The Immaculate Conception contradicts the gospel (2)

[Albion]

PSSST. It's Mariology.

The word he was thinking of was Mariolatry. Mariology is the study of Mary...obviously not what he was speaking of.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by Mama Kidogo

PSSST. It's Mariology.
​

The word he was thinking of was Mariolatry. Mariology is the study of Mary...obviously not what he was speaking of.

So what is Mariolatry? The study of Mario?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2rlIYec-mA




.

 

[Albion]

So what is Mariolatry?
.

The worship of Mary.

Is that what you meant to refer to in your earlier post?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

The worship of Mary.

Is that what you meant to refer to in your earlier post?

Yes. Thank you.
I believe the topic of Mary has been done to death on CF, and with that, I now unsubscribe..........

http://www.christianforums.com/t7352736/
a question for those who think Catholics worship Mary.

Would you say that the intention is important in worship, or only the external action.

If I bow down before God yet I hate Him in my heart and don't believe in Him..am I worshipping Him? If I bow before God with no intention to worship Him..is it still worship?

If not...

then why is bowing before Mary WITHOUT the intention to worship her, an act of worship?

why this double standard?

what makes something an act of worship... is it really bowing, or singing, or praying? OR, is it the intention? If you think that the external actions make it worship... well that's very confusing. Doesn't it mean that if a man proposes to a woman, he's worshipping her if he gets down on his knee. Yet we see this happening all the time. Also, prayer is just TALKING to someone.. it's not an act of worship at all!!
ALL prayers eventually go to God... He decides how they should be answered... but if you pray to Mary, you're just talking to her, and asking her to pray, just like you would ask a friend on earth.

Why this double standard, I don't understand.. why is asking your friend to pray for you not worship, but asking Mary to pray for you, is? it's the SAME.. do you think that Mary is somehow "less real" than your friend? or dead, perhaps? hasn't Christ overcome death?

Peace

.

 

[Standing Up]

In one sense, yes, she did. In another sense, no, she didn't. In one sense, the woman is Mary, in another sense the woman is daughter Zion. You guys really need to learn about the senses of Scripture, and that the answer to questions that go either/or is usually both/and. So you can say that Christ was speaking literally in John 6, but you can also see three other senses-allegorical, anagogical. and moral.

I've no problem seeing different senses at Rev. 12:2 because I believe Jesus was born normally (with afterbirth, by water and blood). IOW, she birthed in pain.

Given RC's belief Mary birthed without pain, abnormally, without afterbirth, then Rev. 12:2 cannot be a picture of Mary. It could be a few other things, but Mary isn't one of them.

 

[Root of Jesse]

I've no problem seeing different senses at Rev. 12:2 because I believe Jesus was born normally (with afterbirth, by water and blood). IOW, she birthed in pain.

Given RC's belief Mary birthed without pain, abnormally, without afterbirth, then Rev. 12:2 cannot be a picture of Mary. It could be a few other things, but Mary isn't one of them.

You know, you keep saying that we believe this and that, but you have nothing to prove your statement with.

The dogma reads as follows: “Mary bore her Son without any violation of her virginal integrity”. As Catholics we are bound to believe only that statement. Dr. Ludwin Ott in Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma pg. 205 says that “the dogma merely asserts the fact of the continuance of Mary’s physical virginity without determining more closely how this is to be physiologically explained”.

So what you believe we believe, and what we actually must believe, are two entirely different things. And therefore, you're incorrect in your conclusion.

 

[Albion]

Yes. Thank you.
I believe the topic of Mary has been done to death on CF, and with that, I now unsubscribe..........
.

If you wish. So we'll see you back on this thread in 2015 or 2016, then?

 

[Standing Up]

You know, you keep saying that we believe this and that, but you have nothing to prove your statement with.

The dogma reads as follows: “Mary bore her Son without any violation of her virginal integrity”. As Catholics we are bound to believe only that statement. Dr. Ludwin Ott in Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma pg. 205 says that “the dogma merely asserts the fact of the continuance of Mary’s physical virginity without determining more closely how this is to be physiologically explained”.

So what you believe we believe, and what we actually must believe, are two entirely different things. And therefore, you're incorrect in your conclusion.

History books are your friend. IOW, there's a reason they think what they do and told you to believe it too, whether they spell it our for you or not.

 

[Root of Jesse]

History books are your friend. IOW, there's a reason they think what they do and told you to believe it too, whether they spell it our for you or not.

Quote me, please, the history book, and include the author, and the Church's imprimatur, that say this? I provided you with one of my sources.

And you know, I wonder about how you guys try to explain the manna in the desert, or the quails provided to the Israelites, or the water from the rock...

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by Root of Jesse

You know, you keep saying that we believe this and that, but you have nothing to prove your statement with.

The dogma reads as follows: “Mary bore her Son without any violation of her virginal integrity”. As Catholics we are bound to believe only that statement.

Dr. Ludwin Ott in Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma pg. 205 says that “the dogma merely asserts the fact of the continuance of Mary’s physical virginity without determining more closely how this is to be physiologically explained”.

So what you believe we believe, and what we actually must believe, are two entirely different things. And therefore, you're incorrect in your conclusion.
​

So another words, RCs are free to either agree or disagree on the perpetual virginity of Mary up to her death?


.

 

[Defensor Christi]

But it's not hand in hand...Jesus created the Church, if the Church gave birth to him, then we'd still be following letter for letter the OT ways. But we don't cause Jesus gave birth to a new idea of Israel, one rooted in Him.

It is hand in hand...you are stil trying to read the passage in a literal sense. There are many layers/meanings in the symbols detailed in the passage, obviously the child in Jesus which means the woman giving birth to him must be Mary. But the woman represents more than the literal mother of the Lord...hence the crown with 12 stars, the dragon, stars swept away ect....the meaning has many many layers which must be understood in light of the teachings of Scripture, Tradition and the Church. I dont know how to explain that more clearly...

As pointed out many times, if He was born without the stain of original sin, it had nothing to do with Mary.

It has something to do with Mary (not the movie...). If original sin is passed down from Adam to all human descendants, then the Mother of the Lord, the Ark of the new Covenant must be a pure vessel to carry the Son of God...while she didnt do it herself (obviously), she was still a willing participant (see annunciation)...

 

[Defensor Christi]

So another words, RCs are free to either agree or disagree on the perpetual virginity of Mary up to her death?


.

Ah...no, maybe this explains it better...

Please note that the Church never has authoritatively ruled on the interpretation or specifics of <virginitas in partu>. Moreover, on July 27, 1960, the Holy Office (now the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) warned again discussing this issue in a way "...clearly opposed to the traditional doctrine of the Church and the devotional sense of the faithful."


Father William Saunders

 

[MrMoe]

I think you missed this part, "Scripture is traditionally interpreted in four senses (please see our Faith Fact, Scripture Sense): literal, allegorical, moral, and anagogical. God not only teaches through words (literally), but also through the things, people, and events mentioned in scripture (see Catechism of the Catholic Church, nos. 115-19). " #55

Nope, didn't miss that part.

You cannot interpret this passage (or most, in Revelation, for that matter) literally...once you understand that their are layered meanings, things become much more clear.

You don't seem to understand that Revelation 12 is using symbolic language to describe actual events which follow a chronological order. So your ''four senses'' interpretation that the woman is the church creates an obvious paradox, since the church (which is the body of Christ) cannot exist without the head, which is Christ. The church was started in Acts. The nation of Israel however did exist before Christ came and Israel did give birth to the messiah through the line of King David and The sun the moon and the stars mentioned in Revelation 12 are all mentioned in Genesis 37:5-10 which is also reference to Israel.

 

[Standing Up]

Quote me, please, the history book, and include the author, and the Church's imprimatur, that say this? I provided you with one of my sources.

And you know, I wonder about how you guys try to explain the manna in the desert, or the quails provided to the Israelites, or the water from the rock...

The idea of an abnormal birth begins with the Protoevangelium of James. It is mentioned against by Clement of Alexandria. Trullo Council defines that there was no afterbirth.

So, the idea of ever-virgin, the reason for it, traces to the idea of, as another poster put it, a teleporting baby, born unlike the rest of humanity.

This idea contradicts scripture where Paul says born of a woman and John says came by water and blood.

PS Cakes to the queen of heaven are a reference thereto.

 

[Standing Up]

It has something to do with Mary (not the movie...). If original sin is passed down from Adam to all human descendants, then the Mother of the Lord, the Ark of the new Covenant must be a pure vessel to carry the Son of God...while she didnt do it herself (obviously), she was still a willing participant (see annunciation)...

It comes down through the seed of men. Not the mother. It is theology (ever-virgin, immaculate conception) built on bad science (the mother gives her blood to the baby, but she doesn't).

 

[Targaryen]

It is hand in hand...you are stil trying to read the passage in a literal sense. There are many layers/meanings in the symbols detailed in the passage, obviously the child in Jesus which means the woman giving birth to him must be Mary. But the woman represents more than the literal mother of the Lord...hence the crown with 12 stars, the dragon, stars swept away ect....the meaning has many many layers which must be understood in light of the teachings of Scripture, Tradition and the Church. I dont know how to explain that more clearly...

That's not Mary spoken about in Revelation, it's not even the church. It's Israel, the crown with 12 stars represents Israel...that was shown in a previous post

The Dragon yes is a figure for God and the Son, Our Lord, but the woman is not Mary, but that of Israel.

Sorry but it's as fairly clear when you read the verse to see it in that manner then anything to do with Mary.

 

[Defensor Christi]

Nope, didn't miss that part.




You don't seem to understand that Revelation 12 is using symbolic language to describe actual events which follow a chronological order. So your ''four senses'' interpretation that the woman is the church creates an obvious paradox, since the church (which is the body of Christ) cannot exist without the head, which is Christ. The church was started in Acts. The nation of Israel however did exist before Christ came and Israel did give birth to the messiah through the line of King David and The sun the moon and the stars mentioned in Revelation 12 are all mentioned in Genesis 37:5-10 which is also reference to Israel.

Well I guess we will have to agree to disagree...

It comes down through the seed of men. Not the mother. It is theology (ever-virgin, immaculate conception) built on bad science (the mother gives her blood to the baby, but she doesn't).

I am not at all interested in the science of Original Sin...scientists thought the world was flat for centuries...just sayin'

That's not Mary spoken about in Revelation, it's not even the church. It's Israel, the crown with 12 stars represents Israel...that was shown in a previous post

The Dragon yes is a figure for God and the Son, Our Lord, but the woman is not Mary, but that of Israel.

Sorry but it's as fairly clear when you read the verse to see it in that manner then anything to do with Mary.

The passage has many different layers...you cannot view (nor most of Revelation) strictly through one lens.

So, I am sorry...it seems very clear to me when you read it with that thought in mind. Again, this is something that neither of us will be budging on and something that simply cannot be "proven" either way...

Again, agree to disagree...the question was asked and answered.

 

[Targaryen]

The passage has many different layers...you cannot view (nor most of Revelation) strictly through one lens.

So, I am sorry...it seems very clear to me when you read it with that thought in mind. Again, this is something that neither of us will be budging on and something that simply cannot be "proven" either way...

Again, agree to disagree...the question was asked and answered.

It wasn't read with that previous statement in mind. I tend to not take theological directions from televangelists. It was read word for word and dissembling the meaning of the text according to what I saw there.

Sorry but there is nothing theological about your statement that Rev.12 speaks about Mary other then a way to justify Marian dogmatics. and even at that it fails under inspection and critical analysis.

 

[Defensor Christi]

It wasn't read with that previous statement in mind. I tend to not take theological directions from televangelists. It was read word for word and dissembling the meaning of the text according to what I saw there.

Sorry but there is nothing theological about your statement that Rev.12 speaks about Mary other then a way to justify Marian dogmatics. and even at that it fails under inspection and critical analysis.

So, to be clear, please spell out your version of the symbols illustrated in this passage...because this isnt very clear...thanks!!

That's not Mary spoken about in Revelation, it's not even the church. It's Israel, the crown with 12 stars represents Israel...that was shown in a previous post

The Dragon yes is a figure for God and the Son, Our Lord, but the woman is not Mary, but that of Israel.

Sorry but it's as fairly clear when you read the verse to see it in that manner then anything to do with Mary

 

[prodromos]

The Dragon yes is a figure for God and the Son, Our Lord, but the woman is not Mary, but that of Israel.

The Dragon is what?!
The Dragon that waited for the woman to give birth so it could devour her son?

Now war arose in heaven, Michael and his angels fighting against the dragon. And the dragon and his angels fought back, but he was defeated, and there was no longer any place for them in heaven. And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world&#8212;he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him.​

Forgive me if I take your 'plain reading' of Scripture with a grain of salt