Prayers to Mary in concerning Matthew

[Isaiah 53]

).

For this and other reasons, I do not declare this DOGMA to be heresy or UNbiblical - only that it's Abiblical, without any biblical substantiation whatsoever.



.

WHEW....Thanks be to God...I was really worried that CJ would declare this heresy...what would I have done then???

Thanks.

PAX

 

[ScottBot]

WHEW....Thanks be to God...I was really worried that CJ would declare this heresy...what would I have done then???

Thanks.

PAX

Since he is not a Catholic Bishop I wouldn't worry.....and I suggest you pray for him (we should be doing that for each other anyway. At least we Catholics can ask the saints in heaven to join us in our prayers.)

 

[BigNorsk]

CJ made a very important point, it's not dogma, not one way, not the other.

If people don't understand Lutherans and dogma, here's an important point. Lutherans have and do a lot of things that aren't dogma, many are based on traditions. We might refer to them as adiaphora, for people who aren't familiar with the term.

Within Lutheranism, we allow great freedom as long as things are not against scripture, right up to and until someone takes those areas of freedom and takes away the freedom and declares it dogma that others must believe or do things a certain way.

That's why you don't really read a lot of arguements in Lutheranism against or for Mary's eternal virginity, it was not dogma, not even in the Roman Catholic Church, so there was no reason to fight against it, it was a pious opinion of many, but no one tried to attach sin to whether or not one believed so.

However, that has changed over the years as the Immaculate Conception of Mary, her eternal virginity, and even more recently it appears her absolute freedom from sin have become dogma in the Roman Catholic church and they try to teach that those who do not believe those things are sinners for not so believing.

That really takes it out of the area of adiaphora and moves it into an area where we must oppose it because there are those who now teach it is not an area of freedom.

I don't like teaching against it. Mary was a great woman of faith. To be in her situation and her culture and consent to having a child endagered her life. Joseph too was a great man of faith, her was his betrothed, pregnant, and he knew it wasn't his child, and he could have had her killed, but even before the angel appeared in his dream he did not want to do that, and when it was revealed to him what was happening, he believed. Wow. What I don't like about having to argue against the dogma of Mary's eternal virginity, is their great acts of faith seem to get lost in that, and I don't like that.

Now going back to this thread, I find it interesting in the least that the Catholics argue that Joseph would not have sex with Mary because to do so would be to go where God went. Well Joseph lived every day with God and he fathered God. And Catholics through the ages have held many pilgramages and indeed even seen going where God went to be a means of grace, which is another story, but it points out that to think that the thought that that reason would be why Joseph wouldn't have sex with Mary isn't even consistent with Catholic theology.

The whole allegory of Mary as the ark of the covenant is one thing, but if true, anyone who touched her, not just had sex but simply touched, would have died. Should we now build up as dogma that throughout her life no one so much as touched Mary except of course Jesus? Don't carry allegories very far. Really it isn't right to even say Mary was the new ark because Jesus was in her because God wasn't contained in the old ark. The whole allegory jumbles things together, and comes out with bits and pieces from all over the place.

Marv

 

[leothelioness]

Have any of you Protestants actually read the Magnificat?

I thought you were a Protestant. I guess not.

She's not just an incubator, for crying out loud. She's the mother of the King (the Mother of God, Theotokos), and by Israelite standards that makes her the Queen- the Queen of all Heaven and Earth.

Sorry, but there is no queen of heaven.

And she isn't the mother of God. God has no mother. Mary was the mother of Jesus' human side. If she was also the parent of His divine side she could then be called the mother of God. She is not His eternal parent as is God. She was only His parent while here on earth.

If you said that about my mother, I'd be mad. So go ahead and say it to Him if you'd like, but as for me:

I don't think Jesus really cares seeing as He is no longer in human form. Mary is not His eternal parent.

By the way, I didn't necessarily mean she wasn't special. She most certainly was, but I was trying to say that she isn't superior to any other woman as people try to make it out to be.

 

[Axion]

Sorry, but there is no queen of heaven.

Your opinion.

And she isn't the mother of God. God has no mother. Mary was the mother of Jesus' human side. If she was also the parent of His divine side she could then be called the mother of God. She is not His eternal parent as is God. She was only His parent while here on earth.

This does not make sense. You seem to misunderstand the Incarnation - as do a lot of modern Protestants. The incarnation was not some temporary conjuring trickl Jesus's human and Divine natures were permanently united in one person, for ever.

And one is mother of ALL ones child, not just half!

I don't think Jesus really cares seeing as He is no longer in human form. Mary is not His eternal parent.

Where are you getting this stuff from? Who told you Jesus is "no longer in human form"?

This is basic Christianity. Jesus did not take on a human "shell" which he then cast off, like the Gnostics taught. He became permanently and eternally God and man! If you deny that you deny the incarnation itslef!

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

CJ made a very important point, it's not dogma, not one way, not the other.

If people don't understand Lutherans and dogma, here's an important point. Lutherans have and do a lot of things that aren't dogma, many are based on traditions. We might refer to them as adiaphora, for people who aren't familiar with the term.

Within Lutheranism, we allow great freedom as long as things are not against scripture, right up to and until someone takes those areas of freedom and takes away the freedom and declares it dogma that others must believe or do things a certain way.

That's why you don't really read a lot of arguements in Lutheranism against or for Mary's eternal virginity, it was not dogma, not even in the Roman Catholic Church, so there was no reason to fight against it, it was a pious opinion of many, but no one tried to attach sin to whether or not one believed so.

However, that has changed over the years as the Immaculate Conception of Mary, her eternal virginity, and even more recently it appears her absolute freedom from sin have become dogma in the Roman Catholic church and they try to teach that those who do not believe those things are sinners for not so believing.

That really takes it out of the area of adiaphora and moves it into an area where we must oppose it because there are those who now teach it is not an area of freedom.

I don't like teaching against it. Mary was a great woman of faith. To be in her situation and her culture and consent to having a child endagered her life. Joseph too was a great man of faith, her was his betrothed, pregnant, and he knew it wasn't his child, and he could have had her killed, but even before the angel appeared in his dream he did not want to do that, and when it was revealed to him what was happening, he believed. Wow. What I don't like about having to argue against the dogma of Mary's eternal virginity, is their great acts of faith seem to get lost in that, and I don't like that.

Now going back to this thread, I find it interesting in the least that the Catholics argue that Joseph would not have sex with Mary because to do so would be to go where God went. Well Joseph lived every day with God and he fathered God. And Catholics through the ages have held many pilgramages and indeed even seen going where God went to be a means of grace, which is another story, but it points out that to think that the thought that that reason would be why Joseph wouldn't have sex with Mary isn't even consistent with Catholic theology.

The whole allegory of Mary as the ark of the covenant is one thing, but if true, anyone who touched her, not just had sex but simply touched, would have died. Should we now build up as dogma that throughout her life no one so much as touched Mary except of course Jesus? Don't carry allegories very far. Really it isn't right to even say Mary was the new ark because Jesus was in her because God wasn't contained in the old ark. The whole allegory jumbles things together, and comes out with bits and pieces from all over the place.

Marv

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

I thought you were a Protestant. I guess not.

Some Lutherans call themselves High Church Protestants. Others call themselves Evangelical Catholics. We stand at the line between Calvinism and the reactions against it (Wesleyanism, Arminianism, Dispensationalism), which characterize most of Protestantism, and Catholicism.

Moreover, it's in the Bible!!! Luke 1:46-55!!!

So is the pretridentine Hail Mary!! Luke 1:20b and 42b!!!

Sorry, but there is no queen of heaven.

And she isn't the mother of God. God has no mother. Mary was the mother of Jesus' human side. If she was also the parent of His divine side she could then be called the mother of God. She is not His eternal parent as is God. She was only His parent while here on earth.

Your assertion concerning her heavenly queenship does not contradict my biblical argument. I'll take that as a win.

As for the Mother of God, you're committing a grave Christological error. Christ is one person, not two, and His attributes are not assigned to one nature or the other but to His whole person. Mary, as the mother of Jesus of Nazareth, is the mother of His Whole Person, which includes His Divinity. She is the Mother of God.

This was affirmed universally by the Church, and was made doctrine in order to refute those who said Christ as two persons, one Divine and one human. By saying something about Mary, that she is the Theotokos (the God-bearer, or Mother of God), we say something about Christ, that He is One Person in hypostatic union.

I don't think Jesus really cares seeing as He is no longer in human form.

Another grave Christological error. Christ's resurrection did not obliterate His humanity. It transformed and glorified it, but He is still fully human. If He were not, would He be the Mediator of the new and everlasting covenant?

Resurrection entails the resurrection of a body, which is then transfigured but remains, in essence, a human body. Christ's incarnation was not a temporary means to an end (His substitutionary atonement on the cross), but an unending binding of the Divine and human within a single Person- the Theoanthropos, the Deus-homo, the God-man. Without change, confusion, division, or seperation.

 

[hoser]

In the past I thought about something, that is that some say they pray to the Virgin Mary, sometimes I have heard her called Our Lady of Guadalupe, or the Lady of such-and-such place. With the doctrine on the Virgin Mary and praying to her I remembered two verses in the Gospel of Matthew that has caused concern. The following verses are as follows

"When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus." (Matthew 1:24-25 NASB)


" He [Jesus] came to His hometown and began teaching them in their synagogue, so that they were astonished, and said, "Where did this man get this wisdom and these miraculous powers?

"Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?

"And His sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this man get all these things?" (Matthew 13: 54-56 NASB).

By these two verses, we see that Mary had four sons, James, Joseph (Jr.), Simon and Judas and at least two daughters - this comes from the fact that the original Greek is plural - by her husband Joseph. I quoted from the New American Standard Bible (NASB) because it is the most literal translation for English available today.

Through the daughters and the some of Simon, Judas, and Joseph Jr., Mary and Joseph had the opportunity to have descendents. It is uncertain under James because the book of the Acts of the Apostles, a writing credited to Luke, says that he was killed by a sword. I do not know if he married and had children or descendents. The main point is that it is almost 2,000 years since Mary and Joseph had children and the significance is that is very probable for them to have living descendents today.

This leads to one concern for the doctrine to praying to Mary and petitioning her as some Catholic branches do. If she has living descendents, then it means that any who act according to the doctrine about the Virgin Mary, then it would literally be praying to their ancestor. Yet, the Bible clearly shows that the dead cannot hear petitions of prayer and the First Commandment is clear, "You shall have no other gods before me." The ramification for this command is that prayers and petitions can be only directed to the one God and no one else, whether it is angels or saintly men and women.

I did pray to Mary a few times, but then stopped because it was pointless to ask someone who could not hear them if I did them silently in the heart when God could hear them and only He could do anything about the prayers in the first place.

In the end, prayers to Mary or saints in pointless because they can not hear them and God wants us only to pray to Him directly.

Yes, yawn. You are so full of heresy I would rather pretend that I did not read this...

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Yes, yawn. You are so full of heresy

Well, in the view of the Catholic denomination, of course it's "heresy" because it conflicts with what the Catholic denomination has declared to be dogma. ANY denial of ANY dogma of the Catholic denomination, is, by definition, "heresy" in the view of the Catholic denomination.


Whether it's correct or not.
That's a WHOLE OTHER subject.


My perspective.


Pax!


- Josiah



.

 

[leothelioness]

Your opinion.

No. It's a fact. The Bible does not say anything about Mary being the queen of heaven. That is heresy at best.

The Bible specifically states that when Jesus ascended He sat at the right hand of God. No where does it say that Mary sat on a throne as well.

Christ is the King and to call Mary the queen of heaven is to deify her and make her co-equal to Christ. Afterall, a queen is equal with the king. No one is equal to God.

Where are you getting this stuff from? Who told you Jesus is "no longer in human form"?

No human can exist in heaven. The Bible says that flesh and blood cannot enter the kingdom of heaven.

Christ now has a glorified and renewed body as will we when we go to heaven. Our bodies will be transformed and will be eternal and incorruptible.

 

[leothelioness]

.

 

[leothelioness]

Some Lutherans call themselves High Church Protestants. Others call themselves Evangelical Catholics.

Martin Luther is probably turning in his grave right now.

So y'all are like Anglicans? Reformed Catholics sort of?

Your assertion concerning her heavenly queenship does not contradict my biblical argument. I'll take that as a win.

I wouldn't take it as a win because the Bible does not say anything about there being a queen of heaven.

Mary, as the mother of Jesus of Nazareth, is the mother of His Whole Person, which includes His Divinity. She is the Mother of God.

The only way Mary could have been the parent of Christ's divine side was if she herself were His divine parent. She was not. She was His human parent and God was His divine parent. She begat His human side and God begat His divine side. When you beget something you produce something with your same nature.

Christ in essence was one person with two natures. One parent produces on nature and the other parent produces the other. No human can produce a divine nature and no divine, spiritual God can produce a human nature.

This was affirmed universally by the Church, and was made doctrine in order to refute those who said Christ as two persons, one Divine and one human.

There is a big difference between two persons in one body and one person with two natures. I believe the latter.

(the God-bearer, or Mother of God)

God is not borne. No one bears God.

Another grave Christological error. Christ's resurrection did not obliterate His humanity. It transformed and glorified it, but He is still fully human. Resurrection entails the resurrection of a body, which is then transfigured but remains, in essence, a human body.

I see what you are saying here. I didn't understand how a human body could be transformed and glorified, yet still be human because to me human meant corrupt, flesh and blood, sinful, wretched, etc.

Humanity as humans understand it cannot be perfect and incorruptible. It is just the opposite. Corrupt humanity and perfect spirituality are vertually incompatible. I just don't see how the two can co-exist.

 

[Oye11]

I wouldn't take it as a win because the Bible does not say anything about there being a queen of heaven.

Catholics have put together some great theology but that one is where they lose me, the big statues of Mary with the crown on her head. And bowing in front of it. I`m sure this will irritate some but that`s honesty, where I`m coming from.

 

[ScottBot]

No. It's a fact. The Bible does not say anything about Mary being the queen of heaven. That is heresy at best.

The Bible specifically states that when Jesus ascended He sat at the right hand of God. No where does it say that Mary sat on a throne as well.

Christ is the King and to call Mary the queen of heaven is to deify her and make her co-equal to Christ. Afterall, a queen is equal with the king. No one is equal to God.


No human can exist in heaven. The Bible says that flesh and blood cannot enter the kingdom of heaven.

Christ now has a glorified and renewed body as will we when we go to heaven. Our bodies will be transformed and will be eternal and incorruptible.

That's balony.

Bathsheba was the Queen Mother of Israel while her son Solomon was King. She was in no way equal to him, but she did have her place of honor by her son's side.

 

[ScottBot]

Martin Luther is probably turning in his grave right now.

So y'all are like Anglicans? Reformed Catholics sort of?


I wouldn't take it as a win because the Bible does not say anything about there being a queen of heaven.


The only way Mary could have been the parent of Christ's divine side was if she herself were His divine parent. She was not. She was His human parent and God was His divine parent. She begat His human side and God begat His divine side. When you beget something you produce something with your same nature.

Christ in essence was one person with two natures. One parent produces on nature and the other parent produces the other. No human can produce a divine nature and no divine, spiritual God can produce a human nature.


There is a big difference between two persons in one body and one person with two natures. I believe the latter.


God is not borne. No one bears God.


I see what you are saying here. I didn't understand how a human body could be transformed and glorified, yet still be human because to me human meant corrupt, flesh and blood, sinful, wretched, etc.

Humanity as humans understand it cannot be perfect and incorruptible. It is just the opposite. Corrupt humanity and perfect spirituality are vertually incompatible. I just don't see how the two can co-exist.

God was not borne? You are then saying that at some point Jesus was not God. Welcome to Nestorianism, have a nice stay.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Martin Luther is probably turning in his grave right now.

So y'all are like Anglicans? Reformed Catholics sort of?

Luther died calling himself Catholic with a rosary in his hands. We never wanted to leave Mother Church- we wanted to reform her from within.

And yes, we are a lot like Anglicans, though higher in our view of the Eucharist and lower in our ecclesiology.

I wouldn't take it as a win because the Bible does not say anything about there being a queen of heaven.

The Bible doesn't say anything about the co-eternality of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit either; but it's a rational extrapolation from what it does say about each.

In the same way:

Bathsheba was the Queen Mother of Israel while her son Solomon was King. She was in no way equal to him, but she did have her place of honor by her son's side.

As the mother of the King, she is the Queen. This does not make her equal in any way to Christ, still less does it make her divine. But it does, without question, make her more than the incubator into which Protestants have made her.

Although I'm far more interested in her perpetual virginity and think of her in those categories more often, her Heavenly Queenship is far easier to defend because of Christ's antitype of Israelite kingship.

Catholics have put together some great theology but that one is where they lose me, the big statues of Mary with the crown on her head. And bowing in front of it. I`m sure this will irritate some but that`s honesty, where I`m coming from.

No argument here.

The only way Mary could have been the parent of Christ's divine side was if she herself were His divine parent. She was not. She was His human parent and God was His divine parent. She begat His human side and God begat His divine side. When you beget something you produce something with your same nature.

Once again, this assumes that you can ascribe the attributes of Christ's person to one nature or the other. Moreover, it assumes we can think of Mary and the Spirit in terms of 'parentage' with any other person, or more still that a mother and father are parents of only half the child.

On the point of parentage, well, we can't think of Christ as any other person. He is not the genetic product of two parents- all his humanity comes from Mary, all his divinity comes from the Spirit. Of course he was only the son of Mary according to his human nature, and the Son of God according to his divinity. But because Christ was a single person with two natures, not, as you tenatively agree, to persons in a single body (the Nestorianism of which Scott spoke), we don't assign his attributes to one nature or another. Mary may have been only the mother of his human nature, but she was the mother of his whole person. And as he was God though and though his whole person, she was the Mother of God.

and no divine, spiritual God can produce a human nature.

What?? Did you read Genesis? This isn't the issue at hand but that's a treadful remark.

I see what you are saying here. I didn't understand how a human body could be transformed and glorified, yet still be human because to me human meant corrupt, flesh and blood, sinful, wretched, etc.

Humanity as humans understand it cannot be perfect and incorruptible. It is just the opposite. Corrupt humanity and perfect spirituality are vertually incompatible. I just don't see how the two can co-exist.

But humans are only corruptible because of sin. Christ represents humanity as it was meant to be- without sin in his earthly life, and by fact of this was resurrected to incorruptibility yet still human. Christ points foward to what he intends for us- the elemination of what makes us less human (sin), not the elemination of our humanity. Indeed, by because purged of sin and glorified, we are actually returning to the image of God that humanity by nature bears- and so to what it means to be truly human.

Read 1 Corinthians 15 to get the full scoop on the physicality of our resurrection.

And by the way, 'flesh and blood' was a euphamism of the times to refer to the desires of the flesh and blood, not the physical elements themselves. It was Greek thought that disdains matter, not Jewish. And moreover, our final destination isn't heaven. That's a waystation until we are resurrection back here.

 

[leothelioness]

God was not borne? You are then saying that at some point Jesus was not God.

No I am not. Jesus was always God.

And, no, God is not borne. God has always been in existance. He was just incarnated into a human form.

 

[leothelioness]

The Bible doesn't say anything about the co-eternality of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit either; but it's a rational extrapolation from what it does say about each.

Well, that's the thing. It never explicitly stated the co-eternality of the the Godhead, but it certainly was implied. However, the Bible never implied that Mary was anything but a woman.

If she were the queen that you say she is why would Christ have said to her, "Woman, what have I to do with thee," and "Who is my mother?"

In the same way:



As the mother of the King, she is the Queen. This does not make her equal in any way to Christ, still less does it make her divine. But it does, without question, make her more than the incubator into which Protestants have made her.

Although I'm far more interested in her perpetual virginity and think of her in those categories more often, her Heavenly Queenship is far easier to defend because of Christ's antitype of Israelite kingship.

I understand your position, but I respectfully disagree.

What?? Did you read Genesis? This isn't the issue at hand but that's a treadful remark.

The difference is that God made humanity, but He begat Christ. Christ was not made, but begotten.

When God makes something, as He did with humanity, He brings into existance something that is unlike Himself. Something with a different nature and composition. Yet, when He begets something, as He did with Christ, He brings into existance something that is like Himself regarding it's nature. C.S. Lewis explains it far better than I.

 

[ScottBot]

No I am not. Jesus was always God.

And, no, God is not borne. God has always been in existance. He was just incarnated into a human form.

Jesus = God.
Mary = Jesus' Mother.

If Mary is the Mother of Jesus, then Mary is also the Mother of God. It is a syllogism you cannot escape without de-deifying Jesus.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Jesus = God.
Mary = Jesus' Mother.

If Mary is the Mother of Jesus, then Mary is also the Mother of God. It is a syllogism you cannot escape without de-deifying Jesus.

I have no problem with the title "Mother of God." I often use it myself.

But, of course (and as Vatican II affirmed), she is not God. So praying to Mary is not, in any sense, praying to God.

And, of course, such has nothing whatsoever to do with her being born without sin or assuming into heaven upon her death (or not), or her being a PERPETUAL virgin. It just means that Mary is the mother of Jesus who is God.


My $0.01


Pax!


- Josiah



.