Mary's blood ransomed the world!?

Mary has two knees--and both of those will be bended on Heaven's floor as she gives glory to Jesus Christ alone! He'll not share His glory with any other! She'll be dressed just like me on that day--clothed--not in her righteousness(which is nothin' but filty rags) but in the righteousness of God's(not Mary's) dear Son!

And the blood?? Ephesians says that the church was purchased with God's own blood! Not Mary's but God's!

Blackbird

 

Blackbird, you have been snookered by the deceptive title of this thread.

A brand new slanderous lie about Catholic beliefs has been invented and presented as truth on this board.

I am dismayed at the number of people who have been taken in by this lie even though it was immediatley taken to task.

The quoted text does not say what the author of this thread wishes for you to believe.

I hope that truth loving forum participants will see how this lie has been so readily accepted by some, and begin to wonder about the origin of some of the other derogatory claims made against the Church.

I hope that this demonstration in deception here, will cause some to accept slander about the beliefs of others just a little bit less readily in the future.

 

Hey Guys, A couple quotes above really stuck out. This one may be the hardest to grasp:

"""O Virgin most holy, none abounds in the knowledge of God except through thee; none, O Mother of God, obtains salvation except through thee, none receives a gift from the throne of mercy except through thee." - Pope Leo XIII, Adiutricem Populi""

Is this accurate? or is this a "Chick Tract" fabrication. I will not comment until someone lets me know.

To my Catholic friends in Christ. Keep in mind as you argue for your beliefs about Mary that we non Catholics see Mary as invading on the one on one relationship we share with Jesus. We just can't imagine letting a third person in on that relationship. I know you guys hold Mary very dear and I refuse to "throw stones" out of respect for your feelings. Some may say I am selling out, I just don't see it that way.

In Christian love,
Brian

 

Hi, Brian. How do you feel about the title of the thread "Mary's blood ransomed the world!?" and the "ransomed by her blood" in terms of honesty?

Do you see either as being a distortion of the actual quoted text?

If you see those words as misrepresntation, does it concern you?

 

This may just be the crux of the problem.

Thinking that respect and love for the Mother of God is an invasion of the one on one relationship with Jesus.

Is that how you see God wishing it to be. Kind of reminds me of the little kid who pushes his little brother down and says, "No! My daddy!"

Do you imagine that God wishes us to greedily and selfishly imagine that we are the only one to have a relationship with Him?

If the family is supposed to be the model of our relationship with God, shouldn't we all then have no mother and no brothers and sisters?

 

Some how this doesn't ring true. Seems like it would be more honest to say, "Sorry."

Perhaps you could explain the other part.

"Get ready for the two-sided double talking "Vatican shuffle" on this one."

Such a "shuffle" would be unnecessary if "ransomed by her blood" were merely just another bigotted anti-Catholic hatefilled lie.

Apparently you think that a "Vatican shuffle" is needed. Apparently you got taken in by the slanderous lie. Maybe even contributed to it by repeating it as though it were true?

Like I said, it seems like it would be more honest to say, "Sorry."

 

</font>[/QUOTE]That depends. Are you satisfied with the explanation for the first part? I'm not going to try to tackle everything at once.</font>[/QUOTE]Satisfied? I suppose. The explanantion does nothing to clear away the obvious problems with the text, and was unnneccesary without coupling it to the "second part," but if that's what i get it's what I get.

 

Please note, by the way, that I am not arguing the "ransomed by her blood" thing. I'm trying to understand this apparent veneration of Mary to a station at least coequal with Christ.

And no one has as yet answered Briguy's question.

Looking at Carson's post about the state of Mary at the Resurrection, though, I'm not sure any further communication is neccesary. It kind of says it all.

 

Trajic,

"I'm trying to understand this apparent veneration of Mary to a station at least coequal with Christ."

If I find someone from a denomination that believes this I will send them your way.

Briguy,

"we non Catholics see Mary as invading on the one on one relationship we share with Jesus. We just can't imagine letting a third person in on that relationship. "

Sounds like a jealousy thing to me. We are the body of Christ. When another Christian on this loves Jesus and prays for you, is that invading your space also. When you get to heaven are you going to have this kind of animosity toward the Lord's mother? When a child is born in to my family does it decrease the love in the family? Does it decrease my love for my wife or should it make me jealous that the child loves her also? I am not even going to bother to answer the questions here because the quote above is so ridiculously petty and not of God.


On you BVM quote by Pope Leo XIII

I think a little context is in order. Let's post the whole thing:

"9. Since faith is the foundation, the source, of the gifts of God by which man is raised above the order of nature and is endowed with the dispositions requisite for life eternal, we are in justice bound to recognize the hidden influence of Mary in obtaining the gift of faith and its salutary cultivation-of Mary who brought the "author of faith"[Hebr. 12:1] into this world and who, because of her own great faith, was called "blessed." "O Virgin most holy, none abounds in the knowledge of God except through thee; none, O Mother of God, attains salvation except through thee; none receives a gift from the throne of mercy except through thee."[St. Germ. Constantinop., Orat. 11, in Dortnitione B.M.V.]"


Do you deny that Jesus came in to the world through the virgin Mary? Thus our salvaiton comes through her. Now you can speculate all you want that if she had said no, God would have simply had someone else do it. That she was just something he used for his purposes and cast aside. But the fact is that she was a special creation by him. forordained from all eternity to bear his Son. It is not idolatry to say our knowledge of him comes through her because he came to this world through her. OUr salvatoin comes through her because he came through her in to this world. That does not say that we are saved by her. Get it right.

[ February 12, 2003, 09:56 AM: Message edited by: thessalonian ]

 

*sigh*

The above is that which I refer to.

 

Catholics will never convince non-catholics that Mary is the mediatrix. There is absolutely no scripture for this. This is a man made doctrine.

Mary was not a martyr as some try to say. Mary did not shed her blood for the redemption of man.
The blood in a child does not come from the mother but the Father and in Jesus' case his Father was and is God. His blood came from God. This blood was shed on the cross. This God blood.

Why don't catholics go back and study history and realize that after the flood there was a very wicked woman named Semiramsis that was married to Nimrod. When Nimrod died she married her own son Tammuz. She proclaimed Tammuz a God. Noah's son killed Tammuz for this abomination. Thereafter she proclaimed that Tammuz was virgin born and she was the Madonna and thus became the worship of Madonna and Child. The only difference is she claimed to be a Goddess.

Every ancient religion has had a madonna and child. The difference is that these madonna's are all divine or a deity.

When God chose a virgin woman to be the vessel of honor to carry his son he never intended for people to start worshipping her nor did he intend for people to say she is the mediatrix between him and his son.

When Catholics can show by scripture that Mary was anything more than a vessel of honor to carry the Son of God then others will believe. We know for a fact that Jesus rebuked her more than once and even said those who believe is his mother, brothers and sisters.

The Bible plainly states that Jesus had brothers and sisters through Mary. This flies in the face of Catholic Tradition. Mary did have sexual relations with Joseph and had other children besides Jesus.

 

Hi Ron, I think the ransomed thing was an unintentional destortion. It takes very careful reading to catch what is being said. I had to read things a few times before it all clicked. Once it did the concept was simple, though the language certaily confuses things and seems to exault Mary to a place where she is not. Anyway, Mary was the mother of Jesus and therefore we wouldn't have had his blood to save the world had he not been given human life by her blood. Babies get 1/2 of there genetic info from their moms and this whole discussion is more on the human side of Jesus then anything.(crude I know but that is it in a real basic form, right?)
Now one problem I see is that we don't know that Mary gave any of her genetic line to Jesus. He was implanted as a fertilized Egg, I think. It seems she was just pregant and did not have one of her eggs fertalized, God just put the baby, His son (who already existed) within her. I am saying that from logic, I do not believe there is Biblical proof but I just don't picture God creating sperm that fertalized Mary's own egg. Sorry about that last few lines I am thinking out loud (or on the keyboard rather).

Thess. If possible can you tell me your first name so I can address you properly. Anyway, you seem to be fiesty because people are not understanding. Isn't that why you are here? to give understanding and perspective? Don't allow yourself to go where you shouldn't.

The issue of jelousy was brought up. To Ron and Thess. when Mary is called co-redeemtrix and we see writings of how noone can get salvation apart from her (though I know what was meant by that now) it does stir up an image that Mary is required for our personal salvation and I for one do not want Jesus to be seen by anybody as not having paid fully and alone the price for my Sin. There was that quote that talked about Mary suffering with Jesus when he died which conjures up images of her bearing the weight of our Sin as well. I think that the Catholic churched has errored in the way they present Mary to non-Catholics. Thats it for now.

Take care and God bless,
Brian

[ February 12, 2003, 11:27 AM: Message edited by: Briguy ]

 

This line of reasoning would be problematic when it comes to the prophesy that the Savior would be of the House of David.

Aslo, under the scenario that you describe, would Jesus have been truly "man"?

Brian, while you don't subscribe to many Catholic beliefs, it really is nice that you can be so nonconfrontational in your disagreement.

Ron

 

Hi Ron, you wrote:
""This line of reasoning would be problematic when it comes to the prophesy that the Savior would be of the House of David.

Aslo, under the scenario that you describe, would Jesus have been truly "man"? ""

Good point about David's line, I did think about that when I was writing my post before. I think as long as Jesus was born of a virgin, in David's line, (Mary as it turned out) it would fulfill the prophecy. We know that Jesus was not flesh of Joseph's line yet ther was prophecy about that line that we consider to be filled by Jesus being Joseph's "son" (in rearing anyway).

Jesus had flesh and blood and in that sense was fully man. Whether he looked like Mary seems to have no bearing on him being fully a man.

Thanks for the compliment. I always enjoy posting with you because I know we will share our thoughts in a Christ-like way and I don't have to fear being insulted. Even when I make a bone-headed post

In Christ,
Brian

 

Briguy,

"Thess. If possible can you tell me your first name so I can address you properly. Anyway, you seem to be fiesty because people are not understanding. Isn't that why you are here? to give understanding and perspective? Don't allow yourself to go where you shouldn't. "

Gerald is the name. Fiesty? No, I am just rather direct is all and call a spade a spade when I see one. Don't take my comments personal. I am never angry with you guys contrary to the way I have been taken many times.
Glad you are comming to some sort of understanding through all of this. That is impressive actually since most people don't consider a word we say and just throw the same old worn out lines back in our face.

Blessings.

 

Brian is exceptional in that regard.

He is very consistently respectful of others.

 

*sigh*

The above is that which I refer to. </font>[/QUOTE]

 

Tragic,

I really need context to understand what the author meant by "identity." I can explain the third sentence, but the second sentence is giving me trouble because I have no idea what all subject matter is attempting to be explained. Futher, surrounding context could really give me a better clue. If that would be provided, I could answer it. Without it, I'd be guessing at the author's intentions.

God bless,

Grant