Posted on 10/30/2014 9:46:31 PM PDT by NKP_Vet
Don't need Pius, Mary, or a bevy of Saints to emulate when I can gain strength, wisdom, and comfort from the Real Source and His holy scriptures.
I think Catholics are awesome Christians but i will never understand the Mary thing, I guess. I could see imitating the saints and the “fathers of the faith” and such but I don’t see much actually written about Mary in the Bible. She was humble, that’s a good thing obviously, to imitate. But the veneration takes her to a new place altogether. I’m sure I’m uninformed somehow....
was Mary the mother of Jesus, yes or no?.....
Bookmark.
“And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.” - Matthew 12:49-50
was Mary the mother of Jesus, yes or no?.....
We indeed should look to the Mary of Scripture as an example of one who followed Christ, along with many others, though with Paul's labour of love in birthing and nurturing souls actually being given far more elaboration by the Holy Spirit of Christ than Mary.
And who is not the Mary of Catholicism, which turns the humble and holy Mary of Scripture into a demigoddess, thinking of men above that which is written, as Scripture was/is the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God, as is abundantly evidenced.
And which testifies (Lk. 24:27,44, etc.) to writings of God being recognized and established as being so (essentially due to their unique and enduring heavenly qualities and attestation) - without an infallible magisterium - and thus they materially provide for a canon of Scripture (as well as for reason, the church, etc.)
2 out of 3. Christ is obviously to be the supreme and ultimate example,
Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God. (Hebrews 12:2)
Yet in that interest we are to look to human examples of souls who followed the Lord Jesus, but only insofar as they did, consistent with Scripture:
Brethren, be followers together of me, and mark them which walk so as ye have us for an ensample. (Philippians 3:17)
And ye became followers of us, and of the Lord, having received the word in much affliction, with joy of the Holy Ghost: (1 Thessalonians 1:6)
Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ. (1 Corinthians 11:1)
But conversely, this means turning away from those who do not follow Christ, or insofar as they did not, which includes "Pius," and the imaginary Mary of Rome:
A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject; (Titus 3:10)
Pius along with others, supported the progressive deformation of the church which Rome is the primary example of .
Which the Mary of Catholicism is made to be the most loved leader of, making the humble and holy Mary of Scripture, who is an example for us to follow, which means obeying Christ who thinking of me above that which is written, which Rome has done.
For in the the Catholic quest to almost deify Mary, it is taught by Catholics*,
as Christ was sinless, so Mary was;
as the Lord remained a virgin, so Mary;
as Christ was called the Son of God, indicating ontological oneness, so Mary is called the Mother of God (which easily infers the same, and is not the language of Scripture);
as the emphasis is upon Christ as the Creator through whom God (the Father) made all things, including Mary, so it is emphasized that uniquely “to her, Jesus owes His Precious Blood,” shed for the salvation of mankind, (the logic behind which can lead back to Eve);
as Catholics (adding error to error) believe Christ gave His actual flesh and blood to be eaten, so it is emphasized that Mary gave Him this, being fashioned out of Mary's pure blood and even being “kneaded with the admixture of her virginal milk,” so that she can say, "Come and eat my bread, drink the wine I have prepared" (Prov. 9:5);
as Scripture declares that Christ suffered for our sins, so Mary is said to have done so also;
as Christ saves us from the condemnation and death resulting from the fault of Adam, so it is taught that man was condemned through the fault of Eve, the root of death, but that we are saved through the merits of Mary; who was the source of life for everyone.
as the Lord was bodily ascended into Heaven, so Mary also was;
as Christ is given all power in heaven and in earth, so Mary is “surpassing in power all the angels and saints in Heaven.”
as Christ is the King of the saints and over all kings, (Rv. 15:3; 17:14; 19:16) so Mary is made Queen of Heaven and the greatest saint, and that “Next to God, she deserves the highest praise;”
as the Father made Christ Lord over all things, so Mary is enthroned (all other believers have to wait for their crowns) and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things;
as Christ is highly exalted above all under the Father, so Mary is declared to be the greatest saint of all, and as having a certain equality with the Heavenly Father;
as Christ ever liveth to make intercession for the saints, so is Mary said to do so;
as all things come from the Father through the Son, so Mary is made to be the dispenser of all grace;
as Christ is given all power on Heaven and on earth, Mary is said to have (showing some restraint) “almost unlimited power;”
as no man comes to the Father but through the Son, so it is taught that no one can come to the Son except through Mary in Heaven;
and as the Lord called souls to come to Him to be given life and salvation, so (in misappropriation of the words of Scripture) it is said of Mary, “He that shall find me shall find life, and shall have salvation from the Lord;” “that through her are obtained every hope, every grace, and all salvation. For this is His will, that we obtain everything through Mary.”
And as Christ is given many titles of honor, so Mary also is, except that she is honored by Catholics with more titles than they give to the Lord Himself!
Mary was a holy, virtuous instrument of God, but of whom Scripture says relatively little, while holy fear ought to restrain ascribing positions, honor, glory and powers to a mortal that God has not revealed as given to them, and or are only revealed as being possessed by God Himself. But like as the Israelites made an instrument of God an object of worship, (Num. 21:8,9; 2Kg. 18:4) Catholics have magnified Mary far beyond what is written and warranted and even allowed, based on what is in Scripture.
I’ll give a big Amen to that! Jesus is our salvation, not the “church”. Our way to Christ is not through some ritual or fallen carnal man. Our way to Christ is on our knees in prayer with guidence from the Holy Spirit.
“Catholics have magnified Mary far beyond what is written and warranted and even allowed, based on what is in Scripture”
Let’s not forget about those Orthodox Christians, remember them? The same Christians along with Catholics that have been around since Christ walked this earth. Who just happen to be the second largest group of Christians on this earth. But Daniel1212 and his ilk understand the history of Christianity a lot more than these ancient Christians, a lot more than the Church fathers. What arrogance. Like I said before explain to God why you kicked his mother to the curb.
Requiring a simple "yes or no" answer is very often used as a way to bypass the critical step of defining terms. As an attorney, if I had a client being asked that question in a deposition, I would at this point insist on some clarifications before proceeding.
For example, how is "mother" being used here? Strictly in a biological sense? To which I would expect a response of "No," because Jesus acquires more than human biology through Mary, but human nature, albeit with no inclination to sin.
But the divine nature never had a time when it didn't exist. It is this essence of Godhead that cannot have a mother in the genetic sense. Else we are talking about something less than true deity.
This is why Jesus tells us His true family, in any sense in which it might be beneficial to be related to Him, is conformity to the will of God, which is independent of biology, and transcendent of human nature, but requires the new birth, which is possible only through the work of God's own Holy Spirit. That is the only "genetic" connection that matters to Jesus, the likeness of our spirit to that of our Heavenly Father, Who is spirit.
Peace,
SR
The comments I have seen following it are worse than useless ... as is usual on this forum.
Again, thanks for posting the article.
So pointing out the fact that Paul and his labour of love is given far more press than humble and holy Mary translates into Mary not only being good enough for me but actual contempt for her?!
Such an absurd extrapolative conclusion is another example of the cultic Catholic mindset reasoning that certain RCs reveal, and thus once again you provide more evidence of why one should not be a RC.
Since the majesty of that Model may be too much for fallen human nature, God mercifully gave Us another model to propose for your imitation, the glorious Virgin Mother of God. While being as close to Christ as human nature permits, she is better suited to the needs of our weak nature.
Is that what passes for reasoning in Catholicism?
Perfect is perfect.
IF Mary were perfect, without sin, as Jesus was as Catholics claim, then she'd be no easier to emulate than Jesus.
Jesus is our standard, period. THAT'S what God requires of us.
The Holy Spirit calls Mary, *mother of Jesus* in Scripture.
So what's the point of your question?
What's that got to do with the topic of the thread or punditwannabe's comment?
There's nothing to model...God told us nothing about Mary...The apostle Paul however did tell us to model him...
Christ isn’t easy to imitate, since He is more than perfect: He’s Divine. We’re not God, so acting like we are isn’t always the best model (that is, what is fitting for Christ might not be fitting for us, given the situation). Pius recognized this, and called upon us to imitate Mary as well:
Who would give advice like this but the father of lies???
Since the majesty of that Model may be too much for fallen human nature, God mercifully gave Us another model to propose for your imitation, the glorious Virgin Mother of God.
Lies, lies, lies from the lair of Satan...'Do not follow Jesus' but follow the 'pagan queen of heaven'...
Be a Saint: Sanctity wins more souls than argumentation. Pius again: “We are of the opinion that the shining example of Christ’s soldiers has far greater value in the winning and sanctifying of souls than the words of profound treatises.”
Another unGodly lie...
Joh_6:68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.
Rom 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God (the bible).
Now the way to reach Christ is not hard to find: it is the Church. Rightly does Chrysostom inculcate: “The Church is thy hope, the Church is thy salvation, the Church is thy refuge.”
Another gigantic lie...
The (real) church is the body (of Christ)...The body saves no one...It is the head (Jesus Christ) which saves...The church IS the saved...NOT those looking to get saved...
So you also do not see the Orthodox as Catholic? That would be consistent with RC arrogance.
The same Christians along with Catholics that have been around since Christ walked this earth.
Wrong. They share many of the aspects below that faithful Christians in the NT church were not taught,
Which church,
1. Was not based upon the premise of perpetual assured infallibility of office, as per Rome which has presumed to infallibly declare that she is and will perpetually be infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.
2. Never promised taught a perpetual assuredly infallible magisterium was necessary for preservation of truth, including writings to be established as Scripture, and for assurance of faith, and that historical descent and being the stewards of Scripture assured that such had assured infallibility.
3. Never was a church that manifested the Lord's supper as being the central means of grace, around which all else revolved, it being “the source and summit of the Christian faith” in which “the work of our redemption is accomplished,” by which one received spiritual life in themselves, so that without which eating one cannot have eternal life (as per RC literalism, of Jn. 6:53,54). In contrast to believing the gospel by which one is regenerated, (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9; Eph. 1:13) and desiring the milk (1Pt. 2:2) and then the “strong meat” (Heb. 5:12-14) of the word of God, being “nourished” (1Tim. 4:6) by hearing the word of God and letting it dwell in them, (Col. 3:16) by which word (Scriptures) man is to live by, (Mt. 4:4) as Christ lived by the Father, (Jn. 6:57) doing His will being His “meat.” (Jn. 4:34) And with the Lord's supper, which is only manifestly described once in the life of the church, focusing on the church being the body of Christ in showing the Lord sacrificial death by that communal meal.
4. Never had any pastors titled "priests" as they did not engage in any unique sacrificial function, that of turning bread into human flesh and dispensing it to the people, or even dispensing bread as their primary ordained function, versus preaching the word. (2Tim. 4:2)
5. Never differentiated between bishops and elders, and with grand titles ("Most Reverend Eminence," “Very Reverend,” “Most Illustrious and Most Reverend Lord,” “His Eminence Cardinal,” “The Most Reverend the Archbishop,” etc.) or made themselves distinct by their ostentatious pompous garb. (Matthew 23:5-7) Or were all to be formally called “father” as that would require them to be spiritual fathers to all (Mt. 23:8-10 is a form of hyperbole, reproving the love of titles such as Catholicism examples, and “thinking of men above that which is written, and instead the Lord emphasizes the One Father of all who are born of the Spirit, whom He Himself worked to glorify).
6. Never required clerical celibacy as the norm, (1Tim. 3:17) which presumes all such have that gift, (1Cor. 7:7) or otherwise manifested that celibacy was the norm among apostles and pastors, or had vowed to be so. (1Cor. 9:4; Titus 1:5,6)
7. Never taught that Peter was the "rock" of Mt. 16:18 upon which the church is built, interpreting Mt. 16:18, rather than upon the rock of the faith confessed by Peter, thus Christ Himself. (For in contrast to Peter, that the LORD Jesus is the Rock (“petra”) or "stone" (“lithos,” and which denotes a large rock in Mk. 16:4) upon which the church is built is one of the most abundantly confirmed doctrines in the Bible (petra: Rm. 9:33; 1Cor. 10:4; 1Pet. 2:8; cf. Lk. 6:48; 1Cor. 3:11; lithos: Mat. 21:42; Mk.12:10-11; Lk. 20:17-18; Act. 4:11; Rm. 9:33; Eph. 2:20; cf. Dt. 32:4, Is. 28:16) including by Peter himself. (1Pt. 2:4-8) Rome's current catechism attempts to have Peter himself as the rock as well, but also affirms: “On the rock of this faith confessed by St Peter, Christ build his Church,” (pt. 1, sec. 2, cp. 2, para. 424) which understanding some of the so-called “church fathers” concur with.)
8. Never taught or exampled that all the churches were to look to Peter as the bishop of Rome, as the first of a line of supreme heads reigning over all the churches, and having the last word in questions affecting the whole Church.
9. Never recorded or taught any apostolic successors (like for James: Acts 12:1,2) after Judas who was to maintain the original 12: Rv. 21:14) or elected any apostolic successors by voting, versus casting lots (no politics). (Acts 1:15ff)
10. Never recorded or manifested (not by conjecture) sprinkling or baptism without repentant personal faith, that being the stated requirement for baptism. (Acts 2:38; 8:36-38)
11. Never preached a gospel of salvation which begins with becoming good enough inside (formally justified due to infused interior charity), via sprinkling or baptism in recognition of proxy faith, and which usually ends with becoming good enough to enter glory via suffering in purgatory, commencing at death.
12. Never supported or made laws that restricted personal reading of Scripture by laity (contrary to Chrysostom), if able and available, sometimes even outlawing it when it was.
13. Never used the sword of men to deal with its theological dissenters.
14. Never taught that the deity Muslims worship (who is not as an unknown god) is the same as theirs.
15. Never had a separate class of believers called “saints.”
16. Never prayed to anyone in Heaven but the Lord, or were instructed to (i.e. "our Mother who art in Heaven) who were able to hear and respond to virtually unlimited prayers addressed to them.
17. Never recorded a women who never sinned, and was a perpetual virgin despite being married (contrary to the normal description of marriage, as in leaving and sexually cleaving) and who would be bodily assumed to Heaven and exalted,
• an almost almighty demigoddess to whom "Jesus owes His Precious Blood" to,
• whose [Mary] merits we are saved by,
• who "had to suffer, as He did, all the consequences of sin,"
• and was bodily assumed into Heaven, which is a fact (unsubstantiated in Scripture or even early Tradition) because the Roman church says it is, and "was elevated to a certain equality with the Heavenly Father,"
• and whose power now "is all but unlimited,"
• for indeed she "seems to have the same power as God,"
• "surpassing in power all the angels and saints in Heaven,"
• so that "the Holy Spirit acts only by the Most Blessed Virgin, his Spouse."
• and that “sometimes salvation is quicker if we remember Mary's name then if we invoked the name of the Lord Jesus,"
• for indeed saints have "but one advocate," and that is Mary, who "alone art truly loving and solicitous for our salvation,"
• Moreover, "there is no grace which Mary cannot dispose of as her own, which is not given to her for this purpose,"
• and who has "authority over the angels and the blessed in heaven,"
• including "assigning to saints the thrones made vacant by the apostate angels,"
• whom the good angels "unceasingly call out to," greeting her "countless times each day with 'Hail, Mary,' while prostrating themselves before her, begging her as a favour to honour them with one of her requests,"
• and who (obviously) cannot "be honored to excess,"
• and who is (obviously) the glory of Catholic people, whose "honor and dignity surpass the whole of creation." Sources and more .
Why would you add other requirements?
But the steps of Roman reasoning justifies concluding that Mary being the mother of the Lord Jesus warrants her not only being called the Mother of God, inferring ontological oneness, but having hundreds of other titles along with attributes ascribed to her, which parallel Christ and only befit God.
Moreover, in this thread the steps of Roman reasoning is also exampled in concluding that affirming Mary is an example to be followed, yet Paul was given more press as an example of one who followed Christ, means that you hold Mary in contempt. Such is the result of cultic devotion to a holy instrument of God above that which is written.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.