Jesus Repudiates Mariolatry

Indeed. Why else would the angel say "Blessed are you among women"? Have you ever had an angel say to you, "Blessed are you among men", Webdog?

 

That's idolatry, friend. I'll one up you. God chose Abraham, through which His chosen people...and the Messiah...EVEN Mary...would be born from. Is Mary more blessed than him?

I don't see that happening, so I won't worry about it. I recall Jesus' disciples worrying about who was going to be on His right hand side, and He basically shot them down. If He called His own "blessed" mother "woman" throughout the NT, and referred to the Apostle John the one He loves...I doubt she'll be there.

 

Yes, my wife

 

Is Mary the only woman blessed among women ?

Ge 30:13
And Leah said, Happy am I, for the daughters will call me blessed: and she called his name Asher


Jud 5:24
Blessed above women shall Jael the wife of Heber the Kenite be, blessed shall she be above women in the tent

What did Jesus say about this blessed woman ?

Luke 11:27-28
27 And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked. 28 But he said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it

 

Matthew 12:

48 But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren? 49 And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! 50For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother!

What a Blasphemy to your Holy Mother, by Jesus our Lord ?

9. How did Jesus call Mary ? Read John 2:4 " Woman", Read John 19:26 " Woman" Why didn't He call her Mother ? He must have shown some good example for the people, right ?


Is your Holy Mother not a whorish imagination by the goddess worshippers?

 

...and as such it is forbidden by the Catholic Church.

(PS - indulge this dumb Limey - what does 'MK' stand for?)

 

From another dumb Limey, who has only come across "MK" on the Baptist Board, I think it stands for "Millenial Kingdom," a term used by those who believe that Jesus Christ will rule over an earthly kingdom for a literal one thousand years.

 

Thanks, David. I thought for a moment that it stood for Milton Keynes! I'm not sure therefore that the analysis of the previous poster is correct re the stained glass window, since IIRC Catholics (along with most mainline denominations) do not believe in the Millenial Kingdom (something in the Nicene Creed along the lines of "...and His kingdom will have no end"); more likely it was an elaborate version of the bog-standard 'Madonna with Child' representation, with which I don't personally have a problem - I certainly wouldn't call it 'revolting'.

 

Webdog,

I had pointed out that Mary had the unique privilege of conceiving and giving birth to God Incarnate. I also said, "Of all the people who had ever been, God the Word chose to take His humanity from her when He became man. You don't think that's pretty special--and a good reason for all subsequent generations to call her uniquely blessed?"

And you replied with this....

How is it "idolatry" to simply point out these obvious facts about Mary in her unique relation to Christ as a reason for her to be called uniquely "blessed"?

Was Elizabeth being "idolatrous" when she, being filled with the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:41), exclaimed: "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! But why is it granted to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" (Luke 1:42-43)

Abraham is particularly blessed and honored by God, no doubt. However, even he didn't directly conceive and give birth to God Incarnate. He didn't carry God the Word in his womb for nine months. :laugh:
(So I don't see how you are "one upping" me...or Mary)


I then asked this question: "So, suppose you were to see her on Christ's right hand in the kingdom. Would you not then concede that's a position of high honor?"

To which you replied...

Actually, although Christ may have "shot down" James and John in a sense when they asked (or their mother asked) if they could sit on His right and left side in His kingdom, Christ did not dismiss the notion that there was such position(s) of honor on His right side (and left) in His kingdom. In fact, Christ said about such a position(s): "But to sit on My right hand and on My left is not Mine to give, but it is for those for whom it is prepared by My Father." (Matt 20:23).

(*For a strong biblical hint about who it is that we may find on Christ's right hand in His kingdom, see my response to skypair below)

And this way of so addressing her was a term of respect and endearment as many Prostestant commentators acknowledge.

Really? Where did He do that? Are you sure you didn't mean to say that John referred to himself as the "disciple Jesus loved"?

See my response to skypair below about this possibility*....

So how is it mutually exclusive to suppose that, in God's providential ordering of history and in His foreknowledge, He arranged it so that in the "fulness of time" the one whom He chose to bear God the Word, was not only of the house of David (along with Joseph), but was also the one who had the holy and godly "character" (in response to God's grace) commisurate with the awesome privilege of carrying the Incarnate Deity, the Bread of Life, in her womb? I don't see how this is mutually exclusive at all--God in His foreknowledge and providence could certainly have arranged for Mary to have the both the character (her humble holiness) and the credentials (her lineage) to conceive, carry, and give birth to God the Word Incarnate in the "fulness of time".

I had said...
"So, suppose you were to see her on Christ's right hand in the kingdom. Would you not then concede that's a position of high honor? "

To which you replied...

*Psalm 45:9: "King's daughters are among Your honorable women; At Your right hand stands the queen in gold from Ophir".

This is a messianic Psalm. Read the whole thing, particularly noting v. 6 and 7: "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; a scepter of righteousness in the scepter of Your kingdom. You love righteousness and hate wickedness; Therefore God, Your God, has annointed You..."

The writer of Hebrews applies this Psalm to CHRIST (Hebrews 1:8,9). So the question is: Who is the queen who stands at the right hand of the Messiah? Well, to the OT readers of this psalm, this would likely bring to mind the queen mother (the 'gebirah' or "great lady") who in the Davidic kingdom held a position of high honor and authority and who was often seated at the right hand of the king's throne and who ruled underneath the king (1 King 2:17-20; 1 King 15:13; Jeremiah 13:18; and numerous other mentions of the Judean king's mother in the books of Kings and Chronicles). With this Jewish background in mind, it therefore would not have been unnatural for early Christians to see faithful Mary as being the fulfillment of the queen in this Psalm--the queen mother of the New Covenant Kingdom--particularly given her loyalty to her Son through His sufferings at the cross (when Christ specifically declared to John that Mary was now his mother too) and her presence with the Apostles on the Day of Pentecost.

Whether or not there are or have been folks who have engaged in "full blown worship to her", I am not arguing for that. I'm not even arguing for specific RC dogmas such as the Immaculate Conception or the Assumption, nor endorsing such titles as "mediatrix" or "co-redemptrix".

All I'm suggesting is that if many Roman Catholics come dangerously close (at least in practice, if not in dogma) of making a "goddess" out of our Lady, many sectarian Protestants overract by completely dismissing her unique role and privilege and thus refuse to appropriately honor her altogether.

 

Grace and Peace,

I'm going to support the uniqueness of Mary as the Theotokos because it predates this notion that she is nothing more and nothing less than fallen humanity.

The union between the infinite and the finite was achieved in and through this living Ark, this living Gate of Heaven through which Salvation enters into our fallen world and even through our fallen nature to extend the divine participation to all creation.

I'm not sure we necessarily 'have' to agree with Catholic doctrines which developed later (namely the immaculate conception) in order to recognize that 'nothing' sinful participates in the divine nature and Mary participated in the most unique and most intimate way possible... to be the bearer of God. Whither she was sinful or not the participation in and with the Incarnation 'most' have been the deepest encounter with the divine nature outside of Christ himself. I personally hold the Theotokos in the highest esteem of all the creatures of God because He choose 'her' as the Gateway for our Salvation. Jesus Christ 'is' the Almighty God, the second person of the Holy Trinity. It is folly to see Him as anything less. To compare or confuse Mary's role in our Salvation with His is, in some sense, to misunderstand Him as God. Whatever mediator-ship rests in Him is through His union with our humanity not in His role between man and God as an advocate because such notions confuse whom is to judge us on the Last Day. For our Judge 'is' Christ because Christ is Lord. Jesus 'is' God. We cannot confuse this point for we fall into heresy. Understanding Jesus in this light we no longer threaten Him, as God, with recognizing Mary and the other's who were made righteous through their participation, with God.

I expect a great deal of rebuke on these points and I will humbly ask that you extend to me your patience and charity while we continue to dialogue.

Be Well.

 

Beautifully well said, brother. :thumbs:

 

Sinful man can not stand in the presence of God -- Moses could not see anything other than God's back.

Christ was seen by all and sinners stood in his presence. All arguments that insist that Mary must have had a different physical or spiritual nature than mankind because God can not be touched by sin - are arguments that ignore the fact that in the incarnation Christ was the bridge - not Mary. Christ is the ark - not Mary. Christ spans the gap between God and man - not Mary.

This does not take any of the blessing of Mary's situation away from her - it simply puts God in His role and Mary in hers.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Amen:applause:

 

To claim one sinful one must have first sinned personally. A child is innocent, though lacking a nature rightly formed to do or even will the good. It, regardless, is innocent from any personal offense toward God Almighty nor has it turned toward corruption by will or deed. Though it may be inevitable that, without the aid of God, it will stain this innocence by personal sin all are born in this state of innocence, though lacking the pure nature of the newly created Adam it has not offended God nor has it yet turned to corruption.

What would it then take for man to remain incorruptible? The Presence of God alone is the remedy for the corruption of man. It is in our 'universal' lack of God's presence that man finds himself 'universally' corrupt. Does this mean that God cannot choose individuals to remain incorruptible? I do not believe it is impossible and in fact we see examples of God's presence even after the fall extending the lives of Adam, Eve, Noah and Abraham beyond what is possible through it's physical nature alone (120 years). Incorruption and Immortality is a gift extended by God to man because it is not within the inherent nature of any physical thing to remain uncorrupted (i.e. unchanged).

Understanding this we can begin to look beyond the mere legalism of 'sin', 'sinner', and 'righteousness' and 'the righteous' and begin to see that their are 'degrees' in which God might participate in our earthly life. Fore some, like John the Baptist and our Mother in Faith Mary, The Birth-giver of God we witness lives with God intimately present. Could we than call these individuals 'righteous'? Absolutely for even the Scriptures have done so. In particular, I can find at no point when the Holy Ghost was not present in the life of the Forerunner of our Lord, John the Baptist. Not one day. Before his 'birth' God dwelt with him... until his death. I see no reason not to recognize the perfection of Mary at the very instant of the indwelling of the Spirit.

From Apostolic times and to our days all who truly love Christ give veneration to Her who gave birth to Him, raised Him and protected Him in the days of His youth. If God the Father chose Her, God the Holy Ghost descended upon Her, and God the Son dwelt in Her, submitted to Her in the days of His youth, was concerned for Her when hanging on the Cross... then should not everyone who confesses the Holy Trinity vernerate Her?

I wish only to share with you a translation of an ancient hymn:

Mary the Dawn, Christ the Perfect Day;
Mary the Gate, Christ the Heavenly Way!

Mary the root, Christ the Mystic Vine;
Mary the Grape, Christ the Sacred Wine!

Mary the Wheat, Christ the Living-Bread;
Mary the Stem, Christ the Rose blood-red!

Mary the Font, Christ the Cleansing Flood;
Mary the Cup, Christ the Saving Blood!

Mary the Temple, Christ the temple's Lord;
Mary the Shrine, Christ the God adored!

Mary the Beacon, Christ the Haven's Rest;
Mary the Mirror, Christ the Vision Blest!

Mary the Mother, Christ the mother's Son
By all things blest while endless ages run.

Marology affirms Christology. The two cannot be separated without harm nor should they be twisted to give greater glory to the Bearer of God than to God Himself.

She is the fleshly Gate of Heaven from which the King enters His Creation. I see no error in claiming this truth and neither did the Christians who sang it 1500 years ago.

 

No argument from me there, either, bro'. :thumbs:

PS: your avatar - chap with beard - does this mean that you're another victim of The Orthodox PlotTM?

 

No, I'm not Eastern Orthodox, I just read a lot of 'first sources' and seek a consensus of the Faith. I'm obviously influenced by the THE WESLEYAN QUADRILATERAL.

But reading Jaroslav Pelikan doesn't help much either... :laugh:

BTW, why is it that Catholics stress a unique 'nature' in Mary? I don't see this in early Marology. Where does it originate?

 

Thanks, you sound like me !

Re Catholic stressing of Mary's unique 'nature', you may be surprised but as an ex-Catholic (well, about 100 years ago it seems!), I have no real idea, but I suspect it comes from an overdevelopment of Mariology ie: if Mary bore Christ Who was without sin, then a brand of logic would suggest that she had to be without sin likewise, hence the later doctrines of the Immaculate Conception and Assumption. Although the Orthodox have a 'high' view of Mary, they don't accept either of these later Catholic dogmas (which is why there are so many churches and cathedrals of the Dormition (of the Blessed Virgin) in Orthodox lands).

 

Perhaps it was a natural outgrowth of the growing emphasis of Augustinian Anthropology on the Western Church during the High Scholastic Period?

Yes but they still see her as a Mediatrix of All Graces... look at St. Gregory Palamas' Homily on the Dormation...

Dormation homily

Do you believe this is going 'over the top' as Catholicism does?