Because he hath regarded the humility of his handmaid: for behold from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed. (DRV)
Glad to hear the Protestants getting onboard. We Catholics don’t like Mary worshippers either.
There’s also the “off” button.
Son, behold your Mother, Mother, behold your Son.
This may be the message board equivalent of pulling a grenade pin. It ain’t going to be pretty.
Let the reformation wars begin ...
SnakeDoc
In all Christian belief it is the case that the Hebrew prophecies of a "virgin with child" refer to Mary and Jesus.
If you accept that as being a reasonable thing to happen, then it's reasonable to accept that both lived normal human lives ~ while carrying out God's commandments.
Again, if you can accept the "virgin with child" prophecy it's just as reasonable to believe they were denied normal human lives.
One of those yin/yan things again.
Without being able to interview Mary at this time (and it does seem no one has taken the opportunity to do so whenever she makes an appearance), the very secondary issues of how she lived will remain a mystery ~
Deceiving headline — Catholics do not “worship” the Blessed Virgin Mary.
Do we honor the one that is blessed or the one that blesses ?
Do you think Mary should ever be classified as the Co-Redemptrix?
fishtank - former RCC member
"It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a virgin .... Christ, we believe, came forth from a womb left perfectly intact." Martin Luther, Works of Luther, Vol. 11, pp. 319-320, Vol. 6, p. 510
"There have been certain folk who have wished to suggest from this passage [Matthew 1:25] that the Virgin Mary had other children than the Son of God, and that Joseph had then dwelt with her; but what folly this is! For the gospel writer did not wish to record what happened afterwards; he simply wished to make it clear Joseph's obedience and to show that Joseph had been well and truly assured that it was God who had sent His angel to Mary. He had therefore never dwelt with her nor had he shared her company .... And besides this Our Lord Jesus Christ is called the first-born. This is not because there was a second or a third, but because the gospel writer is paying regard to the precedence. Scripture speaks thus of naming the first-born whether or not there was any question of the second." John Calvin, Sermon on Matthew 1:22-25, 1562.
"I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel, as a pure Virgin brought for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin." Ulrich Zwingli, Zwingli Opera, Vol. 1, p. 424.
Zebedee and Salome begat James and John
Cleophas(Alphaeus) and Mary(the other Mary from Matthew 27:56, 61, 28:1 and John 19:25) begat James(the less), Jo'ses and Jude
The Holy Spirit and the Blessed Virgin Mary begat Jesus The Christ
Very interesting, but does it really matter? Sexual relations inside of marriage are not sinful. Then again, Mary could have been a perpetual virgin. Either way, this does not affect His word. To support my point: The Bible itslef can be argued to support both views as was shown by the article. If it was important, wouldn’t the Bible be clear on the topic? Or did Jesus just forget to mention it directly? /sarc
Still, interesting stuff...
Poor Pastor Bob has been transformed into a classic strawman; and for all his smugness the author really has to stretch to cover some rather difficult spots; for example, his discussion of Mary's supposed "vow of virginity" strains credulity to the breaking point.
IMO, both sides of the argument (at least as it's presented in the article) are exemplars of pinhead angel-counting -- they've got their man-made doctrines and are willing to stoutly defend them with word studies and logic (so-called); but like the Pharisees before them they both seem to miss the point that doctrine is secondary to Jesus.
Heck, if I would have been Pastor Bob, I would have simply said Mary could not have been sinless for scripture clearly teaches that ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. And Mary rejoiced in her need for a savior.
Next caller.
IMO, it’s holy reverence, not worship.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
The issue is this: Every single solitary example of PRAYER in scripture IS a form of worship. Prayer and worship go together.
Since Roman Catholic do indeed pray to Mary, amidst other dead Christians, no matter whether you call it “veneration” or “respect” or “honor” you do, in fact, worship her, according to what the bible shows as a part of worship.
Proof texts where someone poetically calls out to angels in prayer does not change the fact that: PRAYER IS WORSHIP, and God alone is to be worshiped.
Yes, God regarded her humility, not her deification. And calling someone blessed is not akin to veneration or worship. Many in the Scriptures are called blessed-—including every forgiven sinner (Rom. 4).
I am a Protestant, and I take issue with many of the things that I perceive to be beliefs of Catholics as I am sure that they do with my beliefs that they misunderstand.
What do you think a non-believer that is curious about Christianity and might check out a thread on FR to get a sense of what christians are like would think of the fights that take place here? They would not see the love of God being reflected by many on these threads, including to my great shame, myself.