Servants of Mary

Regarding the incarnation....Catholic Catechism teaches:

488. "'God sent forth his Son', but to prepare a body for him,[Gal 4:4 ; Heb 10:5 .] he wanted the free co-operation of a creature. For this, from all eternity God chose for the mother of his Son a daughter of Israel, a young Jewish woman of Nazareth in Galilee, 'a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary':[Lk 1:26-27 .]

The Father of mercies willed that the Incarnation should be preceded by assent on the part of the predestined mother, so that just as a woman had a share in the coming of death, so also should a woman contribute to the coming of life.[LG 56; cf. LG 61.]"
To view the context, please visit http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/creed3.html#MARY

503. "Mary's virginity manifests God's absolute initiative in the Incarnation. Jesus has only God as Father. 'He was never estranged from the Father because of the human nature which he assumed. . . He is naturally Son of the Father as to his divinity and naturally son of his mother as to his humanity, but properly Son of the Father in both natures.'[Council of Friuli (796): DS 619; cf. Lk 2:48-49.]"
To view the context, please visit http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/creed3.html#MARY

 

Kathryn,

I am a Protestant minister and I see nothing basicly wrong with your post that you wrote or the catechism.

There is no point to Eve bringing in sin and now Mary having brought in life. Why bring up Eve; Adam was also involved in the rebellion against the Lord God. Eve indeed did bring into the Garden, sin; but only Jesus can give us everlasting life. [John 3:16; John 5:24; John 6:35] It is superfluous to bring in Mary, at this point, in the catechism except to affirm that Jesus was born from the virgin Mary by whom our Savior was born. The intent was probably so later in the catechism, the Papal chair, might offer to the church the concept of the alleged co-redemptrix of Mary. This is extraneous because Jesus is the exclusive Object of our worship and devotion, and therefore, our only Mediator. [I Tim. 2:5; I Corinthians 3:11] Any thing else breaks the first and second commandments.

I. 'Thou shalt have no other gods before Me.'

II. 'Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven images . . . . Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them, for the Lord thy God is a jealous God. . . '

 

Ray,

Good post. However, I don't see how you jump from simply throwing out the term "co-redemptrix" to accusing us of having multiple gods or worshipping graven images. Do you know what we teach about Mary being the co-redemptrix? If you did, you would know that we do not believe that Mary is exalted above God, nor could she be, since she has a beginning wheras God does not (thus, she is clearly not divinity), nor do we worship her as if she were God, nor believe that she sacrificed and took on the sins of the world for our sake, but merely that she suffered with Christ (not in an equal capacity), and that she had an explicit part to play in salvation history (the most explicit, being the act most closely related to the coming about of our Savior).

God bless you,

Grant

 

Mary is not a god and she is not worshipped. Jesus gave His mother to us on the cross as our mother. “Behold, your mother!” He brought forth the Church, His bride, as His blood and water poured out His side. The Church is our mother and Mary is our mother.

411. "The Christian tradition sees in this passage an announcement of the 'New Adam' who, because he 'became obedient unto death, even death on a cross', makes amends superabundantly for the disobedience, of Adam.[Cf. 1 Cor 15:21-22, 45 ; Phil 2:8 ; Rom 5:19-20 .] Furthermore many Fathers and Doctors of the CHURCH have seen the woman announced in the 'Proto-evangelium' as MARY, the mother of Christ, the 'new EVE'. MARY benefited first of all and uniquely from Christ's victory over sin: she was preserved from all stain of original sin and by a special grace of God committed no sin of any kind during her whole earthly life.[Cf. Pius IXs Ineffabilis Deus: DS 2803; Council of Trent: DS 1573.]"

To view the context, please visit http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/visible4.html#DEATH

726. "At the end of this mission of the Spirit, MARY became the Woman, the new EVE ('mother of the living'), the mother of the 'whole Christ.'[Cf. Jn 19:25-27 .] As such, she was present with the Twelve, who 'with one accord devoted themselves to prayer,'[Acts 1:14 .] at the dawn of the 'end time' which the Spirit was to inaugurate on the morning of Pentecost with the manifestation of the CHURCH."

To view the context, please visit http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/spirit.html#FULLNESS

2618. "The Gospel reveals to us how MARY prays and intercedes in faith. At Cana,[Cf. Jn 2:1-12 .] the mother of Jesus asks her son for the needs of a wedding feast; this is the sign of another feast - that of the wedding of the Lamb where he gives his body and blood at the request of the CHURCH, his Bride. It is at the hour of the New Covenant, at the foot of the cross,[Cf. Jn 19:25-27 .] that MARY is heard as the Woman, the new EVE, the true 'Mother of all the living.'"

To view the context, please visit http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/pray2.html#FULLNESS

2853. "Victory over the 'prince of this world'[Jn 14:30 .] was won once for all at the Hour when Jesus freely gave himself up to death to give us his life. This is the judgment of this world, and the prince of this world is 'cast out.'[Jn 12:31 ; Rev 12:10.] 'He pursued the woman'[Rev 12:13-16.] but had no hold on her: the new EVE, 'full of grace' of the Holy Spirit, is preserved from sin and the corruption of death (the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of the Most Holy Mother of God, MARY, ever virgin). 'Then the dragon was angry with the woman, and went off to make war on the rest of her offspring.'[Rev 12:17.] Therefore the Spirit and the CHURCH pray: 'Come, Lord Jesus,'[Rev 22:17,20.] since his coming will deliver us from the Evil One."

To view the context, please visit http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/pater2.html#DELIVER

 

Grant,

Thanks for your post. I guess we are jealous as to not allowing any devotion or worship to go to anyone but Jesus in our churches.

I have gone to masses in your branch of the church and enjoy the experience. My problem is the amount of time and repetition [Matthew 6:7]that is taken in praying the Rosary, which to me, siphons off devotion that, in my mind, should be devoted to our Savior, Jesus Christ.

'But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do; for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.'

 

The Rosary starts with "In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" , then "Glory Be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit, as it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be world without end. Amen. Then the "Lord's Prayer", then "Hail Mary" (based on Scripture), along with the meditations on the life and death of our Lord, while continuing to pray.

Scripture itself says to "pray without ceasing". Yes, vain repetitions would be wrong. Catholics do not pray in vain. Most Christians who criticize the rosary are not even aware of the medititations on the life and death of Jesus Christ that go on during the whole rosary. Mary is always pointing us to Jesus Christ.

God Bless

[ June 07, 2003, 07:45 PM: Message edited by: Kathryn ]

 

Rejoice always; pray without ceasing; in everything give thanks; for this is God's will for you in Christ Jesus. (1 Thessalonians 5:16-18)

I like to pray: "Lord Jesus Christ, Son of the Living God, have mercy on me a sinner." As often as I pray this, it is never in vain.

 

Yes - Pray without ceasing.

Yet NO prayers TO Mary in scripture.

No prayers TO ANYONE but God in scripture. Not even ONE.

We never see the living - praying TO the dead in scripture.

And yet - IF the NT church gave it the 50-50 press coverage that the RCC does today with prayers to Mary and other dead saints - vs prayers to God - you would think that at least A FEW of them would be mentioned in scripture.

Instead... nothing! It is as if it never entered the Apostles minds that the RCC might evolve one day and start praying to "the Dead in Christ".


In Christ,

Bob

 

The Apostles met face to face with Mary as their "mother" while she was on earth. She was living with the disciple from the foot of the cross, her "son". Jesus anounced this relationship on the cross just before the water and blood poured out his side.

[ June 07, 2003, 08:36 PM: Message edited by: Kathryn ]

 

Kathryn,

I agreed with your post no. 163 the one that started 'The apostles met face to face . . . '

I think I would have acknowledged Mary as the mother of my Lord or at least a sister in the faith of Christ, or as the virgin mother of our Lord Jesus.

 

She is not really your "sister in the faith of Christ", because Jesus Christ is your "brother", if you are doing the will of the Father.

"Behold your mother!" he said to the disciple. He didn't say: "Behold your sister in the faith of Christ! "

God Bless

 

Yes, I know Jesus is our elder brother.

My great, great grandmother was also my sister in the faith; my great, great grandfather was my brother in the faith also.

Notice, Jesus called His mother, 'woman' while He was hanging on the Cross. The Greek word is, {gune or goonay} from the base word for woman, or wife--depending on the context of the verse. In this case Jesus used the respectful word or name 'woman.' I wonder why He did not use the word, 'mother?'

On the other hand, He spoke to John and said, 'Behold, thy mother.' We, of course, believe that our Lord was saying please take care of this person who brought me to physical life.

 

At the Marriage of Cana Jesus again called the one who brought Him to physical life, 'woman.' {gune or goonay} Apparently, He was not comfortable with calling the one who brought Him to birth in Bethlehem, 'mother.'

Did Jesus want us to think of the virgin as only the one who brought Him to life, rather than the mother of God? I'll ask the question when I get to Heaven, if it comes to mind.

 

Yes, I agree, woman is a respectful word or name. The Holy Spirit had no trouble in Holy Scripture referring to Mary as the mother of Jesus. Jesus may have used the term because it is respectful, and woman comes from man, just as Eve came from Adam.

Why does Holy Scripture use the term “disciple” here instead of “John”? “Disciple” is so generic much like “woman”. Jesus had a reason.....He was giving this "woman" as mother to His Chuch. She no longer was His mother alone, but ours. As a "disciple" who Jesus Christ loves, this "woman" is my mother.

When Jesus then saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing nearby, He *said to His mother, "Woman, behold, your son!"
Then He *said to the disciple, "Behold, your mother!" From that hour the disciple took her into his own household.
John 19:26- 27

[ June 07, 2003, 11:49 PM: Message edited by: Kathryn ]

 

#1.We have no record of any of the Apostles writing and referring to Mary as "mother".

#2.We have no clue that anyone of them even "might" do such a thing - other than the hint we get about John - that Christ gave him charge of caring for Mary.

But in that smallest of hints - some can build an entire concept of "queen of the universe - Mother of the Church of God".

However - we do have this about Christ...

Heb 7:4
Without Fahter, Without Mother... having NEITHER beginning of days or end of life, but made LIKE the Son of God" Hebrews 7:4


The attributes "needed" by the Bible character "Melchizedek" (King of righteousness) to be considered "LIKE" the Son of God - are listed above.

#1. Without Father (on Earth - no true Father)
#2. Without Mother (on Earth - no true Mother)
#3. Without beginning of days
#4. Without end of life (on Earth - His death does not end His life - because He rises )

So instead of finding "Mother of God" over-and-over-and-over-and-over again by NT authors writing her account and writing about the church views DECADES after the resurrection of Christ - we find very LITTLE said in that regard. Hardly ANY attention at all - and ultimately a flat denial in Heb 7:4 of any familial link at all between the risen Christ and Mary.

Odd that in "all this Roman Catholic emphasis on the Bible statements regarding the Mother of God" this never comes up. Odd?


In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob:
Why does Jesus says, "Behold your mother!" to the disciple, when he could have said take care of this woman, John ? He also could have made arrangements for her care beforehand. He wouldn't have needed to do anything, if he had brothers and sisters to care for her. Why does this grown man, John, need a mother? Why does Mary, need a new son? He could have said "take care of your sister in Christ". He didn't, He said, "Behold your mother!".

Martha filled with the Holy Spirit calls Mary, "mother of my lord". Catholics believe Jesus Christ to be true God and true man. He is the Lord. Mary became His mother at the Incarnation.

 

Jesus specifically issues a "mother/son" relationship with His "beloved disciple," who we know now to be John, but is unnamed for the very reason that the quality has a universal character.

Now now, Bob. That isn't the case, and I don't appreciate you lying again, either. We do not derive her queenhood from her universal motherhood, but rather from the concept of the Queen Mother of the Davidic Kingdom (of which Jesus is the fullfillment) in the Old Testament.

Bob, first, I do not appreciate your emphasis on words in Scripture (by capitalizing them) to try to show a stress in the text that does not exist. The "without mother and father, etc" part is speaking of Melchizeck, in order to show his lack of evidence ancestry, birth, etc that gives him an eternal quality ("thou art a priest forever"). He was like Christ, in that Christ is our eternal high priest. That does not mean that the same "no mother/father" applies to Christ, for Christ had an earthly mother, thus allowing the Incarnation. Thus, because Jesus is God, Mary is rightly His mother. To deny this is to deny the Incarnation.

The Word of God was spoken and spread by the Apostles outside of their written letters, which usually dealt with specific abuses in the Church and were not catechisms of the faith. People were taught the faith in person, with the letters written to make corrections. The lack of mention of something does not make it NOT so.

Luke 1:43 "And how does this happen that the mother of my Lord should come to me?"

Unless you are denying that the Lord is God indeed, you might oughtta retract that statement. Who is your Lord, Bob? Is it no Jesus Christ, God Himself? Now's the time to tell us if not.

God bless,

Grant

 

Clearly that is true - since I am emphasizing the very part of the text that most directly refutes Catholic doctrine - I am already assuming that you would rather avoid that highlight.

We agree to disagree there.

Actually we find that ALL the attributes listed are "needed" for Melchizedek to be "MADE LIKE the Son of God" in "type" with Christ as the true antitype.

The RCC argument is that "without Mother does not apply" as "an atribute that is NEEDED to be MADE LIKE CHRIST".

The Bible makes the Opposite point. Devastating to the Catholic argument.

The Bible is empahsizing "WITHOUT MOTHER" as a Needed attribute for Melchizedek.

This is not true. As Heb 7:4 points out - the Incarnation makes the Birth of Christ DIFFERENT from all other births - in that Mary is not even Christ's biological Mother - RATHER He is "INCARNATED" which is an entirely different process from normal conception and birth.

Christ TAKES ON human form - rather than coming into existence as the union of the Mother's biology with a father's.


quote:Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by BobRyan:
So instead of finding "Mother of God" over-and-over-and-over-and-over again by NT authors writing her account and writing about the church views DECADES after the resurrection of Christ - we find very LITTLE said in that regard. Hardly ANY attention at all - and ultimately a flat denial in Heb 7:4 of any familial link at all between the risen Christ and Mary.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cathlics today ALSO speak to each other outside of written communication - STILL the VAST bulk of what is written regarding prayer and devotion in Catholic literature contains a huge segement on prayers and devotion to dead saints - Mary etc.

Yet we get - zip, nadda, zero, zilch, nicht gefunden - in scripture on this point.


quote:Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by BobRyan:
Odd that in "all this Roman Catholic emphasis on the Bible statements regarding the Mother of God" this never comes up. Odd?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Luke 1:43 "And how does this happen that the mother of my Lord should come to me?"

Is a good example of What Catholics DO quote regarding "the Mother" of Jesus.

Heb 7:4 is "never quoted bhy Catholics" when speaking the subject of the spiritual familial heavenly VALUE of Christ's relationship to Maryh - because it is making the point "WITHOUT MOTHER" as an "attribute" NEEDED to be "MADE LIKE the Son of God" in terms of ministry, function, salvation, mediation, Position.

The point remains.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob, who is this Melchizedek then? If it is literal that he has no father or mother, who is he? I know, it is for another thread, but if you are going to take these attributes literal, you have an eternal being in Melchizedek. And the only one who is eternal is God alone.

Neal

 

In John 2:4 and John 19:26 our Lord seems to be distancing Himself from His mother, in the sense of presenting Himself as the only Messiah and Savior of the world. Thus, the Apostle John uses the word, 'woman' rather than the endearing term, mother. St. John records for us the fact that John the Baptist, the forerunner of Jesus Christ, proclaims Jesus to be the only One Who ' . . . takes away the sins of the world.' [John 1:29] In the golden years of his life St. John, He remains firm in his epistle as to the point of Christ not only dying for His elect, [I John 2:2a,b] but also for the non-elect souls. [I John 2:2c] As we know only those who believe [John 3:16] are welcomed into His elect family of God. Surely, Jesus knows that Mary is His mother and He loves her very deeply, but His life was not merely like all of the rest of we sons coming from a human mother. His mission was a Divine one that must reflect the singleness of His redemptive act accomplished on the Cross. Thus, the One Mediator statement of I Timothy 1:5.

The typology of Melchisedec is vitally important to insure the validity of the incarnation.
Jesus was also without father or mother. The Spirit of God overshadowed the virgin woman; Joseph was not part of the genetic equation. No typology is perfect just as Melchisedec also had a father and mother, but there is no record of it to this day.

My best spiritual understanding of the relationship of Jesus to Mary was to diminish this human relationship, so that the typology might be more greatly magnified. Any emphasis on Jesus' mother would diminish the concept of the perpetual Priesthood of our Lord, because He will never retire or be found dead, as earthly clergy experience.