The Statue of Mary

[MamaZ]

I'm not going to get into a blow by blow debate here. Frankly it's not worth my time. Just want to point out though, that you don't help your case by dredging up 1600 year old heresies. The Blessed Virgin IS the Mother of God.

She is the mother of the God man the second of the God head who was God before He became man. So therefore this shows us that Mary is the earthly mother of the Man Jesus Christ. For Jesus was God the word before He became God man.. So we see with this that Mary is only His earthly mother for He had no mother in the beginning.

 

[Thekla]

Believers in who? Mary? How is it the same thing? We see the procession line at a funeral. All Go to say their final good byes.. What we don't see is someone taking up the person or their stone and parade around town to get a gathering together in honor of them again and again and again.. Nor do we see anyone going and dressing up the headstone in many different costumes.. So I don't really see where this is the same.

We do, though, continue to remember them. And in the east, there are gatherings periodically after the initial funeral (3rd day, 9th day, 40th day) and annually thereafter to commemorate the Christian's finishing of the race.

 

[DD2008]

Ok. I'm sorry. It's rude of me to be lazy and not want to take the time to reply. So, I will reply, but I'm hoping to shorten it some.

I don't think you are really listening to me... I'm talking about asking them for prayer. Since we're surrounded by them, they're not too far away, by the power of the Holy Spirit they hear us and pray for us to the Father. We're not praying to them in the same way we do to God, cause they don't decide how the prayers will be answered, rather they simply pray for us! like intercessors.

You have to judge their position however, and pray to them with a faith you didn't get from any scriptural source. So it is unbiblical.

but..WHERE does it say that we should only pray to God? It says we should only worship God. But prayer isn't worship. The old use of the word "prayer", in the way we use it, means "To request". That is all.

Luke 2:37
[37] and as a widow till she was eighty-four. She did not depart from the temple, worshiping with fasting and prayer night and day.

Prayer is a form of worship. It is done in faith.

the Apostles have successors.. these successors give us the correct interpretation of the Bible so that we're not lead astray and so that we're not of "one mind". The Bible does not say that the official teaching of the Church contains error, rather than Christians are prone to error. And there are Catholics who have the wrong understanding of doctrines. But the official teachings are true...cause Christ told Peter, the gates of hades will never overcome the Church.. if the whole Church believes a lie, that means the devil won, cause the devil is the father of lies.

This is an enormous error. There are ordained leaders who are able to teach in the church. However, they are all fallible. There were apostles who were witnesses to Christ. Peter speaks clearly that there would be scripture left for us so that we could recall apostolic teachings.

You also have your definition of the Church wrong. The Roman Catholic Church is just a denomination in the Universal Church. They are a denomination in error. More so than most. Even enough to call them heterodox.

So the gospel of Jesus Christ is the truth that the Church upholds. It is found in the scriptures that were inspired by the HOly Spirit and written down by the Apostles. So all denominations in the church who hold to the scriptures are apostolic. There may be minor disagreements over order spiritual gifts etc that cause different denominations of the Church to be. But there is one true gospel that can be heard at any denomination of the Church. So, the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth. The Church does not however consist of just one denomination, especially the Roman Catholic one.

No one thinks that she didn't need to be redeemed. She was redeemed by Christ's sacrifice too. It just got applied to her at her conception.

You don't get that from the bible.

and Mary was sinless so that Christ would not be dishonoured..it's for His sake.

That is philosphy. It is not based on scripture. This is not revealed truth, but the reasoning of flawed creatures.

in Heaven, we continue serving and loving God and doing HIs will. If His people are suffering here on earth, it's very logical that those in Heaven would pray for us.

Revealed truth in scripture is superior to any "logic" a human can scrape up.

How do you explain all the miracles that happen by Saints' intercession?

How do you explain the "miracles" that happen without saints intercesion?

I think there can't even be any doubt that she went to Heaven. She is His Mother!!

I am with you there. The bible says her soul magnifies the Lord. But the bible also tells us not to guess who went and who didn't. A pious looking person can be at heart a profane individual. Don't think I think she is a profane individual, I don't. I just think it is best to go with what we know. Christ. Christ is the Lord.

However. I think she is in heaven. I have faith that she was the first Christian revealed in scripture and was an elect that persevered. However, the scriptures reveal very little about her. One is left with no reason to believe anything other that she was a blessed woman who had the privilege of being the mother of Christ. The is no scriputreal call to pray to her. Or build statues of her to bow in front of.

but how do we interpret the Bible? as you can see there are many thousands of denominations out there.. how do we know who is right. Clearly this shows the Bible doesn't interpret itself. And btw, they all claim to be lead by the Holy Spirit!

The gospel of Christ is the same in all denominations of the Christian Church.

everything that I as a Catholic believe about Mary can be found in Scripture.

Then you must not believe in the Immaculate conception, the assumption, the co-mediatrix doctrine, teh mediatrix of all graces idea, the co-redemptrix idea, or that you should pray to her.

Prove it with conclusive scriptures.

Mary is the Spouse of the Holy Spirit. They are not in competition.

It does not say that in scripture. It says she is the spouse of Joseph. Christ was concieved by the power of God. She was a virgin when she gave birth, remember? Nowhere in the bible does it say she is the spouse of anyone but Joseph. It even indicates that Jesus had brothers. I used to dance around that one often when I was defending the RCC position.

You keep on saying that he is a heretic...yet "heretic" means he went against Church teaching. That's the official definition. He didn't go against Church teaching. The Church supports his view.

There are many heretical Roman Cathoilc teachings that go against the Church and the scriptures left for us by God.

so how does He choose people? why doesn't He choose all? does He hate them?

The reasons are known only to him. Everyone is a sinner and no one deserves anything but hell. God gives mercy to who he will give mercy and he gives justice to who he will give justice too. Either way God is good and right.

Romans 9:13-24
[13] As it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."
[14] What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means!
[15] For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."
[16] So it depends not upon man's will or exertion, but upon God's mercy.
[17] For the scripture says to Pharaoh, "I have raised you up for the very purpose of showing my power in you, so that my name may be proclaimed in all the earth."
[18] So then he has mercy upon whomever he wills, and he hardens the heart of whomever he wills.
[19] You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?"
[20] But who are you, a man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me thus?"
[21] Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for beauty and another for menial use?
[22] What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience the vessels of wrath made for destruction,
[23] in order to make known the riches of his glory for the vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory,
[24] even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?

there is no difference.. those in Heaven are alive just like we are alive. They are even more alive. Christ conquered death!

That may be, however, show me the scripture that says we should or even can pray to them. Only prayer to God is biblical.

NO ONE is saying that we're saved because we work! Please don't twist my words.. maybe you think that Catholics think we can earn our salvation, but no we don't think so.. please understand our teachings first..sorry.

Many Roman Catholics think they have to work for their salvation. This is a fact. You may not be one of them. I hope not.

but once we're baptized we're born again, so we CAN cooperate! Do you believe there is no free will?

I believ being born again is a quickening of the sould that is done by God. Baptism is a sacrament that visibly enters one into the visible membership of the Church but does not forgive sins. Entrance into the invisible membership of the Church is done at the discretion of God.

I believe that man's "free will" is in bondage to sin. Only the power of God can make him believe and not want to sin.

I don't believe in Calvinism..
the Bible says God is love.. God who is love will not choose to save some people and choose to damn the rest. He wants ALL to be saved
I believe in the Atonement that was for all, not limited...

After an intense bible study at home I realized that what the bible as a whole teaches is very well summarized in the tulip formula. So, I realized, Oh no! I'm a calvinist!

If you believe in hell and believe there will be people in it you believe in a limited atonement.

The atonement is either limited in effectiveness or in scope if you believe that people will spend eternity in hell. Universalism is not scriptural.

I think you are twisting his words around.. his language is often mystical and you gotta read the whole book to understand it. I'm still reading it and with every chapter, there's something new. You gotta look at everything he said in context with other things he said.

I'm done with that book. I think it is unscriptural and twists things in an attempt to make it look like something is there that isn't. I reject teh writings of de Montfort.

there is no competition between Jesus and Mary.. we DO call upon the Lord..

In prayer we should only call upon the Lord.

do you think that all the Christians for 1500+ were wrong then?

Not all of them. There have always been people who read the scriptures and challenged these practices.

I used to be Protestant brother I'll take a look though. I know that nothing can convince me to be a Protestant again, sorry..

I'm not trying to convince you. I just placed those links there to give you a place to answer whatever questions you may have, since you knew I used to be a Roman Catholic. As an RCC you tend to notice that you defend extra biblical doctrines a lot. Eventually one questions "Why does everyone who believes the bible think I'm an idolater?" It's a long story really.

nice talking with you.

God bless.

You too.

 

[MoNiCa4316]

She is the mother of the God man the second of the God head who was God before He became man. So therefore this shows us that Mary is the earthly mother of the Man Jesus Christ. For Jesus was God the word before He became God man.. So we see with this that Mary is only His earthly mother for He had no mother in the beginning.

the early Church said that Mary is the Mother of God, because Christ is fully human and fully divine. His 2 natures are not separated. This does NOT mean that she existed before God or that she created His divinity. It simply means that the Person she bore in her womb was BOTH human AND divine. In rejecting the title the Mother of God, people unknowingly reject Christ's divinity. This is what the early Church said in response to a heresy.

 

[MoNiCa4316]

Ok. I'm sorry. It's rude of me to be lazy and not want to take the time to reply. So, I will reply, but I'm hoping to shorten it some.

hey brother, I actually agree with you that maybe it would be best to end this discussion soon. At least the debate about de Montfort. To me, this is not just any old teaching. It's considered to be pretty special in the Church, so I'd rather not debate it, and I wouldn't have even brought it up here if it wasnt' already mentioned.

You have to judge their position however, and pray to them with a faith you didn't get from any scriptural source. So it is unbiblical.

we DO have the faith that those in Heaven love and pray for us, there is nothing in the BIble that says otherwise...
we don't judge their position. Everyone who was declared a Saint in the Catholic Church was declared this because of miracles of intercession, which PROVES they made it to Heaven so there is no presumption.

Luke 2:37
[37] and as a widow till she was eighty-four. She did not depart from the temple, worshiping with fasting and prayer night and day.

Prayer is a form of worship. It is done in faith.

we can worship with ANYTHING! it's not saying that prayer = worship, it's saying that one can worship using prayer. Doesn't mean all prayer is worship, just as not all singing is worship.

This is an enormous error. There are ordained leaders who are able to teach in the church. However, they are all fallible. There were apostles who were witnesses to Christ. Peter speaks clearly that there would be scripture left for us so that we could recall apostolic teachings.

THe Bible tells us to follow what the Apostles said in word AND letter... Tradition comes from the same source as Scripture: from the Holy Spirit. So they don't and can't contradict each other.

We don't believe that every single teacher is infallible. Rather, that the Church as a whole is infallible. The Pope shares in this infallibility in a special way, since he's the successor of Peter, the "rock", ...Christ talks about the Church not being overcome by the enemy in the same sentence He names Peter the rock.

You also have your definition of the Church wrong. The Roman Catholic Church is just a denomination in the Universal Church. They are a denomination in error. More so than most. Even enough to call them heterodox.

All Christians until the reformation agree with me, that the Church is visible, not just invisible. What you say is a very new belief.. and if it's true, it means that most of the Church - rather, ALL of the Church was "in grave error" before Luther et al came along! Do you see how illogical this is? To say that the entire Church before Luther was "heterodox"? and that is exactly what you are saying, since there was only the Catholic and the Orthodox churches before Protestantism, and they both teach that Mary is ever virgin, didn't sin, that the Church is visible, that there are Sacraments, that salvation is not by faith alone, etc..

So the gospel of Jesus Christ is the truth that the Church upholds. It is found in the scriptures that were inspired by the HOly Spirit and written down by the Apostles. So all denominations in the church who hold to the scriptures are apostolic. There may be minor disagreements over order spiritual gifts etc that cause different denominations of the Church to be. But there is one true gospel that can be heard at any denomination of the Church. So, the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth. The Church does not however consist of just one denomination, especially the Roman Catholic one.

actually the Gospel is presented differently in Protestant churches. The Gospel is not the ONLY truth that Christ handed down to us.. He gave us other teachings too, which only the Catholic Church upholds (and the Orthodox Church comes very close, but Protestantism does not).

Revealed truth in scripture is superior to any "logic" a human can scrape up.

the Catholic Church is founded on revelation, not logic. Actually modern Protestantism is founded on logic much more. Did you know why Zwingli rejected the Eucharist? It made no sense to him. But Catholics for all ages have believed in the Eucharist even though we don't understand how it could be.

How do you explain the "miracles" that happen without saints intercesion?

I don't understand the question... there are different types of miracles out there.

I am with you there. The bible says her soul magnifies the Lord. But the bible also tells us not to guess who went and who didn't. A pious looking person can be at heart a profane individual. Don't think I think she is a profane individual, I don't. I just think it is best to go with what we know. Christ. Christ is the Lord.

um..I'll say what I said before, there is no doubt at all that Mary went to Heaven, nor could there be.

However. I think she is in heaven. I have faith that she was the first Christian revealed in scripture and was an elect that persevered. However, the scriptures reveal very little about her. One is left with no reason to believe anything other that she was a blessed woman who had the privilege of being the mother of Christ. The is no scriputreal call to pray to her. Or build statues of her to bow in front of.

I think the Mother of Christ (Mother of God) deserves respect because of her role and position in the Church. That is why we make statues of her. And we don't bow TO the statues, they're just visual reminders.

The gospel of Christ is the same in all denominations of the Christian Church.

not really..it's presented differently, and there are people who call themselves Christians and don't even believe in Christ's divinity.

Then you must not believe in the Immaculate conception, the assumption, the co-mediatrix doctrine, teh mediatrix of all graces idea, the co-redemptrix idea, or that you should pray to her.

none of this contradicts Scripture.

Prove it with conclusive scriptures.

why dont you pray about it and ask God to show you when I was a Protestant no matter how many debates I had with Catholics I still held on to my views. Only God can change our minds and hearts.

It does not say that in scripture. It says she is the spouse of Joseph. Christ was concieved by the power of God. She was a virgin when she gave birth, remember? Nowhere in the bible does it say she is the spouse of anyone but Joseph. It even indicates that Jesus had brothers. I used to dance around that one often when I was defending the RCC position.

it's mystical language

There are many heretical Roman Cathoilc teachings that go against the Church and the scriptures left for us by God.

so there was no Church before the reformation? or the whole Church was in grave error?

The reasons are known only to him. Everyone is a sinner and no one deserves anything but hell. God gives mercy to who he will give mercy and he gives justice to who he will give justice too. Either way God is good and right.

I've never had a Calvinist answer this question for me. Because sadly there is no answer. It says in the BIble, God is love. He died for all. It SAYS - He wants ALL men to come to repentance. "the Lord is not willing that anyone should perish..." remember this verse brother? this goes right against Calvinism. Why do you call your position so Scriptural if there is a verse that goes against it? And why would God create people only to damn them to hell without their choice? The Catholic Church teaches that those who go to hell, choose to, they don't repent of sin and so are not saved. But God is offering this salvation to everyone. He is not willing to anyone should perish. If your'e correct, why did He choose me to give faith to but not my agnostic friend? I'm no better than her. So is it at random?

That may be, however, show me the scripture that says we should or even can pray to them. Only prayer to God is biblical.

it says we can intercede for one another. There is no reason to suppose those in Heaven are excluded from this.

Many Roman Catholics think they have to work for their salvation. This is a fact. You may not be one of them. I hope not.

I've talked to many Catholics about this and it's not true.

I believ being born again is a quickening of the sould that is done by God. Baptism is a sacrament that visibly enters one into the visible membership of the Church but does not forgive sins. Entrance into the invisible membership of the Church is done at the discretion of God.

we're born again by baptism, which is a work of God. St Justin Martyr said that we're born again through baptism and he lived around 150 AD! All the ECFs said this. Again, was everyone wrong until the 1500s?

I believe that man's "free will" is in bondage to sin. Only the power of God can make him believe and not want to sin.

we are in bondage to sin but with God's grace we are able to choose Him. This is a mystery.. both God's sovereignty and our free will are truths. Not just one or the other. They are not in competition.

After an intense bible study at home I realized that what the bible as a whole teaches is very well summarized in the tulip formula. So, I realized, Oh no! I'm a calvinist!

something very similar happened with me only I ended up a Catholic instead

If you believe in hell and believe there will be people in it you believe in a limited atonement.

NO... Jesus died for all. When people go to hell, this is not because He didn't redeem them. This is because they rejected this redemption.

The atonement is either limited in effectiveness or in scope if you believe that people will spend eternity in hell. Universalism is not scriptural.

I don't believe in universalism. I believe in unlimited atonement.. we are ALL redeemed. It just has to be applied to us. Some reject it. This hurts God, because He loves them. THis is a risk He took because of His great love for us.

I'm done with that book. I think it is unscriptural and twists things in an attempt to make it look like something is there that isn't. I reject teh writings of de Montfort.

I find that very sad, sorry.

Not all of them. There have always been people who read the scriptures and challenged these practices.

they were called 'heretics' by the early Church. They were not in the Church.

I'm not trying to convince you. I just placed those links there to give you a place to answer whatever questions you may have, since you knew I used to be a Roman Catholic. As an RCC you tend to notice that you defend extra biblical doctrines a lot. Eventually one questions "Why does everyone that believes the bible think I'm an idolater?" It's a long story really.

I disagree.. when I was a Protestant I read the Bible really selectively. So did my church. THe book of James was never even mentioned. As a Catholic, I can finally read the Bible as a whole and not have to ignore any scriptures. I just have to INTERPRET them correctly and the Church helps us with this. So I'd have to actually say the opposite.. I always got nervous while reading certain parts of the Bible as a Protestant.. now I can finally look at all of it and see where each part fits in.

The reason some PROTESTANTS (NOT "everyone who believes the Bible") think Catholics are idolaters is because they don't properly understand the Catholic teachings.

Peace.

 

[benedictaoo]

To all the Calvinist types up in here...

Calvin never denied the Theotokos... mother of God as being just that.

and neither did he deny her perpetual virginity either...

and we all know he was all about the bible, so obviously we can't very well argue that these dogmas are not bible. sure they are. Elizabeth called her "Mother of my Lord..." so there.

and also, Calvin had some strong words for those who did deny these dogmas.

Now don't come back and say, "well that was just Catholic residue or Calvin was just wrong on that account."

I'm sorry but that doesn't fly.

The problem with that is subjectivity-- you are totally making what's "biblical" subject to whoever's reading and the question creeps up on us again.. on who's authority do you cherry pick what you will accept from even the Reformers??

On what authority do any of you have it that you can pick and choose what is biblical and what is not?

You deny the magisterium of Christ's Church (magisterium means "teaching authority") the authority from God to teach us the faith.

You also deny any witness or writings of the ECF's who indeed, we know accepted Mary as the mother of God and her perpetual virginity.

and lastly, you deny the early Prots and even the Reformers never rejected it either, in fact Luther even upheld her sinless before the Church made it a dogma of our faith.

So what's up?

Stepping back and looking at this objectively, come on guys... it's just a inordinate fear of Catholicism and a over reaction to Marian devotion so you deny what no one did until about a 100 or so years ago.

You confuse devotion with dogma. Devotion is love for Mary and a devotion to her through prayer and consercrating one to her motherly protection. Dogmas reveal a deeper theology understanding of the nature of Christ.

 

[DD2008]

To all the Calvinist types up in here...

Calvin never denied the Theotokos... mother of God as being just that.

and neither did he deny her perpetual virginity either...

and we all know he was all about the bible, so obviously we can't very well argue that these dogmas are not bible. sure they are. Elizabeth called her "Mother of my Lord..." so there.

and also, Calvin had some strong words for those who did deny these dogmas.

Now don't come back and say, "well that was just Catholic residue or Calvin was just wrong on that account."

I'm sorry but that doesn't fly.

The problem with that is subjectivity-- you are totally making what's "biblical" subject to whoever's reading and the question creeps up on us again.. on who's authority do you cherry pick what you will accept from even the Reformers??

On what authority do any of you have it that you can pick and choose what is biblical and what is not?

You deny the magisterium of Christ's Church (magisterium means "teaching authority") the authority from God to teach us the faith.

You also deny any witness or writings of the ECF's who indeed, we know accepted Mary as the mother of God and her perpetual virginity.

and lastly, you deny the early Prots and even the Reformers never rejected it either, in fact Luther even upheld her sinless before the Church made it a dogma of our faith.

So what's up?

.

Show us the scripture they got that from. I must have missed it.

 

[MoNiCa4316]

Well number one Mary is not the Mother of God. She is the earthly mother of Christ the word made flesh. God the Father has no mother. God the Spirit has not mother.. Christ made flesh is the only one of the God head who had an earthly mother only because God had prepared for Him a Body. So that He may come and do the will of the Father to save mankind.

​

You misunderstand the title "Mother of God". It doesn't mean she's the Mother of the Father and the Spirit. It means that the Person she bore in her womb was fully human and fully divine, not just human. The early Church taught this idea that she's the Mother of God.

How do you know what she says. LOL. From what I can see in the scriptures is that in Heaven there is nothing but praise unto God. No praying. Mary did not get to heaven any other way than any of us will and that is through the Blood of Christ. Therefore it is not Mary who is righteous but it is Christs righteousness that one prays through and we here on earth can do that all by ourselves for there is no more rightous than the other for only Christ is the righteous one..

​

Theres nothing to suggest that in Heaven we would no longer pray.
​

We DO believe that Mary was saved by God and went to Heaven because of the Cross. We just believe this salvation was given to her at her conception.

Christ is righteous but through Him we become righteous too, not just called "righteous", but actualy so. So - Mary is righteous too, by His grace.

Mary.. For we see in scripture that there was only one who was without sin. And that not being Mary.. But Christ. Mary had to go through Christ in order to be declared righteous.. For Mary would not be with the Father if not for Christ.

​

Mary was made righteous by God, as I just described.. when we honour her, we honour the work that God did in her, so we honour and glorify God.

How could this dishonor Jesus by being inside the womb of a sinner? He became sin for us. He took on His sheeps sin.. He touched sinners all the time. The lame the blind the deaf.. He even lounged with sinners laying upon His chest..

​

He received His very Body from Mary. She needed to be pure for this.

Mary was not created sinless tee hee.

​

even the early reformers believed she didn't sin.

Sure it does.. We see that the only mediator we need is Christ for He forever lives to intercede on our behalf..

He's the mediator between the Father and us for our salvation. um..so? Mary mediates in a secondary way, not between the Father and us..

We see that there was only one without sin.. Christ.

that's a misunderstanding of the verse.. when it says that "all" have sinned, they used the same word for "all" as for many... and what it means is that without God's grace, we're all sinners. WELL - the idea of the Immaculate Conception doesn't go against this at all cause we believe she was FULL of grace! If she didn't have God's grace, she'd be a sinner. But - she was full of His grace. She is blessed among women. I don't see how this separates her from God's grace, in fact what we're saying is that she's sinless BY His grace...

We see that in the Flesh Mary was His mother but in the Spirit all those born of God are His mother brothers and sisters..

​

she is still His Mother.. she is our Mother too, and this is from Scripture.

Mary does not pray for people. She is now at home and her race is finished. In heaven there is no tears or grief . Those at home with the Lord are not burdened with the worlds care..

​

who says they pray for us with tears and grief? They pray out of love. Surely there is love in Heaven. It is not a burden for them. It's an expression of their love.

It is not Mary who leads one to Christ. It is the Father who draws one to Christ. It is the Spirit who leads us into all truth. Not Mary. We do not need a human to be our mediator between us and Jesus..

​

there is no competition between Mary and Christ.. if you lead someone to Christ, don't you say, "God used me to lead someone to Christ?" So..the Holy Spirit uses Mary to lead us to Christ! what is wrong with that? Why can He use us to lead people to Himself, but can't use the Blessed Virgin?
you're speaking as if what Mary does is separate from what the Holy Spirit does!! but that's not true.. what Mary does is BY the Spirit..!

They may have been examined but where they put to the ultimate test and that is do they line up with the full counsel of Gods written scriptures? Men do not cannonize men to be saints.. Being born again makes one a saint.. This is done of the Fathers will and plan and not from mens doing.

​

the Church's interpretation of Scripture comes from the same origin as the Scripture: from the Holy Spirit, so they don't contradict one another.

We do not need Mary to add her merits to our prayers for her merits is not what got her into the heavenlies.. It was Christ.

her merits were given her by Christ.

And by saying it 5 times do you believe that God hears you better?

​

no.. it means we're praying it 5 times.

True Faith has works that follow it. It is evidence that one truly has been born again. We are saved unto good works not saved by Good works..

​

Catholics don't believe good works save us. We believe in salvation by grace alone but not by faith alone.

The test of truth is not by what man says but in what God through His scripture has revealed to those whom believe

God speaks to us in different ways. Through the Church, AND through Scripture. The Church interprets Scripture. THere is no competition.

In Protestantism, there's a lot of "either/or".. in Catholicism, we don't see it that way..

Peace.
​

 

[MoNiCa4316]

To all the Calvinist types up in here...

Calvin never denied the Theotokos... mother of God as being just that.

and neither did he deny her perpetual virginity either...

and we all know he was all about the bible, so obviously we can't very well argue that these dogmas are not bible. sure they are. Elizabeth called her "Mother of my Lord..." so there.

and also, Calvin had some strong words for those who did deny these dogmas.

Now don't come back and say, "well that was just Catholic residue or Calvin was just wrong on that account."

I'm sorry but that doesn't fly.

The problem with that is subjectivity-- you are totally making what's "biblical" subject to whoever's reading and the question creeps up on us again.. on who's authority do you cherry pick what you will accept from even the Reformers??

On what authority do any of you have it that you can pick and choose what is biblical and what is not?

You deny the magisterium of Christ's Church (magisterium means "teaching authority") the authority from God to teach us the faith.

You also deny any witness or writings of the ECF's who indeed, we know accepted Mary as the mother of God and her perpetual virginity.

and lastly, you deny the early Prots and even the Reformers never rejected it either, in fact Luther even upheld her sinless before the Church made it a dogma of our faith.

So what's up?

Stepping back and looking at this objectively, come on guys... it's just a inordinate fear of Catholicism and a over reaction to Marian devotion so you deny what no one did until about a 100 or so years ago.

You confuse devotion with dogma. Devotion is love for Mary and a devotion to her through prayer and consercrating one to her motherly protection. Dogmas reveal a deeper theology understanding of the nature of Christ.

 

[Polycarp1]

She is the mother of the God man the second of the God head who was God before He became man. So therefore this shows us that Mary is the earthly mother of the Man Jesus Christ. For Jesus was God the word before He became God man.. So we see with this that Mary is only His earthly mother for He had no mother in the beginning.

With all due respect and no insult intended, this is precisely what Nestorius said that led to the Nestorian heresy -- trying to draw a line between "Jesus the man" and "Christ who is God the son". They're the same Person -- truly God and truly man.

And Mary was the mother to Him Who was God Incarnate in human form. That's the whole point to the title -- it doesn't honor her but defends the unity of Him.

 

[DD2008]

hey brother, I actually agree with you that maybe it would be best to end this discussion soon. At least the debate about de Montfort. To me, this is not just any old teaching. It's considered to be pretty special in the Church, so I'd rather not debate it, and I wouldn't have even brought it up here if it wasnt' already mentioned.

The reason some PROTESTANTS (NOT "everyone who believes the Bible") think Catholics are idolaters is because they don't properly understand the Catholic teachings.

Peace.

So, out of that painfully long post, basically you're saying you can't prove anything with scripture so I should just understand that it's ok to believe what's not there.

Sounds...uncomfortable really.

Thanks.

 

[MoNiCa4316]

With all due respect and no insult intended, this is precisely what Nestorius said that led to the Nestorian heresy -- trying to draw a line between "Jesus the man" and "Christ who is God the son". They're the same Person -- truly God and truly man.

And Mary was the mother to Him Who was God Incarnate in human form. That's the whole point to the title -- it doesn't honor her but defends the unity of Him.

that's what Im trying to say too..

 

[benedictaoo]

Well number one Mary is not the Mother of God. She is the earthly mother of Christ the word made flesh.

Nestorianism
The term Nestorianism is eponymous, even though the person who lent his name to it always denied the associated belief. The Assyrian Church of the East is commonly called Nestorian, but it too does not teach Nestorianism. The reason for this confusion is mostly historical and linguistical. For example, the Greeks had two words for 'person', which did not translate well into Syriac. The meanings of these terms were not even quite settled during Nestorius's lifetime.

Nestorius

Nestorius (c.386-c.451) was a pupil of Theodore of Mopsuestia in Antioch in Syria and later became Patriarch of Constantinople. He preached against the use of the title Mother of God (Theotokos) for the Virgin Mary and would only call her Mother of Christ (Christotokos). He also argued that God could never be a helpless child, and could not suffer on the cross. His opponents accused him of dividing Christ into two persons: arguing that God the Word did not suffer and die on the cross, while Jesus the man did, or that God the Word was omniscient, while Jesus the man had limited knowledge, effectively implies two separate persons with separate experiences. Nestorius responded that he believed that Christ was indeed one person (Greek: prosopon). Nestorius was opposed by Cyril of Alexandria and finally condemned at the Council of Ephesus in 431, which held that Christ is one person, and that the Virgin Mary is the mother of God. The pronouncement of the Council is available here. The condemnation resulted in the Nestorian schism and the separation of Assyrian Church of the East from the Byzantine Church. But even Ephesus could not settle the issue, and the Byzantine Church was soon split again by the Monophysite schism over the question whether Christ had one or two natures. Today it is generally accepted that the accusations against Nestorius and the Assyrian Church were exaggerated. The real question should have been whether properties of the Divine Word can be ascribed to the man Jesus Christ, and vice versa. This sharing of properties is called Communicatio idiomatum, and is part of Alexandrian, Byzantine, and Roman doctrine. For the position of the Assyrian Church look at this page.

Christological implications

The teaching of Nestorius has important consequences that deal with soteriology and the theology of the Eucharist.
The concept that Jesus did not die on the cross was in opposition to a statement by Paul the Apostle in an Epistle stating that If Christ is not risen from the grave our faith is in vain and during the Protestant Reformation, when some groups denied the Real Presence, they were accused of reviving the error of Nestorius.

The involvement of the Assyrian Church

Cyril of Alexandria worked hard to remove Nestorius and his supporters and followers from power. But in the Syriac speaking world Theodore of Mopsuestia was held in very high esteem, and the condemnation of his pupil Nestorius was not received well. His followers were given refuge. The Sassanid Persian kings, who were at constant war with Byzantium, saw the opportunity to assure the loyalty of their Christian subjects and supported

the Nestorian schism:

They granted protection to Nestorians (462).
They executed the pro-Byzantine Catholicos Babowai who was then replaced by the Nestorian Bishop of Nisibis Bar Sauma (484).
They allowed the transfer of the school of Edessa to the Persian city Nisibis when the Byzantine emperor closed it for its Nestorian tendencies (489).
At Nisibis the school became even more famous than at Edessa. The main theological authorities of the school have always been Theodore and his teacher Diodorus of Tarsus. Unfortunately, only few of their writings have survived. The writings of Nestorius himself were only added to the curriculum of the school of Edessa-Nisibis in 530, shortly before the Fifth Ecumenical Council in 553 condemned Theodore of Mopsuestia as Nestorius's predecessors. At the end of the 6th century the school went through a theological crisis when its director Henana of Adiabene tried to replace Theodore by his own doctrine, which followed Origen. Babai the Great (551-628), who was also the unofficial head of the Church at that time and revived the Assyrian monastic movement, refuted him and in the process wrote the normative Christology of the Assyrian Church, based on Theodore of Mopsuestia. A small sampling of Babai's work is available in English translation here. The Book of Union is his principle surviving work on Christology. In it he explains that Christ has two qnome (essences), which are unmingled and eternally united in one parsopa (personality). This, and not Nestorianism, is the teaching of the Assyrian Church. Book: Wilhelm Baum and Dietmar W. Winkler: The Church of the East. A concise History, London-New York 2003

The spread of "Nestorianism"

The Assyrian Church produced many zealous missionaries, who traveled and preached throughout Persia and Central and East Asia in the seventh and eighth centuries. "Nestorian" Christianity reached China by 635, and its relics can still be seen in Chinese cities such as Xi'an. About the same time Nestorian Christianity penetrated into Mongolia, eventually reaching as far as Korea. The Nestorian Stele, set up on 7 January 781 at the then-capital of Chang'an, describes the introduction of Christianity into China from Persia in the reign of Tang Taizong. The Christian community later faced persecution from Emperor Tang Wu Zong (reigned 840-846). He suppressed all foreign religions, including Buddhism and Christianity, which then declined sharply in China. A Syrian monk visiting China a few decades later described many churches in ruin. Marco Polo in the 1200s and other medieval Western writers indicate many small Nestorian communities remaining in China and Mongolia; however, they clearly were not as vibrant as they had been during Tang times. The legacy of the missionaries remains in the Assyrian churches still to be found in Iraq, Iran, and India.

Modern Nestorianism

In addition to the Assyrian Church of the East, some Protestant and Reformed organizations foster or tolerate doctrine that could be seen as Nestorian, specifically the doctrine that the Virgin Mary is merely the mother of "Christ's humanity" and denying that she could be seen as the mother of the Son of God.
See also
Nestorius
Christology
Assyrian Church of the East
Babai the Great
Daqin Pagoda
Nestorian Stele
Alopen

...

 

[MoNiCa4316]

So, out of that painfully long post, basically you're saying you can't prove anything with scripture so I should just understand that it's ok to believe what's not there.

Sounds...uncomfortable really.

Thanks.

well, thanks for taking my words out of context. This argument is nothing but rhetoric.

I told you, there's nothing unBiblical in Catholicism. If you don't believe me, pray about it and read some apologetics.

I'll say one last thing... the devil twisted Scripture around to support his points, in the temptation in the desert. We have to know how to intrerpret Scripture correctly. And what is correct? Well ..the way the Church has always intepreted it, from the beginning. This is not Protestantism, and not Calvinism, which are both very new.

Peace.

 

[benedictaoo]

So, out of that painfully long post, basically you're saying you can't prove anything with scripture so I should just understand that it's ok to believe what's not there.

Sounds...uncomfortable really.

Thanks.

Stop it.. She does not have to prove anything with scripture... that is your rule that you impose on yourself for what ever reason.

She does not have to prove anything to you at all-- she is here to share the Catholic faith, not be proven right or wrong.

 

[DD2008]

...

Bene what Mamaz was saying about Mary not being the mother of God didn't mean that she isn't the mother of God incarnate. It probably meant that she wasn't the mother of the eternal God. Which is true.

It is theologically correct to say she is the Mother of God.

However it is imprecise and leads to long conversations about who is in error.

It would have been better if those trying to defend the deity of Christ had called her the Mother of God incarnate.

I can't speak for MamaZ but judging by the posts she has written in the past I would believe that this is the case.

 

[benedictaoo]

well, thanks for taking my words out of context. This argument is nothing but rhetoric.

I told you, there's nothing unBiblical in Catholicism. If you don't believe me, pray about it and read some apologetics.

.

Calvinist talking points and lifted Calvinist apologetics form various Calvin sites. .

 

[DD2008]

Stop it.. She does not have to prove anything with scripture... that is your rule that you impose on yourself for what ever reason.

She does not have to prove anything to you at all-- she is here to share the Catholic faith, not be proven right or wrong.

Ok Bene, sorry.

I have to have doctrines like that shown to me as biblical or I think that they are a product of false teachers.

It's my conscience and the way it works.

Can't help it.

 

[DD2008]

well, thanks for taking my words out of context. This argument is nothing but rhetoric.

I told you, there's nothing unBiblical in Catholicism. If you don't believe me, pray about it and read some apologetics.

I'll say one last thing... the devil twisted Scripture around to support his points, in the temptation in the desert. We have to know how to intrerpret Scripture correctly. And what is correct? Well ..the way the Church has always intepreted it, from the beginning. This is not Protestantism, and not Calvinism, which are both very new.

Peace.

I have studied Catholicism in detail. I believe there are massive problems with it. Sorry. I don't trust them. I trust God and the scriptures he left for us to use for things like this. That is why there was a reformation, to get people back to the scriptures. They are God's written word to us.

Calvinist talking points and lifted Calvinist apologetics form various Calvin sites. .

Actually proving your theological points by scripture is what Christ did, so to do that is to follow the example of Christ.

 

[benedictaoo]

Bene what Mamaz was saying about Mary not being the mother of God didn't mean that she isn't the mother of God incarnate. It probably meant that she wasn't the mother of the eternal God. Which is true.

It is theologically correct to say she is the Mother of God.

However it is imprecise and leads to long conversations about who is in error.

It would have been better if those trying to defend the deity of Christ had called her the Mother of God incarnate.

I can't speak for MamaZ but judging by the posts she has written in the past I would believe that this is the case.

Re read her post- she is repeating a very common thing that is believed among Prots, that Mary is ONLY mother to the human nature and not to the divine even though the Christ is one and his natures can not be divived.

I know it's a contradiction and you know it but not all Prots do.