out for Gods Favor, the reversal of human fortunes the fulfillment of the O.T. promises.

And Mary Said:

My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord, For he has loooked upon … Luke 1:46-56.

 

[rinnie]

Exactly.

So if Jesus HAD to be placed into a sinless vessel, why didn’t Mary HAVE to be placed into a sinless vessel?

Right. So why wasn’t Mary tainted by the Original Sin of her parents?

And then why would Jesus, who never had sin, need to be in a sinless vessel?

Yes. In order for Mary to give her free assent.

It was NOT necessary for Mary to be sinless so that Jesus could enter her womb.

Yes it was PR. Because The Purity of the Old Cov. sets the precedence of the N.C. Rev. 11:9

The Old Covenant carried the word of God made in Stone.
The New Covenant carried the word of God made flesh.

Mary had to be pure because the Ark of the New Covenant was built Immaculately.
Ex. 25:10
Rev. 11:19

 

[PRmerger]

Yes it was PR. Because The Purity of the Old Cov. sets the precedence of the N.C. Rev. 11:9

The Old Covenant carried the word of God made in Stone.
The New Covenant carried the word of God made flesh.

Mary had to be pure because the Ark of the New Covenant was built Immaculately.
Ex. 25:10
Rev. 11:19

It was fitting that she was.

God could have entered into a sinful vessel.

Mary did, didn’t she?

 

[rinnie]

Also we were not put in a sinless vessel, and we were also born with sin, We are held to the sin of Adam and Eve, that is why we have Baptism.

But Mary was saved from Original Sin from God at the second at her conception. We were not.

I agree her Mother Anna had the stain of sin also inherited from Adam. But Mary didn’t because she was free from that taint of Sin by God.

It was because of that Grace that she Got from God, FULL OF GRACE from the second of her conception that she was saved from sin. That is why she was never tainted by sin. Like we are.

 

[PRmerger]

Also we were not put in a sinless vessel, and we were also born with sin, We are held to the sin of Adam and Eve, that is why we have Baptism.

But Mary was saved from Original Sin from God at the second at her conception. We were not.

I agree her Mother Anna had the stain of sin also inherited from Adam. But Mary didn’t because she was free from that taint of Sin by God.

It was because of that Grace that she Got from God, FULL OF GRACE from the second of her conception that she was saved from sin. That is why she was never tainted by sin. Like we are.

I agree with everything you’ve said, rinnie, but it’s a non-sequitor.

You haven’t explained if God HAD to enter into a sinless vessel, why didn’t Mary HAVE to be in a sinless vessel, too?

 

[dianaiad]

Also we were not put in a sinless vessel, and we were also born with sin, We are held to the sin of Adam and Eve, that is why we have Baptism.

But Mary was saved from Original Sin from God at the second at her conception. We were not.

I agree her Mother Anna had the stain of sin also inherited from Adam. But Mary didn’t because she was free from that taint of Sin by God.

It was because of that Grace that she Got from God, FULL OF GRACE from the second of her conception that she was saved from sin. That is why she was never tainted by sin. Like we are.

So, here’s the question.

If God could free Mary of that inherited sin at the time of HER conception, allowing her to be born without sin even though her mother was not, then why couldn’t God have done that exact same thing for her Son, Jesus Christ?

This is what I am seeing from outside this conversation…remembering that for me, the whole discussion is moot……

The problem is the word ‘had.’ as in ‘required,’ as in 'if Mary had not been immaculately concieved, then Christ would not have been born as He was; it was an absolute requirement." As in: God couldn’t do it otherwise–He was powerless to do this in any other way.

From OUTSIDE this conversation, then, the position that Mary had to have been sinless in order for Jesus to be Who He was, is saying that God is not omnipotent.

PRmerger is not arguing that Mary was NOT sinless, or NOT immaculately concieved, after all. She is arguing that she was, it was fitting that she was–but that God could have done all this in another way and Jesus would still be the Only Begotten Son of God, the Messiah, the Savior of the world.

…disclaimer…

I, of course, believe that all humans are immaculately concieved–that is, born without sin, and so the problem doesn’t even arise.

 

[rinnie]

It was fitting that she was.

God could have entered into a sinful vessel.

Mary did, didn’t she?

Well first of all God could do anything he wants. But that is not the way HE set it up. He said he would be born of a Virgin Free from SIN. Now if Mary was not saved from all taint of sin how could that be?

Now Adam was born free from sin. But then he sinned, and what Did God say to the devil. I will put enmity between you and the women and between your seed and her seed.

Now we have 2 Women. 1. Eve who gave into sin and was sinless by God from the beginning of her existence.

1. Mary the Mother of God who Remained sinless from moment of her conception and that is whys he is the New Eve.

That is why she was the first to be benefited uniquely from Christ’s victory over death. She was given that special grace.

Now we know that according to scripture the whole human race is in Adam and all men are implicated in Adams sin. If not there would be no suffering in the world, Sin is the reason for that suffering.

Mary was saved BY GOD from that sin, we again were not. Now back to the facts. She was made Pure by God so she would be the IMMACULATE ARK, no sin at all. She was like the origianal Ark completely Pure.

By original sin the devil has acquired a certan domination over man even through man remains free.

Now even thought God became the word made flesh and took away our sin by the Cross does not mean we are completely free from it. We are not like the Blessed Mother FULL OF GRACE.

 

[PRmerger]

The problem is the word ‘had.’ as in ‘required,’ as in 'if Mary had not been immaculately concieved, then Christ would not have been born as He was; it was an absolute requirement." As in: God couldn’t do it otherwise–He was powerless to do this in any other way.

From OUTSIDE this conversation, then, the position that Mary had to have been sinless in order for Jesus to be Who He was, is saying that God is not omnipotent.

PRmerger is not arguing that Mary was NOT sinless, or NOT immaculately concieved, after all. She is arguing that she was, it was fitting that she was–but that God could have done all this in another way and Jesus would still be the Only Begotten Son of God, the Messiah, the Savior of the world.

:yyeess:

 

[rinnie]

I agree with everything you’ve said, rinnie, but it’s a non-sequitor.

You haven’t explained if God HAD to enter into a sinless vessel, why didn’t Mary HAVE to be in a sinless vessel, too?

Okay let me put this another way. Mary was SAVED from Original SIN TOO!! At the second of her conception. So she never sinned because God saved her from it at the Second of her concepton.

Mary needed a Savior too, Because of her Mother and Dad. but unlike us she was never tainted because she was saved and made Sinless.

The way I was taught if you walk past a hole and are about to fall into it, and someone reaches out and grabs you before you fall, you are saved from the fall. Thats what God did, he saved her long before she would ever commit sin.

Now beings that she was completly free from all Sin she was pure, so that she would be the perfect Ark to contain the word. Completely pure. Her Mother was not the perfect Ark. Only Mary was.

 

[PRmerger]

Okay let me put this another way. Mary was SAVED from Original SIN TOO!! At the second of her conception. So she never sinned because God saved her from it at the Second of her concepton.

Mary needed a Savior too, Because of her Mother and Dad. but unlike us she was never tainted because she was saved and made Sinless.

The way I was taught if you walk past a hole and are about to fall into it, and someone reaches out and grabs you before you fall, you are saved from the fall. Thats what God did, he saved her long before she would ever commit sin.

Now beings that she was completly free from all Sin she was pure, so that she would be the perfect Ark to contain the word. Completely pure. Her Mother was not the perfect Ark. Only Mary was.

Dearest sister, rinnie…again I agree 100% with the post above. However, it is also a non-sequitor.

If you argue that it was a requirement that Mary be sinless, otherwise Jesus could not have entered, then you have to explain:

How did Mary enter into a sinful vessel?

 

[PRmerger]

Well first of all God could do anything he wants. But that is not the way HE set it up. He said he would be born of a Virgin Free from SIN. Now if Mary was not saved from all taint of sin how could that be?

You are continuing to offer arguments as to why Mary was sinless.

You need not do that, rinnie.

I loudly and proudly proclaim the dogma of the IC.

I am simply saying that some ways to defend this dogma do not work. The one example of this is: Mary HAD to be sinless otherwise Jesus could not have entered her womb.

This is a poor argument and should not be used, else the NCC will say, “Then how could Mary enter into a sinful vessel herself? Why could Mary do what Jesus can’t?”

 

[rinnie]

You are continuing to offer arguments as to why Mary was sinless.

You need not do that, rinnie.

I loudly and proudly proclaim the dogma of the IC.

I am simply saying that some ways to defend this dogma do not work. The one example of this is: Mary HAD to be sinless otherwise Jesus could not have entered her womb.

This is a poor argument and should not be used, else the NCC will say, “Then how could Mary enter into a sinful vessel herself? Why could Mary do what Jesus can’t?”

PR, Listen to what I am saying. Mary was sinless BECAUSE she was saved from Original Sin from God at the second of her conception, we agree on that. But why did she need to be saved from OS at her conception by God?

Simple PR BECAUSE she was not born of that Perfect SINLESS VESSEL like Jesus was. Do you see what I am saying?

Mary needed JESUS to save her, It is only because the merits of Jesus that she was perserved without sin. It never touched her because at the second of her conception she was saved. Being that GOD saved her, she COULD BE the perfect vessel to be the New Ark made pure.

If God would have saved Anna at her conception then Mary would not have inherited Original Sin either. Do you see what I am saying. Then if she did not have OS when would not have needed a Savior either.