Why Catholics Honor Mary The Mother of God

[PsyOps]

Psy, nobody denies that Mary was under the power of sin or that she needed a savior; hence, her Immaculate Conception. If there were no need for it, it wouldn't have happened. :shrug:

This is an admission that Mary is no more or no less than the rest of us and does not demand to be elevated above others simply because God chose her to bear His Son.

The bible also says that believers are holy, btw. (Recall the "holy father" convo in a previous thread.) So, does scripture contradict itself, or are you misinterpreting something?

If this were true, then how is it Mary has been elevated to a higher level of holiness? Doesn't this support my contention that we are all the same under Christ?

But the fact is, we are not holy. We must strive to be holy. God commands us to BE Holy; to strive for holiness. He does not state that we ARE holy:

I am the LORD, who brought you up out of Egypt to be your God; therefore be holy, because I am holy. - Leviticus 11:45

The LORD said to Moses, “Speak to the entire assembly of Israel and say to them: ‘Be holy because I, the LORD your God, am holy. - Leviticus 19:1-2

for it is written: “Be holy, because I am holy.” - 1 Peter 1:16

This doesn't say "You ARE holy because I am holy". Again God is telling us to strive to be Holy.

Another version:

You shall be holy, for I am holy - 1 Peter 1:16

Again, this does not say we ARE holy, it states we shall be; we will obtain holiness through Him.

Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect. - Matthew 5:48

It is God’s will that you should be sanctified: that you should avoid sexual immorality; that each of you should learn to control your own body in a way that is holy and honorable, not in passionate lust like the pagans, who do not know God; and that in this matter no one should wrong or take advantage of a brother or sister. The Lord will punish all those who commit such sins, as we told you and warned you before. For God did not call us to be impure, but to live a holy life. Therefore, anyone who rejects this instruction does not reject a human being but God, the very God who gives you his Holy Spirit. - 1 Thessalonians 4:3-8

Although we all strive for this 'perfection', we all fall short:

What shall we conclude then? Do we have any advantage? Not at all! For we have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under the power of sin. As it is written:

“There is no one righteous, not even one;
there is no one who understands;
there is no one who seeks God.
All have turned away,
they have together become worthless;
there is no one who does good,
not even one."
“Their throats are open graves;
their tongues practice deceit.”
“The poison of vipers is on their lips.”
“Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness.”
“Their feet are swift to shed blood;
ruin and misery mark their ways,
and the way of peace they do not know.”
“There is no fear of God before their eyes.” - Romans 3:9-18

 

[tiger78]

VIII. Misunderstanding about Matthew 1:25 (Joseph knew her "not until")
Matt. 1:25 - This verse says Joseph knew her "not until ("heos", in Greek)" she bore a son. Some Protestants argue that this proves Joseph had relations with Mary after she bore a son. This is an erroneous reading of the text because "not until" does not mean "did not...until after." "Heos" references the past, never the future. Instead, "not until" she bore a son means "not up to the point that" she bore a son. This confirms that Mary was a virgin when she bore Jesus. Here are other texts that prove "not until" means "not up to the point that":

Matt. 28:29 - I am with you "until the end of the world." This does not mean Jesus is not with us after the end of the world.

Luke 1:80 - John was in the desert "up to the point of his manifestation to Israel." Not John "was in the desert until after" his manifestation.

Luke 2:37 - Anna was a widow "up to the point that" she was eighty-four years old. She was not a widow after eighty-four years old.

Luke 20:43 - Jesus says, "take your seat at my hand until I have made your enemies your footstool." Jesus is not going to require the apostles to sit at His left hand after their enemies are their footstool.

1 Tim. 4:13 - "up to the point that I come," attend to teaching and preaching. It does not mean do nothing "until after" I come.

Gen. 8:7 - The raven flew back and forth "up to the point that" [until] the waters dried from the earth. The raven did not start flying after the waters dried.

Gen. 28:15 - The Lord won't leave Jacob "up to the point that" he does His promise. This does not mean the Lord will leave Jacob afterward.

Deut. 34:6 - But "up to the point of today" no one knows Moses' burial place. This does not mean that "they did not know place until today."

2 Sam. 6:23 - Saul's daughter Micah was childless "up to the point" [until] her death. She was not with child after her death.

1 Macc. 5:54 - Not one was slain "up to the point that" they returned in peace. They were not slain after they returned in peace.

In Matthew 1:18 it states "before they came together" referring to Mary and Joseph. The word for together that is used here is from the Greek meaning to cohabit or assemble with conjugally. As in conjugal visit. It means that Mary and Joseph consummated their marriage after the birth of Jesus.

Jesus did have siblings (albeit half siblings) John 7:5 is one instance that states "even his own brothers did not believe in him." This IMO clearly means sibling, it is not referring to a "christian brother" since there is no shared belief. This is also a possible reason that on the cross Jesus speaks to the disciple and Mary. As the first born of Mary he is giving a Spiritual Brother the responsibily of caring for his mother since his own brothers were not yet true believers. It was a very loving act towards Mary.

Something to think about.......

 

[ItalianScallion]

Clement of Alexandria is entitled to his opinion, but Holy Mother Church has declared infallibly that Mary was conceived without sin, and remained free of sin her entire life. I believe it because it's Scriptural, I believe it because it's logical, and I believe it because it is fitting.

Where does it say that? It doesn't. No one but God is infallible. Now you've proven that the RCC is fallible, since the Bible doesn't say that Mary was conceived w/o sin and remained that way. All it says is that Mary "has found favor with God" and nothing more.

Jesus did have siblings (albeit half siblings) John 7:5 is one instance that states "even his own brothers did not believe in him." This IMO clearly means sibling, it is not referring to a "christian brother" since there is no shared belief.

Yep!

55 “Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? Aren’t all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things? And they took offense at him." (Matthew 13)

 

[Zguy28]

This is an admission that Mary is no more or no less than the rest of us and does not demand to be elevated above others simply because God chose her to bear His Son.

If this were true, then how is it Mary has been elevated to a higher level of holiness? Doesn't this support my contention that we are all the same under Christ?

But the fact is, we are not holy. We must strive to be holy. God commands us to BE Holy; to strive for holiness. He does not state that we ARE holy:

This doesn't say "You ARE holy because I am holy". Again God is telling us to strive to be Holy.

Another version:

Again, this does not say we ARE holy, it states we shall be; we will obtain holiness through Him.

Although we all strive for this 'perfection', we all fall short:

I think I mentioned this before, but there is a fundamental difference in how Roman Catholics and Protestants view righteousness and the various terms associated with it: imputation vs. infusion.

Imputed righteousness vs. Infused- Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Radiant1]

This is an admission that Mary is no more or no less than the rest of us and does not demand to be elevated above others simply because God chose her to bear His Son.

Yes and no. Of course Mary needed a savior; however, unlike us she was immaculately conceived to bear Christ. Sometimes I think that Protestants, perhaps by no fault of their own because it's the nature of Protestantism, have not truly meditated on the mystery of the Incarcation and what it all really means, including Mary's role. I don't know what else to tell you except that there is a deep sacred mystery there that you are free to dive into in all it's aspects.

If this were true, then how is it Mary has been elevated to a higher level of holiness? Doesn't this support my contention that we are all the same under Christ?

A higher level of holiness opposed to whom, you? Do you think we are all the same under Christ? If so, in what manner? Mary would have been under the law of original sin just like the rest of us (same), which is why she was conceived without sin by the power of God in order to bear Christ (different). Have you ever thought that some Christians are more progressed in their faith journey than others?

But the fact is, we are not holy. We must strive to be holy. God commands us to BE Holy; to strive for holiness. He does not state that we ARE holy:

This doesn't say "You ARE holy because I am holy". Again God is telling us to strive to be Holy.

Another version:

Again, this does not say we ARE holy, it states we shall be; we will obtain holiness through Him.

Although we all strive for this 'perfection', we all fall short:

I think I mentioned this before, but there is a fundamental difference in how Roman Catholics and Protestants view righteousness and the various terms associated with it: imputation vs. infusion.

Imputed righteousness vs. Infused- Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thanks Zguy! This pretty much is the bottom line, and also why there are differing views on baptism.

 

[Radiant1]

In Matthew 1:18 it states "before they came together" referring to Mary and Joseph. The word for together that is used here is from the Greek meaning to cohabit or assemble with conjugally. As in conjugal visit. It means that Mary and Joseph consummated their marriage after the birth of Jesus.

Jesus did have siblings (albeit half siblings) John 7:5 is one instance that states "even his own brothers did not believe in him." This IMO clearly means sibling, it is not referring to a "christian brother" since there is no shared belief. This is also a possible reason that on the cross Jesus speaks to the disciple and Mary. As the first born of Mary he is giving a Spiritual Brother the responsibily of caring for his mother since his own brothers were not yet true believers. It was a very loving act towards Mary.

Something to think about.......

Yeah, ok. You can think Mary had children if you want, but I don't. You're free to agree or disagree with the interpretation as you will.

 

[Zguy28]

Thanks Zguy! This pretty much is the bottom line, and also why there are differing views on baptism.

It's a pretty big difference and affects the very nature of our understandings of the gospel and any attempts at ecumenism must overcome it, which they cannot.

Yeah, ok. You can think Mary had children if you want, but I don't. You're free to agree or disagree with the interpretation as you will.

What are the implications if Mary did have other children by Joseph and was not a perpetual virgin (besides the RCC and EO being in error)?

 

[Radiant1]

What are the implications if Mary did have other children by Joseph and was not a perpetual virgin (besides the RCC and EO being in error)?

I'd have to dig through a lot of Church Fathers to get you a detailed and appropriate answer, but off the top of my head -- biblical integrity, the delineation of the person of Jesus Christ, and very simply the truth of the matter. If the fundamentalists are correct and the biblical use of brothers does not mean cousins, then it's not just the Catholic and Orthodox Churches that are wrong but also Lutherans and Calvinists (those who follow Zwingli), as well as other Reformed Protestant faiths.

I know you aren't going to like it when I say this, but this is yet again why the bible cannot be the sole authority for Christianity. The bible alone just doesn't work. Not only are there interepretative differences, but we can see that there are translation issues as well.

 

[PsyOps]

Yes and no. Of course Mary needed a savior; however, unlike us she was immaculately conceived to bear Christ. Sometimes I think that Protestants, perhaps by no fault of their own because it's the nature of Protestantism, have not truly meditated on the mystery of the Incarcation and what it all really means, including Mary's role. I don't know what else to tell you except that there is a deep sacred mystery there that you are free to dive into in all it's aspects.

God could have chosen anyone or anything to conceive His Son. What did John say in Luke 3?

“… And do not begin to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham.” – Luke 3:8

God could have raised Jesus from a stone from the earth, and He would have still been as perfect as He was born from Mary. How Jesus was born is not what is significant; where He came from (God’s own hand) is. Just as John the Baptist tried to tell the Jews that being descendents of Abraham has no significance in defining their existence and salvation.

A higher level of holiness opposed to whom, you? Do you think we are all the same under Christ? If so, in what manner? Mary would have been under the law of original sin just like the rest of us (same), which is why she was conceived without sin by the power of God in order to bear Christ (different). Have you ever thought that some Christians are more progressed in their faith journey than others?

Yes, we ARE ALL the same under Christ. No one is more saved than anyone else. God does not love Mary more than you, me or anyone else. Christ was born of God not Mary. Who do you hold in higher regard the mailman that delivers the letter or the person that wrote it? Who do you hold in higher regard, the person that administers the medicine that saves your life, or the person/people that made that medicine?

 

[Zguy28]

I'd have to dig through a lot of Church Fathers to get you a detailed and appropriate answer, but off the top of my head -- biblical integrity,

Does the bible explicitly say she was a forever a virgin? I don't think it does. In fact it doesn't really say anything at all about it. I don't think this one applies.

the delineation of the person of Jesus Christ,

I assume you mean as the sinless Son of God?
Let's go back to the first century for a minute. What effect would it have on the person of Jesus Christ our savior and Lord if His mother had children by Joseph after Jesus? If she was a virgin and immaculate (I'll concede the possibility) when she brought forth the Christ, it satisfies the requirement. Correct?

Would consumating her marital duties with her lawful husband (the marriage bed being considered holy by God) taint her with sin somehow? If yes, then God is the cause of evil and sin, and worse yet, a hypocrite (which He obviously is not). If no, then perpetual virginity is meaningless. Or am I missing some other purpose to her virginity?

and very simply the truth of the matter.

Truth is important. But this is where saying something is absolute truth, that is not explicitly stated in the Scriptures, is dangerous and gets us into trouble.
And once that cat is out of the bag, good luck putting it back in.

Admitting they were in error on this would totally strip away all authority of the RCC wouldn't it? Kind of like admitting the bible has errors in it.

If the fundamentalists are correct and the biblical use of brothers does not mean cousins, then it's not just the Catholic and Orthodox Churches that are wrong but also Lutherans and Calvinists (those who follow Zwingli), as well as other Reformed Protestant faiths.

I could be wrong, but I do not think the Reformed folks are dogmatic about Mary. I'm not sure about Lutherans.

I know you aren't going to like it when I say this, but this is yet again why the bible cannot be the sole authority for Christianity. The bible alone just doesn't work. Not only are there interepretative differences, but we can see that there are translation issues as well.

On the contrary, it is every reason why it needs to be the sole authority on dogma.

 

[Radiant1]

God could have chosen anyone or anything to conceive His Son. What did John say in Luke 3?



God could have raised Jesus from a stone from the earth, and He would have still been as perfect as He was born from Mary. How Jesus was born is not what is significant; where He came from (God’s own hand) is. Just as John the Baptist tried to tell the Jews that being descendents of Abraham has no significance in defining their existence and salvation.

Yes but, God did choose Mary. Surely, why God does something must be significant? Catholics don't believe Mary had any descendents aside from Jesus Christ, so I'm not sure what your point is mentioning John the baptist.

Yes, we ARE ALL the same under Christ. No one is more saved than anyone else. God does not love Mary more than you, me or anyone else. Christ was born of God not Mary. Who do you hold in higher regard the mailman that delivers the letter or the person that wrote it? Who do you hold in higher regard, the person that administers the medicine that saves your life, or the person/people that made that medicine?

You're right. No one is more saved than anyone else. No one is more loved by God than anyone else (although there are some OT passages that are make you question it); however, we weren't talking about that but rather people's (or Mary's) holiness. There are some of us who love God more than others. There are some of us who participate in God's grace more than others. You can put yourself on a par with Mary's holiness if you wish, but I cannot in good conscience do the same.

Does the bible explicitly say she was a forever a virgin? I don't think it does. In fact it doesn't really say anything at all about it. I don't think this one applies.

It doesn't explicitly state it; however, what is implicit is also a matter of integrity. See below.

I assume you mean as the sinless Son of God?
Let's go back to the first century for a minute. What effect would it have on the person of Jesus Christ our savior and Lord if His mother had children by Joseph after Jesus? If she was a virgin and immaculate (I'll concede the possibility) when she brought forth the Christ, it satisfies the requirement. Correct?

Yes and no. See below.

Would consumating her marital duties with her lawful husband (the marriage bed being considered holy by God) taint her with sin somehow? If yes, then God is the cause of evil and sin, and worse yet, a hypocrite (which He obviously is not). If no, then perpetual virginity is meaningless. Or am I missing some other purpose to her virginity?

You are missing something. Through the OT we see where, at times, God wishes His people to refrain from sexual relations, not because it's a sin, but because it is irreverent at certain times, places, or with certain people in regard to the presence of God. OT priests were not to have sexual relations with their wives at the time of their service, Moses had all the Isrealites abstain from sex when he ascended Mt. Sinai, etc. (We also see that Uzzah was struck dead for touching the Ark that housed the presence of God, btw). For Joseph and Mary to have marital relations would be an irreverence that I don't think you want to ascribe to either of them. Well, maybe you do, but I wouldn't and neither does the Apostolic Church.

Truth is important. But this is where saying something is absolute truth, that is not explicitly stated in the Scriptures, is dangerous and gets us into trouble.
And once that cat is out of the bag, good luck putting it back in.

Seriousy, Zguy? I'll say to you what I say to IS on that, Trinity is not explicitly stated in scripture, but yet you believe it. If we follow your line of thinking above, then the JWs are spot on.

Admitting they were in error on this would totally strip away all authority of the RCC wouldn't it? Kind of like admitting the bible has errors in it.

Yes and no; however, there is absolutely no reason to believe the Church is in error on this. In fact, the Church's view makes far more sense rationally and logically, as it is a matter of who and what Christ is.

I could be wrong, but I do not think the Reformed folks are dogmatic about Mary. I'm not sure about Lutherans.

On the contrary, it is every reason why it needs to be the sole authority on dogma.

It can't be. It's subject to too many interpretations. I'm sorry, but you just can't get around that.

 

[struggler44]

Hail Mary

 

[libby]

Let's go back to the first century for a minute. What effect would it have on the person of Jesus Christ our savior and Lord if His mother had children by Joseph after Jesus? If she was a virgin and immaculate (I'll concede the possibility) when she brought forth the Christ, it satisfies the requirement. Correct?

I'm just going to blurt out what is at the top of my head with this. I'm not in a position today to get Scriptures, so I'm only approaching this from a practical standpoint.
The absurdity of being the mother of God the Son (is that any better, IS?) and the mother of other children who are...well, less than perfect...seems, as I said, absurd. I mean, we are to devote our lives to the service of God, and I just don't see from a practical point of view how a mother would be expected to handle the whole thing.
"Who took the cookie without permission? Well, I know it wasn't Jesus, so James gets the paddle."
"Why can't you be more like Jesus".

I had another thought along these lines, but I've lost it. I'll try again later.
Oh, now I remember.
Do any of our Protestant bretheren think that someone might have kept track of Jesus' lineage after his death? I mean, it was all kept track of for thousands of years before His birth.

 

[PsyOps]

Yes but, God did choose Mary. Surely, why God does something must be significant? Catholics don't believe Mary had any descendents aside from Jesus Christ, so I'm not sure what your point is mentioning John the baptist.

Please understand it's not my intent to marginalize the significance of who God chose. I mention John the Baptist to point out that the Jews felt justified through God being descendents of Abraham, but John stomped that thought down by stating your lineage or connection to something is of no relevance to God. Along the same line, it doesn’t much matter who bore Jesus – Mary, a rock, or some other virgin – it would have still been Jesus.

You're right. No one is more saved than anyone else. No one is more loved by God than anyone else (although there are some OT passages that are make you question it); however, we weren't talking about that but rather people's (or Mary's) holiness. There are some of us who love God more than others. There are some of us who participate in God's grace more than others. You can put yourself on a par with Mary's holiness if you wish, but I cannot in good conscience do the same.

As the bible says:

“There is no one holy like the LORD…” – 1 Samuel 2:2.

Although there may be some that love God more than others, God loves all of us equally.

“… but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. For God does not show favoritism. – Romans 2:10-11

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect. – Matthew 5:43-48

I don’t assume to place myself on par with anyone. I hold certain levels of respect for major people in the bible and am humbled by their service and sacrifice. Just as I respect leaders or people that are able to exercise wiser rational thinking than me; but I don’t place any human at the level of holy. Only God and His Son Jesus are holy.

 

[PsyOps]

I think I mentioned this before, but there is a fundamental difference in how Roman Catholics and Protestants view righteousness and the various terms associated with it: imputation vs. infusion.

Imputed righteousness vs. Infused- Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes, I recall I didn't comment much on it. It appear Radiant has concluded that 'infused righteousness' is not necessary:

You're right. No one is more saved than anyone else. No one is more loved by God than anyone else...

If everyone is equally saved, then why would one need to have more and more righteousness infused into them over time? My question is, what sort of righteousness is escalated by doing more things over time? What makes one person more righteous than another when we are all equally saved? What exactly are you earning? Certainly you aren't becoming more saved. So, what is this 'obtaining more righteousness' mean?

 

[Zguy28]

If everyone is equally saved, then why would one need to have more and more righteousness infused into them over time? My question is, what sort of righteousness is escalated by doing more things over time? What makes one person more righteous than another when we are all equally saved? What exactly are you earning? Certainly you aren't becoming more saved. So, what is this 'obtaining more righteousness' mean?

Less time in Purgatory?

 

[PsyOps]

Less time in Purgatory?

Where does one go after purgatory?

 

[Zguy28]

Where does one go after purgatory?

Hard to tell since it doesn't exist.



Thank you! Don't forget to tip your waiter!

In all seriousness, I believe, they believe you move on to heaven.

 

[Bavarian]

Where does one go after purgatory?

One goes to Heaven and sees the Beatific Vision. (God).

 

[Bavarian]

55 “Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? Aren’t all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things? And they took offense at him." (Matthew 13)

Now, it is stated as false that Mary could have been Joseph's second wife and that the people listed as Christ's brothers and sisters were not Joseph's by a previous marriage? He, St. Joseph, has been depicted as an older man who died before Christ began His public ministry. He is the Patron Saint of a Happy Death.