There's something about Mary.......

Anglian said:

Adam and Eve, like St. Mary, and like us, are made in the image of God. That is the only sense in which the word 'divine' applies to us.

Click to expand...

There is another sense. I believe it was on a YouTube debate (never debate on YouTube, theology doesn't work well in 500 characters...), someone said of Mary, "Some high Catholics even call her divine". Now, I'm not sure what a "high Catholic" is -- High Church Anglican, High Church Lutherans, yes, but all Catholics should have a "high" (Catholic) theology! Anyway, beside the point, the phrase "divine Mary" is occasionally used (e.g. St. Louis de Montfort, St. Alphonsus Liguori) apart from divinization.

It is used in the same sense that we use "Divine Office", "Divine Liturgy", "Divine Service" (Lutheran liturgy), etc. as something that is holy and belongs to the Divine. Mary is said to be divine in this context because she wholly belongs to God as His handmaid.

The phrase, however, can be entirely misleading and scandalizing for Protestants as with the poster on YouTube.

I just happened to choose here to make a segue into deification, since Protestants often seem to say with Solomon, "a living dog is better than a dead lion." (Eccl. 9:4) and really miss the point of salvation except as a better climate than hell...

simonthezealot said:

Out curiosity is there scriptural basis for believing this continues infinetly, to us?

Click to expand...

I hope that you aren't implying that God advances as in "Process Theology", since you said "to us". If not, I won't belabor that point.

2Cor 3:18 said:

But we all beholding the glory of the Lord with open face, are transformed into the same image from glory to glory, as by the Spirit of the Lord.

Click to expand...

This describes a process of being made into the image of God, which we call "divinization", "deification", or "theosis". Since God is infinite, this process must continue indefinitely. Though things get trickier when time no longer exists

MamaZ said:

PilgrimToChrist said:

And St. Paul, right?

Click to expand...

I don't believe I am understanding you here..

Click to expand...

St. Paul says:

Gal 4:19 said:

My little children, of whom I am in labour again, until Christ be formed in you.

Click to expand...

Now, this is more perfectly true of she who actually formed Christ in her womb and is most perfectly conformed to Him.

MamaZ said:

PilgrimToChrist said:

You seem to have the same confusion as Nicodemus...

Click to expand...

Actually not really. For He asked how a man when He was old could crawl back into the womb..

Click to expand...

Right, and Christ said...

Jn 3:6 said:

That which is born of the flesh, is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit, is spirit.

Click to expand...

I am obviously referring to spiritual motherhood, not physical motherhood. Mary is a virgin, yet she is the biological Mother of God and also the spiritual Mother of the Church. Christ is our Brother because we both have the same Mother.

St. Paul also said:

1Cor 4:15 said:

For if you have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet not many fathers. For in Christ Jesus, by the gospel, I have begotten you.

Click to expand...

Spiritual fatherhood is the formation of Christ in someone, as St. Paul says twice. Spiritual motherhood is the same but with a woman (and, as with biological mothers and fathers, there are some differences). Mary is the spiritual mother par excellence. Her spiritual motherhood is necessary for us to find Christ.

MamaZ said:

PilgrimToChrist said:

Christ is born of Mary, if we are to be members of Christ, we must also be born of Mary. There is no such thing as a mother who gives birth to the Head but not the members nor a member of the Body who has a different mother than the Head.

Click to expand...

Here is where error exists.. Christ was conceived of God.. We are already born of flesh to which Mary is.. Now we need to be born of the Spirit which only comes from the Father. We are not born of Mary to be Christian but one must be born of the Father if one is Christian. This is why we are to cry out Abba Father. We are members of Christ through the Holy Spirit and not through Mary..She is our sister in the Lord for she too was born again of the Father.

Click to expand...

Are "conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary" contradictory? Is Mary flesh only and not spirit? It is Her spiritual motherhood which is necessary, whether we acknowledge it or not, which is necessary to the spiritual life. In nature, there is a mother and a father; so too in the spirit, must there be a Mother and a Father. This is not as the corrupt Mormon teaching, most certainly not! She is our spiritual mother in the order of grace, it has nothing to do with a second deity like some sort of Mormon or Wiccan construction.

MamaZ said:

PilgrimToChrist said:

As St. Cyprian said, "No one has God for a Father who has not the Church for his Mother." So likewise, it is true that "No one has God for a Father who has not Mary for his Mother." If Mary was not necessary for salvation, Christ would not have given her to us as our mother.

Click to expand...

Where did Jesus give Mary to us as our mother? Jesus gave John the care for Mary. I am not John. This bit about the church being a mother confuses me. So now I understand that we have two mothers?

Click to expand...

The Church has always understood "the disciple whom he loved" to be the Church. Jesus wasn't just wrapping up business so she wouldn't worry for two days who was going to take care of her, there is a point to all of this!

Jn 19:26-27 said:

When Jesus therefore had seen his mother and the disciple standing whom he loved, he saith to his mother: Woman, behold thy son. After that, he saith to the disciple: Behold thy mother. And from that hour, the disciple took her to his own.

Click to expand...

Apoc 12:17 said:

And the dragon was angry against the woman: and went to make war with the rest of her seed, who keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

Click to expand...

That is to say, the same woman who is the Mother of the Man-Child who will "rule all nations with an iron rod" (v.5) is the same Mother of those "who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ". Mary is the biological Mother of God and the spiritual Mother of the Church.

Bl. Isaac of Stella (+1169) said:

The whole Christ and the unique Christ -- the body and the head -- are one: one because born of the same God in heaven, and of the same mother on earth. They are many sons, yet one son. Head and members are one son, yet, many sons; in the same way, Mary and the Church are one mother, yet more than one mother; one virgin, yet more than one virgin.

Both are mothers, both are virgins. Each conceives of the same Spirit, without concupiscence. Each gives birth to a child of God the Father, without sin. Without any sin, Mary gave birth to Christ the head for the sake of his body. By the forgiveness of every sin, the Church gave birth to the body, for the sake of its head. Each is Christ’s mother, but neither gives birth to the whole Christ without the cooperation of the other.

In the inspired Scriptures, what is said in a universal sense of the virgin mother, the Church, is understood in an individual sense of the Virgin Mary, and what is said in a particular sense of the virgin mother Mary is rightly understood in a general sense of the virgin mother, the Church. When either is spoken of, the meaning can be understood of both, almost without qualification.

Click to expand...

Mary and Christ are inseparable. Mary and the Church are inseparable. What we say of her, we say of Christ; what we say of her, we say of the Church. She is the Neck which connects the Head to the Body. Mary is the Image of Christ and the Mirror of the Church.

Yes, this gets a bit mystical. But, otherwise, how can we say both that the Church is the Bride of Christ and also the Body of Christ except that the two become one flesh?

MamaZ said:

PilgrimToChrist said:

Does it matter who St. Louis Marie de Montfort is? It is the same as if I gave the same exposition on the Scriptures as he does, except that you can be assured that de Montfort's words are representative of orthodox Catholic Mariology, with mine you must be more skeptical. Since you clearly reject de Montfort's exposition on the Scriptures and say that the Scriptures refute him, would you please give evidence of that rather than vague accusations? Chapter and verse, please.

Click to expand...

Expound please.

Click to expand...

You said that Scripture refutes St. Louis de Montfort, but you gave no Scripture. I just want to see what Scripture refutes his readings.

Originally Posted by Gal 4:19 Now, this is more perfectly true of she who actually formed Christ in her womb and is most perfectly conformed to Him.

Who says this to be true? For with Christ in His people it is He who who conforms us..

Right, and Christ said...


Originally Posted by Jn 3:6 I am obviously referring to spiritual motherhood, not physical motherhood. Mary is a virgin, yet she is the biological Mother of God and also the spiritual Mother of the Church. Christ is our Brother because we both have the same Mother.

Nothing said about spiritual motherhood in the scriptures.. We all have one Father and this is how we are brothers and sisters if indeed the spirit of God dwells in us..


Originally Posted by 1Cor 4:15 Spiritual fatherhood is the formation of Christ in someone, as St. Paul says twice. Spiritual motherhood is the same but with a woman (and, as with biological mothers and fathers, there are some differences). Mary is the spiritual mother par excellence. Her spiritual motherhood is necessary for us to find Christ.

You will have to expound more on this for what you say above is not even spoken of in scripture there for to me it is like a myth.. It is the Father who draws us to Christ.

Joh 6:44 No one is able to come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him, and I will raise him up in the last day.
Joh 6:45 It has been written in the Prophets, They "shall" all "be taught of God." So then everyone who hears and learns from the Father comes to Me; Isa. 54:13
Joh 6:46 not that anyone has seen the Father, except the One being from God, He has seen the Father.
Joh 6:47 Truly, truly, I say to you, The one believing into Me has everlasting life.

Click to expand...

I don't see anything about Mary in here do you?

Are "conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary" contradictory? Is Mary flesh only and not spirit? It is Her spiritual motherhood which is necessary, whether we acknowledge it or not, which is necessary to the spiritual life. In nature, there is a mother and a father; so too in the spirit, must there be a Mother and a Father. This is not as the corrupt Mormon teaching, most certainly not! She is our spiritual mother in the order of grace, it has nothing to do with a second deity like some sort of Mormon or Wiccan construction.

Gods Kingdom is not of this world nor of this Nature. We do not need a spiritual mother to beget us. We only need the Father who is indeed Spirit. This is why one must be born again of the Spirit.. Mary is not the Holy Spirit. Therefore she cannot beget any person to be born of the Spirit.

Mary and Christ are inseparable. Mary and the Church are inseparable. What we say of her, we say of Christ; what we say of her, we say of the Church. She is the Neck which connects the Head to the Body. Mary is the Image of Christ and the Mirror of the Church.

Yes, this gets a bit mystical. But, otherwise, how can we say both that the Church is the Bride of Christ and also the Body of Christ except that the two become one flesh?

One flesh???? Seems to me that they are seperable since Christ is God and Mary was a human being. Where do we read that Mary is the neck in the body of Christ? I would believe more that the Apostles were the neck of the body of Christ.. Explain to me what you mean she is the Image of Christ.

You said that Scripture refutes St. Louis de Montfort, but you gave no Scripture. I just want to see what Scripture refutes his readings.

Is this what I really said or are you twisting what I have said? I said I did not know this Montfort and why would I listen to him over scripture..

bump

Dear MamaZ,

whilst we wait for our friend to return, can I ask why you seem to have a problem with a practice which goes back further than the Bible canon? You accept the Canon established by the Church. You then try to tell us that intercessory prayer is against Scripture. Do you suppose the Fathers who established the genuine deposit of Scripture had not read it? They practised intercessory prayer and saw no contradiction with Scripture. Nor did anyone before the sixteenth century.

Why do you think that a relatively modern, man made tradition should take precedence over ancient Christian practice?

peace,

Anglian

Anglian asks a good question, MamaZ. I have read many of your posts, and you never answer this, you simply dismiss it. I can never work out whether you understand what is being asked of you, so I will give it a try myself.

1. The Holy Spirit worked through the early Church fathers to assemble the Bible as we know it. You accept that as inspired, and indeed base your entire worldview on the Bible. Correct?

2. If that is correct, are you saying that the Church fathers were right when they assembled the Bible, but wrong when they venerated Mary?

3. If so, how do you come to that conclusion? Was the HS only with the Church some of the time? Not at other times? How do you know which times?

4. What if [for example] they were wrong in assembling the Bible, but actually right in venerating Mary?

Or right in both?

Or wrong in both?

5. How do you decide on the answers to 4?

6. Does the Holy Spirit tell you the answer? If so, are you like the Church fathers--right in some things, wrong in others? Or are you infallible?

This is not intended to be snarky--I honestly want to understand how you can hold such seemingly contradictory views. Perhaps I am missing something.

Dear Coralie,

Many thanks, you have put it perfectly. I look forward to seeing what our sister MamaZ answers.

peace,

Anglian

Coralie said:

Anglian asks a good question, MamaZ. I have read many of your posts, and you never answer this, you simply dismiss it. I can never work out whether you understand what is being asked of you, so I will give it a try myself.

1. The Holy Spirit worked through the early Church fathers to assemble the Bible as we know it. You accept that as inspired, and indeed base your entire worldview on the Bible. Correct?

2. If that is correct, are you saying that the Church fathers were right when they assembled the Bible, but wrong when they venerated Mary?

3. If so, how do you come to that conclusion? Was the HS only with the Church some of the time? Not at other times? How do you know which times?

4. What if [for example] they were wrong in assembling the Bible, but actually right in venerating Mary?

Or right in both?

Or wrong in both?

5. How do you decide on the answers to 4?

6. Does the Holy Spirit tell you the answer? If so, are you like the Church fathers--right in some things, wrong in others? Or are you infallible?

This is not intended to be snarky--I honestly want to understand how you can hold such seemingly contradictory views. Perhaps I am missing something.

Click to expand...

QFT

I would actually love to hear other SOLO Scriptura / Evangelicals answer this question as well.

me thinks it will be a lot of song and dance, cheap applause like answers ( such as The lord is the Way and The Truth not Man) or we'll here crickets chirping.

MamaZ said:

PilgrimToChrist said:

MamaZ said:

PilgrimToChrist said:

MamaZ said:

PilgrimToChrist said:

Gal 4:19 said:

My little children, of whom I am in labour again, until Christ be formed in you.

Click to expand...

Now, this is more perfectly true of she who actually formed Christ in her womb and is most perfectly conformed to Him.

Click to expand...

Who says this to be true? For with Christ in His people it is He who who conforms us..

Click to expand...

You seem to have the same confusion as Nicodemus...

Click to expand...

Actually not really. For He asked how a man when He was old could crawl back into the womb..

Click to expand...

Right, and Christ said...

Jn 3:6 said:

That which is born of the flesh, is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit, is spirit.

Click to expand...

I am obviously referring to spiritual motherhood, not physical motherhood. Mary is a virgin, yet she is the biological Mother of God and also the spiritual Mother of the Church. Christ is our Brother because we both have the same Mother.

Click to expand...

Nothing said about spiritual motherhood in the scriptures.. We all have one Father and this is how we are brothers and sisters if indeed the spirit of God dwells in us..

Click to expand...

So you only believe in spiritual fatherhood but not spiritual motherhood? St. Paul can be the spiritual father for the faithful under his care but St. Mary cannot be the spiritual mother for the faithful under her care? Why? We can have fathers in the faith but not mothers? No wonder Christianity is always being accused of sexism... Of course, orthodox Christianity embraces spiritual motherhood as equal to spiritual fatherhood. There were deaconesses* (and still are in some places) in the early Church to be spiritual mothers to the women in the flock and nuns/sisters are spiritual mothers to the world (and their abbesses to them) and biological mothers are called also to be the spiritual mothers of their children. Just because God created men and women differently and established the priesthood exclusively for men doesn't mean that women can't be spiritual mothers just as much as men can be spiritual fathers, even though it is in a different way (just as biological mothers and fathers raise their children together but in different ways).

If a deaconess or a nun can be a spiritual mother, why not the Mother of God?

MamaZ said:

PilgrimToChrist said:

1Cor 4:15 said:

For if you have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet not many fathers. For in Christ Jesus, by the gospel, I have begotten you.

Click to expand...

Spiritual fatherhood is the formation of Christ in someone, as St. Paul says twice. Spiritual motherhood is the same but with a woman (and, as with biological mothers and fathers, there are some differences). Mary is the spiritual mother par excellence. Her spiritual motherhood is necessary for us to find Christ.

Click to expand...

You will have to expound more on this for what you say above is not even spoken of in scripture there for to me it is like a myth.. It is the Father who draws us to Christ.

Joh 6:44 No one is able to come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him, and I will raise him up in the last day.
Joh 6:45 It has been written in the Prophets, They "shall" all "be taught of God." So then everyone who hears and learns from the Father comes to Me; Isa. 54:13
Joh 6:46 not that anyone has seen the Father, except the One being from God, He has seen the Father.
Joh 6:47 Truly, truly, I say to you, The one believing into Me has everlasting life.

Click to expand...

I don't see anything about Mary in here do you?

Click to expand...

Mary's spiritual motherhood is not in contrast to God's election.

MamaZ said:

PilgrimToChrist said:

Are "conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary" contradictory? Is Mary flesh only and not spirit? It is Her spiritual motherhood which is necessary, whether we acknowledge it or not, which is necessary to the spiritual life. In nature, there is a mother and a father; so too in the spirit, must there be a Mother and a Father. This is not as the corrupt Mormon teaching, most certainly not! She is our spiritual mother in the order of grace, it has nothing to do with a second deity like some sort of Mormon or Wiccan construction.

Click to expand...

Gods Kingdom is not of this world nor of this Nature. We do not need a spiritual mother to beget us. We only need the Father who is indeed Spirit. This is why one must be born again of the Spirit.. Mary is not the Holy Spirit. Therefore she cannot beget any person to be born of the Spirit.

Click to expand...

St. Paul is not God the Holy Spirit either. God prefers to work through His creatures. That is why angels exist, that is why God became Incarnate of the Virgin Mary and she clothed him with her flesh and nature, that is why the Church exists.

St. Augustine said:

Mary, therefore, doing the will of God, after the flesh, is only the mother of Christ, but after the Spirit she is both His sister and mother. And on this account, that one female, not only in the Spirit, but also in the flesh, is both a mother and a virgin. And a mother indeed in the Spirit, not of our Head, Which is the Saviour Himself, of Whom rather she was born after the Spirit: forasmuch as all, who have believed in Him, among whom is herself also, are rightly called "children of the Bridegroom:" but clearly the mother of His members, which are we: in that she wrought together by charity, that faithful ones should be born in the Church, who are members of That Head: but in the flesh, the mother of the Head Himself. For it behooved that our Head, on account of a notable miracle, should be born after the flesh of a virgin, that He might thereby signify that His members would be born after the Spirit, of the Church a virgin: therefore Mary alone both in Spirit and in flesh is a mother and a virgin: both the mother of Christ, and a virgin of Christ...

Click to expand...

---
* A deaconess is not a female deacon. She has no liturgical role. However, they are spiritual mothers. Deaconesses are also referred to as "widows" in the Epistles (e.g. 1Ti 5). I believe they fully died out for a few centuries but have been revived in the Greek and Coptic Churches. Deaconesses were even necessary because baptisms were done in the nude in the early Church and so it would be unseemly for a man to be baptizing naked women so they had women to minister to the women. This ministerial work is spiritual motherhood. In the East, wives of ministers also have a role of spiritual motherhood -- diakonissa for deacons, presbytera for priests, episcopa for bishops (nowhere has married bishops currently, though it is allowed for in Scripture in 1Ti 3:2).

MamaZ said:

PilgrimToChrist said:

Mary and Christ are inseparable. Mary and the Church are inseparable. What we say of her, we say of Christ; what we say of her, we say of the Church. She is the Neck which connects the Head to the Body. Mary is the Image of Christ and the Mirror of the Church.

Yes, this gets a bit mystical. But, otherwise, how can we say both that the Church is the Bride of Christ and also the Body of Christ except that the two become one flesh?

Click to expand...

One flesh????

Click to expand...

Gen 2:21-24 said:

Then the Lord God cast a deep sleep upon Adam: and when he was fast asleep, he took one of his ribs, and filled up flesh for it. And the Lord God built the rib which he took from Adam into a woman: and brought her to Adam. And Adam said: This now is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called woman, because she was taken out of man. Wherefore a man shall leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they shall be two in one flesh.

Click to expand...

Eph 5:25-32 said:

Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the church, and delivered himself up for it: That he might sanctify it, cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life: That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle, or any; such thing; but that it should be holy, and without blemish. So also ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife, loveth himself. For no man ever hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, as also Christ doth the church: Because we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.

For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they shall be two in one flesh. This is a great sacrament; but I speak in Christ and in the church.

Click to expand...

Just as the bride of Adam was born from his side, so too is the Bride of Christ born from His side.

In John's Gospel:

Jn 19:34-37 said:

But one of the soldiers with a spear opened his side, and immediately there came out blood and water. And he that saw it, hath given testimony, and his testimony is true. And he knoweth that he saith true; that you also may believe. For these things were done, that the scripture might be fulfilled: You shall not break a bone of him. And again another scripture saith: They shall look on him whom they pierced.

Click to expand...

And in his first epistle:

1Jn 5:6-8 (bracketed is the Comma Johanneum) said:

This is he that came by water and blood, Jesus Christ: not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit which testifieth, that Christ is the truth. And there are three who give testimony [in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one. And there are three that give testimony on earth:] the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three are one.

Click to expand...

A long passage from another John -- the golden-tongued:

St. John Chrysostom said:

The gospel records that when Christ was dead, but still hung on the cross, a soldier came and pierced his side with a lance and immediately there poured out water and blood. Now the water was a symbol of baptism and the blood, of the holy eucharist. The soldier pierced the Lord's side, he breached the wall of the sacred temple, and I have found the treasure and made it my own. So also with the lamb: the Jews sacrificed the victim and I have been saved by it.

"There flowed from his side water and blood". Beloved, do not pass over this mystery without thought; it has yet another hidden meaning, which I will explain to you. I said that water and blood symbolized baptism and the holy eucharist. From these two sacraments the Church is born: from baptism, "the cleansing water that gives rebirth and renewal through the Holy Spirit", and from the holy eucharist. Since the symbols of baptism and the Eucharist flowed from his side, it was from his side that Christ fashioned the Church, as he had fashioned Eve from the side of Adam. Moses gives a hint of this when he tells the story of the first man and makes him exclaim: "Bone from my bones and flesh from my flesh!" As God then took a rib from Adam’s side to fashion a woman, so Christ has given us blood and water from his side to fashion the Church. God took the rib when Adam was in a deep sleep, and in the same way Christ gave us the blood and the water after his own death.

Do you understand, then, how Christ has united his bride to himself and what food he gives us all to eat? By one and the same food we are both brought into being and nourished. As a woman nourishes her child with her own blood and milk, so does Christ unceasingly nourish with his own blood those to whom he himself has given life.

Click to expand...

MamaZ said:

Seems to me that they are seperable since Christ is God and Mary was a human being.

Click to expand...

They are distinct, of course, even the Three Persons of the Holy Trinity are distinct. They are joined by their nature. But Christ united Himself to the Church as a Groom to a Bride, born from His side and reunited with Him in marriage.

Rom 8:35-39 said:

Who then shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation? or distress? or famine? or nakedness? or danger? or persecution? or the sword? (As it is written: For thy sake we are put to death all the day long. We are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.) But in all these things we overcome, because of him that hath loved us. For I am sure that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor might, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Click to expand...

Nothing but our own faithlessness can separate us from the love of God and who is more faithful than His Holy Mother, the Handmaid of God?

St. Louis Marie de Montfort said:

When the Holy Spirit, her spouse, finds Mary in a soul, he hastens there and enters fully into it. He gives himself generously to that soul according to the place it has given to his spouse. One of the main reasons why the Holy Spirit does not work striking wonders in souls is that he fails to find in them a sufficiently close union with his faithful and inseparable spouse. I say "inseparable spouse", for from the moment the substantial love of the Father and the Son espoused Mary to form Jesus, the head of the elect, and Jesus in the elect, he has never disowned her, for she has always been faithful and fruitful.

Click to expand...

MamaZ said:

Where do we read that Mary is the neck in the body of Christ? I would believe more that the Apostles were the neck of the body of Christ..

Click to expand...

Pope Pius X said:

But Mary, as St. Bernard justly remarks, is the channel (Serm. de temp on the Nativ. B. V. De Aquaeductu n. 4); or, if you will, the connecting portion the function of which is to join the body to the head and to transmit to the body the influences and volitions of the head - We mean the neck. Yes, says St. Bernardine of Sienna, "she is the neck of Our Head, by which He communicates to His mystical body all spiritual gifts" (Quadrag. de Evangel. aetern. Serm. x., a. 3, c. iii.).

Click to expand...

St. Robert Bellarmine said:

The Head of the Catholic Church is Jesus Christ, and Mary is the neck which joins the Head to its Body. ... [Because she has merited so well of God by her perfect conformity to His holy will, He has decreed that] all the gifts and all the graces which proceed from Christ as the Head should pass through Mary to the Body of the Church. Even the physical body has several members in its other parts — hands, shoulders, arms and feet — but only one head and one neck. So also the Church has many apostles, martyrs, confessors and virgins, but only one Head, the Son of God, and one bond between the Head and members, the Mother of God. By virtue of her transcendent merits before God, the Blessed Virgin stands closer than any other creature to the Head of the Mystical Body; it is no exaggeration to say that she unites the Head to the Body, and that therefore through her, before all others, flow the heavenly blessings from the Head, who is Christ, to us who are His members.

Click to expand...

MamaZ said:

Explain to me what you mean she is the Image of Christ.

Click to expand...

1Cor 15:44b-49 said:

If there be a natural body, there is also a spiritual body, as it is written: The first man Adam was made into a living soul; the last Adam into a quickening spirit. Yet that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; afterwards that which is spiritual. The first man was of the earth, earthly: the second man, from heaven, heavenly. Such as is the earthly, such also are the earthly: and such as is the heavenly, such also are they that are heavenly. Therefore as we have borne the image of the earthly, let us bear also the image of the heavenly.

Click to expand...

2Cor 3:18 said:

But we all beholding the glory of the Lord with open face, are transformed into the same image from glory to glory, as by the Spirit of the Lord.

Click to expand...

Rom 8:29-30 said:

For whom he foreknew, he also predestinated to be made conformable to the image of his Son; that he might be the firstborn amongst many brethren. And whom he predestinated, them he also called. And whom he called, them he also justified. And whom he justified, them he also glorified.

Click to expand...

MamaZ said:

PilgrimToChrist said:

You said that Scripture refutes St. Louis de Montfort, but you gave no Scripture. I just want to see what Scripture refutes his readings.

Click to expand...

Is this what I really said or are you twisting what I have said? I said I did not know this Montfort and why would I listen to him over scripture..

Click to expand...

Nobody said you should listen to him over Scripture, nor have you shown how he and Scripture are in conflict. So what are you trying to get at?

Wikipedia said:

St. Louis-Marie Grignion de Montfort (31 January 1673 – 28 April 1716) was a French priest and Catholic saint. He was known as a preacher in his time and as an author, whose books are widely read to the present day and have influenced a number of popes.

He is considered as one of the early proponents of the field of Mariology as it is known today, and a candidate to become a Doctor of the Church. His "founders statue" by Giacomo Parisini is now placed at the Upper Niche of the South Nave within Saint Peter's Basilica at the Vatican.

Click to expand...

Just read "True Devotion" and you'll get it. This is a different translation than the physical copy I have and lacks sufficient footnotes compared to my edition. But you can't knock free, right? (I use it for searching quotes). The book is beautiful, impassioned and shows the importance of Marian devotion in his life which was dedicated to "God Alone". He expounds on the necessity and beauty of his motto:

Ad Iesum per Mariam!
To Jesus through Mary!

The use of this anti-scriptural line irks me >To Jesus through Mary!
There is but one mediator

Anglian said:

Dear Coralie,

Many thanks, you have put it perfectly. I look forward to seeing what our sister MamaZ answers.

peace,

Anglian

Click to expand...

boswd said:

QFT

I would actually love to hear other SOLO Scriptura / Evangelicals answer this question as well.

me thinks it will be a lot of song and dance, cheap applause like answers ( such as The lord is the Way and The Truth not Man) or we'll here crickets chirping.

Click to expand...

So where was everyone when I started a thread on this?

simonthezealot said:

The use of this anti-scriptural line irks me >To Jesus through Mary!
There is but one mediator

Click to expand...

Yes sir.

Since the other Mary thread was closed, you ain't heard nothing yet.

Coralie said:

Anglian asks a good question, MamaZ. I have read many of your posts, and you never answer this, you simply dismiss it. I can never work out whether you understand what is being asked of you, so I will give it a try myself.

1. The Holy Spirit worked through the early Church fathers to assemble the Bible as we know it. You accept that as inspired, and indeed base your entire worldview on the Bible. Correct?

2. If that is correct, are you saying that the Church fathers were right when they assembled the Bible, but wrong when they venerated Mary?

-snip-

Click to expand...

The last time Anglian tried to show the answer to this, aligning with your assumptions, he identified someone from 397 for point #2 and I identified someone from 367 for point #1.

Last I checked, 367 came before 397. Right?

So, off the top of my head, they assembled the NT before the veneration of Mary was mentioned. Hence, the conclusions are wrong.

I would suggest you and others actually try to provide supporting evidence that helps your cause, rather than hurts it. The reason is that one won't be able to say, but the ice broke unawares.

Standing Up said:

The last time Anglian tried to show the answer to this, aligning with your assumptions, he identified someone from 397 for point #2 and I identified someone from 367 for point #1.

Last I checked, 367 came before 397. Right?

So, off the top of my head, they assembled the NT before the veneration of Mary was mentioned. Hence, the conclusions are wrong.

Click to expand...

Dear Standing Up,

I don't recall naming anyone from 397, and I have asked you before where I wrote this; I am still asking. What I have repeatedly written is that no one can date the start of Marian veneration and that it antedates the Canon by hundreds of years - and last time I looked antedated by hundreds of years meant before 367.

I have no idea why you, Simon and others have a problem with the practice of the early Church, but it is your problem and not that of those of us who follow its practice.

I would suggest you and others actually try to provide supporting evidence that helps your cause, rather than hurts it. The reason is that one won't be able to say, but the ice broke unawares.

Click to expand...

I would suggest you cite accurately and see that no one, save yourself and those who support your man made tradition of not venerating the Blessed Virgin is walking on thin ice. For myself, I would not want to be casting aspersions on the Mother of my Saviour - but I guess that's old world courtesy for you.

peace,

Anglian

There's something about Mary that I'd like to know. Many of you may find this question naive, but to me it's critical: Did Mary have a choice?

Yes she did.

Peace and all good,
Nancy

Was it in this thread or another ?

At any rate, a copy of the Sub Tuum - a 'hymn' still in use in the RC, OO, and EO - dating to the mid 3rd. century was found in Egypt. It would be unusual for the discovered copy to be the first incident use of this hymn; that it is preserved entire still in these 3 Churches is a testimony to its Apostolic use. That further there is no record of debate over the use of the Sub Tuum indicates its content was not controversial.

Anglian said:

Dear Standing Up,

I don't recall naming anyone from 397, and I have asked you before where I wrote this; I am still asking. What I have repeatedly written is that no one can date the start of Marian veneration and that it antedates the Canon by hundreds of years - and last time I looked antedated by hundreds of years meant before 367.

I have no idea why you, Simon and others have a problem with the practice of the early Church, but it is your problem and not that of those of us who follow its practice.


I would suggest you cite accurately and see that no one, save yourself and those who support your man made tradition of not venerating the Blessed Virgin is walking on thin ice. For myself, I would not want to be casting aspersions on the Mother of my Saviour - but I guess that's old world courtesy for you.

peace,

Anglian

Click to expand...

Cyril 397 I believe it was who you mentioned. When you did, I replied at least twice in the same way as above and each time you more or less ignored it.

I figured you simply didn't want to pursue the issue. I cited Athanasius 367 and you cited Cyril 397. Maybe I missed your point. Sorry if I did.

But, start afresh shall we?

First you said, no one can date the start of the veneration. Then you said, but it predates canonization.

Now, how does one know it predates something when you don't even know when it began? So again, you cited Cyril 397 as your clear proof of veneration of Mary. I replied with Athanasius 367. So, no, off the top of my head, veneration does not predate canonization.

Do you have something more concrete?