Does Salvation.....

I'm just wondering how many folks here would venerate Mary, if they hadn't have been taught to.

I certainly wouldn't be venerating Mary if I wasn't taught to. I also wouldn't have accepted Jesus as my personal Lord and Saviour if I hadn't been taught to. I also wouldn't pray daily if I hadn't been taught to do so.

 

Really, that's what I told you?

 

What do you not understand about what I said? I was NOT, I repeat NOT taught to venerate Mary.

It was something I came to on my own, there were no proddings by ANY HUMAN person about it....NADA, NONE!

I really do resent you taking what I said and twisting it to suit your already determined outcome.


LaRae

 

Curtis, it's time to get real.

You started this thread and entitled it "Does salvation..."

Looking the opening post, we see the word salvation used only in reference to what a nun ssaid.

"..salvation always resulted in a love for Mary."


You have repeated dodged my very direct question which relates to the topic of this thread.

Does a love for Jesus include a love in some degree for the mother of Jesus?

Will you please answer this question specificly and directly?

 

Bro Curtis:

How can you have Jesus for your brother (comes with salvation) and not have his mother as your own? Jesus showed this reality to John at the foot of the cross.

God Bless

 

Curtis, you may not think that you are twisting words here, but it is obvious that you are lacking in the skill necessary to accurately represent what another person says.

Take your above sentence. Sister Angelica would not say that you love Mary after salvation. How do I know this? Because Catholics don't view salvation as a one time instantaneous event in a persons life. We have salvation after we have run the race, not half way through.

So I seriously doubt that what you have represtented Sisters words very accurately.

Now again, do you deny that a love for Jesus also includes some degree of love for the mother of Jesus?

 

Brother Curtis again presents what he calls an innocent question that he asks to seek "information," but then upon response, as we have all seen, he tells us we did something that we have never said we did. He has an agenda. He will deny it and deny it, but it is undeniable.

He lays traps, that we saw through from the beginning, denies them, and then proceeds to tell us his true intention (though not outright) when he makes the statement like "Oh look, see, you had to be COAXED to love Mary."

What Christian does not love Mary? Because that is all Mother Angelica said. And unless God revealed to you apart from Scripture and the teachings passed down to you as a child and onward, you were TOLD about Jesus and all that He did and you accepted these through faith.

Please, folks, abandon this thread. We have answered his question, but his question had motives that he refuses to admit. The answers are clear. Let him read them or move on.

 

Twist that truth, brother! Here is what I said:

it was NEVER pushed on me.

And you translate that as "kinda had to be coaxed."

You don't listen to people, Curtis, when it doesn't suit your needs.

And the reason I was hesitant at first was because my Protestant upbringing would have had me pay no attention to Mary if at all possible, anything to not be like "those Catholics." That's not love, and based on the way you are disrespecting our Blessed Mother makes me feel that you have no love for her. You certainly refused to share your feelings about her once or twice already in this thread. Heaven forbid you just love her and tell others that you do, right?

 

I just briefly read this thread and perhaps might direct our thoughts towards the intent of Curtis' post. If you look at the last line of his initial post he says, "Was it immediate or did you have to be discipled into it?"

I really think that is what he wants to know. He does not appear to be asking who discipled you into it. He does not appear to be asking by what means you came to this knowledge. He is asking if it was the immediate result of salvation or if it came over time through some discipleship process.

He says that his impression of this lady's speech was that it was an immediate occurrence. He said, Look folks, the way this woman presented it, her love for Mary was sudden, immediate after salvation, and that a person could not help loving Mary after salvation. And I am wondering if that was everbody's experience. (November 05, 2003 04:07 PM). Why not just take that at face value??

As to Ron's question, "Does a love for Jesus include a love in some degree for the mother of Jesus?, the answer is no,, if by "love" you mean the veneration that Catholics have for her. "Some degree of love" is pretty vague. She is a sister in Christ by virtue of her faith in the Christ as her Savior. She is no more than that biblically speaking. She has no special place above other all of us other saints per se. She was a sinner just like we are who received a Savior just like we did.

I think you guys are overreacting here and reading way more than what is actually there.

 

Your view of salvation seems to contradict that of Carson Weber:

Which view is an accurate portrayal of Catholic sotierology? Is it an event followed by a lifelong process of prayer, study, and sanctification? Or, is it a process with no particular act or moment of acceptance/decision?

 

Even though this question wasn't directed at me, I would like to answer.

I can have Christ for my brother in the spiritual adoption sense of Romans 8 but not have His mother as my own in the same way I can have Pastor Larry and Curtis as spiritual brothers without having their mothers as my own.

Mary was a good (but not sinless) woman blessed with being God's vessel for giving birth to the physical Jesus. Jesus' words establish a physical care relationship between the beloved disciple and Mary. Attempts to extend that relationship to the spiritual bond between Christ and all believers does violence to the passage. The notion also lacks support from the rest of Scripture.

 

If this is the case then Jesus should have said, "John, take care of your 'sister' Mary."

Instead Jesus said:

John 19:26
When Jesus then saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing nearby, He *said to His mother, "Woman, behold, your son!"

John 19:27
Then He *said to the disciple, "Behold, your mother!" From that hour the disciple took her into his own household.

God Bless

 

Scott J.:
To say Jesus words established merely a physical care relationship between the beloved disciple and Mary discounts Jesus own words. Jesus presented the fact that Mary was the disciples ‘mother’ and the disciple was Mary’s own ‘son’.

In a "physical care relationship" a grown man does not need a mother. Because Jesus is our spritual brother, Mary is necessarily our spiritual mother. Jesus points this out to John. Like I said earlier, Jesus could have said, “John, take care of your ‘sister’ Mary.” Jesus Christ himself clearly showed what the true relationship was.

God Bless

 

Which view is an accurate portrayal of Catholic sotierology? Is it an event followed by a lifelong process of prayer, study, and sanctification? Or, is it a process with no particular act or moment of acceptance/decision? [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]Lifelong.

Carson did not say, "I would not have been saved", he said, "I would not have accepted Jesus as my Lord and Savior."

You are reading meaning into his words. Carson does not accept the belief of salvation as coming from an instantaneous one time expression of faith.

Again, lifetime.

 

Actually his question was about "going to Mary in matters of faith".

Why not accept the question that he posed as he posed it?

Like pointed out, his paraphased quote was about loving Mary, he spun it into something else until called on it.

Sister Angelica said "love", not veneration.

Why don't you accept it at face value?

Why do you want to change it?

 

Originally Curtis said that salvation resulted in a love for Mary. There was nothing immediate about the way he wrote. And considering he is not quoting, he can't remember the station, and he didn't remember who was saying it, I'm hard-pressed to believe the "immediacy" that he speaks of also. He says she "seemed" to speak of it in this way. Can you quote, or even paraphrase? What is the reason of using her as a base if we don't even have a single solid thing from her to base it on?

No, a "Catholic-type" love for Mary does not result immediately, and I'm almost positive she wouldn't have meant it this way, because we realize that understanding is a gradual process born of faith; we don't have instant revelation - it takes reading and learning and praying. From the evidence we have, she seems to imply that this love of Jesus "results" in a love for His Mother.