Mariology vs Mariolatry

"Joined to Christ the head and in communion with all his saints, the faithful must in the first place reverence the memory of the Glorious Mother of God and of our Lord Jesus Christ."

"Mary has by grace been exalted above all angels and men to a place second only to her Son, as the most holy Mother of God who was involved in the misteries of Christ:"

(Vatican II documents, "Dogmatic Costitution of the Church)

Sounds like y'all worship her. Callin' her holy, and all.
"

 

Hi Carson,
how are you? You may not take the Bible as your only authority, but you do take it as authoritative. What you say above directly contradicts Scripture.
Romans 3:23, "All have sinned ...
1 John 1:10, "if we say we have not sinned we make him a liar and his word is not in us."

Mary sinned, just like the rest of us. She was also faithful and blessed, but she was not perfect. To say otherwise is to contradict Scripture, make God a liar, and prove that his word is not in you. I hope his word is in you, and you realise that some Catholic doctrines are just plain wrong.
God bless, Colin

 

I almost forgot this tidbit....

"Hail, holy queen, mother of mercy, our life, our sweetness, and our hope. To you we cry, poor banished children of Eve, to you we sent up our sighs, mourning and weeping in this valley of tears. Turn, turn then O most gracious advocate, your eyes of mercy toward us, and after this exile, show unto us the blessed fruit of your womb, Jesus Christ. O clement, O loving, O sweet virgin Mary. Pray for us O holy Mother of God." (Handbook for today's Catholic. Page 52

More worship.

 

Clint et al --

I am too tired to do an extensive post tonight (beddie bye time calls), but I will try to express again those Scriptural points of exegesis which lend themselves to the honor of our Mother in the Faith.

1. The Redemption redeems that which was lost in the Fall. What was lost? The covenantal family, with Adam and Eve as the covenant headship of the family of man. In the redemption, Jesus is now the Last Adam (1 Corin. 15: 45). In perfect humanity He takes Adam's place as the FLESHLY head of the human race. Where then is His Eve in order that the redemption of all that was lost in the Garden be FULLY REDEEMED.

2. In the covenantal family structure, the woman bears the authority of the man who is the covenantal head. Thus, when one of yer kids mouths off to Mom, it is the same as mouthing off to you. Her authority is delegated to her and owned by her as a result of your "one flesh" relationship in which you and your wife become one body, one headship over the family. It is in this same relationship that the Blessed Virgin can be said to be "the mediatrix of all graces". She is indeed "one flesh" with Jesus, her divine Son because His flesh came from her. Thus, in a very non sexual conotation, she fulfills the "one flesh" relationship which was also present with Adam and Eve.

3. WE are going to "rule and reign" with Christ, remember? In the hierarchy of Heaven, there are levels of holiness and rulership under Christ's covenantal Headship. Is there something intrinsically wrong with the Blessed Virgin bearing authority IN CHRIST just as we shall bear it?

4. The Old Covenant is revealed in the New, therefore, the Queenship of the Blessed Virgin is seen fulfilling the type found in the Old Covenant. Note that in the kingship of David, we see the typology of the kingship of our Lord. There are some VERY interesting things which God places in the Scriptures to point to the New Covenant and which therefor must be fulfilled in the New Covenant. One of these types is that of the "giberah", the queen mother, who co-ruled with the king. Interestingly enough, this co regency began with the reign of the Son of David, one Solomon by name, and continued on right up to the time of Christ. I hope you see the typology here: the Son of David is promised an eternal covenant and kingdom and with him reigns the queen mother. (Psssssstt....Jesus is the Son of David).

5. Unless there is a human co-regent in Heaven to rule with Jesus, sinless woman (by God's forgiving grace) with sinless man (by birth as sinless), then there cannot be in Heaven a continuation of the image of God in a redeemed humanity. Adam and Eve are humanity lost. Jesus and Mary are humanity redeemed.

When God created Adam and Eve, He created in them "the image of God", that is, they were to be the created representation of heavenly reality. Just as between Adam and Eve there existed a covenant of union (we call it marriage although the word is not present in Genesis) which was to bring forth life, so the Father and the Word exist in a union of love which brings forth the Holy Spirit as the life giving force in the creation. This covenant relationship must be restored, and in Jesus and Mary it is, for they exist in union in Heaven, and it is a union of love in which LIFE is brought forth, specifically, the souls of the redeemed.

A covenant is a union of two persons in love. It is designed to bring forth life. The original covenant relationship is the eternal covenantal union of love between the Father and the Word. Adam and Eve were a picture and testimony to the creation of this relationship. That which the eyes of mere creatures could not look upon without dying was "iconned" in Adam and Eve before all the creation.

6. Because of the relationship of Jesus to Mary, any requests directed to her are only answered within the will of God. Honestly, you sincerely don't think that the Blessed Virgin, who was SUBMISSIVE to the perfect will of God all her life, would suddenly take it upon herself to act independently of God's will once she got to Heaven? C'mon!!!

I'm beat. Discuss these and I will catch y'all tomorrow.

Cordially in Christ,

Brother Ed

 

C'mon Ed, When did you learn how to write fairy-tales?
In plain English you are saying that unless Mary is sinless (directly contrary to Scripture--Rom.3:23), then, not only is God's image marred, but humanity is still left unredeemed. That some story! or heresy!
DHK

 

As moderator of this forum, I am extremely happy with the new vigilance that has blessed this ministry. Praise the Lord!!!

I pity the lost souls the RCC has intimidated into thinking the only salvation comes thru them.

Looking here at all the recent posts, I have to say the Holy Spirit is alive and well.

Another method if intimidation the RCCers use is to accuse people of "lack of grace', or say "the Spirit of Christ is gone", when their hetretical teachings are exposed.

I don't expect that alot of our Catholic guests will be thrilled about the new zeal we have here, but the days of posting lies as fact and having them go unchallenged are over.

 

Hi Carson, after writing my last post, I had a thought (you may wish to thank me for this straight line for you), that if Mary were sinless, surely Paul and John would have mentioned her as the only exception when they write about the sinfulness of all humanity. I then wondered, how often did they think about Mary? Did they spend hours meditating on her, praying to her etc.? I therefore checked, and after the Gospels, there is only ONE reference to Mary in the whole of the rest of the NT. That reference is Acts 1:14, and is hardly earth-shattering. Mary was a wonderful person, but she does not seem to be an emphasis for scripture. I further looked up "mother" along the same lines, in light of your "the mother of us all, new Eve" comment. Only one reference to mother that could be relevant, and that was to the Jerusalem above as the mother of us, (not Mary). I can again only conclude that while you are sincere, and wish to please God, your emphasis on Mary is unBiblical, and your doctrine of Mary (sinless, mother of us all) is opposed by Scripture.
Love Jesus with all your heart, worship Him alone with all your strength, He alone is worthy. Leave Mary as a great person, incredibly blessed, happily married to Joseph, in a Godly and fruitful marriage. A forgiven sinner who we will join in eternally praising Jesus.
Take care, Colin

 

Mornin' Ed -

First of all I would be interested to know if the exegesis in your post comes from a specific catechism(s) or whether they are your own reasoning. Not that I doubt your personal beliefs, but I would really like to see this thread stay on Catholic teachings that are in black and white. Either way, I will answer your points as best I can.

Here's a link to 1Corinthians 15:35-58. There is no mention of Eve in this passage. Paul is speaking of the "man made of dust" (v. 47) as opposed to the "Man from Heaven." The entire point of the whole passage is to expound on the idea of the nature of the resurrected body. There is no mention of headships, covenants, nor the Fall.

Where did you get this? The New Testament family structure puts men at the head of the house just as Christ is the head of the church. You can find this at this link to Ephesians 5:22-6:4. I would be very interested in seeing where you got this "shared headship" concept.

The one flesh concept does not pertain to parents, it is the profound mystery in the Ephesians passage I linked above. Mary was not Jesus' wife, she was His mother. Once again, I would like to see the catechism that puts forth this notion. This sounds strangely reminiscent of the story of Oedipus Rex.
The "one flesh" relationship is filled in the Christian body by Christ and the church (Ephesians 5:31-32), not with Mary. Oh, and before anyone starts chanting "the Church, the Church," this union has not yet occured and will not occur until the New Jerusalem (Revelation 19:7; 21:2)

Really? Where did you get this tid-bit? Is this another Catholic teaching? I would be very interested in a catechism number for this.
According to Revelation 20:6 the martyrs will be given a temporary assignment of reign that will end after 1000 years but in Revelation 22:3 we see that the ultimate fate of mankind is to serve God. After all has passed away, over whom exactly are we going to rule?

To whom are you referring when you talk about this co-regency? Bathsheba, the mother of Solomon? If you think she was co-regent, please explain her need for manipulation and careful wording in 1 Kings 1:15-21 (link).

I'll let DHK's statement stand for an answer to #5 on your list. Again, if you could please point to Scripture or catechism, I would be very grateful.

Again, the Bride of Christ is the church, not Mary. This is all very Oedipal and has no basis in Scripture.

This is not a correct definition of "covenant." A covenant is an agreement between two parties. There were three different types of covenants in Old Testament times: the Royal Grant, Parity, and the Suzerain-vassal. Here's a link to the major Old Testament covenants and a description of their nature.
Covenants

No, Mary described herself as "the Lord's servant" (Luke 1:38). I suspect that she would be appalled at the elevation of her status to that of equal to Christ.

Again, please cite Scripture, catechisms and/or councils for all of these notions. I would like to see us avoid "street theology" as much as possible. Those that debate Catholics here have been falling into that trap for too long now. I am interested in exploring the RCC's theology, not any one person's.

Thanks for the response, Ed.

 

In researching this, I found an interesting little twist in the Catholic encyclopedia at this link:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15464b.htm

Notice the change of gender in the bold emphasis. The actual verse uses "it" in KJV and "he" in modern versions. Perhaps one of our members with a knowledge of ancient Hebrew may want to pick up on this.

I found the Hebrew word Huw', Strong's number 01931 is not gender specific. Is this the pronoun that is used here? Even if this is so, by the Catholic Encyclopedia's own admission, the text was changed from the word autos or ipse from the original text. Regardless, do Catholics really believe that it is a "she" who crushed the serpant's head? This REALLY takes away from Christ's purpose if it was done by Mary. This would make Mary the Messiah him(her?)self!

Here is what the cited link has to say about the changed text with emphasis added by me:

Am I to incur from this that Jerome CHANGED the text of the original Hebrew deliberately to fit his agenda? Amazing! The Jews had it wrong for that many centuries (millenia) and it took Jerome to come along and straighten things out? According to New Testament teachings, the Scriptures (Hebrew text) was given by inspiration of the Holy Spirit (2 Timothy 3:16) and Christ confirmed the Scriptures as true (Luke 24:27; Luke 16:29). In fact, Christ was very specific about changing the Scriptures to fit one's own purposes:

That whole web page is teeming with verses taken out of context and built on false premises. We could spend an entire week exploring them. If no one wishes to start a thread on these corrupted interpretations, I may do so later in the week.

 

Hi Colin,

I'm doing great - a little behind in schoolwork, but God is fathering me with such great love.

how are you? You may not take the Bible as your only authority, but you do take it as authoritative. What you say above directly contradicts Scripture.

You're correct, the Bible is not my only authority. I believe that if it were our only authority, would be bypassing the Church that Jesus Christ established. The bishops are an "authority" strictly put in the sense that they can arbitrate and teach according to the new and complex doctrinal issues that the Bible either can't or doesn't address. The Bible would be God's inerrant, inspired Word, which the bishops stand under and serve as its guardian and teacher.

Romans 3:23, "All have sinned ...

An axiom of Catholic Biblical theology is to always apply the Bible to Systematic theology as it speaks from within its own context.

One of my three Scripture professors, who is himself a former Protestant seminary professor, spent part of class one day explaining how this verse above cannot serve as a proof text for Mary having sinned.

Paul's thesis in Romans is to demonstrate how all (Greeks and Jews) have sinned, in order to convict the self-righteous Jews to bring them to the grace of Christ by faith, not works of the law.

The verse above is v. 23. In v. 9, Paul addresses the position of the Jews, "Well, then, are we better off? Not entirely, for we have already brought the charge against Jews and Greeks alike that they are all under the domination of sin, as it is written.."

Then, Paul goes on to quote Ps 14:1-3; Ps 5:106; Ps 140:4; 10:7; Is 59:7-8; and Ps 36:2 to demonstrate his point from the Jewish Scriptures.

Psalm 14:1-3 goes like this, "Fools say in their hearts, 'There is no God.' Their deeds are loathsome and corrupt; not one does what is right. The Lord looks down from heaven upon the human race to see if even one is wise, if even one seeks God. All have gone astray; all alike are perverse. Not one does what is right, not even one."

This passage seems to be convicting all, that is, all humans on Earth of complete depravity (the Psalmist sounds like a Calvinist - and this is actually a chief source for Calvin's doctrine of total depravity).

Verses 4-7, which encapsulate the context of the psalm, go like this, "Will these evildoers never learn? They devour my people as they devour bread; they do not call upon the Lord. They have good reason, then, to fear; God is with the company of the just. They would crush the hopes of the poor, but the poor have the Lord as their refuge. Oh, that from Zion might come the deliverance of Israel, That Jacob may rejoice, and Israel be glad when the Lord restores his people!"

The lament depicts Israel as consisting of two types of people: "the fools" (also, "the wicked") and "the company of the just".

Paul's reference to this Psalm demonstrates that there are both just and unjust Jews; not every Jew is just simply because he is a Jew by the flesh and has the Mosaic Law. This follows from Paul's argumentation earlier in 2:17-29.

My thesis is that Paul is not demonstrating the sinfulness of all individuals in 3:23, but, rather, he is convicting all, both Jew and Greek, of sin. Paul is not presenting an all-inclusive, all-encompasing conviction of all individual persons per say but a conviction of all people by groups: Jews and Greeks.

Verses 21-22 demonstrate this purpose of convicting Jews, "But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, though testified to by the law and the prophets, the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Chrsist for all who believe. For there is no distinction." That is, no distinction between Jew and Gentile. Jews are sinners like the Gentiles and require righteousness by faith, just like the Gentiles.

Jesus, a Jew, never sinned, but Paul does not find it necessary to include an exception clause for Christ.

1 John 1:10, "if we say we have not sinned we make him a liar and his word is not in us."

This verse from John only rings true if you're a sinner. If you are ontologically sinless, then it is inapplicable.

Mary sinned, just like the rest of us. She was also faithful and blessed, but she was not perfect. To say otherwise is to contradict Scripture, make God a liar, and prove that his word is not in you. I hope his word is in you, and you realise that some Catholic doctrines are just plain wrong.

Thank you for your concern, and I sincerely appreciate your pointing this out. Not to do so would be to let a brother go against Scripture and leave himself in a heap of false doctrine.

One thing that I must point out is that the Catholic Church has had the totality of Scripture for almost 2,000 years now, and for two millenia, she has been pondering deeply over the pages of God's Sacred Word. The exegetical commentaries of the Patristic Age cannot hardly be compared to what we see today. Monks in the Church have spent entire lives pouring over the pages of Scripture with scrupulous attention, digesting every detail of the Holy Book. And, this accumulation of wisdom is within the treasury of the Catholic Church. It would be superfluous, to put it mildly, if the Church really proclaimed a dogma that contradicts the plain sense of a New Testament verse such as Rom 3:23. It would be like an Accountant swearing under oath that 1 plus 1 equals 1. I'm just trying to put things into perspective.

John Hellman presents my above thesis in further detail at:

http://members.aol.com/johnprh/all.html

John Henry Cardinal Newman presents the Biblical evidence for Mary's immaculate conception by showing Mary as what she is, the New Eve:

http://www.cin.org/liter/memoimma.html

yours in Christ,

Carson

 

So, what you're saying is that God was breaking the commandment that he set forth? If you're not saying that, then the only conclusion left is that the making of the Arc of the Covenant, regardless of God's issuing command, is not idolatry.

Therefore, as long as Catholics do not worship nor serve images in the Church, they are not practicing idolatry. Since I have never done such a thing (nor would I ever let myself do such a thing), I have not commited idolatry.

To say that I have is to attempt (and poorly so) read my soul and pass judgement on the actions of a person whom you have never seen in the flesh (me). The Spirit of Christ indeed.

And if a Catholic puts his faith in an image rather than what the image is symbolic of, they are breaking God's commandment, and deserve appropriate punishment (pending they sincerely seek forgiveness for their actions).

It's not that our information is lacking. It's that you are never (nor ever will be, pending your acceptance of God's grace to do so) willing to accept these Holy doctrines, and you require us to explain, re-explain, explain our explanations, and explain the explanations for our explanations. It's all very circular, and within 5 pages of the thread, we're on a new subject (something we're all guilty of), or we're right back at the beginning again, and we're accused of dodging all the questions.

God bless,

Grant

 

Hi Clint,

You wrote, "God Himself gave the command to build the Ark and all the articles within the Tabernacle."

That's precisely Ron's point. God himself commanded for these images to be constructed. We're imitating God, who himself doesn't contradict his own word. It's precisely because God has done this that presenting the action has any value. Thank you for pointing this out.

The Tabernacle and its furnishings were not idols to be worshipped nor were they served or worshipped. They served as symbols of the Siniatic Covenant.

And, likewise, statues or icons in Catholic, Protestant (yes, Protestant), or Orthodox churches are not idols to be worshipped nor are they served or worshipped. They serve as symbols of the fruits of the New Covenant. Thank you for bolstering the Catholic position.

When the Israelites DID try to put faith in the Ark as opposed to God, they were defeated by the Phillistines and the Ark was captured.

However, the Saints are Saints precisely because they did the will of God as exemplars of the Holy Spirit. So, perhaps pitting the Saints against God, Clint, comes more from your own Baptist prejudice and not so much from right reason.

God bless,

Carson

[ October 28, 2002, 09:55 AM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

Where exactly did God command for images of saints and Mary to be constructed?

Not this time. I am giving this my full attention and plan on holding this subject on course.

He never commanded that the people worship the Ark. The people were never told to serve the Ark. The wordplay between "serve" and "worship" is fruitless in this conversation about Mariolatry. They are synonymous in Exodus 20:5. Strong's Number: 05647

For further Scriptural references about idolatry, see Isaiah 37:19; Jeremiah 7:30; 14:22. There are a ton of other references but I think you'll get the idea from those.

I'm so glad that you have not fallen into that trap. So the Catholic Encyclopedia is incorrect when it states "In accordance with these principles it will readily be understood that a certain worship may be offered even to inanimate objects, such as the relics of a martyr, the Cross of Christ, the Crown of Thorns, or even the statue or picture of a saint" ? http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15710a.htm

I will not fall into the trap of defending Baptist beliefs on this thread. That is not the conversation at hand. Perhaps if you open another thread on the subject, others may pick up on it, but this thread will remain on Catholic beliefs.

By the way, Ron, here is what the Catholic Encyclopedia has to say about the Ark:

I do not agree with this interpretation but nonetheless, Catholic teachings agree that the Ark was not worshipped.

[ October 28, 2002, 11:03 AM: Message edited by: Clint Kritzer ]

 

Ahhhh, the man from Bremo Bluff!!

How's ya doing, Clint?

Fine questions. Let's git started!!

First of all I would be interested to know if the exegesis in your post comes from a specific catechism(s) or whether they are your own reasoning.

Personal reasoning, but from Scripture. That is what we are supposed to do, right?

Not that I doubt your personal beliefs,

You have every right too do so.

but I would really like to see this thread stay on Catholic teachings that are in black and white.

What I have said is consistent with what is being taught by Dr. Scott Hahn at Steubenville. Had a chance to hear him this past Saturday at St. Joe's in Mechanicsburg. What a GREAT way to spend a Saturday. He really does a bang up job of "connecting the lines" between the Old and New Covenant

It was the covenant of God which led Brother Hahn into the Church and that very same covenant also helped me to see that Catholic teachings are consistent with both Biblical Covenantalism as well as with the Preterist view of Eschatology.


Here's a link to 1Corinthians 15:35-58. There is no mention of Eve in this passage. Paul is speaking of the "man made of dust" (v. 47) as opposed to the "Man from Heaven." The entire point of the whole passage is to expound on the idea of the nature of the resurrected body. There is no mention of headships, covenants, nor the Fall.

Not the point I was making. You need to ask yourself WHY did God, in holy and inspiried Scripture, use the term "Last Adam"? That term is absolutely fraught with meaning in light of the covenant. Yes, the context is the resurrection, and that also lends itself to understanding exactly what is happening here.

The first Adam DIED. He, and by extension, the whole human race with him, died on the day that he was expelled from the Garden. Therefore, the application of the name "Last Adam" should take you right back to the Garden to start making type/antetype considerations. If mankind was indeed lost by the action of the first Adam, then mankind was indeed resurrected in the action of the Last Adam. St. Paul is refuting the error of those (Gnostics if memory serves me correctly) denied the physical resurrection. There is both a corporate as well as an individual participation in this resurrection. Corporately, all mankind is restored to God and the separation is ceased. However, each man must come to God and individually make covenant with Him through Christ in order to participate in the "resurrection of the body" in glory. This bodily resurrection will happen to ALL MEN because of the CORPORATE WORK of Christ for mankind. If not, then the wicked would not be resurrected, but merely rot in their graves. But as you know, this is not the case. All men will be resurrected physically but only those who have "cut covenant" with God through the Blood of Christ will inherit those glorified bodies spoken of in 1 Corin. 15.

Where did you get this? The New Testament family structure puts men at the head of the house just as Christ is the head of the church. You can find this at this link to Ephesians 5:22-6:4. I would be very interested in seeing where you got this "shared headship" concept.

It is shared headship, but the woman is subordinate to the man. Try telling some sassy 7 year old who just got his butt whupped by Dad for mouthing off to Mom that Mom doesn't bear authority and command respect. Ultimately the man is the final authority and all decisions (I speak, of course, of very ideal conditions) are his responsibility as the head.

The one flesh concept does not pertain to parents, it is the profound mystery in the Ephesians passage I linked above. Mary was not Jesus' wife, she was His mother. Once again, I would like to see the catechism that puts forth this notion. This sounds strangely reminiscent of the story of Oedipus Rex.

This is because you are thinking sexually in this regard. Of course, there is this verse in Scripture:

Isa 62:5 For as a young man marrieth a virgin, so shall thy sons marry thee: and as the bridegroom rejoiceth over the bride, so shall thy God rejoice over thee.

Now THAT is interesting, wouldn't you agree, in light of our conversation.

The "one flesh" relationship is filled in the Christian body by Christ and the church (Ephesians 5:31-32), not with Mary

Theologians see a relationship between Mary and the Church. There again is the type/antetype fulfillments which you are not taking into account.

The covenant of God is the relationship of the Father to the Word. That relationship of union in love brings forth life -- the life giving Holy Spirit. When God created mankind, He said "let us create them in our image. Therefore, for a proper relationship to exist between Adam and Eve, they had to be in a union of love which would also bring forth life (offspring).

The nuclear family is the smallest covenantal unity in which the Godhead is imaged. As I said before, since Jesus is the Last Adam, He must have the "new Eve" (which is the exact title given the BVM by the Early Fathers) with whom He brings forth new life (believers - raised from the dead and adopted as "sons and daughters"). When Jesus and the BVM went to Heaven to rule and reign together, they left behind another covenant couple who are the earthly representatives of the heavenly reality -- the Holy Father (male covenantal head) and the Church (female covenantal "helpmeet"). In their work together, they also bring forth life here on earth.

Every structure regarding God's work among men MUST image the covenantal relationship of the Holy Trinity. That is why Adam had Eve, the Last Adam has the New Eve, and the Holy Father has the Church. Look carefully at the similarities in the structure and hopefully you will see it.

Really? Where did you get this tid-bit? Is this another Catholic teaching?

Actually, I first heard trumpeted in an Fundamentalist assembly I was attending as the pastor taught on the 2nd coming. He was gleefully looking forward to "ruling and reigning" with Christ 1000 years. Of course, since we are in the millenium now, since the kingdom has come now, we do indeed rule and reign with Him.

And ya know what, that is another redemption of the original plan. Adam (and by extension, Eve )was given authority to "take dominion" over the creation as God's priest to the creation. That means "rule and reign", except that Adam blew it.

To whom are you referring when you talk about this co-regency? Bathsheba, the mother of Solomon? If you think she was co-regent, please explain her need for manipulation and careful wording in 1 Kings 1:15-21.

She was not co regent with David. I said that the reign of the "giberah" began with Solomon. Your link starts before this happened.

This is not a correct definition of "covenant." A covenant is an agreement between two parties. There were three different types of covenants in Old Testament times: the Royal Grant, Parity, and the Suzerain-vassal. Here's a link to the major Old Testament covenants and a description of their nature.

Why don't YOU use the Biblical description of covenants? You accuse me of not being Biblical and then turn right around and use covenantal terms which are NOWHERE FOUND in the Scriptures.

WHERE, my friend, is your consistency?

These are all POLITICAL CONTRACTS between countries. They are not a Biblical covenant. Let us see what a Biblical covenant is:

Eze 16:8 Now when I passed by thee, and looked upon thee, behold, thy time was the time of love; and I spread my skirt over thee, and covered thy nakedness: yea, I sware unto thee, and entered into a covenant with thee, saith the Lord GOD, and thou becamest mine.

Read the entire chapter, please. A covenant is described right here as God describes His taking the Jews as His people and His Bride. You are mistaking a contract, in which goods or services are exchanged, with a covenant, in which one life is given to the other. The two lives become one and in that union produce life, and this union is so complete that nine months after you make this covenant, you may well have to give the resulting life a name.

You are using Ray Sutton's paradigm, which is common among the Presbyterian Calvinists. It is merely contractual. If you ever put a covenant in terms of two becoming one you will understand the Catholic Faith. As long as you think of it as simply a contract, it will make no sense to you.

The BVM is not "equal to Christ" because Christ is God. He is the living Word. But She is most assuredly "one flesh" with Jesus, and in the most intimate way possible, since He recieved His flesh from Her, can you deny that they have a VERY "one flesh" relationship?

Christ is the nature of God. Jesus is the nature of perfect man. They both existed in one body, the One we know as "Jesus the Christ". Remember, it is a MAN who rules and reigns in Heaven. Yes, He is divine by the union of those two natures, but it sometimes seems that Christians forget his humanity by overshadowing it with the fact of His deity.

To say that the BVM is "equal" to Christ is indeed blasphemy, but to say that she is "co-regent" as the New Eve to the Last Adam is not. They are perfected humanity and the restoration of the lost Garden covenantal family.

Cordially in Christ,

Brother Ed

 

Quite well, thanks, Ed.

If one accepts the teachings of Acts 17:11, it is indeed a noble course of action.

I am far more interested in exploring the accepted teachings of the RCC concerning Mary. I know that you are Greek Orthodox, but it appears that you share these views as well.

Et tu, Ed, et tu?

To which covenant are you referring here?

I'm glad to see that you give the credit to Christ without any mention of Mary.

Not according to the passage at hand: Ephesians 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior.

The context of Isaiah here is an address to Jerusalem. Where does it say that Jerusalem remains a virgin after the marriage? The "sons" spoken of here are the descendants of Isiah's audience. The Scriptures are quite clear, Old and New Testament that incest is strictly forbidden from the time of the Levitical code(Leviticus 18:8; 1Corinthians 5:1).

Would you be kind enough to back this up with a specific document from a chatecism or council or such? Thanks.

Really? Again, can you show me some documentation on this concept?

By "Holy Father" do you mean God? Christ has the church. See Ephesians 5 once again. This concept of a new Eve is something you are inserting into the Scriptures. It's not there, Ed. I can only find Eve mentioned twice in the New Testament: 2Co 11:3; 1Ti 2:13. Neither mention can be construed as very complimentary of her.

Really? When did this begin? October 28,1002 or later than that?

Which of Solomon's 700 wives or 300 concubines was co-regent? One of those that turned his heart from God (1Ki 11:3)?

Now THAT'S interesting pertinent to this conversation!

Very well.

Example of a Royal Grant: Genesis 9:8-17 v. 11 - Thus I establish My covenant with you: Never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of the flood; never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth.

Example of a Suzerain-vassal: Exodus 19-24 v. 19:5 - Now therefore, if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be a special treasure to Me above all people; for all the earth is Mine.

Example of parity: 1Samuel 20:1-17 v. 16 - Now Jonathan again caused David to vow, because he loved him; for he loved him as he loved his own soul.

Why, it's right there, Ed.

Yes, that is the Suzerain-vassal mentioned in my example.

Hmm, no entry for "covenant" in the Catholic dictionary. Google, however, turned up quite a bit on the Lutheran-Catholic covenant.

But Genesis says that a man LEAVES his parents to become "one flesh" with his wife (Genesis 2:24).

No argument there, but then you go on to say:

So, she is "one flesh" with Christ, shares Headship, and is co-redemptrix, but she is not equal? Where is her submissive role?

Thanks for taking the time, Ed. I really would appreciate it if you could back up your assertions with documentation from the Catholic church, whether it be RCC or Orthodox.

By the way, are you going to have to do pennance for calling Mary the "BVM?"

 

Just a caveat. The second commandment does not forbit making graven images. It forbids making graven images and bowing down to them in worship.

Statues, assuming for agruement sake that they are graven images, are not forbidden. Only the worship of statues.

Roman Catholics often have statues, but don't worship them.

This distinction is important because if it were not worded in this manner, I would be forbidden from having a decorative statue of buddha in my garden.

 

Clint, why do you quote from Catholic sources concerning "worship" of Mary, yet at the same time disregard the distinctions which those sources make concerning "worship"?

I think that is called "taking out of context".

Isn't that one of those false arguement techniques that you have been so critical of at late?

Ron

 

I reverence the memory of many people who have gone before me into Heaven. Mary was the Mother of God. Quite frankly, you bet I'll reverence her.

Worship? Nope.

Two things. One, your quote ends with a colon. Why did not you finish a sentence that is so obviously not finished?

Second, take a look at the key part of this sentence, "second only to her Son." If Mary was worshipped as if she was God, she could not be second to to her Son, Jesus. To worship something means to put it above or at an equal level with God. Mary is second to God, therefore, not God, and honoring her in the most special way is below honoring her as if she were God, which she is not.

(Vatican II documents, "Dogmatic Costitution of the Church)

Regardless of what you believe about Mary...anyone who is in Heaven is free from the bondage of sin, and is thus made Holy by the Lamb of God. So how, exactly, is it wrong to call her "holy," when she is no doubt with Jesus Christ in Heaven?

God bless,

Grant

 

Not at all, Ron. The source is right there and DHK has already asserted that the dichotomy of worship is not found in the Scriptures. Some Catholic contributors (and now a Baptist) have asserted that it is not worship. Then I quoted from a source that says that it IS worship. Then, some folks assert, "It's not worship! It's worship! Also the article I cited from Good News for Catholics also addresses the issue of this dichotomy.

While I'm on and answering your question, I'll throw out another interesting find:

 

Christ, while fully God, was also fully man. As fully man, Christ could have chosen to sin. He did not. Thus, the "all" who have sinned does not pertain to Jesus Christ. This has been established countless times on this board, and it's a classic example of failing to understand the generalization being made.

No, I don't realize that, because it's not the Truth. Mary's sinlessness does not negate the Word of God, because it was by her Blessed Son, Jesus Christ, that this precious gift of salvation was given to her in advance, so that she might bright forth the Word Incarnate from a body free from the corruptions of sin. Mary rightly says of her Son, "my savior," for this miraculous act of salvation was an undeserved gift to her.

God bless,

Grant