SPLIT: Help Refute This Mary Chart


#1

here is an assumption sent to me via my latest debate on a certain website…what can you say about this?

:wink:


#2

(Edited out quote of chart)
oy were do you want me to begin.
I grew up with this kinda thinkin. It has all kinda holes.
seriously what point do you want to start from.
As I sat under the teachings of a couple that started the neo-pagan movement in my are I can take it from the left or the right. The whole of it is really poorly put together.


#3

Alraighty then.
The leftmost statement is true in a very limited sense. This perspective can be taken and be acurate only if one does not know the fulness of the scriptures. As was pointed out earlier in this thread the Queenship of Mary is intimately linked to the Kingship of Christ and is a forshadowing of what we will all have a share of in heaven. I will not repeat the full post here but look at the post that deals with Bathsheba and Solomon. As Christ is in the line of the Davidic kings we would expect to have a Davidic queen. The phrase “mother of my Lord” in Luke is poorly translated in almost every text I have come accross. Although accurate in a technical sense it causes one to miss the meaning this had for the first century Christians and Jews who would have read it.It would better be translated “queen mum” but that still misses the point of her roll in the kingdom being one of authority. I don’t want to take this into a full blown linguistic issue though. This is in a way the large part as well as the minor portion of the Churches reason for calling Mary Queen of Heaven.

I’ll post in chunks so that it is easier to follow.


#4

ahh…I see…I get now your point…but how did they regard it as those goddess thingy and is there any historical evidences about their claim?:thumbsup:


#5

The whole of right hand column is made up. The particular form of paganism they source is not known before the 1960’s according to pagan historians. That should be a red flag in and of itself.
What they are trying to say is that anyone who holds the Christian devotion to Mary does so because of the supposed influx of pagans into the Church at the time of St Constantine. Supposedly they brought with them their understandings of goddess and adapted the Christian figures to fit their goals. The key problems with this are a) no such influx happened, b) there is devotion to Mary found well before this time. The really big problem is that devotion to Mary is in part found in the scriptures.


#6

Similar “charts” have circulated online for years, so I drafted this “chart” in response. Feel free to circulate it back to anyone who sends you their “chart.”

FUNDAMENTALIST MARY
Born in sin

BIBLICAL MARY
Full of Grace (Luke 1:28; Gen. 3:15)

FUNDAMENTALIST MARY
Virgin only until Jesus’ birth

BIBLICAL MARY
Ever-virgin (Luke 1:34)

FUNDAMENTALIST MARY
No knowledge of her spiritual status

BIBLICAL MARY
Saved before Jesus’ birth (Luke 1:47)

FUNDAMENTALIST MARY
Mother only of Jesus’ human nature

BIBLICAL MARY
Mother of God (Luke 1:43).

FUNDAMENTALIST MARY
Used by God involuntarily

BIBLICAL MARY
Co-operated voluntarily with God’s plan of salvation (Luke 1:38)

FUNDAMENTALIST MARY
Unremarkable person

BIBLICAL MARY
To be called blessed by all generations (Luke 1:48)

FUNDAMENTALIST MARY
Dead in a grave

BIBLICAL MARY
Queen of Heaven (Rev. 12:1)

FUNDAMENTALIST MARY
No relationship to believers

BIBLICAL MARY
Mother of all Christians (Rev. 12:17)


#7

I obviously agree the right column is garbage. John took Mary into his home because that was Jewish custom if no other male was in the household already. Mary did have a human son who was divine as well. We must pray for the conversion of heart and souls.


#8
  1. The Bible calls Mary the Queen of Heaven in Revelation 12.

  2. Mary needed a saviour, too; the Immaculate Conception was by the power of God.

  3. All virgins are pagan by origin? Right. I guess that makes Jesus a pagan, too.

  4. Psalm 131:8

  5. No, Jesus didn’t tell John to just take care of Mary; he said that Mary was his mother. Which rightly makes her the New Eve.

  6. The imagery comes straight out of Revelation 12:1 - 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. Fundamentalists contest that this isn’t referring to Mary, but the next verse reads: And the dragon * (Satan) 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.*

  7. Virgin Births aren’t supernatural?

  8. We don’t worship Mary, and we don’t use Mary to get Jesus to do things for us. We pray with Mary that our desires be fulfilled. Just as Jesus came to Earth through a woman, we go to him through a woman.


#9

From “The Glories of Mary”

From St. Delaguarie’s treatise (1745…by the Catholic Book Publishing Company of New York and officially stamped by the Vicar General, the Archdiocese of New York)…

“Every prayer of Mary’s is like an established law for our Lord. She establishes the law by which God acts. Every prayer of Mary’s is like an established law for our Lord, obliging Him to be merciful to everyone for whom she intercedes.”

Why are Catholic people so caught up with Mary? Because God has to do what Mary asks Him to do, that’s His obligation. She sets the law for God.

Another one, “Mary throws open the door of God’s mercies to anyone she pleases when she pleases as she pleases.” Who determines who gets mercy? Mary. Who determines who God saves? Mary. Who determines who God helps? Mary. So you want to be in with Mary.

Another excerpt…

1854 and Pope Pius IX issued the famous Bull Ineffabilis(???)… This bull, this document that came out of the Pope is even called ineffabilis deus, God’s ineffable declaration. It says this, quote:

“Mary was preserved by Immaculate Conception when conceived in her mother’s body and was miraculously free from pollution of sin inherited from Adam. She was in soul and body holy, sinless, stainless, undefiled, pure innocence,” end quote. That is a segment of this ineffabilis deus from 1854. If I would give you even more, it says this, “Accordingly by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit through the Pope for the honor of the holy and undivided Trinity for the glory and adornment of the Virgin Mother of God, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion by the authority of Jesus Christ our Lord, of the blessed Apostles, Peter and Paul, and by our own…that is our own blessed Apostles…we declare, pronounce and define that the doctrine which holds the Most Blessed Virgin Mary in the first instance of her conception by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of Original Sin. This is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful,” end quote.

The same Pope, Pius IX, stated how serious an issue it is to reject this dogma. And I quote, “Hence, if anyone shall dare which God forbid to think otherwise than has been defined by us, let him know and understand that he is condemned by his own judgment, that he has suffered shipwreck in the faith, that he has separated from the unity of the Church and that furthermore by his own action he incurs the penalties established by Law if he should dare to express in words or writing or by any other outward means the error he thinks in his heart,” end quote.

Now that is lording it over the faithful.


#10

:yawn: :yawn: :yawn: The Glories of Mary is not Catholic doctrine…just someone’s expressions of devotion.

As for your opinion of so-called “lording it over the faithful” that is garbage.

The Pope’s bull was correct and so if one disagrees with it then that’s on their head.

How is it lording though since the language is little different from the words that St. Paul used in his epistles.


#11

Ok, I’ll do point by point for the left and middle columns. The right column is thouroughly dirty-pool similis hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy so I won’t bother with it.

  1. Humble and obedient vs. Queen of Heaven is a false dichotomy because according to Scripture the lowly will be exalted. EphelDuath’s assertion needs modification. The Bible does not name the woman in Rev. 12. It can have several interpretations and that she is Mary is certainly a reasobable one. Christ is King and in the OT we know that the mother and not the wife was the queen. Ergo, Mary is Queen. Her Queenship is not explict in Scripture (and neither is Bible-alone, but follows logically and biblically. (Which is more than we can say for Sola Scriptura)

  2. Mary needed a savior and the Church does not teach otherwise. She merely received sanctifying grace in advance. Not a thing wrong with this.

  3. Perpetual Virginity–Even most of the early Reformers accepted Mary’s perpetual virginity and handily disposed of the very same objections raised today. Today the fad in fundamentalism is to deny it. Who knows what it will be tomorrow?

  4. Being taken bodily into Heaven is a Biblical concept as we have the examples of Elijah and Enoch.

  5. Jesus telling John to take care of his mother and applying it to all Christians? So what? If God is our Father and Jesus our brother, it is not silly to suggest Mary is our mother.

  6. The crecest moon/crown of stars picture. This merely goes with Rev. 12. One must prove that Mary as the woman in Rev 12 is impossible. Good luck with that.

  7. Miracles/apparitions. Visions are biblical. So are miracles like Peters’ shadow healing people. What of it?

  8. Mary does not “make” Jesus do things as if she is equal in power and authority to Him. Rather, He honors her requests because that is what sons do for mothers that they both honor and love. If God grants my prayer, did I make Him do it? C’mon.


#12

Wow, it just happens that I’m reading “The Glories of Mary” right now. I haven’t got very far yet, though – can you please refer me to the page number for this quotation? Thanks.


#13

People have been doing hatchet jobs on Glories of Mary for a while now. Liguori in many places explains his stuff in detail that just pulling random quotes won’t do.

Here’s Dave Armstrong taking a Glories hatchetwoman to task:

socrates58.blogspot.com/2004/02/does-st-alphonsus-de-liguori-in-glories.html


#14

Thanks to all who posted on this thread so far. I’ve hung around with enough “neo-pagans” over the years to have heard that right hand column way too much. I know all this was nonsense, but I didn’t have knowledge to refute it. Now I do, thanks.

God bless you.
Gertie


#15

I love your strong and emotional language. Garbage! Ha.

By the way, I know a lot of damned people because they do not believe everything about Mary that the CC teaches. Probably about 90% of the Catholics that I have ever talked to about these very issues.


#16

Those quotes - whether pulled out of context or not are heretical to the core.


#17

Sorry, I cannot.


#18

Who gave you authority to damned people? Well, there are these supposed Catholic who do not believe what the CC teaches, especially about Mary are poorly catechized in the faith.

Our belief concerning Mary is Biblical and the writings of the ECF affirms our beliefs. These were handed down to us. The Church has the authority to declare this so. Second, you aren’t the first one who cite the Glories of Mary. That is just a devotional expression for the love of Mary.

It is no different than me writing to a girlfriend, expressing my deep love for her. I have often heard married couples, say to one another. “You are my love, my life, my hope, my precious.” When they say this, does it mean they worship them above God? Hogwash…


#19

Those quotes - whether pulled out of context or not are heretical to the core.

Context is irrelevant? Is that what you’re saying? OK, then.

Psalm 14:1. “There is no God.”

The Bible is atheist, you’re a heretic for believing in God.

By the way, I know a lot of damned people because they do not believe everything about Mary that the CC teaches. Probably about 90% of the Catholics that I have ever talked to about these very issues.

Who are you to determine who is and who is not damned? Elevating yourself to the level of God is a serious sin.


#20

No, I think Cling2Cross is saying that he knows a lot of “damned” people, as in, people that he thinks the Catholic Church would consider “damned” for denying a Catholic doctrine. He isn’t saying that he agrees they are damned. In other words, he is saying, “I know a lot of people who reject this Catholic teaching even though they consider themselves Catholic.”

But Cling2Cross, I am confused. Have you personally read “The Glories of Mary?”


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.