Zone1 Mary's Consent

[Meriweather]

I don't bow down to stone. That's on you.

I get it. Your church represent Opposite Day in the Christian world. Whatever the Scriptures say DONT DO, you find excuses to do.

Peter warned about you: "they twist the Scriptures to their own destruction."

Grin. You are aware that Peter led the celebration of the Lord's Day? The Catholic Church (and Rabbi scholars) teach the Bible with reference and etymology of the Hebrew language, and also the same with the Latin and Greek.

One of the problems with the Protestant line of everyone can read and interpret the Bible for him/herself don't take into account the evolution of the English language. People read the word "brother" for example, and are adamant brother means full blood brother. People can read the words "On the first day" and are adamant that "day" means 24 hours. That's it. Keep in mind what Hillel counseled about the Bible. He summed it up saying, "That which you hate do not do to others. Now go study and learn."

Protestants claim they read the Bible, and this may be true. However, I don't see a lot of evidence that they study. Study would delve into the etymology of words--and more. I have seen another Catholic talk about Mary as the New Eve, but I've never seen/heard a non-Catholic Christian speak of this. In fact, they seem to think Jesus referencing Mary as 'woman' (John's Gospel) was a kind of reprimand, putting her in her place, just short of an insult.

If one can even call it an expertise, Protestants are excellent at proof-texting (cherry picking). They can (and do) pick out one text while ignoring all the other texts that explain or present a different perspective. Proof-texting (my opinion) shows how little one knows of the Bible because so much is left out!

If Protestants don't want to be Catholic, I don't see that as a problem. The problem is how Protestants are so sure they know what Catholics are doing wrong. I don't know--and could not care less--what people of other faiths and denominations are doing wrong. I don't attack. I do defend the Catholic faith because I have studied it for decades. Besides, I'm a teacher and ignorance offends me. It can be corrected!

 

[Road Runner]

She is made into a savior-like figure the second you go on and on about her perpetual virginity. And then to spiral it forward and back: the idea that she herself was conceived "immaculately".

Yes, that makes her a savior-like figure. And there's just not a thing in the Bible--WHICH THE CATHOLIC CHURCH PUT TOGETHER--that lends credibility to this

Bingo!!

 

[SweetSue92]

It's not a teaching, but a reminder of what the early Christians and Apostolic Tradition passed on through their Church. When Protestants broke away from the Church, Protestants disregarded the information passed down about Mary. So, no spinning by Catholics, only the Protestants dismissing what had been handed down--and then manufacturing their own Protestant version of Mary.

What puzzles me about the Protestant version of Mary is why they cannot believe what was handed down to us by early Christians? Note, these threads/posts never begin with, "Early Christians were wrong, mistaken, in error about everything they said about Mary." These threads/posts instead say, "Catholics...." without bothering to acknowledge where Catholics received these teachings.

The second thing that puzzles me is the non-Catholic reaction to Mary's Immaculate Conception, her reported perpetual virginity, her being full of grace (without sin) - All these miracles in Mary's life they seemingly disregard and dismiss as being beyond God's ability to bestow...as if God's only power in Mary's life was in creating Jesus' life in her womb.

(Keep in mind atheists cannot believe the miracle of the Incarnation, either. That might make an interesting thread: Atheists and Protestants discussing how Protestants can believe one miracle in Mary's life while dismissing all the others.)

Note your paragraph where you give Mary all the credit for her choice, almost like her choice was a given as millions of others would have given the angel the same response. Once more, it seems vitally important to some, that Mary could have been anyone because she was like anyone.

Mary was/is a singular human person, unique. And she was fully graced/saved by God, a fact Mary herself proclaims.

Catholics put together the Bible, you know. They purposely LEFT THE PART OUT that you keep calling back. The part about Immaculate Conception and perpetual virginity. They were led to do that by the Holy Spirit.

Nothing else needs to be said.

 

[BreezeWood]

that Mary could have been anyone because she was like anyone.

they were not like everyone else they did not fear moses and their false commandments and are the opening scene of the heavenly events for the 3 years of the 1st century occurrence in defiance of judaism and their culmination with jesus's crucifixion.

the difference made for them at that time were the three heavenly wise men that protected them from the prevailing corruption they chose not to abide - for their belief and goal of the original reason, religion as a&e's choice for self determination than servitude and denial the true path to the everlasting.

 

[Meriweather]

Catholics put together the Bible, you know. They purposely LEFT THE PART OUT that you keep calling back. The part about Immaculate Conception and perpetual virginity. They were led to do that by the Holy Spirit.

Nothing else needs to be said.

Are you talking about the Gospel of Mary, written in the late third century, well after the death (by about a hundred years) of all the Apostles? The book that was rejected not because of the Immaculate Conception and Perpetual Virginity of Mary, but because it was heavily Gnostic, and Gnosticism was rejected by the early Church Fathers and the Councils because of the Gnostic beliefs of dualism and that salvation is achieved not through faith, but through knowledge? To argue this book should be in Canon is to argue for Gnosticism.

The Immaculate Conception and Perpetual Virginity was not an issue with the Councils because both these points had been clearly addressed by early Church Fathers and universally accepted at the time of the Councils. The first argument against it wasn't until a thousand years later (1138).

 

[rstrats]

You are aware that Peter led the celebration of the Lord's Day?

To what are you referring?

People can read the words "On the first day" and are adamant that "day" means 24 hours.

What do you have in mind for saying that?

In fact, they seem to think Jesus referencing Mary as 'woman' (John's Gospel) was a kind of reprimand, putting her in her place, just short of an insult.

In scripture, the Messiah only spoke to Mary 3 times, and He addressed her as "woman" 2 of those times which seems odd since He knew the word for "mother". In fact, He used the word right after calling her woman in John.

 

[Meriweather]

To what are you referring?

Another poster feels strongly that it is the Sabbath (seventh day - Saturday) that should be our day of worship and rest, as proscribed in the Old Testament. Early Christians celebrated Sunday (the first day of the week, the day of creation, the day the Lord rose (new creation) as their day of rest and worship.

What do you have in mind for saying that?

Some believe that all of creation took place in the literal six day (24-hour day) period. The seventh day, God rested.

In scripture, the Messiah only spoke to Mary 3 times, and He addressed her as "woman" 2 of those times which seems odd since He knew the word for "mother". In fact, He used the word right after calling her woman in John.

Early Christians thought of Jesus as the New Adam (see Paul) and Mary was referred to as the New Eve. (Adam called Eve "woman"). We see John's Gospel referring to Mary as "woman". Early Christians were still speaking (and writing of Mary as the New Eve a hundred years later. (We know this because Justin Martyr's statements about Mary as Eve were written down.)

Catholics continue following the Early Christians beliefs about Mary's immaculate conception, that she remained pure and sinless here entire life. About a thousand years later someone wrote a letter to one of the councils arguing that Mary needed a savior, too. (Catholics--and Mary--credit God's saving grace on Mary at the time of her conception as the reason Mary called God her savior.) A few hundred years later, when Protestants broke from the Church, their belief was that Mary needed Jesus as a savior as they regarded Mary a sinner like everyone else.

For me, the hoopla is a great deal over nothing. If Protestants feel that later the Holy Spirit revealed to later Christians that Mary was a sinner, but was redeemed by Jesus' death like everyone else, so be it. That is their belief.

If Early Christians (and Catholics/Orthodox) believe the Holy Spirit (and confirmed by later by Mary) follow the Apostolic tradition that Mary was immaculately conceived and remained sinless here entire life, that is Early Christian and Catholic/Orthodox belief.

I understand everyone's interest in the truth, but Protestants are not required to believe early Christians/Apostolic traditions, and they have their own tradition that Mary is a sinner like everyone else--no New Eve.

What I find the most funny about my discussion with others, is that as I have had mother-issues from a young age, and Mary is regarded by the Church as mother (and the lead mother at that), I paid her little attention. Even so, my seemingly defense of her against Protestant accusations, is based on early Christian teachings and beliefs. Early Christians said she was sinless, that she remained a virgin. That is their belief.

Some later Christians say this simply isn't possible, and they are sincere in their belief. My issue with Protestants is that they act as if the Catholic/Orthodox made the whole thing up sometime during the Protestant Reformation. All they need to say is, "Early Christians and today's Catholic/Orthodox" hold a belief that Mary was immaculately conceived and remained a virgin and sinless her entire life. We Protestant and non-Catholic Christians see it differently."

If they see it differently, go for it. Simply acknowledge the early history and explain why later history makes better sense to them. (Would Jesus have left his own mother out of redemption/salvation.) God did not. On that, we all agree.

 

[rstrats]

All they need to say is, "Early Christians and today's Catholic/Orthodox" hold a belief that Mary was immaculately conceived and remained a virgin and sinless her entire life.

Maybe so, just so it's understood that scripture is silent about it.

 

[Meriweather]

It should be also understood (1 Corinthians 11:1, 1 Thessalonians 2:13, 2 Thessalonians 2:15, and 2 Timothy 2:2) scripture tells us that apostolic and oral traditions are equal to what is written in scripture--that equal attention should be paid to those as well.

Do you know what has been important to Mary throughout scripture, throughout oral traditions, throughout her earthly appearance--and even in the differences with Apostolic traditions that arose over a thousand years later? She always points to Christ. True, it does exasperate me when Catholics are accused of coming up with the stories about Mary--as if they were the ones that started making things up over a thousand years later, when it is the accusers who did this. If people stated their differences about Mary with, "Here is what I think the Early Christians misunderstood about Mary, a point that was raised in the Lateran Council in 1139.... While the Catholic Church elected to remain with the early traditions, I believe this letter to the Lateran Council could have been an attempt by the Holy Spirit to enlighten/remind us that it seems odd that Mary did not need Jesus Christ as her own savior. True, she did proclaim God as savior, but...."

No one needs to accuse and/or prove anyone is in the right or in the wrong. It becomes a valid point in Church history and Christian belief in the necessity of the saving power of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection in bringing redemption to the world, and opening the Way of Salvation to all. Certainly, no one wants Mary to be left out of this!