Catholics, what exactly do you believe about Mary?

melody5697 said:

... So, Catholics. What do you ACTUALLY believe about Mary?

Click to expand...

Your friend quite simply does not know what he's talking about.

Catechism of the Catholic Church - Mary - Mother of Christ, Mother of the Church

I also suggest studying a book entitled "Catholicism and Fundamentalism", by Karl Keating.

JESUS=G.O.A.T said:

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.

Click to expand...

Exactly! And Mary gave birth to that! She is the Mother of God!

JesusLovesOurLady said:

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?

Click to expand...

JesusLovesOurLady said:

Exactly! And Mary gave birth to that! She is the Mother of God!

Click to expand...

no the mother of Jesus the body of Christ. God manifest himself in her through the Holy Ghost as the scripture tells us and she gave birth to the body. I think in the end I just have a problem with not referring to her as the mother of Jesus... because if you say mother of god it makes it sound idk as if she came before god or something. It seems we believe the same thing though just at differences as to how to refer to Mary as

tadoflamb said:

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

Click to expand...

1. What does Sola Scriptura mean?
2. Do you own a Bible?
3. What does it say about Mary.

JESUS=G.O.A.T said:

no the mother of Jesus the body of Christ. God manifest himself in her through the Holy Ghost as the scripture tells us and she gave birth to the body. I think in the end I just have a problem with not referring to her as the mother of Jesus... because if you say mother of god it makes it sound idk as if she came before god or something. It seems we believe the same thing though just at differences as to how to refer to Mary as

Click to expand...

No! Mary didn't give birth to Jesus' body. Mary gave birth to Jesus' Person! (see here: Traditional Catholic understanding of the human person) It doesn't matter what it implies, Mary gave birth to the Son of God, both 100% human and 100% Divine. Mary is the Mother of God, we should accept this, just as we accept the fact that God Himself suffered died for our sins, no matter how scandalous that sounds!

JayW said:

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.

Click to expand...

Straw man. Catholics are encouraged to pray directly to God. We pray the Our Father every Sunday in Mass, as you know very well.

It seems that a lot of the confusion here stems from the Hail Mary and other related prayers. It's important to recognize that these are not prayers to Mary. They're prayers through Mary. Part of Catholic theology is that the Communion of Saints is able to hear the requests of those of us still on Earth and can then direct their own prayers to God. It's the equivalent of asking a friend on Earth to pray for you - a very holy friend who has all the time in the world to do nothing but pray. Requests for prayers can be directed to any recorded saint, or to anyone you believe might be a member of the Communion (like a particularly pious deceased relative - my mom asks her aunt to pray for people, for example). Mary is just the most common recipient of these requests due to her stature in the Church as the Mother of God and the number of miracles attributed to her intercessions.

Albion said:

That's what people always say when they have no evidence to support their own claims. . . Present some evidence from either Scripture or history and see how I and others respond.

Click to expand...

You mean like when I recently asked you to demonstrate evidence from Scripture to support your belief that each of the 27 books of the New Testament are the inspired word of God, and you whined, complained, and accused me of trying to change the topic of the thread, in order to duck the question because you had absolutely no answer?

JayW said:

1. What does Sola Scriptura mean?
2. Do you own a Bible?
3. What does it say about Mary.

Click to expand...

1. Sola Scripture, is the belief that if you just pick up a Bible and read it, regardless of what you know, when you finish, and put it down, you should instantly understand the faith, and how to be saved.
2. I own several Bibles in fact, and am planning on buying another one today!
3. Well for starters the Bible says the Mary is the Living Ark of the New Covenant, The Mother of God, The Gebirah HaShamaym, The Mother of all Believers, She plays a very important role in the War between God and Satan, and crushes Satan's head under her foot at the end.

melody5697 said:

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?

Click to expand...

I think it is better to focus on what the RCC actually TEACHES rather than what individual Catholics believe (which can be all over the map). My cousins are RC and they actually got annoyed when a new young priest came along who taught something different from their older priest who retired.

JesusLovesOurLady said:

No! Mary didn't give birth to Jesus' body. Mary gave birth to Jesus' Person! (see here: Traditional Catholic understanding of the human person) It doesn't matter what it implies, Mary gave birth to the Son of God, both 100% human and 100% Divine. Mary is the Mother of God, we should accept this, just as we accept the fact that God Himself suffered died for our sins, no matter how scandalous that sounds!

Click to expand...

The source you quote is bias obviously so I'm not sure how reading it will change my mind. And no that's just delusional to say she made god, god was already made he simply manifested himself while she was giving birth in a body as the Bible tells us through the Holy Spirit. Now how this process looked like who knows... Mary is the mother of Jesus in 100% flesh and 100% diety form but god already existed So you can't call her "mother of god" but rather mother of Jesus.

JESUS=G.O.A.T said:

The source you quote is bias obviously so I'm not sure how reading it will change my mind. And no that's just delusional to say she made god, god was already made he simply manifested himself while she was giving birth in a body as the Bible tells us through the Holy Spirit. Now how this process looked like who knows... Mary is the mother of Jesus in 100% flesh and 100% diety form but god already existed So you can't call her "mother of god" but rather mother of Jesus.

Click to expand...

I did not say she made Jesus' Divine personage, I said she made Jesus' human personage. You cannot separate Jesus human nature from His divine nature. The fact is, is that Mary gave birth to God Incarnate period! She. gave. birth. to God! She. is. the. Mother of God!

JesusLovesOurLady said:

I did not say she made Jesus' Divine personage, I said she made Jesus' human personage. You cannot separate Jesus human nature from His divine nature. The fact is, is that Mary gave birth to God Incarnate period! She. gave. birth. to God! She. is. the. Mother of God!

Click to expand...

But with god you can do that though is what I'm saying. God implies pure divine nature which is why mother of Jesus sounds more appropriate 100% divine 100% human vs. Before Christ god 100% divine but nvm this argument is pointless anyway

Albion said:

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?

Click to expand...

No, I'm not of the opinion that God only heals Catholics, and yes, it has EVERYTHING to do with this thread.

God heals Methodists, but he never leaves behind miracles that the public can forensically study 100 years later when he does so. He heals Methodists the same way he healed me: by healing them and sending them on their way. He doesn't do it in dramatic fashion in front of the eyes of the world. He doesn't play with the sun while thousands watch. He doesn't send Mary to talk to a Methodist, have her tell the world about it, and then 30 years after she's died, have her found undecayed in her tomb.

Where is the Methodist Lourdes? Who are the Anglican incorrupt?

Does the unleavened bread of the eucharist turn into the body and blood of Christ? It did at Lanciano in the 600s AD, and we can still look at that blood - it's the same rare type as is on the Shroud of Turin, and that flesh - it's human heart tissue. And it's incorrupt. Transubstantiation is true, and God left the evidence that anybody can look at, and that has been forensically looked at, to prove it. Why, then, is it still disputed?

God left the Shroud of Turin and its companion, the Oviedo Cloth, to give any many in our doubting times as much scientifically examinable material as anybody could ever need for the crucifixion and the resurrection.

Jesus had mercy on Thomas, and gave Thomas the evidence. God is merciful - for those who really NEED the proof, he has left it in the world in permanent signs. But all of those signs are Catholic. You'll search in vein for Muslim, or Methodist, miracles that you can actually examine in a forensics lab. You'll look in vain for detailed medical records of those healed of their congenital blindness by the Benny Hinns of the world.

Remember the Pharisees, who blasphemed the Holy Spirit by ascribing to Satan what was done by the power of God? That these miracles ARE is a matter of forensic examination. That they are miracles is obvious. That they're all Catholic is a matter of record too - if they're not, go find them. Go find the Methodist Lourdes, find the records of the Lutheran Miracle of the Sun, find for me the Baptist Lanciano-style eucharistic miracle. You can't. They don't exist. These things only exist as an open PUBLIC manner, with permanent and unambiguous signs, in the Catholic Church. Of course - because that's where the Holy Spirit is, and that's where God dwells and does his thing. That's why the Church is infallible on matters of doctrine, despite having had some real scumbags as Pope, and some violent and evil clergy and laity: because God is there.

But we're getting ahead of ourselves. Catholicism is proven by God through open miracles, miracles that have names and artifacts, that you can visit, that have been forensically studied, that are written about in scientific journals. There's a panel of physicians at Lourdes that records what happens. Why? In part because medical science has been INTERESTED in those cures - they're real, documented, how did that happen? Perhaps we can figure out the means and reproduce the results.

Somebody like me claiming a miracle is anecdote. The records of the International Medical Committee at Lourdes are data. Piles of data. Data that demonstrates the miracles to anybody who looks at it soberly, and which, thereby, proves the existence of God and the healing power of God.

God is doing all of these open miracles, over and over again, tens of thousands of minor ones, and many dozens of major ones even formally accepted by the Church as such, at a Shrine to the Virgin Mary, at a place where she appeared in France, to a little girl, who grew up to be a nun, who died around 1870 and whose tomb was open four decades years later to find her still there, undecayed. So many miracles overlapping.

So tell me, would God open up a fountain of healing miracles at the Grand Mosque of Paris? If he did, you can expect a huge surge in the numbers of people converting to Islam. He heals Muslims miraculously sometimes, why no Muslim Lourdes? Why no Hindu Lourdes? Why no Methodist Lourdes?
Why no Lutheran Lourdes? Why is God's only open fountain of medical miracles at the place of an incorrupt saint where the Virgin Mary appeared, called herself the Immaculate Conception, and told her to dig a spring?

God does those things publicly within the Church that listens to him, accepts the signs for what they are, and adjusts its knowledge to fit them. If the Virgin Mary appeared in the very sanctuary of those who despise the Catholics and told them she was the Immaculate Conception, they would call her a demon and try to exorcise her from the place. Once people's hearts are hardened against God, their heads harden as well.

We're not really having a conversation here. We can't. Your religion is eminently REASONABLE. My religion is built on miracles, and miracles are by their nature unreasonable. It then comes down to a question of whether one believes that the miracles happened or not. I know they did, so therefore there is no religion I CAN be other than Catholic - the Catholics have all of the miracles. You think that these so-called miracles of Lourdes and Lanciano and the Incorrupt are all nonsense, rumor and fairy tales - and that even if they're not, they're not proof of God.

And at that irreconcilable difference, we come to the end of the road.

JESUS=G.O.A.T said:

The source you quote is bias obviously so I'm not sure how reading it will change my mind. And no that's just delusional to say she made god, god was already made he simply manifested himself while she was giving birth in a body as the Bible tells us through the Holy Spirit. Now how this process looked like who knows... Mary is the mother of Jesus in 100% flesh and 100% diety form but god already existed So you can't call her "mother of god" but rather mother of Jesus.

Click to expand...

Do you reject the hypostatic union?

PeaceB said:

Do you reject the hypostatic union?

Click to expand...

Wth is that

Vicomte13 said:

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

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

Click to expand...

Yeah, for sure. I mean, that's why I asked: what exactly are we talking about here?

JESUS=G.O.A.T said:

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

Click to expand...

By that logic, not sure what to make of Jesus or the Holy Spirit as God, if God already existed anyway. Seems all superfluous.

If Jesus was God, Mary was his mother, and therefore the Mother of God. If Jesus wasn't God, Mary was still his mother, and we shouldn't call her mother of God. To me, it's obvious that Jesus was divine, and that therefore Mary is properly called "Mother of God", because she was.

God obviously thinks highly of Mary, as he's sent her as his emissary so many times - to Guadelupe, bringing over all of Mesoamerica to her son - to Lourdes - to Fatima.

Vicomte13 said:

By that logic, not sure what to make of Jesus or the Holy Spirit as God, if God already existed anyway. Seems all superfluous.

If Jesus was God, Mary was his mother, and therefore the Mother of God. If Jesus wasn't God, Mary was still his mother, and we shouldn't call her mother of God. To me, it's obvious that Jesus was divine, and that therefore Mary is properly called "Mother of God", because she was.

God obviously thinks highly of Mary, as he's sent her as his emissary so many times - to Guadelupe, bringing over all of Mesoamerica to her son - to Lourdes - to Fatima.

Click to expand...

Your analogy doesn't make sense because Mary is a human while the Holy Spirit and Jesus is another thing altogether. And god prior to his manifestation in flesh was just 100% divine so calling her mother of god wouldn't fit. Mother of Jesus is better suited since Jesus=100% flesh 100% divine and who came out of her womb was 100% flesh and 100% divine not just 100% divine. You have to include both you can't exclude the human part.

JesusLovesOurLady said:

1. Sola Scripture, is the belief that if you just pick up a Bible and read it, regardless of what you know, when you finish, and put it down, you should instantly understand the faith, and how to be saved.
2. I own several Bibles in fact, and am planning on buying another one today!
3. Well for starters the Bible says the Mary is the Living Ark of the New Covenant, The Mother of God, The Gebirah HaShamaym, The Mother of all Believers, She plays a very important role in the War between God and Satan, and crushes Satan's head under her foot at the end.

Click to expand...

1. Incorrect.
2. Good to hear.
3. Incorrect.