Featured Rome's Mary on the Cross and God's Throne

It is often hard to have a descent discussion regarding Mary because often no matter what I say as to what is actually believed Non-Catholic opinion is already formed by subjective interpretation of what is seen. However, I will try to explain what each of those pictures actually portray and what they mean. And I will answer Bro. Cloud's assertion and incorrect portrayal of what he posted. First let me explain the pictoral and statue representation of Mary presented by Bro. Cloud. As in many issues representations and symbolism is often taken out of their context. For instance the Symbol of the United States the Flag has specific meaning. For my meaning consider the Blue Feild of Stars which the pictoral representation of Stars is identified with each current state joined in the union of States called the United States. Or the 13 stripes representing the 13 original colonies that unified against England in our revolutionary war. Even the color red represents the blood shed by soldiers of that Revolution. Americans don't worship stars however our flag holds symbolic significance calling to mind our unity, origin, and principles by which we live within the context of our democratic republic. Thus the statues and pictures represent are symbolic of specific meaning in each of these pictures none which replaces God with Mary. For instance the first picture. Mary being crowned by Jesus. Scripturally we know that those who do go to heaven will receive crowns (crowns of glory). Mary being the Mother of the Kings has a specific title called queen mother. Like Bathsheba was the queen mother of Solomon. That is a title specific to Kingdom and Kingdom rule. Bathsheba did not control Solomon's kingdom but she held a special place of honor in Solomon's administration. She is the Queen Mother. So it is that Mary the humble girl who allowed God to use her to bring about the incarnation holds a special place of honor as she is King Jesus' Queen Mother. Jesus told the sons of thunder that special places of Honor had already been determined by the Father so we also know there are special places of honor for those in heaven
The next symbolic image is also being misconstrued. What is not known by Bro. Cloud and misrepresented in his article is that image is actually a Monstrance. Look carefully at the picture. He is correct that it represents the ark of the Covenant and we see the two Seraphim before it. Now it looks like mary is indeed on the mercy seat or the place of God. But that is only for someone not observant. Look more closely. You see a circle at the center of Mary and actually it is on the place where God should be. That Circle is the Eucharist what Catholics believe to be the Body of Christ. Without going another round whether or not the real presense of Jesus Christ is present in the communion bread. Suffice it to say that Catholics believe it is and therefore we can note that it is that Eucharist which is in the center of that symbolic representation. Also Note Mary is behind the Eucharist with her arms out as if presenting it. Therefore since we believe the Eucharist is the real presense it is Jesus who is God in the place of God and Mary is presenting it as once again God became incarnate through the Virgin Mary. She therefore is not being symbolized as God but presenting God in this monstrance. The next image is one of Madona and child. What Bro. Cloud misses is that Mary's eyes are directed downward and the child is directed at the people. Once again it is Jesus who is God and Mary the humble servant who by the way has an outstreached arm in prayer as if praying for the people present. Mary on the cross with the Child is also symbolic. It is not saying Mary died on the Cross but the cross symbolizes our redemption. Mary holding the child who would be crucified brings to mind the suffering or the pain that watching her son being crucified caused her as prophesied by the prophet simeon when he said

again reminding the Catholic that Sin Caused the suffering and death of our very Lord and shouldn't be quickly overlooked. And the final symbolic image we notice on one side is Jesus crucified and the other mother and child which brings the same perspective I've just mentioned.

Therefore we see this is all symbolism which purpose is to pictorally represent truths presented in the Gospel of our redemption. None of these were intended to suggest Catholics worship Mary as God. Catholics do not. Catholics do use symbolism to focus the viewer on certain points reflected in the gospel. Protestants use symbolism as well. WWJD bracelets or my favorite witnessing bracelets with different colors of beads indicating what aspect of salvation you are to share with someone else. Black means Sin is what separates us from God. We choose to disobey God. "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." Red means Jesus died on the cross and rose from the grave, paying the price and penalty for our sin. He provided the only way to God. White means When we become a Christian God cleanses us from all unrighteousness and washes us whiter than snow. Blue means One of our first acts of obedience is to publicly confess our faith through baptism. Green means We must now grow as a believer in all areas of our life. Looking at Jesus as our example. And yellow means: If we have accepted Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour, we have the promise of a home in heaven. These beads are no different that the pictoral representations or imagry focusing on the Lordship of Christ.

 

the irony of the explanation is....if the RCC obeyed the Bible in the first place,
in regards to creating graven images, you wouldnt have to try and explain what you think all of the images mean.

 

What you are saying is like saying: If God didn't confuse the Jews when he said

and then instructed them to by saying

by following his own word Catholics wouldn't have an issue explaining their symbolism. Obviously creating images for revered objects isn't the issue.

 

Now if you simply connect a command of God given to worship of Him to an extra biblical command of the church to worship...er..."adore" her, you might have a point.

 

So let me get this right you are saying scriptures don't say

or

or

Are you also saying that the scriptures don't say

maybe you are saying the scriptures don't say this

What ever the case. There are scriptural references for what I said. It isn't bunk.

 

As we know there are many things not said in scriptures. For instance do you really need to be told that you should respect the mother of Jesus? Or should that be taken for granted that you would do that? The fact is people adore her not because she is Mary but because of her relationship to Jesus. Thus in scripture the bleeding woman only needed to touch Jesus Tzit tzit (hem of his garment) not because of the hem but because of having been on Jesus. Jesus is the focal point anything in relationship to him is respected.

 

No matter what way you spin it callin Mary Queen of the Universe is blaspemy. Putting Mary on the cross and calling her co-redemptress with Christ is blasphemy.

Saying

Is blasphemy. The catholic church has serious problems.

 

Yes.

Yes.

The fact is as I believe and have discovered over time is that there is 1) a lot of misinformation about what Catholics are supposed to believe and 2) that though I do believe protestants/evangelicals try very hard to live by what they think they believe the bible teaches. But it seems clear to me that the reality is that everyone comes at the bible from the glasses of their perception in the present context of what words mean. The only people who seem to want to get at the actual meaning of the text are textual critics. However, we see what happened to Bart Ehrman. But thats on him. However, I think it is rare indeed that people truelly take the text as it was ment in its orignal context and very few people study 2nd temple period liturature and the Jewish view of what the Apostles actually believed and acted. Most people read modern context into the 2,000 + year old document. Which becomes problematic in properly understanding the text. So though I believe Protestants/Evangelicals try to abide by what they read. What they read is no more than a rendering of scriptures from an already developed theology. Which is why one can read "you see we are justified by works and not by faith alone" and accertain that means we are justified by faith alone.

two points to make Catholics as well as protestants have died for their faith. And the Protestants who did die by Catholic Hands did so by local governing authority and not by the Pope. And not necissarily with Papal approval.

I call the Protestant University I graduated from my Alma Mater with is latin for nurturing Mother. Protestants come out of the Catholic Church in protest yet for a time it was their Alma Mater. Next All those who claim Christ should be unified as it is what Jesus Prayed for. And he prayed for it because he knew how disunified we can become.

I disagree. He himself through his Holy Angel exalts Mary in scriptures. And in the Book of Revelation we see she's even crowned with stars.

Mary always points to Christ and away from herself. For those Catholics who give improper attention to Mary I would agree she would point them to her son. However, don't under state the role which Mary played for through her God became incarnate into the world. He chose her as his mother. No greater honor can be given to any person I can imagine.

No one disputes God is honored above all

Entirely untrue. There is much documentation about the study of scripture in the catholic church and in all its decrees you see it referred to more frequently than any other document.

Jesus named Simon Peter or Kephas and it was Jesus who built his church on his apostles whom Peter unites. Jesus Christ alone saves. That is the actual teaching. However baptist have their version of councils and the actual church councils if you had read any of them always refers to scripture.

I respect your position. I sincerely believe that it is based on inaccuracies.

 

This is a discussion forum. And I appreciate the fact that I'm in the minority view here. As I have said many times had it not been for baptists I would never have developed a personal relationship with Jesus. Though I defend the Catholic faith in ernest I do get that all evangelicals do have one important thing right. Believe on Jesus who is the means of our salvation. That is the right Jesus as defined in the Trinity and is a hypostatic union unlike JW or Mormons. I also believe you must be born again. Nor do I believe evangelicals always get scriptures wrong. And I know you sincerely believe what you say about the Catholic faith is true. However, in my studies I have found many things that are "generally accepted" are not true with regard to the Catholic faith and my only intention is to clear it up. However, I also like non-Catholic discussions as I am wide read and like just about any topic on theology even ones I personally disagree with. I find it unfortunate, that I don't spend more time on those issues. I do appreciate that your intention is that I have Jesus as my savior so we can glorify him together in eternity. Thank you.

No apology is necissary you haven't derided my character and I hope not to offend either though being on the defensive many times I find that I may not sound as charitable as I should. Forgive me for that.

 

Well, I wish you guys a happy Easter as we bring out the message of Allelujah Jesus is risen! I'm off to a foot washing it being Maundy Thurday and all.

 

Not so! I am true to what the bible ACTUALLY teaches, and up until this Saturday night, I will have been a Baptist. Praise God I will be received into the Holy Catholic Church as a communicant! I have never been closer to the Lord Jesus as I am now that I worship in the Church He establshed! TS was a Baptist for many years and studied the actual teachings of the Catholic Church and concluded that it IS biblical Christianity. The Catholic Church has NEVER had a 'a low view of history', that is a lie. The Liturgy of the Word and the preaching of the word take up the first half of every Eucharist, ALWAYS! You simply don't know what you are talking about.

 

Have a wonderful Triduum, TS. God bless you and your family!

 

As you claim to have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, which comes through the act of being born again, and that supported by your belief that evangelicals do not always get scriptures wrong, you must at least believe that the evangelicals were right on this doctrine here.
But it is on this doctrine, perhaps the most important of all, that the RCC differs.

If you trusted Christ as your Savior it was an event, not a process.
If it was a process it was by faith alone, not faith plus works. Works continue.
If you believe you were born again then you would not believe that baptism saves, for baptism has not part in regeneration (the new birth). Salvation is all of God. "Born of water and of the Spirit" has nothing to do with baptism as the RCC declares, and thus the heretical doctrine of baptismal regeneration, and consequent doctrine of infant baptism, both of which the Bible does not teach. Baptism always follows "faith in Christ."

I trust you have a personal relationship with Christ. But if that trust is in baptism plus Christ it is not a personal relationship with Christ, but trust in baptism or works. It is not a new birth, but a trust in baptism or works. Having a personal relationship in Christ means to trust Him and Him alone for the salvation of your soul, which again leads to salvation by faith and faith alone, in spite of your interpretation of James 2.

 

a low view of scripture is what was posted, not low view of history.
it is not a lie, simply his opinion, most likely based on the fact that the catechism states that scripture, and traditions of men are equal.

 

there is NOTHING in the Bible that accords to her what rome teaches!

She was a Virgin until birth of jesus, then had natural children with Joseph...

She was conceived/born as a sinner, jesus was her saviour

She is NOT mediating for us before God, ONLY Jesus can and does that!

she died and stay buried, ONLY Jesus was raised up...

jesus sits with the Father upon the throne, co ruler, NOT mary!

she has NO intercessionary business with the living, nor any extra grace to confer, ONLY Jesus can and does that!

She was a devout and beloved woman, mother of jesus, but NOT the blashemy version portrayed by the RCC!

 

Another fabrication. Show me where the catechism states 'traditions of men' is equal to scripture. You know 'traditions of men' is found in scripture, but saying the catechism claims that same 'traditions of men' reference is and scripture are equal is just not true. And actually, I think you know this. Your trying to be slick. It's THIS very kind of statement that keeps perpetuating the l misrepresentation on this board that TS was talking about.