Posted on 12/18/2010 6:01:48 PM PST by Gamecock
It seems as if there might be a sizable number of Christians who are unaware of the text of Jeremiah, particularly Jeremiah 44, which discusses a goddess called … the Queen of Heaven.
John MacArthur uses Jeremiah 44 as his text to introduce two sermons on Mary in Catholic Church dogma. These date from 2006.
The links to the full text are at the bottom of the post. I’ll provide excerpts, indented below, which will give many of us food for thought. Emphases mine throughout.
On Jeremiah 44
God condemns apostate Judah for worshipping this goddess of paganism called the Queen of Heaven that has had a number of different names throughout history. The latest name for this goddess, sad to say, is a name borrowed from the earthly mother of our Lord, none other than Mary who has now been morphed by apostate Christianity into the latest edition of the Queen of Heaven. Is it important to address this issue? It is … [In] Timothy 1:3, Paul says, “I urge you that you may instruct certain men not to teach strange doctrines, nor pay attention to myths and endless genealogies which give rise to mere speculation, rather than furthering the administration of God which is by faith.”
Christian obligation to point out error
It’s important to say at the outset that this is not because we are mad or hateful or resentful, but it is love from a pure heart. If you do not address error, if you do not address strange doctrine, damning heresy, this is not love, this is indifference. Love from a pure heart and a clear conscience and a sincere faith demands such a confrontation. And so we come to address this same age-old goddess heresy of paganism in its newest form with the modern goddess having stolen the name of Mary, a terrible dishonor to her. But there is nothing sacred to Satan anyway. And to address it is not a lack of love, but is the sincerest, purest kind of love rising out of a good conscience and a sincere faith.
It does make one wonder why the Catholic Church would refer to Mary in this way. Yet, Jeremiah 44 refers specifically to the Queen of Heaven in an idolatrous context. Here are verses 18 and 19:
18But since we left off making offerings to the queen of heaven and pouring out drink offerings to her, we have lacked everything and have been consumed by the sword and by famine.” 19And the women said, “When we made offerings to the queen of heaven and poured out drink offerings to her, was it without our husbands’ approval that we made cakes for her bearing her image and poured out drink offerings to her?”
Much of the text concerns St Alphonsus Liguori‘s The Glories of Mary, a 750-page work first published in 1745 in response to the 17th century Catholic heresy of Jansenism, which originated in the Netherlands, became popular in Paris and, in many ways, bears a close resemblance to Calvinism. Francophones may recall that the philosopher Blaise Pascal and the playwright Jean Racine (for a time) were Jansenists.
I have linked to an 1888 online version of the book above so that you can peruse the text yourselves. An eye-opener, to say the least. MacArthur has read it cover to cover. We didn’t study this book at school, I hasten to add. I never even knew it existed until this week. But then, I do recall one of the nuns telling my mother that there is much about the Catholic Church which would not be included in religion classes. My mother, mentioning Vatican II, said, ‘That’s a relief.’ Sister replied, ‘Oh, no, it’s not so much Vatican II as it is other texts.’ Could she have meant this one?
Unbiblical
MacArthur says that Mariology is unbiblical, much as the Book of Mormon and Christian Science’s Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures. What his sermons show us is the importance of being biblically literate — every book of the Bible. You will wonder how it is that Mary, not only bearing the appellation of a pagan goddess but having so many thousands, probably millions, of words written about her through the centuries is mentioned so seldom in the New Testament. That last one surprised me greatly when I was a teenager, and I suspect many Catholics would be similarly surprised should they read the gospels and epistles.
How could so many details be obtained about her life, from childhood to death? MacArthur reads excerpts from the Glories of Mary and papal documents from latter days to his congregation. You can find them in the sermon text. They are amazing.
Mythical
MacArthur tells us how Mariology began. Many will find this startling, although it ties in with what Dr Gregory Jackson, a Lutheran professor, said on Ichabod and reproduced here:
Now this idea about Mary, though it really wasn’t formally dogmatized until the twentieth century goes way, way back and you start to read about this in the fifth century as paganism and pagan goddess worship at the very earliest gets mingled. Remember the Holy Roman Empire, as it was called, the Holy Roman Empire was really not holy, it was Roman, for sure, but the emperor in the 325 decided that the best thing to do to unify the great empire was to make everybody automatically a Christian. And since the emperor was rife with paganism, they just married a kind of Christianity with paganism and all of this came very early. So it’s in the rule of somebody who calls himself Galacius(?) I, a self-appointed leader of the church in the fifth century, this comes up at that time. There’s a discussion about Mary being assumed into heaven. So already this goddess cult has imposed itself on poor Mary. And it was at first considered heretical. There was no evidence for it historically, there’s no evidence for it biblically, obviously. So the earliest appearance of this idea is in a very apocryphal work, an unreliable work like the gospel of Judas and hundreds of others. It was called Transitus Getti Marii (???) and it was in the fifth century it was denounced as a heresy. So when it first showed up in the fifth century, the 400′s, it is denounced as a heresy. But things began to develop over the years in regard to Mary. Praying to Mary arrives in 600…
A transitus is a service recalling a saint’s death and begins the eve of his feast day. Presumably in Mary’s case, the work mentioned involved the Assumption.
It should be mentioned that John MacArthur has nothing against Mary, just the hype and apparent falsehood built up around her life and death.
‘Mother of God’
MacArthur traces the origins of this title to Alexander, the 4th century Bishop of Alexandria:
Goddess worship, the very outset, the Holy Roman Empire comes into existence in the fourth century, early in the century. This mother of God comes in rapidly by the year 431 and the Council of Ephesus and 451, The Council of Chalcedon, this is established. She is to be called the mother of God, this contributes to centuries and centuries and centuries of accumulated deification of Mary. She becomes equal to God. And though the Church tries its best to wiggle out of this, it tries its best to deny this, the truth of the matter is, she really is superior to God and superior to Christ as becomes very evident in what they say and in how they portray her in cathedrals all over the world. She rules in heaven as queen, sovereign, saving, sanctifying, sympathizing, all this power is given to her that belongs only to God.
Apparitions and their nature
Like many of us, MacArthur wonders how the number of Marian apparitions can be increasing in frequency. I should like to mention here for the benefit of my Protestant readers that it used to be that the Church viewed these with scepticism and was very careful to investigate them thoroughly. Most investigations went no higher than local or diocesan level. Very few were authenticated.
Mary keeps appearing. Have you noticed? She keeps appearing. She descends from heaven to earth to make herself known to people. She comes quite frequently. She always comes with secret messages. She comes with secret messages for very isolated people …
The latest Pope, Pope Benedict XVI … said this, noted this, “In 1984 Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, the head of the Roman Catholic Church’s congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith,” that was where he came from, he came from being the doctrinal gate keeper of Roman Catholicism, “declared … : ‘One of the signs of our times is that the announcements of Mary in apparitions are multiplying all over the world,’” … He made this observation as a comment on the many reports of the appearances of the Blessed Virgin Mary to individuals located in a wide variety of countries, cultures and political systems. In fact, the last century and a half has seen numerous appearance of the Blessed Virgin, they say, and they have received official approval by the Roman Catholic Church …
A book in 1993 had about a thousand appearances of Mary that were documented thirty times in the eighteenth century, 200 times in the nineteenth century and 450 times in the twentieth century. So they are escalating at a rapid rate. Cardinal Meisner claims that Mary brought Christ to Europe from Fatima and one would ask where was he before that if she brought him? She visited a farm in Georgia, an office building in Clearwater, Florida, and a subway wall recently in Mexico City. She comes so often and she comes to the down and out and she comes to the little children, she comes to the peasant people and this validates the fact that she is this loving, sympathetic, merciful, tender-hearted compassionate person …
The only person if there is someone really appearing to them is right out of hell. This is demonic, for sure….for sure. But what assurances and what cleverness the demons offer for the deceived and the damned with their hellish counterfeits.
‘Mediatrix’
MacArthur quotes from the aforementioned documents, including Liguori’s book, as well as from the latest Catholic catechism from the 1990s — published during John Paul II’s papacy. No wonder so many of these notions — ‘New Eve’, ‘New Ark of the Covenant’ and ‘Co-Mediatrix’ — are so alien to me. When you read the quotes he uses, take note of the word ‘sovereign’ used in connection with Mary. He then offers the commentary below, based on what he reads to the congregation:
The point is, you go to Mary because Jesus can’t resist Mary. And Mary, because she’s so merciful, can’t resist you. Mary, claims the Church, can persuade God to grant what He otherwise wouldn’t grant …
You’re really banging on steel if you go to God yourself. Go to Mary and He listens to Mary …
You see, Roman Catholicism is pagan goddess worship, completely distracted. God is reinvented as judgmental, harsh. Christ is reinvented as indifferent. Everybody worships Mary …
She commands Jesus.
John Paul II
MacArthur tells us of the importance that Mary played in the late pope’s life from his childhood through to his papacy. He reads the congregation excerpts from some of John Paul II’s Marian thoughts and says:
Now that…that’s a pretty bold statement. She is not only the mediatrix of all grace, the channel through which all grace comes, the one to whom we go for everything, but she is even involved in our redemption …
Now I could go on and on with all of this, but I think you get the picture. The Church says nothing comes to us except through Mary’s mediation for such is God’s will. The Church says Mary is the most powerful mediatrix and advocate of the whole world with her divine Son.
http://www.catholic.com/library/Immaculate_Conception_and_Assum.asp
But what about Romans 3:23, “all have sinned”? Have all people committed actual sins? Consider a child below the age of reason. By definition he can’t sin, since sinning requires the ability to reason and the ability to intend to sin. This is indicated by Paul later in the letter to the Romans when he speaks of the time when Jacob and Esau were unborn babies as a time when they “had done nothing either good or bad” (Rom. 9:11).
We also know of another very prominent exception to the rule: Jesus (Heb. 4:15). So if Paul’s statement in Romans 3 includes an exception for the New Adam (Jesus), one may argue that an exception for the New Eve (Mary) can also be made.
Paul’s comment seems to have one of two meanings. It might be that it refers not to absolutely everyone, but just to the mass of mankind (which means young children and other special cases, like Jesus and Mary, would be excluded without having to be singled out). If not that, then it would mean that everyone, without exception, is subject to original sin, which is true for a young child, for the unborn, even for Mary—but she, though due to be subject to it, was preserved by God from it and its stain.
The more I try to understand the Catholic religion, the more I realize they hold no truth to scripture or they do not read the Bible.
Seems clear. Doesn’t it?
Yes, it does, but dogma is dogma.
Mary was a fallible human being who sinned (for all have sinned), and she obviously had sex with Joseph afterwards (which was not a sin.)
Her perpetual virginity is a quaint notion, but is contradicted by scripture in several places, including the one you have cited.
Tradition can never supplant scripture.
“Tradition can never supplant scripture.”
Amen.
http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/maryc2.htm
Fathers of the Church
Church Fathers from at least the fourth century spoke of Mary as having remained a virgin throughout her life:
Athanasius (Alexandria, 293-373);
Epiphanius (Palestine, 315?-403);
Jerome (Stridon, present day Yugoslavia, 345?-419);
Augustine (Numidia, now Algeria, 354-430);
Cyril (Alexandria, 376-444);
and others.
Teaching of the Universal Church
The Council of Constantinople II (553-554) twice referred to Mary as “ever-virgin.”
Protestant Reformers
The protestant reformers affirmed their belief that Mary, while remaining every-virgin, was truly the Mother of God. Here are only a few examples:
Martin Luther (1483-1546), On the Divine Motherhood of Mary, wrote:
In this work whereby she was made the Mother of God, so many and such great good things were given her that no one can grasp them. ... Not only was Mary the mother of him who is born [in Bethlehem], but of him who, before the world, was eternally born of the Father, from a Mother in time and at the same time man and God. (Weimer’s The Works of Luther, English translation by Pelikan, Concordia, St. Louis, v. 7, p. 572.)
Luther wrote on the Virginity of Mary:
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. (Weimer’s The Works of Luther, English translation by Pelikan, Concordia, St. Louis, v. 11, pp. 319-320; v. 6. p. 510.)
The French reformer John Calvin (1509-1564) also held that Mary was the Mother of God.
It cannot be denied that God in choosing and destining Mary to be the Mother of his Son, granted her the highest honor. ... Elizabeth called Mary Mother of the Lord, because the unity of the person in the two natures of Christ was such that she could have said that the mortal man engendered in the womb of Mary as at the same time the eternal God. (Calvini Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Braunschweig-Berlin, 1863-1900, v. 45, p. 348, 35.)
Calvin also up held the perpetual virginity of Mary, as did the Swiss reformer, Ulrich Zwingli (1484-1531), who wrote:
I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin. (Zwingli Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Berlin, 1905, v. 1, p. 424.)
Do you think you will be a non-Catholic until the day you die?
EXCELLENT.
Archived.
There's no need to explain things away by doing scriptural somersaults.
The Catholic line of reasoning regarding Mary has no scriptural basis, nor does it have any relevance to salvation or prayer.
In other words, all these things can be done without her intercession or involvement. Mariolatry is an unnecessary distraction, a spurious addendum to pure Christianty.
I'm not less of a Christian for believing that Mary was a fallible human being.
Let's hope the converse is also true...
http://www.defendingthebride.com/ma2/all.html
Actually if the word “all” could only mean “each and ever individual without exception,” then it would end up proving even more than what the Protestant would want it to. Since Jesus is fully human it would have to mean that He also sinned, but this is obviously false. Cf. Hebrews 4: 15. Once a person accepts an exception to the word “all” it then becomes impossible to prove that there are no other exceptions by simply quoting this same verse. The word “all” is to be understood in the collective sense rather than in the distributive sense to ever individual. In the collective sense it applies to some of all types, and allows for some exceptions.
Webster’s New International Dictionary second edition unabridged 1934, page 67, gives as the seventh definition for the word “all” as “Nearly the whole of; nearly every one of; - used hyperbolically; as, all men held John as a prophet.”
Luke 1:5-6
“… there was a priest named Zechariah … his wife … Elizabeth. Both were righteous in the eyes of God, observing all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blamelessly.” NAB
However, if one assumes that the word “all” does not allow for exceptions then, Zechariah and Elizabeth, who observed “all” the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blamelessly, are exceptions to “all have sinned” in Romans 3:23. However, if this person maintains that Zechariah and Elizabeth must have sinned in some way then he is forced to accept that the word “all” in Luke 1: 6 is to be understood so as to allow for some exception. Either way the word “all” must be allowed to be understood in the collective sense and permitting some exceptions. With that demonstrated it is no longer possible to maintain that the definition of the word “all” in Romans 3:23 never allows for exceptions.
But I'll try to make it to Heaven without sinful Mary's help.
Christ is sufficient for me; I need no other, and neither does any other human being, IMHO.
Have a nice day.
God saves whom He will. We do not need each other, we do not need the Body of Christ. We do not need communion with the saints. We do not need to bless each other, we do not need to pray for each other. We do not need... Church.
I see often a kind of minimalism in Protestantism - what is the least.. ?
However, there are other ways of looking at all that it means to be part of the Body of Christ. One is as a gift. Another is as compassion. Another is as helping each other and realizing that what one member of Christ's body does affects the whole body; how we treat each other, how we know and honor and pray for each other... all this is part of being One. And we cannot escape this, any more than we can escape the fact that what we do affects those who love us.
It’s not “mariolatry” and it’s not just Catholic.
http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/mary_perpetual_virgin.htm
Martin Luther on Mary’s Perpetual Virginity
“Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary’s virginal womb . . . This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that.”
{Luther’s Works, eds. Jaroslav Pelikan (vols. 1-30) & Helmut T. Lehmann (vols. 31-55), St. Louis: Concordia Pub. House (vols. 1-30); Philadelphia: Fortress Press (vols. 31-55), 1955, v.22:23 / Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 (1539) }
“Christ . . . was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him . . . I am inclined to agree with those who declare that ‘brothers’ really mean ‘cousins’ here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers.”
{Pelikan, ibid., v.22:214-15 / Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 (1539) }
“A new lie about me is being circulated. I am supposed to have preached and written that Mary, the mother of God, was not a virgin either before or after the birth of Christ . . .”
{Pelikan, ibid.,v.45:199 / That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew (1523) }
“Scripture does not say or indicate that she later lost her virginity . . .
When Matthew [1:25] says that Joseph did not know Mary carnally until she had brought forth her son, it does not follow that he knew her subsequently; on the contrary, it means that he never did know her . . . This babble . . . is without justification . . . he has neither noticed nor paid any attention to either Scripture or the common idiom.”
{Pelikan, ibid.,v.45:206,212-3 / That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew (1523) }
Editor Jaroslav Pelikan (Lutheran) adds:
Luther . . . does not even consider the possibility that Mary might have had other children than Jesus. This is consistent with his lifelong acceptance of the idea of the perpetual virginity of Mary.
{Pelikan, ibid.,v.22:214-5}
John Calvin on Mary’s Perpetual Virginity
“Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ’s ‘brothers’ are sometimes mentioned.”
{Harmony of Matthew, Mark & Luke, sec. 39 (Geneva, 1562), vol. 2 / From Calvin’s Commentaries, tr. William Pringle, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1949, p.215; on Matthew 13:55}
[On Matt 1:25:] “The inference he [Helvidius] drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband . . . No just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words . . . as to what took place after the birth of Christ. He is called ‘first-born’; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin . . . What took place afterwards the historian does not inform us . . . No man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation.”
{Pringle, ibid., vol. I, p. 107}
“Under the word ‘brethren’ the Hebrews include all cousins and other relations, whatever may be the degree of affinity.”
{Pringle, ibid., vol. I, p. 283 / Commentary on John, (7:3) }
Huldreich Zwingli
He turns, in September 1522, to a lyrical defense of the perpetual virginity of the mother of Christ . . . To deny that Mary remained ‘inviolata’ before, during and after the birth of her Son, was to doubt the omnipotence of God . . . and it was right and profitable to repeat the angelic greeting - not prayer - ‘Hail Mary’ . . . God esteemed Mary above all creatures, including the saints and angels - it was her purity, innocence and invincible faith that mankind must follow. Prayer, however, must be . . . to God alone . . .
‘Fidei expositio,’ the last pamphlet from his pen . . . There is a special insistence upon the perpetual virginity of Mary.
{G. R. Potter, Zwingli, London: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1976, pp.88-9,395 / The Perpetual Virginity of Mary . . ., Sep. 17, 1522}
Zwingli had printed in 1524 a sermon on ‘Mary, ever virgin, mother of God.’
{Thurian, ibid., p.76}
“I have never thought, still less taught, or declared publicly, anything concerning the subject of the ever Virgin Mary, Mother of our salvation, which could be considered dishonourable, impious, unworthy or evil . . . I believe with all my heart according to the word of holy gospel that this pure virgin bore for us the Son of God and that she remained, in the birth and after it, a pure and unsullied virgin, for eternity.”
{Thurian, ibid., p.76 / same sermon}
Heinrich Bullinger
Bullinger (d. 1575) . . . defends Mary’s perpetual virginity . . . and inveighs against the false Christians who defraud her of her rightful praise: ‘In Mary everything is extraordinary and all the more glorious as it has sprung from pure faith and burning love of God.’ She is ‘the most unique and the noblest member’ of the Christian community . . .
‘The Virgin Mary . . . completely sanctified by the grace and blood of her only Son and abundantly endowed by the gift of the Holy Spirit and preferred to all . . . now lives happily with Christ in heaven and is called and remains ever-Virgin and Mother of God.’
{In Hilda Graef, Mary: A history of Doctrine and Devotion, combined ed. of vols. 1 & 2, London: Sheed & Ward, 1965, vol.2, pp.14-5}
John Wesley (Founder of Methodism)
“The Blessed Virgin Mary, who, as well after as when she brought him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin.”
{”Letter to a Roman Catholic” / In This Rock, Nov. 1990, p.25}
“Again, your own personal opinion, and nothing more.”
And not very well informed opinions at that. Sad, even the “great” protestant reformers knew Holy Writ better than most of the attacking bigots here. Very sad.
Most Holy Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit,
behold us prostrate in Thy divine presence.
We humble ourselves profoundly
and beg of Thee the forgiveness of our sins.
I.
We adore Thee, Almighty Father,
and with hearts overflowing
we thank Thee that Thou hast given us
Thy Divine Son Jesus to be our Redeemer,
and that He hath bequeathed Himself to us
in the most august Eucharist
even to the end of the world,
revealing unto us the wondrous love of His Heart
in this mystery of faith and love.
Glory be to the Father,
and to the Son,
and to the Holy Ghost.
As it was in the beginning,
is now,
and ever shall be,
world without end.
Amen.
II.
O Word of God,
dear Jesus our Redeemer,
we adore Thee and with hearts over-flowing
we thank Thee for having taken human flesh upon Thee
and become for our redemption both Priest and Victim
in the sacrifice of the Cross,
a sacrifice which,
through the exceeding love of Thy Sacred Heart,
Thou dost renew upon our altars at every moment.
O High Priest,
O Divine Victim,
give us the grace to honour Thy holy sacrifice
in the most adorable Eucharist
with the homage of Mary most holy
and of all Thy holy Church,
triumphant, suffering and militant.
We offer ourselves wholly to Thee;
of Thine infinite goodness and mercy
do Thou accept our offering,
unite it to Thine own
and grant us Thy blessing.
Glory be to the Father,
and to the Son,
and to the Holy Ghost.
As it was in the beginning,
is now,
and ever shall be,
world without end.
Amen.
III.
O Divine Spirit the Paraclete,
we adore Thee and with hearts overflowing
we give Thee thanks that Thou hast,
with such great love for us,
wrought the ineffable blessing
of the Incarnation of the Word of God,
a blessing which is being continually extended
and enlarged in the most august Sacrament of the Eucharist.
Ah, by this adorable mystery of the love of the Sacred Heart of Jesus,
do Thou grant unto us and all poor sinners Thy holy grace.
Pour forth Thy holy gifts upon us
and upon all redeemed souls,
and in an especial manner upon the visible Head of the Church,
the supreme Roman Pontiff,
upon all Cardinals,
Bishops and Pastors of souls,
upon priests and all other ministers of Thy sanctuary.
Amen.
Glory be to the Father,
and to the Son,
and to the Holy Ghost.
As it was in the beginning,
is now,
and ever shall be,
world without end.
Amen.
Yes! I also pray for that man.Thanks! Merry Christmas to you! May God bless You! May You 2 Peter 3:18 Always! AMEN!
Why do you all quote Martin Luther? His belief about Mary came from his Catholic background but is not Lutheran doctrine.
There is absolutely no question about that. I have a firm belief that the Bible is Gods’ word and from what I hear on FR the Catholic religion has zero regard for the Bible.
I say this not out of spite, but as truth from what I perceive as a very misguided teaching.
>>>"Do you think you will be a non-Catholic until the day you die?"
There is absolutely no question about that.
Using the previous logic applied to scripture, this means that until you die you'll be non-Catholic, afterward, Catholic.
Why are the early Church Fathers wrong and you're right? Why is Catholic Tradition of the past 2,000 years wrong and you're right?
Why is Orthodox teaching about Mary wrong and you're right?
Why is Vegasrugrat right and all these sources wrong? Where does your authority come from? What makes it more reliable than theirs?
"Jesus again said to his apostles, “It is you who have stood by me in my trials, and I confer a kingdom on you, just as my Father has conferred one on me” (Luke 22:28-29). But who stood by him most faithfully? The apostles fled at Jesus’ arrest. Only one, the beloved disciple, dared to stand beneath the cross. But Mary stood by him there, and so he will confer the kingdom on her."
A sword shall pierce her heart. She Had to have a special Grace to go through it all. Any other woman would have been in a asylum. Just to know from the beginning that your own Son would be brutalized and murdered right before your eyes. No mother should go through this But Mary did. HOW MANY COULD DO WHAT MARY DID? NOT MANY AT ALL. We forget how special this woman is for all eternity. Praise Jesus And Hail Mary INDEED!!! AMEN! AMEN! AMEN!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.