I have been hearing a lot of talk from Catholics recently about Mary, the mother of Jesus, and her position in the Body of Christ.
It seems that some Catholics consider Mary’s place in the Body of Christ would most appropriately be likened to the “neck”. But, I think there is a more appropriate illustration to describe Mary’s place.
I have read a part of your article due to time limited.
Mary played the role of the umbilical chord in the birth and childhood of Christ, and for the spiritual Body of Christ; but, today there is no Mary, there is only the evidence of her historical role.
I totally disagree with you and I am sure many will. Our Blessed Virgin Mary had and has been a great role until today and will be in the future. How do you explain many many many people turn their lives to God for the approved apparition in Fatima and Guadalupe.
How and what made those Native Americans believe in God if it is not for the miracle iin Guadalupe? How people get closer to God with all miracles in Fatima and other approved apparitions such as Lourdes?
Don’t tell us that the apparitions are the work of Satan who bring people closer to God! It is our Blessed Virgin Mary, BibleApologist. It is Her! The apparitions are the evidences.
I’ve noticed that you used the words “Mother of Jesus”, but we, as Catholics, she is also “Mother of God” and for that her special role has extended until today and to the eternity.
Mr. Harden seemed to do well, at first. But, per usual with anti-Catholic attacks, he just had to descend into insults and bashing. Most disappointing when he seemed to have some grasp of Mary’s place in the Church. I liked the umbilical chord idea, but not for the reasons the author gives. He came so close to the truth, but then had to veer away into mere derogatory rhetoric. As I said, most disappointing.
Mr. Harden clearly doesn’t understand Catholic teaching regarding the Communion of Saints nor those about Mary. Before speculating about such things in future, he ought to read the Catechism of the Catholic Church instead just going by what he thinks he knows.
The Bible tells us that it is the Spirit of God that draws men to Him. While I don’t deny that God could or would use another person to assist in drawing someone to Him, I doubt that God would use a dead woman.
Remember the story of Lazarus and the rich man. Abraham told the rich man that his brothers would not hear even if someone were raised from the dead. If those native Americans who were drawn to God by the apparitions of Mary couldn’t or wouldn’t heed the voice of the Spirit of God, they wouldn’t be drawn by a spectacle such as a Marion apparition either… so what was the point in a Marion apparition?
The point is, those who have been drawn by the Marion apparition spectacles have only trusted in the spectacle… the antichrist will give us spectacles too… does that mean he will draw us to God also? I think not.
I have read the Catechism as a matter of fact. And I have read many Catholic leaders’ writings concerning the doctrine of Mary. But I tend to lean more toward the truth of God’s Word when forming my belief system.
This article was written with a good knowledge of Catholic teaching on the subject… probably more knowledge than most Catholics. The only difference with me is that I am not so apathetic to disregard the teachings of the earliest of Church Fathers… the Apostles.
Well ive read your heretical article and although there are many errors the most glaring must surely be the statement that the blessed virgin Mary bore our lord through the operation of God’s will alone without any concious act by her,a type of mindless acquiesence. Clearly incorrect since her fiat was seminal to God’s plan and a perfect example to us. God gave us free will u are implying that the Mother of God had none. Bad theology and even worse logic.:tsktsk:
may the Mother of God forgive your arrogance and ignorance and lovingly point the way to her son.
Ad Jesu per Mariam
So are you saying that when Jesus said, “he sleepeth” when referring to Lazarus he was condoning the teaching of “soul sleep”? Of course not.
Mary’s soul is in heaven (we suppose as she is mentioned as being a disciple)… But there is no Biblical evidence whatsoever that the fleshly body of Mary was ever “assumed”. I would like for you to show me where you find that in the Bible.
Mary’s body is dead, and while in the grave she does not have an active role in the Body of Christ. God could in some way use her dead body as a witness somehow, but she would not play the role as a willing participant.
Nowhere in the Bible will you find proof that she does.
No sir, I do not consider calling my mother (Apocalypse 12:17 And the dragon was angry against the woman: and went to make war with the rest of her seed, who keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.) as an ‘umbilical chord’, ‘navel’, ‘belly button’, a scar, ‘infectious’, or a place for “the accumulation of lint” as witty. How dare you attack my mother. Obviously you think your mother “serves no real practical purpose today”, since you no longer need her.
Sir, I no longer wish to continue this discussion. Your insults only bring out unChristian thoughts. Good day.
There are some disadvantages though that occur with the presence of a navel; infections sometimes take hold if the navel is not routinely cleansed. Likewise, the historical evidence of Mary has given rise to many ‘infectious’ heresies such as the “assumption” of Mary, her perpetual virginity, the “doctrines of Mary”, the “intercession” of Mary, and more recently the “Marion apparitions” which are so prevalent and sought after today. These heresies are indicative of a lack of regular cleansing and maintenance on the navel area of the Body of Christ. As members of the Body of Christ, we should all take initiative in personal hygiene to cleanse our ‘spiritual navel’ to prevent these types of infectious heresies from taking hold.
There is one other disadvantage of the existence of a navel. This is the accumulation of lint. Although lint doesn’t cause any adverse affects on the body, it is an indication that routine hygienic maintenance has not been performed on the navel; and because of this, the presence of lint is not very attractive. Likewise, for the Body of Christ, the observance of “Lent” is not so much a damaging act, but it is more of an embarrassment as it is indicative of a lack of routine maintenance. A Christian who will engage in such unessential and unproductive acts that are required during “Lent” is displaying their lack of regular maintenance on spiritual matters.*
This thread actually had me wondering at first until I remembered one very important thing:
The Bible came from Tradition, not the other way around.
Sola Scriptura is pure silliness and anyone who actually knows God Word and what Scripture says of itself and of Christ’s teaching of the Church he established knows this.
If Christians can only rely on the Bible for God’s Word and history than I guess all of those followers of Christ who died before the Biblicial writings were really (pardon my terminology) screwed over, weren’t they?
I never quite understood why Protestants are so attached to the Bible anyway, when they do nothing but criticize and have continued ignorance towards the very Church that wrote and put it together!
Trust me, if you ever talked to Mary(or any of the saints), you’d know she was there!
(Sorry, even as a “new” Catholic I still don’t like people talking bad about our Mother. I kindly suggest this thread be stopped before things get worse, as the OP is merely here to annoy and spread his ignorance)
Congratulations on becoming a Catholic! What a joy to confess our faith!
I understand your concern; however, this forum, Apologetics, is here for the purpose. People can bring on issues to debate as long as we do it with charity and follow the forums’ rule. When things go out of hand, OP will take action. We can pray for the unity for the truth never dies.