Against Mary - "Totus tuus, Mary"


#139

Huh???


#140

I told you you can prove me wrong. You would prove me wrong by showing me that any doctrine the RCC teaches is wrong. But we have to begin somewhere. Let’s say by proving that Mt 16,18-19 is not what the Church teaches it means.

Yes it teaches many things at least implicitly which you are unwilling to accept.

I’ll pose 2 question for you in the next post


#141

Justasking,

  1. How can you know that the Council of Nicaea (325) got it right?

  2. Have you read the article I’ve given you about the liguistic analysis of the “kecharitomene” argument?


Dsicussing questions related to Sola Scriptura
Discussing Mary
#142

Well, I have twice posted my Biblical defense of the Immaculate Conception, and I have twice been ignored by Justasking4. Justasking4, I’m offering you a solid, purely Biblical defense of the Catholic Church’s beliefs about Mary. Now you might have just happened to miss them. OK. As I must assume this is, I’m telling you where they are so you can read them.

On Page 7, posts #104 & 105 you will find my defense of the Immaculate Conception of Mary.

On page 4, posts #58 & 59 you will find my defense of the Queenship of Mary.

You have all along claimed that you have not found any Catholic who could give you a Biblical defense for his Marian beliefs, but my Biblical defense has been under your nose all along.

They are quite long, but to dismiss somebody’s beliefs because their explanation for those beliefs is long is totally dishonest and self deceiving.

Please, if you feel that they are incorrect, tell me so. I realize it might be a little too much for you to try to argue every single point. Pick out certain things you disagree with. Where do you think my Biblical understanding goes off? What are the main areas of my Biblical interpretation that you take issue with?

I’m giving you an honest and fair chance. I do hope you’re a least willing to try it.


#143

I really struggled with this until I understood that Mary as our mother wants to give us totally to God; for us to totally love God with her own immaculate heart. No human knows and loves the Holy Trinity like Mary does. She is our mother, teacher, guide, role model, and instrument of the Holy Spirit. Wouldn’t Jesus be happy for us to love His mother?


#144

zemi;2566780]I told you you can prove me wrong. You would prove me wrong by showing me that any doctrine the RCC teaches is wrong. But we have to begin somewhere. Let’s say by proving that Mt 16,18-19 is not what the Church teaches it means.

Lets first see what the scriptures mean here. What is the context?

Where do we see this demonstrated in the scriptures?

Does this passage say anything about succession?

Yes it teaches many things at least implicitly which you are unwilling to accept.

First lets see what it teaches before we get to this.

I’ll pose 2 question for you in the next post


Dsicussing questions related to Sola Scriptura
Discussing Mary
#145

zemi;2566785]Justasking,

  1. How can you know that the Council of Nicaea (325) got it right?
    It can be supported by the scriptures.
  1. Have you read the article I’ve given you about the liguistic analysis of the “kecharitomene” argument?

Yes and it falls way short. Have you looked at the context in scripture where this word appears?

Have you found any other scriptures that support the idea that Mary did not sin or was kept from sin?


#146

Are you aware that the scriptures never refer to Mary as being your mother or the mother of the church?
Don’t you think that if what you believe is true it would be taught in the Scriptures? The fact of the matter it does not.


#147

Come to THIS thread then for the Papacy, I’ll be there ok?


#148

I created a thred for discussing Mary. Come HERE for it.


#149

Discussing Sola Scriptura thread HERE.

:slight_smile:


#150

reluctant_saint;2566976]Well, I have twice posted my Biblical defense of the Immaculate Conception, and I have twice been ignored by Justasking4. Justasking4, I’m offering you a solid, purely Biblical defense of the Catholic Church’s beliefs about Mary. Now you might have just happened to miss them. OK. As I must assume this is, I’m telling you where they are so you can read them.

On Page 7, posts #104 & 105 you will find my defense of the Immaculate Conception of Mary.

On page 4, posts #58 & 59 you will find my defense of the Queenship of Mary.

I have read your posts and the major flaw in all of them is that you are taking them out of context and trying to apply them to Mary. Your arguments also fail for the mere fact they never speak of Mary in this way. Are you aware that after the gospel accounts she is never again mentioned by name and when she is mentioned its always indirectly. This alone refutes the passages you try to use to support these claims about her.

You have all along claimed that you have not found any Catholic who could give you a Biblical defense for his Marian beliefs, but my Biblical defense has been under your nose all along.

If that is your defense, then it has failed. Do you have some catholic commentaries? If so, look up the passages you used in your defense and see if these scholars say what you are claiming about Mary.

They are quite long, but to dismiss somebody’s beliefs because their explanation for those beliefs is long is totally dishonest and self deceiving.

Long extended comments are to easy to misread. Better to keep it short since most will tire of reading so much.

Please, if you feel that they are incorrect, tell me so. I realize it might be a little too much for you to try to argue every single point. Pick out certain things you disagree with. Where do you think my Biblical understanding goes off? What are the main areas of my Biblical interpretation that you take issue with?

What i see you doing and a lot of catholics who defend the marian doctrines is that they read into the texts of scripture catholic theology. Better to study the texts in context in which they are written and derive the meaning from that rather than reading into the texts what is not there. Take for example Mary’s queenship. The only place you ever find such a concept would be in the NT. The NT never ever refers to her as a queen.
if she was one, then those who knew her would have said so.

I’m giving you an honest and fair chance. I do hope you’re a least willing to try it.

Please keep in mind that i’m not going out of my way to ignore you or anyone else. I’m probably the odd man out in this forummn and its like having a conversation with 20 people at once. Its easy to miss things. Throw in how much time it takes to respond as another issue.


#151

It’s funny, you never told me what part I was taking out of context. You never told me where I went off. Perhaps you would do better to pinpoint what exactly you think I take out of context. But I would argue it is you who take the Scripture out of context. I gave you a far analysis of John’s Gospel. It is obvious beyond a doubt how John wrote. I did not read anything into Scripture that doesn’t follow in the pattern of John’s writing.

You must give me a clear cut case of what I’m taking out of context, and then you must give me the correct context. Anything else I will not be satisfied with.

I have Catholic Commentaries, and they agree with me. I wouldn’t be arguing with a Catholic over what Catholic scholars say.

Short comments are for people who don’t have any real argument. But for your sake, I will keep this comment short.

I believe John did say so. John knew Mary extremely well. He told use that we are the Woman’s children. Catholic scholars have always understood the woman in Revelation 12 to mean both the Church and Mary. These are not not mutually exclusive. We are told that this woman “gave birth to one who is to rule the nations with a rod of iron.” Who satisfies that position better than Mary?

Quite true. As to that, I do give you the benefit of the doubt.

I will say this much more. The analysis I gave you of John’s Gospel was there so that you could see that I really was putting things into context. The context of John’s Gospel is the whole Old Testament. I went through that lengthy analysis to show you what I think is the correct context. To say I wasn’t putting things into context is dishonest.

The problem I find with Protestant theology is that Protestants generally pick and chose what context they wish to put a certain Biblical verse into. They say they put everything in context, but what they mean by context is usually whatever they want it to mean. In my position, I have stated the context I was putting these Biblical verses into, and I gave an explanation for why that is the correct context.

Do not tell me I am taking things out of context when I obviously am not. You must show me why my context is wrong if you wish to make your point.


#152

reluctant_saint;2570901]It’s funny, you never told me what part I was taking out of context. You never told me where I went off. Perhaps you would do better to pinpoint what exactly you think I take out of context.

Do any of the NT writers make the connection that you do with the OT scrriptures that shows that Mary was somehow a queen as Bethseba was?
The writers of the NT use the OT scriptures many times to support what they are claiming about Christ but where do they do this in regards to Mary as being the ark for example?

But I would argue it is you who take the Scripture out of context.

How so? Can you give me a couple of examples from scripture?

I gave you a far analysis of John’s Gospel. It is obvious beyond a doubt how John wrote. I did not read anything into Scripture that doesn’t follow in the pattern of John’s writing.

What exactly is this “pattern” in John’s gospel that you are referring to?

You must give me a clear cut case of what I’m taking out of context, and then you must give me the correct context. Anything else I will not be satisfied with.

As i’ve asked above: where do the NT writers use the relationship of David and his mother as a type of relationship between Jesus and Mary in the NT?

I have Catholic Commentaries, and they agree with me. I wouldn’t be arguing with a Catholic over what Catholic scholars say.

Short comments are for people who don’t have any real argument. But for your sake, I will keep this comment short.

Thank you

I

believe John did say so. John knew Mary extremely well. He told use that we are the Woman’s children.

Do you have a scripture reference for this?

Catholic scholars have always understood the woman in Revelation 12 to mean both the Church and Mary. These are not not mutually exclusive. We are told that this woman “gave birth to one who is to rule the nations with a rod of iron.” Who satisfies that position better than Mary?

i agree. However it does not follow that Mary would then be the “mother of these nations or even the church”. If that were the case, we would see such evidence in the scriptures. The fact is there is none for this kind of claim.

Quite true. As to that, I do give you the benefit of the doubt.

I will say this much more. The analysis I gave you of John’s Gospel was there so that you could see that I really was putting things into context. The context of John’s Gospel is the whole Old Testament. I went through that lengthy analysis to show you what I think is the correct context. To say I wasn’t putting things into context is dishonest.

No doubt John uses the OT to make his case about Christ. Now show me specifically the claims you make about Mary are also explicitedly stated in this gospel?

The problem I find with Protestant theology is that Protestants generally pick and chose what context they wish to put a certain Biblical verse into. They say they put everything in context, but what they mean by context is usually whatever they want it to mean. In my position, I have stated the context I was putting these Biblical verses into, and I gave an explanation for why that is the correct context.

Do not tell me I am taking things out of context when I obviously am not. You must show me why my context is wrong if you wish to make your point.

See my questions for you above.


#153

Justasking - the Council of Nicaea was 300-odd years after the death of Christ, over 200 years after the death of the Apostle. What basis is there for thinking that they interpreted scripture correctly, and TAUGHT correctly, which is equally important?

It is absurd and impossible to claim that the Bible contains all necessary truth, neither is there any scriptural basis for claiming it does. Of course scripture is of greatest importance in teaching, we don’t claim otherwise, but it’s not the be-all and end-all, it can’t possibly be!

And assuming that Nicaea got it right in all respects, how can you claim that the ECFs, Doctors of the Church and the Pope who proclaimed the Dogmas of Mary’s Assumption and Immaculate Conception got it so dreadfully wrong -when Christ’s Church is SPECIFICALLY promised to be guided into ALL truth (not just those truths contained in the Bible)?

I’m sorry, but YOUR church was not around when he said that! It wasn’t even around at Nicaea. The Catholic Church was, the Orthodox too, but not yours.


#154

It is unnecessary to provide any such verses for two reasons.

Firstly the mother of a King is AUTOMATICALLY a Queen (Queen-Mother). By definition!

If the Bible stated that Jesus was married would you need to look for passages specifically calling the woman he married his wife before you called her so? Or if he had children would you need to look for verses specifically referring to them as his children? No. Neither do you need to to call Mary a Queen.

As for the typology of the Queen Mother and the ark - you need to understand that every word of the OT was written to lead us to one thing - Christ. He is the centre towards which all scripture looks either forward (in the OT) or back in the case of the NT.

Thus the OT is most ALL either typology or direct prophecy. Of course the writers of the NT didn’t understand it, neither did the writers of the NT perfectly understand many other things, though John caught glimpses of some of it with his references to the Ark AND the woman both being in heaven. (Now I’d ask you why on Earth you think the literal gold box of the OT Ark would be in heaven? :shrug: )

And so … you have:

[LIST]
*]the Passover of the OT prefiguring Christ’s own sacrifice in the New,
*]the Manna from heaven prefiguring Jesus the Living Bread,
*]the Kingdom of Israel prefiguring the Kingdom of Heaven (where the Apostles will sit in judgement over the 12 Tribes of Israel),
*]the covenant with Abraham prefiguring the New Covenant,
*]circumcision (as well as the crossing of the Red Sea and the crossing of the Jordan to enter the land of Israel) prefiguring baptism
*]Jonah’s 3 days and nights in the belly of the whale prefiguring the passion and resurrection of Christ
[/LIST]

You even have the episode where Christ was lost in Jerusalem at Passover and found after 3 days prefiguring his OWN passion and death!

The whole Bible is cram full of typology, and not all of it made obvious or explicit either.


#155

Originally Posted by justasking4
Do any of the NT writers make the connection that you do with the OT scrriptures that shows that Mary was somehow a queen as Bethseba was?
The writers of the NT use the OT scriptures many times to support what they are claiming about Christ but where do they do this in regards to Mary as being the ark for example?

As i’ve asked above: where do the NT writers use the relationship of David and his mother as a type of relationship between Jesus and Mary in the NT?

LilyM;2572844]It is unnecessary to provide any such verses for two reasons.

Firstly the mother of a King is AUTOMATICALLY a Queen (Queen-Mother). By definition!

That may have been true when Israel was a kingdom but its not so in the NT period.
Also, there are no references in the NT of Mary being a queen.

If the Bible stated that Jesus was married would you need to look for passages specifically calling the woman he married his wife before you called her so?

Yes. We need some kind of reference for this. Again there are no references in the NT that Mary was a queen. Those that knew her and were closes to her never make such a claim about her.

Or if he had children would you need to look for verses specifically referring to them as his children? No.

Not so. We certainly would need to see some evidence if He did indeed have children.

Neither do you need to to call Mary a Queen.

Not so. You are making a truth claim about her that must be supported and if it cannot be, then all you have is speculation without any facts.

As for the typology of the Queen Mother and the ark - you need to understand that every word of the OT was written to lead us to one thing - Christ. He is the centre towards which all scripture looks either forward (in the OT) or back in the case of the NT.

Good point. Its not only that the OT scriptures don’t speak of the mother of the Messiah as a type of ark, but it is also true the NT writers never make any kind of connection to Mary in this regards either.

Thus the OT is most ALL either typology or direct prophecy. Of course the writers of the NT didn’t understand it, neither did the writers of the NT perfectly understand many other things, though John caught glimpses of some of it with his references to the Ark AND the woman both being in heaven.

Huh? The writers of the NT never ever even hint at this kind of thing for Mary. That’s why it has no grounding in the scriptures but is a doctrine of men.

(Now I’d ask you why on Earth you think the literal gold box of the OT Ark would be in heaven? :shrug: )

I don’t know. Why do you think?

And so … you have:

[LIST]
*]the Passover of the OT prefiguring Christ’s own sacrifice in the New,
*]the Manna from heaven prefiguring Jesus the Living Bread,
*]the Kingdom of Israel prefiguring the Kingdom of Heaven (where the Apostles will sit in judgement over the 12 Tribes of Israel),
*]the covenant with Abraham prefiguring the New Covenant,
*]circumcision (as well as the crossing of the Red Sea and the crossing of the Jordan to enter the land of Israel) prefiguring baptism
*]Jonah’s 3 days and nights in the belly of the whale prefiguring the passion and resurrection of Christ
[/LIST]

You even have the episode where Christ was lost in Jerusalem at Passover and found after 3 days prefiguring his OWN passion and death!

The whole Bible is cram full of typology, and not all of it made obvious or explicit either.
In terms of Christ i agree. What you do not have in the scriptures is any kind of types for Mary. It is totally absent. Its not just the types are absent but specific and clear claims that you are making about Mary.


#156

The KINGDOM of heaven is still a kingdom, no? Thrones and all? Every bit as much as Israel was. Christ is ever and always the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. So of course Mary is Queen-Mother.

Yes. We need some kind of reference for this. Again there are no references in the NT that Mary was a queen. Those that knew her and were closes to her never make such a claim about her.

There are DOZENS of references for it - every single time that Christ refers to ‘my Kingdom’ or the ‘Kingdom of Heaven’ (which is His kingdom of course) He is proclaiming Himself King. And thus by definition He is automatically conferring on Mary the position of Queen Mother.

The Jews and Romans understood this, hence the charge that He was calling himself King of the Jews. And He was doing so - King of the Jews and of all of heaven and earth! The sign over His head said so, for crying out loud!

Not so. We certainly would need to see some evidence if He did indeed have children.

You’re missing the point entirely. It is CERTAIN that He had a mother, we need no more evidence to prove that. It is equally certain that He is a King, as I’ve explained above. Automatically, then Mary his mother is Queen Mother.

Huh? The writers of the NT never ever even hint at this kind of thing for Mary. That’s why it has no grounding in the scriptures but is a doctrine of men.

No doctrine of men at all - it’s there plainly in Revelation 11:19: “Then God’s temple in heaven was opened, and within his temple was seen the ark of his covenant”. Note the context - very close indeed to the passage in Chapter 12 about the WOMAN - who is also in heaven!

I don’t know. Why do you think?

You already know what I think - the ark and the woman are both references to Mary (the woman stands for a number of other things as well of course). I want to know what is your interpretation of the passage about the ark being in heaven - why would a physical object be there? If it’s some sort of symbol what else could it symbolise, in your opinion?

[quote]In terms of Christ i agree. What you do not have in the scriptures is any kind of types for Mary. It is totally absent. Its not just the types are absent but specific and clear claims that you are making about Mary.

The types are all there, given to you many times over by now, you just don’t acknowledge them as types of Mary. So could an elephant be right in front of you and you would not see it - if you’re blind or looking in the wrong direction :wink:
[/quote]


#157

Justasking,

moreover to what Lily said, there were no chapter divisions in the Apocalypse. It is a product of Stephen Langton (c. 1150–1228), the Archbishop of Canterbury in England. The ark clearly represents what follows in 12:1 onwards.


#158

LilyM;2572925]The KINGDOM of heaven is still a kingdom, no? Thrones and all? Every bit as much as Israel was. Christ is ever and always the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. So of course Mary is Queen-Mother.

There are DOZENS of references for it - every single time that Christ refers to ‘my Kingdom’ or the ‘Kingdom of Heaven’ (which is His kingdom of course) He is proclaiming Himself King. And thus by definition He is automatically conferring on Mary the position of Queen Mother.

If this is true in regards to Mary, then why don’t we see any reference in the NT that Mary is a queen?

The Jews and Romans understood this, hence the charge that He was calling himself King of the Jews. And He was doing so - King of the Jews and of all of heaven and earth! The sign over His head said so, for crying out loud!
I have no problem with Jesus being King. The problem is that there is not one reference in scripture that Mary is His queen.

You’re missing the point entirely. It is CERTAIN that He had a mother, we need no more evidence to prove that. It is equally certain that He is a King, as I’ve explained above. Automatically, then Mary his mother is Queen Mother.

It does not follow nor do the Scriptures teach this. After the gospels she is never mentioned by name again and in only in indirect references. This idea of a queen mother is totally alien to the NT.

No doctrine of men at all - it’s there plainly in Revelation 11:19: “Then God’s temple in heaven was opened, and within his temple was seen the ark of his covenant”. Note the context - very close indeed to the passage in Chapter 12 about the WOMAN - who is also in heaven!

Huh? Are you aware that it was not until around the 8th century that Mary is connected with Revelations 12. Think about it. For 8 centuries the church does not know her queen.

You already know what I think - the ark and the woman are both references to Mary (the woman stands for a number of other things as well of course). I want to know what is your interpretation of the passage about the ark being in heaven - why would a physical object be there? If it’s some sort of symbol what else could it symbolise, in your opinion?

Revelations is a book that uses more symbols than any other book in the scriptures. The ark would symbolize God’s presence.

The types are all there, given to you many times over by now, you just don’t acknowledge them as types of Mary. So could an elephant be right in front of you and you would not see it - if you’re blind or looking in the wrong direction :wink:

If i’m blind then i’m in good company. The writers of the NT nor many of the church fathers did not see what you claim to see. :shrug:


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.