Is this statement about Mary blasphemous?

[shinbits]

Mary birthed Jesus Christ.

Note that "her seed" is in the singular (not plural). Who tramples the head of Satan ? Jesus Christ.

True. I guess I'm wrong here. But the point remains, that this passage isn't evidence that Jesus came from Mary's egg, but was only birthed by her, since Satan is also mentioned as having "seed" in the same sentence. Otherwise, we'd have to assume that Satan also impregnated someone, getting pregnant, or has an egg himself. And that would be rediculous.

 

[Thekla]

The Church on Mary's Mediation

3) Leo XIII, Encyclical, Octobri mense adventante, Sept 22, 1891, ASS 24, 1891, 196.
"... just as no one can come to the Father except through the Son, so in general, no one can come to Christ except through His Mother."


Jesus said in John 6:44:

"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him..."

So wouldn't stating that we can't come to Christ except through Mary be blasphemous, since this statement puts her in the role of God?

And doesn't putting her in this role (that we MUST go through Mary) give her a godlike status, making her an idol?

I don't know, but I think it likely that this is a reference to Jesus Christ coming in the flesh; could the Jews in the OT come to Christ, before the incarnation, the same way the Christians do ?

 

[MamaZ]

It was a way of witnessing that Jesus Christ is God. It may not be your way, but it is a way that people then would understand.

We do have "spiritual parents" on earth; Paul referred to Timothy as his son. He referred to himself as a "father". To have a spiritual parent on earth is indeed consistent with the Holy Scriptures; these are our 'spiritual directors' in the Holy Spirit.

On earth. In Heaven we have but one Parent.. the creator of all man kind.. He is able to keep us from falling.

 

[MamaZ]

To base Christs identity on Mary's status is a problem... (before she was, He was)

 

[boswd]

Oh yeah, boswd, here's the post from that illustrates what I've been saying about your fallacious answers, as well as some (and I say some, because not all on your side of the issue are as fallacious as you've been) posters who support your Mary doctrine. I'm reposting them exactly as it first appeard. You STILL have yet to acknowledge your mistake:

What mistake was made? Not agree with you? sorry doesn't work that way.


See, this is what I mean. You started off with using rationale to defend your position, but then when simple logic refutes what you said, you resort to logically fallacious assertions.

You disagree that Jesus didn't get his traits from Mary...and your reasons are because God "chose" her to give Jesus human traits?

.

Just because YOU claim it's fall
Doesn't it bother you that you're using circular reasoning?
Better yet, doesn't it bother you that your doctrines about Mary are based on circular reasoning?



^ then you responded fallaciously to this post, which I adressed here:




Oh, wow. smh.


That's EXACTLY what I said. That you disagree with me that Jesus DIDN'T get his traits from Mary.

On top of circular logic, your reading comprehenshion seems to be lacking.

Go back and reread my post.

and you said you would "Shut Up" if we proved that you said that Mary did not Conceive Christ. We proved it and yet..... you're still here.

Though that was a nice spin you tried to attempt but directly Challenging Thekla to prove it via scripture was your downfall.

 

[Thekla]

To base Christs identity on Mary's status is a problem... (before she was, He was)

No, the terminology works opposite of this. The woman in semitic and in the world the eastern Christians were from at that time did not become a queen until her son was king.

Queens did not give birth to kings -- it was the kingship of the son that made the queen 'queen'.

 

[Thekla]

On earth. In Heaven we have but one Parent.. the creator of all man kind.. He is able to keep us from falling.

We are still on earth.

 

[boswd]

from Post #7
Originally Posted by shinbits

The Church on Mary's Mediation

3) Leo XIII, Encyclical, Octobri mense adventante, Sept 22, 1891, ASS 24, 1891, 196.
"... just as no one can come to the Father except through the Son, so in general, no one can come to Christ except through His Mother."


Jesus said in John 6:44:

"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him..."

So wouldn't stating that we can't come to Christ except through Mary be blasphemous, since this statement puts her in the role of God?

And doesn't putting her in this role (that we MUST go through Mary) give her a godlike status, making her an idol?
​

No, you are distorting what is meant, probably by not quoting sufficient of the original message.

What the statement means is that we come to Christ through his shared humanity with us, and because he derives his humanity through his mother, therefore, we come to him through her.

It does not mean that Mary is the essential mediatrix between man and Christ. It does mean that, at least in part, Mary is the means by which the essential mediator between man and God is/was enabled to be that mediator. This is by God's grace, which prompted Mary's own submission to his will.

Mary is not godlike, nor an idol. She is, however, first among women, and an example of obedience to all the faithful. If Catholics err in giving her too much status, some of today's low churches certainly err far more in not giving her enough.

 

[boswd]

from Post 8
Originally Posted by shinbits

That statement isn't logical. That's like saying no one can come to the Pope, except through is mother, or no one can come to the President except through his mom, or no one could've come to King Solomon except through Baathsheba.
​

The Pope, the President and King Solomon all have human mothers and fathers. Christ did not.

Christ gains his humanity ONLY through Mary. Therefore, and in this context only, humanity access God through Mary. Not as mediatrix, but as the means by which the Incarnation was effected.

Catholics can and do use Mary as mediatrix, but it is not compulsory. If you don't want to do it, then don't do it.

 

[boswd]

from Post 10


Originally Posted by shinbits

And what if I said "No one can come to Christ, except through me"? Is that any more blasphemous than saying we can't come to Christ, except through Mary? Why or why not?
​

Here is a thought. Think of Our Lady, who bore the Lord for 9 months in her womb, then gave birth to him and cared for him throughout his childhood and early life, accepting all those doubts about his parentage, and stood at the foot of the cross when he died. Then consider this; your own signature line:

Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable--if anything is praise worthy--think of these things.

Then if you cannot think of anything nice to say about Our Lady, then kindly refrain from disrespecting her with suggestions of blasphemy in relation to those who honour her in their own way. If I won't tolerate hearing disrespect about my mum (and I won't) I see no reason why Christ will tolerate it of his.



So yes your OP has been addressed and answered but like I said You actually aren't looking for an answer now are you?

 

[boswd]

by the way that Catherineanne is one smart cookie

 

[shinbits]

I don't know, but I think it likely that this is a reference to Jesus Christ coming in the flesh; could the Jews in the OT come to Christ, before the incarnation, the same way the Christians do ?

I see what you're saying. But phrasing it as "coming to Christ ONLY through Mary" changes it to mean that Mary is responsible for mankind's salvation. This, among other things, gives her a godlike status, making that statement blasphemous. And I don't think it was an "accident" of phrasing, the writer of that atually believes this about Mary.

Mary playing a role in Christ coming to earth, isn't the same as Mary being responsible for salvation. She was a chosen vessel, not a necessary vessel, since any woman could've been used.

 

[MamaZ]

We are still on earth.

Mary is not.

 

[shinbits]

So yes your OP has been addressed and answered but like I said You actually aren't looking for an answer now are you?

Like I said, just giving a response isn't the same as giving an answer. If someone replied "Michael Jordan was the greatest athlete of all time", that doesn't answer the OP, does it?

Likewise with the "answers" given thus far. The "answers" just don't hold up to simple logical scrutiny.

 

[Rose_bud]

No, the terminology works opposite of this. The woman in semitic and in the world the eastern Christians were from at that time did not become a queen until her son was king.

Queens did not give birth to kings -- it was the kingship of the son that made the queen 'queen'.

HE has always been King, just like HE was always God... I am, that I am,I will be, what i will be... So you saying Mary was always Queen of Heaven?

 

[boswd]

I see what you're saying. But phrasing it as "coming to Christ ONLY through Mary" changes it to mean that Mary is responsible for mankind's salvation. This, among other things, gives her a godlike status, making that statement blasphemous. And I don't think it was an "accident" of phrasing, the writer of that atually believes this about Mary.

Mary playing a role in Christ coming to earth, isn't the same as Mary being responsible for salvation. She was a chosen vessel, not a necessary vessel, since any woman could've been used.

you also have to remember Shinbits this was originally written in Latin as well.

I think where alot of mistranlslations and misunderstandings comes in is to assume everyone in the world talks and does as we Americans do and apply our culture to extract it's meanings.

 

[boswd]

HE has always been King, just like HE was always God... I am, that I am,I will be, what i will be... So you saying Mary was always Queen of Heaven?

Not until Christ was born here on Earth.

 

[shinbits]

you also have to remember Shinbits this was originally written in Latin as well.

I think where alot of mistranlslations and misunderstandings is to assume everyone in the world talks and does as we Americans do and apply our culture to extract it's meanings.

So maybe the original meaning doesn't think that we "only" get to Christ through Mary?

 

[Thekla]

Mary is not.

Yes; but to say this is like acknowledging that we benefit from the epistles of Paul, or the Gospel of John. Because they were filled with the Holy Spirit, we benefit.

 

[MamaZ]

Not until Christ was born here on Earth.

She is not queen of Heaven just because Christ became flesh and dwelt among us..