Nuts and Bolts - By Tim Staples: Mary Worshippers Need Not Apply

Envoy ^ | Tim Staples

[GonzoII]

The Scenario:

Ever have one of those days when you’re feeling full of energy and vigor? I mean, you’re feeling just obnoxiously happy? Well, this is one of those days.

Driving home from work, you switch on the radio to see what’s happening, and you tune in to a local Protestant radio station just in time to hear a preacher speaking against various Catholic doctrines concerning Mary. The show is called Pastor Bob’s Bible Hour. Pastor Bob proclaims: “Jesus knew Catholics would come along and begin to worship His mother and call her perpetual virgin and absurd things like that. But the Bible says: ‘Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary? And are not His brethren James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And are not all of His sisters with us?’ (Matt. 13:55-56a). And isn’t it sad, my brothers and sisters?”

Pastor Bob goes on to say: “Jesus dealt with these Mary worshippers in His day. In Luke 11:27-28, the Bible says, ‘A woman in the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, “Blessed is the womb that bore You, and the breasts that You sucked!” But He said, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!”’”

On a normal day you would probably just listen, take a few mental notes and drive on. But not this time. You’re feeling a little bit too saucy. You take the first exit you see and head for a phone. This is just one more reason why you need to buy that cell phone you’ve been talking about getting.

Step One:

[Petronski]

My name’s not Tommy, mare.

I’m not the one who fled.

Do try to keep up...if you can...

...for a change...

[PAR35]

her post made no mention of race.

Thanks for the hearty laugh. I'm not surprised those who would find 3 words that start with 'C', and substitute 'K' for a KKK reference would claim pure motives.

And I didn't say that she was Roman. That might be considered 'making it personal'.

[Judith Anne]

I did not claim pure motives. I claimed it was not racist.

Please do not make this thread about me.

[Judith Anne]

Honi soit qui mal y pense, anyway.

[John Leland 1789]

I got the answer-——finally——that I was suspecting:

That the only kind of Savior that Mary needed was one who “saved” her from ever sinning to begin with.

So they expect us to read our Bible thusly:

“For from within, out of the heart of [all except Mary], proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, . . .”

“For all [except Mary] have sinned and come short of the Glory of God.” (Rom. 3:23).

” . . . There is none righteous, no, [except Mary].” (3:10)

” . . . and so death passed upon all [except Mary], for that all [except Mary] have sinned.” (Romans 5:12)

“Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all [except Mary] to condemnation; . . . “

We realize that it was not necessary to make up this immaculate contraption for Jesus Christ to have a fitting mother, because it is Christ’s sinlessness that matters, not Mary’s.

So, I am asking whether there are any “stories,” “accounts,” “traditions,” etc., about the rearing years of Mary by her NON-immaculate parents. Here we have a little girl growing up who, according to them, never sinned, because God prevented it or preserved her from it. She never was angry without a cause, she never had a bad attitude, she never at disobeyed her parents or God, NOTHING. SINLESSNESS.

Now, those attributes of sinlessness make Mary, at the very least, a demigodess, if not a goddess.

[Marysecretary]

Mary would spin in her grave if she could see what they’ve made her.

[Marysecretary]

yes, dear.

[Marysecretary]

yes, pet,LOL.

[Belteshazzar]

I see what you are refuting, and find myself sympathetic to what you are trying to do. Mary is to be honored because God chose her to be the mother of the promised Savior, His only begotten Son. There is a difference between this and Roman Catholic veneration of Mary.

However, I find the phrase “historical vignette concerning an embarrassing incident at a wedding feast” to be a little too offhand. I also must confess to disagreeing with your blanket statement that the incident at Cana and then also that at the foot of the cross “are not didactic moments; no profound teaching is there except the display of Jesus’ humanity.” I think we must always be careful not to throw the baby out with the bath water, or, to put it more plainly, that we must not in refuting one error fall into another.

Let us perform a little experiment here. Let us all consider first the incident at Cana and then, later, we’ll get to that at the foot of the cross with John. Let us assume that John’s report of the happenings at Cana is more than a mere historical vignette. But, on the other side, let us also assume that the incident is didactic (2 Timothy 3:16-17), but not in regard to Mary, but to Christ.

Here is the basis of that assumption: Jesus is quoted by John (not far from his Cana text) as admonishing the Jews (see John 5:18 for His audience) in regard to the purpose of the Holy Scriptures written in their own language. He said, “You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me. But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life.” (John 5:39-40) Since we have Christ’s own word that the Scriptures of the Old Testament are all about Him, why should we not assume that the Scriptures of the New Testament have the same focus and purpose, Him?

Here is the experiment: Let us all, Catholic and non-Catholic (even though I do not like to use those terms this way), carefully consider what John 2:1-11 is saying, teaching, us on the basis of its own simple words. As we do so, we abandon two ideas, first, that this is not simply an “historical vignette,” and second, that it is not about Mary, but about Christ.

This experiment will tell us all a lot about each other and even more about Christ.

So, any takers?

[Judith Anne]

So, Almighty God chose a sinful woman to bear the Savior of all the world.

So, He chose a girl who was maybe jealous, maybe had petty thoughts, maybe disobeyed or disrespected her parents?

God Almight, Creator of Heaven and Earth, could not preserve one woman to bear His Only Begotten Son? He could create the universe, but not a sinless woman?

What kind of God do you worship?

[Judith Anne]

We realize that it was not necessary to make up this immaculate contraption for Jesus Christ to have a fitting mother, because it is Christ’s sinlessness that matters, not Mary’s.

So, Christ's sinlessness is the only thing that matters, not Mary's. So, she could have been a prostitute, and that would have been fine, as far as God is concerned, because it wasn't HER that mattered, only Christ. The only thing God needed or wanted was a vacant womb. Sure.

Now, re-read Luke, and tell me that Gabriel would go announce the coming of the Savior to any old street creature he could find, and say, "Hail, thou that art highly favored; blessed art thou among women." Luke 1:28 "For thou has found favor with God (30) and behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb and bring forth a son, and shalt call His name Jesus (31) and the Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shalt overshadow thee, therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God." (35)

And then you say, "We realize that it was not necessary to make up this immaculate contraption for Jesus Christ to have a fitting mother, because it is Christ’s sinlessness that matters, not Mary’s." Honestly. Immaculate contraption. Cute. Surely Christ wouldn't care that you characterize His MOTHER that way.

[John Leland 1789]

“Hail, thou that art highly favored; blessed art thou among women.” Luke 1:28 “For thou has found favor with God (30) and behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb and bring forth a son, and shalt call His name Jesus (31) and the Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shalt overshadow thee, therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.” (35)

---

Sinlessness in Mary or for Mary not suggested at all in these verses-—Not at all.

No, a prostitute could not have served here, and you shouldn’t suggest such shame upon her. A prostitute is not a virgin. Mary was a virgin, fulfilling prophesy,-—but not sinless.

A “contraption” is not a person, but a system. Here a religious system. Since it is an unbliblical system, I am free to use the word contraption. The active part is TRAP. It is a doctrine that comes with (con) a trap.

Mary was in Adam at her birth like any other person, and in Adam all die. She was a sinner, though a virgin yet at the time of Christ’s birth. She later died, was not assumed into heaven. Nothing in the New Testament suggests she was sinless, nothing suggests she didn’t have a sin nature, nothing suggests it was necessary.

w

a

s

Adam’s sin imputed to her and was guilty in Adam o

[1000 silverlings]

Mary had to offer two turtledoves in the temple for Levitical “uncleaness” after bearing a son, so in the eyes of God, the priests, Judaism and herself, she was not always immaculate.

[John Leland 1789]

“Mary had to offer two turtledoves in the temple for Levitical “uncleaness” after bearing a son, so in the eyes of God, the priests, Judaism and herself, she was not always immaculate.”

---

Correct.

Lu 2:23 (As it is written in the law of the Lord, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord;)
24 And to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord, A pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons.

Le 12:7 Who shall offer it before the LORD, and make an atonement for her; and she shall be cleansed from the issue of her blood. This is the law for her that hath born a male or a female.
8 And if she be not able to bring a lamb, then she shall bring two turtles, or two young pigeons; the one for the burnt offering, and the other for a sin offering: and the priest shall make an atonement for her, and she shall be clean.

The problem was in MARY’S blood; she was unclean, and needed atonement.

[mgist]

Mary's "sin offering" - well, if you were raised a Jew you would follow the customs of your faith and culture, wouldn't you? Mary was obedient.

We believe Mary was sinless because we believe her to be the Arc of the Covenant. The dwelling place of the Lord would have been sinless.

This, let's call it "theory", is not the pinnacle of our faith as some posters try to make it.

For Lay people, our faith revolves around Jesus, the Holy Trinity, his resurection, the Eucharist/Communion, babtism, the bible, His Church, the Faith Community, and the Saraments of Marriage and Reconciliation.

Mary is simply a beautiful part of God's message of salvation. "The Covenant of the Arc". We call her the Mother of the Church. The Mother of all Christians, the New Eve.

Blessed Mary is the gold standard for Christian women. She was obedient, humble, served God, selfless, she suffered horribly and never questioned God or her mission. She was a loving wife, and mother of our Savior. "Behold the handmaid of the Lord", how amazing is that statement?

When you look around at the world today, don't you think we need the Blessed Mary as an example for our young women? As a women I can tell you, she is so needed. Those who feel having Jesus Mother as a role model for women, or place of honor, makes us idol worshipers, are doing a disservice to humanity.

Blessed Mary is a gift from God, one of many.

[RnMomof7]

Was Ann sinless? was she too preserved fron original sin?

[RnMomof7]

The Bible does not say that He had a temptable nature, just that the devil tempted Him.M

The only way to truly know God is to read scripture

Hebrews 4: 15 For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are--yet was without sin.

[RnMomof7]

and let's not forget about John the Baptist, Matthew 11:11

I was just going to post that...great minds :)

[RnMomof7]

The language of Apoc. 12 is in part metaphorical but nevertheless it identifies Mary in the beginning and in the end, so we who trust the scripture just have to deal with it as written. Would you say Jesus speaks of someone other than Himself in John 10 because He says He is a door?

So when reading scripture we should eliminate part of the scripture that doesn't fit?

It is kind of funny, because the church takes John 6 literally, because that fits your doctrine, but when it is convenient it is not

[RnMomof7]

St. Peter was the one who brought in the first Gentile and proposed, at the Jerusalem Council, doing away with the Mosaic dietetic and ceremonial law. When St. criticized his habits, that was because S.t Peter's habits were out of synch with Peter's own understanging of the universality of the Church.

He was part of the reason that council was called read Galatians ..