Questions about "The Queen of Heaven"

[WarriorAngel]

I like to show another example of how God is not restrained to time [being God He is not inside time] and here is something else to ponder His Power and ways are not ours.

Jesus is the First Fruit. He is the First Fruit to open the gates f Heaven...of which no one denies.

But if we constrain God, as though He must conform to the measure of time on earth then Jesus would not really be the First Fruit.

Henoch, Elijah and Moses all died prior to the coming of Christ - and all were taken to Heaven prior to Christ's death and resurrection.
BUT Christ is still called the First Fruit.
How is that?
Because His Promise came in the beginning from the fall and He Being true to Himself, and His Word - had already allowed those whom were His favorites - to be resurrected - even before it was applied to man in our time.

SO Being He is not measured in our time, the Immaculate Conception of His Mother was not feat for Him either. It was His will to be so.

And then this leads to the ancient concept that Mary's Body had disappeared [like Moses' body] and was resurrected to Heaven bodily - because again, she was HIGHLY favored. Which the actual greeting the Angel did use was beyond just highly favored, there are no English terms to apply ...but the context of what the Angel said was:
'You who have been favored with Graces from the past [God's Fiat - thought] and are favored with Graces, and shall remain favored with Graces.

Actual Greeting used:
kecharitomene

See explanation:
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Immaculate Conception

 

[ebia]

reading that is really terrifying for me,what if someone dies before they do all those things? or does some but not all, like feeds the poor, cloths etc...? is really scary stuff, makes me feel hopeless. :\

It's a way of life, not a checklist to complete.

 

[Virgil the Roman]

It's a way of life, not a checklist to complete.

Exactly; it's more natural and organic to the Christian soul. It is something God leads us to; a life; not a timed-test.

 

[ebia]

As a non-Catholic who has been reading up on Mary at lot lately, I would say that if you are coming from a Protestant background you need to get into it a fair bit before you start to see how it all hangs together cohesively and adds to, not takes away, from good Christology and ecclesiology. After a while you start to realize that most of the Protestant reservations are really against excesses and corruptions rather than against what the Church is really saying.

It also helps if at some point one can overcome ones doubts and actually immerse oneself in some Marian reflections for a while. The Magnificat is a zero risk starting point (entirely biblical), and the Angelus is easier to get into than the rosary and almost entirely biblical - one could even leave out the "pray for us" lines.

 

[largeli]

I like to show another example of how God is not restrained to time [being God He is not inside time] and here is something else to ponder His Power and ways are not ours.

Jesus is the First Fruit. He is the First Fruit to open the gates f Heaven...of which no one denies.

But if we constrain God, as though He must conform to the measure of time on earth then Jesus would not really be the First Fruit.

Henoch, Elijah and Moses all died prior to the coming of Christ - and all were taken to Heaven prior to Christ's death and resurrection.
BUT Christ is still called the First Fruit.
How is that?
Because His Promise came in the beginning from the fall and He Being true to Himself, and His Word - had already allowed those whom were His favorites - to be resurrected - even before it was applied to man in our time.

SO Being He is not measured in our time, the Immaculate Conception of His Mother was not feat for Him either. It was His will to be so.

And then this leads to the ancient concept that Mary's Body had disappeared [like Moses' body] and was resurrected to Heaven bodily - because again, she was HIGHLY favored. Which the actual greeting the Angel did use was beyond just highly favored, there are no English terms to apply ...but the context of what the Angel said was:
'You who have been favored with Graces from the past [God's Fiat - thought] and are favored with Graces, and shall remain favored with Graces.

Actual Greeting used:
kecharitomene

See explanation:
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Immaculate Conception

I totally agree and understand that God is timeless. Its not that I dont believe God could make Mary sinless or what have you. Its the source of the belief that I think we part ways....it wasnt said in the bible. Im sure that the author of this particular belief was a wise man. Im sure he wrote the belief only after carefull studying of the word and praying or whatever else. I understand that just because it wasnt detailed in the gospels, that doesnt mean it isnt true. I understand that. It may well be true! I can accept that possibility, BUT because it wasnt said in the bible,*I personally* dont give it too much thought or attention, thats all. Or maybe to some, when you read the bible it is very clear to you that it is confirming your beliefs on Mary and the saints. I completely respect that.

 

[WarriorAngel]

I totally agree and understand that God is timeless. Its not that I dont believe God could make Mary sinless or what have you. Its the source of the belief that I think we part ways....it wasnt said in the bible. Im sure that the author of this particular belief was a wise man. Im sure he wrote the belief only after carefull studying of the word and praying or whatever else. I understand that just because it wasnt detailed in the gospels, that doesnt mean it isnt true. I understand that. It may well be true! I can accept that possibility, BUT because it wasnt said in the bible,*I personally* dont give it too much thought or attention, thats all. Or maybe to some, when you read the bible it is very clear to you that it is confirming your beliefs on Mary and the saints. I completely respect that.

Aside from the Biblical points given in the link about the Immaculate Conception, the early Church fathers taught through Tradition Paul said they must be taught through, shows us early on how Mary was always considered without sin.

I am going to try to avoid the sola scriptura argument, in that Paul says to keep the oral as well as the written and the Traditions he taught.

So if the link is informative, that indeed not only through out the Church writers do they compare Mary as the New Eve but also Genesis 3:15 is understood that the woman and her seed have enmity to the serpent, ie, the serpent is completely their enemy and he does not touch them with his vileness...'AND' her seed - Who is Jesus - and both share the enmity to satan.

satan is the corruption of mankind, to which the woman and her seed do not share.

It's rather informative if you read it.

 

[thereselittleflower]

I totally agree and understand that God is timeless. Its not that I dont believe God could make Mary sinless or what have you. Its the source of the belief that I think we part ways....it wasnt said in the bible. Im sure that the author of this particular belief was a wise man. Im sure he wrote the belief only after carefull studying of the word and praying or whatever else. I understand that just because it wasnt detailed in the gospels, that doesnt mean it isnt true. I understand that. It may well be true! I can accept that possibility, BUT because it wasnt said in the bible,*I personally* dont give it too much thought or attention, thats all. Or maybe to some, when you read the bible it is very clear to you that it is confirming your beliefs on Mary and the saints. I completely respect that.

Actually it was said in the bible that Mary was sinless.

 

[Virgil the Roman]

TLF: "Actually, it was said in the Bible that Mary was sinless."​

Perhaps, if you could cite the verse and context for our friend here, it would help him out, greatly.

 

[Vendetta]

TLF: "Actually, it was said in the Bible that Mary was sinless."​

Perhaps, if you could cite the verse and context for our friend here, it would help him out, greatly.

Since it's not said literally, it would surely be to no avail.

 

[Virgil the Roman]

Yea: Sola Scriptura bites . . .

And the rather dull and inane view that "If it isn't in the Bible, it's not true/it ceases to count." That's got be one of the most horrid doctrines ever invented by a rebel, yet.

How did the freakin' bible even get a table of contents, chapters, verses, paragraphing, determine the set number of books in the Bible, or even decide which books were which?!

And if we only have the Bible alone for our authority, then how are we to trust a Church that claims to decide what books are in the Bible?!

There'd be nothing to stop any Prot from removing any verse or Book they believe in their own personal view to be non-canonical or dubious quality. Luther did it; so can any Prot.

Heck, Luther also tried to chuck Apocalypse, St James, Hebrews as well. Go figure!

 

[Vendetta]

Have a Calvinist friend who, last week, decided to use the "all Scripture is profitable" verse to try and tell me that only Scripture is profitable. It's such a logically deficient method of reasoning that I can't even imagine why people try to use it. As we poke fun at all the time, Sola Scriptura isn't Biblical.

 

[Virgil the Roman]

Have a Calvinist friend who, last week, decided to use the "all Scripture is profitable" verse to try and tell me that only Scripture is profitable. It's such a logically deficient method of reasoning that I can't even imagine why people try to use it. As we poke fun at all the time, Sola Scriptura isn't Biblical.

Just tell him that anything he says that's not scripture-verbatim, you'll discount. He ought to get annoyed fairly quick; hopefully, such a move would drive home the point!

 

[ebia]

This thread looks like a genuine question. A tangential attack on s. Scriptura is probably not going to help.

 

[Dark_Lite]

I totally agree and understand that God is timeless. Its not that I dont believe God could make Mary sinless or what have you. Its the source of the belief that I think we part ways....it wasnt said in the bible. Im sure that the author of this particular belief was a wise man. Im sure he wrote the belief only after carefull studying of the word and praying or whatever else. I understand that just because it wasnt detailed in the gospels, that doesnt mean it isnt true. I understand that. It may well be true! I can accept that possibility, BUT because it wasnt said in the bible,*I personally* dont give it too much thought or attention, thats all. Or maybe to some, when you read the bible it is very clear to you that it is confirming your beliefs on Mary and the saints. I completely respect that.

As you can probably tell from the last few responses to this thread, Catholics do not believe in Sola Scriptura. That idea is probably the ultimate dividing line between Catholicism and Protestantism, moreso than any other "Sola." We don't believe in Sola Scriptura because:
1. It is historical fact that the Bible as we know it was assembled over 400 years by ECFs and groups of bishops at Council.
2. By extension, it is historical fact that the Church was around before the Bible. The Bible came out of the Church, not the other way around.
3. The epistemological model of the Church has always been Councils. There is nothing (unless you count Luther's arbitrary decision) to indicate that we should now use Sola Scriptura instead of Councils. God is unchanging.

Because we do not believe in Sola Scriptura, you will find extrabiblical (note: extrabiblical does not mean unbiblical!) doctrines in Catholicism. The Immaculate Conception is one of them. It may be alluded to in the Bible, much like the Trinity, but it is fully developed outside the confines of Scripture.

Scripture is part of the Tradition of the Church. It does not supersede it. If we are to consider them separate, then they are equal. But really, it's all the same source of information.

 

[largeli]

Aside from the Biblical points...

I hear you bro and I totally respect your faith.

This statement that Ive quoted from your post is why and where we part ways in our beliefs though.....for me there is not much aside from the biblical points.

I have not read the link you posted but you have intrigued me enough to do so. I plan to sometime today hopefully.

But the thing for me is this....whether or not Mary was sinless has no bearing on who and what Christ is to me. There are differences in our faiths but the differences are not having to do with who Christ is and what He has done for us.

As far as I can tell we both agree that Christ died for "the joy that was set before Him" which is relationship and reconciliation to us. We are both sinners made perfect through His sacrifice. We both love Him for His sacrifice and we are eternally gratefull for that....

We may feel differently about saints and customs but that doesnt change how we feel about Christ.

God Bless.

 

[Vendetta]

This thread looks like a genuine question. A tangential attack on s. Scriptura is probably not going to help.

OP hasn't posted in a while. In the meantime, we're keeping his thread alive by having our own discussion. If OP chooses to return with more questions, I will gladly answer them.

Just tell him that anything he says that's not scripture-verbatim, you'll discount. He ought to get annoyed fairly quick; hopefully, such a move would drive home the point!

I did while he was arguing sola fide with me. I, admittedly having had about 15ish 20oz mugs of Killian's throughout the day and somewhat buzzed by the time of this 4 AM conversation, just kept telling him "you're reading me this verse by Paul, but where does it say 'faith alone'?" He got frustrated very quickly. I went to find the "not faith alone" verse in James, and I was in the right chapter, but I couldn't find the term. I blame the tiredness and buzz on that one. It was an ESV, so I know it should've been in there. C'est la vie.

He also kept telling me he worried about me because I focused on Mary and the saints and Catholic doctrine, but "where is Jesus?" No matter how much I tell him we are not works-based, he doesn't believe. Then he told me that he does not believe in free will. It's sad, a year ago he was actively fighting for free will. Again, c'est la vie.

 

[largeli]

As you can probably tell from the last few responses to this thread, Catholics do not believe in Sola Scriptura. That idea is probably the ultimate dividing line between Catholicism and Protestantism, moreso than any other "Sola.".

It doesnt bother me. I dont look down on you bc you have more than the bible. I hope you dont look down on me.

You all may very well have beliefs and traditions that are right on! Its not that i think if its not in the bible than its not true.....Its more like the bible is enough for me, thats all. Maybe Im like the bible says, just a baby only feeding on the milk and not the solid food! I dunno! I do know that I love Jesus and He is my entire life! I know that he loves me enough that He would rather die than to have to spend eternity without me!

Amen!

 

[Vendetta]

It doesnt bother me. I dont look down on you bc you have more than the bible. I hope you dont look down on me.

You all may very well have beliefs and traditions that are right on! Its not that i think if its not in the bible than its not true.....Its more like the bible is enough for me, thats all. Maybe Im like the bible says, just a baby only feeding on the milk and not the solid food! I dunno! I do know that I love Jesus and He is my entire life! I know that he loves me enough that He would rather die than to have to spend eternity without me!

Amen!

You. I like you. We don't have a problem with people saying that they want to live by the Bible. We do have a problem with people saying that if it's not in the Bible, then our Tradition is unbiblical. As Dark Lite said, none of our Traditions are unbiblical, because they can't be. They can be extrabiblical, just like many non-canonized scriptures are the basis for the content of some canonized scriptures.

 

[RINO 72]

Cool to see this thread still going strong.So far I think the most shocking thing I've read is that someone drank 15 20oz mugs of beer and still had the capacity (although somewhat limited) to argue sola fide.That's one thing I'll say about yall, drinking is not taboo.Down here in the Bible belt,the Southern Baps have almost demonized drinking (moderation) in public.Legalism is often an issue.

 

[RINO 72]

Do Catholics believe the Pope is a God on earth?