The Bible is not a Catechetical Book!

[thecolorsblend]

I said..............
"Catholicism portrays Mary as sinless".

You said........
"True."

The Bible says..........
Romans 3:23,
"ALL have sinned and come short of the approval of God".

Ecclesiastes 7:20 ............
"For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not."

So we see that the choice is and always has been, do you believe the Word of God or the words of men?

I then said...........
"The RCC teaches that Mary is divine".

You replied...........
"Not True."

The Catholic church says....................
According to Roman Catholicism, Mary is "the all-holy ever-virgin Mother of God" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, hereafter referred to as "CCC" 721), the "Queen over all things" (CCC 966), our "Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix" (CCC 969), who is "full of grace" (CCC 722), the "Mother of God and our mother" (CCC 2677), the "new Eve" (CCC 726), and the "seat of wisdom" (CCC 721). She had no original sin (CCC 508), and never committed sin (CCC 493). She is second only to her Son" (Vatican II, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, par. 66) and sits "on the right hand of the majesty on high" (Pope Pius X, Ad Diem Illum Laetissimum, 14). In fact, "no man goeth to Christ but by His Mother" (Pope Leo 13th, Octobri Mense). It was Mary who "crushed the poisonous head of the most cruel serpent and brought salvation to the world" (Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus). It is she who "delivers our souls from death" (CCC 966), and "continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation" (CCC 969). "Mary, by her spiritual entering into the sacrifice of her divine son for men, made atonement for the sins of man," (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma4, Ott, page 213). Therefore, we can "entrust all our cares and petitions to her" (CCC 2677), "give ourselves over to her now" (CCC 2677).

If that does not teach "Divinity" then we need to redefine the meaning of the word.

Then you said................
None righteous? Does that include Our Lord?

All have sinned? Does that include Our Lord?

Separately, how about infants? Does that include them? How about the mentally ill? What sins have they knowingly committed? I mean, if Roman 3:23 is speaking in absolute, literal terms that ALL have sinned.

Your history is one of sarcasm and and I really do hope that is what you are being here by your questions.

If not and you are serious, than I shall try to say what is needed to be said with all respect that is due to you.

If you felt the need to ask a question like that, then you are in need of a lot of study, prayer and self introspection. The fact that you would even consider the question tells ALL OF US that you really do not have any Bible understanding at all and everything that you are saying to us is meaningless Theologically speaking.

I encourage you to spend less time on the internet and more time in the study of God's Word and then your comments might carry more weight during a discussion. Because of now, they carry none whatsoever.

However, I will answer your questions.

NO!....."Righteous" means to be sinless/perfect when tempted.

Jesus was God in the flesh and therefore when He was tempted He remained righteous.

NO! .....Jesus as the God-man had no ability to sin because He did not have a sin nature. That my friend is why the virgin birth is so important to grasp.

As for infants, mentally ill and so forth that you are concerned about, I would encourage you to do the homework under the heading of "Predestination" and you will find the answer.

Flip questions to make a serious point. "All have sinned" is a good generalization. But it remains a generalization. You and I both agree that it cannot apply to Our Lord. Judging by your wall of text, it also appears that we agree that it cannot apply to infants and the mentally ill.

Thus, there are many people to whom that verse cannot apply. Therefore it does not make sense to interpret it in terms as rigid as you seem prefer. Certainly the sheer number of exceptions to that passage make it a less than ideal proof against Our Lady's sinlessness.

On a related note, this is one of the many problems I have with Protestantism. There is no allowance made for subtly and nuance. Everything with Protestantism is an either/or, all or nothing, zero-sum proposition.

In your case, it appears that you interpret traditional Christianity's views of Our Lady as some type of infringement on the Godhead.

Something tells me I wouldn't be the first to explain the why's and wherefores of these doctrines to you. So there's probably not much point in doing so now.

Instead, I'll ask you why only Protestants see something nefarious about the traditional view of Our Lady. We traditional Christians don't regard our doctrines and beliefs about her as somehow subtracting something that is due only to God. So isn't it worth it for you to investigate what distinctions we make between Our Lady (a supremely blessed woman) and Our Lord (the Word made flesh) rather than accusing us of everything in the book?

 

[Darren Court]

All have sinned means ALL HAVE SINNED... not some, not a few not those who got to a certain age... ALL.

.. and if you need clarification then ask yourself do ALL need a saviour? Including the mentally ill and infants?

... and as regards veneration of Our Lady.... perhaps you'll show us where in the scripture or who of the apostles taught the difference between veneration and worship... because if you cannot they you know not!

 

[Darren Court]

Flip questions to make a serious point. "All have sinned" is a good generalization. But it remains a generalization. You and I both agree that it cannot apply to Our Lord. Judging by your wall of text, it also appears that we agree that it cannot apply to infants and the mentally ill.

Thus, there are many people to whom that verse cannot apply. Therefore it does not make sense to interpret it in terms as rigid as you seem prefer. Certainly the sheer number of exceptions to that passage make it a less than ideal proof against Our Lady's sinlessness.

On a related note, this is one of the many problems I have with Protestantism. There is no allowance made for subtly and nuance. Everything with Protestantism is an either/or, all or nothing, zero-sum proposition.

In your case, it appears that you interpret traditional Christianity's views of Our Lady as some type of infringement on the Godhead.

Something tells me I wouldn't be the first to explain the why's and wherefores of these doctrines to you. So there's probably not much point in doing so now.

Instead, I'll ask you why only Protestants see something nefarious about the traditional view of Our Lady. We traditional Christians don't regard our doctrines and beliefs about her as somehow subtracting something that is due only to God. So isn't it worth it for you to investigate what distinctions we make between Our Lady (a supremely blessed woman) and Our Lord (the Word made flesh) rather than accusing us of everything in the book?

All have sinned means ALL HAVE SINNED... not some, not a few not those who got to a certain age... ALL.

.. and if you need clarification then ask yourself do ALL need a saviour? Including the mentally ill and infants?

... and as regards veneration of Our Lady.... perhaps you'll show us where in the scripture or who of the apostles taught the difference between veneration and worship... because if you cannot they you know not!

 

[wilts43]

All have sinned means ALL HAVE SINNED... not some, not a few not those who got to a certain age... ALL.

.. and if you need clarification then ask yourself do ALL need a saviour? Including the mentally ill and infants?

... and as regards veneration of Our Lady.... perhaps you'll show us where in the scripture or who of the apostles taught the difference between veneration and worship... because if you cannot they you know not!

"All" is often used (ignoring exceptions) to mean "most" as Coloursblend pointed out. You didn't address his points but insisted on the absolute literalism of one word.
I wonder how consistent you are with this?
How do you interpret John 6:22-68.?
In This Bread-of-Life discourse Christ repeatedly insists He is being absolutely literal and changes the Greek from "eat" to "gnaw" when he is doubted......And yet most Protestants dissolve away the literal meaning of this passage Even though it is the most insistently literal of all Gospel passages!

Where do you (who insists on absolute literalism of every word) stand on this passage?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As for venerating Mary....
The Jews venerated the Old Ark, of The Old Covenant, that only contained
(1)God's Word in stone
(2)Manna from the desert
(3)Aaron's high-priestly rod

Mary's womb contained.......,& knitted flesh onto,
(1)The Living Word of God
(2)The Living Bread-of-Heaven
(3)The High priest.... & The Lamb who takes away the sins of the world

She is The Ark of The New Covenant.

She is far holier, & to be much more venerated, than The Old Ark.
Of course Protestants play the either/or game. (God OR Mary! False premise.)
Note that God struck Uzzah dead for touching the Ark.
So God expects us to respect what is holy; and a living sacred vessel is more to be honoured than an inanimate sacred vessel, is it not?

And scripture shows explicitly she is The Ark
(Rev 11:1....) "Then God's temple in heaven was opened, and within his temple was seen the ark of his covenant. And there came flashes of lightning, rumblings, peals of thunder, an earthquake and a severe hailstorm.
A great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head.
She was pregnant and cried out in pain as she was about to give birth. Then another sign appeared in heaven: an enormous red dragon with seven heads and ten horns and seven crowns on its heads. Its tail swept a third of the stars out of the sky and flung them to the earth. The dragon stood in front of the woman who was about to give birth, so that it might devour her child the moment he was born She gave birth to a son, a male child, who "will rule all the nations with an iron scepter." And her child was snatched up to God and to his throne."
The Dragon/Serpent versus The Ark/Queen/Woman......this can only be the final conflict set up between "The Woman" & "The Serpent" in Genesis
(NB The Chapter divisions are added; not in the original)

As for Mary's sinlessness
Eve was born sinless
Is the New Eve, who is to give "flesh of her flesh; & bones of her bones" to God Himself, less than Eve?

 

[thecolorsblend]

All have sinned means ALL HAVE SINNED... not some, not a few not those who got to a certain age... ALL.

.. and if you need clarification then ask yourself do ALL need a saviour? Including the mentally ill and infants?

... and as regards veneration of Our Lady.... perhaps you'll show us where in the scripture or who of the apostles taught the difference between veneration and worship... because if you cannot they you know not!

It seems like someone else already responded to the bit about "all" having sinned.

Your comment about veneration vs. worship is interesting though. There is a difference. It may not be a difference you accept. But that's really not what's important. What is important is that the people who venerate Our Lady distinguish the honor paid to her from than the worship which is given only to God.

As to where in sacred scripture that distinction can be found, I reassert that sola scriptura is your limitation; please don't try making it mine.

 

[Phil 1:21]

As for venerating Mary....
The Jews venerated the Old Ark, of The Old Covenant, that only contained
(1)God's Word in stone
(2)Manna from the desert
(3)Aaron's high-priestly rod

The Israelites prayed to and worshiped the "Lord Almighty, the God of Israel, enthroned between the cherubim." (Isaiah 37:16), not the ark. Contained in the ark were the ten commandments, which included the following:

"4 “You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below.5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments." (Exodus 20:4-6)

That's why nowhere in scripture will you find the Israelites "venerating" the ark the same was RCs "venerate" Mary.

The Israelites did not pray to the ark, build statues of the ark, burn incense to the ark, or believe that the ark delivered their souls from death (CCC966) or brought them the gifts of eternal salvation (CCC969).

If you want an OT parallel to the RCC "veneration" or Mary, you won't find it in Exodus 25. You'll find it in Exodus 32.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

perhaps you'll show us where in the scripture or who of the apostles taught the difference between veneration and worship..

They did not teach the difference between veneration and worship,
and they did not practice any veneration and worship of any human being.
This came a few hundred years later, from pagan sources.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Eve was born sinless
Is the New Eve, who is to give "flesh of her flesh; & bones of her bones" to God Himself, less than Eve?

This of course is almost without need to respond.
Totally false with no truth in its origin, nor in its propagation.
(it was shown to come from pagan heathen religions and customs) .

 

[Major1]

Flip questions to make a serious point. "All have sinned" is a good generalization. But it remains a generalization. You and I both agree that it cannot apply to Our Lord. Judging by your wall of text, it also appears that we agree that it cannot apply to infants and the mentally ill.

Thus, there are many people to whom that verse cannot apply. Therefore it does not make sense to interpret it in terms as rigid as you seem prefer. Certainly the sheer number of exceptions to that passage make it a less than ideal proof against Our Lady's sinlessness.

On a related note, this is one of the many problems I have with Protestantism. There is no allowance made for subtly and nuance. Everything with Protestantism is an either/or, all or nothing, zero-sum proposition.

In your case, it appears that you interpret traditional Christianity's views of Our Lady as some type of infringement on the Godhead.

Something tells me I wouldn't be the first to explain the why's and wherefores of these doctrines to you. So there's probably not much point in doing so now.

Instead, I'll ask you why only Protestants see something nefarious about the traditional view of Our Lady. We traditional Christians don't regard our doctrines and beliefs about her as somehow subtracting something that is due only to God. So isn't it worth it for you to investigate what distinctions we make between Our Lady (a supremely blessed woman) and Our Lord (the Word made flesh) rather than accusing us of everything in the book?

You said............
"Something tells me I wouldn't be the first to explain the why's and wherefores of these doctrines to you. So there's probably not much point in doing so now."

You are correct and I would say that the opposite is just as true when compared to you.

Now when you say "Flippant answers", that is the perception when you use sarcasm and "flippant" instead of Bible answers. We/I only know what YOU personally project.

I can not help but notice that you did not respond to the Catholic's own comments on the divinity of Mary but then I really do not know how anyone could respond to the claim.

The bottom line on all of this conversation still remains the same my dear friend.

You and other Catholic believers simply accept the words and directions of men over the Word of God.
It is and has been just that simple.

You said...............
"In your case, it appears that you interpret traditional Christianity's views of Our Lady as some type of infringement on the Godhead".

My view is based upon the EXACT words of your popes and Catholic teachers which is why I lost from one of the catholic web sites that YES, Mary is taught as divine, and YES that in a false teaching and if anyone does not see that, then I do not know what else to say to you.

It is your choice.

 

[wilts43]

You are correct and Major will do the same thing again. Why would I as a Bible believer need to consider accepting the Assumption of Mary regardless of scientific efforts AS IT IS TOTALLY NON-BIBLICAL!

The process is only the RCC's way of trying to make Mary equal to Jesus as the co-redeemer.

Are you referring to "Mary-As-Co-Redemptrix"?
You have totally misunderstood this!
"Co-Redemptrix" means Mary Co-operated....with God's plan for Redemption. That in no way makes her equal.
This is about New-Eve / Old-Eve
Old Eve co-operated with The Serpent ("Co-Faller" with Adam if you want)
This did not put Eve equal to Satan or God.
Dare I suggest this is prejudiced conclusion jumping?

You also said.............

"Catholicism portrays Mary as a sinless divine being, who never sinned, never had relations with Joseph, never had any children except Jesus, and then was bodily taken directly into Heaven without experiencing physical death. NONE of these RCC doctrines are taught in the Word of God. NONE!!!!!"

Where did you learn that "The Word of God=The Bible"?
That's not in the bible!
Jesus was also The Word, and He said to those He sent "He who hears you hears me" (The Catholic church) This is all "The Word of God"

Please read my post 144, that deals with Mary's sinlessness,.... if you have any interest in what Catholicism actually teaches or believes.....as opposed to what Protestant myths about Catholicism teach.
Currently you are only destroying Strawmen
And, insofar as you do that, and repeat falsehoods about Catholicism, you may be keeping people from God's truth.
At least learn first, then attack what Catholicism actually teaches.....
if you can.

Post 144 also shows scripture showing Mary as Queen in Heaven

Also learn about "Gebirah" The Davidic King's Mother-Queen whose role with the Davidic King was intercessor-for-her-people, who is never refused. Then understand Cana in this light.....Why Jesus says "Woman" and why he demurs to her intercession for the people without wine.

 

[Phil 1:21]

"Co-Redemptrix" means Mary Co-operated....with God's plan for Redemption. That in no way makes her equal.

So did John the Baptist. Does that make him co-redeemer?

 

[Major1]

Are you referring to "Mary-As-Co-Redemptrix"?
You have totally misunderstood this!
"Co-Redemptrix" means Mary Co-operated....with God's plan for Redemption. That in no way makes her equal.
This is about New-Eve / Old-Eve
Old Eve co-operated with The Serpent ("Co-Faller" with Adam if you want)
This did not put Eve equal to Satan or God.
Dare I suggest this is prejudiced conclusion jumping?

Thank you for your concern for me. Actually I am fairly competent in Catholic dogma.

When I post things it is from the Catholic church ITSELF and is not my thinking at all.

Having said that,

According to the Roman Catholic Church, when Mary accepted God's invitation for her to bear His Son, she ". . . was already collaborating with the whole work her Son was to accomplish"..............

"The Father of mercies willed that the Incarnation should be preceded by assent on the part of the predestined mother, so that just as a woman had a share in bringing about death, so also a woman should contribute to life. . . . Rightly, therefore, the Fathers see Mary not merely as passively engaged by God, but as freely cooperating in the work of man's salvation through faith and obedience. For, as St. Irenaeus says, she "being obedient, became the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race." Hence not a few of the early Fathers gladly assert with him in their preaching: "the knot of Eve's disobedience was untied by Mary's obedience: what the virgin Eve bound through her disbelief, Mary loosened by her faith." Comparing Mary with Eve, they call her "Mother of the living," and frequently claim: "death through Eve, life through Mary." - - Second Vatican Council.

 

[Dave-W]

But, by way of contrast, there is little or no doctrinal agreement between Protestants who believe that sacred scripture says what it means and means what it says, and should be considered the sole rule of faith. One would think that could lead to doctrinal unity across the board. And yet it doesn't.

Maybe you should get your own house in order first, eh?

Not possible to do so. Nor is it possible for your group either.

Romans 3:1 What advantage then has the Jew, or what is the profit of circumcision? 2 Much in every way! Chiefly because to them were committed the oracles of God.​

Romans 11:29 For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.​

Put those 2 passages together and you will see WHY it is impossible. Jews are NOT in the mix as far as interpreting scripture for either the Catholics or the Protestants. (or the Orthodox for that matter) God gave that job to the Jews and does not take it back.

 

[wilts43]

So did John the Baptist. Does that make him co-redeemer?

We are all asked to co-operate with our redemption. That is what living morally & producing good fruit means.
But Mary's role is pre-emminent, & cosmic in scale, and central to the redemption-drama of the reversal of The Fall in Adam & Eve.
When the angel appeared to Mary the whole of redemption hung upon her free consent "Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it done unto me according to your word"

 

[Phil 1:21]

We are all asked to co-operate with our redemption. That is what living morally & producing good fruit means.

We can discuss the heresy of works-based salvation at another time.

But Mary's role is pre-emminent, & cosmic in scale, and central to the redemption-drama of the reversal of The Fall in Adam & Eve. When the angel appeared to Mary the whole of redemption hung upon her free consent "Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it done unto me according to your word"

So you don't believe in the sovereignty of God?

 

[wilts43]

Thank you for your concern for me. Actually I am fairly competent in Catholic dogma.

When I post things it is from the Catholic church ITSELF and is not my thinking at all.

Having said that,

According to the Roman Catholic Church, when Mary accepted God's invitation for her to bear His Son, she ". . . was already collaborating with the whole work her Son was to accomplish"..............

"The Father of mercies willed that the Incarnation should be preceded by assent on the part of the predestined mother, so that just as a woman had a share in bringing about death, so also a woman should contribute to life. . . . Rightly, therefore, the Fathers see Mary not merely as passively engaged by God, but as freely cooperating in the work of man's salvation through faith and obedience. For, as St. Irenaeus says, she "being obedient, became the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race." Hence not a few of the early Fathers gladly assert with him in their preaching: "the knot of Eve's disobedience was untied by Mary's obedience: what the virgin Eve bound through her disbelief, Mary loosened by her faith." Comparing Mary with Eve, they call her "Mother of the living," and frequently claim: "death through Eve, life through Mary." - - Second Vatican Council.

Thank you for the Vatican II quote.
Could you possibly have any issue with that?

When I was saying you misunderstood some things, I was referring to you saying
"The process is only the RCC's way of trying to make Mary equal to Jesus as the co-redeemer"
That is untrue.
The RCC Church is not trying, (And never ties) to make Mary equal to Jesus.

 

[Darren Court]

"All" is often used (ignoring exceptions) to mean "most" as Coloursblend pointed out. You didn't address his points but insisted on the absolute literalism of one word.
I wonder how consistent you are with this?
How do you interpret John 6:22-68.?
In This Bread-of-Life discourse Christ repeatedly insists He is being absolutely literal and changes the Greek from "eat" to "gnaw" when he is doubted......And yet most Protestants dissolve away the literal meaning of this passage Even though it is the most insistently literal of all Gospel passages!

Where do you (who insists on absolute literalism of every word) stand on this passage?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As for venerating Mary....
The Jews venerated the Old Ark, of The Old Covenant, that only contained
(1)God's Word in stone
(2)Manna from the desert
(3)Aaron's high-priestly rod

Mary's womb contained.......,& knitted flesh onto,
(1)The Living Word of God
(2)The Living Bread-of-Heaven
(3)The High priest.... & The Lamb who takes away the sins of the world

She is The Ark of The New Covenant.

She is far holier, & to be much more venerated, than The Old Ark.
Of course Protestants play the either/or game. (God OR Mary! False premise.)
Note that God struck Uzzah dead for touching the Ark.
So God expects us to respect what is holy; and a living sacred vessel is more to be honoured than an inanimate sacred vessel, is it not?

And scripture shows explicitly she is The Ark
(Rev 11:1....) "Then God's temple in heaven was opened, and within his temple was seen the ark of his covenant. And there came flashes of lightning, rumblings, peals of thunder, an earthquake and a severe hailstorm.
A great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head.
She was pregnant and cried out in pain as she was about to give birth. Then another sign appeared in heaven: an enormous red dragon with seven heads and ten horns and seven crowns on its heads. Its tail swept a third of the stars out of the sky and flung them to the earth. The dragon stood in front of the woman who was about to give birth, so that it might devour her child the moment he was born She gave birth to a son, a male child, who "will rule all the nations with an iron scepter." And her child was snatched up to God and to his throne."
The Dragon/Serpent versus The Ark/Queen/Woman......this can only be the final conflict set up between "The Woman" & "The Serpent" in Genesis
(NB The Chapter divisions are added; not in the original)

As for Mary's sinlessness
Eve was born sinless
Is the New Eve, who is to give "flesh of her flesh; & bones of her bones" to God Himself, less than Eve?

I think you misunderstand as you contend I rely on the on absolute literalism for one word.."ALL". It's often dangerous to assume as you do here. You see, I don't rely on this one word... or one passage...... try this one... ""There is no one righteous, not even one"... hmmm.. this and MANY others don't allow the wiggle room you'd like!

As for John and literal "bread of life", it's a topic for another day that I'd be happy to discuss. In essence though the principle you're trying to use here is dishonest. Like every Christian of every flavour, you must accept that some of the bible is literal and some of it is figurative. Accepting this, it's less than honest to try to say "because you want to use this bit literally you're wrong in not interpreting this totally different part literally". You certainly wouldn't like that if the case were reversed!

As for venerating Mary and the old ark arguments... they really are at best spurious and tenuous. The idea that a box (albeit a fancy box) is the same of a person would be absolutely laughable to anyone except those who want to venerate both. Irrespective, ALL these points are mute. The bible does not make the point you want it to make. It does not differentiate between the veneration of a person and the worship of a person, no matter how you squeeze it. This means your view is ONLY interpretative with no bible support. Add to this that teaching is not apostolic and at best Catholics are on shaking ground and at worst blasphemy.

I didn't mention Mary and sinlessness... since you did I'll respond. Yet again Catholicism hangs by a thread to a belief that isn't biblical or apostolic. The argument that Mary being the New Eve must be like the first Eve is to my mind application of belief onto facts. Nowhere in the bible does it say these things. There is to my mind nothing in the bible to support the view and all attempts to reconcile to scripture are strained. I see absolutely no reason why Mary has to be sinless for Christ to enter a sinfilled earth

 

[wilts43]

We can discuss the heresy of works-based salvation at another time.

So you think God was dependent upon Mary? She had the power to stop His plan? Her will was stronger than His?

Most Hesesies devolve from either/or thinking, which Protestantism has adopted.
In this case EITHER works OR grace.
If, because I mention "fruits", you accuse me of heresy, you are caught in that thinking.
Salvation is by grace, but we are required, using our free will, to co-operate. We can say "No" to God.
When I say we are asked to co-operate with our redemption, using our free will & producing good fruit, that is entirely in accord with Judgement as described in Matthew.......Which is all about being judged by our good works.


If Mary could not say "No"..... not only does God not respect our free will,
.....but you make The Holy Spirit a rapist!

A strange view you have, that this was a battle of wills!

And remember ours is a humble God....who "empties Himself.....to be born in a stable....to be spat upon & crucified.
He respects the young Jewish virgin's free will! What is the awful alternative?
He lives under Her jurisdiction (after tHe finding in The Temple) for 30 years.
And he demurs to her at Cana to start His mission.

 

[Phil 1:21]

Most Hesesies devolve from either/or thinking, which Protestantism has adopted.
In this case EITHER works OR grace.
If, because I mention "fruits", you accuse me of heresy, you are caught in that thinking.
Salvation is by grace, but we are required, using our free will, to co-operate. We can say "No" to God.
When I say we are asked to co-operate with our redemption, using our free will & producing good fruit, that is entirely in accord with Judgement as described in Matthew.......Which is all about being judged by our good works.


If Mary could not say "No"..... not only does God not respect our free will,
.....but you make The Holy Spirit a rapist!

A strange view you have, that this was a battle of wills!

And remember ours is a humble God....who "empties Himself.....to be born in a stable....to be spat upon & crucified.
He respects the young Jewish virgin's free will! What is the awful alternative?
He lives under Her jurisdiction (after tHe finding in The Temple) for 30 years.
And he demurs to her at Cana to start His mission.

Like I said, we can discuss the heresy of works-based salvation another time. Let's not derail one heresy with another. Now then...

If you honestly believe that God's plan for salvation hinged on the cooperation of Mary -- that she could stop His plan -- then you do not believe in a sovereign God. And yes, that is an either/or.

Isaiah 42:8 “I am the Lord; that is my name! I will not yield my glory to another or my praise to idols.” (or with Mary and the saints)

Psalm 115:3 “Our God is in the heavens; he does all that he pleases.”

Proverbs 16:9 “The heart of man plans his way, but the Lord establishes his steps.”

 

[thecolorsblend]

Thank you for your concern for me. Actually I am fairly competent in Catholic dogma.

When I post things it is from the Catholic church ITSELF and is not my thinking at all.

Having said that,

According to the Roman Catholic Church, when Mary accepted God's invitation for her to bear His Son, she ". . . was already collaborating with the whole work her Son was to accomplish"..............

"The Father of mercies willed that the Incarnation should be preceded by assent on the part of the predestined mother, so that just as a woman had a share in bringing about death, so also a woman should contribute to life. . . . Rightly, therefore, the Fathers see Mary not merely as passively engaged by God, but as freely cooperating in the work of man's salvation through faith and obedience. For, as St. Irenaeus says, she "being obedient, became the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race." Hence not a few of the early Fathers gladly assert with him in their preaching: "the knot of Eve's disobedience was untied by Mary's obedience: what the virgin Eve bound through her disbelief, Mary loosened by her faith." Comparing Mary with Eve, they call her "Mother of the living," and frequently claim: "death through Eve, life through Mary." - - Second Vatican Council.

You say you know Catholic thinking well. If that's true, you'll understand that the Catholic Church believes that salvation is a cooperative thing. By His grace, God offers salvation. By our choice, we accept or reject it. In that sense, we participate.

Our Lady participated in the redemption of mankind. The angel phrased his greeting and his announcement such that she would have been within her rights to decline carrying the savior in her womb. She didn't have to comply as she was being asked to. But, by her own choice, she decided to cooperate.