A Controversial Review of the Immaculate

[FaeryChild]

You forgot about Elijah too...

There situation is different than Mary. They had already served for very long times as faithful servants of God.

Maybe this explanation will help:
Why did God take Enoch and Elijah? The Bible does not specifically give us the answer. Some speculate that they were taken in preparation for a role in the end times, possibly as the two witnesses in Revelation 11:3-12. This is possible, but not explicitly taught in the Bible. It may be that God desired to save Enoch and Elijah from experiencing death due to their great faithfulness in serving and obeying Him. Whatever the case, God has His purpose, and while we don’t always understand God’s plans and purposes, we know that “His way is perfect” (Psalm 18:30).

How so? Did not Mary serve as God's faithful servant? Did she not serve at the Temple? Did she not say yes to becoming the Mother of God? Or is it just that to become a transgressor or not is a choice we make?
Just because those who do not choose transgression are rare... does that mean we should diminish their glory? Enoch and Elijah show that assumption into Heaven is a reward for the faithful. Certainly Mary was God's faithful servant.

 

[Vicomte13]

There is a difference between worship and veneration

There could be. Unfortunately the traditional English translators were not consistent in their use of the term "worship", so while we might like to impose our own use of the word, the traditional translations will trip us up, as both proskuneo (give respects, venerate) and latrea (divine service) are translated as "worship".

Example: when Satan tempts Jesus in the desert, he asks that Jesus give him veneration (proskuneo), and Jesus replies that only to God shall be given divine service (latrea). Both of these words are simply translated as "worship", but they aren't the same word.

Earlier in the Bible, men "worship" (proskuneo) prophets and kings, without condemnation.

The English translators were not consistent with the Greek, so while we can treat "worship" as meaning the same thing as "offer divine service", (latrea), we have to be prepared to defend against somebody armed with a Bible who will find "worship" being used of men towards men, and being acceptable.

Given that the underlying texts are Greek and Hebrew, I myself think that a hairball of arguments and confusion can be eliminated if we're consistent in English terms regarding the two Greek terms "proskuneo" and "latrea". That way we can distinguish between what sort of respects are being offered.

When "worshipped" is used for both Greek words, then we find that it is acceptable to worship other than God.

 

[Vicomte13]

Since the RCC uses "worship" to describe both of them, you can appreciate how fine a line we're dealing with.

Which is why separating the two into the Greek proskuneo (which can sometimes be properly offered to man) and latrea (which is divine service worthy of God alone - hence offering divine service to an idol - eidol-latrea (idolatry) is a very bad sin, whilst bowing to a king or saluting a military officer as a sign of respect is not idolatry and not a sin.

 

[Vicomte13]

call no one else father

We need to call our own fathers "father".

 

[Albion]

Which is why separating the two into the Greek proskuneo (which can sometimes be properly offered to man) and latrea (which is divine service worthy of God alone - hence offering divine service to an idol - eidol-latrea (idolatry) is a very bad sin, whilst bowing to a king or saluting a military officer as a sign of respect is not idolatry and not a sin.

Yes, but the fact also is that it's easy to move from one to the other and justify it by saying you're only engaged in doing the one that's proper.

This is the issue. It's not as though we run into a lot of people who openly say that they worship a saint and consider it to be the same kind of worship as they accord God. No, they always claim that it's simply veneration--even when the evidence is that it's not.

 

[Vicomte13]

Yes, but the fact also is that it's easy to move from one to the other and justify it by saying you're only engaged in doing the one that's proper.

This is the issue. It's not as though we run into a lot of people who openly say that they worship a saint and consider it to be the same kind of worship as they accord God. No, they always claim that it's simply veneration--even when the evidence is that it's not.

Who can see? The difference between divine service and veneration is truly a matter of the mind and the heart, what the person believes himself or herself to be doing, on the inside. It isn't a matter for somebody else to monitor, judge and fret over. How exactly we each work out our devotionals isn't really anybody's business.

Example, the word "to pray" in English ultimately reduces to "to ask". If prayer is "asking", then I don't pray at all. I communicate with God, but I have only seriously asked anything of him less than a handful of times in my life. For the most part, I simply think: "You know best. Your will be done." And that's what I mean.

So, if you asked me about prayer, depending on how precise I was being in my language - and how much I wanted to have to have a conversation about it - I might tell you the truth as I see the words in my own mind: no, I don't pray. I never pray. I talk to God.

But if I were to describe what it is I do, somebody else, who is not scrupulous about the word the way I am, might say "But you DO pray, a lot!" And by her use of the word that is probably so.

Outside of the operating room, people cannot see each other's hearts (and there, they can only see the organ, not the emotion and thinking). Only God sees our hearts, and ultimately we're answerable to him on spiritual matters, not to each other.

Marian devotion is one of those features of Catholicism that has always sat uncomfortably. I like Mary and I recognize that God has clearly sent her as a messenger, but I don't like to ask things of people under any circumstances, and asking saintly dead people to ask something of God on my behalf seems like a very demanding exercise. I don't particularly like it when people say "Pray for something or other." No. I will do no such thing! God knows what is best, and he will either allow it or not allow it, in his judgment. My wheedling and importuning is just annoying. I try not to bug God on my own behalf, so why would I go out of my way to bug him for some other cause? It all seems to me very much like a social display, and not very much like anything that is very positive. Others swear by it. To each his own.

Likewise, there are Protestant forms of worship and sacramentals that don't sit well with me at all. But I don't spend time worrying about how other people go about the business of their relationship with God, mainly because it's none of my business.

 

[Linet Kihonge]

When we say, that man is born with the guilt of Adam we say, that God will condemn even foetuses to damnation for disobedience *Thanks to Adam and Eve." (Courtesy of St. Augustine). But the LORD said, The father will not bear the punishment of his son's iniquity and the son will
not bear the punishment for his father's iniquity. In other words, everyone is born with a clean record and it's up to the person to lead a righteous life. Some have made it and some we can only wait on God's judgement. Therefore, Mary maybe had a clean record but calling her holy means she didn't need Jesus and more so, Jesus was never in the likeness of the sinful man but 100% God's nature both flesh & spirit.

Saying Mary 100% human doesn't mean she was unclean but rather had a "weakness" to the law of sin because she was made of flesh and blood. Unless you are saying she was a "God" otherwise, I think IC falls short.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Yes, but then suddenly the word "Catholic" means something else...

No, it doesn't. Not to us. Only to you who think you're outside the Catholic Church.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Before Catholicism existed...
but hey, if it makes your clock tick, who am i to discourage you, right?

Catholicism existed as soon as Christ said "I will build my Church."

 

[Root of Jesse]

If this was true, or even possible, why wouldn't God just pre save every human and spare His son the whole sacrifice?

Or, better still, just pre save all people who are going to accept Christ as their savior, because He knows right? then just send us all right to heaven and let the ones who He knows won't accept Christ go right to hell.......

Anything is possible for God. Why wouldn't he? Because he gave us free will, and that contradicts it.

 

[Cis.jd]

And the EO, RC etc. are sects within Catholicism, if you want to use that kind of wording.

By the way, it's nice to post a link, but one that is little more than one ordinary person's blogpost doesn't prove anything. Still in all, a lot of what that guy says stands in opposition to what you've been arguing anyway.

Really. Then why in this forum, you can see the users Faith to just read Catholic or Eastern Orthodox? Why is it that just by hearing/reading a person is catholic we know immediately that he is under the faith of the RCC not EO? Why can't the EO people here have "Catholic-EO" while us have RCC instead of just Catholic?

 

[Albion]

Really. Then why in this forum, you can see the users Faith to just read Catholic or Eastern Orthodox? Why is it that just by hearing/reading a person is catholic we know immediately that he is under the faith of the RCC not EO? Why can't the EO people here have "Catholic-EO" while us have RCC instead of just Catholic?

Because the Roman Catholic people prefer to call themselves "Catholic." But that doesn't change anything. We also don't offer the Methodists the option of choosing "Protestant-Methodist," but they can choose to identify themselves simply as "Protestant" if they prefer that.

 

[Cis.jd]

Do you not think that if Mary had a special birth, herself, and lived a sinless life, that she would not have been known by the enemy, Satan himself? Really!, Satan would have known this. God would have telegraphed His move to have her as the mother of Christ. Satan would have tried to stop this.
snip

So what if he would try, does it mean he would have been successful? It was stated in Genesis by God that he will put "enmity between him (the serpent) and the Woman".
Satan tried to get Jesus too if you recall the Temptation at the desert.

 

[Cis.jd]

Because the Roman Catholic people prefer to call themselves "Catholic." But that doesn't change anything. We also don't offer the Methodists the option of choosing "Protestant-Methodist," but they can choose to identify themselves simply as "Protestant" if they prefer that.

We do not need to offer Protestant-Methodist because we know for a fact that Methodists etc are with in the branch of Protestantism. When we see someone with just "Protestant" we are not sure as to what his exact beliefs are.
When you see Catholic on the Faith section you know immediately that his beliefs are aligned with the doctrine of the RCC. No one here will ever question a "Faith:Catholic" person to be RCC or EO.

The Church of the East was always different from the Church of the West. We were the two different bodies in Christianity before the 1600's.
We both had our own translation/spoken language and Biblical Canon.

take a look at this link:
https://oca.org/questions/romancath...er-to-the-roman-catholic-church-than-to-the-p

Certain EO's think that the RCC broke away from them, and this person considers the RCC and Protestants to be more closer to each other than the EO being close to either one of them.

 

[JacksBratt]

So what if he would? It was stated in Genesis by God that he will put "enmity between him (the serpent) and the Woman".

The woman mentioned is Eve, not Mary. From: https://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/don_stewart/don_stewart_756.cfm

According to this verse, there will be enmity between the individual woman (Eve) and the serpent who deceived her. The word enmity indicates a blood feud. There will also be enmity between his seed and her seed. God promised that eventually the serpent would bruise the heel of the seed of the woman. However, the seed of the woman would also bruise (or crush) the head of the serpent. This will be a fatal blow. Who is the seed of the woman and who is the seed of the serpent? What do these predictions mean?

The ultimate seed of the woman would be Jesus Himself. Therefore, we have in Genesis 3:15, the first promise of a Redeemer. It is the beginning of a long line of prophecies concerning the coming Messiah. The Promised One would be from the woman's seed an indication of the eventual virgin birth of Christ.

The reason why it is necessary to believe what we claim about her is because when you read the Bible in full, rejecting her being sinless leaves a lot of contradictory to scripture than the other way around. You can find verses in the NT where Jesus calls her Woman... which is a reference to that verse in Genesis.

Can you post some of this scripture? I have never seen anything in the Word of God that would be invalidated if Mary was not a virgin after Christs birth and was a normal human that sinned.

I also see no scripture to validate an interpretation that would indicate Mary to be a perpetual virgin or sinless.

Here is a verse that catches her in the act of sinning: Mary thought He was insane. Is that not a sin?

Mark 3:21 mentions some persons that said Jesus had lost his senses. Does the text say Jesus’ kinsmen said he was mentally ill or was it others outside the family?
Answer: The author of Mark divides his narrative into two scenes in 3:20-35. One scene takes place where Jesus resides (verses 20, 22-35) the other is where his “kinsmen” are to be found (verse 21). It was these kinsmen, his mother and brothers, who “went out to take custody of him [Jesus].” One does not take custody of someone who is well. They felt Jesus had lost his mind. In order to take custody of him they had to go where he was residing. As a result, the text says, “. . . his own kinsmen . . . went out to take custody of him . . . .” In verse 31 the narrative describes their arrival at the place where Jesus was staying.

Jesus is told that his mother and brothers are outside looking for him. His Answer, “Who are my mother and my brothers? . . . For whoever does the will of God, he is my brother and sister and mother,” (verses 33-35) shows that he was hostile to their attempt to see him. There could be but one reason. His family, mother brothers, and sisters, believed him to be mentally ill and had not come simply to see him, but had come to seize him.

If you take a look in the OT with the Ark of the Covenant, God instructed that the Ark was to be FULLY clean. No sinful hands could touch it because it contained the 10 commandments - which was considered the Holy of Hollies. Now if this God touched covenant was to be completely clean from sin what more for a greater Holy of Hollies - his son. The New and Everlasting Covenant?

No body could touch it because The Ark of the Covenant was an embodiment of God's presence with the Israelites. The atonement cover (or "mercy seat") that covered the ark was God's throne (2 Sam 6:2) and God's presence was above it (Lev 16:2); it was also the place where God met Moses and gave him commands (Ex 25:22). If someone approached the ark, they would effectively be in God's presence - a sinner standing before a holy God who does not tolerate evil (Ps 5:4-6) - and would die as a result of their sins. Not because the 10 commandments were in there. If this were the case, how did Moses and others touch the 10 commandments in the first place. Also, the ark was dangerous before they were put inside.

The 10 commandments were not considered the holy of hollies. The tent area where the ark was kept was this most holy place.

Jesus was both God and Man and as our children are innocent in utero so was Jesus. This is why Mary could live and carry the infant Jesus.

 

[chevyontheriver]

If she was sinless, Satan would have known, he would have hunted her down and tried to stop her from being able to have Jesus as a virgin mother....

If Mary was a sinner, Satan would have known who her child was to be, he would have enlisted her in his plan to do away with the savior in his infancy, to corrupt him or kill him. It's as likely as your scenario, maybe more likely.

 

[JacksBratt]

If Mary was a sinner, Satan would have known who her child was to be, he would have enlisted her in his plan to do away with the savior in his infancy, to corrupt him or kill him. It's as likely as your scenario, maybe more likely.

All women are sinners. There was no way for him to spot the chosen mother of Christ because she was not a sinless. If one woman was sinless, it would have been a beacon. If one human had been living a sinless life for even a short time, a red flag would go up in Satan's world. If she needed to be sinless for scripture to be fulfilled, it would have been in the prophesies. If she was required to be sinless in order for the gospel to come to fruition, Satan would have tempted her as he did Christ and, being human, she would have failed. If she was sinless for her entire life, it would have been a no brainer.

No, Mary was God's choice, a very worthy mother for our Savior the only choice for God's reasons. But, sinless, no. A perpetual virgin, there was absolutely no need for that whatsoever.

There was no need for her to be sinless and actually an impossibility, for "all" have sinned. You know "all" meaning everyone.

 

[FaeryChild]

Does "all" include Jesus? He was 100% human.

(I'm not actually suggesting this, I'm trying to show that your interpretation is flawed)

 

[JacksBratt]

Does "all" include Jesus? He was 100% human.

(I'm not actually suggesting this, I'm trying to show that your interpretation is flawed)

No, it does not include Jesus. He was God's son and one third of the trinity. He was made flesh to live a sinless life so that He could pay the price for our sin. "All" does not include God's son. "All" is all born of Adams line, all born into sin, all humans who were conceived by a man and a woman. All of mankind.

If Christ had committed one lonely sin, He could not have payed the ransom for ours.

 

[Linet Kihonge]

Is CC thinking or believing that Mary was without the sinful nature of Man???

Well, Jesus was God in that his soul/spirit was God's and Jesus was Human because he was born in the likeness of the Sinful nature of Man (Courtesy of God and Mary, the human being).