Posted on 05/11/2005 10:04:08 AM PDT by NYer
It is not contradictory to the existing scriptural evidence, since the relationship of mutual beholding between the faithful and the Blessed Mother is scriptural.
*** It is not contradictory to the existing scriptural evidence,***
Here are the verses I find it to be in conflict with. If you know these already please forgive the repetition...
1 Timothy 2:5
"For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;"
1 John 2:1
"My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:"
Hebrews 7:25
"Wherefore he (Jesus) is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them."
Romans 8:34
"Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us."
BTW, than you for the civil tone. These conversations always get so heated.
We have Jesus in the Eucharist!! AND Mary and the Communion of the Saints.
Interesting article, but it fails to address WHY Mary would need to be sinless.
So why would she need to be sinless?
By the same argument, Joseph (the "Adoptive Father of God"?), by accepting Mary and Jesus under his protection, knowing full well the awkward position it put him in, also "obtained the salvation of everyone by indirect means."
Salvation is made available by a perfect sacrifice, not a mother's love, no matter how deep, or a father's obedience, no matter how difficult.
If Mary is so central, why are the apostles so stingy in referring to her? He was a woman of extraordinary faith. Why is that not not enough?
Ooops.
She was a woman of extraordinary faith.
Please forgive.
I am Catholic so I believe in the Immaculate Conception. Having said that I do not think Mary needed to be sinless for the incarnation to happen. Just as I do not think God needed to become man in order to save us. Both are not so much matters of need but of rightness. Mary could have been a sinner and God could have saved us just by willing it. So why was Mary sinless? Because the sinlessness of Mary glorifies Christ and honors him more fully and perfectly. If we look upon Mary as the New Ark of the Covenant we can understand this better. It would not be right to have the Word of God carried in a defiled container. If God willed the old covenant to be carried in a holy object why not the new?
***Just as I do not think God needed to become man in order to save us. ***
That, my friend, is very, very wrong. Jesus cried out in the garden...
"O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt."
Jesus was asking if there was any other way. There was not.
***It would not be right to have the Word of God carried in a defiled container. If God willed the old covenant to be carried in a holy object why not the new?.***
Mary, after Jesus birth, went to the temple to offer the prescribed sacrifice for the ritualistic defilement associated with giving birth. (There was no offering for Jesus because according to the Torah a child is not defiled by birth).
I should have clarified that God could have saved us simply by willing it. God knew the rightness of our being saved by the Cross and that is why it was the only way. It was not just necessary that we be saved but that we atone for our sins. Such an atonement was only possible through Christ. I was only trying to say that God can do things in whatever way He chooses.
This kind of language is common in Orthodoxy and Eastern Catholicism. Both, for example, employ short prayers like "Most Holy Theotokos, save us." They understand this to mean the kind of "saving" one human can do for another. When you see your fellow man in a pit, you can save him by pulling him up. Or if he is drowning, you save him by throwing him a life preserver. This is a legitimate use of the word "save", and I'm glad the EO and E Catholics continue to speak of the Theotokos this way without caving in to the sensitive and tender ears of protestants.
Why not look at both, and all the saints too? God is glorified through His saints. They witness to us. Their life is a testimony. Of course God wants us to look at them.
The Catholic belief is that Christ alone is the judge of our salvation. Indeed, there is clear scriptural teaching that that is so, as your quotes demonstrate.
Intercession is not scripturally claimed to be Christ's alone. We see Blessed Virgin Mary asking Jesus to perform a miracle at Cana, which begins his ministry as a worker of miracles. We see Mary of Bethany and Martha asking Jesus to raise Lazarus, -- the miracle clearly prefiguring salvation of men, -- and even rebuking Him for tardiness. In the Old Testament Abraham pleads with God. Thus not only intercession of the Blessed Mother, but intercession of saints in general are scripturally sound.
Catholics tend to get angry when they are told that they don't read the Bible, or that they repeat what the Popes tell them, or that they do not worship Jesus, etc. Anger is not the best reaction to have, all the more so since the devotion to the study of the scripture is an admirable Protestant trait. Nevertheless, understand that when one's faith, particularly a demanding faith such as Catholicism, is questioned in a rude and ill-informed way, a foundation of one's existence is attacked, and people get very defensive.
annalex: ***All these sayings are true and not mutualy contradictory. Mary is the Mother of God who intercedes for you whether you say Hail Mary or not;***
PetroMax: There is no Scriptural evidence for this belief.
You are correct Petro, but old habits die hard.
In spite of those that dislike sola scriptura:
exhibit A: Capitalization of "Mother", so used by the RCC and close associates, is only found in one place in my Bible. Rev. 17:5..."Mother of..." well, just look it up.
exhibit B: "Mother of God" is no where in the Bible I use (KJV). What Mary gave birth to died, (diety cannot die) but God raised him up. Gal. 1:1.
God has no mother: No beginning of days or end of life.
Jesus is the "image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature". Col. 1:15 God wasn't born. But God has ordained "...that in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily". Col. 2:9
"God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself"...2 Cor. 5:19
The man, Jesus, was weak. But the Spirit of God in him enabled him to do the miraculous:
"Many good works have I shewed you from my Father..." John 10:32
"...but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works." John 14:10
His own words testified of that "the spirit is indeed willing, but the flesh is weak". Matt. 26:41 Jesus hungered (remember the fig tree?). Jesus grew weary and thirsty (Jacob's well in Samaria).
And he died. He had a man's mind and soul, but the Almighty God in him, that left him on the cross to die (my God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?), returned to raise him up again.
Red letter (words of Christ in red) Bibles are helpful for study, but do not show the difference of when Jesus was speaking as a man (I thirst), God's ordained man (the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me), or as the Almighty (O Jerusalem, Jerusalem,...how often would I have gathered thy children together,...and ye would not).
"In these last days" (Heb. 1:2) the Godhead is explained simply: the Father (Spirit) is dwelling in the Son (flesh). And now glorified flesh (walking through walls, then saying "..handle me.." and eating in front of his disciples). Immortality sounds really cool, to say the least!
I could go on and on....(but I am SUCH a slow typist).
"We see Blessed Virgin Mary asking Jesus to perform a miracle at Cana,"
My Bible clearly shows she was no longer a virgin at this point.
"We see Mary of Bethany and Martha asking Jesus to raise Lazarus, -- the miracle clearly prefiguring salvation of men, -- and even rebuking Him for tardiness."
I don't read that passage in John, feeling they were "rebuking" Jesus. Disappointed, yes, rebuke,no.
An arian, gnostic, and maybe even a nestorian would say something like that. There is a tendency among Christians who do not recognize the Mother of God to slide into one form of heresy or another concerning the natures of Christ.
Whoops, forgot applicable footnote to "exhibit B" in #237:
There is no phrase "God the Son" in scripture, just "Son of God". There IS a difference.
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.