Mary's blood ransomed the world!?

it says that blood drawn from her viens ransomed the world.

it is hard to take that out of context. </font>[/QUOTE]Apparently not, since you took it out of context. I have already explained this once. Please read my posts on this, and if you have questions, quote me where I didn't explain fully enough or something I said was confusing. I'm not going to repeat myself over and over again.

God bless,

Grant

 

Galations 4:4-5

God was born of a woman. This woman gave birth to Jesus Christ, the God-man, who shed His blood for our salvation. Mary DELIVERED to us Jesus Christ, our redemption. Therefore, all graces come from Jesus Christ, who was delivered to us by Mary. Mary is the mediatrix of all graces. Disagree all you want; it has implicit Biblical backing.

Who said that Mary died for our sins? Heck, it's debatable in the Church, because it has not been defined, whether or not Mary was alive or dead when she was assumed. We do not know. Certainly, then, no educated Catholic calls her a "martyr" in the sense you speak of. However, "martyr" literally means "witness," and witness she certainly did.

No, but her willing participation with God's will brought about our Redeemer.

So, in a nutshell, you deny the Incarnation, in which God humbled Himself to be born of a woman, of human flesh, so that He could succeed where we failed? I think you're alone on this, my friend. Jesus is God, but he received His human nature from Mary.

I could pull a hundred thousand of these analogies...and it wouldn't change anything.

Good for them. They have a semblance of the Truth, but instead it has become perverted, or was an imperfect forshadowing of the Truth of Jesus Christ. There are a lot of similarities with Christianity and religions that proceeded it. That doesn't negate the validity of our religion.

The mediatrix between him and his son, eh? Perhaps God also did not intend for you to speak about things that have nothing to do with Catholic doctrine. Throwing out key words like "mediatrix" with context that is not Catholic theology just shows that you're attacking for the sake of attacking; you have no real valid argument.

Right, we Catholics just ignore these things. Oh, or perhaps, we have perfectly legitimate explanations for these verses that you use hastily to dishonor Christ's mother, whom He no doubt loved and honored more than anyone has ever loved his or her mother. After all, Jesus kept the law perfectly. I doubt he would have ignored the commandment to "honor thy father and they mother."

Plainly because you ignore the historical context of the language.

Something you know nothing about, considering you think we teach that Mary is the "mediatrix between the father and the son."

So, then, there are people today who are biologically linked to Jesus Christ? Surely you think they would have held on to this. Who wouldn't want to be genetically linked to the Savior of the world? And yet, no group claims this. Or perhaps Jesus foresaw people who would make this claim, which is why he taught the lack of importance of biological relationship to Him in favor of spiritual relationship with Him.

God bless,

Grant

 

Of interest while I looked for that all-important context... (emphasis added):

THE LEGIONARY AND THE HOLY TRINITY

Again, emphasis added:

THE LEGIONARY AND THE EUCHARIST

And, at long last, that all-important context, emphasis added:

THE LEGIONARY AND THE MYSTICAL BODY OF CHRIST

 

You are correct that God did not need to be born of a woman to achieve His purpose. He is God, after all.

What you neglect is that he DID choose it this way, so that He could humble Himself and do what we could not do, as humans ourselves. He was born of a woman. He received h is human nature from a human. Yes, He is the Creator of all, including humanity itself. But his actual flesh and blood came from the physcial process of gestation and birth of a human being, Mary.

God bless,

Grant

 

Tragic,

Thank you for taking the time to look this up!

I'm going to do some studying on this so that I give an accurate response. But, do please note, that the quote first provided has been seperated greatly by a good chunk of context. We were lead to assume that there was no break, that these statements immediately preceeded one another. They do not. There is context IN BETWEEN. There almost always is when Marian quotes are used. I don't know if it's meant to deceive or not, because I am not the one who compiled them in such a way. However, it is inaccruate to just take it at face value and try to explain it.

Now that that's off my chest, I'll read through this carefully and have (hopefully) a nice in-depth answer by tonight.

Thanks again for doing the dirty work.

God bless,

Grant

 

No problem, I await with interest your answers.

Please understand that I cannot think of any context within which some of the language quoted would not be frightening.

 

Please help me understand. Are you all saying that Mary's blood is part of salvation?

 

The contention seems to have been that the RC church says so.

That is, however, not what I am saying, or charging. My discussion is on a wholly different plane.

 

No, and DEFINITELY no in the context you are putting it in. Mary gave birth to the savior of the world, Jesus Christ. Jesus was both fully human and fully man, and as ONE He is the Redeemer. Mary provided Jesus with his human nature, which is inseperable now from his divine nature. More than any other human, she contributed to the redemption of mankind. SHE DID NOT REDEEM MANKIND. What she did was directly comply with the will of God to allow it to take place. This was the method God chose to redeem His people, and Mary said "yes" to it. She greatly assisted in the divine plan be bringing forth the Redeemer from her own human flesh, by means of the Holy Spirit. Co-redemptrix does not mean she did something equal to Christ. It means she worked with Christ, who is God, in achieving salvation for the whole human race.

For this she is greatly honored above all other humans, but is honored infinitely less than her Son. Honor for Mary is wonderful and great, and yet fundamentally different than that which we give to God.

God bless,

Grant

 

the words you post do not explain why you think blood drawn from marys veins ransomed the world. Marys blood was not drawn when she bore Jesus. </font>[/QUOTE]Rakka, you are again correct. But do you know why? Because neither I nor the author of the quote from Legion of Mary said that Mary's blood ransomed the world. YOU are the one who titled the thread "Mary's blood ransomed the world!?" It is your own creation. So this line of reasoning is meaningless. You created it, I did not, nor did the quote. Nor do I or other Catholics believe or state that her blood ransomed us. She gave Jesus His blood, but Jesus was the one Whose blood was shed. Jesus is the Redeemer. His blood ransomed the world. Not Mary. As a Catholic, I say that without in anyway compromising my Catholic faith because that IS the Catholic faith.

God bless,

Grant

 

Do you deny that Jesus was borne of Mary?

Rage, this entire thread has been a deceit on your part from the very beginning.

The misleading title.

The edited and manipulated quotes.

Now this pretense of not understanding the actual meaning of the words without editing and in context.

It is disgraceful.

 

blood drawn from Mary's veins is Mary's blood...

if blood drawn from Mary's veins ransomed the world, then Mary's blood ransomed the world. </font>[/QUOTE]This blood drawn from Mary's veins was Jesus' humanity. As with every birth, it is a new creation. That new creation is Jesus' humanity. Mary gave Jesus His blood, but it was HIS blood.

You are from your parents veins, so to speak. If you do something really great, they'll probably say, "That's my boy!" And you are THEIR boy. They gave you life, but that life takes a life of its own.

The quotation does not mean what you claim it does. You can keep saying it all you want, but that is not the theology being presented.

God bless,

Grant

 

Could it be argued that the quotation in question is an overstatement of Marian theology?

 

Grant, Ron and Gerald (thanks for sharing your name). The quotes that have been used on this thread are not even "official" church teaching right? Aren't they just one persons thoughts on the issue.

I may be going out on a limb but if you three were writing a paper on Mary's position in the "church" it probably would be written differently then the author of the quotes we have been discussing, right?

Just curious.

In Christ,
Brian

 

You are correct, Brian. They are from a handbook printed by the Legion of Mary, a lay Catholic Association.

Catholics have greater and lesser devotion to Mary. The handbook in question is written by Catholics who have a great devotion to Mary. They have obviously given greater thought to these matters than I have.

My devotion to Mary takes the form of recognition of her as my spiritual Mother. My prayers to her are as though I were speaking to my own mother. That is trusting and loving. Knowing that there is a mother's care and love in return.

Ron

Just curious.

In Christ,
Brian [/QB][/QUOTE]

 

Rakka Rage,

I will no longer answer your questions on this thread. You are repeating yourself and you do not care about my responses, so I will not honor you with them any longer. I will not repeat myself for your amusement so you can verbally berate me as you just did to others.

God bless,

Grant