Role of Mary

[Axion]

And does everyone go along with God’s purpose or do some do their own will instead?

Exactly. God may wish to use people for His ends, but those people have to freely accept and co-operate.

My employer is sovereign over me, and uses me to it's purpose. But everything I do in my employment is of my own free will in cooperation with my employer.

Now the original post responded to said this:

She is a woman used by God. Period.

In other words it implied that Mary was just an inanimate object, a tool, used without her input, co-operation, or even her consent, as someone might use a jug.

This is a travesty of God's actions.

Eve could just as easily have been a woman "used by God", IF she had decided to obey God, but she didn't. It was Mary who did. That is why she is exalted.

 

[Benedicta00]

No it does not "say plainly that mary is the mother of God." It says plainly that mary is the mother of Elizabeth's Lord, who is Jesus, fully God and fully man. No where does it say that she is the mother of God.

Don’t you think you are reading a bit much into that? The verse clearly says that Mary is mother of the Lord, who is the Lord? Is there one Lord? Or many lords? Is Jesus not Lord? Is God not the Lord? Who else is the Lord to you?

 

[thereselittleflower]

The "Lord" is exactly who I said He was.


Elisabeth was not referring to God the Father, but Jesus who - unlike the Father - is both fully God and man. He IS our Lord whom mary was carrying.

LOL

No one has even begun to suggest that Elizabeth was referring to God the Father!


hmm I guess then that Jesus, who is both fully God and man, when called My Lord, is somehow less than God . .

Otherwise, why the strained distinction between My Lord and God?


Since the scriptures have translated the same word both as Lord and God, this distinction you are raising is indeed very, very strained . .


I guess it is too hard to say that the PERSON Elizabeth was refering to was indeed God in the womb of Mary . . God the Son to be exact . .


Either Elizabeth was speaking of God or she wasn't . . . And to address the false distinction you made above by trying to introduce God the Father into the mix . .

Either she was speaking of God the Son, or she wasn't . .


There is no room for the type of equivocating you are attempting here . .


The translators capitalized "LORD" in "My Lord" meaning God, unlike when Festus speaking of Ceasar when addressing King Agrippa calls Ceasar "my lord":

Act 25:24 And Festus said, King Agrippa, and all men which are here present with us, ye see this man, about whom all the multitude of the Jews have dealt with me, both at Jerusalem, and also here, crying that he ought not to live any longer.

Act 25:25 But when I found that he had committed nothing worthy of death, and that he himself hath appealed to Augustus, I have determined to send him.

Act 25:26 Of whom I have no certain thing to write unto my lord. Wherefore I have brought him forth before you, and specially before thee, O king Agrippa, that, after examination had, I might have somewhat to write.

Act 25:27 For it seemeth to me unreasonable to send a prisoner, and not withal to signify the crimes laid against him.

​

And no offense taken . . I am merely pointing out how strained and unsupported such a position, as you are taking on this passage of scripture, really is. . .. there is no need for a response . .


Peace in Him!

 

[Ainesis]

How do you equate being asked to be the mother of God with what we are all called by God to do?

That is an interesting and I think important question. Mary did physically what every Christian is called to do spiritually.

Mary carried the physical body of Jesus inside her until the time when He became manifest to the world.

Christians are carrying the spiritual body of Jesus inside of us so that He can be manifest to the world through us.

"My little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you" Galatians 4:19

Every Christian is being transformed into the image of Christ. That is god's will for us.

"For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren." Romans 8:29

So we are all called to be barriers of Christ within. Mary was the first to do this and was the only to do so in the physical. This is an important distinction because God would not have chosen to have just anyone bear His Son.

It also gives us much insight into the type of character that Mary must of had. We see this evidenced not only in the fact that God chose her, but in her response. "Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word."

That is AWESOME! We could spend hours just talking about what is signified in that one statement. Her humility, her respect and love for the Lord, her trust in His ways over her own, Her faith that He could do what she couldn't fathom, her selflessness in not thinking of how she would fare, her immediate obedience, etc.

Yet, suffice it to say that I see many parallels between what she did and what God asks us to do. She is a tremendous example and inspiration about what it means to belong to the Lord.

Are you saying that Mary’s yes is not worthy of honor

I believe she is worthy of honor to the same degree that all saints are worthy. When I use the word saints, I am referring to all believers. We are told to honor all men.

While I can respect, admire, and learn from Mary, she did afterall what she "should have" done. What do I mean by that? I certainly don't mean to imply that she was a robot or anything like that. She had to choose to submit to God's will, because He would not have forced her. And that is admirbale! Yet and still, that is what she (and we) are supposed to do.

"I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service." Romans 12:1

It is our reasonable service to do as God would have us to do. To me, that means that we are not glorified for obedience. It is the minimum of what God expects of us.

In light of the special role that Mary has played in Jesus' life, He never says that we are to think of her more highly than that. Indeed, when others tried to elevate mary, He corrected them.

"And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked. But he said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it." Luke 11:27-28

Jesus does not deny that Mary is blessed, but He equates this blessing with being the same as those who obey God.

So, I suppose that this is more than you have asked for, but these are my thoughts. Sorry for being so long-winded.

 

[thereselittleflower]

I would also like to bring attention to something I see in this phrase. .

"the Lord Jesus is God, just as much as He is man"


We are not talking about "attributes" or "characteristics" of Jesus, as if being God were merely an attribute like:

"of course she is female, just as much as she is a human being"


Jesus is not God "just as much as" anything else as if it coudl be quantified or separated out . . (though I do not think this is what the original poster intended, one can nevertheless very easily take such a comment and move in this direction as the Early Church discovered).


Jesus is God, Jesus is Man . . Jesus IS (the) God-Man . .


In realitiy, I think it is just too painful for some to say Mary is the Mother of God . . it is just too hard and so we see all sorts of equivocations, gyrations, trying to say something without actually coming out and saying it . .

Personally, I think the reason for this is, that, for some. to come out and admit that indeed there is absolutely nothing wrong with calling Mary "Mother of God" (as long as we understand exactly what it does and does not mean) would be too threateneing, too Catholic and Orthodox to do . .

Which is a shame that it has to be this way . ..

And so it goes on . .

. .


Peace in Him!

 

[SumTinWong]

Amen Ainess, I couldn't have said it better. Wow.

 

[Ainesis]

Don’t you think you are reading a bit much into that? The verse clearly says that Mary is mother of the Lord, who is the Lord? Is there one Lord? Or many lords? Is Jesus not Lord? Is God not the Lord? Who else is the Lord to you?

No, I really don't think that is reading a bit much into the text. We don't have to surmise about who the "Lord" is. We all know it is a reference to Jesus.

Although God the Father is God as well as Jesus, there remains a sharp difference between the two. One possesses the nature of God only and the other possesses the nature of God and man.

If God wanted us to refer to mary as the mother of "God" (in general) then He could have inspired Elisabeth to say that. But He did not. Mary is, however, the mother of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is both fully God and man.

On the other hand, I do think it is reading into the text to claim this statement "plainly says" mary is the mother of God, when it clearly does not.

 

[Benedicta00]

No, I really don't think that is reading a bit much into the text. We don't have to surmise about who the "Lord" is. We all know it is a reference to Jesus.

Although God the Father is God as well as Jesus, there remains a sharp difference between the two. One possesses the nature of God only and the other possesses the nature of God and man.

If God wanted us to refer to mary as the mother of "God" (in general) then He could have inspired Elisabeth to say that. But He did not. Mary is, however, the mother of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is both fully God and man.

On the other hand, I do think it is reading into the text to claim this statement "plainly says" mary is the mother of God, when it clearly does not.

Who is Lord to you? Is it God or is it Jesus or is it BOTH?

Sorry but you are just denying the reality of the scriptures and assuming your own meaning to it just so you do not have to agree with the Catholic Church. Luther and Calvin did not even deny the nature of God just to disagree with the Church, they both understood the doctrine and believed in it.

"Mother of my Lord" is what Elizabeth calls Mary. There is but only one God, the father almighty, creator of heaven and earth and there is but only one Lord Jesus Christ, begotten not made, one in being with the father through Him all things were made. This is who the Lord is, and Mary is Mother of the Lord and the scriptures clearly state that. Where do you get anywhere from scripture or from early Protestant tradition that Jesus divinity has “differences” from God's divinity?? You know that is heresy??

They share the same nature, Jesus’ nature is God and there is only one God. Ergo Lord is God and ergo Mary is the mother of God. Does that mean she created God? No, it means she carried and birthed and raised God, that God was her son. Mary is the mother of God.

It is sad that you would deny the true nature of God just so you don't have to be on the same page as the Catholic Church about this.

 

[Benedicta00]

That is an interesting and I think important question. Mary did physically what every Christian is called to do spiritually.

Mary carried the physical body of Jesus inside her until the time when He became manifest to the world.

Christians are carrying the spiritual body of Jesus inside of us so that He can be manifest to the world through us.

"My little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you" Galatians 4:19

Every Christian is being transformed into the image of Christ. That is god's will for us.

"For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren." Romans 8:29

So we are all called to be barriers of Christ within. Mary was the first to do this and was the only to do so in the physical. This is an important distinction because God would not have chosen to have just anyone bear His Son.

It also gives us much insight into the type of character that Mary must of had. We see this evidenced not only in the fact that God chose her, but in her response. "Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word."

That is AWESOME! We could spend hours just talking about what is signified in that one statement. Her humility, her respect and love for the Lord, her trust in His ways over her own, Her faith that He could do what she couldn't fathom, her selflessness in not thinking of how she would fare, her immediate obedience, etc.

Yet, suffice it to say that I see many parallels between what she did and what God asks us to do. She is a tremendous example and inspiration about what it means to belong to the Lord.


I believe she is worthy of honor to the same degree that all saints are worthy. When I use the word saints, I am referring to all believers. We are told to honor all men.

While I can respect, admire, and learn from Mary, she did afterall what she "should have" done. What do I mean by that? I certainly don't mean to imply that she was a robot or anything like that. She had to choose to submit to God's will, because He would not have forced her. And that is admirbale! Yet and still, that is what she (and we) are supposed to do.

"I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service." Romans 12:1

It is our reasonable service to do as God would have us to do. To me, that means that we are not glorified for obedience. It is the minimum of what God expects of us.

In light of the special role that Mary has played in Jesus' life, He never says that we are to think of her more highly than that. Indeed, when others tried to elevate mary, He corrected them.

"And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked. But he said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it." Luke 11:27-28

Jesus does not deny that Mary is blessed, but He equates this blessing with being the same as those who obey God.

So, I suppose that this is more than you have asked for, but these are my thoughts. Sorry for being so long-winded.

I’m sorry but I did not conceive in my womb, by the power of the Holy Spirit God incarnate. I did not carry Him for nine months and I did not birth Him and I did not raise Him just to watch Him die on the cross for the sake for the sins of mankind. I think what I do- when I do indeed follow God’s will (Mary never disobeyed God the way I do) and what Mary did is not equal.

I ask again, do you think that Mary’s yes is truly not worthy of honor? She was God’s mother. No one else on the face of the earth ever has or ever will be able to be God’s mother. This was not just another calling, this was to bring God incarnate, the word made flesh into the world to dwell among us.

Do you really think God Himself thinks so little of Himself to say that wasn't no big deal?

 

[SumTinWong]

Sorry but you are just denying the reality of the scriptures and assuming your own meaning to it just so you do not have to agree with the Catholic Church.

Whoa Shelb...
That is a really big assumption on your part and I might add that is not based on anything factual. I highly suggest that you retract that statement. You have no way of knowing if anyone in here is "denying the reality of scriptures" because they don't want to agree with your churches beliefs.

 

[Ainesis]

Who is Lord to you? Is it God or is it Jesus or is it BOTH?

God the Father is Lord and Jesus Christ is Lord. But Mary was pregnant with Jesus, not the Father.

"Mother of my Lord" is what Elizabeth calls Mary. There is but only one God, the father almighty, creator of heaven and earth and there is but only one Lord Jesus Christ, begotten not made, one in being with the father through Him all things were made. This is who the Lord is, and Mary is Mother of the Lord and the scriptures clearly state that. Where do you get anywhere from scripture or from early Protestant tradition that Jesus divinity has “differences” from God's divinity?? You know that is heresy??

Hmmm... Is that all that people can do is cry "heresy" when people do not agree with them or when their position cannot be proven by Scripture?

Where did I say that God's "divinity" is different that Jesus'? That is ludicrous. How can that be unless there are two gods, and we know that there is one.

Now, please read what I have written without preconceived notions of what you think I am trying to say. Then tell me specifically where I say what you claim. I said there are differences between God and Jesus, I did not say there are differences between their divinity.

They share the same nature, Jesus’ nature is God and there is only one God.

They share the same "divine" nature. They do not share the same "human" nature. I am surprised that I need to point that out as it touches on the basics of understanding the holy Trinity unless I am missing your point.

It is sad that you would deny the true nature of God just so you don't have to be on the same page as the Catholic Church about this.

What I find even more sad is the apparent chip that many Catholic posters seem to carry on their shoulders here. I couldn't care less about the catholic Church to be honest with you. Further I don't consider the title mother of God to be a "Catholic" thing. IOW, I do not consider what we now know as the Roman Catholic Church to be the church that instituted this decree. As such, my disagreement with this title has no bearing whatsoever on the Catholic church (as I have only stated maybe 20 timed previously in this discussion). Further, I do not agree with some of the beliefs of the Orthodox church, but I have a great respect for them. If in fact I were to join an orthodox faith, they would certainly be the ones. So again, your assumptions about how I feel about orthodoxy are again incorrect.

Unfortunately, because some wear glasses where everything is viewed as either pro- or anti- their religion of choice, they cannot address what is stated in many discussions based solely on the merits of the discussion. For them there is always a hidden agenda that someone is attacking their church.

Your world may revolve around the Catholic church; mine does not. My views of this title have nothing whatsoever to do with that church as I don't consider the title a product of that church.

 

[Ainesis]

I’m sorry but I did not conceive in my womb, by the power of the Holy Spirit God incarnate. I did not carry Him for nine months and I did not birth Him and I did not raise Him just to watch Him die on the cross for the sake for the sins of mankind.

Perhaps you do not understand the difference between what is physical and what is spiritual?

Mary did physically what every Christian is called to do spiritually.

Mary never disobeyed God the way I do

You have no knowledge of that, although I understand that this is what you believe. I find that the Scriptures dispute this, so I do not agree.

I ask again, do you think that Mary’s yes is truly not worthy of honor? She was God’s mother. No one else on the face of the earth ever has or ever will be able to be God’s mother. This was not just another calling, this was to bring God incarnate, the word made flesh into the world to dwell among us.

Do you really think God Himself thinks so little of Himself to say that wasn't no big deal?

I will honor her as Jesus has instructed every Christian to, which is the same as we honor all believers.

 

[thereselittleflower]

Whoa Shelb...
That is a really big assumption on your part and I might add that is not based on anything factual. I highly suggest that you retract that statement. You have no way of knowing if anyone in here is "denying the reality of scriptures" because they don't want to agree with your churches beliefs.

Lollard. . there is nothing wrong with Shelb's post . . whether or not someone is denying the reality of scriptures has nothing at all to do with what they INTEND . . Shelb did not speak of INTENT . . she spoke of what she sees happening in reality . .

I understand your position, however, we have 2000 years of Church teaching and so yes, we do have a frame of reference from which to make such an assertion.


I do not believe it is anyone's intent to deny the reality of scripture . and I do not believe that was what Shelb was saying at all . .

But even though someone does not have the intent to do something, that doesn't mean that they haven't done it . . it just means they don't realize they are doing it . .


I realize that from your perspective you do not agree with this . . for without the Sacred Tradition handed down for 2000 years to help us interpret the bible, then each is his own interpretor and no one can say that another is ultimately wrong . .

However, the bible, though infallible, HAS to be interpreted, and so needs an infallible interpretor . . and God has provided it . . The Church, which the scriptures themselves call "The Pillar and Foundation of Truth" . ..


Yes, you are free to disagree with us . . but to insist on a retraction?


Peace in Him!

 

[thereselittleflower]

Aenisis

Perhaps you do not understand the difference between what is physical and what is spiritual?

Please explain . ..


Peace in Him!

 

[SumTinWong]

Lollard. . there is nothing wrong with Shelb's post . . whether or not someone is denying the reality of scriptures has nothing at all to do with what they INTEND . . Shelb did not speak of INTENT . . she spoke of what she sees happening in reality . .

Shelby did not include a caveot "in my opinion", instead she stated it in the manner that led me to believe she thought it to be a truth. There is no way possible except for divine revelation that Shelby could possibly know what the intent of, or in what state the heart of Ainess is regarding this issue. Shelby said that Ainess was denying the reality scriptures because that "reality" is taught by the Catholic church. That to me was an attack on her character.

I do not believe it is anyone's intent to deny the reality of scripture . and I do not believe that was what Shelb was saying at all . .

That is exactly what she said. "Sorry but you are just denying the reality of the scriptures and assuming your own meaning to it just so you do not have to agree with the Catholic Church."

Yes, you are free to disagree with us . . but to insist on a retraction?

Yes. I cannot be any clearer than that. Ainess can defend herself, I just felt that something had to be said and as her brother in Christ I said it.

 

[Benedicta00]

Perhaps you do not understand the difference between what is physical and what is spiritual?

Do you really think the scriptures support this premise you are suggesting? If so, I would like to see where.

Why can’t you just give credit where it’s due? It doesn’t take anything away from the sovereignty of God. Do you think God would be displeased if we honored His mother?

You have no knowledge of that, although I understand that this is what you believe. I find that the Scriptures dispute this, so I do not agree.

Yes I do, I have the oral word of God that tells us this, and the written word of God does not contradict this and further more, Luther and Calvin did not even deny this part of sacred tradition. And where do you believe the bible says Mary disobeyed God??? I would be most curious to read this.

I will honor her as Jesus has instructed every Christian to, which is the same as we honor all believers.

Where does the scriptures say we are to honor all believers? That all generations will call believers blessed? The scriptures say that Mary is blessed among women, the bible says that she is mother of the Lord, that she is full of grace, that He who is mighty has done great things to her and that all generations will call her blessed. Where do you get that this refers to all believers? You are really reading way more into the bible, adding on your premise that even the early Protestant Church did not suggest.

 

[Benedicta00]

God the Father is Lord and Jesus Christ is Lord. But Mary was pregnant with Jesus, not the Father.

And do we say different? But who is Jesus to you if He is not God? Is He God to you or not. I fail to see how anyone can get around that Jesus is God so therefore Mary carried God in her womb. To deny this is to deny scripture because scripture says that she is mother of the Lord. Who is Lord, Jesus is Lord, and the Lord is God, what's the problem here?

Hmmm... Is that all that people can do is cry "heresy" when people do not agree with them or when their position cannot be proven by Scripture?

Denying the divinity of Christ isn't heresy?? It's the oldest one we got. You don't think that it can not be proven by scripture? Does the scriptures not tell us the Jesus is God? To say that Mary was not the mother of God is denying this- it is denying scripture.

The scriptures say that she is mother of the Lord, Jesus is the Lord and the Lord is God. What’s the problem here?

Where did I say that God's "divinity" is different that Jesus'? That is ludicrous. How can that be unless there are two gods, and we know that there is one.

You said there is a difference in Jesus and God both being God, what is that difference to you? And if you understand that Jesus is God than what's the problem, how is Mary not the Mother of God?

Now, please read what I have written without preconceived notions of what you think I am trying to say. Then tell me specifically where I say what you claim. I said there are differences between God and Jesus, I did not say there are differences between their divinity.

I don't know what you are trying to say, what did you mean? If you say there isn't any difference, than how can Mary not be God's mother?

They share the same "divine" nature. They do not share the same "human" nature. I am surprised that I need to point that out as it touches on the basics of understanding the holy Trinity unless I am missing your point.

We know this but Jesus is one divine person is he not? Not a human person and then a divine person. Does human mothers give birth to people or to just natures?? We give birth to persons, the person of Jesus was both, human and divine, not human and then divine or visa versa, He is one divine person, Mary is His mother, ergo Mary is the mother of God.

What I find even more sad is the apparent chip that many Catholic posters seem to carry on their shoulders here. I couldn't care less about the catholic Church to be honest with you. Further I don't consider the title mother of God to be a "Catholic" thing. IOW, I do not consider what we now know as the Roman Catholic Church to be the church that instituted this decree. As such, my disagreement with this title has no bearing whatsoever on the Catholic church (as I have only stated maybe 20 timed previously in this discussion). Further, I do not agree with some of the beliefs of the Orthodox church, but I have a great respect for them. If in fact I were to join an orthodox faith, they would certainly be the ones. So again, your assumptions about how I feel about orthodoxy are again incorrect.

What do you mean by "if I were to join an orthodox faith"? You don't consider yourself to be an orthodox Christian? If not then no surprise. If so, how can a orthodox Christian deny this doctrine? The reformers and the early protestant Church never did. What do you have to say about that? That until very recently, maybe 100 or so years no one denied this. Don't you find that odd? Obviously it was scriptural enough for 1900 or so years and now all of a sudden it’s not?? Why?

Unfortunately, because some wear glasses where everything is viewed as either pro- or anti- their religion of choice, they cannot address what is stated in many discussions based solely on the merits of the discussion. For them there is always a hidden agenda that someone is attacking their church.

Well, why do you deny this then? No one did until recently. What is the reason for denying this all of a sudden if it’s not in a over reaction to the Catholic Church? Can’t be scriptural, because it was believed for 1900 years both before and after the reformation.

Your world may revolve around the Catholic church; mine does not. My views of this title have nothing whatsoever to do with that church as I don't consider the title a product of that church.

The Christian faith comes from the Church because it is the Church that Christ built. This can be proven historically very easily and again, no honest early Protestant ever denied this. Why all of a sudden the Catholic Church is not who she has always been for 2000 years? If the early Christian Church who preached Christ and converted the world to Christianity is some other Church than the Catholic Church then please document it for me.

 

[Benedicta00]

Whoa Shelb...
That is a really big assumption on your part and I might add that is not based on anything factual. I highly suggest that you retract that statement. You have no way of knowing if anyone in here is "denying the reality of scriptures" because they don't want to agree with your churches beliefs.

I know I have been through this with you before. I see the scriptures as something objective. I know others see it as subjective. So when I say one is denying the reality of scripture I mean they are denying the objective truth that it contains, I mean no insult to anyone’s personal interpretation, I am only suggesting that truth is not subjective to what our self interpretation is, but truth is objective based on the deposit of faith that Christ left with His Church.

 

[Benedicta00]

Shelby did not include a caveot "in my opinion", instead she stated it in the manner that led me to believe she thought it to be a truth. There is no way possible except for divine revelation that Shelby could possibly know what the intent of, or in what state the heart of Ainess is regarding this issue. Shelby said that Ainess was denying the reality scriptures because that "reality" is taught by the Catholic church. That to me was an attack on her character.

That is exactly what she said. "Sorry but you are just denying the reality of the scriptures and assuming your own meaning to it just so you do not have to agree with the Catholic Church."

Yes. I cannot be any clearer than that. Ainess can defend herself, I just felt that something had to be said and as her brother in Christ I said it.

Lollard,

I am not retracting or apologizing because there is nothing to apologize for. My quote says only that Ainsis is denying the objective interpretation of scripture given to us by Christ’s Church. If this is out of line to you, I am sorry you feel that way but I do not give credence to each and every personal subjective interpretation of scripture as if it is all truth because there is but one truth. All self-interpretations can not all be true, can they? I measure biblical truth based on the deposit of faith left with Christ’s Church. I measure a understanding of a verse based on what Christ taught us through the Church, not by me trying to self interpret it.

 

[SumTinWong]

Lollard,

I am not retracting or apologizing because there is nothing to apologize for. My quote says only that Ainsis is denying the objective interpretation of scripture given to us by Christ’s Church.

No actually what you said was she was denying the truth because it was taught by Catholics. Whatever, I have no wish to speak to you anymore. Good day.