Too Much Emphasis Of The Virgin Mary?

[Apotheoun]

A truly spiritual emphasis upon the Theotokos will always lead one to a deeper communion with Christ.

[Selah]

Old thread

[rhetoricfemme]

[i]1) How can you have a personal relationship with Jesus, if you focus on Mary?[/i]
Why can't a person focus on both of them? As long as Mary isn't be worshiped... Jesus is our one and only Savior, so yeah. But there is certainly something to be said for the woman who was chosen by God to carry His Immaculate Son in [u]her[/u] [u]womb[/u].

[i]2) How is honoring Mary honoring Jesus?[/i]
Jesus honored and respected His mother. So we should all be honoring and respecting our mothers. And if we are all brothers and sisters through Christ, then isn't Mary also our mother?

[i]3) Since Jesus is one with God, why do you Catholics give as much attention to Mary as you do with Jesus?[/i]
Personally, I think I give more attention to Jesus than to Mary. He's my Savior, and I try to remember and thank Him and emulate Him daily. It doesn't always work out, but that's being human for ya. But yes. Jesus is what I'm striving for, and Mary is helpful in reminding me that her son is the goal. After all, wasn't everything Mary did for Jesus? For God?

[i]4) Mary ain't gonna get you to heaven, only Jesus.[/i]
Well, duh. That doesn't mean I can't appreciate all she is and all she's done. Honestly, I think I'm a better mother because of Mary. The Hail Mary helps me, and sometimes when I get frustrated or don't know what to do with my little one, I just think about how Mary would have handled things.

[Resurrexi]

[img]http://www.mystfx.ca/academic/catholic-studies/art/botticelli-the_annunciation.jpg[/img]

Ave, gratia plena, Dominus tecum!

[Selah]

Hail, Blessed Queen of Heaven! Mother of mercy, we love you so!

And Rexi, I love that beautiful picture of the Annunciation

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='29 May 2010 - 02:22 PM' timestamp='1275157346' post='2120234']
[img]http://www.mystfx.ca/academic/catholic-studies/art/botticelli-the_annunciation.jpg[/img]
[/quote]
[img]http://www.joeroth12.com/photos/Recognition/HeismanTrophyLogo.jpg[/img]

[Selah]

Gabriel looks awesome in that picture.

[Luigi]

Devotion to Mary balances the heavily male concept of God - Father & Son are male, Spirit is neuter or male. Mary is a feminine presence closely associated with God - not God herself, but singularly honored by God (through her vocation and her asssumption).

[Damiano]

*["...Mary was the sinless mother of God..."]

***You are mistaken. The Scriptures declare that Mary was a born SINNER as is ALL of humanity and, as such, is NOT sinless: "...for ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" [Romans 3:23]...and again: "Behold, I was shapen in INIQUITY; and in SIN did my mother conceive me" [Psalm 51:5]. Also she KNEW and ACKNOWLEDGED her SINFULNESS and need of a Savior by her prayer: "And Mary said, 'My soul doth magnify the Lord. And my spirit hath rejoiced in God MY SAVIOUR. For he hath regarded the LOW ESTATE of his handmaiden (i.e., bondservant): for, behold, from hence-forth all generations shall call me blessed. For he that is mighty hath done to me great things and holy is HIS name'" [Luke 1:46-49].

Damiano

[MIKolbe]

YOU are MistaKen!

The FAct IS tHat MaRy was PRESERVED frOM sIn IN VIEW OF thE MerITS of CHRIST. ThIs DOEs nOT logicaLLy follow that she did NOT need a Savior; nOR the Fact That she NEEDed a SavIOR mean ShE WAS nOt Without the STAIN of sin.

My CAPITALIzation is a LITTLE oFF. So srY.

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='Damiano' date='04 June 2010 - 06:34 AM' timestamp='1275647666' post='2123568']
*["...Mary was the sinless mother of God..."]

***You are mistaken. The Scriptures declare that Mary was a born SINNER as is ALL of humanity and, as such, is NOT sinless: "...for ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" [Romans 3:23]...and again: "Behold, I was shapen in INIQUITY; and in SIN did my mother conceive me" [Psalm 51:5]. Also she KNEW and ACKNOWLEDGED her SINFULNESS and need of a Savior by her prayer: "And Mary said, 'My soul doth magnify the Lord. And my spirit hath rejoiced in God MY SAVIOUR. For he hath regarded the LOW ESTATE of his handmaiden (i.e., bondservant): for, behold, from hence-forth all generations shall call me blessed. For he that is mighty hath done to me great things and holy is HIS name'" [Luke 1:46-49].

Damiano
[/quote]

If you believe that the word "all" includes Mary, then it must include Christ as well - Christ was born into this world like every other human person, for He is fully human while fully divine. Can you explain why Mary is included in this verse but Christ is not? (I assume you believe Christ is not included).

Furthermore, Mary needed Christ the Savior - just in a different way. Whereas Christ has saved us from sin (original and actual), He preserved Mary from original sin.

[Selah]

[quote name='MIkolbe' date='04 June 2010 - 10:14 AM' timestamp='1275657299' post='2123591']
YOU are MistaKen!

The FAct IS tHat MaRy was PRESERVED frOM sIn IN VIEW OF thE MerITS of CHRIST. ThIs DOEs nOT logicaLLy follow that she did NOT need a Savior; nOR the Fact That she NEEDed a SavIOR mean ShE WAS nOt Without the STAIN of sin.

My CAPITALIzation is a LITTLE oFF. So srY.
[/quote]


You mean...

U R MISTAEKn !1!1!!!11

DAFACt Is TAHT MaRY wAS pREsARV3D FROM SIN IN VEIW OF TeH MERITS OF CHriSt1!!!1!111 tHIs DO3s NoT loGICALY FOLOW TAHT ShA DiD NOT nEeED A SAVIoR NOR Teh FACT TaHT SHE NeEED3D A SAVIOR M3AN SHa WAS NoT WITHOuT tEH StANE OF SiN 11!111! oMG WTf

mAHCApITALIzATION iS A LiTL3 Of1!!!! LOL SO SRY !!!1111!1

[Damiano]

*["If you believe that the word 'all' includes Mary, then it must include Christ as well - Christ was born into this world like every other human person, for He is fully human while fully divine. Can you explain why Mary is included in this verse but Christ is not? (I assume you believe Christ is not included)."]

***Hello Lady:

I am sorry that it took so long to get back to you...and I hope that my answer will be of benefit to you.

This is not a question of whether Jesus sinned...because the Bible clearly says that Jesus did NOT sin [2 Corinthians 5:21;1 Peter 2:22]. The question is whether Jesus could have sinned. Those who hold to "impeccability" believe that Jesus could NOT have sinned. Those who hold to "peccability" believe that Jesus could have sinned, but did NOT. The clear teaching of Scripture is that Jesus was "impeccable"...that He could NOT have sinned. If He could have sinned, He would still be able to sin today because He retains the same essence He did while living on earth. He is the God-Man and will forever remain so, having full DEITY and full HUMANITY so united in one person as to be indivisible. To believe that Jesus could sin is to believe that God could sin. "For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him" [Colossians 1:19]. [Colossians 2:9] adds, "For in Christ all the fullness of the DEITY lives in bodily form."

Although Jesus is fully human, He was not born with the same sinful nature that we are born with. He certainly was tempted in the same way we are...in that temptations were put before Him by Satan, yet He remained sinless because God is incapable of sinning. It is against His very nature [Matthew 4:1;Hebrews 2:18;4:15;James 1:13]. Sin is by definition a trespass of the Law. God created the Law, and the Law is by nature what God would or would not do...therefore sin is anything that God would not do by His very nature.

Jesus knows what itis like to be tempted...but He does not know what it is like to sin. This does not prevent Him from assisting us. We are tempted with sins that are common to man [1 Corinthians 10:13]. These sins generally can be boiled down to three different types: "The lust of the eyes, the lust of the flesh, and the pride of life" [1 John 2:16]. If you examine the temptation and sin of Eve, as well as the temptation of Jesus, you will find that the temptations for each came from these three categories. Jesus was tempted in every way and in every area that we were...but remained perfectly holy. Although our corrupt natures will have the inner desire to participate in some sins, we have the ability, through Christ, to overcome sin because we are no longer slaves to sin but rather slaves of God [Romans 6:2, 16-22].


*["Furthermore, Mary needed Christ the Savior - just in a different way. Whereas Christ has saved us from sin (original and actual), He preserved Mary from original sin."]

***You are mistaken. The Scriptures are clear...Mary needed Christ because she was a SINNER and needed a Saviour [Luke 1:46-55]. A person who is SINLESS does NOT need a Saviour! Mary was the offspring of Adam and Eve and, as such, inherited their fallen nature and died and returned to the ground as they did...and as we all will. But God in His mercy sent us His only begotten Son to reconcile us unto Himself...and blessed Mary to serve as the vessel to bring Him forth into the world. She was the "vessel"---NOT the means of Reconciliation--->only Christ is. Jesus is the Eternal Son of God and was in the Beginning with God and was God [John 1:1-2]. "All things were made by him..."---including Mary [John 1:3]. He came to redeem her too...and that is why she acknowledged that in [Luke 1:47-49].

BOTTOM LINE: The Scriptures do NOT support your church's or your contentions about the Virgin Mary.

Damiano

[HisChildForever]

Damiano,

I am glad that we agree on the nature of Christ, fully man and fully God. It does appear, however, that your argument points to a contradiction in the Scriptures - for we know that Christ was sinless, yet Romans 3:23 says "all" have sinned; since Christ did not sin, "all" cannot be absolute. If "all" is not absolute, then one can be inclined to believe (based on other Scriptural verses and Church teaching) that Mary is also an exception. Hopefully you understand my confusion with your argument. To summarize again what you are saying: Romans 3:23 says that "all" have sinned and Mary is included, but Christ cannot be included because the Scriptures clearly state Him as God; and here I insert that if Christ cannot be included then "all" is not absolute, for it is illogical to suppose that "all" is absolute in one context (i.e. Mary) but not absolute in another (i.e. Jesus Christ).

Indeed, I am afraid you do not understand the great need Mary had of a Savior. One can claim that Mary needed a Savior more than the rest of mankind, for her immaculate conception and sinless life was only made possible by the intervention of Christ. As you stated, the Son existed before He was made flesh - it was His intervention that prevented Mary from being conceived with original sin. Without Christ and His divine intervention, Mary would have been born with original sin upon her soul like every single human being before her.

Recall that I mentioned the "founding fathers" of Protestantism in another post to you. Your rejection of Marian devotion is a few hundred years old, whereas my acceptance of Marian devotion is a couple thousand years old. In truth, your rejection is a fairly new branch of Christianity and is not founded on any history - Catholic or Protestant.

[Norseman82]

[quote name='Damiano' date='05 June 2010 - 04:31 AM' timestamp='1275726676' post='2124022']
*["If you believe that the word 'all' includes Mary, then it must include Christ as well - Christ was born into this world like every other human person, for He is fully human while fully divine. Can you explain why Mary is included in this verse but Christ is not? (I assume you believe Christ is not included)."]

***Hello Lady:

I am sorry that it took so long to get back to you...and I hope that my answer will be of benefit to you.

This is not a question of whether Jesus sinned...because the Bible clearly says that Jesus did NOT sin [2 Corinthians 5:21;1 Peter 2:22]. The question is whether Jesus could have sinned. Those who hold to "impeccability" believe that Jesus could NOT have sinned. Those who hold to "peccability" believe that Jesus could have sinned, but did NOT. The clear teaching of Scripture is that Jesus was "impeccable"...that He could NOT have sinned. If He could have sinned, He would still be able to sin today because He retains the same essence He did while living on earth. He is the God-Man and will forever remain so, having full DEITY and full HUMANITY so united in one person as to be indivisible. To believe that Jesus could sin is to believe that God could sin. "For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him" [Colossians 1:19]. [Colossians 2:9] adds, "For in Christ all the fullness of the DEITY lives in bodily form."

Although Jesus is fully human, He was not born with the same sinful nature that we are born with. He certainly was tempted in the same way we are...in that temptations were put before Him by Satan, yet He remained sinless because God is incapable of sinning. It is against His very nature [Matthew 4:1;Hebrews 2:18;4:15;James 1:13]. Sin is by definition a trespass of the Law. God created the Law, and the Law is by nature what God would or would not do...therefore sin is anything that God would not do by His very nature.

Jesus knows what itis like to be tempted...but He does not know what it is like to sin. This does not prevent Him from assisting us. We are tempted with sins that are common to man [1 Corinthians 10:13]. These sins generally can be boiled down to three different types: "The lust of the eyes, the lust of the flesh, and the pride of life" [1 John 2:16]. If you examine the temptation and sin of Eve, as well as the temptation of Jesus, you will find that the temptations for each came from these three categories. Jesus was tempted in every way and in every area that we were...but remained perfectly holy. Although our corrupt natures will have the inner desire to participate in some sins, we have the ability, through Christ, to overcome sin because we are no longer slaves to sin but rather slaves of God [Romans 6:2, 16-22].


*["Furthermore, Mary needed Christ the Savior - just in a different way. Whereas Christ has saved us from sin (original and actual), He preserved Mary from original sin."]

***You are mistaken. The Scriptures are clear...Mary needed Christ because she was a SINNER and needed a Saviour [Luke 1:46-55]. A person who is SINLESS does NOT need a Saviour! Mary was the offspring of Adam and Eve and, as such, inherited their fallen nature and died and returned to the ground as they did...and as we all will. But God in His mercy sent us His only begotten Son to reconcile us unto Himself...and blessed Mary to serve as the vessel to bring Him forth into the world. She was the "vessel"---NOT the means of Reconciliation--->only Christ is. Jesus is the Eternal Son of God and was in the Beginning with God and was God [John 1:1-2]. "All things were made by him..."---including Mary [John 1:3]. He came to redeem her too...and that is why she acknowledged that in [Luke 1:47-49].

BOTTOM LINE: The Scriptures do NOT support your church's or your contentions about the Virgin Mary.

Damiano
[/quote]

Then how could she be full of grace at the time of the Annunciation?

[Damiano]

*["...we know that Christ was sinless, yet Romans 3:23 says 'all' have sinned; since Christ did not sin, 'all' cannot be absolute..."]

***Dear Lady:

Paul explained that "no difference" existed among HUMAN BEINGS because ALL HAVE SINNED. Romans 3:23 is referring to HUMAN BEINGS and not to Christ because Christ is God and cannot sin. Since it applies only to HUMAN BEINGS it is absolute...(i.e., ALL (human beings) have sinned). Not only did ALL sin, but also ALL "fall short." The simple fact is that as a sinner not a single human being by his own efforts is able to measure up to the glory of God. God's glory is His splendor, the outward manifestation of His attributes.


*["If 'all' is not absolute, then one can be inclined to believe (based on other Scriptural verses and Church teaching) that Mary is also an exception..."]

***ALL is absolute for the reasons cited above


*["...Hopefully you understand my confusion with your argument..."]

***Yes, I do understand your confusion with my argument. You do not understand the Scriptures because you rely on the traditions of the Church, the teachings of the Magisterium, writings of the Early Church fathers, declarations of the Church councils, etc. Too, you do not believe that the Scriptures are the sole authority pertaining to the things of God. In other words you do NOT believe in Sola Scriptura---but believe only in Sola Ecclesia. Because of that you and I can never have a meaningful dialogue. I don't want to insult you by saying this because you seem like a pretty nice person...but I do think that we should end it all here because it will get us nowhere.

Damiano














To summarize again what you are saying: Romans 3:23 says that "all" have sinned and Mary is included, but Christ cannot be included because the Scriptures clearly state Him as God; and here I insert that if Christ cannot be included then "all" is not absolute, for it is illogical to suppose that "all" is absolute in one context (i.e. Mary) but not absolute in another (i.e. Jesus Christ).

Indeed, I am afraid you do not understand the great need Mary had of a Savior. One can claim that Mary needed a Savior more than the rest of mankind, for her immaculate conception and sinless life was only made possible by the intervention of Christ. As you stated, the Son existed before He was made flesh - it was His intervention that prevented Mary from being conceived with original sin. Without Christ and His divine intervention, Mary would have been born with original sin upon her soul like every single human being before her.

Recall that I mentioned the "founding fathers" of Protestantism in another post to you. Your rejection of Marian devotion is a few hundred years old, whereas my acceptance of Marian devotion is a couple thousand years old. In truth, your rejection is a fairly new branch of Christianity and is not founded on any history - Catholic or Protestant.
[/quote]

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='Damiano' date='06 June 2010 - 08:00 AM' timestamp='1275825650' post='2124525']
Paul explained that "no difference" existed among HUMAN BEINGS because ALL HAVE SINNED. Romans 3:23 is referring to HUMAN BEINGS and not to Christ because Christ is God and cannot sin. Since it applies only to HUMAN BEINGS it is absolute...(i.e., ALL (human beings) have sinned). Not only did ALL sin, but also ALL "fall short." The simple fact is that as a sinner not a single human being by his own efforts is able to measure up to the glory of God. God's glory is His splendor, the outward manifestation of His attributes. [/quote]

Yes, Christ is fully divine, but He is [u]also[/u] fully human. He "counts" as a human being and therefore he is either (1) included in Romans 3:23 or (2) not included in Romans 3:23 because "all" is not used in absolute terms. We know that "(1)" cannot be possible because Christ is God and cannot sin, so therefore "(2)" is the only logical conclusion.

[quote] ***Yes, I do understand your confusion with my argument. You do not understand the Scriptures because you rely on the traditions of the Church, the teachings of the Magisterium, writings of the Early Church fathers, declarations of the Church councils, etc. Too, you do not believe that the Scriptures are the sole authority pertaining to the things of God. In other words you do NOT believe in Sola Scriptura---but believe only in Sola Ecclesia. Because of that you and I can never have a meaningful dialogue. I don't want to insult you by saying this because you seem like a pretty nice person...but I do think that we should end it all here because it will get us nowhere. [/quote]

I appreciate your civility in our disagreement. I would like to point out that the reason why you have the very Bible you are quoting from (albeit it is a "watered down" version) is because of a Church council.

I would truly like to hear what you think of my previous statement,

[b]Recall that I mentioned the "founding fathers" of Protestantism in another post to you. Your rejection of Marian devotion is a few hundred years old, whereas my acceptance of Marian devotion is a couple thousand years old. In truth, your rejection is a fairly new branch of Christianity and is not founded on any history - Catholic or Protestant.[/b]

[Bennn]

If God can command a Seraph to purify Isaiah's lips with a heated cole, He can preserve Mary from being conceived with original sin. Or do you think that God is bound by the barriers of time? If that was so, the spirits of the just would have been forever lost and they would not have entered the gates of Heaven, when Christ opened it on the Cross. But you know very well that this is not true and that the souls of the OT prophets, patriarchs and saints were also saved by the Blood of Christ. They simply had to wait in Sheol until the First Advent of Jesus. If He did this, what makes you think He can't go further and sanctify someone with His Blood before She is conceived? Of course, this has happened only to one person and will never happen to anyone again. But then again, never will any other person conceive the Son of God in her womb again either. It was an extraordinary grace, given to the Blessed Virgin, so that She could be an Immaculate Temple through which the Lord would enter into the world.

It is sad that so many people will not believe in the wondrous power of God. Mary Herself exclaimed in joy: "Great is that which He has done to Me!"

How illogical it is to hear people condemning those who ask Jesus' Mother to pray for them, while they do not hesitate asking their own friends for intercession. Are the friends that you can see so much better than the Mother of God, just because you can see them?

+Pax Domini,
Ben

Edited June 6, 2010 by Bennn

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='Bennn' date='06 June 2010 - 03:52 PM' timestamp='1275835964' post='2124553']
If God can command a Seraph to purify Isaiah's lips with a heated cole, He can preserve Mary from being conceived with original sin. Or do you think that God is bound by the barriers of time? If that was so, the spirits of the just would have been forever lost and they would not have entered the gates of Heaven, when Christ opened it on the Cross. But you know very well that this is not true and that the souls of the OT prophets, patriarchs and saints were also saved by the Blood of Christ. They simply had to wait in Sheol until the First Advent of Jesus. If He did this, what makes you think He can't go further and sanctify someone with His Blood before She is conceived? Of course, this has happened only to one person and will never happen to anyone again. But then again, never will any other person conceive the Son of God in her womb again either. It was an extraordinary grace, given to the Blessed Virgin, so that She could be an Immaculate Temple through which the Lord would enter into the world.

It is sad that so many people will not believe in the wondrous power of God. Mary Herself exclaimed in joy: "Great is that which He has done to Me!"

How illogical it is to hear people condemning those who ask Jesus' Mother to pray for them, while they do not hesitate asking their own friends for intercession. Are the friends that you can see so much better than the Mother of God, just because you can see them?

+Pax Domini,
Ben
[/quote]
Excellent post.

[Lil Red]

why keep beating your head against a brick wall?