How does Mary protect us?

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Some info for our friends who seem a bit lost in the facts of Catholicism beliefs

Immaculate Conception and Assumption

This doctrine is found nowhere in the New Testament and is therefore a fraud and totally false, and more to do with paganism than Christianity.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Mary, intercedes on behalf of Her children to Jesus

Pure fantasy.

 

[Lost4words]

Pure fantasy.

God bless you

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Jesus said to John at the foot of the cross:

John 19:26-27
26 When Jesus saw his mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing near, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son!” 27 Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother!” And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home.

To Catholics etc, this is a definite sign that Jesus gave His mother to us, and us to Her

Nonsense. All Jesus was doing here was to ensure that His mother was supported and not left to fend for herself. Nothing more.

 

[Lost4words]

Nonsense. All Jesus was doing here was to ensure that His mother was supported and not left to fend for herself. Nothing more.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Firstly, death is simply the seperation of our souls from our bodies, our souls live on in communion with God. Those who have passed on in Christ can only hear petitions through God's grace by nature of being in the same body. They do not temporarily cease being in the Church because their bodies have died. Christ defeated death through His own death on the cross. Death no longer has any power over believers.
Secondly, it is the consistent experience of the Church over two millenia that those who are alive in Christ do indeed hear our requests and pray to God on our behalf. The miracles which have occured over the centuries through the prayers of the Saints are innumerable, especially those of Mary. They demonstrate that Christ has indeed defeated death because they are truly alive in Christ.
Lastly, we know exactly where Mary was buried but we also know that her tomb is empty. While we have the relics (bodily remains) of all the Apostles and many other Saints, we have no relics of Mary except for the camel hair belt she wore around her waist, and miracles continue to occur around that.

Not surprising given the fact that the Roman Catholic church was the dominant religious and political force in the known world for over a thousand years, so it is feasible that an instruction be given to empty Mary's tomb (if it actually did exist), to make sure that everyone believed she has risen from the dead like Christ. Seeing that there are more pieces of the cross as relics around the world than the amount of actual wood of the cross, and fragments of the manger that put together would have made 100 mangers, then it would have been easy to produce an empty tomb and say it was Mary's. Who would say it wasn't, seeing that to contradict the church hierarchy would have meant a charge of heresy resulting in death?

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

How is that different from what you said previously? Which was:

It reads to me that you merely restated the prior comment.
Where is the part about Mary being called blessed by all generations for her obedience to the call of God?

Then Mary said, “Here am I, the servant of the Lord; let it be with me according to your word.”
..Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit and exclaimed with a loud cry, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb. And why has this happened to me, that the mother of my Lord comes to me? For as soon as I heard the sound of your greeting, the child in my womb leaped for joy. And blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfillment of what was spoken to her by the Lord.”

This is what Jesus reiterated, "..it happened, as He spoke these things, that a certain woman from the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, “Blessed is the womb that bore You, and the breasts which nursed You!” But He said, “More than that, blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it!”
{emphasis added}

Both are in Luke's Gospel.
The Magnificat, has it been stricken from your copy of the scriptures?

The point that I am making is that there is a great difference between the mother of Jesus being blessed and honoured by all generations, and viewing her as some sort of goddess who rose from the dead and is in heaven alongside Jesus. The former is true; the latter is a cultish, pagan "Queen of Heaven worship which the New Testament doesn't recognise; and if it ain't in the New Testament, it ain't true.

 

[Lost4words]

Mary is not worshipped by Catholics.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Basic Jewish culture of the time. While Jesus was alive, He was supporting his mother after the death of Joseph. Because Mary had no way of supporting herself once Jesus was dead - because Jewish women did not work to earn a living, and therefore totally dependent on their husbands or adult sons - she would have be left destitute. This is why Jesus, as the head of his house, transferred Mary to the support of John. This was a personal transaction between Jesus and John, and certainly does not indicate that Mary was made the "mother" of the church.

 

[prodromos]

Not surprising given the fact that the Roman Catholic church was the dominant religious and political force in the known world for over a thousand years, so it is feasible that an instruction be given to empty Mary's tomb (if it actually did exist), to make sure that everyone believed she has risen from the dead like Christ. Seeing that there are more pieces of the cross as relics around the world than the amount of actual wood of the cross, and fragments of the manger that put together would have made 100 mangers, then it would have been easy to produce an empty tomb and say it was Mary's. Who would say it wasn't, seeing that to contradict the church hierarchy would have meant a charge of heresy resulting in death?

I'm sorry Oscar, but this is beyond ridiculous.

 

[Lost4words]

Basic Jewish culture of the time. While Jesus was alive, He was supporting his mother after the death of Joseph. Because Mary had no way of supporting herself once Jesus was dead - because Jewish women did not work to earn a living, and therefore totally dependent on their husbands or adult sons - she would have be left destitute. This is why Jesus, as the head of his house, transferred Mary to the support of John. This was a personal transaction between Jesus and John, and certainly does not indicate that Mary was made the "mother" of the church.

Thats 'your' interpretation of said scripture. Not mine.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

I'm sorry Oscar, but this is beyond ridiculous.

It is just Church History. When a Church is the dominant religious and political force in the world, as it was until the Reformation, then it can make up anything and God help anyone who tries to refute it.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Thats 'your' interpretation of said scripture. Not mine.

I've guessed that. My interpretation is based on what was actually said, using comprehension 101 that I taught ten year olds when I was a school teacher. Even one of my ten-year-old students would have challenged the inference that Jesus was actually saying that because He installed Mary into John's household, that she was made the "Mother" of the whole church.

I know that this is what Catholics sincerely believe. I have studied Catholic theology at Masterate level, and my wife and her family have a background in the Catholic church. I also have studied about Mormanism and Islam, and recognise that they also sincerely believe the doctrines they hold. Also, there are many, including those on CF who sincerely believe that Evolution is true. But I don't believe any of these things, and view them as fraudulent and totally false.

But then, that is just my opinion...

 

[Lost4words]

I've guessed that. My interpretation is based on what was actually said, using comprehension 101 that I taught ten year olds when I was a school teacher. Even one of my ten-year-old students would have challenged the inference that Jesus was actually saying that because He installed Mary into John's household, that she was made the "Mother" of the whole church.

I know that this is what Catholics sincerely believe. I have studied Catholic theology at Masterate level, and my wife and her family have a background in the Catholic church. I also have studied about Mormanism and Islam, and recognise that they also sincerely believe the doctrines they hold. Also, there are many, including those on CF who sincerely believe that Evolution is true. But I don't believe any of these things, and view them as fraudulent and totally false.

But then, that is just my opinion...

And there are some who sincerely believe in Pentecostal teachings too

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

And there are some who sincerely believe in Pentecostal teachings too

Oh yes! Absolutely. There are a lot of those that are nowhere in the New Testament. And I have plenty of good debates with Charismatics about the wacky stuff that goes on!

The idea that we are "gods"; guaranteed divine healing; automatic prosperity in return for "seed giving" are just as fraudulent, making some Charismatic and Pentecostal groups more like pseudo-christian cults than true Christian churches.

 

[prodromos]

It is just Church History.

No, it is quite cleary the product of your overactive imagination.

When a Church is the dominant religious and political force in the world, as it was until the Reformation

Like many Protestants, you make the mistake of ignoring the entire history of the Church in the East, thinking everything centred around Rome.

then it can make up anything and God help anyone who tries to refute it.

You mean like you are making this up now?
Rome had no influence in Jerusalem where the memory of Mary's bodily assumption had been maintained. The feast day of Mary's dormition and subsequent bodily assumption was celebrated in the East for some time before it was established in Rome.

 

[Lost4words]

No, it is quite cleary the product of your overactive imagination.

Like many Protestants, you make the mistake of ignoring the entire history of the Church in the East, thinking everything centred around Rome.

You mean like you are making this up now?
Rome had no influence in Jerusalem where the memory of Mary's bodily assumption had been maintained. The feast day of Mary's dormition and subsequent bodily assumption was celebrated in the East for some time before it was established in Rome.

Facts. Better than fiction.

Thanks for sharing prodromos

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

No, it is quite cleary the product of your overactive imagination.

Like many Protestants, you make the mistake of ignoring the entire history of the Church in the East, thinking everything centred around Rome.

You mean like you are making this up now?
Rome had no influence in Jerusalem where the memory of Mary's bodily assumption had been maintained. The feast day of Mary's dormition and subsequent bodily assumption was celebrated in the East for some time before it was established in Rome.

All I did was study church history as part of my M.Div.

As far as Mary's bodily assumption, None of the Apostles knew anything about it, so it wasn't a known doctrine in the early church. It appeared around the 5th Century and was finally ratified as a doctrine of the Catholic Church in 1950.

 

[Lost4words]

All I did was study church history as part of my M.Div.

As far as Mary's bodily assumption, None of the Apostles knew anything about it, so it wasn't a known doctrine in the early church. It appeared around the 5th Century and was finally ratified as a doctrine of the Catholic Church in 1950.

3rd century is more accurate

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

3rd century is more accurate

Yes. I saw that. But the first celebration of the Assumption was in the 5th Century. The belief arises from a apographical account where St Thomas was not present at the death of Mary, but arrived later to what was supposed to be her tomb and found it empty apart from the grave clothes. It is recognised by most scholars that the gospel of Thomas contains Gnostic belief and therefore is unreliable as a basis for Christian doctrine.