Speak lovingly of Mary

All though I do have 5 children and I do love each and every one as a mother loves her Child I do know that God loves them even More and even more righteously than I ever could. Me being human have that tendency to allow emotion to rule over me at times instead of truth.

MamaZ said:

All though I do have 5 children and I do love each and every one as a mother loves her Child I do know that God loves them even More and even more righteously than I ever could. Me being human have that tendency to allow emotion to rule over me at times instead of truth.

Click to expand...

Okay. Well, obviously I did not include God in what I was saying. But, apart from God, could any person have loved Jesus more than his own mother? Could any person have been more sorrowful over the death of her Son? As a mother yourself, I think you can sympathize.

katholikos said:

Okay. Well, obviously I did not include God in what I was saying. But, apart from God, could any person have loved Jesus more than his own mother? Could any person have been more sorrowful over the death of her Son? As a mother yourself, I think you can sympathize.

Click to expand...

yes.

it is not a neccesary truth that a mother is the most loving human (excluding God per above) of a child. Many mothers loath their children. Sad fact. Simply saying "it's mom, so she loved more, and grieved more" is an unsupportable supposition.

AND, completely irrelevant to the topic at hand, mind you.

Uphill Battle said:

yes.

it is not a neccesary truth that a mother is the most loving human (excluding God per above) of a child. Many mothers loath their children. Sad fact. Simply saying "it's mom, so she loved more, and grieved more" is an unsupportable supposition.

AND, completely irrelevant to the topic at hand, mind you.

Click to expand...

I hope you are not suggesting the the Woman whom "all generations" shall called "blessed" may have loathed her son.. ..?

And, LOVE is totally relevant to the conversation - it is the basis of all that Christ taught. And to understand Mary and her motherhood in our lives, one must understand the family of God as a family, and therefore one must speak of Love.

Besides: The title of this thread is "Speak lovingly of Mary", in case you forgot.

.

.

katholikos said:

I hope you are not suggesting the the Woman whom "all generations" shall called "blessed" may have loathed her son.. ..?

Click to expand...

uh, no. I'm not the one making suppositions on the emotional status of Mary regarding Christ. YOU guys do that. I'm just exposing a weak argument for what it is.

And, LOVE is totally relevant to the conversation - it is the basis of all that Christ taught.

Click to expand...

yes, not that bit.

And to understand Mary and her motherhood in our lives,

Click to expand...

that bit. California has repeatedly stated what is realy valid here. Is it loving to lie (even nice lies, building someone up to a high status using fiction) to "love" someone. Falsehoods aren't loving, no matter how nice they are. So, it has to be firmly established (which it isn't) that every single Marian dogma is absolute truth, substatiated, else the possibility exists that it is a well intentioned lie, which is completely absent of love.

Besides: The title of this thread is "Speak lovingly of Mary", in case you forgot.

.

.

Click to expand...

yes. We have to establish what speaking lovingly of Mary should or shouldn't be, don't you agree?

.

no.

bbbbbbb, i understand that you believe that the Marian doctrines of the Catholic Church raise Mary to a level that you find unacceptable, but I would like to say that each doctrine that the Catholic Church confers upon Mary has much more to do with who Christ is than who Mary is. If it were not for the fact that she is the mother of Jesus, none would be in existence. The oldest doctine is Mother of God, this is because Jesus is God and therefore Mary is the mother of God. Jesus was and is both human and divine, His divinity cannot be seperated from His humanity, and because Mary gave birth to Jesus, she is the Theotokis, the God bearer. If Jesus is not both human and divine, then no, Mary is not the Mother of God.

Just as the Ark of the Covenent of the OT carried the ten commandments, mana from heaven and the staff of Aaron, a priest of the covenant, Mary carried the Word of God, the bread that comes down from heaven and our High Priest in her womb. Mary carried within her womb the fullfilment of the forshadowing of the ordiginal Ark, God Himself. If Jesus is not the Word of God, is not the bread that comes down from heaven, and our High Priest, then no Mary is not the new Ark of the Covenant.

We believe in the Immaculate Conception because God would inhabit her womb for nine months and because she was chosen to be the Mother of God, she, by the grace given to her by God, was free of sin from the moment of her conception. If Jesus is not God, then there is no need for Mary to be without sin.

The Assumption of Mary for me is a promise of what will happen to all belonging to the Body of Christ, we also will be reunited with our glorified bodies at the end of the age.

Mary is the Queen of Heaven because her Son is the King. This is also the fullfillment of the foreshadowing of David's Israel, the queen was the mother of the King, not his wife because there were many wives but only one mother. If Jesus is not King, then Mary is not Queen.

UB does make a point when he says that "We have to establish what speaking lovingly of Mary should or shouldn't be". I agree with this, for a Catholic, it is giving honor to Mary because of who Jesus is. All honor that we give to Mary is ultimately giving honor to God because they each define who Jesus is.

I do not expect that you will change your views on Mary or should love her based on anything that I write, but I do ask that you try and understand why we give her honor. I also know that there are non-Catholics who love Mary and honor her based on their own faith. I do have a problem however, when Mary is referred to as merely a vessel used by God to come into the world. My own mother meant much more to me then just a vessel by which I came into the world and I cannot imagine that the God of love and mercy would view His mother in this maner.

God Bless,
Nancy

bbbbbbb said:

Actually yes, Katholikos. I note that you seem to think the first name of Mr. Ratzinger is Peter, according to your icon. Would he be pleased if you called him Peter?...

Click to expand...

First of all, that is off topic.

Second of all, "Thou Art Peter" is a quote from scripture, and I'm sure you know. Only an idiot would think His Holiness' first name is Peter, and I'm no idiot.

katholikos said:

.

no.

Click to expand...

what an undying shock!

CathNancy said:

Just as the Ark of the Covenent of the OT carried the ten commandments, mana from heaven and the staff of Aaron, a priest of the covenant, Mary carried the Word of God, the bread that comes down from heaven and our High Priest in her womb. Mary carried within her womb the fullfilment of the forshadowing of the ordiginal Ark, God Himself. If Jesus is not the Word of God, is not the bread that comes down from heaven, and our High Priest, then no Mary is not the new Ark of the Covenant.

Click to expand...

false dilemma. Mary does not have to be the Ark, for Jesus to be the Word.

We believe in the Immaculate Conception because God would inhabit her womb for nine months and because she was chosen to be the Mother of God, she, by the grace given to her by God, was free of sin from the moment of her conception. If Jesus is not God, then there is no need for Mary to be without sin.

Click to expand...

so why is the IC even remotely neccessary for God to inhabit her womb? God regularly used the broken, sinful people of this world to make his will manifest. The logic steps don't follow.

The Assumption of Mary for me is a promise of what will happen to all belonging to the Body of Christ, we also will be reunited with our glorified bodies at the end of the age.

Click to expand...

and it doesn't bother you that the only evidence you have is "because my church says so?"

Mary is the Queen of Heaven because her Son is the King. This is also the fullfillment of the foreshadowing of David's Israel, the queen was the mother of the King, not his wife because there were many wives but only one mother. If Jesus is not King, then Mary is not Queen.

Click to expand...

this is, of course, assuming that Heaven runs under the Jewish legal system. (I've a fair bet that it does not.)

UB does make a point when he says that "We have to establish what speaking lovingly of Mary should or shouldn't be". I agree with this, for a Catholic, it is giving honor to Mary because of who Jesus is. All honor that we give to Mary is ultimately giving honor to God because they each define who Jesus is.

Click to expand...

I doubt this. To be true, every Catholic everywhere would have to understand that caveat. I know that it is not true.

I do not expect that you will change your views on Mary or should love her based on anything that I write, but I do ask that you try and understand why we give her honor. I also know that there are non-Catholics who love Mary and honor her based on their own faith. I do have a problem however, when Mary is referred to as merely a vessel used by God to come into the world. My own mother meant much more to me then just a vessel by which I came into the world and I cannot imagine that the God of love and mercy would view His mother in this maner.

Click to expand...

the "mere vessel" argument is a non sequiter. Just because I don't believe in PV, IC, Assumption, well... any of the Marian dogmas, do I consider her a "mere vessel."

katholikos said:

First of all, that is off topic.

Well then, you better go shopping for some flame-retardant jocky shorts while you can. I'll be "upstairs", in the good seats.

Click to expand...

whew. My arrogance meter just exploded.

btw.... isn't this statement contrary to the teaching of your Church? You don't know that you're going to heaven, bub... not if you hold to Catholic teaching like you claim so.

great job placing yourself in the "seat of honour" that Jesus was talking about.

Mary is not the queen because her son is the King lol... He is the King of Kings and Lord of Lords the alpha and the omega. Mary is a created human being of the Jewish rite who was bound under the law until Christ set her free..

There are many Davidic themes in the Old Testament that show the respect that was paid to the Queen Mother, not only by the people but by the King himself. Many theologians, protestant and catholic, see David as a pre-figure of Christ. So it's not a stretch to see this aspect also.

Mary is a created being and God chose to favor her above all His other creatures, by making her the Mother of His own Son. She is indeed the Queen Mother, honored by the King who is above all. Catholic theology begins by making a Family. It's hard to have a true family without a mother! I think it's all very beautiful.

We have a mother. It is the covenant.
Gal 4:26 but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all.

Uphill Battle said:

whew. My arrogance meter just exploded.
.

Click to expand...

But it didn't explode when the person I was replying to inferred that I would burn in hell because of my avatar?

Methinks you need to re-calibrate the "bias" setting on your arrogance meter

MamaZ said:

We have a mother. It is the covenant.
Gal 4:26 but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all.

Click to expand...

That statemnent is nonsensical. Not only does it demonstrate a lack of understanding of what "Covenant" means, but the scripture quote doesn't even support your statement.

katholikos said:

But it didn't explode when the person I was replying to inferred that I would burn in hell because of my avatar?

Methinks you need to re-calibrate the "bias" setting on your arrogance meter

Click to expand...

I didn't read that into what he said, but now that you mention it, yes, it was arrogant too.

of course saying "hey, look, he's arrogant too" doesn't dispel the arrogance of your statement. misdirection culpability is kind of weak.

katholikos said:

But it didn't explode when the person I was replying to inferred that I would burn in hell because of my avatar?

Methinks you need to re-calibrate the "bias" setting on your arrogance meter



That statemnent is nonsensical. Not only does it demonstrate a lack of understanding of what "Covenant" means, but the scripture quote doesn't even support your statement.

Click to expand...

You tell me what it is you believe a convenant means? We have one mother as Paul states. It is the free woman. The two covenants as spoken about in Galatians. We have the bond woman whom is to be cast out and we have the free woman.

Uphill Battle said:

...saying "hey, look, he's arrogant too" doesn't dispel the arrogance of your statement. misdirection culpability is kind of weak.

Click to expand...

Nobody's perfect.

MamaZ said:

You tell me what it is you believe a convenant means?....

Click to expand...

Well, this is way off topic. But a covenant in Hebrew culture was the entrance into a family - en exchange of persons, the giving of one to another. In our case, it is the entrance into the Family of God.

Hebrews would often bring outsiders into their family - or tribe - and this was done by establishing a "covenant", and was accompanied by swearing an oath and sharing a sacred meal to seal the bond. (Interestingly, the Latin word for "oath" is "sacramentum" - our sacraments are oaths: The Eucharist being the sacred meal in Christs covenant.) So, the "New Covenant" which Christ established is the means by which we enter into the Family of God (*and as a side note: The sign of the Mosaic covenant was circumcision, and the sign of Christ's covenant is Baptism.)

MamaZ said:

...The two covenants as spoken about in Galatians. We have the bond woman whom is to be cast out and we have the free woman.

Click to expand...

Actually there are six covenants. The biblical Covenants are:

Adamic (the covenant God made with Adam),
Noahite (the covenant God made with Noah),
Abrahamic (the covenant God made with Abraham),
Mosaic (the covenant God made with Moses),
Davidic (the covenant God made with David),
and New (the covenant God in the person of Jesus made with the world)


Each successive covenant encompasses a larger and larger group of people: Two, then a family, then on and on up to the whole world. This is Gods plan, from the very beginning, of bringing more and more of the world back into his family. Thats what a covenant is: An entrance into a family.

Each successive covenant has a different sign, such as Noah's rainbow, then on to circumcision, etc.

(As a side issue: The Ten Commandments are part of the Fourth Covenant, with Moses: We are not bound by that covenant. We are bound by Christs commands, and Saturday Sabbath keeping isnt one of them. This is a point you can make to your SDA friends.)

(*NOTE, for your information: Covenantal theology has its roots in Patristic interpretation of Scripture. Notable for the theology of history are Irenaeus's emphasis on the unity of the Old and New Testaments in "Against Heresies" and Augustine's explication of that unity through the "two cities" theme in The City of God (Books XI-XXII). Closely related are the exegetical methods by which Scripture is explained according to its "spiritual senses". These developments were organized by the scholastics into the doctrine of the "four senses," encompassing the literal sense and the three spiritual senses (allegorical, moral, and anagogical). The allegorical sense relates persons, events, and institutions of earlier covenants to those of later covenants (and especially to the New Covenant), thereby situating "spiritual" exegesis within the covenantal theology of history.)

I hope that all helps. And when you understand "covenant" and the family of God, Mary's role in our lives becomes much clearer, if you can open your heart to the Love of God's family. Do not focus on the me me me, but rather on the we we we.

katholikos said:

Nobody's perfect.

Click to expand...

(except Jesus and Mary... right? )

glad we found something to agree on today. We're not perfect.

Nobody's perfect.

Click to expand...

Uphill Battle said:

(except Jesus and Mary... right? )

glad we found something to agree on today. We're not perfect.

Click to expand...

Actually I'll even do you one better: I don't believe Mary is "perfect" either. Jesus was the only "perfect" being to walk the face of the earth. (Unless you count Gen 3:8 where God was walking in the garden.)