Mary - The Mother of Our Lord

[MoreCoffee]

Last time, and then I will leave you alone. "Adoration", as defined by the CCC of the 'Roman Catholic Denomination', carries with it a connotation that is associated/reserved/unique to God alone. In this way, this term does have the sense of being directed to the divine. Respect, honor, and veneration are not spoken of in such a way (as far as I have seen). My question is why this continues to be misrepresented in this thread? You don't need to answer.

The answer is obvious. You are right. No answer is needed.

 

[Albion]

Not so when examining "De Fide Dogmas" of the Catholic church. The reason I got involved in this thread, and the reason I objected early on (and still object - although I'll do it nicely from now on...) is that the Catholic church body has a specific definition for "adoration" contained within the 'CCC'. It is distinct and uniquely different from the Rev. Webster.

Look. It's not more difficult than this--

The church--any church--can call a belief or practice anything it wants to call it (and there are many examples of churches sugar-coating some questionable practices with pretty or deceptive words), but this doesn't mean that the rest of us are required to nod approvingly and agree to the phony definition being used.

 

[Josiah]

... and that's fine (although it seems NO Catholic teacher I ever had knew that; which is not surprising). But then the post that disturbed some was one I made that said that generally PROTESTANTS are permitted (not officially forbidden) to adore - respect - honor - revere Mary. No one has disputed what I actually said and no one has offered even one Protestant denomination that officially/formally forbids even one non-RCC member from adoring - respecting - honoring - revering Mary. Not even one denomination forbidding even one Protestant (or any other non-RCCmember, Protestant, Catholic, LDS or even Christian). I did not mention what Catholics do or don't do, I mentioned what Catholics are mandated to hold, believe - and the level of such.

I agree, and the whole "fuss" over my comment is exactly such a "dodge." We're on post #74 and perhaps 15% of them have addressed the issue. MC (who as a self-confessed Catholic) who stated his departure from his denomination in that he regards all these current Marian de fide dogmas of his denomination to be "of little interest and no concern" (contrary to his denomination which has officially declared these to be highest possible importance, concern and certainty). We had an exchange of 3 or 4 posts with a Protestant implying his disagreement with the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. And 3 (Psalm 16, Lamm and Tigger) who generally expressed agreement with the OP. The rest is, well, as you said.

As explained, I did include a small footnote that NONE of these current Marian de fide Dogmas of the RC Denomination regard Mary as IN ANY SENSE The Lord God or divine - and thus the adoration/respect/honor/veneration/worship directed to Her is NEVER in ANY SENSE directed to the divine (these terms never have the meaning of directed to the divine). The footnote obviously was not an attempt on my part to side-tract and derail my own thread to the issue of Marian practices but simply to clarify that none of the current Marian de fide Dogmas of the singular RC Denomination in any way declare or imply that Mary is divine. This point about THEOLOGY seems to have disturbed one or two members and seems used to successfully dodge the issue.


IMO, there are not simply and only two positions here: That the official/formal/mandated position of the singular RC Denomination since 1950 regarding Mary as de fide dogma is right or wrong, De Fide Dogma OR Heresy. There are other possibilities. It seems to ME, most denominations simply have not mandated DE FIDE DOGMA OR HERESY on these..... some (such as Lutherans and Anglicans) seem rather comfortable with them and permit people to hold them - just not to use them dogmatically to condemn and separate), some are increasingly uncomfortable with them (many "Evangelicals" for example, it seems this discomfort is directly proportional to the increased emphasis the RC Denomination gives; as the RCC issues more and more de fide Dogma about Her, stressed Her more and more - these react in the opposite direction).


IMO, truth SHOULD matter, even in the case of Mary. IMO, even if one has a very low view of Mary, still - even as a human and in view of the Commandment "Thou shalt not lie" and the prohibition from gossip - it SHOULD matter whether some claims about Her are declared to be DE FIDE DOGMA (matters of highest certainty, importance and concern possible - truth on the highest level possible) or HERESY (a matter of gravest error possible, perhaps even jeoprodizing salvation). IMO, Mary - as a human, as the Mother of Our Lord, as one of profound faith and obedience - deserves that respect, deserves that what is SHOUTED about Her (to the very highest level, in the strongest and most binding and most mandated way) should be true. Simply saying, "Well, those who claim it's true claim it's true and that's good enough to make it De Fide Dogma and mandate all agree!" troubles me just a bit. Perhaps also, if one is going to condemn and mock a heart-felt view of billions of Christians over thousands of years as specifically HERETICAL, well..... should they also have something to support that? Make sense? IMO, it has to do with respect (and that Commandment).

I must say: In my Catholic years, it was never the piety or faith or (generally) the practices around Mary that troubled me.... nor have I ever been remotely convinced that the views (any of them) are specifically heretical. What I noted was a shocking lack of interest or concern in whether any of this is actually true..... whether they were being truthful or lying when they SHOUT dogmatically about Her ..... whether they were honoring Mary or disgracing Her by their claims about Her. It may be we can't definitively determine that in the case of these current Marian views of the individual RC Denomination one way or the other, but if so, that's perhaps reason enough for them NOT be to de fide Dogmas?

And I might add.... has the RCC's invention of these things and declaring them DE FIDE DOGMAS actually resulted in Mary being LESS honored and esteemed among Christians????



Back to the topic: Are these current Marian de fide Dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church true - and to the level and status claimed? I gave my view in the opening post. Our resident self-described Catholic gave his (perhaps shocking) view in post #16. Three Protestants (Psalm91 and two fellow Lutherans) expressed their general agreement with my view. But nearly all of the posts here have been "dodges" as you put it.




.

Last time, and then I will leave you alone. "Adoration", as defined by the CCC of the 'Roman Catholic Denomination', carries with it a connotation that is associated/reserved/unique to God alone. In this way, this term does have the sense of being directed to the divine. Respect, honor, and veneration are not spoken of in such a way (as far as I have seen). My question is why this continues to be misrepresented in this thread? You don't need to answer.

Please read my posts quoted here.

Space limited hinders my responding again to your question in this post; I'll do so in my next post in this thread.



- Josiah




.

 

[Josiah]

[MENTION=55]ImaginaryDay2[/MENTION]

You don't need to answer.

I already have. Numerous times. I'll do it yet, still another time.



Please read the post just above (#83) first. Thanks. Then, if you would please, read all the sentences below (although, I confess, all have appeared in posts above). Thank you very much!



Friend, you seem to continue to trip over my post that indicates that generally PROTESTANTS are permitted (not officially forbidden) to respect - honor - esteem - adore - venerate Mary, the Mother of Our Lord. Catholics and their denomination isn't even mentioned in that post. Please note, I said NOTHING in that post about what Catholics may or may not believe or think or feel or say or do; it's a general comment about PROTESTANTS and is part of my point that there are not just two positions on Mary and that often Protestants hold to a more "middle" view.


Now, I guess you are stressing that IF I had rather said in the post: "CATHOLICS" are permitted to adore Mary," well then MC would have a point. MC (who stated all these RC De Fide DOGMAS are "of little interest and no concern") suddenly jumped into the discussion to note that one tiny point made among the 2,865 teachings of the over 800 pages of the current, latest edition of the Official Catholic Catechism actually forbids that specific and singular word from being used by Catholics vis-a-vis Mary when Catholics are speaking English. Okay. Fine. I never challenged the point (no one did). Of course, I'm not Catholic and the post says that generally PROTESTANTS are permitted to do this, I said nothing about Catholics. Do you follow?

True, none of my Catholic teachers seemed to know about that point MC says is somewhere in the 800+ pages of the latest edition of the ever changing RCC Catechism. And they certainly could not have used the word "adore" to indicate divinity (and I'm 100% sure they did not). MC didn't challenge whether our Catholic teachers used that word, he only blasted the RCC for appointing atheists to teach theology to young Catholics. Evidently that tiny point found somewhere in the 800+ pages indicates that the RCC and has official, mandated church definition of an ENGLISH word, that English speaking Catholics are to adhere to. And that's fine. It can officially give definitions for Catholics to use when speaking English, and such definitions need not be good or right or best or even reasonsonable, it can define stuff ANY WAY IT WANTS for Catholics, it can mandate that for Catholics speaking English "up" means "down" if it likes - I never debated that. No one has. But I'm not Catholic and I wasn't speaking about Catholics, my post says that generally PROTESTANTS are permitted to adore - respect - honor - esteem - venerate - call her blessed, a point NO ONE (including you) has disputed; no one (including you) has presented even one Protestant denomination that officially forbids members to respect - honor - adore - venerate - esteem - call blessed Mary. Since you don't challenge the point, why do you continue - in post after post - to indicate the point is wrong, going on and on and on about it? It IS puzzling, especially since you made such a point about all the dodging in this thread.


Friend, I'm not Catholic and I wasn't speaking of Catholics, my post in question specifically states that generally PROTESTANTS are permitted to honor - respect - adore - esteem Mary. It is a general comment (which NONE - including you - has disputed) and it's generally about PROTESTANTS (sic) and is a part of my point that there is a "middle ground" on these Marian views that embraces them NOT as de fide dogma OR as heresy. A point you've never disputed, but there is this long continuing chain of posts by you strongly protesting the point (while never disagreeing with it). And friend, I've asked both you and MC to get out a dictionary. Look up the words "honor," "respect," "adore," "venerate", "worship." Look 'em up. Write down ALL the various definitions of such for people speaking English. Then connect similar meanings in the different words. It might be an epiphany for both of you and I think that (alone with reading the OP) would reveal all this diversion as unnecessary and unfortunate.


And, as you and MC and all the rest know, in the OP, I boldly stated that Catholicism and Catholics do NOT in any sense or way indicate that Mary is The Lord God or divine in any sense or manner. Again, I boldly stated that Catholicism and Catholics do NOT in any sense or way indicate that Mary is The Lord God or divine in any sense or manner. I clearly stated that these current de fide DOGMAS do NOT teach that and the practices of Catholics do NOT indicate such. AT ALL. (No one, including you, has challenged that). What part of that did you forget? Furthermore, I indicated that NO CHRISTIANS believe that Mary is The Lord God or divine (Catholic OR Protestant), no one uses any term to indicate such. Since you knew that before you read my post, "Generally PROTESTANTS are permitted to adore - respect - honor - esteem Mary," it would be impossible to twist that to: "Catholics are mandated to hold that Mary is The Lord God." Thus, my puzzle. And when our teachers (and often Catholics in general, in my experience as a former Catholic) speak of "adoring Mary" I certainly never have and still don't twist that into some teaching that Mary is God. They are using the word in it's usual sense,as I say I adore my wife. It is IMPOSSIBLE for them to mean "Mary is The Lord God" when using words such as "respect" "honor" "revere" "adore" "venerate" "worship" (all words that often do NOT refer to the divine) when they just said that Mary is not The Lord God. Follow me? What did I say on that point in the opening post and so often thereafter? Since you and MC KNEW this word NEVER carries a connotation of divinity among any Christians (Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, Mormons, JW, CS, any), it thus is impossible to mandate that I (or anyone) use the word in the sense of the divine when Mary is the topic. That is (I hate to say it)... absurd. I adore Mary as I do my wife - I don't regard either as the Fourth Person of the Trinity, I can't given what I posted in the OP as you and MC and everyone knows. I think a lot of Catholics ALSO adore Mary - not in any sense as divine (the word rarely carries that connotation and CANNOT carry that for Catholics who do not regard her as divine or The Lord God or the Fourth Person of the Trinity). I adore Mary - not in any sense as divine (the word rarely carries that connotation and CANNOT carry that for Protestants who do not regard her as divine or The Lord God or the Fourth Person of the Trinity, especially since I made that specific point in the OP). Follow? Do you finally follow? If you had looked up the words, you'd learn that "adore" "honor" "respect" "revere" "venerate" "worship" all CAN apply to the divine BUT they often do NOT. You may call your minister "reverend" (from the word "revere"). The British refer to some humans in high office as "your worship" or even "My Lord." IF you already knew that NO Protestant holds that pastors are The Lord God or divine.... if you had already been told by a Brit that they do NOT regard a town mayor as The Lord God, why would you insist that they MUST mean the word in only one (perhaps rare) meaning to apply to the divine, making the person using the word thus contradicting their own previous statement?


I DO wonder why some will do ANYTHING to dodge the topic, to derail the topic, to evade it? You posted about this "dodging" too. The issue is simple and focused: Are the current Marian DE FIDE DOGMAS of the RC Denomination TRUE to the level and status claimed by the RCC? I gave my view. MC (a self described Catholic) gave his rather shocking view in post #16. Psalm91, Lamm and Tigger pointed out they generally agree with me. One Protestant briefly expressed a problem with the PVM. You, as yet, have not weighed in at all but have uploaded several posts.



I SINCERELY hope and pray that this FINALLY settles that, and that finally, here on page 9, we can address the topic. I sincerely hope and pray this finally settles the issue for you, my friend, and that albeit on page 9, we can finally discuss the topic and stop the dodges. What pray tell is YOUR view, my friend? Are the current Marian de fide Dogmas of the RCC TRUE - and to the level and status claimed? Do you agree with the RCC since 1950 on what is de fide dogma? Or do you hold all or some of these as heresy? Or do you hold some other or "middle" view?



Pax Christi



- Josiah




.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

As I said, I'll leave this alone. Thank you for allowing me to raise some questions.

 

[Confessional Lutheran]

As a Confessional Lutheran, I had taken vows during my reaffirmation to be faithful to the teachings of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, even unto death. I subscribe to what Melanchthon wrote about Our Lady in the Apology of the Augsburg Confession:

Granting that the blessed Mary prays for the Church, does she receive souls in death, does she conquer death [the great power of Satan], does she quicken? What does Christ do if the blessed Mary does these things? Although she is most worthy of the most ample honors, nevertheless she does not wish to be made equal to Christ, but rather wishes us to consider and follow her example [the example of her faith and her humility]. 28] But the subject itself declares that in public opinion the blessed Virgin has succeeded altogether to the place of Christ. Men have invoked her, have trusted in her mercy, through her have desired to appease Christ, as though He were not a Propitiator, but, only a dreadful judge and avenger. 29] We believe, however, that we must not trust that the merits of the saints are applied to us, that on account of these God is reconcile d to us, or accounts us just, or saves us. For we obtain remission of sins only by the merits of Christ, when we believe in Him. Of the other saints it has been said, 1 Cor. 3:8: Every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labor, i.e., they cannot mutually bestow their own merits, the one upon the other, as the monks sell the merits of their orders. 30] Even Hilary says of the foolish virgins: And as the foolish virgins could not go forth with their lamps extinguished, they besought those who were prudent to lend them oil; to whom they replied that they could not give it because peradventure there might not be enough for all; i.e., no one can be aided by the works and merits of another, because it is necessary for every one to buy oil for his own lamp. [Here he points out that none of us can aid another by other people's works or merits] http://www.bookofconcord.org/defense_20_saints.php

The BVM does deserve great honors, yes, but since the early 1500s, the decrees of the Catholic Church have been rendered irrelevant for the purposes of Lutheran Christianity. I'm not willing to shrug off Mary's perpetual virginity, but it's adiaphora to me. It's not an essential teaching. For me, the pinnacle of the Christian experience is to receive Jesus' Body and Blood in, with and under the Bread and the Wine of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper. Holy Mother Church is Holy Mother Church because she nourishes our faith and causes it to grow, by the power of the Holy Spirit through the ministry of Word and Sacraments. Christ is the Head of the Church and as for the Virgin Mary:
7. Hence we believe, teach, and confess that Mary conceived and bore not a mere man and no more, but the true Son of God; therefore she also is rightly called and truly is the mother of God. http://www.bookofconcord.org/fc-ep.php#VIII.The Person of Christ.

That's just my thought on the matter, though.

 

[Josiah]

[MENTION=55]ImaginaryDay2[/MENTION]

As I said, I'll leave this alone. Thank you for allowing me to raise some questions.

But you aren't "leaving it alone." You keep intervening but never to respond to the OP or give your view....


It seems to me, friend, you keep posting that I'm not answering your questions when I feel that I've not only done so, but repeatedly and with great effort (taking some time, you are regarded as worth it).... but I feel I'm being ignored by you. It seems to ME, friend, you WANT to engage in conversation - but then opt out (repeatedly), you ask questions - but then ignore the responses (only to ask it of me again and complain that I never answered it).... Am I wrong? All this seems very uncharacteristic of you; what's going on??? Want to chat?


See posts 83 and 84


Oh, well.....


- Josiah



.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

As to the question of the OP, I would (at the present time) regard Marian Dogma of the RCC as 'pious opinion', although further study could well result in a change of view, much as it had in my move away from the modern Evangelical church. I also think we step on dangerous ground when we label any teaching as "heretical" that may be generally accepted as truth by some, or pious opinion by most. Ecumenical councils and the views of ECF's can help guide us in these matters as well. Making a judgment about a thing being "true to the level and status claimed..." also places one in the position of making a potential error, as these things cannot be shown to be definitively true or false.

 

[Albion]

Only one of the ancient churches is called The Catholic Church.

...by the Roman Catholic Church, that is.

The Russian Orthodox Church nearest my home calls includes the word in its name and on the sign out in front of the building. That use of the word is also found among several other of the church bodies that are classified as Catholic. Incidentally also, the Church of England is, in law, "the" Catholic Church in England.

 

[psalms 91]

...by the Roman Catholic Church, that is.

The Russian Orthodox Church nearest my home calls includes the word in its name and on the sign out in front of the building. That use of the word is also found among several other of the church bodies that are classified as Catholic. Incidentally also, the Church of England is, in law, "the" Catholic Church in England.

Yup and so much for all inclusive but we already knew that

 

[Josiah]

[MENTION=55]ImaginaryDay2[/MENTION]

As to the question of the OP, I would (at the present time) regard Marian Dogma of the RCC as 'pious opinion', although further study could well result in a change of view, much as it had in my move away from the modern Evangelical church. I also think we step on dangerous ground when we label any teaching as "heretical" that may be generally accepted as truth by some, or pious opinion by most. Ecumenical councils and the views of ECF's can help guide us in these matters as well.

It SEEMS your view is the same as that of Lamm, Tigger and myself (a rather Lutheran and often Anglican view).

I'm under the impression that your "issue" with me is entirely based on you not noticing that I said PROTESTANTS are generally permitted to adore Mary and assuming that I posted that CATHOLICS are mandated to adore Mary (and reading MC's post, how he says the RCC itself requires that Catholics use and not use that word) regarding what I said as wrong. What is your response to that?

Making a judgment about a thing being "true to the level and status claimed..." also places one in the position of making a potential error, as these things cannot be shown to be definitively true or false.

Friend, that's a major issue between Catholics and Protestants. It's not JUST the teaching or pov itself (which sometimes is mutually allowed) but the STATUS given to it. IF (big word, lol) IF the RCC had left Transubstantiation and Purgatory and the Infallibility of the Roman Pope and the Coredemptrix of Mary and so on..... IF that denomination had left those things as pious opinion or even as official teaching, there may well have been no Reformation and a LOT of we ex-Catholics might still be attending Mass in one of its parishes, but it made a LOT of things into de fide dogma: things you MUST accept "with complete docility" - not only as a pov but as a matter of highest importance and certainty possible. IF my Deacon and Priest and teachers had told me that I don't need to accept Transubstantiation as DE FIDE DOGMA but could simply accept it as one possible "explanation" .... IF it has told me that historically lots have believed Mary was assumed into heaven but I can still go to heaven if I don't accept that as DE FIDE DOGMA..... and so on.... well, I'd still be Catholic. Friend, it's not JUST a matter of the pov, it's also a matter of the STATUS given to it. And the RCC has been busy since the Reformation burning bridges behind it (with Protestants AND Orthodox), declaring new Dogmas (last in 1950 although another is likely coming very soon). I asked my Catholic teachers (and my pastor) about if I don't DENOUNCE the teaching but don't ACCEPT it to the status the RCC gives..... and there was much hemming and hawwing until they all said, "To disagree with the Church is to disagree with God and to be a heretic, and there are no heretics in heaven." I got my answer. And left.

Friend, it's not JUST the pov.... it's the STATUS given to such. And it's not just Lutherans and Anglicans that have an issue here, it's Orthodox too. In the words of my Greek Orthodox friend, "The Roman Church WILL NOT leave well enough alone but INSISTS on messing things up." "The Roman Church keeps inventing new ideas and theories - which is fine - but then makes them DOGMAS, drawing a line in the sand with them, dividing His Church over them, pushing us further and further away."

Now, MY experience is that a LOT of "Catholics" are just like our good and respected friend, MC. They are called "Cafeteria Catholics" and they are the vast majority of Catholics. They accept what they want at that moment and "pass by" what they don't like at that moment. The RCC says that these current (post 1950) Marian De Fide Dogmas are matters of highest importance, concern and certainty POSSIBLE..... but MC says they are "of little importance and no concern." His position is the antithesis of the RCC mandate (well, close to the antithesis of it, lol). His position is actually less Catholic than mine (I think this issues ARE of concern), he's simply "passed up" these DE FIDE DOGMAS. Lots do that. They are "protesting Catholics" who often have bigger problems with Catholic teachings than many Lutherans do (Luther had a much higher view of Mary than MC seems to have and many Catholics I know do). And here's the thing: The RCC mandates that all just docilicly swallow ALL that it says, AS it currently says it (the status it currently gives it) because it itself currently says it. Look up CCC 87.... friend, this is FOUNDATIONAL to Catholicism, and yes it was at the root of the Reformation. One is simply NOT CATHOLIC if they pick and choose, if they don't accept the current teaching AND the current status of it. Note this thread too, my friend: No Catholic has thought to say "these things might be true" only "these things are currently taught by my denomination." Why is that significant? Because in Catholicism, the issue is authority (a word they use over and over and over and over) not truth, docilic submission and obedience to the lordship and unmitigated power that denomination itself claims for it itself. Up, that's the central point in the Reformation. Did the Pope give a rip what Luther thought about justification or the Eucharist? It's doubtful he even knew what the RCC's position was (he was not a theologian at all, his interest was exclusively political). The issue what POWER. It was the same issue that caused the largest split in Christianity: 1054. The "heart" of Catholicism is docilic submission to the Lordship (the RCC likes to call this "Authority" - usually capitolized as if it's God) of that singular denomination - what it says, what it does, and the STATUS it gives to things. So, yes - we have two things at issue in this thread: The Marian views themselves (most of which I'm fairly comfortable with) AND the status the RCC itself gives to them (since 1950) which I'm not comfortable with. Your stance appears to be a very Lutheran one. And while it's certainly found among Catholics, it's not Catholic but rather makes one a protesting Catholic (worse than Luther was - and the RCC excommunicated him for less, put a price on his head, tried to kill him). The RCC is filled with "Cafeteria Catholics" who are less Catholic than Luther was (and a lot of Lutherans are) whom it excommunicated and tried to kill, but they say what the RCC wants to hear and keep their rejections a secret, and become the antithesis of what their denomination demands: complete, docilic submission, NOT because what it itself alone says is true or right but because it itself CLAIMS to have all this unmitigated POWER ("Authority"). I couldn't live that way. To ME, it was a matter of honesty and integrity.


Again, friend, I didn't say the CATHOLICS are generally permitted to adore Mary, I posted that PROTESTANTS generally are, and since I'm not Catholic and wasn't speaking about Catholics, I'm not MANDATED to docilicly submit to any requirements that the RCC has given to Catholics about (odd) definitions it mandates all just docilicly accept. As you know, for those speaking English, the words respect, revere, honor, adore, venerate even worship can be synonums. And since neither Catholics or Protestants believe Mary is in any sense divine, those words CANNOT be used to imply such in the case of Mary - and they aren't, by me or MC or anyone else I know of.



Pax Christi



- Josiah

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

Josiah, I did notice that you said "Protestants" and addressed that. I've explained elsewhere why I responded the way I did. Hopefully my last response here (#90) addressed the OP. That's my view and opinion.

But I want to address your last sentence:

"And since neither Catholics or Protestants believe Mary is in any sense divine, those words CANNOT be used to imply such in the case of Mary - and they aren't, by me or MC or anyone else I know of."

It was never my intent to suggest that.

 

[atpollard]

But I want to address your last sentence:

"And since neither Catholics or Protestants believe Mary is in any sense divine, those words CANNOT be used to imply such in the case of Mary - and they aren't, by me or MC or anyone else I know of."

It was never my intent to suggest that.

With respect, I am willing to go there.
I find terms like Mary "Queen of the Universe" and Mary "Co-Redemptrix" place Mary's elevated seat of 'veneration' just a little too close to the throne of God for the comfort of this former atheist.

 

[MoreCoffee]

With respect, I am willing to go there.
I find terms like Mary "Queen of the Universe" and Mary "Co-Redemptrix" place Mary's elevated seat of 'veneration' just a little too close to the throne of God for the comfort of this former atheist.

Blessed Mary is a human being and a creature and as such she is not and can never be God yet every person who is in Christ on the last day is a partaker of the divine nature and hence will be kings (queens) and priests of our God and judge even the angels and if Paul laboured to complete what is lacking in Christ's afflictions for the sake of his body then "Queen of the universe" and "co-redemptrix" are mere words in comparison to the reality yet to be revealed in union with Christ.

 

[Albion]

Blessed Mary is a human being and a creature and as such she is not and can never be God....

On that point, just about every last Christian of any denomination would agree.

The issue, then, is whether or not it is right to treat her in the way that we would treat a god.

 

[FredVB]

Mary was the most pleasing to God for Christ to be born to, but none were sinless, she needed the savior too.

 

[hjhsjnsshdjdh]

How it must break the heart of Mary to know, if she knows, that she is in any way shape or form raised up and honored. GOD chose her and Joseph to parent and protect HIS SON that HE was sending into an evil world. She was quite humble and knew her place. She was a virgin at conception of JESUS, she was a virgin at the birth of JESUS and then her and her husband Joseph came together to have their own physical children. All that she was comes down to this one most truthful quote at the wedding in Cana - "Whatsoever HE says to you, do it." She knew, as a sinner, she was in need of a SAVIOR and prayed that way, "and my spirit has rejoiced in GOD my SAVIOR." She was a Godly young woman, who was looking for her MESSIAH and GOD gave her the desire of her heart, to be the vessel that would bring that prophecy to completion, "Therefore the LORD HIMSELF shall give you a sign; Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a SON, and shall call HIS name IMMANUEL." Mary pondered her life while CHRIST was physically with them in the world and now her faith has also given her the home in Heaven.

 

[Josiah]

How it must break the heart of Mary to know, if she knows, that she is in any way shape or form raised up and honored. GOD chose her and Joseph to parent and protect HIS SON that HE was sending into an evil world. She was quite humble and knew her place. She was a virgin at conception of JESUS, she was a virgin at the birth of JESUS and then her and her husband Joseph came together to have their own physical children. All that she was comes down to this one most truthful quote at the wedding in Cana - "Whatsoever HE says to you, do it." She knew, as a sinner, she was in need of a SAVIOR and prayed that way, "and my spirit has rejoiced in GOD my SAVIOR." She was a Godly young woman, who was looking for her MESSIAH and GOD gave her the desire of her heart, to be the vessel that would bring that prophecy to completion, "Therefore the LORD HIMSELF shall give you a sign; Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a SON, and shall call HIS name IMMANUEL." Mary pondered her life while CHRIST was physically with them in the world and now her faith has also given her the home in Heaven.

Elizabeth said that all generations will call Mary "blessed." They did - until a couple of hundred years ago when it became fashionable to think of Mary as little more than a forgettable baby factory. Sad.

Yes, she was humble, faithful, obedient, sacrificial.... reasons to honor her, not ignore her.

There's nothing in the Bible that states Mary had other children (or ever had sex) nor do I see why that matters; women such as Mother Teresa can be called blessed, not just non-virgins and mothers.

While it's possible to surround Mary with ... well.... things not known to be true; possible to honor her TOO much or for things inappropriate, the opposite is also true (such as calling her a non-virgin and suggesting she was nothing but an unwilling baby factory). It might be said that SOME Catholics err on one side and SOME Protestants on the other. But what seems true is that she's taken a huge "hit" in the past 200 years or so.... things Luther and Calvin and Wesley once said are often boldly denounced by "Evangelicals" today (especially in the USA).

 

[hjhsjnsshdjdh]

"Blessed" can also mean happy. As far as her other children, Scripture gives a couple of places where they are either talked about or named. "While HE yet talked to the people, behold, HIS mother and HIS brethren stood without, desiring to speak with HIM. Then one said unto HIM, Behold, THY mother and THY brethren stand without, desiring to speak with THEE. But HE answered and said unto him that told HIM, Who is my mother ? and who are MY brethren ?" Matthew 12:46-48 and also "And when HE was come into HIS own country, HE taught them in their synagogue, insomuch that they were astonished, and said,, Whence hath this man this wisdom, and these mighty works ? Is not this the carpenter's SON ? is not HIS mother called Mary ? and HIS brethren, James, and Joses, and Simeon, and Judas ? and HIS sisters, are they not all with us ? Whence then hath this MAN all these things ?" Matthew 13:54-56

I never belittled Mary, that would also be looking at GOD's choice as a mistake and it was not - but she should never be raised up to the level of GOD, she was human and lived a sinners life. She ate, she drank, she loved her husband Joseph and gave him children. I took care of an elderly lady in her home for a couple of days before she died. You could not look anywhere in her home where there was not a picture (of which we have no idea what she looked like) a statue, even life size statues, pictures and statues everywhere, even in her bed with her. It was terrifying to me that anyone would do or believe that way. She died with a statue of Mary in her hand. It was the most horrifying and also sad thing that I had witnessed up to that point. Like everything else that man does, he perverts what GOD has told us and of course the Devil has the greatest glee when people pray to her and worship her above her LORD - and as I said, she would NEVER have wanted that for herself.

 

[Josiah]

As far as her other children, Scripture gives a couple of places where they are either talked about or named. "While HE yet talked to the people, behold, HIS mother and HIS brethren stood without, desiring to speak with HIM. Then one said unto HIM, Behold, THY mother and THY brethren stand without, desiring to speak with THEE. But HE answered and said unto him that told HIM, Who is my mother ? and who are MY brethren ?" Matthew 12:46-48

Right. The verse says NOTHING about Mary being the mother of any other children. Remember too that in koine Greek (as in Hebrew and Aramaic) there is no word for half-sibling or step-sibling... and that the word often applied to biological relatives (cousins, for example) but most often it was used for someone with whom there is a emotional bond... you are my sister in Christ. In any case, as you note, this verse does not say these "brethern" were children of Mary. It does not say Mary had other children. It does not identify Mary as the mother of any other except Jesus.

"And when HE was come into HIS own country, HE taught them in their synagogue, insomuch that they were astonished, and said,, Whence hath this man this wisdom, and these mighty works ? Is not this the carpenter's SON ? is not HIS mother called Mary ? and HIS brethren, James, and Joses, and Simeon, and Judas ? and HIS sisters, are they not all with us ? Whence then hath this MAN all these things ?" Matthew 13:54-56

Yup. You proved the point. NOWHERE does Scripture indicate that Mary had other children, NOWHERE does it identify Mary as the mother of any other. This verse singles out ONE child of Mary, ONE person for whom Mary is the mother, and as you show, that's JESUS.


Again, "brethern" does not mean "children of Mary." If these were children of Joseph (as Tradition says) there would be no other way to convey that in Greek (or Hebrew or Aramaic) than how the text does.... and while there is a koine Greek word for "cousin" it usually wasn't used, they were just called "brethern." Sometimes the word ONLY meant someone who lived with you (a member of your "oikos") or a relative... but usually it didn't mean a biological relative AT ALL. You are my sister.

IF you want to spin this in very limited terms, then Jesus is the child of Joseph - it says "isn't this the carpenter's son" so you'd have to deny the virgin birth. But you don't because that's just not how these words were used, they didn't have the very limited meanings you are imposing; if you insist "brethern" means "share the same parents" then you must also insist that Jesus was the biological son of Joseph.

There is NOTHING in the Bible that states that Mary had other children.... and we simply don't know if Joseph did. YES, it's biblically POSSIBLE but biblically it's equally possible she did not.

In any case, I don't see how having or not having kids makes one more or less worthy of "all generations will called her blessed."

she should never be raised up to the level of GOD, she was human and lived a sinners life.

I've never met or heard of anyone who denies that.

she loved her husband Joseph and gave him children.

There's NOTHING in the Bible, NOTHING in over 1800 years of Christianity, that indicates Mary "gave Joseph children." And IMO if she did or did not would have no bearing whatsoever on whether she is to be held in high esteem, whether the title "Matre Dei" or "Theotokos" applies or not.





.