Post by Messenger on Feb 20, 2008 22:28:41 GMT -5
First of all, I am only going to look at Mary from the Catholic Encyclopedia. From Jesus' death & resurrection on:
www.newadvent.org/cathen/15464b.htm
Let's start with this:
Mary was impeccable?
I don't think so! Not according to what Scripture says:
Romans 3:9-11 (New International Version)
9What shall we conclude then? Are we any better? Not at all! We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin. 10As it is written:
"There is no one righteous, not even one;
11there is no one who understands,
no one who seeks God.
How can ANYONE say something like this:
concupiscence \kon-KYOO-puh-suhn(t)s; kuhn-\, noun:
Strong desire, especially sexual desire; lust
Mary never had any Sexual desires?
She wouldn't be human if she didn't!
But we can't help but read more into this than just sexual desises. Can anyone honestly say that this isn't reffering to ALL sinful thoughts?
Mary would have to be perfect!
This is blasphemy of the worst kind!
There is, was, & only will be ONE PEREFCT PERSON-CHRIST JESUS!
Okay, let's continue:
Represented in paintings?
Is THIS how a person believes? With what they see in a painting?
I can't believe how utterly ludricrous this sounds!!
Also:
Do you see what is happening here, when, catholics ascribe the characteristics, to Mary, that are listed here? They are putting her on EQUAL STANDING WITH CHRIST!
Try telling me that this is NOT blasphemy of the worst kind!
Now, let's look at the doctine of Mary's "assumption"
Click here for full article!
First, let's look at this:
Even theologians don't know where she was buried!
Then we have this:
If they didn't know where Mary was buried, how do they even know that this was the right grave? Was there ANY EVIDENCE, that the grave hadn't been robbed?
Have you noticed throughout these articles, that the word "tradiion" is used a great deal?
That's what the Catholic Church runs by-traditions, not Biblical fact, which we have in God's word, the BIBLE!
Then we have this:
Excuse me?
Concieved with out the stain of original sin?
That is Scripturally impossible.
Mary was born of human parents! There is no way that she COULDN'T HAVE THE STAIN OF ORIGINAL SIN!
Even King David recognized this fact:
Psalm 51:5 (New International Version)
Surely I was sinful at birth,
sinful from the time my mother conceived me.
If she was conceived with out sin, she would be perfect, & that is BLASPHEMY!
There is only ONE person that was concieved WITHOUT the stain of original sin-Christ Jesus!
Now, many will say that I am mocking Mary.
No I am NOT!
I an only going by what the Bible & ONLY the Bible says, because THAT is the ONLY truth that we CAN trust!
Here are the BIBLICAL
Facts about Mary:
1. She was a virgin-Luke 1:27
2. She was the wife of Joseph-Matthew 1:24
3. She was righteous before God-Luke 1:30
4. She was the mother of Jesus-Luke 1:35
Yes, Mary SHOULD be respected.
But while she holds a special place in Biblical Christianity, she was a mortal woman who God used.
She is NOT to be worshiped, prayed to, of in ANY WAY, be placed any higher than any other MORTAL person.
Bill
www.newadvent.org/cathen/15464b.htm
Mary's perfect sanctity
Some few patristic writers expressed their doubts as to the presence of minor moral defects in Our Blessed Lady. [77] St. Basil, e.g., suggests that Mary yielded to doubt on hearing the words of holy Simeon and on witnessing the crucifixion. [78] St. John Chrysostom is of opinion that Mary would have felt fear and trouble, unless the angel had explained the mystery of the Incarnation to her, and that she showed some vainglory at the marriage feast in Cana and on visiting her Son during His public life together with the brothers of the Lord. [79] St. Cyril of Alexandria [80] speaks of Mary's doubt and discouragement at the foot of the cross. But these Greek writers cannot be said to express an Apostolic tradition, when they express their private and singular opinions. Scripture and tradition agree in ascribing to Mary the greatest personal sanctity; She is conceived without the stain of original sin; she shows the greatest humility and patience in her daily life (Luke 1:38, 48); she exhibits an heroic patience under the most trying circumstances (Luke 2:7, 35, 48; John 19:25-27). When there is question of sin, Mary must always be excepted. [81] Mary's complete exemption from actual sin is confirmed by the Council of Trent (Session VI, Canon 23): "If any one say that man once justified can during his whole life avoid all sins, even venial ones, as the Church holds that the Blessed Virgin did by special privilege of God, let him be anathema." Theologians assert that Mary was impeccable, not by the essential perfection of her nature, but by a special Divine privilege. Moreover, the Fathers, at least since the fifth century, almost unanimously maintain that the Blessed Virgin never experienced the motions of concupiscence.
Some few patristic writers expressed their doubts as to the presence of minor moral defects in Our Blessed Lady. [77] St. Basil, e.g., suggests that Mary yielded to doubt on hearing the words of holy Simeon and on witnessing the crucifixion. [78] St. John Chrysostom is of opinion that Mary would have felt fear and trouble, unless the angel had explained the mystery of the Incarnation to her, and that she showed some vainglory at the marriage feast in Cana and on visiting her Son during His public life together with the brothers of the Lord. [79] St. Cyril of Alexandria [80] speaks of Mary's doubt and discouragement at the foot of the cross. But these Greek writers cannot be said to express an Apostolic tradition, when they express their private and singular opinions. Scripture and tradition agree in ascribing to Mary the greatest personal sanctity; She is conceived without the stain of original sin; she shows the greatest humility and patience in her daily life (Luke 1:38, 48); she exhibits an heroic patience under the most trying circumstances (Luke 2:7, 35, 48; John 19:25-27). When there is question of sin, Mary must always be excepted. [81] Mary's complete exemption from actual sin is confirmed by the Council of Trent (Session VI, Canon 23): "If any one say that man once justified can during his whole life avoid all sins, even venial ones, as the Church holds that the Blessed Virgin did by special privilege of God, let him be anathema." Theologians assert that Mary was impeccable, not by the essential perfection of her nature, but by a special Divine privilege. Moreover, the Fathers, at least since the fifth century, almost unanimously maintain that the Blessed Virgin never experienced the motions of concupiscence.
Let's start with this:
When there is question of sin, Mary must always be excepted. [81] Mary's complete exemption from actual sin is confirmed by the Council of Trent (Session VI, Canon 23): "If any one say that man once justified can during his whole life avoid all sins, even venial ones, as the Church holds that the Blessed Virgin did by special privilege of God, let him be anathema." Theologians assert that Mary was impeccable, not by the essential perfection of her nature, but by a special Divine privilege. Moreover, the Fathers, at least since the fifth century, almost unanimously maintain that the Blessed Virgin never experienced the motions of concupiscence.
Mary was impeccable?
I don't think so! Not according to what Scripture says:
Romans 3:9-11 (New International Version)
9What shall we conclude then? Are we any better? Not at all! We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin. 10As it is written:
"There is no one righteous, not even one;
11there is no one who understands,
no one who seeks God.
How can ANYONE say something like this:
Moreover, the Fathers, at least since the fifth century, almost unanimously maintain that the Blessed Virgin never experienced the motions of concupiscence.
concupiscence \kon-KYOO-puh-suhn(t)s; kuhn-\, noun:
Strong desire, especially sexual desire; lust
Mary never had any Sexual desires?
She wouldn't be human if she didn't!
But we can't help but read more into this than just sexual desises. Can anyone honestly say that this isn't reffering to ALL sinful thoughts?
Mary would have to be perfect!
This is blasphemy of the worst kind!
There is, was, & only will be ONE PEREFCT PERSON-CHRIST JESUS!
Okay, let's continue:
Apocalypse 12:1-6
In the Apocalypse (12:1-16) occurs a passage singularly applicable to Our Blessed Mother:
And a great sign appeared in heaven: A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars; and being with child, she cried travailing in birth, and was in pain to be delivered. And there was seen another sign in heaven: and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads, and ten horns, and on his heads seven diadems; and his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven; and cast them to the earth; and the dragon stood before the woman who was ready to be delivered; that when she should be delivered, he might devour her son. And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with an iron rod; and her son was taken up to God, and to his throne. And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she had a place prepared by God, that there they should feed her a thousand two hundred sixty days.
The applicability of this passage to Mary is based on the following considerations:
At least part of the verses refer to the mother whose son is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron; according to Psalm 2:9, this is the Son of God, Jesus Christ, Whose mother is Mary.
It was Mary's son that "was taken up to God, and to his throne" at the time of His Ascension into heaven.
The dragon, or the devil of the earthly paradise (cf. Apocalypse 12:9; 20:2), endeavoured to devour Mary's Son from the first moments of His birth, by stirring up the jealousy of Herod and, later on, the enmities of the Jews.
Owing to her unspeakable privileges, Mary may well be described as "clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars".
It is true that commentators generally understand the whole passage as applying literally to the Church, and that part of the verses is better suited to the Church than to Mary. But it must be kept in mind that Mary is both a figure of the Church, and its most prominent member. What is said of the Church, is in its own way true of Mary. Hence the passage of the Apocalypse (12:5-6) does not refer to Mary merely by way of accommodation [108], but applies to her in a truly literal sense which appears to be partly limited to her, and partly extended to the whole Church. Mary's relation to the Church is well summed up in the expression "collum corporis mystici" applied to Our Lady by St. Bernardin of Siena. [109]
Cardinal Newman [110] considers two difficulties against the foregoing interpretation of the vision of the woman and child: first, it is said to be poorly supported by the Fathers; secondly, it is an anachronism to ascribe such a picture of the Madonna to the apostolic age. As to the first exception, the eminent writer says:
Christians have never gone to Scripture for proof of their doctrines, till there was actual need, from the pressure of controversy; if in those times the Blessed Virgin's dignity was unchallenged on all hands, as a matter of doctrine, Scripture, as far as its argumentative matter was concerned, was likely to remain a sealed book to them.
After developing this answer at length, the cardinal continues:
As to the second objection which I have supposed, so far from allowing it, I consider that it is built upon a mere imaginary fact, and that the truth of the matter lies in the very contrary direction. The Virgin and Child is not a mere modern idea; on the contrary, it is represented again and again, as every visitor to Rome is aware, in the paintings of the Catacombs. Mary is there drawn with the Divine Infant in her lap, she with hands extended in prayer, he with his hand in the attitude of blessing.
In the Apocalypse (12:1-16) occurs a passage singularly applicable to Our Blessed Mother:
And a great sign appeared in heaven: A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars; and being with child, she cried travailing in birth, and was in pain to be delivered. And there was seen another sign in heaven: and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads, and ten horns, and on his heads seven diadems; and his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven; and cast them to the earth; and the dragon stood before the woman who was ready to be delivered; that when she should be delivered, he might devour her son. And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with an iron rod; and her son was taken up to God, and to his throne. And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she had a place prepared by God, that there they should feed her a thousand two hundred sixty days.
The applicability of this passage to Mary is based on the following considerations:
At least part of the verses refer to the mother whose son is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron; according to Psalm 2:9, this is the Son of God, Jesus Christ, Whose mother is Mary.
It was Mary's son that "was taken up to God, and to his throne" at the time of His Ascension into heaven.
The dragon, or the devil of the earthly paradise (cf. Apocalypse 12:9; 20:2), endeavoured to devour Mary's Son from the first moments of His birth, by stirring up the jealousy of Herod and, later on, the enmities of the Jews.
Owing to her unspeakable privileges, Mary may well be described as "clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars".
It is true that commentators generally understand the whole passage as applying literally to the Church, and that part of the verses is better suited to the Church than to Mary. But it must be kept in mind that Mary is both a figure of the Church, and its most prominent member. What is said of the Church, is in its own way true of Mary. Hence the passage of the Apocalypse (12:5-6) does not refer to Mary merely by way of accommodation [108], but applies to her in a truly literal sense which appears to be partly limited to her, and partly extended to the whole Church. Mary's relation to the Church is well summed up in the expression "collum corporis mystici" applied to Our Lady by St. Bernardin of Siena. [109]
Cardinal Newman [110] considers two difficulties against the foregoing interpretation of the vision of the woman and child: first, it is said to be poorly supported by the Fathers; secondly, it is an anachronism to ascribe such a picture of the Madonna to the apostolic age. As to the first exception, the eminent writer says:
Christians have never gone to Scripture for proof of their doctrines, till there was actual need, from the pressure of controversy; if in those times the Blessed Virgin's dignity was unchallenged on all hands, as a matter of doctrine, Scripture, as far as its argumentative matter was concerned, was likely to remain a sealed book to them.
After developing this answer at length, the cardinal continues:
As to the second objection which I have supposed, so far from allowing it, I consider that it is built upon a mere imaginary fact, and that the truth of the matter lies in the very contrary direction. The Virgin and Child is not a mere modern idea; on the contrary, it is represented again and again, as every visitor to Rome is aware, in the paintings of the Catacombs. Mary is there drawn with the Divine Infant in her lap, she with hands extended in prayer, he with his hand in the attitude of blessing.
Represented in paintings?
Is THIS how a person believes? With what they see in a painting?
I can't believe how utterly ludricrous this sounds!!
Also:
Do you see what is happening here, when, catholics ascribe the characteristics, to Mary, that are listed here? They are putting her on EQUAL STANDING WITH CHRIST!
Try telling me that this is NOT blasphemy of the worst kind!
Now, let's look at the doctine of Mary's "assumption"
Click here for full article!
The Feast of the Assumption
The Feast of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, 15 August; also called in old liturgical books Pausatio, Nativitas (for heaven), Mors, Depositio, Dormitio S. Mariae.
This feast has a double object: (1) the happy departure of Mary from this life; (2) the assumption of her body into heaven. It is the principal feast of the Blessed Virgin.
THE FACT OF THE ASSUMPTION
Regarding the day, year, and manner of Our Lady's death, nothing certain is known. The earliest known literary reference to the Assumption is found in the Greek work De Obitu S. Dominae. Catholic faith, however, has always derived our knowledge of the mystery from Apostolic Tradition. Epiphanius (d. 403) acknowledged that he knew nothing definite about it (Haer., lxxix, 11). The dates assigned for it vary between three and fifteen years after Christ's Ascension. Two cities claim to be the place of her departure: Jerusalem and Ephesus. Common consent favours Jerusalem, where her tomb is shown; but some argue in favour of Ephesus. The first six centuries did not know of the tomb of Mary at Jerusalem.
The belief in the corporeal assumption of Mary is founded on the apocryphal treatise De Obitu S. Dominae, bearing the name of St. John, which belongs however to the fourth or fifth century. It is also found in the book De Transitu Virginis, falsely ascribed to St. Melito of Sardis, and in a spurious letter attributed to St. Denis the Areopagite. If we consult genuine writings in the East, it is mentioned in the sermons of St. Andrew of Crete, St. John Damascene, St. Modestus of Jerusalem and others. In the West, St. Gregory of Tours (De gloria mart., I, iv) mentions it first. The sermons of St. Jerome and St. Augustine for this feast, however, are spurious. St. John of Damascus (P. G., I, 96) thus formulates the tradition of the Church of Jerusalem:
St. Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem, at the Council of Chalcedon (451), made known to the Emperor Marcian and Pulcheria, who wished to possess the body of the Mother of God, that Mary died in the presence of all the Apostles, but that her tomb, when opened, upon the request of St. Thomas, was found empty; wherefrom the Apostles concluded that the body was taken up to heaven.
The Feast of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, 15 August; also called in old liturgical books Pausatio, Nativitas (for heaven), Mors, Depositio, Dormitio S. Mariae.
This feast has a double object: (1) the happy departure of Mary from this life; (2) the assumption of her body into heaven. It is the principal feast of the Blessed Virgin.
THE FACT OF THE ASSUMPTION
Regarding the day, year, and manner of Our Lady's death, nothing certain is known. The earliest known literary reference to the Assumption is found in the Greek work De Obitu S. Dominae. Catholic faith, however, has always derived our knowledge of the mystery from Apostolic Tradition. Epiphanius (d. 403) acknowledged that he knew nothing definite about it (Haer., lxxix, 11). The dates assigned for it vary between three and fifteen years after Christ's Ascension. Two cities claim to be the place of her departure: Jerusalem and Ephesus. Common consent favours Jerusalem, where her tomb is shown; but some argue in favour of Ephesus. The first six centuries did not know of the tomb of Mary at Jerusalem.
The belief in the corporeal assumption of Mary is founded on the apocryphal treatise De Obitu S. Dominae, bearing the name of St. John, which belongs however to the fourth or fifth century. It is also found in the book De Transitu Virginis, falsely ascribed to St. Melito of Sardis, and in a spurious letter attributed to St. Denis the Areopagite. If we consult genuine writings in the East, it is mentioned in the sermons of St. Andrew of Crete, St. John Damascene, St. Modestus of Jerusalem and others. In the West, St. Gregory of Tours (De gloria mart., I, iv) mentions it first. The sermons of St. Jerome and St. Augustine for this feast, however, are spurious. St. John of Damascus (P. G., I, 96) thus formulates the tradition of the Church of Jerusalem:
St. Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem, at the Council of Chalcedon (451), made known to the Emperor Marcian and Pulcheria, who wished to possess the body of the Mother of God, that Mary died in the presence of all the Apostles, but that her tomb, when opened, upon the request of St. Thomas, was found empty; wherefrom the Apostles concluded that the body was taken up to heaven.
First, let's look at this:
THE FACT OF THE ASSUMPTION
Regarding the day, year, and manner of Our Lady's death, nothing certain is known. The earliest known literary reference to the Assumption is found in the Greek work De Obitu S. Dominae. Catholic faith, however, has always derived our knowledge of the mystery from Apostolic Tradition. Epiphanius (d. 403) acknowledged that he knew nothing definite about it (Haer., lxxix, 11). The dates assigned for it vary between three and fifteen years after Christ's Ascension. Two cities claim to be the place of her departure: Jerusalem and Ephesus. Common consent favours Jerusalem, where her tomb is shown; but some argue in favour of Ephesus. The first six centuries did not know of the tomb of Mary at Jerusalem.
Regarding the day, year, and manner of Our Lady's death, nothing certain is known. The earliest known literary reference to the Assumption is found in the Greek work De Obitu S. Dominae. Catholic faith, however, has always derived our knowledge of the mystery from Apostolic Tradition. Epiphanius (d. 403) acknowledged that he knew nothing definite about it (Haer., lxxix, 11). The dates assigned for it vary between three and fifteen years after Christ's Ascension. Two cities claim to be the place of her departure: Jerusalem and Ephesus. Common consent favours Jerusalem, where her tomb is shown; but some argue in favour of Ephesus. The first six centuries did not know of the tomb of Mary at Jerusalem.
Even theologians don't know where she was buried!
Then we have this:
St. Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem, at the Council of Chalcedon (451), made known to the Emperor Marcian and Pulcheria, who wished to possess the body of the Mother of God, that Mary died in the presence of all the Apostles, but that her tomb, when opened, upon the request of St. Thomas, was found empty; wherefrom the Apostles concluded that the body was taken up to heaven.
If they didn't know where Mary was buried, how do they even know that this was the right grave? Was there ANY EVIDENCE, that the grave hadn't been robbed?
Have you noticed throughout these articles, that the word "tradiion" is used a great deal?
That's what the Catholic Church runs by-traditions, not Biblical fact, which we have in God's word, the BIBLE!
Then we have this:
Scripture and tradition agree in ascribing to Mary the greatest personal sanctity; She is conceived without the stain of original sin..........
Excuse me?
Concieved with out the stain of original sin?
That is Scripturally impossible.
Mary was born of human parents! There is no way that she COULDN'T HAVE THE STAIN OF ORIGINAL SIN!
Even King David recognized this fact:
Psalm 51:5 (New International Version)
Surely I was sinful at birth,
sinful from the time my mother conceived me.
If she was conceived with out sin, she would be perfect, & that is BLASPHEMY!
There is only ONE person that was concieved WITHOUT the stain of original sin-Christ Jesus!
Now, many will say that I am mocking Mary.
No I am NOT!
I an only going by what the Bible & ONLY the Bible says, because THAT is the ONLY truth that we CAN trust!
Here are the BIBLICAL
Facts about Mary:
1. She was a virgin-Luke 1:27
2. She was the wife of Joseph-Matthew 1:24
3. She was righteous before God-Luke 1:30
4. She was the mother of Jesus-Luke 1:35
Yes, Mary SHOULD be respected.
But while she holds a special place in Biblical Christianity, she was a mortal woman who God used.
She is NOT to be worshiped, prayed to, of in ANY WAY, be placed any higher than any other MORTAL person.
Bill
