Catholics, what exactly do you believe about Mary?

[wandererUK]

Why does Mary not receive this level of devotion in the Bible - like from the other disciples or even really from Jesus?

In fact doesn't Jesus ask one of his disciples... "Who is my mother and who are my brethren, but those that obey the will of my father?"

How does all of this EXTRA-biblical veneration, and belief in her assumption, and the idea of her own immaculate conception hold water?

Surely ideas of such importance warranted mention in scripture - Even Enoch, who we know very little about through scripture - his translation/assumption into heaven is reported - Why not the mother of Jesus?

Yeh, I'd go along with this. The perennial virgin? How? Jesus had brothers.

 

[garysibio]

It's not whether the church or members have 'given her the status'. It's whether they treat her, de facto, as one would treat a goddess. Not saying that the answer is one way or the other, but that's the real issue.

How would you go about determining this? How do you know what is in someone's heart?

I'm a Catholic and I believe that some Catholics are excessive in their devotion to Mary, but I have yet to meet a Catholic who comes close to treating Mary as a goddess.

 

[OpenYourBibles]

Because Mary's use by God as his emissary came after the First Century, so there would not be anything in the Bible about it, obviously.

Mary lived in the first century, she was "blessed among women" in the first century, earlier in this thread it has been claimed she gave birth to god in the first century, we have also been told that she was concepted immaculately in the first century, she must have died (or supposedly been assumed) in the first century, she would have been the mother of the church in the first century. Yet Jesus who many Catholics in this thread say was born 100% God and 100% Man flatly stated, in the first century, who is my mother?

What would happen in the midst of Masses if a priest declared - Who is Mary? Why should she receive special provisions? For All that follow the will of our Father are Mary?

All of what is being explained in this thread took place in the first century, yet none of it, none of it, make it into the Bible.

 

[AlexDTX]

Sorry I have no beef in this but Peter and Paul and Mary I know

Aren't they a folk singing band from the 60's?

 

[Thursday]

A good friend of mine (who is Pentacostal) has some very confused ideas about what Catholics believe. I mentioned to him that there are people who call themselves "Christian Wiccans" and believe that Mary is a goddess, and he said that it sounds like they've got some Catholic ideology behind them. I'm like, uh, Catholics don't think that Mary is a goddess. He said, "They think she's the Queen Of Heaven and the mother of God. So yeah, they kinda do." He thinks that, while Catholics don't actually refer to her as a goddess, she's given the same status minus the name. I tried to explain that Catholics DO NOT believe that Mary is an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent being and that there's a big difference between honoring Mary more than they should and actually worshipping her, and my friend just said, "You don't know much about pantheons, do you?" I asked my dad (who is Eastern Orthodox but knows a lot about other denominations' beliefs) if he could explain what Catholics ACTUALLY believe so I could tell my friend, and he said that my friend has heard misinformation spread by Chick Publishing. He's busy right now and won't be able to explain what Catholics believe until this evening, and I realized it would probably be better to ask Catholics anyway. So, Catholics. What do you ACTUALLY believe about Mary?

In Jewish tradition, the Queen Mother is the mother of the King, not the wife. Mary is called Queen of Heaven because she is the mother of Jesus. Mary is called Mother of God because Jesus is God. This title came into use to help combat the Arians who claimed that Jesus was not God.

Mary is a human being and Catholics are strictly forbidden from worshiping her.

Here's a relevant passage from the Catechism:

970 "Mary's function as mother of men in no way obscures or diminishes this unique mediation of Christ, but rather shows its power. But the Blessed Virgin's salutary influence on men . . . flows forth from the superabundance of the merits of Christ, rests on his mediation, depends entirely on it, and draws all its power from it."513 "No creature could ever be counted along with the Incarnate Word and Redeemer; but just as the priesthood of Christ is shared in various ways both by his ministers and the faithful, and as the one goodness of God is radiated in different ways among his creatures, so also the unique mediation of the Redeemer does not exclude but rather gives rise to a manifold cooperation which is but a sharing in this one source."514

 

[Albion]

How would you go about determining this? How do you know what is in someone's heart?

It isn't totally about what's in one's heart. There are actions that are wrong. Just as the First Commandment forbids us to make unto ourselves graven images...or to bow down to them, etc., the actions we engage in with regard to the saints matters.

That Commandment is about God and we're speaking instead of Mary, it's true, but that should be adequate to show that how we act and what is implied by actions counts. It is not solely a matter of what is in one's heart.

I'm a Catholic and I believe that some Catholics are excessive in their devotion to Mary, but I have yet to meet a Catholic who comes close to treating Mary as a goddess.

If you say so, I believe you. However, I have seen it and so have other people.

 

[Albion]

I personally, sort of lean in favour of the Eastern view, because, I have a devotion to Our Lady of Sorrows and I like the idea of Our Lady, imitating Our Lord by lying in the tomb for three days, like Our Lord.

...which is precisely how these legends get started--the more fabulous and "miraculous" seeming the scenario is, the more it appeals to people. Then, later on, it's made into a doctrine by the church on the basis that "it has always been believed," even if that isn't actually true.

 

[Vicomte13]

Yet Jesus who many Catholics in this thread say was born 100% God and 100% Man flatly stated, in the first century, who is my mother?

He did not "flatly" state it. He rhetorically stated it, before an enthusiastic crowd, to make a point to each of them.

The Marian visitation at Lourdes didn't happen in the First Century, so it's not in the bible either, but you can go and read the voluminous medical records of the miracles that occur there.

 

[celticpiping]

Yeh, I'd go along with this. The perennial virgin? How? Jesus had brothers.

The theological leaps I've seen & heard RC folk make in order to support and defend this, and many other dogmas, is bewildering to me.
But I don't let it come between myself & some RC friends..

 

[Thursday]

The theological leaps I've seen & heard RC folk make in order to support and defend this, and many other dogmas, is bewildering to me.
But I don't let it come between myself & some RC friends..

The leaps come from Protestant revisionism. There is no evidence in the early Church that Mary had any other children. Why would Christians make something like that up? The word for cousins and brothers is the same in Hebrew and Aramaic.

Here's a good article on the subject. If you find something here that doesn't make sense please point it out:

Mary: Ever Virgin | Catholic Answers

 

[Doggirl]

Hello! I was a Catholic for two years. They believe that she was born without sin, also called the immaculate conception. But if she were sinless, then she would not have died (one of the consequences of Adam and Eve's sin) so the church said she did not die but was assumed. They think that the woman in Revelation is Mary and because the woman has a crown 12 stars on her head, they call her the queen of heaven.( Jeremiah 44 tells us that there already was a blasphemous queen of heaven that the Israelites worshipped. I believe that this is the same lie the devil is using, repackaged. ) The woman in revelation had birth pains. Eve was cursed with birth pains from her sin. So the church believes that Mary did not have birth pains because they think she was given grace in advance in the womb (immaculate conception). So why does the lady in revelation have birth pains?... I was given a new American Bible by the Catholic Church with a commentary on the bottom that says that the woman represents the godly people of the old and New Testament who "gave birth" to the coming Messiah. (Genesis reminds Abraham repeatedly that nations will be blessed through Abraham's descendants. Through Joseph, Jesus is Abraham's descendant. This is why it was crucial for Joseph to remain with Mary.) I don't know why the commentary said that because it isn't church teaching, and I saw many statues in Rome and Spain in churches of the woman with a crown of 12 stars. (The number 12 is used for the 12 tribes that come through Abraham's line beGinning with his grandson Jacob. Also there were 12 disciples.) But the commentary makes much more sense since revelation is highly symbolic, and the harlot (woman #2) represents a great city and not a woman. Notice that the angel tells John who the second woman is but not the first. I think God is testing us. I strongly believe that the elevation of Mary has been increased by "Marian" apparitions of a spirit who wants sacrifice and for people to talk to her and pray to her. We are not to talk to dead people. But the church says the saints are not dead but alive. But logically they are dead. The bottom line is if your church has opened the door to the occult, get out. Or you will share in her inheritance. It doesn't matter if you are Buddhist, muslim, Jehovah's Witness, Catholic, Hindu, Mormon, Freemason, Scientologist, or any Protestant church that leads you into sin through lies, it's falsehood. As wonderful as the Catholic Church is, Mary and the saints are idols, and no idolater will inherit the kingdom. I'm weary of them saying they are not idols. The church claims that miracles happen through these intercessions. This is magic worked by the devil just like in Exodus. And all it does is make people use their name even more and carry around lucky charms to have good fortune. Civilization has been believing in objects and magic since the beginning, and God hates it. Sorry for getting off topic!

 

[Thursday]

Hello! I was a Catholic for two years. They believe that she was born without sin, also called the immaculate conception. But if she were sinless, then she would not have died (one of the consequences of Adam and Eve's sin) so the church said she did not die but was assumed. They think that the woman in Revelation is Mary and because the woman has a crown 12 stars on her head, they call her the queen of heaven.( Jeremiah 44 tells us that there already was a blasphemous queen of heaven that the Israelites worshipped. I believe that this is the same lie the devil is using, repackaged. ) The woman in revelation had birth pains. Eve was cursed with birth pains from her sin. So the church believes that Mary did not have birth pains because they think she was given grace in advance in the womb (immaculate conception). So why does the lady in revelation have birth pains?... I was given a new American Bible by the Catholic Church with a commentary on the bottom that says that the woman represents the godly people of the old and New Testament who "gave birth" to the coming Messiah. (Genesis reminds Abraham repeatedly that nations will be blessed through Abraham's descendants. Through Joseph, Jesus is Abraham's descendant. This is why it was crucial for Joseph to remain with Mary.) I don't know why the commentary said that because it isn't church teaching, and I saw many statues in Rome and Spain in churches of the woman with a crown of 12 stars. (The number 12 is used for the 12 tribes that come through Abraham's line beGinning with his grandson Jacob. Also there were 12 disciples.) But the commentary makes much more sense since revelation is highly symbolic, and the harlot (woman #2) represents a great city and not a woman. Notice that the angel tells John who the second woman is but not the first. I think God is testing us. I strongly believe that the elevation of Mary has been increased by "Marian" apparitions of a spirit who wants sacrifice and for people to talk to her and pray to her. We are not to talk to dead people. But the church says the saints are not dead but alive. But logically they are dead. The bottom line is if your church has opened the door to the occult, get out. Or you will share in her inheritance. It doesn't matter if you are Buddhist, muslim, Jehovah's Witness, Catholic, Hindu, Mormon, Freemason, Scientologist, or any Protestant church that leads you into sin through lies, it's falsehood. As wonderful as the Catholic Church is, Mary and the saints are idols, and no idolater will inherit the kingdom. I'm weary of them saying they are not idols. The church claims that miracles happen through these intercessions. This is magic worked by the devil just like in Exodus. And all it does is make people use their name even more and carry around lucky charms to have good fortune. Civilization has been believing in objects and magic since the beginning, and God hates it. Sorry for getting off topic!

I'm weary of people lying about the Catholic Church and what Catholics believe.

 

[celticpiping]

and also, I do believe that there are RC folk who have indeed been born again..


...whoa, talk about yer hijacked threads!

 

[JESUS=G.O.A.T]

Please excuse me butting in but this is something I'm also interested in.
From what I've understood and observed so far I think they think highly of Mary the way the rest of us think highly of Paul or Peter, Spurgeon or Barclay. Except that they talk to her and we talk of them.

I agree we talk of people of the past but we don't talk to them like they do.

 

[kepha31]

I admire your solid belief.. However, can you give me scripture to back up each of these claims.

I do believe she was Christ's earthly mother and gave birth to our God/Man savior. However, for the other claims, do you have scripture?

The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception hinges on Luke 1:28. According to 99.9% of Protestants, grace is what makes you holy and righteousness. When an angel from God declares Mary "Full of Grace", there is no room for sin, not even the propensity for sin. So the argument for the IC is based on the Protestant premise for "grace".
It also flows from the foreshadowing of the Ark of the Covenant. Jesus is foreshadowed by the CONTENTS of the Ark, while the Ark foreshadows Mary.

We have examples of other “assumptions” in Scripture. Both Enoch (cf. Gen. 5:24) and Elijah were taken up “into heaven” (II Kings 2:11) in a manner quite out of the ordinary. And so are the "two witnesses" of Revelation 11:3-13. Why couldn’t God do this with Mary?
We have examples of other “assumptions” in Scripture. Both Enoch (cf. Gen. 5:24) and Elijah were taken up “into heaven” (II Kings 2:11) in a manner quite out of the ordinary. And so are the "two witnesses" of Revelation 11:3-13. Why couldn’t God do this with Mary?
We have dispensationalists claiming every believer and their dog will be taken up to heaven, but Jesus doesn't have the power or authority to do that for His own mother???

Protestants know very little about Mary, so I invite you to brows this page:
Mary: The Blessed Virgin (Index Page)

 

[Thursday]

I agree we talk of people of the past but we don't talk to them like they do.

That's true, but it's a shame. When we go to be with Jesus we don't stop loving those on earth. We are still united in Christ.

We know that the saints in heaven can carry our prayers to God:

Rev. 5:8
And when he had taken it, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb. Each one had a harp and they were holding golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of God's people.

 

[JESUS=G.O.A.T]

What I have a problem with is depending on what Catholic you talk to they perceive Mary in a different way. I know one who actually sees Mary above god and another who doesn't, then I have one who prays to her, then I know another who believes she's simply a human who had a baby and died. Even in this thread there's a lack of consistency.

 

[JESUS=G.O.A.T]

That's true, but it's a shame. When we go to be with Jesus we don't stop loving those on earth. We are still united in Christ.

We know that the saints in heaven can carry our prayers to God:

Rev. 5:8
And when he had taken it, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb. Each one had a harp and they were holding golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of God's people.

True I agree when someone dies (who is saved) they are united with Christ but I'm just not sure how that merits praying to my dead cousin in Christ or whatever if Jesus is omnipresent and I can just pray to him. I get what you're saying though

 

[Vicomte13]

It's not obvious to me how "one" would treat a goddess. Is there such consensus? I actually mean this.

It depends on what you mean by the word "god" (and "goddess").

(I really mean this. I am not being coy. "God" (and "goddess") has a few meanings. It's a short word with a complicated etymology, and means different things at different times to different people.

 

[celticpiping]

some good throne room reading..

"Let me begin by pointing out that Mary too was a bit confused by this greeting, wondering "what kind of greeting this might be" (Lk.1:29 NIV). The angel Gabriel himself responds with the explanation: "But the angel said to her, 'Do not be afraid, Mary, you have found favor (charis-grace) with God'" (Lk.1:30). The word italicized here, favor or "grace", is the root word of the verbal form in question. That is to say, kecharitomene is "grace", charis, made into a verb (to be specific, a verbal participle). Thus we have from God's messenger himself an answer to this question, if we are but ready to receive it, namely, Mary is called by this epithet because she had "garnered grace" in God's eyes through her exemplary spiritual life (cf. the similar praise given to her cousins, Zechariah and Elizabeth earlier in the chapter: Lk.1:6). And that, after all, is the literal meaning of kecharitomene, namely, "having been graced". Further, because Mary had "found" this favor/grace/charis at some point in the past, by definition she was not born with it. This favor came about from something she did, namely, believing in the Lord and walking in a way pleasing to Him through spiritual growth and service. This explanation from Gabriel proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that his appellation in question here does not imply sinlessness, but rather demonstrates Mary's spiritual prominence, divine favor of the sort available to all believers but, sadly, appropriated by few.

It really irritates me when people who are used to dealing with others who don't have degrees in Greek use their insufficient knowledge as a sort of sledge hammer to "settle" all arguments. Based on the above, a simple answer to give your respondent would be: "hogwash!", but I suppose we should go into the details:

1) Transliterated the actual form of the word in question would be kecharitomene, but anyone dealing with Greek would describe it as what it is, a participle of the verb charitoo.

2) Of all Indo-European languages of which I am aware, Greek is the most root-focused. The import of that fact here is that this verb is based on a root meaning "favor" (cf. Greek charis); that is what is at the core of charitoo's meaning, and that is the key to discovering what this particular form of the verb means or might mean in turn. To put the matter in terms of its essential accidence, charitoo is merely a factitive verb, that is, it's what someone does when they want to take a noun and turn it into a transitive/causative verb. Therefore, by its structure and root the verb ought to mean "to give or bestow favor-grace to or on someone". In the case of a perfect participle in passive voice (such as we have here), the form would then mean "someone who has had favor-grace given/bestowed to/on them (i.e., from some source)".

3) To call this word a "hapax" in an attempt to bestow some sort of uniqueness on it is disingenuous. Not only does this verb occur throughout Greek literature - it also occurs elsewhere in the Bible at Ephesians 1:6:

Having foreordained us for adoption to Himself through Jesus Christ according to the good pleasure of His will, for the purpose of producing (at salvation) praise for the glory of His grace which He has graciously bestowed on us in the Beloved [One].
Ephesians 1:5-6

Another way to put the italicized phrase is "the favor-grace with which He has favored-graced us"; in the Greek its charin hes echaritosen. In other words, the verb in question from Luke 1:28 has as its first or internal object "favor/grace" and as its second or true direct object "us". We get / have gotten favor/grace from God in Jesus Christ. We know that here because the verse says so explicitly, but that is not any kind of surprise for anyone who understands that grace is favor, and specifically and importantly in the Bible it is God's favor, His beneficence, good will, grace, kindliness, etc. directed our way because of our relationship with His Son. We are all said to have this grace in Ephesians 1:6 expressed by exactly the same verb as is used in Luke 1:28. That doesn't mean, of course, that we never sin!

4) The voice is surely not significant here in terms of changing the essential meaning of the verb (it merely views the action from the recipient's point of view instead of the donor's as is the case in the Ephesians passage above). As your correspondent doesn't make any claim based on the voice in any case, I will pass on immediately to the tense of the participle. The perfect tense is the rarest of the four tense stems in Greek – outside of biblical literature. The reason is simple enough. The Greeks are very big on duality, and in the aorist and present stems they are able to express either continuous "Aktionsart" (as the Germans would say) with the present stem (i.e., "it is happen-ing"), or with the aorist stem a punctiliar idea of timelessness (i.e., "it happen-s"). This is true whether or not one wishes to apply such timeless "happening" to a small or to an infinite amount of time. I like to describe this phenomenon to my classes as the difference between a straight line with an arrow indicating motion (present), and an "x" which marks an unmoving spot (aorist) – they never seem to get it without much pain, however, so don't despair if all this seems a tad confusing. Essentially, "aspect" is of little true effect in Greek usage. There are very few instances when the difference between these stems means very much except as it has a temporal application. Generally speaking, authors will use an aorist versus a present infinitive, e.g., more because they like the way it sounds in context than for any other apparent reason. But the fact is that they were able to make all the distinction they wanted or needed to make with these two. The perfect stem forms, as can be plainly seen from kecharitomene, tend to be long and cumbersome, and so from the same stylistic concerns (coupled with the dislike of the idea of perfect – the Greeks are much more likely to say something "happened" when we would say it "has happened"), the perfect is used much less frequently – in non-biblical Greek. In all biblically derived Greek, however, one cannot discount the enormous influence of Hebrew, and it is often the case in scripture that the tenses – especially where the perfect is used – reflect the fact that Hebrew has an imperfect and a perfect to deal with past tense ideas, and that is all. For this reason it should not be surprising that faced with a choice translators and writers under Hebrew influence would often gravitate to the use of the perfective forms in Greek when they have in mind a perfective exemplar in Hebrew (not unlike the similar influence that Latin begins to wield later on some non-biblical Greek). These facts taken together have the decided effect of greatly diminishing the significance of the occurrence of a perfect form in biblical Greek (as in our case).

5) The idea that one can read into this word meaning "object of grace/favor" any degree of sinlessness or perfection on the basis of a "perfect" verb form indicates a complete misunderstanding of what "perfect" means in grammatical terms. In verbs, it only means "completed action" – not sinlessness! To go back to the discussion in point 4 above, if the present is a line with an arrow and the aorist is an "x", then the perfect would be a line with an "x" at the end, that is, action begun in the past and now complete. The action doesn't have to have begun in eternity nor does the completion of the action impart perfection of any sort on the object. In our case all it would mean is that Mary had received favor from God in the past and was still in His good-graces. In short, this is just a verb form, not a miracle or the representation of one. If the perfect tense could do all the author claims, then every time it says anything about "knowing" in scripture (for oida is perfective in all of its forms), it would mean "knowing with a perfect knowledge that was conceived in eternity past": such a convention of translation would lead only to utter nonsense (cf. Acts 16:3).

6) Finally as to the translation "full of grace", while there is nothing to recommend the "full of" here, it's not really the translation that's the problem but rather what R.C. theology attempts to do with it (and would no doubt attempt to do with any reasonable translation), namely, to make Mary sinless or special in some super-human way based upon this appellation. Mary was special indeed, a true believer in a time of wide-spread apostasy, and obviously an exceptionally good one too, with whom the Lord was well-pleased indeed. But there is no indication that she was perfect, nor was there any need for her to be, for the only way to avoid the reception of a sin nature is to be virgin born as the sin nature is passed down through the male side (see Bible Basics 3B: Hamartiology, section I.2, "The Sin Nature"). It was the fact that Jesus was born without human male participation that produces a body free from sin, not any supposed sinlessness on Mary's part.

Also in Luke, Luke 2:52 to be precise, we are told that "Jesus continued to grow in wisdom, and in stature, and in grace with God and men". If grace or favor is progressive in the case of our unquestionably perfect Lord, how could it be that in Mary's case she was "perfectly filled with grace from eternity"? Clearly, even our Lord in His capacity as a true human being was required to grow spiritually, showing that even in the case of someone who did not in fact possess a sin nature or ever sin, still, grace or favor received from God remains a relative thing and is still dependent upon one's actions rather than being some sort of "magic" one just has. Long story short, this idea about Mary being perfect coming from Luke 1:28 is ridiculous on the face of it. Even the preferred R.C. translation doesn't say or imply that – unless, as I say, we imagine grace as "magic" and give "full of" the idea of absolute perfection and eternal residency, neither of which is either biblical or theologically reasonable to anyone who is consulting scripture and thinking for themselves.

In our truly perfect Lord in whom we have been given grace abundantly, our dear Savior Jesus Christ."