Catholics, what exactly do you believe about Mary?

[AlexDTX]

So instead, all of the physical proofs are just IGNORED. Which means that the Catholic Church and Catholic experience is IGNORED. Which is why Catholics and others have such difficulty talking to each other. We live in a church of miracles. Whatever ignores the miracles is obviously not dealing with the facts or the truth, so what is there to say? Nothing useful.

Then I would assume you have respect for the Pentecostals who have been viewing miracles since the 20th century, as well?

 

[ChristianFromKazakhstan]

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?

Mary cult is paganistic idolatry.

 

[AlexDTX]

I guess this might be a good time to ask exactly what sola scripturists believe about Mary.

It has already been well answered by DamianWarS at post #75.

 

[Vicomte13]

Try one more time wording it in a different way maybe and explaining who the lady I believe you mentioned before Mary is the one who's name starts with a B, if I don't understand it after that call it a day. Also I'm not sure what makes you think peter was made head of the apostles though

Good point. But on the other hand, Jewish believers in Christ have also authored their Jewish interpretation of what they assume the Aramaic and Hebrew may have been (since there are no extant copies). Seems that, then, would be a good resource for Catholic faith as well.
.[/QUOTE]

Mary spoke Aramaic. There is an ancient Aramaic text, the Peshitta, which is as old as the Greek copies we have. It reads: "Peace be to you, O full of grace; our Lord is with you, O blessed one among women."

Thank you for your kind words at the end. I think I've reached saturation point in my discussion of these things for today. Like anybody else, I like to talk about God, but when the most interesting and dramatic proofs of God - those things that God has done in recent times that have left traces that can be examined, thus proving the faith and greatly strengthening - all have to be left off the table to have the discussion, well, that's putting on a blindfold and tying a hand behind the back. It's not much fun, and it doesn't get to the truth. In the end I lose patience with it all and walk away, as do most Catholics.

Our religion is based on the totality of things that God has done. The Bible is only part of that. The most persuasive parts that Christianity is literally TRUE are the miracles. They vouch for the more esoteric truths contained in the Bible, and steady us, because they make us know that, where there's a jump ball, God has been with the Church all through the ages, so the Church's interpretation of those items in dispute - which are many - must also be true, or at least satisfying to God, or else God would not keep giving the miracles.

 

[DamianWarS]

Your criteria.

Then please tell me what's the criteria of a mother? Because it's in this criteria that is fundamental to the reach of Mary the mother of Jesus.

 

[JESUS=G.O.A.T]

Good point. But on the other hand, Jewish believers in Christ have also authored their Jewish interpretation of what they assume the Aramaic and Hebrew may have been (since there are no extant copies). Seems that, then, would be a good resource for Catholic faith as well.
.

Mary spoke Aramaic. There is an ancient Aramaic text, the Peshitta, which is as old as the Greek copies we have. It reads: "Peace be to you, O full of grace; our Lord is with you, O blessed one among women."

Thank you for your kind words at the end. I think I've reached saturation point in my discussion of these things for today. Like anybody else, I like to talk about God, but when the most interesting and dramatic proofs of God - those things that God has done in recent times that have left traces that can be examined, thus proving the faith and greatly strengthening - all have to be left off the table to have the discussion, well, that's putting on a blindfold and tying a hand behind the back. It's not much fun, and it doesn't get to the truth. In the end I lose patience with it all and walk away, as do most Catholics.

Our religion is based on the totality of things that God has done. The Bible is only part of that. The most persuasive parts that Christianity is literally TRUE are the miracles. They vouch for the more esoteric truths contained in the Bible, and steady us, because they make us know that, where there's a jump ball, God has been with the Church all through the ages, so the Church's interpretation of those items in dispute - which are many - must also be true, or at least satisfying to God, or else God would not keep giving the miracles.[/QUOTE]
Interesting and k I understood you now appreciate the reply

 

[Vicomte13]

It's true that you answered what Catholics believe. You also insisted that there is no basis for anyone to disbelieve them. It was all of that which I was answering to.



As I was saying...


That's what people always say when they have no evidence to support their own claims.

Well then, let's start with my own miracle. I dove into a lake that was too shallow, broke my neck, asked God to save me, and he did - he reversed my paralysis and healed my neck, allowing me to stand up and not drown. But I knew that I could not tell anybody, or they would take me to the hospital, do an x-ray, see my broken neck, and that I would be paralyzed for life. So I remained silent and kept my miracle in pectora.

But it is a very good place to start when discussing religion. I received a major miracle. I am a Catholic.
Obviously God was with me. This inclines me to believe that God is not opposed to my religion, which is to say, my way of looking at him and believing in him. He healed my broken neck. He healed my appendicitis without an operation, four separate times. He restored the paresis in my left hand when I severed a nerve falling down a staircase. He sustained me through two forty day complete water fasts. When I was financially collapsing due to having had my money kept from me by an employer who failed, also leaving me unemployed, two men, one a stranger, one an acquaintance, stepped forward. One wrote me a check for tens of thousands of dollars with no agreement and no repayment schedule. The other offered me a job, unsolicited, with one of the top law firms in the world. When a demon attacked me in daylight and I screamed and looked to the heavens, a bird appeared that hovered over my head, dove directly into my face and disappeared into my skull, causing my brain to explode with light and peace, and driving the demon to evaporate.

My God does these things for me and more.

When I need the proof for things, my God leads my feet, hands and eyes to those things that provide that proof. I can't show you my miracles, I can merely tell you about them. But God has left physical miracles for all to see, and each of them proves things. Lourdes is the most visible of them, with all of its facts and circumstances. To discuss religion, we have to start with my miracles or with Lourdes, as the first are facts I know directly, while the second are facts that have been extensively documented and can be verified today in real time.

To be true, a religion must be able to explain these things. Otherwise, it's useless to me.

 

[Vicomte13]

Then please tell me what's the criteria of a mother? Because it's in this criteria that is fundamental to the reach of Mary the mother of Jesus.

Mary was the mother of Jesus. Jesus is God. Therefore, Mary is the mother of God. Res ipsa loquitur.

 

[Albion]

Well then, let's start with my own miracle. I dove into a lake that was too shallow, broke my neck, asked God to save me, and he did - he reversed my paralysis and healed my neck, allowing me to stand up and not drown. But I knew that I could not tell anybody, or they would take me to the hospital, do an x-ray, see my broken neck, and that I would be paralyzed for life. So I remained silent and kept my miracle in pectora.

I'm glad for you, but it doesn't seem to have anything to do with this thread.

But it is a very good place to start when discussing religion. I received a major miracle. I am a Catholic.

Christians of just about every denomination believe in miracles.

Obviously God was with me. This inclines me to believe that God is not opposed to my religion, which is to say, my way of looking at him and believing in him. He healed my broken neck.

Are you of the opinion that God would never consider healing, say, a Methodist in the same situation who prayed and trusted God?

He healed my appendicitis without an operation, four separate times. He restored the paresis in my left hand when I severed a nerve falling down a staircase. He sustained me through two forty day complete water fasts. When I was financially collapsing due to having had my money kept from me by an employer who failed, also leaving me unemployed, two men, one a stranger, one an acquaintance, stepped forward. One wrote me a check for tens of thousands of dollars with no agreement and no repayment schedule. The other offered me a job, unsolicited, with one of the top law firms in the world. When a demon attacked me in daylight and I screamed and looked to the heavens, a bird appeared that hovered over my head, dove directly into my face and disappeared into my skull, causing my brain to explode with light and peace, and driving the demon to evaporate.

My God does these things for me and more.

When I need the proof for things, my God leads my feet, hands and eyes to those things that provide that proof. I can't show you my miracles, I can merely tell you about them. But God has left physical miracles for all to see, and each of them proves things. Lourdes is the most visible of them, with all of its facts and circumstances. To discuss religion, we have to start with my miracles or with Lourdes, as the first are facts I know directly, while the second are facts that have been extensively documented and can be verified today in real time.

To be true, a religion must be able to explain these things. Otherwise, it's useless to me.

 

[wandererUK]

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!

Top post.

I was recently on a website where they have a forum for comments on their articles. Everyone comment is censured before being posted. The people running the website fairly recently converted to Catholicism from Protestantism and it has slowly but surely become infected with Catholic fundamentalism.

They believe the Catholic church is THE true church. The reformation caused a great multitude of denominations and differing opinions, which has divided the church. Thus, for example, the two world wars and current Islamic uprisings are all because of the Protestants. Only when the Prots recant and come back under the authority of the Pope will God heal our land. I pointed out to them that it was the Catholic Church fighting the Eastern Orthodox lot hundreds of years before the reformation that allowed Islam to conquer christians lands and the Crusades ultimately failed under the Catholic church. Needless to say, I was banned from their forum! Second time in 18 months!

It seems some Catholics are still chained to events of 500 years ago.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I'm glad for you, but it doesn't seem to have anything to do with this thread.

Christians of just about every denomination believe in miracles.

Are you of the opinion that God would never consider healing, say, a Methodist in the same situation who prayed and trusted God?

This raises interesting questions. Can or will God perform His miracles without the intercession of one of His creatures? Who gets the praise and thanksgiving?

It is a slippery slope, indeed, when professing Christians praise and magnify God's creation more than God Himself.

 

[DamianWarS]

Mary was the mother of Jesus. Jesus is God. Therefore, Mary is the mother of God. Res ipsa loquitur.

It does not speak for itself, at the very least mother needs to be defined so we are all on the same page.

My criteria of what a mother is led to the logical conclusion that Mary did not have the capacity to mother the divine. Using my criteria of a mother in your explanation, Mary still fails to be the mother of God

"Mary was the [biological mother and nurturer (see post #75)] of Jesus. Jesus is God. Therefore, Mary [does not have the capacity to be] the mother of God."

What is the definition of mother that leads to the conclusion that "Mary is the mother of God"

 

[JesusLovesOurLady]

Mary however did not have the capacity to form the divine or nurture the divine or birth the divine as the divine pre-existed creation. Mary's reach as a mother extended only as far as her created state allowed and thus the divine could not have been influenced by Mary. So Mary does not qualify as the mother of God because she does not meet the criteria of a mother in relation to the divine.

Ah, that's precisely the problem with denying that Mary is the Mother of God. If Jesus' Divinity and humanity are separated, than the Son of God did not die on the cross for our sins, it's just human sacrifice! Jesus' Divinity and humanity, must be united!

I actually plan on, sometime in the distant future, posting a debate entitled: "Why Protestants should call Mary: The Mother of God!"

 

[JESUS=G.O.A.T]

Ah, that's precisely the problem with denying that Mary is the Mother of God. If Jesus' Divinity and humanity are separated, than the Son of God did not die on the cross for our sins, it's just human sacrifice! Jesus' Divinity and humanity, must be united!

I actually plan on, sometime in the distant future, posting a debate entitled: "Why Protestants should call Mary: The Mother of God!"

Not sure how that would still make Mary the mother of God though if God already existed anyway.

 

[JesusLovesOurLady]

It does not speak for itself, at the very least mother needs to be defined so we are all on the same page.

My criteria of what a mother is led to the logical conclusion that Mary did not have the capacity to mother the divine. Using my criteria of a mother in your explanation, Mary still fails to be the mother of God

"Mary was the [biological mother and nurturer (see post #75)] of Jesus. Jesus is God. Therefore, Mary [does not have the capacity to be] the mother of God."

What is the definition of mother that leads to the conclusion that "Mary is the mother of God"

Jesus is fully human and fully divine, Mary bore in her, womb, gave birth to and raised, a fully human, and fully Divine child, therefore Mary is the Mother of a divine being!

 

[JESUS=G.O.A.T]

Jesus is fully human and fully divine, Mary bore in her, womb, gave birth to and raised, a fully human, and fully Divine child, therefore Mary is the Mother of a divine being!

Mother of divine being is different then straight up saying Mary is Gods mama I get what you're saying now.

 

[tadoflamb]

It has already been well answered by DamianWarS at post #75.

Altogether sola scripturists, is Mary the Mother of God or isn't she?

 

[Phil 1:21]

It is a slippery slope, indeed, when professing Christians praise and magnify God's creation more than God Himself.

Honestly, this was perhaps my largest issue growing up Catholic -- praying to the creation instead of the Creator. It didn't make sense to me then, and it makes even less sense to me now. The curtain didn't tear in half, top to bottom, so we could replace it with one made up of Mary, saints, and our dead friends and family.

 

[JesusLovesOurLady]

Not sure how that would still make Mary the mother of God though if God already existed anyway.

Well how can God die a horrible painful death, at the hands of unbelieving pagans, if He is immortal and cannot die, and is source of the very existence of such people?

 

[JESUS=G.O.A.T]

Well how can God die a horrible painful death, at the hands of unbelieving pagans, if He is immortal and cannot die, and is source of the very existence of such people?

here's your answer

1 Timothy 3:16King James Version (KJV)
16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.