Mariolatry?

[Grip Docility]

And his mother and his brothers came, and standing outside they sent to him and called him. And a crowd was sitting around him, and they said to him, “Your mother and your brothers are outside, seeking you.” And he answered them, “Who are my mother and my brothers?” And looking about at those who sat around him, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! For whoever does the will of God, he is my brother and sister and mother.” (Mark 3:31–35, see also Matthew 12:46–50; Luke 8:19–21)

Jesus clearly denied blood relations, and stated those who did the will of God are His family.

This is a spiritual teaching.

The same canon also denotes Jesus the fruit of Mary's womb. Scripture denotes her the Biological Mother of God the Son, the Fulness of the Godhead Bodily and literally echoes this fact through genealogy that is recorded from Genesis to Luke. Immanuel means "God with us". This means Mary IS the God Bearer, because she is the Biological Mother of Jesus, Jesus who IS GOD, and she Bore God. She nursed God at her Bosom. She changed God the Son's baby garments.

Son of Man
Son of God

The Pre-Incarnate Theophany we now know to be "The Son" became Flesh. Any deviation from this unravels our very salvation and invalidates the purpose of all OT Genealogy.

 

[Grip Docility]

I think it is a great stretch to suggest that because there was a local church in Rome, and the New Testament includes Paul's letter to that local church, proved that the Roman Catholic denomination was established in the first century. We don't read anywhere in the bible that the local church at Rome had any authority over any other local church, or that its pastor was some kind of proto-pope.

Our entire chain of custody that verifies Canon depends on it being true that The Roman Catholic Church is the Mother Church. If this is dissolved in understanding, the entire scriptural chain of custody is gone.

It starts with John and passes forward to Ignatius. Breaking this Chain literally destroys the tracible validity of canon transmission.

I'm small "c" universal (catholic) and not Roman Catholic, but history is clear on this. I can't deny how the flowchart flows, just because it may be inconvenient to modern protestant claims. The very word "Protestant" denotes protest against the previous entity which it is protesting against, which is the Catholic Church.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I think it is a great stretch to suggest that because there was a local church in Rome, and the New Testament includes Paul's letter to that local church, somehow proves that the Roman Catholic denomination was established in the first century. We don't read anywhere in the bible that the local church at Rome had any authority over any other local church, or that its pastor was some kind of proto-pope.

The church in Rome was led by a bishop, St. Peter, and had a visiting apostle, St. Paul. St. Clement addressed a letter to the church in Corinth to assist them with issues within their diocese. These events are recorded in the first and second centuries AD, approximately 1,400 years before the emergence of any Baptists.

 

[Grip Docility]

The church in Rome was led by a bishop, St. Peter, and had a visiting apostle, St. Paul. St. Clement addressed a letter to the church in Corinth to assist them with issues within their diocese. These events are recorded in the first and second centuries AD, approximately 1,400 years before the emergence of any Baptists.

In a round about way, to suggest that the Catholic Church isn't the mother church, is to suggest that there is nothing to protest against, which undermines the core meaning of the word "protestant". It's kind of an odd thought.

 

[d taylor]

Because it's not necessary to specify sacred things of this nature. The word's Biological Mother of God the Son, the Son of God Who is the Fulness of the Godhead bodily should answer your question.

Bloodline of Jesus Christ denotes Biological matter. Do we really have to spell out what is obvious? This is a sacred matter. Saying Biological Mother denotes the obvious.

-
​

Do you believe Mary is sinless, do you venerate Mary. Is believing Mary is sinless, remained a virgin, queen of heaven, was taken to heaven, part of the salvation process or part of keeping a person saved.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

They are each God, yes.

No, not unless the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are parts of God. The thing that distinguishes Trinitarianism from polytheism is the fact that each Person is fully God in Himself.

No, and no.

True

God the Son. Immanuel. This isn't saying that God was pre-dated by Mary, nor that Mary is Deity. It's saying that Mary Gave birth to God the Son, the only Begotten Son of God, God with us, the Fulness of the Godhead Bodily. To say that "Theotokos" is false is to say that the Incarnation is not God.

Jesus is or is not God.

Mary gave birth to God, or she gave birth to not God. It's binary. There is no in-between.

God is utterly ONE. You can't divide the Substance of the Trinity! God isn't 3 Gods. God the Son is literally written to be the "Fulness of the Godhead, Bodily". He is the Logos become FLESH.

This is a spiritual teaching.

The same canon also denotes Jesus the fruit of Mary's womb. Scripture denotes her the Biological Mother of God the Son, the Fulness of the Godhead Bodily and literally echoes this fact through genealogy that is recorded from Genesis to Luke. Immanuel means "God with us". This means Mary IS the God Bearer, because she is the Biological Mother of Jesus, Jesus who IS GOD, and she Bore God. She nursed God at her Bosom. She changed God the Son's baby garments.

Son of Man
Son of God

The Pre-Incarnate Theophany we now know to be "The Son" became Flesh. Any deviation from this unravels our very salvation and invalidates the purpose of all OT Genealogy.

All I'm getting from these responses is "The english language is inadequate to express" and the original cultural paradigm read things differently.

Furthermore, my main protest to all of this is seeing actual instances of people elevating Mary to God in a more emphatic way. I understand the other way of interpreting it also possible.

Thanks for all of your well composed posts.

For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity dwells in bodily form. (Colossians 2:9)

 

[Gregory Thompson]

-
​

Do you believe Mary is sinless, do you venerate Mary. Is believing Mary is sinless, remained a virgin, queen of heaven, was taken to heaven, part of the salvation process or part of keeping a person saved.

That concept was shocking. However, I was more concerned with the consensus between Catholics and Orthodox that Mary contributes to our salvation: This is a role for God alone.

 

[David Lamb]

The church in Rome was led by a bishop, St. Peter, and had a visiting apostle, St. Paul. St. Clement addressed a letter to the church in Corinth to assist them with issues within their diocese. These events are recorded in the first and second centuries AD, approximately 1,400 years before the emergence of any Baptists.

If Peter were in Rome, it seems strange that Paul made no mention of him in the letter. He mentions Phoebe, Priscilla, Aquila, and nineteen others in Rome, but not Peter. Baptists, at least those I know of, believe that they follow what they find in the bible, so although no group of believers was known as a baptist church back in the first century, their tenets and beliefs were there.

 

[Grip Docility]

-
​

Do you believe Mary is sinless, do you venerate Mary. Is believing Mary is sinless, remained a virgin, queen of heaven, was taken to heaven, part of the salvation process or part of keeping a person saved.

I honestly seek peace. I think that you are free to make up your mind about those questions on your own study terms and still be saved by Jesus Christ.

But, to answer your questions:

Sinless? "But she will be saved through childbearing, if they abide in faith and love and holiness, with self-restraint."

Venerate? "To regard with deep respect" In a loud voice she exclaimed, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb!"

To regard with deep respect is not the same as worship. She is not Divine. She is the mother of God.​

Is believing Mary is sinless, remained a virgin, queen of heaven, part of the salvation process or part of keeping a person saved.

I would say, no. I would add that believing that Mary had sin, did not remain a virgin and is not the queen of heaven is also not part of keeping a person saved, therefore, peace should be obtainable on this matter, where it is "You see it this way, aha. I see it differently, aha. Peace between us."​

​

Is believing Mary was taken to heaven, part of the salvation process or part of keeping a person saved.

I would say yes and no. See, if a person doesn't live in a place where they are threatened by death, daily, for Loving and proclaiming Jesus Christ, they don't understand how important the doctrine of the Eternal Soul is for the Helmet of Salvation. There are people that are dying daily for simply Believing in Jesus and it does help them to know that the moment that they exit their mortal coil, that they will be with Jesus. Under threat of death, it is the best stance to know where one is headed, immediately, upon death. The belief that Mary was bodily taken to heaven is supposed to show the importance of believers to Jesus and to assure them that they will be with Jesus, in Heaven, immediatly upon exiting their Mortal Coils.​

​

This is my opinionated answer for the purpose of peace.

 

[Grip Docility]

All I'm getting from these responses is "The english language is inadequate to express" and the original cultural paradigm read things differently.

Furthermore, my main protest to all of this is seeing actual instances of people elevating Mary to God in a more emphatic way. I understand the other way of interpreting it also possible.

Thanks for all of your well composed posts.

For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity dwells in bodily form. (Colossians 2:9)

I'm being as utterly honest as possible. No one elevates Mary to the status of God. She is far beneath God, in status, yet she is far more blessed than any of us. Can you imagine being blessed to have simply given Baby Jesus a kiss on the forehead?

All Love in Jesus Christ to you Gregory Thompson, Brother in our Precious Jesus Christ.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

I'm being as utterly honest as possible. No one elevates Mary to the status of God. She is far beneath God, in status, yet she is far more blessed than any of us. Can you imagine being blessed to have given Baby Jesus a kiss on the forehead?

All Love in Jesus Christ to you Gregory Thompson, Brother in our Precious Jesus Christ.

Pope Francis: Jesus entrusted Mary to us as a Mother, ‘not as co-redeemer’

At this morning’s general audience, Pope Francis said that Jesus entrusted the Virgin Mary to us as a Mother, “not as co-redeemer.”

www.catholicnewsagency.com

Vatican City, Mar 24, 2021 / 05:00 am

Pope Francis on Wednesday said that Jesus entrusted the Virgin Mary to us as a Mother, “not as co-redeemer.”

Speaking at his general audience on March 24, the pope said that while Christians had always given Mary beautiful titles, it was important to remember that Christ is the only redeemer.

He was addressing a theological debate about whether the Church should issue a dogmatic definition declaring Mary “Co-Redemptrix,” in honor of her role in humanity’s salvation.

Apparently there's a debate over the role of Mary, the Pope sides with those who say she is a Mother, and not a co-redeemer. Since you said no one elevates her to status of God, perhaps you were unaware.

 

[jas3]

Just saying this was a miraculous event does not explain what the coming of The Holy Spirit role was. So are you saying that The Holy Spirit turned Mary's seed into The Son of God.

How does that not explain it? If we were to look at another miracle, for example Jesus healing the blind man with mud, and you asked what the point of Jesus putting the mud in the man's eyes was, the only answer anyone could give would be, "that was how He chose to work a miracle." There's no explanation of the mechanics or speculation about what might have happened biologically at the mud-eye barrier, because that's beyond our ability to know.

In the same way, we don't know exactly what happened at our Lord's conception, and it's not pious to speculate about the details.

If you are going say I am making statements like This would seem to invalidate the typology of the Incarnation:

Then state what happen.

Jesus Christ was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary. That statement alone leaves no room for something like an already-existing embryo having been given to Mary as you seemed to suggest in post #581.

 

[Grip Docility]

Pope Francis: Jesus entrusted Mary to us as a Mother, ‘not as co-redeemer’

At this morning’s general audience, Pope Francis said that Jesus entrusted the Virgin Mary to us as a Mother, “not as co-redeemer.”

www.catholicnewsagency.com

Vatican City, Mar 24, 2021 / 05:00 am

Pope Francis on Wednesday said that Jesus entrusted the Virgin Mary to us as a Mother, “not as co-redeemer.”

Speaking at his general audience on March 24, the pope said that while Christians had always given Mary beautiful titles, it was important to remember that Christ is the only redeemer.

He was addressing a theological debate about whether the Church should issue a dogmatic definition declaring Mary “Co-Redemptrix,” in honor of her role in humanity’s salvation.

Apparently there's a debate over the role of Mary, the Pope sides with those who say she is a Mother, and not a co-redeemer. Since you said no one elevates her to status of God, perhaps you were unaware.

There have been good popes and bad popes. All Catholics know this. However, for him to engage the dialogue that way shows that the person that has the most access to the actual doctrines states the matter as we have discussed, that Mary is not Divine or equal to God, but is Blessed above humanity.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

There have been good popes and bad popes. All Catholics know this. However, for him to engage the dialogue that way shows that the person that has the most access to the actual doctrines states the matter as we have discussed, that Mary is not Divine or equal to God, but is Blessed above humanity.

I have no problem with that level of veneration.

 

[Grip Docility]

I have no problem with that level of veneration.

Blessed are the Peace Makers!

All Love to you in Jesus Christ, my friend and Brother in the source of all Truth, Love, Faith and Hope, our Blessed Jesus Christ, Who bears the Name above all names.

 

[Grip Docility]

If Peter were in Rome, it seems strange that Paul made no mention of him in the letter. He mentions Phoebe, Priscilla, Aquila, and nineteen others in Rome, but not Peter. Baptists, at least those I know of, believe that they follow what they find in the bible, so although no group of believers was known as a Baptist church back in the first century, their tenets and beliefs were there.

David, I was raised one of the most Rabidly against Catholicism Protestant Denominations. I had to study it all out. The Papacy was retroactively bound to those that trace back to John the Beloved Revelator to Ignatius, through their historical writings which indicate that Linus followed Peter (This was written by Irenaeus of Lyons in 180AD). Whatever the chosen stance on this matter, biblical canon is bound to this lineage of high appointed names within the early church. The Vicar simply means "standing in place of the physical absence of Jesus Christ as a final human arbitrator, until Christ returns.". The Pope is simply the highest bishop within the RCC of an ancient lineage of church leaders. He is elected by conclave, not self appointment. I personally believe much misunderstanding has arisen within Protestantism on the topic.

He is not Jesus, and above all people, unless a wicked pope, which there have been some, he would be upset deeply to be accused of such. as claiming to be anything like God. The station of pope is one that demands utter humility and admission of complete inferiority to Jesus Christ. Being a station of humanity, it is a station that is subject to human error. But, the intent on tracing the papacy back to Peter is to say that there has to be a unity among brethren that struggles to doctrinally align which traces all the way back to Christ's sermon about overcoming the very Gates of Hell.

Peter was the "little rock" who was built on the Cornerstone that the Builders rejected by virtue of his name which Christ gave him. He received the name for being the first Disciple recorded to have fully recognized Who Jesus actually was.

Protestantism tends to focus on the "sins" of some popes and the Mother church, but she had a 1500 year jump start on the protestant divisions. That's a long time to rack up a record of wrongs. Love doesn't keep those records, but simply learns how to do better by guidance of the Holy Spirit.

MANY Protestant denominations have Human Arbitrators in the form of "Modern day Prophets", or extra biblical Doctrines that came into being long after Jesus ascended. There is always some form of leadership Hierarchy in all denominations. The Roman Catholic Hierarchy is the oldest of Brick and Mortar Hierarchies.

I believe that much anti-Catholic rhetoric is intended to divide Brother from Brother.

Get a group of Catholics and Protestants in a room together and ask them all to speak the Name of He Who is our very salvation and the entire room would thunder with the name "Jesus".

I know that division is of the flesh and as such division will always remain, but I do wish that the entire invisible Body would find peace, so the Body could unify in the physical Gospel commission of selflessly spreading Love to all corners via provision and compassion.

All Love in the name of our precious Lord and Savior to you, David, who is in Him.

 

[jas3]

All I'm getting from these responses is "The english language is inadequate to express" and the original cultural paradigm read things differently.

Is that all you got from my response? Really?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

That concept was shocking. However, I was more concerned with the consensus between Catholics and Orthodox that Mary contributes to our salvation: This is a role for God alone.

Saint Paul taught that his sufferings completed what was lacking in the afflictions of Christ. Does that offend your theology?

Now I rejoice in what was suffered for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ's afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church. (Colossians 1:24 NIV )​

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

If Peter were in Rome, it seems strange that Paul made no mention of him in the letter. He mentions Phoebe, Priscilla, Aquila, and nineteen others in Rome, but not Peter. Baptists, at least those I know of, believe that they follow what they find in the bible, so although no group of believers was known as a baptist church back in the first century, their tenets and beliefs were there.

It is agreed that there were no Baptists in the first century. You claim that individuals existed in the first century who held beliefs similar to today's Baptists, yet I inquire about their identities and the evidence of their doctrines. Regarding Catholic beliefs, there are the Holy Scriptures and the writings of the Apostolic Fathers, along with the testimony of the faithful from century to century up to the present day.

 

[Jipsah]

And his mother and his brothers came, and standing outside they sent to him and called him. And a crowd was sitting around him, and they said to him, “Your mother and your brothers are outside, seeking you.” And he answered them, “Who are my mother and my brothers?” And looking about at those who sat around him, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! For whoever does the will of God, he is my brother and sister and mother.” (Mark 3:31–35, see also Matthew 12:46–50; Luke 8:19–21)

Jesus clearly denied blood relations, and stated those who did the will of God are His family.

So you believe that He had no blood kin, correct?