Views on Mary

[boswd]

are these following views on Mary "too much" ,an "unhealthy" view of Mary, hold her too high and take away our attention from Christ?


"She is rightly called not only the mother of the man, but also the Mother of God ... It is certain that Mary is the Mother of the real and true God."1

"But the other conception, namely the infusion of the soul, it is piously and suitably believed, was without any sin, so that while the soul was being infused, she would at the same time be cleansed from original sin and adorned with the gifts of God to receive the holy soul thus infused. And thus, in the very moment in which she began to live, she was without all sin..."3


"The veneration of Mary is inscribed in the very depths of the human heart."5
"Is Christ only to be adored? Or is the holy Mother of God rather not to be honoured? This is the woman who crushed the Serpent's head. Hear us. For your Son denies you nothing."6


"It cannot be denied that God in choosing and destining Mary to be the Mother of his Son, granted her the highest honor."9
"To this day we cannot enjoy the blessing brought to us in Christ without thinking at the same time of that which God gave as adornment and honour to Mary, in willing her to be the mother of his only-begotten Son."10


"It was fitting that such a holy Son should have a holy Mother."15
"The more the honor and love of Christ increases among men, so much the esteem and honor given to Mary should grow."16

 

[simonthezealot]

are these following views on Mary "too much" ,an "unhealthy" view of Mary, hold her too high and take away our attention from Christ?


"She is rightly called not only the mother of the man, but also the Mother of God ... It is certain that Mary is the Mother of the real and true God."1

"But the other conception, namely the infusion of the soul, it is piously and suitably believed, was without any sin, so that while the soul was being infused, she would at the same time be cleansed from original sin and adorned with the gifts of God to receive the holy soul thus infused. And thus, in the very moment in which she began to live, she was without all sin..."3


"The veneration of Mary is inscribed in the very depths of the human heart."5
"Is Christ only to be adored? Or is the holy Mother of God rather not to be honoured? This is the woman who crushed the Serpent's head. Hear us. For your Son denies you nothing."6


"It cannot be denied that God in choosing and destining Mary to be the Mother of his Son, granted her the highest honor."9
"To this day we cannot enjoy the blessing brought to us in Christ without thinking at the same time of that which God gave as adornment and honour to Mary, in willing her to be the mother of his only-begotten Son."10


"It was fitting that such a holy Son should have a holy Mother."15
"The more the honor and love of Christ increases among men, so much the esteem and honor given to Mary should grow."16

What do you say we show some intellectual integrity and link the full context of these quotes by reformers? along with the dates they were written, Luthers' Marian view changed over the decades so to suggest his view of Mary in 1522 was always his view, flies wide of the mark of credibility.

Furthermore, I'm personally am not too concerned with what Luther believed, as a whole on the Marian doctrines. I have great respect for Luther and how he stood up to the church took much courage, but as far as theology is concerned, if it doesn't coincide with the bible. I don't buy it.

 

[boswd]

they aren't all Luther's views


All I'm asking is are the above quotes "Too much". it's either a yes or no.

It shouldn't matter to you who made them right?

 

[simonthezealot]

Its why i said reformers...
The context is whats important! especially if your going to use these comments to try and make a point.
Yes anything that distorts or disregards the plain teaching of scripture...GOES to FAR!

 

[boswd]

So you think these quotes go too far, right?

 

[E.C.]

So you think these quotes go too far, right?

Not my prerogative to determine. What one says and what is in one's heart are two separate things.


Who said them?

 

[boswd]

those were made by Martin Luther, John Calvin and Zwingli.

the point I was making with this is I find it ironic how many fundamentalist will come here and rip apart the Catholic Church and other's for their views on Mary. When the reformers who's theology they embrace held very similiar and in some case's almost identicle views of Mary.

So not only do I find it ironic I find it humorous that when they are either informed or reminded of the reformers view of Mary you get the "Well, umm, I dont' hold to everything they teach" or "So, doens't make it right". Which I find also rather amusing because when ever they want to put the Catholic Church and at times the Eastern Orthodox Church on trial for their views on Mary, there is never an utter of a word on how their reformers felt about Mary. It's like you can hear a pin drop

 

[E.C.]

WOW!

Luther, Calvin and Zwingli said all those nice things about the Theotokos!?

Amazing! Absolutely amazing! You wouldn't think it given how their spiritual descendants just admonish, blaspheme, belittle, berate and outright insult the Theotokos thus showing their disobedience towards the founders of their own faiths!

This is just... wow! Absolutely wow!


Somebody! PM a mod! Any mod! All mods! This needs to be stickied!

 

[simonthezealot]

these were made by Martin Luther, John Calvin and Zwingli.

the point I was making with this is I find it ironic how many fundamentalist will come here and rip apart the Catholic Church and other's for their views on Mary. When the reformers who's theology they embrace held very similiar and in some case's almost identicle views of Mary.

We embrace some of their THEOlogy not MARIOlogy, Luther was a CATHOLIC priest and i long ago left lutheranism. You've never heard me even quote zwingli and as far as calvin goes i do agree with much of his theological philosophy, but have never cared to nor ever studied his view on Mary... I could share many beliefs from the early christians which roman Catholics like yourself like to claim for your own, that are at total odds with present day catholicism.

 

[RND]

Marianism is Isis worship.

The Secret Doctrine by H. P. Blavatsky, Vol 1, bk 2, ch 9

"In the lunar phenomena the moon was one as the moon, which was two-fold in sex, and three-fold in character — as mother, child, and adult male. Thus the child of the moon became the consort of his own mother! It could not be helped if there was to be any reproduction. He was compelled to be his own father! These relationships were repudiated by later sociology, and the primitive man in the moon got tabooed. Yet, in its latest, most inexplicable phase, this has become the central doctrine of the grossest superstition the world has seen, for these lunar phenomena and their humanly represented relationships, the incestuous included, are the very foundations of the Christian Trinity in Unity. Through ignorance of the symbolism, the simple representation of early time has become the most profound religious mystery in modern Luniolatry. The Roman Church, without being in any wise ashamed of the proof, portrays the Virgin Mary arrayed with the sun, and the horned moon at her feet, holding the lunar infant in her arms — as child and consort of the mother moon. The mother, child, and adult male, are fundamental.”

"The whole riddle of the solar and lunar worship, as now traced in the churches, hangs indeed on this world-old mystery of lunar phenomena. The correlative forces in the “Queen of Night,” that lie latent for modern science, but are fully active to the knowledge of Eastern adepts, explain well the thousand and one images under which the moon was represented by the ancients. It also shows how much more profoundly learned in the Selenic mysteries were the ancients than are now our modern astronomers. The whole Pantheon of the lunar gods and goddesses, Nephtys or Neith, Proserpina, Melytta, Cybele, Isis, Astarte, Venus, and Hecate, on the one hand, and Apollo, Dionysius, Adonis, Bacchus, Osiris, Atys, Thammuz, etc., etc., on the other, all show on the face of their names and titles — those of “Sons” and “Husbands” of their mothers — their identity with the Christian Trinity."

"In religious rites the moon served a dual purpose. Personified as a female goddess for exoteric purposes, or as a male god in allegory and symbol, in occult philosophy our satellite was regarded as a sexless Potency to be well studied, because it was to be dreaded. With the initiated Aryans, Khaldii, Greeks and Romans, Soma, Sin, Artemis Soteira (the hermaphrodite Apollo, whose attribute is the lyre, and the bearded Diana of the bow and arrow), Deus Lunus, and especially Osiris-lunus and Thot-lunus,† were the occult potencies of the moon. But whether male or female, whether Thot or Minerva, Soma or Astoreth, the Moon is the Occult mystery of mysteries, and more a symbol of evil than of good. Her seven phases (original, esoteric division) are divided into three astronomical phenomena and four purely psychic phases."
* The Roman Catholics are indebted for the idea of consecrating the month of May to the Virgin, to the pagan Plutarch, who shows that “May is sacred to Maia ([[Maia]]) or Vesta” (Aulus-Gellius, word Maia) — our mother-earth, our nurse and nourisher personified.
† Thot-Lunus is “Budha-Soma” of India, or “Mercury and the Moon.”


ISIS UNVEILED by H. P. Blavatsky, vol 2, ch 1

"The Egyptian Isis was also represented as a Virgin Mother by her devotees, and as holding her infant son, Horus, in her arms. In some statues and basso-relievos, when she appears alone she is either completely nude or veiled from head to foot. But in the Mysteries, in common with nearly every other goddess, she is entirely veiled from head to foot, as a symbol of a mother's chastity. It would not do us any harm were we to borrow from the ancients some of the poetic sentiment in their religions, and the innate veneration they entertained for their symbols."

"Certainly in no Pagan temple was black magic, in its real and true sense, more practiced than in the Vatican. While strongly supporting exorcism as an important source of revenue, they neglected magic as little as the ancient heathen. It is easy to prove that the sortilegium, or sorcery, was widely practiced among the clergy and monks so late as the last century, and is practiced occasionally even now. Anathematizing every manifestation of occult nature outside the precincts of the Church, the clergy -- notwithstanding proofs to the contrary -- call it "the work of Satan," "the snares of the fallen angels," who "rush in and out from the bottomless pit," mentioned by John in his kabalistic Revelation, "from whence arises a smoke as the smoke of a great furnace." "Intoxicated by its fumes, around this pit are daily gathering millions of Spiritualists, to worship at 'the Abyss of Baal.' "*

More than ever arrogant, stubborn, and despotic, now that she has been nearly upset by modern research, not daring to interfere with the powerful champions of science, the Latin Church revenges herself upon the unpopular phenomena. A despot without a victim, is a word void of sense; a power which neglects to assert itself through outward, well-calculated effects, risks being doubted in the end. The Church has no intention to fall into the oblivion of the ancient myths, or to suffer her authority to be too closely questioned. Hence she pursues, as well as the times permit, her traditional policy. Lamenting the enforced extinction of her ally, the Holy Inquisition, she makes a virtue of necessity. The only victims now within reach are the Spiritists of France. Recent events have shown that the meek spouse of Christ never disdains to retaliate on helpless victims."

 

[simonthezealot]

Amazing! Absolutely amazing! You wouldn't think it given how their spiritual descendants just admonish, blaspheme, belittle, berate and outright insult the Theotokos thus showing their disobedience towards the founders of their own faiths!

Instead of bearing false witness, why not show one person who insults Mary of scripture...JUST one.

We may belittle the unscriptural teaching promoted in the Roman and eastern orthodox church, but i've never seen anyone say any of those things about the mother of our LORD...

BTW how does one BLASPHEME a human being?

And you guys wonder how her image in your churches has been perceived as an almost deistic identity.

 

[shinbits]

are these following views on Mary "too much" ,an "unhealthy" view of Mary, hold her too high and take away our attention from Christ?


"She is rightly called not only the mother of the man, but also the Mother of God ... It is certain that Mary is the Mother of the real and true God."1

"But the other conception, namely the infusion of the soul, it is piously and suitably believed, was without any sin, so that while the soul was being infused, she would at the same time be cleansed from original sin and adorned with the gifts of God to receive the holy soul thus infused. And thus, in the very moment in which she began to live, she was without all sin..."3


"The veneration of Mary is inscribed in the very depths of the human heart."5
"Is Christ only to be adored? Or is the holy Mother of God rather not to be honoured? This is the woman who crushed the Serpent's head. Hear us. For your Son denies you nothing."6


"It cannot be denied that God in choosing and destining Mary to be the Mother of his Son, granted her the highest honor."9
"To this day we cannot enjoy the blessing brought to us in Christ without thinking at the same time of that which God gave as adornment and honour to Mary, in willing her to be the mother of his only-begotten Son."10


"It was fitting that such a holy Son should have a holy Mother."15
"The more the honor and love of Christ increases among men, so much the esteem and honor given to Mary should grow."16

the problem is that this way of thinking implies that Mary played a role in Christ's birth. She is no more responsible for Christ coming into the world than Joseph is. The RCC's biggest mistake is to think that simply because you've been chosen for God's work, you are something extra-holy, and not subject to the standards everyone else. They do the same with thinking they have the right to promote unbiblical doctrine, simply because God used them to organize the NT. Solomon was used to build the temple, still doesn't mean he was right in turning away from God in his old age, and worshiping idols.

God chose Mary for a purpose. It doesn't make her divine.

 

[E.C.]

Instead of bearing false witness, why not show one person who insults Mary of scripture...JUST one.

We may belittle the unscriptural teaching promoted in the Roman and eastern orthodox church, but i've never seen anyone say any of those things about the mother of our LORD...

BTW how does one BLASPHEME a human being?

And you guys wonder how her image in your churches has been perceived as an almost deistic identity.

Blaspheme? Sheesh, I say one word in a moment of great amusement and surprise and it gets extremely taken out of context?
Sheesh!


There are many here both in the real world and on this board who believe that the Theotokos was not necessary and that would have been much more content if the Son of God was born not from her, but would have preferred that he was born from pond scum. There are also those who say that she was raped by a Roman soldier. That is putting Christ at the same status of Ishmail and Muhammad; we have seen the fruits of their labors and they are nothing to glorify nor emulate.

In fact look at the page before this and you see an Adventist equating holding a minor degree of respect of the Mother of our Lord to Isis worship.

Are you saying that the Mary as seen in Scripture is different from the Theotokos? Sheesh! Talk about taking liberties with Scripture!

 

[RND]

In fact look at the page before this and you see an Adventist equating holding a minor degree of respect of the Mother of our Lord to Isis worship.

No, what you saw was an Adventist quoting the works of H.P. Blavatsky and it was Blavatsky pointing out the obvious.

Roman Catholicism, as is most of Christianity today, pagan sun worship.

 

[Kristos]

le fruitcake

 

[RND]

Unnecessary flame. Reflective of the depth of the argument.

"And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit ... (Acts 2:1-4)"

And "they" were all sabbath-keepers and didn't worship or venerate Mary.

 

[boswd]

No, what you saw was an Adventist quoting the works of H.P. Blavatsky and it was Blavatsky pointing out the obvious.

Roman Catholicism, as is most of Christianity today, pagan sun worship.

In case you missed the memo, those quotes were made by three of the biggest names in the Christian Reformers, Luther, Calvin and Zwingli.

 

[boswd]

Blaspheme? Sheesh, I say one word in a moment of great amusement and surprise and it gets extremely taken out of context?
Sheesh!


There are many here both in the real world and on this board who believe that the Theotokos was not necessary and that would have been much more content if the Son of God was born not from her, but would have preferred that he was born from pond scum. There are also those who say that she was raped by a Roman soldier. That is putting Christ at the same status of Ishmail and Muhammad; we have seen the fruits of their labors and they are nothing to glorify nor emulate.

In fact look at the page before this and you see an Adventist equating holding a minor degree of respect of the Mother of our Lord to Isis worship.

Are you saying that the Mary as seen in Scripture is different from the Theotokos? Sheesh! Talk about taking liberties with Scripture!

What else just blows my mind is, Mary is more revered and has more honor in Islam than in modern Fundamentalist Church's. ISLAM for crying out loud. Unbelievable.

 

[boswd]

the problem is that this way of thinking implies that Mary played a role in Christ's birth. She is no more responsible for Christ coming into the world than Joseph is. The RCC's biggest mistake is to think that simply because you've been chosen for God's work, you are something extra-holy, and not subject to the standards everyone else. They do the same with thinking they have the right to promote unbiblical doctrine, simply because God used them to organize the NT. Solomon was used to build the temple, still doesn't mean he was right in turning away from God in his old age, and worshiping idols.

God chose Mary for a purpose. It doesn't make her divine.

Then this may come as a shock to you that those quotes were made by Calvin, Zwingli and Luther.

 

[RND]

In case you missed the memo, those quotes were made by three of the biggest names in the Christian Reformers, Luther, Calvin and Zwingli.

Ah my dear boy, you should at least review the thread before stating anything. E.C.'s comment to me was regarding this post: http://www.christianforums.com/t7375365/#post52019019

Had nothing to do with anything you posted.