Mary's blood ransomed the world!?

Hello Grant --

You are correct. I was not saying that the beliefs are extreme. But the language is intemperate at best and at worst, in a Protestant perspective, scandalous.

You must realize that for those who have NEVER been Catholic, never been given any idea of the motherhood of the Blessed Virgin, or have any concept of the Church's early teachings, such as the quote which Carson gave from the fourth century, these kinds of statements seem completely disconnected from the larger body of Scripture.

The issue then becomes whether Scripture is all encompassing and complete just as written, or if there are underlying themes which must be exegeted out of it. The Blessed Virgin as the New Eve is one of those themes, and it is particularly well hidden to those who are not trained to see it in Scripture. So for Baptists and others who have never been trained for this kind of thinking and are unfamiliar with the mindset of the first, second, and third century Church, it just looks like idol worship, plain and simple.

As I said, even for me, as a very young convert to the faith, these quotes absolutely make me WINCE!! I am simply not used to this kind of overflowing of praise and honor which seems to take the place of our Lord, and it is going to take a long time for me to "think Catholic" and retool my understanding.

The Marian doctrines are by far the largest hurdle which most Protestants have to clear on the last lap to "Swim the Tiber". The kind of language which Liguouri and others have used in the past is most certainly NO HELP AT ALL in overcoming these difficulties. It's like teaching a five year old to swim by tossing him into the Atlantic Ocean in the middle of a typhoon!!

Brother Ed

 

Ed,

I agree. But once you cross that gap, they are really enjoyable reads.

God bless,

Grant

 

And powerful prayers that glorify God in his most sublime work of creation.

 

Actually, my Baptist beliefs were not handed to me or impressed upon me. I grew up Pentecostal. However, as I studied the Bible, I saw that some of the things they believed and taught were not Biblical. I have never liked labels or denominations, but after some study, the Baptist label best fits in my view what Scripture teaches. However, I don't go around saying, "I'm a Baptist, I'm right!" I prefer just to be known as a Christian who is Baptistic in his theology.

Neal

 

Ed, Thanks for your honest words. It is hard for me to read some of those things without saying, "WHAT IS THAT"!!! I thank you also for your perspective on the new Eve and new Adam relationship. You have said it before and I have brushed it off. I will pray about it and see if I can make that idea make sense to me. Even if I don't accept it I think I would like to understand it better. I think this thread is ending well even if it hit a good thump in the middle of the road.

In Christ,
Brian

 

Hey Tragic,

Here is the original quote:

It was first from her veins that the blood was drawn which now lies scattered cheaply about, but which has ransomed the world. That Precious Blood will henceforth flow through the Mystical Body, forcing life, so to speak, into every crevice of it...In that moment, those Sacred Hearts entered into a union so close as to approach identity. Henceforth, they will beat together in and for the Mystical Body. Thereby Mary has become the Mediatrix of all Graces, the Spiritual Vessel which receives and gives our Lord's Most Precious Blood.

This quote DOES cut out major context. Let's look again at the FULL quote, which we were originally not given:

That moment of our death is represented by a cross, all dripping with blood, upon which our head has just finished his work. At the foot of the cross stands a figure, so desolate that it seems impossible for her to continue to live. That woman is the mother alike of the Redeemer and of the redeemed. It was first from her veins that the blood was drawn which now lies scattered cheaply about, but which has ransomed the world. That Precious Blood will henceforth flow through the Mystical Body, forcing life, so to speak, into every crevice of it. But all the consequences of this flowing must be understood, so that they can be applied. That precious stream brings to the soul the likeness of Christ; but it is the Christ complete: not merely the Christ of Bethlehem and Thabor - the Christ of joy and glory, but as well the Christ of pain and sacrifice - the Christ of Calvary.

Every Christian should be made to realise that he cannot pick and choose in Christ. Mary realised this fully even in the joyful Annunciation. She knew that she was not invited to become only a Mother of Joys, but the Woman of Sorrows as well. But she had always given herself utterly to God, and now she received him completely. With full knowledge, she welcomed that infant life with all it stood for. She was no less willing to endure anguish with him than she was to taste bliss with him. In that moment, those Sacred Hearts entered into a union so close as to approach identity. Henceforth, they will beat together in and for the Mystical Body. Thereby Mary has become the Mediatrix of all Graces, the Spiritual Vessel which receives and gives our Lord's Most Precious Blood. As it was with Mary, so shall it be with all her children. The degree of man's utility to God will always be the closeness of his union with the Sacred Heart, whence he can draw deeply of the Precious Blood to bestow it on other souls. But that union with the heart and blood of Christ is not to be found in a phase of his life, but in the life entire. It is as futile, as it is unworthy, to welcome the King of Glory and to repulse the Man of Sorrows, for the two are but the one Christ. He who will not walk with the Man of Sorrows has no part in his mission to souls, nor share in its sequel of glory.

First off, for being Catholic theology, those of you adamently against it might find this line intriguing:

"That moment of our death is represented by a cross, all dripping with blood, upon which our head has just finished his work."

What?! Catholics believe that Christ's work was finished on the cross?! HOW CAN THIS BE? Think about that next time you claim that we don't.

Now, onto the good stuff. It never calls Mary the redeemer, or that her blood redeemed us, for the line previous to the original quote states:

"That woman is the mother alike of the Redeemer and of the redeemed."

She is the mother of the Redeemer, not the redeemer herself. So the original quote was elaborating on the fact that she was the mother of the Redeemer, than his human blood was taken from Mary's. She was Jesus' physical mother. She is the mother of the redeemer. The language used is very passionate, but taken into the context of the line that proceeded it, it's clear that this was nothing more than an elaboration on her maternity.

Now we have the second half from the original quote:

"In that moment, those Sacred Hearts entered into a union so close as to approach identity. Henceforth, they will beat together in and for the Mystical Body. Thereby Mary has become the Mediatrix of all Graces, the Spiritual Vessel which receives and gives our Lord's Most Precious Blood."

These two lines from the original quote were not meant to directly follow one another. Because, what is "that moment" that is being referred to? Taken from the original quotation, you can't really answer that. But look at the context. How do they approach identity?

"That precious stream brings to the soul the likeness of Christ; but it is the Christ complete: not merely the Christ of Bethlehem and Thabor - the Christ of joy and glory, but as well the Christ of pain and sacrifice - the Christ of Calvary."

The blood of Christ, which is our salvation, which clothes us in Christ, makes us in the likeness of Christ. That means we have His joy, but also His sorrow. We have moments of grace and love, but we also have moments of persecution for our faith. Now, the original quotation had us believe that somehow this union was for Jesus and Mary only. The context says otherwise:

"Every Christian should be made to realise that he cannot pick and choose in Christ."

So, now we are dealing with every Christian, not just one. So how does Mary come into play? She is a role model for how this should work:

"Mary realised this fully even in the joyful Annunciation. She knew that she was not invited to become only a Mother of Joys, but the Woman of Sorrows as well. But she had always given herself utterly to God, and now she received him completely. With full knowledge, she welcomed that infant life with all it stood for. She was no less willing to endure anguish with him than she was to taste bliss with him."

When Mary presented Jesus to the temple in the Gospel of Luke, she was told that a sword would pierce her side also. Not literally, but emotionally. She would suffer the loss of her Son. She would be in pain. But she willingly pushed forward anyway. Like all us, Mary, in her love for her Son, became like Christ, in Him and through Him.

Do you not believe that God the Father sees us as holy and righteous BECAUSE OF CHRIST JESUS? When God sees good in us, what He is seeing is Jesus in us. Approaching identity.

Again, in regards to us all:

"As it was with Mary, so shall it be with all her children. The degree of man's utility to God will always be the closeness of his union with the Sacred Heart, whence he can draw deeply of the Precious Blood to bestow it on other souls."

Hopefully that helps explain this better. Please let me know!

God bless,

Grant

 

Rev.1
[5] And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood </font>[/QUOTE]Thank you for your redundancy. Your blood came from your parents, but it is still your blood.

Jesus' blood came from Mary, but it was still His own blood. I have just established the purpose of your quotation from Legion of Mary is to show her maternal relationship with Christ, not that she was the Redeemer, for the context which you did not provide states clearly that she is not the Redeemer, but merely the mother of the Redeemer.

God bless,

Grant

 

Some of you fellas need to go through Human Anatomy one more time---the blood comes from the father of the child.

Blackbird

 

Huh?

 

Some of you fellas need to go through Human Anatomy one more time---the blood comes from the father of the child.

And you should go through theology one more time: Jesus didn't have an earthly father. His flesh came from his only human parent, and His divinity came from his only divine parent.

 

Hebrews 9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

I don't know what the argument is about. O.T. law only required animal blood. That certainly was not divine blood. Another animal had to be sacrificed for each time.

But Christ's blood took care of all sin. That could not have been human blood, but a most powerful, cleansing wave. That could only have come from God, as Mary was human. Her blood was never divine.

 

No one is arguing that Mary's own individual blood ransomed the world.

Only Jesus' blood, which was united to the divinity through the hypostatic union, was able to ransom us.

Now, we are able to say, by extension, that Jesus obtained his human nature by being born of Mary, and the human side of his blood, which is inseparably united to the divinity, was certainly obtained from his mother.

 

Curtis, you don't believe that Jesus was also man?

 

As I said before, I find these verses informative:

Mat 11:11 Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.

Luk 7:28 For I say unto you, Among those that are born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist: but he that is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.

 

He was perfectly God, and perfectly man. I thought I was sticking up for the cats on this one. I have never read anything about Mary's blood in any catechism. I have never read anything in the RCC's teachings that preach ANY blood, save for Christ's own.

 

Would you care to share your insight?

 

Of course not, but you can find this in any Gynecologist books

Armando

 

Originally posted by Curtis:
He was perfectly God, and perfectly man. I thought I was sticking up for the cats on this one. I have never read anything about Mary's blood in any catechism. I have never read anything in the RCC's teachings that preach ANY blood, save for Christ's own. </font>[/QUOTE]You previously said, "But Christ's blood took care of all sin. That could not have been human blood"

My point being if it could not have been "human" blood, then it would appear that you are saying that Jesus was not also "human".

So it was "human" blood if Jesus is also human.

 

Well, I agree that the blood was from a human, a human bled that blood. But there had to be a little sumpthin' extra in it, would you agree ?