Catholics, what exactly do you believe about Mary?

[Kiwi Christian]

We may affirm that by the will of God, nothing is given to us without Mary's mediation, in such a way that just as no one can approach the Almighty Father but through His Son, so no one, so to speak, can approach Christ but through His Mother.Pope Leo XIII, Adjutricem populi, 5 September 1895: The Popes on Mary - Mediatrix

Pope Leo XIII, Adjutricem populi, 5 September 1895: O Virgin most holy, none abounds in the knowledge of God except through thee. None, O Mother of God, obtains salvation except through thee. None receives a gift from the throne of mercy except through thee.

From Bishop Liguoris' "The Glories of Mary", APPROVED by the vatican! "She (Mary) is . . . the ONLY hope of sinners: (p. 69),"We will be heard and saved sooner by going to Mary, and invoking her holy name, than that of Jesus our Savior. We will find salvation sooner going to the mother than going to the Son" (p. 82),"Many things asked of God and not received are asked and received from Mary (p. 82). All obey the precepts of Mary, even God" (p. 115). ALL CATHOLIC LIES!

The catholic organisation teaches that mary is "Debtor to sinners", "Ladder and vehicle to Heaven", "Throne of grace", "Dispensatrix of graces". These are all LIES, for these titles belong to Jesus Christ, NOT mary.

"For to be right and good, worship of the Mother of God ought to spring from the heart; acts of the body have here neither utility nor value if the acts of the soul have no part in them" ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS X ON THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION Given at Rome in St. Peter's on the second day of February, 1904, in the first year of Our Pontificate. Ad Diem Illum Laetissimum (February 2, 1904) | PIUS X

"Sinners receive pardon by the intercession of Mary alone." St. John Chrysostom

"All those who seek Mary’s protection will be saved for all eternity." Pope Benedict XV

Pope Pius IX in 1854 “Let all the children of the Catholic Church ... Proceed to worship, invoke, and pray to the most blessed Virgin Mary, mother of God. ”

"We declare, pronounce and define that the doctrine which holds that the Blessed Virgin Mary at the first instance of her conception by a singular privilege and grace of the Omnipotent God, in virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ the Saviour of mankind, was preserved Immaculate from all stain of original sin has been revealed by God, and therefore should firmly and constantly be believed by the faithful. Wherefore if any shall dare which God avert to think otherwise than it has been defined by us, they should know and understand that they are condemned by their own judgment, that they have suffered shipwreck of the faith, and have revolted from the unity of the Church [...] let the children of the Catholic Church most dear to us hear these words and with a more ardent zeal of piety, religion and love proceed to worship, invoke and pray to the most Blessed Virgin Mary."

The bigger-than-life Mary of Roman Catholicism is a FALSE portrayal of the Biblical Mary (the Bible never portrays Mary as being anything more than a godly woman used by God).



The Gospel of Jesus Christ has absolutely nothing to do with Mary. None of the Apostles ever mentioned Mary in their Epistles. Jesus never directed us to recognize Mary. In fact, the Bible clearly states in Matthew 11:11 that there has never been a child born amongst women greater than John the Baptist.

Nowhere does the Bible says Mary was sinless or the exception to sin passed on from each generation. For such a miraculous event the Bible surely would have spoken to this issue. Catholics do not find this doctrine from the context of Scripture but from making a pretext out of the Scripture from their Church tradition (which happens to be written down). But again it is not apostolic tradition. If Mary was conceived without sin then her parents would have certainly known and would have assumed she was to bare the Messiah.

 

[Vicomte13]

Your Biblical Mary is an incomplete picture, just as your Bible is itself not complete. Time went on after the First Century, and since then, God has sent Mary to Guadelupe, to Lourdes, to Fatima and elsewhere. Great miracles have been done, and continue to be done, by God at Marian shrines. So, although it is true that Mary's role as emissary of God is not in the Scripture, God has made it plain since the Bible was written that Mary IS his emissary,, by publicly performing great healing miracles that cannot be done without the power of God.

In truth it is Mary who is the disproof of Sola Scriptura, not the reverse. These miracles have come, and the great healings continue at Lourdes, and not elsewhere (they are PARTICULAR to a Marian shrine, and not spread uniformly about the world, nor about the Church (however defined). As such, they are particular proof of God's favor shown TO that Shrine and its very Marian focus.

Lourdes, in particular, puts everybody in the same position as the First Century Jews. You have your book, like they did. Your book is incomplete, like theirs was. God has done something new in the world, through Jesus then, through Mary now. This new thing is not written in your book, so you have to reason by analogy. The First Century Jews either went with their book - and ignored the present reality - or they went with the present revealed reality and became Christians. We today face the same choice. The Catholics incorporate God's revelations SINCE the First Century in what they believe. The Protestants assert that God has not an will not reveal anything new past the last page of their book.

This forces them into two positions (reasoning from their book alone): they either have to IGNORE the Marian miracles, pretending they are not true. This is willful ignorance because the miracles ARE true. OR they have to ascribe the healings to Satan, and thereby blaspheme the Holy Spirit.

Having turned to error, even idolatry (Bible Alone as the final revelation of God before the end of the world), they are painted into a corner from which there is no escape. Doubling down on Bible quotes makes them feel better, but it ignores the reality of the Lourdes healings. When God performs public miracles, that's a new revelation. It your religion tells you that God can't, or won't do that, but he manifestly HAS and DOES, then God has given you the means to escape the prison of your error. If your comments about Mary do not include the Lourdes miracles, you are not dealing in truth, and you can never persuade somebody who does.

 

[paul becke]

Your Biblical Mary is an incomplete picture, just as your Bible is itself not complete. Time went on after the First Century, and since then, God has sent Mary to Guadelupe, to Lourdes, to Fatima and elsewhere. Great miracles have been done, and continue to be done, by God at Marian shrines. So, although it is true that Mary's role as emissary of God is not in the Scripture, God has made it plain since the Bible was written that Mary IS his emissary,, by publicly performing great healing miracles that cannot be done without the power of God.

In truth it is Mary who is the disproof of Sola Scriptura, not the reverse. These miracles have come, and the great healings continue at Lourdes, and not elsewhere (they are PARTICULAR to a Marian shrine, and not spread uniformly about the world, nor about the Church (however defined). As such, they are particular proof of God's favor shown TO that Shrine and its very Marian focus.

Lourdes, in particular, puts everybody in the same position as the First Century Jews. You have your book, like they did. Your book is incomplete, like theirs was. God has done something new in the world, through Jesus then, through Mary now. This new thing is not written in your book, so you have to reason by analogy. The First Century Jews either went with their book - and ignored the present reality - or they went with the present revealed reality and became Christians. We today face the same choice. The Catholics incorporate God's revelations SINCE the First Century in what they believe. The Protestants assert that God has not an will not reveal anything new past the last page of their book.

This forces them into two positions (reasoning from their book alone): they either have to IGNORE the Marian miracles, pretending they are not true. This is willful ignorance because the miracles ARE true. OR they have to ascribe the healings to Satan, and thereby blaspheme the Holy Spirit.

Having turned to error, even idolatry (Bible Alone as the final revelation of God before the end of the world), they are painted into a corner from which there is no escape. Doubling down on Bible quotes makes them feel better, but it ignores the reality of the Lourdes healings. When God performs public miracles, that's a new revelation. It your religion tells you that God can't, or won't do that, but he manifestly HAS and DOES, then God has given you the means to escape the prison of your error. If your comments about Mary do not include the Lourdes miracles, you are not dealing in truth, and you can never persuade somebody who does.

The kind of magisterial post I might have expected from you, Vicompte1 !

It seems to me that God has honoured his Mother so highly, primarily, for two reasons, namely :
1) To honour the fact of her being the very mother of God, while yet a mortal herself. Given that there is no degree of excellence we could attribute to her, short of deifying her in her own right, that would, indeed could, be considered excessive.

So when/if we understand and acknowledge this, however subliminally) we make known to Jesus our appreciation (in the 'intellectual' sense, as well as in the sense of 'gratitude') of the extent of his compassion for us and his kindness towards us, in deigning to become a human being in all our mortal frailty, so that we could become God. However, highly we properly honour Our Lady, short of idolatry, we honour her Son all the more.

People who don't want the family aspect of God, but prefer an impassible autarch or a triumvirate of an austere and monolithic God, like the heads on Easter Island, will need to look for another religion./

2) To honour, both our human nature and our divine nature (made in the image of God). 'Know ye not that ye are Gods ?' Jesus quoted to the incredulous Pharisees. A dereliction in their teaching it seems to me to have been replicated by our church. We only hear of the divine adoption of the ministerial priests into the royal priesthood (is there a higher one ?) and seldom if ever the same membership belonging to the laity, although Benedict (or perhaps John-Paul II. Can't remember now) expressly stated it, I think going on to state that the ministerial priest presiding over the Mass was the intermediary, the agent of the sacrament.

And what could be more appropriate than that a person should be dedicated in a special way for that role, appointed to approach God directly in the liturgy and sacraments. Not because he is special, but because GOD IS SPECIAL. Rather like in the forces, when saluting an officer or higher-ranking officer, the person salutes the rank not the person. They can, however, be viewed as distinctively generic priests, i.e. in a different sense, in that they are in charge of the sacraments and holy things, though particularly in view of the history of clericalism of our church, I don't think it is/would be helpful.

No two-tier priesthood is indicated by Peter, that most humble of the Apostles : 'But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God's special possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.' Peter is called, The Prince of the Apostles, but to me, he is the Apostle of the Laity. (Well, didn't we largely save the Church from Arianism !!!?) Peter called himself an elder, literally signifying seniority. I believe he also used the term, 'pastor', though it might have been Paul or another Apostle. If there was one thing above all else Peter learnt from Jesus it seems to have been humility.

No doubt the hierarchy would claim he was their Apostle, and I'm sure we could argue about it till Kingdom Come !

 

[Jeepneytravel]

Mary was mortal, is resting in her grave like we all likely will and await the great resurrection when Jesus returns.

 

[paul becke]

Mary was mortal, is resting in her grave like we all likely will and await the great resurrection when Jesus returns.

You have a special insight into it, do you ? A better inside track than the Fathers of the Church ? Recorded belief in the Assumption of Our Lady began at a very early date in the Church's history. And in the days before printing, oral memory was very strong.

 

[paul becke]

Your Biblical Mary is an incomplete picture, just as your Bible is itself not complete. Time went on after the First Century, and since then, God has sent Mary to Guadelupe, to Lourdes, to Fatima and elsewhere. Great miracles have been done, and continue to be done, by God at Marian shrines. So, although it is true that Mary's role as emissary of God is not in the Scripture, God has made it plain since the Bible was written that Mary IS his emissary,, by publicly performing great healing miracles that cannot be done without the power of God.

In truth it is Mary who is the disproof of Sola Scriptura, not the reverse. These miracles have come, and the great healings continue at Lourdes, and not elsewhere (they are PARTICULAR to a Marian shrine, and not spread uniformly about the world, nor about the Church (however defined). As such, they are particular proof of God's favor shown TO that Shrine and its very Marian focus.

Lourdes, in particular, puts everybody in the same position as the First Century Jews. You have your book, like they did. Your book is incomplete, like theirs was. God has done something new in the world, through Jesus then, through Mary now. This new thing is not written in your book, so you have to reason by analogy. The First Century Jews either went with their book - and ignored the present reality - or they went with the present revealed reality and became Christians. We today face the same choice. The Catholics incorporate God's revelations SINCE the First Century in what they believe. The Protestants assert that God has not an will not reveal anything new past the last page of their book.

This forces them into two positions (reasoning from their book alone): they either have to IGNORE the Marian miracles, pretending they are not true. This is willful ignorance because the miracles ARE true. OR they have to ascribe the healings to Satan, and thereby blaspheme the Holy Spirit.

Having turned to error, even idolatry (Bible Alone as the final revelation of God before the end of the world), they are painted into a corner from which there is no escape. Doubling down on Bible quotes makes them feel better, but it ignores the reality of the Lourdes healings. When God performs public miracles, that's a new revelation. It your religion tells you that God can't, or won't do that, but he manifestly HAS and DOES, then God has given you the means to escape the prison of your error. If your comments about Mary do not include the Lourdes miracles, you are not dealing in truth, and you can never persuade somebody who does.

Have you read about Our Lady's apparitions to teenage children in Kibeho in Rwanda, Vicomte ? They were so impressive, even unprecedented, that the church has accorded it the status of a shrine on a par with Lourdes and Fatima.

 

[Jeepneytravel]

You have a special insight into it, do you ? A better inside track than the Fathers of the Church ? Recorded belief in the Assumption of Our Lady began at a very early date in the Church's history. And in the days before printing, oral memory was very strong.[/OTET].

The Bible does not support your theory., try reading it

 

[Phil 1:21]

You have a special insight into it, do you ? A better inside track than the Fathers of the Church ? Recorded belief in the Assumption of Our Lady began at a very early date in the Church's history. And in the days before printing, oral memory was very strong.

I suppose it's easier to convert the pagans when you give them a goddess to worship.

 

[ChristopherK]

Oh, alright.

I forget how many of the Four Dogmas, the Eastern Orthodox believe, I know for sure, they believe that Mary is the Mother God, and that Mary was perpetually Virgin. But I forget if they believe one or none of the other two Dogmas, her Immaculate Conception (Conceived by her father and mother without Original Sin) and her Assumption into Heaven.

Blasphemy. Mary was a sinner like everyone else (Rom. 3:22-24). Jesus was undefiled by sin because Mary was a virgin at that point in time (before marrying Joseph of course) and the Holy Spirit overshadowed (Lk. 1:35) her to bring the Savior into the world. Mary was not sinless. She was a humble vessel used of the Lord to bring the Savior into the world; nothing more and nothing less.

 

[Vicomte13]

Have you read about Our Lady's apparitions to teenage children in Kibeho in Rwanda, Vicomte ? They were so impressive, even unprecedented, that the church has accorded it the status of a shrine on a par with Lourdes and Fatima.

I had not heard of them, no. I shall look them up. Thanks!

 

[Tangible]

I would like to ask some questions, with respect and a sincere desire to know how my Roman Catholic brothers and sisters would answer.

How is the validity of such Marian apparitions established?

Even if it can be established that the witness(es) is being truthful, how can you be certain that the vision they saw was truly the spirit of a departed saint, and not another kind of spirit seeking to mislead or deceive?

Where in the Scriptures are we told anything resembling the fact that the BVM or any other departed saint would be bringing us further periodic revelations, as if the word of God needed regular updates like computer software?

We have been given ample warning in the Holy Scriptures that the enemy is seeking to deceive believers and to turn them away to a different message, should we not be highly skeptical of claims of new visions and new revelations, measuring them inch by inch against the true and revealed word of God in the Holy Scriptures?

And if these revelations are indeed from God through St Mary, would not these statements be on equal footing with the Holy Scriptures? Why then are they not added to the canon of scripture, even in the Catholic Church?

These are some of the Scriptural admonitions I am referring to:

Matthew 24
[Our Lord Jesus Christ is speaking] Then if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or ‘There he is!’ do not believe it. For false christs and false prophets will arise and perform great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect. See, I have told you beforehand. So, if they say to you, ‘Look, he is in the wilderness,’ do not go out. If they say, ‘Look, he is in the inner rooms,’ do not believe it.

Galatians 1
I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.

2 Corinthians 11
For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. So it is no surprise if his servants, also, disguise themselves as servants of righteousness.

1 Peter 5
Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour. Resist him, firm in your faith, knowing that the same kinds of suffering are being experienced by your brotherhood throughout the world. And after you have suffered a little while, the God of all grace, who has called you to his eternal glory in Christ, will himself restore, confirm, strengthen, and establish you.

1 Timothy 4
Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared, who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.

1 John 4
Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already. Little children, you are from God and have overcome them, for he who is in you is greater than he who is in the world. They are from the world; therefore they speak from the world, and the world listens to them. We are from God. Whoever knows God listens to us; whoever is not from God does not listen to us. By this we know the Spirit of truth and the spirit of error.

 

[paul becke]

Blasphemy. Mary was a sinner like everyone else (Rom. 3:22-24). Jesus was undefiled by sin because Mary was a virgin at that point in time (before marrying Joseph of course) and the Holy Spirit overshadowed (Lk. 1:35) her to bring the Savior into the world. Mary was not sinless. She was a humble vessel used of the Lord to bring the Savior into the world; nothing more and nothing less.

By saying : 'She was a humble vessel used of the Lord to bring the Savior into the world; nothing more and nothing less,' as if to minimise Mary's status, it is not Mary that that you are slighting, it is Jesus himself, and the full extent to which he took on our human nature (while retaining his divinity in a sort of dormant state, even while remaining in heaven).

'Humble vessel ?' No matter how great her stature in God's eyes and/or our own, Mary was finite and He infinite. She could never approach his divinity in her own nature, ever, since like the rest of us, she is a creature of his creation. The difference, we believe is that the fully redemptive grace Jesus won for us on Calvary, was applied to her at the moment of her conception (not by a virgin birth, either).

Do you really think Jesus, the Creator of the universe and everything in it, would have used his own 'flesh and blood' mother, who shared in his agony on Calvary, as little more than a brood-mare ? Shame on you! Don't you see that if God wished to honour us so highly as to induct us into his own divine nature by adoption, how much more He would have wished to honour his own mother. Yet, paradoxically, by doing so, he was simultaneously raising the dignity of all of us - always subject to our finite dependence on his own infinite sovereignty ?

Recent evidence from the Holy Shroud of Turin has indicated that, instead of the maximum of 40 lashes under the Mosaic law, Jesus accepted to receive 120 lashes ; and that his executioners botched their nailing of his hands and feet, so that he was in effect crucified twice. Don't you think that in all his tortures Mary must have been silently wanting to scream to him, 'Why ! Why ! Why must you go overboard with this, 'go the extra mile ?' I'll bet you haven't so much as looked at the YouTube videos of the scientific examinations of the Shroud, for fear of being seduced into looking a little closer into the credentials of the institutional Catholic church, for all its very chequered history. Most of the best Catholic apologists in online journals seem to be former Protestant ministers and seminarians.

And as for English novelists - I don't think, American, though you probably more great novelists in recent centuries- they too are mostly Protestant converts. I'm thinking in particular of G K Chesterton and Graham Greene. C S Lewis is said, when questioned on the matter, to have answered that he suspected his reluctance to cross over was largely down to the trappings of Northern Ireland's history.

 

[Vicomte13]

Even if it can be established that the witness(es) is being truthful, how can you be certain that the vision they saw was truly the spirit of a departed saint, and not another kind of spirit seeking to mislead or deceive?

Where in the Scriptures are we told anything resembling the fact that the BVM or any other departed saint would be bringing us further periodic revelations, as if the word of God needed regular updates like computer software?

We have been given ample warning in the Holy Scriptures that the enemy is seeking to deceive believers and to turn them away to a different message, should we not be highly skeptical of claims of new visions and new revelations, measuring them inch by inch against the true and revealed word of God in the Holy Scriptures?

And if these revelations are indeed from God through St Mary, would not these statements be on equal footing with the Holy Scriptures? Why then are they not added to the canon of scripture, even in the Catholic Church?

The answer is found in the NATURE of the miracles themselves. I will refer to two of them. Our Lady of Guadelupe brought over the Aztec Indians en masse to the worship of her son and his Father. Her mission succeeded in coverting millions and all of the generations since to a strong and firm Christianity. Jesus said you will know them by their fruit. The fruit of Our Lady of Guadelupe's mission was the doubling of Christianity. That's not in the Bible, because it happened after the Bible. So what? It is self-evidently divine in origin. Does the Devil come to make millions of Christians?

The other one is the Lourdes' healings. Can Satan heal the congenitally blind? Can he heal the paralytic? Can he heal cancer? Can Satan heal disease, openly, publicly? And if so, would Satan heal people by the thousands in public all in order to advance the worship of Jesus and his Father?

The Satan of the Bible would not do such things. So that is why I am absolutely certain that Our Lady of Guadelupe and Our Lady of Lourdes were sent from God: I know her by her fruits.

Also, from the Bible, I know that to claim the healings at Lourdes are the work of Satan is to directly blaspheme the Holy Spirit and ascribe the works of God to Satan, and I would urge the foolish people who do that to cease doing so.

Catholicism is not based on the Bible Alone. It is also based on what God has done SINCE the First Century, including the Marian Apparitions. That is why accepting Mary's Immaculate Conception, Perpetual Virginity and bodily Assumption into Heaven are all dogmas, dogmas that is not found in the Bible but that were revealed by God after the First Century.

 

[paul becke]

I suppose it's easier to convert the pagans when you give them a goddess to worship.

Some of us do admire women greatly, as the more spiritual of the sexes, like the angels, for better or worse - not as a matter of conjecture, but of everyday observation. So, if so, good for the pagans.
St Thomas Aquinas astutely recognised Mary Magdalene as the proto-apostle, the Apostle to the Apostles' ; last at the cross, first at the tomb ; and imho perhaps the most beloved and closest woman to the Virgin Mary of all, excepting perhaps among her family.

Paul certainly respected the Greeks. Not to mention that Jesus himself was always holding up pagans as exemplars, to put his own Jewish people to shame. Though there would perhaps have been an element of the teaching aid about it : 'and seeing the Apostles, he turned to Peter and said, 'Get thee behind me, Satan !'

 

[Phil 1:21]

Don't you see that if God wished to honour us so highly as to induct us into his own divine nature by adoption, how much more He would have wished to honour his own mother.

And yet he said not one peep about building statues to Mary, burning incense and candles to them, bowing down to them, praying to them (or her). In Exodus 20:1-6 God was extremely clear about the focus of our worship, and it didn't include Mary. If this offends you, then respectfully, perhaps you should take it up with God by praying about it.

 

[paul becke]

And yet he said not one peep about building statues to Mary, burning incense and candles to them, bowing down to them, praying to them (or her). In Exodus 20:1-6 God was extremely clear about the focus of our worship, and it didn't include Mary. If this offends you, then respectfully, perhaps you should take it up with God by praying about it.

It doesn't offend me in the slightest. It did make me laugh a little though. It's clear you either don't understand the meaning of 'worship', or attribute it anyway to our honouring of Mary, as a defence-mechanism against the seductive lure of the truths peddled by those fiendish Catholics !

In the Magnificat, obviously filled with the Holy spirit, Our Lady said that all generations would call her blessed. When was the last time you honoured her by calling her blessed ? I've asked many Protestants on these boards that same question, and I'm still awaiting my first answer from any of them.

 

[Phil 1:21]

It's clear you either don't understand the meaning of 'worship'

If it walks like a duck...

...and quacks like a duck...

...it's probably a duck.

 

[Goatee]

Judge not what you dont understand

 

[Phil 1:21]

Judge not what you dont understand

Baptism, confession, communion, confirmation, 18 years of CCC...I understand it all too well.

 

[Christianfrend]

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?

I saw this and just couldn't go by without sharing my belief. I joined just so that I could share my belief. Brothers and Sisters from other denominations, please bear with me. I'm not here to convince you of anything. I'm just here to share what I believe. I was born, raised and still am a Catholic. It's not to say that I approve 100% of how the Catholic Church is run today. Though I love Jesus. I read the Bible. I believe in the power of the Holy Spirit and the need to pray and ask for God's gifts. I just want to say that I had and still and will always pray to Mary as she is a very powerful intercessor. Now I've seen Christians from other denominations ask me and other Christians to pray for them. This is a very common request among all Christians. Who can pray better than Mary, The Mother of God for us Christians. We ask one another. Would not God answer our prayers through the Virgin Mary? For sure He would. And no. I have never worshipped Mary once in my life. I look at her as my Mother. Jesus gave Her to me at the foot of the Cross just as He gave her to be the mother of all who would love Him and worship Him as Saviour and God. Catholic faith teaches to honour Mary. We do not worship. We honour Her. And whether believers from other denominations would believe in praying to Mary or not. They should respect Her. Because, just as Abraham believed in God and it was reckoned to Him as righteousness. Mary accepted God's plan for Her without question. And Jesus would expect everyone to respect His Mother, that's for sure. She is the Mother of God. To talk without respect for Her is to talk without respect for God Himself. Stay blessed everyone.