Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
This is a huge misunderstanding.
No Catholic believes Mary is divine, unless they are nuts.
No Catholic teaching gives credit to Mary for what the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit did for us.
All Marian teachings are Christ centered and Christ focused.
Mary is not the reason we are saved.
She is not "equally taught" in the NT, but what is taught need not be ignored either.
Nowhere in any official Catholic document does it say Mary saves us. She helps, but whatever she may do from heaven can only be done by the grace of Christ.
I'm sorry you have been so sadly misinformed.
I don't understand what point you are trying to make. In Luke 11 a woman says pretty much that Jesus' mum is blessed because she has Jesus as her son. Jesus' reply implies that His mother is blessed primarily because she heard the word of God and was obedient to it. Being His mother was the result of her being obedient to God's word, which is a blessing beyond anything we can imagine, but that blessing came through obedience. In a sense, Mary's obedience was the undoing of Eve's disobedience. The latter brought mankind under a curse while the former led to mankind's salvation.She was obedient indeed but blessed rather those people who hear the gospel and obey it. I rather believe the Lord Jesus Christ. Mary can't save, Jesus can.
No, you don't. "Re-sacrifice" is a typical anti-Catholic mantra.I get it, the Roman Catholic church is right, and if anything seems to differ, refer to the previous statement. The only correct interpretations are those that agree with the traditions of your church. The issue, as you state, is not with the authority of the scripture. The issue is with how the Roman Catholic church interprets all of it, i.e. like most belief groups do, in the light of their beliefs rather than in such as way as to make all the meanings of words/root words 100% consistent and God, His people and His Word 100% consistent. I agree, The Roman Catholic Church believes Mary had no sin. The Roman Catholic church believes Mary ascended into heaven. I agree the Roman Catholic Church believes that there is an eternal sacrifice where they pull Jesus out of heaven, body, blood and soul and re-sacrifice Him at every mass and that Roman Catholics actually eat the flesh, and on rare occasion, drink the blood of Christ, that Mary is a joint intercessor with Christ for the saints... I get Roman catholic church doctrine.
There is nothing inconsistent with the Bible in any Catholic doctrine. What is inconsistent is the thousands of of sola scripturists denominations with conflicting doctrines.I get that they want to believe that that is what the bible teaches. I get that they have to alter the meaning of word/root words, and ignore large portions of hat the scriptures have to say to hold fast to their beliefs. But I also get that this is the norm. Those that hold to a consistent meaning, and to the consistency of God, His people and His word, are rare indeed. There are only 2 choices, hold to the consistency of all the passages that might pertain, and a consistency for the meaning of words/root words throughout the scriptures, or hold fast to your beliefs and interpret everything in the light of them.
You are resistant to the proper definition of Tradition. Without Tradition, there would be no Bible. You don't get it because you can't let go of your false definition.No belief group that assumes the correctness of their belief groups experts ever sees that they are opposed to scripture or to scripture meaning. All of them simply say that if you interpret everything correctly you will see that our beliefs are the correct ones. Every group that uses that methodology can say exactly as you do. The problem is, that methodology always guarantees that whatever beliefs you want to prove true you prove true, and whatever beliefs you want to prove false you prove false. I couldn't care less about any tradition. I never even looked at any traditions. My ONLY focus is what the fullness of the word of God says and means regardless of the beliefs that result.
Another anti-Catholic falsehood. The BIBLICAL rule of faith is Tradition, Scripture, and leadership (Magisterium). They work in harmony, one does not trump the other. That "trump" nonsense is a 16th century invention stemming from the illogical and contradictory man made tradition of sola scriptura.Again, I am not disagreeing that that is what your belief group believes and teaches. My point is that to get to a correct interpretation from your groups perspective, everything has to be interpreted in the light of your groups beliefs for it to be a correct interpretation regardless of what the words/root words mean, and regardless of whether or not it is consistent with all of the doctrine that pertains when all of it is cut straight. Church tradition and leadership trumps all that.
Don't you abide by your group's interpretation or are you off on your own?That is where our issues lie.
St. Louis-Marie Grignion De Montfort and St. Alphonsus De Liguori don't write in strict hyper-literalist style, they use a number of literary devices like poetry and metaphors. They are not to be read the way you read scripture. Do you know why an ex-Catholic becomes a bitter anti-Catholic? I have a few theories. If it's over doctrines, why are so many ministers and scholars converting to Catholicism? The thread is the Immaculate Conception, it is not a soap box for you to preach anti-Catholic bigotry.BLUE are my comments
Catholic Catechism #1172
"In celebrating this annual cycle of the mysteries of Christ, Holy Church honors the Blessed Mary, Mother of God, with a special love. She is inseparably linked with the saving work of her Son. In her the Church admires and exalts the most excellent fruit of redemption and joyfully contemplates, as in a faultless image, that which she herself desires and hopes wholly to be."
The Catholic source I am considering here is St. Alphonsus De Liguori [1696-1787] who was canonized a Saint in 1839 and proclaimed a Doctor of the Church by Pope Pius IX on July 7th, 1871. What follows are excerpts from the Dignity and Duties of the Priest, which was written as an instructional guide especially for the clergy of the Catholic Church.
Now, if I were to state that Jesus was the divine Son of God the Father, no one would doubt that by those words I am stating that Jesus is deity, no less so than the Father. Please note, Mary is not only divine, but omnipotent. I also posted a screenshot to illustrate the emphases added are not my own, unless specified.
[pg. 415]
And St. George of Nicomedia has written, that Jesus Christ, in order to discharge the obligations that he owed in a certain manner to Mary for having given him his human nature, grants whatever she asks from him. Hence St. Peter Damian has gone so far as to say, that when Mary goes to Jesus to ask a favor for any of her clients "she approaches the altar of human reconciliation; not asking, but commanding, not as a servant, but as a mistress; for the Son honors her by not refusing her anything." ...
[pg. 416]
Hence St.George, Archbishop of Nicomedia, says, O great Mother of God: "Thou hast insuperable [unsurpassable] strength, since the multitude of our sins does not outweigh thy clemency. Nothing resists thy power, for the Creator regards thy honor as his own. ...
That right there tells me that God regards Mary as His equal. And Mary is equal to the creator, and Jesus our savior. Mary gave birth to God, intercedes on behalf of her faithful, forgives sin, and by being omnipotent she hears all prayers offered to her.
5. Mary is the excellent masterpiece of the Most High, the knowledge and possession of which He has reserved to Himself. Mary is the admirable Mother of the Son, who took pleasure in humbling and concealing her during her life in order to favor her humility, calling her by the name of "woman" (Jn. 2:4; 19:26), as if she were a stranger, although in His heart He esteemed and lover her above all the angels and all men, Mary is the "sealed fountain" (Cant. 4:12), the faithful spouse of the Holy Ghost, to whom He alone has entrance. Mary is the sanctuary and the repose of the Holy Trinity, where God dwells more magnificently and more divinely than in any other place in the universe, not excepting His dwelling between the Cherubim and Seraphim. Nor is any creature, no matter how pure, allowed to enter into that sanctuary except by a great and special privilege.
The Holy Trinity dwells (lives) in the sanctuary of Mary. In short, all that is God lives in Mary.
[pg. 16] Emphasis from source, not mine.
27. Inasmuch as grace perfects nature, and glory perfects grace, it is certain that Our Lord is still, in Heaven, as much the Son of Mary as He was on earth; and that, consequently, He has retained the obedience and submission of the most perfect Child toward the best of all mothers. But we must take great pains not to conceive this dependence as any abasement or imperfection in Jesus Christ. For Mary is infinitely below her Son, who is God, and therefore she does not command Him as a mother here below would command her child who is below her. Mary, being altogether transformed into God by grace and by the glory which transforms all the saints into Him, asks nothing, wishes nothing, does nothing contrary to the eternal and immutable will of God. When we read that in the writings of Sts. Bernard, Bernardine, Bonaventure and others that in Heaven and on earth everything, even God Himself, is subject to the Blessed Virgin, they mean that the authority which God has been well pleased to give her is so great that [pg. 17] it seems as if she had the same power as God; and that her prayers and petitions are so powerful with God that they always pass for commandments with His Majesty, who never resists the prayer of His dear Mother, because she is always humble and conformed to His will.
Mary was transformed into God, and even God himself is subject to Mary.
To say no Catholic views Marry as God is incorrect. There is an over one thousand year history to the contrary.
[pg. 18]
The most infallible and indubitable sign by which we may distinguish a heretic, a man of bad doctrine, a reprobate, from one of the predestinate, is that the heretic and the reprobate have nothing but contempt and indifference for Our Lady, endeavoring by their words and examples to diminish the worship and love of her, openly or hiddenly, and sometimes by misrepresentation. Alas! God the Father has not told Mary to dwell in them, for they are Esaus. ...
Cite: Source: True Devotion to Mary, by St. Louis-Marie Grignion De Montfort, translated from the original French by Father Frederick William Faber, D.D., Edited and annotated by the Fathers of the Company of Mary, copyright 1941, published by Tan Books and Publishers, Inc.
St. Louis-Marie Grignion De Montfort and St. Alphonsus De Liguori don't write in strict hyper-literalist style, they use a number of literary devices like poetry and metaphors. They are not to be read the way you read scripture. Do you know why an ex-Catholic becomes a bitter anti-Catholic? I have a few theories. If it's over doctrines, why are so many ministers and scholars converting to Catholicism? The thread is the Immaculate Conception, it is not a soap box for you to preach anti-Catholic bigotry.
It is impossible for Tradition, properly understood, to trump the word of God. The problem here is the way you change its meaning. You can't seem to unlock yourself from an unbiblical definition. This thread is not about Tradition, it's about the Immaculate Conception. If you want the truth about what Catholics believe about Tradition here are some links. Please stop making up nonsense:
Scripture and Tradition | Catholic Answers
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a2.htm #74=80
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2006/11/bible-church-tradition-canon-index.html scroll to part II
Scripture is authoritive, I never said otherwise. Scripture came from the Catholic Church, a church did not come from a Bible. That is not an opinion or a mere belief, it is a historical fact. You are forced to invent Bible origin fantasies because you refuse to admit the authority of the Church that canonized the holy books in the first place.
NOWHERE in the Bible is the Bible pitted against the Church. You do it because it is a man made Protestant tradition.
...This perspective of hostility and mistrust and derision is bound to produce even more bias and distortion of Catholic views, because the one making the observations is incapable of the objective analysis required to examine any opposing belief, let alone perhaps the most complex and wildly misunderstood subject in Catholic theology.
No, you don't. "Re-sacrifice" is a typical anti-Catholic mantra.
There is nothing inconsistent with the Bible in any Catholic doctrine. What is inconsistent is the thousands of of sola scripturists denominations with conflicting doctrines.
You are resistant to the proper definition of Tradition. Without Tradition, there would be no Bible. You don't get it because you can't let go of your false definition.
Another anti-Catholic falsehood. The BIBLICAL rule of faith is Tradition, Scripture, and leadership (Magisterium). They work in harmony, one does not trump the other. That "trump" nonsense is a 16th century invention stemming from the illogical and contradictory man made tradition of sola scriptura. Don't you abide by your group's interpretation or are you off on your own?
We all have our biases, don't we?
Primary religious educators are the parents, schools are secondary. Psychologically, you are angry at something, and it's not the Catholic Church.Keep in mind that I am not arguing what Catholics believe. I get it. I was one. went to a Roman Catholic Kindergarten, grade school, high school and college and had many a church doctrine class, discussions with Carmelites, Jesuits, Nuns of a dozen orders ... I agree. This is one of their doctrines.
I understand. You accept reformist errors over and above the historic Church that never changed a single doctrine. "straight forward meaning of the scriptures"? Is that why Protestants are sadly divided on important issues like baptism? If the meaning of the scriptures is so straight forward , why are their some 40,000 denominations when there should only be one?The problem is, you have to make a choice between accepting what the people with Jesus said, and meant or said directly to those recording scripture, with the meaning they gave those scriptures or you have to accept that someone living over 18 centuries later concluded (In the case of the immaculate conception). Trying to make scripture fit certain beliefs is like shoving that round peg in the square hole. You can do it, but you have to do a lot of alterations to the clear straight forward meaning of the scriptures to make it work.
That's your opinion. The bishops who discerned and compiled the holy books of the Bible in 397 AD were all Catholic. You have to re-write Bible origins to force fit them into your beliefs. Every heretic in the history of the world was a sola scripturist, beginning with the Sadducees. Here is an entire encyclical of what the Church thinks about the Word of God, and guidelines on exegesis (CCC 12) but you probably won't read it, for fear it would shatter your anti-Catholic myths.You tell me who is most likely to get it right. Those who were there or were recording the words of those that were there, Where everyone agrees on what the truth is, or someone over 1800 years later who decides those that were there really didn't know what they are talking about?
It doesn't mean invented. Development does not mean change. It means a growth and clarification of revealed truth. If you bother to actually read the document, requests for clarification of the doctrine also came from the laity.It was not until 1854 that Pope Pius IX, with the support of the overwhelming majority of Roman Catholic bishops, whom he had consulted between 1851–1853, promulgated the papal bull Ineffabilis Deus (Latin for "Ineffable God"), which defined ex cathedra the dogma of the Immaculate Conception:[41]
Yours is one of the "40,000" you know, so it's hardly correct to see it as being above the problem.Is that why Protestants are sadly divided on important issues like baptism? If the meaning of the scriptures is so straight forward , why are their some 40,000 denominations when there should only be one?
From what I have read in the bible genealogical cures and/or sins is passed down by the Fathers of those children/generations.
Exo 20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
Exo 34:7 Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation.
Num 14:18 The LORD is longsuffering, and of great mercy, forgiving iniquity and transgression, and by no means clearing the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation.
Deu 5:9 Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me,
This being said: with the seed of the father having been from God, that seed is without sin, and Jesus The Christ adopted God's sinless nature. Sin in the bible is passed down by the Father. Mary's sin would not be applicable.
We also have an account of Mary admitting she indeed needed a savior:
Luk 1:46 And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord,
Luk 1:47 And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.
Luke 1:48 For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden: for, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.
Firstly, all men have sinned, including Mary, and fallen short of the glory of God [Rom 3:23], and through one man sin entered the world and death spread to all men [Rom 5:12]. King David writing in Psalms says that he was brought forth in iniquity and in sin when his mother conceived him - biblical proof of mankind's sinful nature from the time of conception.
So, again... since Mary "conceived by the holy spirit". (Mat 1:20, Luke 1:35) Jesus did not receive Man's sinful seed, but God's sinless one. And again, that had nothing to do with Mary.
[Psa 51:5]. According to the law of Moses every mother that conceived, either a male or female, had to after an appointed time offer sacrifices to God: one as a burnt offering, and one as a sin offering [Lev.12]. Mary, after conceiving Jesus made these sacrifices in accordance and obedience to the Law God gave to Moses. This is clearly indicated to us in the book of Luke chap. 2 ver. 21-24, as Mary applies this very observance as is required of every Jewish woman who conceives her first born son. Read Leviticus 12 is first, understand what is being said, then read Luke 2:21-24. Once reading and understanding what is being said, it is clear that the offering Mary offers makes according to ... law of the Lord, A pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons. [Lk.2:24], ... the one for the burnt offering, and the other for a sin offering: ... [Lev. 12:8]. The sin offering Mary gives is sufficient evidence Mary's carnality.
The Scriptures also categorically state the family Jesus had, and that Mary did conceive after the birth of Jesus. She never remained a virgin, and can never be considered "immaculate" as the Roman Catholic Church has exalted her to be. "Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?" (Mat 13:55,56).
From what I have read in the bible genealogical cures and/or sins is passed down by the Fathers of those children/generations.
Exo 20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
Exo 34:7 Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation.
Num 14:18 The LORD is longsuffering, and of great mercy, forgiving iniquity and transgression, and by no means clearing the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation.
Deu 5:9 Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me,
This being said: with the seed of the father having been from God, that seed is without sin, and Jesus The Christ adopted God's sinless nature. Sin in the bible is passed down by the Father. Mary's sin would not be applicable.
We also have an account of Mary admitting she indeed needed a savior:
Luk 1:46 And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord,
Luk 1:47 And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.
Luke 1:48 For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden: for, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.
Firstly, all men have sinned, including Mary, and fallen short of the glory of God [Rom 3:23], and through one man sin entered the world and death spread to all men [Rom 5:12]. King David writing in Psalms says that he was brought forth in iniquity and in sin when his mother conceived him - biblical proof of mankind's sinful nature from the time of conception.
So, again... since Mary "conceived by the holy spirit". (Mat 1:20, Luke 1:35) Jesus did not receive Man's sinful seed, but God's sinless one. And again, that had nothing to do with Mary.
[Psa 51:5]. According to the law of Moses every mother that conceived, either a male or female, had to after an appointed time offer sacrifices to God: one as a burnt offering, and one as a sin offering [Lev.12]. Mary, after conceiving Jesus made these sacrifices in accordance and obedience to the Law God gave to Moses. This is clearly indicated to us in the book of Luke chap. 2 ver. 21-24, as Mary applies this very observance as is required of every Jewish woman who conceives her first born son. Read Leviticus 12 is first, understand what is being said, then read Luke 2:21-24. Once reading and understanding what is being said, it is clear that the offering Mary offers makes according to ... law of the Lord, A pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons. [Lk.2:24], ... the one for the burnt offering, and the other for a sin offering: ... [Lev. 12:8]. The sin offering Mary gives is sufficient evidence Mary's carnality.
The Scriptures also categorically state the family Jesus had, and that Mary did conceive after the birth of Jesus. She never remained a virgin, and can never be considered "immaculate" as the Roman Catholic Church has exalted her to be. "Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?" (Mat 13:55,56).
You tell me who is most likely to get it right. Those who were there or were recording the words of those that were there, Where everyone agrees on what the truth is, or someone over 1800 years later who decides those that were there really didn't know what they are talking about?
Jesus is fully man, and fully God.
I believe it is true that: the Holy Spirit's seed and Mary's seed produced Jesus?
For Jesus to be sinless, would Mary need to be either:
a) Saved and or Filled with the Holy Spirit
b) Sinless
I can't see, God in the flesh could be conceived if Mary was a sinner.
First, you didn't quote your source. I've seen that lunacy before.Yours is one of the "40,000" you know, so it's hardly correct to see it as being above the problem.
In fact, among the "40,000" there are listed over 300 Roman Catholic Churches, not just other Catholic churches but more than 300 Roman Catholic churches. Oh, the disunity.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?