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.
Mary would spin in her grave if she could see what they’ve made her.
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?
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.
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.
I think your questions of RC's illustrate why they don't want to discuss this heresy and will do everything they can to move the discussion elsewhere.
There are numerous contradictions with Scripture if people want to look. I think the people who are hurt the most with this heresy are those that haven't gotten into the Word. They follow along with the cultural pressure to conform and assume that what they are doing is okay since everyone else is doing it and their church promotes it.
We've all seen it. It's not veneration it's worship and it is wrong.