Replies

Out of that material supplied...#122, all can that is taken away is being offended by one sentence fragment?

Please, there is plenty of cogent discussion in that post of hers , yet I see no reply but this one complaint, followed by what appears to me to be hand-waiving, calling it all "anti-Catholic material".

If issues cannot be spoken of directly, how can they at all? The first link she gave, at the top of the post outlined arguments on both sides of an issue, that one specifically being Genesis 3:15.

I notice a distinct avoidance by any to address those points, the changed gender in the passage, and the conflicts between various positions taken regarding Mary, at different times.

The trouble many of us have are the inconsistencies that can be found. When they are brought to light -- if we are not ignored, we either get rudely insulted, are in lesser fashion called "anti-Catholic" or worse, but rarely ever are the inconsistencies addressed in logical, rational manner, for the explanations if they do appear all too often rely upon some sort of having things both ways, are tossed back to "infallible magesterium" as "proof", or in the case of much of current Mariology, have scant support found other than in apparent folk belief which sprung up early in church history, particularly in the East, and tap nearer to present day apparitions of Mary which then circulate among the faithful.

Near the end of the article we encounter statements such as;

Throughout her life she humbled herself so that God could be exalted, and because of this, Christ has fulfilled his promise by exalting his lowly mother to the seat closest to him in God’s kingdom.

Exalted to the seat closest to Him? When did He promise that specifically to her? What gives? Where, oh where does that sort of idea come from? Long winded apologia about how much he loves her, what she went through, how close she is to Him etc., still don't get us to "exalted...to closest seat..to Him in God's Kingdom", in fact such a claim can be seen to contradict scripture, (those scriptures having been posted on this thread already, by more than a few -- but ignored!) before even entering into being theologically troubling.

One Creator. One Son, One Spirit. But now there's four? When we otherwise hear of Mary being trumpeted as being "Queen of Heaven" perhaps one might see where others would object to the sound of it? If Mary "Queen", what next? "Move over Jesus, you're sitting in mommy's chair?"

I mean, the Roman Church IS quite famous for "unpacking" revelation said to have already existed. The phrase itself comes from a Roman Church prelate. But I predict there will be a difficult time stretching three more fully into being four, any more than has already been, and is currently being expounded upon in some RCC quarters.

you can stretch a Trinity into a full 3-dimensional object with 4 elements, then a 4 dimensional object with something like 16 elements ~ the Hindu Trinity more or less does that, but then it has Shiva returning at least 3 times as a Messiah, and possibly one additional time in his manifestation as The Great Fish (see jonah on that one) who saves Ma-Nu (also known as Noah) by using Krishna/Shiva (Manifest as the 8 headed cobra) to tie his boat to Mt Ararat. There are, of course, numerous variations on that story India being India. But there's a lesson in this business of using a bit of knowledge to elaborate into something far beyond the original intent.

We already know of the high priest of the ancient city Salem who was the perfect man ~ Malkizedek. I've seen pieces that amplify on the little bit we know from the two Biblical references and suggest he presauges the Messiah as manifest as Jesus, then there's the Second Coming ~ and by golly we have that same three messiahs in one meme showing up without much effort on anyone's part. Throw in the female attribute of the universe (see DNA's other side), and it's not much different, but it is far more different than what we all want to believe.

The differences Protestants and Catholics have over Mary are NOTHING compared to the differences everybody will have with everything at the end of time.

If issues cannot be spoken of directly, how can they at all?

We both know that charitable discussion stems from objective statements of facts not subtle or overt insults. (Understand please that I'm speaking of the article NOT the person who posted it.)

I notice a distinct avoidance by any to address those points

These things have been discussed previously on this forum, although perhaps not on this thread. If I corrected every misstatement made about the Church on this site I'd get nothing else done! Former Catholics here contend that they know the Church's position. If that's so then they are responsible to God (not me) for what they write about the Church's teaching (accurate or otherwise) and what they select as fittingly representing her teaching. I'm preparing to leave town and don't feel the slightest obligation to spend my limited time addressing that type of article. Others may feel differently.

When did He promise that specifically to her? What gives? Where, oh where does that sort of idea come from?

I will address this one quickly before I sign off for the night though :) First, if you look through your scriptures, you will see that the idea of Christians reigning with Christ in heaven is all through scripture. While we Catholics envision Mary with the highest position in heaven that any of God's creatures can have, we believe we will all reign in heaven. Not of our own merit, of course. But as a free gift of Christ who shares his victory with us. Christ in us and we in Christ. Complete unimpeded union.

Second, remember when I told you on another thread that often the key to understanding something Catholic is to look at Jewish history and practices? We see Jesus as the Son of David (Mt 1:1) who reigns forever (Lk 1:32-33, Dn 2:44, 2 Sm 7:12-13, Ps 89:26-29, Ps 132:11, Is 9:6-7) and elevating his mother to the role of queen mother as other davidic kings did. If you look at 1 Kg 2:19, Solomon rises and bows when his mother, Bathsheba, enters. He has a seat brought for her to sit to the right of him on the throne. Contrast this with 1 Kg 1:16, 31 when Bathsheba bows and does obeisance to her husband the king. In 1:28 she stands before her husband the king but in the next chapter her son the king rises for her and seats her beside him. We (Catholics) see Jesus enthroned as our eternal King in heaven and his mother at his right as his queen mother. It's the King and his most perfect creation. It's NOT God and goddess.

A couple other passages that quickly come to mind that mention the queen mother are King Lemuel's mother in Prv 31. The king considers his mother's counsel sufficiently wise to record it. Jer 13:18 contains a message not to the king and queen but to the king and queen mother. I share these verses to show biblical support for the concept of the Jewish queen mother.

I know you disagree with our interpretation of scripture, but since you asked where this comes from, you can look at Rev 11:19 and the "ark of his covenant".(You know from following these threads that we see Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant.) In the next verse we find the mother of the saviour, who also represents the church, crowned with stars.

So there you have a bit of where it comes from. I didn't say you'd agree with it :) Sorry but I don't have time to address it more thoroughly and will be traveling so probably can't make a timely followup if you reply.

When we otherwise hear of Mary being trumpeted as being "Queen of Heaven" perhaps one might see where others would object to the sound of it?

Absolutely! I'm a former protestant, remember?

Peace be with you. If we don't meet again before Christmas, may you have a joy-filled celebration of the Lord's birth :)