Christian Forums

Quote from: Brandonspopo on Wed Jan 02, 2008 - 16:41:41Wa-wa-wa-wait! I'm not talking about the Immaculate Conception. There is no question in my mind that Mary was a virgin when Christ was conceived.

Just for clarification, I think the "Immaculate Conception" broach is referring to is the doctrine that states that Mary herself was born free of "original sin." 

This is a common misconception about that term, which I was made aware of not long ago.  The "Immaculate Conception" doesn't refer to the virgin conception of Jesus.  It actually deals with the conception of Mary.

As I understand it, Catholics believe that something miraculous actually took place with Mary's mother, as it relates to Mary's conception.

Quote from: broach972 on Wed Jan 02, 2008 - 16:22:03

Quote from: Dennis on Wed Jan 02, 2008 - 15:26:13
Did God really need us to "formulate" some doctrine to protect and honor the divinity of Christ?

Absolutely, this was one of the raging contoversies in the early Church.  Why do you think the Council of Nicea was called?  The divinity of Christ was not a given and more importantly, the relationship between the three "natures" was constantly debated.  Without the Trinity, we could go ahead and pack up and head home.

Quote from: Dennis on Wed Jan 02, 2008 - 15:26:13
Broach, I will not participate in a long discussion because it is not likely to profit either of us, but I do think it interesting that after rejecting Sola Scriptura you then cite several scriptures to support the Church's right to pronounce doctrine and dogma.  Surely you agree that even the Church can go too far.  As my mother often said, if your best friend told you to jump off a cliff, would you do it?  If the Church told you to jump off a cliff theologically, would you do it? Assuming you agree there is a line at some point beyond which we should not follow even the Church, where and how is that line to be drawn?

Why is it interesting that I would use Scripture to support these ideas.  The rejection of Sola Scriptura has nothing to do with stating that Scripture is wrong or not a rule/guide in matters of faith.  As far as the Church going to far...in what sense?  Catholics are not mindless robots who are told not to read and study scripture.  Theologicially speaking, I have no problems with what the Church teaches or believes.  This theology has stood for 2000 years.  Who am I to question it 2000 years later.  Again, if I want to know how a car works, should I go to the inventor or someone who just studied the manual.  I am a new convert to the Catholic faith.  I didn't jump off the cliff...I climbed to the top of the mountain.

I think it is presumptious for mortal men to "formulate" a doctrine that God didn't seem to think was important enough to articulate himself.

As to your use of scripture, in the overall context of this and other discussions, I simply find it ironic.  Finally, I do not think you have responded to my question about the extent to which you would follow Church doctrine.

However, as I said, I do not intend to get into a lengthy discussion and thus bow out here.  Please do not interpret my comments as personal, I do not desire to engage in that type of discussion.  There is too much of that on this board as it is.

Quote from: EvangelistV on Tue Dec 18, 2007 - 19:40:23
Thank you Jon Marc for using scripture to bring to my attention the exact Words of the Bible. And thank you for all your replies. Still, if I were the Holy Man, Jesus, a God with our Father in Heaven...I would like for very blessed things to be said about my mother and sister in earth and someday, Heaven, because God said so in His Word. You must admit, many mean things are said about mary and Hail Marys....and this could be a personal insult to His throne.
I hope I never want to. For my sake. Let us pray and lift up one another, the Catholic Church is under persecution and need our requests and petitions before God, to answer. Praise you Father and thank you for answering. Amen.

No, not at all... infact He was specific that you can speak against even He or God, just not the Holy Spirit.  Mary is not the Holy Spirit,  and she is not Jesus and or God, therefore.... we are not bound to say anything of honor or worship towards her in any way.

Jesus plainly said... only against the Holy Spirit do we not speak.  That is very clear.... so saying... Mary was not part of the God head or not to pray to her, or that she needed a savior and was not born without sin, is not wrong.

Not according to the LORD Himself.

who do you mean when you all say the catholics?



for me I understand that the catholics are governed as such by the people at the Vatican. So its not the catholics as is being made to read here. But those leading the catholics within the Vatican. If we are being careful about all of this then let us be very careful how we say things.

Mary is not higher than God! No-one is higher than God.
God gave Mary the choice of bringing Jesus into the world.
She agreed.  Joseph wanted to leave her until he received support from the angels.
Mary is reverred for having brought Jesus into the World.
It may look like to people outside the Catholic Doctrines that Mary is deemed higher than God but she most certainly isn't seen that way by Catholics!
and remember that Catholics ARE Christian!

Quote from: Dennis on Wed Jan 02, 2008 - 22:51:00
I think it is presumptious for mortal men to "formulate" a doctrine that God didn't seem to think was important enough to articulate himself.

As to your use of scripture, in the overall context of this and other discussions, I simply find it ironic.  Finally, I do not think you have responded to my question about the extent to which you would follow Church doctrine.

However, as I said, I do not intend to get into a lengthy discussion and thus bow out here.  Please do not interpret my comments as personal, I do not desire to engage in that type of discussion.  There is too much of that on this board as it is.

I find your comments a little disingenious.  Man has formulated doctrine since the faith was in its infancy.  How would you explain private interpretation and the mere fact that there are thousands of different Christian denominations that say different things?

As far as how far I would follow the Church in matters of doctrine and theology, I think I answered that question.  However, let me clarify.  I think that this is a matter of faith.  I will follow the doctrines of the Church unless I find that they contradict or are incompatible with Scripture and Tradition.  So far, I have not.  Again, they have stood for 2000 years...why would I?

Quote from: broach972 on Thu Jan 03, 2008 - 06:17:21

Quote from: Dennis on Wed Jan 02, 2008 - 22:51:00
I think it is presumptious for mortal men to "formulate" a doctrine that God didn't seem to think was important enough to articulate himself.

As to your use of scripture, in the overall context of this and other discussions, I simply find it ironic.  Finally, I do not think you have responded to my question about the extent to which you would follow Church doctrine.

However, as I said, I do not intend to get into a lengthy discussion and thus bow out here.  Please do not interpret my comments as personal, I do not desire to engage in that type of discussion.  There is too much of that on this board as it is. [/color] [/u]

I find your comments a little disingenious.  Man has formulated doctrine since the faith was in its infancy.  How would you explain private interpretation and the mere fact that there are thousands of different Christian denominations that say different things?

As far as how far I would follow the Church in matters of doctrine and theology, I think I answered that question.  However, let me clarify.  I think that this is a matter of faith.  I will follow the doctrines of the Church unless I find that they contradict or are incompatible with Scripture and Tradition.  So far, I have not.  Again, they have stood for 2000 years...why would I?

so why did you even bother to say what you have then. Just leave!

Quote from: Dennis on Wed Jan 02, 2008 - 22:51:00I think it is presumptious for mortal men to "formulate" a doctrine that God didn't seem to think was important enough to articulate himself.

That's where I am on this.  It seems to me unwise to ever preach as fact, much less require as dogma, that which has its roots in speculation.  (and yes we all have a tendency to want to do this, but I'm saying I believe it's unwise when we do)

Quote from: broach972 on Thu Jan 03, 2008 - 06:17:21

Quote from: Dennis on Wed Jan 02, 2008 - 22:51:00
I think it is presumptious for mortal men to "formulate" a doctrine that God didn't seem to think was important enough to articulate himself.

As to your use of scripture, in the overall context of this and other discussions, I simply find it ironic.  Finally, I do not think you have responded to my question about the extent to which you would follow Church doctrine.

However, as I said, I do not intend to get into a lengthy discussion and thus bow out here.  Please do not interpret my comments as personal, I do not desire to engage in that type of discussion.  There is too much of that on this board as it is.

I find your comments a little disingenious.  Man has formulated doctrine since the faith was in its infancy.  How would you explain private interpretation and the mere fact that there are thousands of different Christian denominations that say different things?

As far as how far I would follow the Church in matters of doctrine and theology, I think I answered that question.  However, let me clarify.  I think that this is a matter of faith.  I will follow the doctrines of the Church unless I find that they contradict or are incompatible with Scripture and Tradition.  So far, I have not.  Again, they have stood for 2000 years...why would I?

Original response deleted.  Let's just say I am not going to participate for reasons stated above.

Quote from: broach972 on Wed Jan 02, 2008 - 08:13:25
The angel Gabriel said, "Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you" (Luke 1:28). The phrase "full of grace" is a translation of the Greek word kecharitomene. It therefore expresses a characteristic quality of Mary.

The traditional translation, "full of grace," is better than the one found in many recent versions of the New Testament, which give something along the lines of "highly favored daughter." Mary was indeed a highly favored daughter of God, but the Greek implies more than that (and it never mentions the word for "daughter"). The grace given to Mary is at once permanent and of a unique kind. Kecharitomene is a perfect passive participle of charitoo, meaning "to fill or endow with grace." Since this term is in the perfect tense, it indicates that Mary was graced in the past but with continuing effects in the present. So, the grace Mary enjoyed was not a result of the angel's visit. In fact, Catholics hold, it extended over the whole of her life, from conception onward. She was in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of her existence.

Okay, I'm not sure of your logic here. You quote many translations, none of which use the phrase "full of grace" and then state that you know it's supposed to be translated that way, I guess because that's what you've been told. Let's say I accept your word on that. The angel told Mary she was full of grace. How does that lead to "She was in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of her existence."?

As I mentioned earlier, Stephen is said to be "full of grace". Was he also in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of his existence? If not, why?

Quote from: broach972 on Wed Jan 02, 2008 - 10:34:54

Quote from: Lee Freeman on Wed Jan 02, 2008 - 09:09:06

Quote from: broach972 on Tue Dec 18, 2007 - 17:39:51
Where in the Bible does it say she wasn't saved from original sin??  We need to get over this "if it isn't in the Bible, then...."

For Protestants that's going to be a hard sell. Because Scripture is the only source that both Protestants, Catholics and Orthodox agree is infallible.

One of the reasons I could not in good conscience be a Roman Catholic (or Orthodox) is because of their "extreme" devotion to Mary. In Scripture Mary's role is always downplayed and understated and she always takes a back seat to Christ, which Catholicism claims is true of its devotion to Mary as well, at least in theory. However it seems that in actual fact, in some quarters, Mary gets as much or more "press" than her son, our savior, Jesus. Most of the Catholic doctrines regarding Mary, such as her Immaculate Conception, were actually formulated long after the first century had passed (in the case of the Immaculate Conception, it was only made dogma in the 1850s AD). Presumably the first generation of Christians was saved without any recourse to this Marian doctrine or many others, as an item of faith. If so, then why's it necessary that modern Catholics believe it as an item of faith?

Pax.

Lee.

Lee,
I appreciate your comments.  However, I must correct a few assumptions.

Even though it was defined as a dogma in the 1850s, it was always a doctrine.  It was not just evented in the 1850s.  The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was officially defined by Pope Pius IX in 1854. When Fundamentalists claim that the doctrine was "invented" at this time, they misunderstand both the history of dogmas and what prompts the Church to issue, from time to time, definitive pronouncements regarding faith or morals. They are under the impression that no doctrine is believed until the pope or an ecumenical council issues a formal statement about it.

Actually, doctrines are defined formally only when there is a controversy that needs to be cleared up or when the magisterium (the Church in its office as teacher; cf. Matt. 28:18–20; 1 Tim. 3:15, 4:11) thinks the faithful can be helped by particular emphasis being drawn to some already-existing belief. The definition of the Immaculate Conception was prompted by the latter motive; it did not come about because there were widespread doubts about the doctrine. In fact, the Vatican was deluged with requests from people desiring the doctrine to be officially proclaimed.

There are writings that actually support the Immaculate Conception among the Church Fathers...

"He was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle was exempt from putridity and corruption." Hippolytus, Orations Inillud, Dominus pascit me (ante A.D. 235).

"This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God, is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one." Origen, Homily 1(A.D. 244).

"Let woman praise Her, the pure Mary." Ephraim, Hymns on the Nativity, 15:23 (A.D. 370).

"Thou alone and thy Mother are in all things fair, there is no flaw in thee and no stain in thy Mother." Ephraem, Nisibene Hymns, 27:8 (A.D. 370).

"O noble Virgin, truly you are greater than any other greatness. For who is your equal in greatness, O dwelling place of God the Word? To whom among all creatures shall I compare you, O Virgin? You are greater than them all O Covenant, clothed with purity instead of gold! You are the Ark in which is found the golden vessel containing the true manna, that is, the flesh in which divinity resides." Athanasius, Homily of the Papyrus of Turin, 71:216 (ante AD 373).

"Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free of every stain of sin." Ambrose, Sermon 22:30 (A.D. 388).

The mistake that most Protestants make concerning the doctrines pertaining to Mary is that they think that were formulated to deify her or make her equal to God.  Absolutely not!!  They were formulated to protect and honor the divinity of Christ.  Do some take it to the extreme...yes!  But the Catholic Church has issued rebukes to those that have taken it to the extreme.  There is a difference between honor and worship.  I am often bothered by the fact that her role is downplayed, especially when one looks at her life and what she endured.  Does it make her divine...no...does it make her a saint (perhaps chief among saints)...absolutely.

Thanks, broach972. I actually have The Catechism of the Catholic Church, The Dictionary of Mary, Mary Through the Ages Father Kenneth Robert's Up On The Mountain, and Dr. Scott Hahn's Hail Holy Queen in my library at home. While they do make some compelling arguments, I'm ultimately not convinced.

Pax.

Lee.

Quote from: Brandonspopo on Mon Dec 31, 2007 - 19:57:37

Quote from: Big Ed on Thu Dec 20, 2007 - 08:11:18
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you Jon Marc for using scripture to bring to my attention the exact Words of the
Bible. And thank you for all your replies. Still, if I were the Holy Man, Jesus, a God with our Father in Heaven
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why didn't anyone else catch this. Jesus is not "A" god. He is GOD. This person is trolling and it seems like most bought it hook, line, and sinker. Pun intended.

I noticed it but wanted to read the rest of the comments before I replied. Aside from that, Romans 3:20-23 says (please excuse the long citing, I like to put things in context) "20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
21 But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith in Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
23 For all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God;
24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
25 Whom God has set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him who believes in Jesus." (NKJV)
I don't see where it says except Mary, the mother of the man Jesus Christ (emphases mine). And I'm still looking for the scripture that describes Mary as not being under original sin. Can someone please tell me where it is?

Sorry to drag up an older thread, but I thought these questions deserved a response!

First, please understand that as Catholics, we see both Scripture and Tradition as God's Word passed down to us, and see them as complementary, and never contradicting. So we do use Tradition to understand Scripture...we do not hold to Sola Scriptura. Sometimes, things we believe are not always explicit in scripture, but we do believe they are never contrary to scripture.

Now, with that said, here is our understanding of how to read "all have sinned."

But what about Romans 3:23, "all have sinned"? Have all people committed actual sins? Consider a child below the age of reason. By definition he can't sin, since sinning requires the ability to reason and the ability to intend to sin. This is indicated by Paul later in the letter to the Romans when he speaks of the time when Jacob and Esau were unborn babies as a time when they "had done nothing either good or bad" (Rom. 9:11).

We also know of another very prominent exception to the rule: Jesus (Heb. 4:15). So if Paul's statement in Romans 3 includes an exception for the New Adam (Jesus), one may argue that an exception for the New Eve (Mary) can also be made.

Paul's comment seems to have one of two meanings. It might be that it refers not to absolutely everyone, but just to the mass of mankind (which means young children and other special cases, like Jesus and Mary, would be excluded without having to be singled out). If not that, then it would mean that everyone, without exception, is subject to original sin, which is true for a young child, for the unborn, even for Mary—but she, though due to be subject to it, was preserved by God from it and its stain.

So, we either interpret "All" as strictly as possible, meaning every human being who ever lived has sinned (including Jesus, including a baby that died in infancy, etc), or we understand that there are, as with most things, understood exceptions. Because of our Tradition passed down from the apostles, we believe Mary was one of those exceptions, along with Jesus...NOT for her sake, but for HIS, to provide a spotless and pure vessel through which he came into the world. She is the New Ark of the Covenant, and the New Eve (who was created originally "full of grace" as we believe Mary was.)

All that we believe about Mary is to glorify God and point us to Jesus...that is Mary's role, to point us to Christ. In honoring the creation, we glorify the creator.

Quote from: Nevertheless on Fri Jan 04, 2008 - 09:39:57

Quote from: broach972 on Wed Jan 02, 2008 - 08:13:25
The angel Gabriel said, "Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you" (Luke 1:28). The phrase "full of grace" is a translation of the Greek word kecharitomene. It therefore expresses a characteristic quality of Mary.

The traditional translation, "full of grace," is better than the one found in many recent versions of the New Testament, which give something along the lines of "highly favored daughter." Mary was indeed a highly favored daughter of God, but the Greek implies more than that (and it never mentions the word for "daughter"). The grace given to Mary is at once permanent and of a unique kind. Kecharitomene is a perfect passive participle of charitoo, meaning "to fill or endow with grace." Since this term is in the perfect tense, it indicates that Mary was graced in the past but with continuing effects in the present. So, the grace Mary enjoyed was not a result of the angel's visit. In fact, Catholics hold, it extended over the whole of her life, from conception onward. She was in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of her existence.

Okay, I'm not sure of your logic here. You quote many translations, none of which use the phrase "full of grace" and then state that you know it's supposed to be translated that way, I guess because that's what you've been told. Let's say I accept your word on that. The angel told Mary she was full of grace. How does that lead to "She was in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of her existence."?

As I mentioned earlier, Stephen is said to be "full of grace". Was he also in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of his existence? If not, why?

I was really hoping to get an answer to this.  I'm trying my best to understand [what looks to me like] the obsession with Mary, but to do so I need the inconsistencies ironed out.

Quote from: Nevertheless on Mon Jan 21, 2008 - 23:59:52

Quote from: Nevertheless on Fri Jan 04, 2008 - 09:39:57

Quote from: broach972 on Wed Jan 02, 2008 - 08:13:25
The angel Gabriel said, "Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you" (Luke 1:28). The phrase "full of grace" is a translation of the Greek word kecharitomene. It therefore expresses a characteristic quality of Mary.

The traditional translation, "full of grace," is better than the one found in many recent versions of the New Testament, which give something along the lines of "highly favored daughter." Mary was indeed a highly favored daughter of God, but the Greek implies more than that (and it never mentions the word for "daughter"). The grace given to Mary is at once permanent and of a unique kind. Kecharitomene is a perfect passive participle of charitoo, meaning "to fill or endow with grace." Since this term is in the perfect tense, it indicates that Mary was graced in the past but with continuing effects in the present. So, the grace Mary enjoyed was not a result of the angel’s visit. In fact, Catholics hold, it extended over the whole of her life, from conception onward. She was in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of her existence.

Okay, I'm not sure of your logic here. You quote many translations, none of which use the phrase "full of grace" and then state that you know it's supposed to be translated that way, I guess because that's what you've been told. Let's say I accept your word on that. The angel told Mary she was full of grace. How does that lead to "She was in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of her existence."?

As I mentioned earlier, Stephen is said to be "full of grace". Was he also in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of his existence? If not, why?

I was really hoping to get an answer to this.  I'm trying my best to understand [what looks to me like] the obsession with Mary, but to do so I need the inconsistencies ironed out.

Great question, Never.

.

Yeah, I find that comparison that if ALL have sinned that would include Jesus... worthless, For He is the one who said it.

"For all have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God"..  Except God... who is God, who wrote the book and who does not fall short of the Glory of God... who is Father, Son (Jesus) and His Holy Spirit... Jesus did not sin. That argument to put Mary up as sinless doesn't line up with the TRUTH of the word.

It may very well line up with the traditions of man in that religion... but NOT the Word of God....

"He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood and His name is called "The Word Of God"... so it can't be taken that way. For all have sinned.... speaks of all whom were not born GOD.  Mary was not born GOD. 

Quote from: James Rondon on Thu Apr 24, 2008 - 00:58:25

Quote from: Nevertheless on Mon Jan 21, 2008 - 23:59:52

Quote from: Nevertheless on Fri Jan 04, 2008 - 09:39:57

Quote from: broach972 on Wed Jan 02, 2008 - 08:13:25
The angel Gabriel said, "Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you" (Luke 1:28). The phrase "full of grace" is a translation of the Greek word kecharitomene. It therefore expresses a characteristic quality of Mary.

The traditional translation, "full of grace," is better than the one found in many recent versions of the New Testament, which give something along the lines of "highly favored daughter." Mary was indeed a highly favored daughter of God, but the Greek implies more than that (and it never mentions the word for "daughter"). The grace given to Mary is at once permanent and of a unique kind. Kecharitomene is a perfect passive participle of charitoo, meaning "to fill or endow with grace." Since this term is in the perfect tense, it indicates that Mary was graced in the past but with continuing effects in the present. So, the grace Mary enjoyed was not a result of the angel's visit. In fact, Catholics hold, it extended over the whole of her life, from conception onward. She was in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of her existence.

Okay, I'm not sure of your logic here. You quote many translations, none of which use the phrase "full of grace" and then state that you know it's supposed to be translated that way, I guess because that's what you've been told. Let's say I accept your word on that. The angel told Mary she was full of grace. How does that lead to "She was in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of her existence."?

As I mentioned earlier, Stephen is said to be "full of grace". Was he also in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of his existence? If not, why?

I was really hoping to get an answer to this.  I'm trying my best to understand [what looks to me like] the obsession with Mary, but to do so I need the inconsistencies ironed out.

Great question, Never.

Yes, good point.  The emphasis on Mary is probably my greatest discomfort when it comes to Catholicism.  When I peruse the New Testament, the writer who said the most about Mary was probably Luke when he gave the account of the events leading up to the birth of Christ.  But, after that, aside from some minor incidental references to the Mary in the narrative, we just don't see much of anything said about her.  And, a role for her in the faith does not seem to be in view within the apostolic writings, nor is there any hint that such a thing was promoted in the New Testament record.

I'm not sure why we need mediators in order to access the Mediator.  Catholics and Orthodox will compare petitioning physically deceased saints with asking living saints to pray for us.  Sorry... but, that's just not a convincing comparison at all (at least to those of those of us who don't hold such a view).  Those who are departed are no longer physically with us. 

If we're going to go to the trouble of "praying" to saints who have passed on (who we can't see nor have any tangible interaction with)... then, why not just go directly to the Source (God) and pray directly to Him (for forgiveness or whatever the case may be)?

Quote from: DCR on Thu Apr 24, 2008 - 10:59:05
Yes, good point.  The emphasis on Mary is probably my greatest discomfort when it comes to Catholicism.  When I peruse the New Testament, the writer who said the most about Mary was probably Luke when he gave the account of the events leading up to the birth of Christ.  But, after that, aside from some minor incidental references to the Mary in the narrative, we just don't see much of anything said about her.  And, a role for her in the faith does not seem to be in view within the apostolic writings, nor is there any hint that such a thing was promoted in the New Testament record.

This is a valid point only if one agrees with the notion of sola scriptura.  Since Catholics regard this as a false doctrine, it is not an issue with us.  There are many writings that support the Marian doctrines of the Church.  One can easily finds these writings among the Church Fathers, even among Luther and Calvin.

Quote from: DCR on Thu Apr 24, 2008 - 10:59:05
I'm not sure why we need mediators in order to access the Mediator.  Catholics and Orthodox will compare petitioning physically deceased saints with asking living saints to pray for us.  Sorry... but, that's just not a convincing comparison at all (at least to those of those of us who don't hold such a view).  Those who are departed are no longer physically with us. 

If we're going to go to the trouble of "praying" to saints who have passed on (who we can't see nor have any tangible interaction with)... then, why not just go directly to the Source (God) and pray directly to Him (for forgiveness or whatever the case may be)?

You may find this helpful as it addresses your concerns or questions...

http://www.catholic.com/library/Praying_to_the_Saints.asp

This may also be helpful.

http://www.gotquestions.org/praying-to-the-dead.html

Quote from: broach972 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 - 11:33:49

Quote from: DCR on Thu Apr 24, 2008 - 10:59:05
Yes, good point.  The emphasis on Mary is probably my greatest discomfort when it comes to Catholicism.  When I peruse the New Testament, the writer who said the most about Mary was probably Luke when he gave the account of the events leading up to the birth of Christ.  But, after that, aside from some minor incidental references to the Mary in the narrative, we just don't see much of anything said about her.  And, a role for her in the faith does not seem to be in view within the apostolic writings, nor is there any hint that such a thing was promoted in the New Testament record.

This is a valid point only if one agrees with the notion of sola scriptura.

That reminds me of discussions I have had with atheists. I have heard, more than once, the objection, "well, that's only if you believe that God exists". The problem, however, is that his existence is not dependent upon anyone's belief, or disbelief, nor are the consequences for sin and unbelief so dependent.

Quote from: broach972 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 - 11:33:49
Since Catholics regard this as a false doctrine

Of course Roman Catholics do. Otherwise, they would have to admit to a host of erroneous and unbiblical practices and teachings. Interestingly enough, when discussing certain beliefs with Roman Catholics, they will usually attempt to gain support from the Scriptures, until the absence thereof is made readily evident. At that point, they will stand on tradition, or even "mystery" in order to ignore what is for them problema scriptura.

Quote from: James Rondon on Thu Apr 24, 2008 - 12:46:25At that point, they will stand on tradition, or even "mystery" in order to ignore what is for them problema scriptura.

ROTFL.

Mary is not the mother of Jesus.. she took no part in the creation of Jesus' body other then to be a willing host for the embryo implanted by the Holy Spirit.

Afterall, Mary did not exist at the beginning of time... how can you be the mother of something that already existed?

Quote from: Tantor on Thu Apr 24, 2008 - 13:05:19
Mary is not the mother of Jesus.. she took no part in the creation of Jesus' body other then to be a willing host for the embryo implanted by the Holy Spirit.

Afterall, Mary did not exist at the beginning of time... how can you be the mother of something that already existed?

I agree with everything except for one thing...

Mary WAS the mother of Jesus...she did give birth to him, right?  Am I missing something here?....

No one has ever suggested that she existed at the beginning of time...

Quote from: Tantor on Thu Apr 24, 2008 - 13:05:19
Mary is not the mother of Jesus.. she took no part in the creation of Jesus' body other then to be a willing host for the embryo implanted by the Holy Spirit.

Afterall, Mary did not exist at the beginning of time... how can you be the mother of something that already existed?

The Scriptures tell us that Mary was the mother of the man Christ Jesus. She was not, however, the mother of the pre-existent, pre-incarnate Jesus.

Quote from: broach972 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 - 11:33:49

Quote from: DCR on Thu Apr 24, 2008 - 10:59:05
Yes, good point.  The emphasis on Mary is probably my greatest discomfort when it comes to Catholicism.  When I peruse the New Testament, the writer who said the most about Mary was probably Luke when he gave the account of the events leading up to the birth of Christ.  But, after that, aside from some minor incidental references to the Mary in the narrative, we just don't see much of anything said about her.  And, a role for her in the faith does not seem to be in view within the apostolic writings, nor is there any hint that such a thing was promoted in the New Testament record.

This is a valid point only if one agrees with the notion of sola scriptura.

Actually, I'm not even arguing on the grounds of sola scriptura in this case.  My point is that if the role of Mary was held so highly by the apostles and New Testament writers as it seems to be now by modern-day Catholics, then I would expect we would at least see a rather prominent mention of her and devotion to her within the faith and practices of the original Christians being recorded in the New Testament.  But, her prominent place in the prayers and worship of New Testament Christians is rather absent, compared to what we see much later (and as carried on through the tradition of the Catholic Church).

Of course, we can't categorically prove that something wasn't... on the grounds that it simply wasn't mentioned in the New Testament (as I'm sure you would point out).  However, what I am going by is the way things seemed to be based on what we're told in the New Testament.  Yet, you can't prove that the way things are now in the Catholic Church is, in fact, the way they have always been since the inception of the Church during the first century. 

What you are going by is faith that the current beliefs and practices, as it pertains to Mary in the Catholic Church today, are traced back to the very beginning through a type of "preserved tradition."  In my view, if the original first century church placed Mary in as high a place as modern Catholics do... we would see evidence of that in Scripture.  It couldn't help but be there, IMO.

Of course, you will naturally see things a bit differently.  

Quote from: broach972 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 - 11:33:49
You may find this helpful as it addresses your concerns or questions...

http://www.catholic.com/library/Praying_to_the_Saints.asp

I'll have to check that out when I have the chance.  Thanks.

Quote from: Tantor on Thu Apr 24, 2008 - 13:05:19
Mary is not the mother of Jesus.. she took no part in the creation of Jesus' body other then to be a willing host for the embryo implanted by the Holy Spirit.

Hmm... I don't know that I agree with that.  If Jesus wasn't really made from the genetic material of Mary (one of Mary's embryos), then we've lost His link to humanity, and He therefore wasn't really human.  I would venture to say that the embryo was Mary's.  But, the Holy Spirit conceived Jesus from that embryo.  This was the miracle of the eternally pre-existent Word and Son of God coming into the flesh.

(It seems really strange to be discussing this in light of modern reproductive science, by the way.   )

Quote from: DCR on Thu Apr 24, 2008 - 14:41:57

Quote from: Tantor on Thu Apr 24, 2008 - 13:05:19
Mary is not the mother of Jesus.. she took no part in the creation of Jesus' body other then to be a willing host for the embryo implanted by the Holy Spirit.

Hmm... I don't know that I agree with that.  If Jesus wasn't really made from the genetic material of Mary (one of Mary's embryos), then we've lost His link to humanity, and He therefore wasn't really human.  I would venture to say that the embryo was Mary's.  But, the Holy Spirit conceived Jesus from that embryo.  This was the miracle of the eternally pre-existent Word and Son of God coming into the flesh.

(It seems really strange to be discussing this in light of modern reproductive science, by the way.   )

If Jesus inherited any genetic material from Mary, then he would have inherited the fallen condition of man.  Jesus was man, but perfect man, like Adam before the fall.  In order for Jesus to have been a perfect sacrifice he would have had to have been removed from the corruptions of our genetic code throughout the ages.

So although Jesus was fully human, he was more.. he was what we were created to be and supposed to be... it had to be this way because a post fall human sacrifice would have not been enough to redeem the prefall Adam from whom we are all judged by.

Mary was nothing more then an extremely lucky girl that happened to live at the right generation and have the right lineage and in my eyes, her greatest attribute was her acceptance of the Holy Spirit creating the embryo within her.. given the culture of the day, it was way beyond the call of duty and is quite a credit to her.

But when I look at what we see in scripture, although Jesus called her mother, I see Jesus acting in a detached way from her, acknowledging his role in the plan of redemption.  I think this is evident when he preached at the synagogue at an early age and was almost indifferent to his mother, but he did obey her.

Quote from: Tantor on Thu Apr 24, 2008 - 15:13:27If Jesus inherited any genetic material from Mary, then he would have inherited the fallen condition of man.  Jesus was man, but perfect man, like Adam before the fall.  In order for Jesus to have been a perfect sacrifice he would have had to have been removed from the corruptions of our genetic code throughout the ages.

So although Jesus was fully human, he was more.. he was what we were created to be and supposed to be... it had to be this way because a post fall human sacrifice would have not been enough to redeem the prefall Adam from whom we are all judged by.

Then, I see we have some other theological differences at work here driving our conclusions.  For one thing, I don't share what appears to be your belief regarding the "inherited" "fallen condition of man."  But, that's a whole other discussion (gets into the idea of total depravity and the rest of it).  If part of the curse was that man was of a nature that was able to die, then it appears that Jesus had that nature, considering He was able to and did indeed physically die.

I don't subscribe to the idea of the "sin nature" that some do.  What made Jesus different was that He chose not to sin... as opposed to any other man who has ever lived.  Of course, we can say that the God part of His nature enabled Him to do that.  But, in his humanity, He was just like one of us, in that "He was tempted in every way as we are."  Only, He did not sin.  I don't believe that all humans are born sinful though (the doctrine of inherited sin).  But, again, that's a discussion for another thread.

Quote from: DCR on Thu Apr 24, 2008 - 14:33:47

Quote from: broach972 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 - 11:33:49
You may find this helpful as it addresses your concerns or questions...

http://www.catholic.com/library/Praying_to_the_Saints.asp

I'll have to check that out when I have the chance.  Thanks.

As Charles suggested, this may also be helpful:

Quote from: Charles Sloan on Thu Apr 24, 2008 - 11:39:04
This may also be helpful.

http://www.gotquestions.org/praying-to-the-dead.html

Collective punishment is something that Americans seem to have a real hard time dealing with.  I know I did for a long time.  The american ethos that we are raised in is steeped in individual responsibility and individual choices, yet for the Jew of the Old Testament, this type of world view would be unknown.

And for me, collective punishment is cruicial to understanding original sin and all the doctrines that go along with it.

Quote from: DCR on Thu Apr 24, 2008 - 14:33:47

Quote from: broach972 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 - 11:33:49

Quote from: DCR on Thu Apr 24, 2008 - 10:59:05
Yes, good point.  The emphasis on Mary is probably my greatest discomfort when it comes to Catholicism.  When I peruse the New Testament, the writer who said the most about Mary was probably Luke when he gave the account of the events leading up to the birth of Christ.  But, after that, aside from some minor incidental references to the Mary in the narrative, we just don't see much of anything said about her.  And, a role for her in the faith does not seem to be in view within the apostolic writings, nor is there any hint that such a thing was promoted in the New Testament record.

This is a valid point only if one agrees with the notion of sola scriptura.

Actually, I'm not even arguing on the grounds of sola scriptura in this case.  My point is that if the role of Mary was held so highly by the apostles and New Testament writers as it seems to be now by modern-day Catholics, then I would expect we would at least see a rather prominent mention of her and devotion to her within the faith and practices of the original Christians being recorded in the New Testament.  But, her prominent place in the prayers and worship of New Testament Christians is rather absent, compared to what we see much later (and as carried on through the tradition of the Catholic Church).

Of course, we can't categorically prove that something wasn't... on the grounds that it simply wasn't mentioned in the New Testament (as I'm sure you would point out).  However, what I am going by is the way things seemed to be based on what we're told in the New Testament.  Yet, you can't prove that the way things are now in the Catholic Church is, in fact, the way they have always been since the inception of the Church during the first century. 

What you are going by is faith that the current beliefs and practices, as it pertains to Mary in the Catholic Church today, are traced back to the very beginning through a type of "preserved tradition."  In my view, if the original first century church placed Mary in as high a place as modern Catholics do... we would see evidence of that in Scripture.  It couldn't help but be there, IMO.

Of course, you will naturally see things a bit differently.  

Quote from: broach972 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 - 11:33:49
You may find this helpful as it addresses your concerns or questions...

http://www.catholic.com/library/Praying_to_the_Saints.asp

I'll have to check that out when I have the chance.  Thanks.

Yes, I think it would be in the NT if we were to show favor or worship Mary. The Scriptures are silent on that but tells us whom to worship - the Lord our God.

Quote from: Bonnie on Thu Apr 24, 2008 - 16:38:01
Yes, I think it would be in the NT if we were to show favor or worship Mary. The Scriptures are silent on that but tells us whom to worship - the Lord our God.

The Scriptures are silent on the issue of worshipping Mary because the NT does not say to worship Mary as Catholics do not.  God is to be worship alone.  As far as showing favor towards Mary, the NT states that God did just that, as Catholics already recognize in accordance with the NT.

Wasn't Noah the first to ever receive favor or grace? And isn't he the perverbal forerunner of the Savior of the entire world? Wouldn't he even be comparable to Abraham as the father of us all?

Why does he get such a short end of the deal, I mean can't he get one measly little shrine or statue?

Quote from: broach972 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 - 13:37:13

Quote from: Bonnie on Thu Apr 24, 2008 - 16:38:01
Yes, I think it would be in the NT if we were to show favor or worship Mary. The Scriptures are silent on that but tells us whom to worship - the Lord our God.

The Scriptures are silent on the issue of worshipping Mary because the NT does not say to worship Mary as Catholics do not.  God is to be worship alone.  As far as showing favor towards Mary, the NT states that God did just that, as Catholics already recognize in accordance with the NT.

I don't remember seeing any instructions in the Bible where we are to show favoritism toward Mary.

Quote from: Charles Sloan on Fri Apr 25, 2008 - 13:50:51
Wasn't Noah the first to ever receive favor or grace? And isn't he the perverbal forerunner of the Savior of the entire world? Wouldn't he even be comparable to Abraham as the father of us all?

Why does he get such a short end of the deal, I mean can't he get one measly little shrine or statue?

Thanks, I needed that!   

Quote from: James Rondon on Thu Apr 24, 2008 - 00:58:25

Quote from: Nevertheless on Mon Jan 21, 2008 - 23:59:52

Quote from: Nevertheless on Fri Jan 04, 2008 - 09:39:57

Quote from: broach972 on Wed Jan 02, 2008 - 08:13:25
The angel Gabriel said, "Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you" (Luke 1:28). The phrase "full of grace" is a translation of the Greek word kecharitomene. It therefore expresses a characteristic quality of Mary.

The traditional translation, "full of grace," is better than the one found in many recent versions of the New Testament, which give something along the lines of "highly favored daughter." Mary was indeed a highly favored daughter of God, but the Greek implies more than that (and it never mentions the word for "daughter"). The grace given to Mary is at once permanent and of a unique kind. Kecharitomene is a perfect passive participle of charitoo, meaning "to fill or endow with grace." Since this term is in the perfect tense, it indicates that Mary was graced in the past but with continuing effects in the present. So, the grace Mary enjoyed was not a result of the angel's visit. In fact, Catholics hold, it extended over the whole of her life, from conception onward. She was in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of her existence.

Okay, I'm not sure of your logic here. You quote many translations, none of which use the phrase "full of grace" and then state that you know it's supposed to be translated that way, I guess because that's what you've been told. Let's say I accept your word on that. The angel told Mary she was full of grace. How does that lead to "She was in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of her existence."?

As I mentioned earlier, Stephen is said to be "full of grace". Was he also in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of his existence? If not, why?

I was really hoping to get an answer to this.  I'm trying my best to understand [what looks to me like] the obsession with Mary, but to do so I need the inconsistencies ironed out.

Great question, Never.

It may be a good question, but I can't seem to get anyone to answer it . . .

If my motivation were to "prove" that Catholics are wrong about Mary, I suppose I would jump on such evasion as evidence of the truth of my position. As it is, I'm just frustrated.