Jesus is my mother-a testimony

[Davidnic]

You forgot to mention all the folks who have left the forum and it was not just over 7- what ever- 07.

it was over all the dissent. I myself have left several times over it.

I've mentioned that issue several times in the past both related to 777 and not. But that is by far a smaller number. Except for 777 when we lost most members who were "center right" in a disproportionate amount.

In addition many have left because they believe message boards and such really ultimately do more harm than good to a healthy expression of faith. I do not agree with that 100%. But I do see their point. It fosters extremes and it is a constant struggle to have balance. Anonminity fosters lack of charity. And any actual theological formation is shallow and more cut and paste than discussion. How much do we really reflect a proper Catholicism that exists in orthodox expression in the pews?

Dozens of times I have tried to get discussions going on Papal writings, Early Church Fathers and the Sacraments. They last 1-3 days before people leave those threads to ones that are sensational and controversial so everyone can judge each other.

Sad.

just as many want to quit the Church becuase of them too.

Actually in the people I have dealt with on both ends over the years here it is about 3 leaving because of narrow interpretation and browbeating to every one for liberal stuff. 90% of the time the modernist heresy is so obvious in the unorthodox expression (Women priests, pro-choice) that people are not driven away by it. They just disregard it, knowing it is not a proper Catholic expression without needing 100 posts to tell them (With the exception of Birth Control, I group that separately).

But yes, unorthodox expression needs to be corrected. I am not saying it does not. I am saying how it happens here...and how prideful people can get is a problem. And often when the correct info is presented it is presented in a way that is not the best to fixing the situation...and can even lead to greater error...just on the opposite end.

 

[CathNancy]

Bene if I have given the impression that you hold anything other than love and charity for KTS I apologize, that was not my intent. I also know that you have apologized to her for any hurt that you may have inflicted unintentionally. I realize that there were others who objected to Jesus as a mother besides you and TLF, I mentioned the two of you because you were the most verbal and that was unfair, again I apologize. Nevertheless, I still pray for peace and charity on this thead and and attempt for ALL to try and understand what the other is saying.

As I said in my previous post, we are not God and we do not have all the answers, that is why Jesus founded His Church, so that we would have the fullness of truth. It is our responsibility to find out what the Church teaches on any given subject and why she holds this position.

Peace and all good,
Nancy

 

[benedictaoo]

Thanks for acknowledging that i did apologize, Nancy.

 

[kisstheson]

Here's the truth form Kathnancy

"I think that I understand where both sides are coming from, KTS is saying that Jesus was literally a mother to her when her birth mother was not there for her. I believe that Jesus is all things to those who believe in Him and therefore I believe that KTS is correct, at that time Jesus was her mother and I praise God for His love and mercy to her.

Benedicta and TLF are saying that this is not a title for God, Jesus Himself says that we are to pray Our Father not Our Mother. But I do not see where KTS is doing any more than relating her own experience and perhaps saying that Jesus can be a mother to others if they need Him to. This is not to say that this is a formal title for God. Everyone views God based on their own experiences, I see Jesus as the Good Shephard because He came, sought me out, and brought me back to the Church. I have known of others who see Him as the Bridegroom, I don't, but that does not mean that He is not so for others."

What bebedicta, tlf and others object to is when I called Jesus the Greater Mother in regards to Mary. I still stand by the fact that the Godhead taught Mary all that she knows about mothering. There are many scriptures in the bible that talk about God's mothering. Catholics believe that Mary is not greater than God so why do they have such a probleme with saying God is taught Mary everything she knows about mothering making the Godhead the greater mother? ? He has both masculine and fenmale characteristics (spiritually)yet Christ is male.Kathnancy is correct. I am not encouraging everyone to pray "our mother in heaven." and I don't have a New Age concept of Christ.

 

[kisstheson]

Thanks for acknowledging that i did apologize, Nancy.

You did appologize but in the same breath you went on to say that I don't listen to constructive critism, I'm prideful and I'm into error.

But I love you anyway.

I'm just sorry that we can't see eye to eye. So lets focus on what we do have in common.

 

[benedictaoo]

You did appologize but in the same breath you went on to say that I don't listen to constructive critism, I'm prideful and I'm into error.

But I love you anyway.

I'm just sorry that we can't see eye to eye. So lets focus on what we do have in common.

I never said you were prideful.
and you don't like constructive criticism, that much is evident.

But I am sorry for being rude about it.

 

[kisstheson]

I like constructive criticism when the point is valid.

 

[CathNancy]

I freely admit that I do not like criticism, constructive or otherwise. It goes against my nature and hurts my pride. I struggle with this on a daily basis and pray God grant me the virture of humility.

Nancy

 

[MoNiCa4316]

I freely admit that I do not like criticism, constructive or otherwise. It goes against my nature and hurts my pride. I struggle with this on a daily basis and pray God grant me the virture of humility.

Nancy

I would like to admit this also

 

[kisstheson]

I never said you were prideful.
and you don't like constructive criticism, that much is evident.

But I am sorry for being rude about it.

I take back the comment you saying I'm prideful. I reread what you said and it wasn't you.

"pride goes before destrution and a haughty spirit before a fall." proverbs.

I am guilty of pride at times.

Sorry...

 

[IgnatiusOfAntioch]

This is dangerous ground kisstheson.

God is God, and we are made in God's image, male and female, so God inherently has all the characteristics we have male and female. It is no wonder that we experience His maternal as well as paternal care.

However, that is no reason to be callilng Jesus our Mother. To go beyond that, and call Jesus our Mother, borders on gnostic type knowledge.

Jesus is not our Mother. He is our savior and BROHTER.

Mary is our Mother, the Church is our Mother, and given all the other threads about Mary, and your expressed opposition to all of the Church's teaching on Mary, it is obvious this thread was started to minimize Mary's importance as our mother, passing it to Jesus.

In today's time, when modernism and liberalism, promoting gender/transgender inclusive language and ideas, even into Catholicism, trying to downplay the masculinity of God as Father, the massive attempts of feminism to inject itself into Catholic thought and faith, such language is indeed dangerous for it can too easily be taken off in faith destroying directions very, very easily.

"Jesus our Mother" has been used in some circles to argue for the ordination of women.

This is not an innocuous title in the climate the Church finds itself today.

This is OBOB, and such dangerous language from someone who rejects the full teaching on Mary in the Catholic Church is not leading where Catholics are led to by the Church.

And this is what calling Jesus "Our Mother" can lead to- radical feminism and gnosticism.

There has been a great push for gender inclusive language which has even found its way into Catholic bibles - in the Catholic Student Bible that was put out a few years ago, such language was included that referred to God as our Mother in articles interspersed among the pages of scrpiture.

This bible was pulled by the Catholic Church and gender-inclusive, feminist language was removed before it would be allowed to be re-issued.

The Catholic Church does not promote, or permit to be promoted, such gender/transgender-inclusive language about the Divine God.

It is inappropriate to promote such language here in this forum when the Church does not use or promote such use, and has in fact discouraged such use within the Church.

Please respect our Church kisstheson.

The title "Jesus our Mother" is not found in Catholic teaching. Please don't promote something contrary to Catholic teaching here.

It is one thing to talk about the maternal, nuturing characteristics and nature of God, it is quite another to call Jesus our Mother.

Please also consider, one of the hallmarks of error is to emphasize what the Church does not emphasize, and to de-emphasize what the Church emphasizes.

That is the most cogent reply in the entire thread. Excellent clarity, perfect Charity and truely faithful the the Authentic Teachings of The Catholic Church. Thank you for that.

Your brother in Christ.

 

[Tonks]

This type of theology is truly bizarre - particularly coupled with some of the other threads started which were nothing but rank eroticism cloaked in "personal testimony" or whatever.

 

[benedictaoo]

This type of theology is truly bizarre - particularly coupled with some of the other threads started which were nothing but rank eroticism cloaked in "personal testimony" or whatever.

http://www.lospequenos.org/PepperIssues/Jan2004Pepper.pdf

 

[CathNancy]

http://www.lospequenos.org/PepperIssues/Jan2004Pepper.pdf

This is very interesting and well worth reading, thanks for posting benedicta.

Nancy

 

[JoabAnias]

This is very interesting and well worth reading, thanks for posting benedicta.

Nancy

Yea, thanks bene.

 

[MoNiCa4316]

This type of theology is truly bizarre - particularly coupled with some of the other threads started which were nothing but rank eroticism cloaked in "personal testimony" or whatever.

I haven't seen these threads.

 

[kisstheson]

This type of theology is truly bizarre - particularly coupled with some of the other threads started which were nothing but rank eroticism cloaked in "personal testimony" or whatever.

Don't bother reading saint mechthild of magdeburg, John of the cross, richard rolle, song of solomon....

 

[kisstheson]

I haven't seen these threads.

I think they mean my fiction stories.

It's starting to get nasty around here again.

 

[Gwendolyn]

Don't bother reading saint mechthild of magdeburg, John of the cross, richard rolle...

Well, he's Orthodox, so he probably won't (No offense meant, Tonks!) By virtue of being Orthodox, obviously he'd disagree (sometimes rather heartily) with Catholic saints.

 

[JoabAnias]

Don't bother reading saint mechthild of magdeburg, John of the cross, richard rolle, song of solomon....

Have you read the provided article yet?: http://www.lospequenos.org/PepperIss...2004Pepper.pdf

I found this part especially good:

It is true there is no sex, sexuality, gender, as we understand it, in God who is defined as pure Spirit. Aquinas states this very precisely. Even so, that statement ignores two problems we must face in our encounter with God. First, if there is nothing in God that corresponds to our sexual distinctions, and the polarities that characterize all Creation from atoms to angels, then what does it mean to say, “God created man in his own image . . . male and female he created them”? Genesis says it, and the Catechism repeats it, and explicates it. Of course the primary meaning is that man is a spiritual being with intellect and will. Yet Genesis emphasizes “male and female” – Thus John Paul II explores the nuptial meaning of the body, and its source in the Son, who is Firstborn of Creation, through whom and in whom all things were made, in his Theology of the Body. ....​

It really is a very good article and by a woman if that matters to you.

I'd be interested to know what you think of separating God into gender or the issues of religious feminism, and bad inclusive language as well as the following statements.

Other statements I found very wise from that article were these:

We speak of God as beyond sexuality or beyond personality, not in
the sense of absence of sexuality or personality, but as the fountainhead of BEING.​

and​

The Old Testament is very forceful in its condemnation of religions of the Mother Goddess. It is worship of goddesses, even beyond false gods in masculine form, which the prophets condemn so fiercely. It is this worship that YHWH warns against. To call God “Mother” – even as a supposed balance to “Father” – violates the first two commandments given to Moses. God commands that we have no
strange gods before him, in his place, caricaturing him. That includes “Our Mother.” He specifically gives us the Church as our Mother, and his own Mother as our Advocate. They alone do we call Mother in prayer. Further, he commands that we not take his name in vain. This also means we are not to create delusion or falsehood with it. This also implies we may not alter its meaning or form in any way​

Thoughts?