[Outership]

Post 182 purports to raise Mary above Christ. I explained it in post 327. You can see it for yourself.

Shocking, I know.

[Natural Law]

"Post 182 purports to raise Mary above Christ. I explained it in post 327. You can see it for yourself."

That is only the case when one does not understand the concept of filial love.

[wagglebee]

Post 182 purports to raise Mary above Christ.

Let's have a look and see what you're having difficulties understanding:

To: Quix

It's all very well to take recourse to the usual litany of accusations centered around rubber, but if the general charge is not reduced and clearly related to the specific thing you are complaining about, then it just passes me by.

Is the mother of the head NOT the mother of the Body?
Is Mary NOT the mother of Jesus the Christ?
Is the Church NOT the Body of which Christ is the head?
I don't see the wildness or the rubber.

In related news, I am astonished the a psychologist questions the bonding of infant with mother as important in the development of the ability to love.

182 posted on Friday, May 07, 2010 10:38:21 AM by Mad Dawg (O Maria, sine labe concepta, ora pro nobis qui ad te confugimus.)

[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies | Report Abuse]

Which of the following do you not believe to be true (and you don't have to limit yourself to a single choice):

A. Do you not believe that Jesus Christ was born to the Virgin Mary in Bethlehem?

B. Do you not believe that the Church is the Body of Christ?

C. Do you not believe that Jesus Christ is the Head of the Church?

It's all very well to take recourse to the usual litany of accusations centered around rubber, but if the general charge is not reduced and clearly related to the specific thing you are complaining about, then it just passes me by.

Is the mother of the head NOT the mother of the Body?
Is Mary NOT the mother of Jesus the Christ?
Is the Church NOT the Body of which Christ is the head?
I don't see the wildness or the rubber.

In related news, I am astonished the a psychologist questions the bonding of infant with mother as important in the development of the ability to love.

[netmilsmom]

This is post 182

To: Quix
It’s all very well to take recourse to the usual litany of accusations centered around rubber, but if the general charge is not reduced and clearly related to the specific thing you are complaining about, then it just passes me by.

Is the mother of the head NOT the mother of the Body?
Is Mary NOT the mother of Jesus the Christ?
Is the Church NOT the Body of which Christ is the head?
I don’t see the wildness or the rubber.

In related news, I am astonished the a psychologist questions the bonding of infant with mother as important in the development of the ability to love.
182 posted on Friday, May 07, 2010 10:38:21 AM by Mad Dawg (O Maria, sine labe concepta, ora pro nobis qui ad te confugimus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies | Report Abuse]

So where does Mad Dawg put Mary above Christ?

[Mad Dawg]

Post 182 purports to raise Mary above Christ. I explained it in post 327.

The so-called explanation is that calling Mary the mother of Jesus' body puts her above him.

This leaves us with some choices:

Mary is not Jesus' mother.
Mary IS Jesus' mother but we ought not to say so.
Mary is Jesus' mother but not the mother of the body of Jesus.
Paul is wrong to speak of the Church as the body of Christ.

We are to deny Scripture, biology, or reason, or truth.