Biblical Mary

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Mungo

Well-Known Member
May 23, 2012
4,332
643
113
England
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
I did not ignore any of your post. In fact I replied to it. What we are discussing about is with a particular scripture. While you cited a number to make your point about the word “until”, I on the other hand showed you the thought that is being conveyed by the subject scripture. For the word “until” there is only part of the statement.

Yes and I pointed out in post #1725
What happens after time point "B" [until] we either:
1. simply do not know.
2. infer from something else in the text.
3. assume from the general context.

In the example of Mt 1:24-25 there is nothing explicitly stated as to whether Mary and Joseph consummated the marriage after Jesus was born.
You assume they did because that would be a normal thing for a married couple to do. But Scripture does not say that bthey did and there are reason to believe that they did not.


<<<Matthew states that Mary did not consummate their marriage between the time the Angel spoke to him in a dream and the time Mary gave birth to Jesus.>>>

Yes, and that until that time. That is clearly where it leads. You argued that is says nothing as to what happened after that. And again, if we will take your line of reasoning, that should go either way. Maybe they did not consummate their marriage after that or maybe they did, right? However, going by the way the statement was made, of the two, the latter is the one strongly implied.

see point above

<<<Have you asked yourself why Matthew chose to report that?>>>

Yes I did. It has to do for one with the fulfillment of this “Behold, the virgin shall be with child…” ~ the virgin birth of the Messiah. Was that about Mary or about the Messiah?

Tong
R4633

There is much more than that. But as you want to leave it there I will say no more.
 

GodsGrace

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2017
10,727
5,716
113
Tuscany
Faith
Christian
Country
Italy
A google work may be a way for you to have an idea about that.

Tong
R4635
Huh?

Who knows more
A priest
Google
??

Also, you should use the CCC if you want to know what the CC teaches. Not Google.

Could you imagine someone using google to find out about the Christian religion?!
:eek:

Catechism of the Catholic Church

Of course, I prefer the bible.
 

Tong2020

Well-Known Member
Apr 30, 2020
4,854
848
113
*
Faith
Christian
Country
Philippines
Huh?

Who knows more
A priest
Google
??

Also, you should use the CCC if you want to know what the CC teaches. Not Google.

Could you imagine someone using google to find out about the Christian religion?!
:eek:

Catechism of the Catholic Church

Of course, I prefer the bible.
Never said anything about what you object about there.

I am just suggesting that if you somehow want to know if there were any catholics or priests that speaks of Mary as Co-Redeemer or Co- Redemptrix, a google work is one way to go.

Tong
R4636
 

GodsGrace

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2017
10,727
5,716
113
Tuscany
Faith
Christian
Country
Italy
Never said anything about what you object about there.

I am just suggesting that if you somehow want to know if there were any catholics or priests that speaks of Mary as Co-Redeemer or Co- Redemptrix, a google work is one way to go.

Tong
R4636
If a priest does so, he is going against church teaching.
 

Ronald Nolette

Well-Known Member
Aug 24, 2020
12,762
3,787
113
69
South Carolina
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
More rubbish opinions.

You still haven't shown me where any of the links you posted say that Mary is co-redeemer or the fount of all grace as you claimed.

You also said "guess we are done tehn. I have tired of your foolishness. Have the last word if you wish" but that wasn't true either.

I changed my mind about the end.

and I showed you catholic web sites that declared Mary is co-redemptrix and co mediatrix- you just are Cleopatra thie Queen of "de-nial".

Just because {Popes affection for MJary wax and wane over time means nothing. The fact that Rome knows all these Catholic approved organizations exist and know what they teach and espouose and they do not openly disavow what they say says much.

Romanism has lifted up Mary to a position she does not have in reality. You cannot prove that.

MARY, CO-REDEMPTRIX AND MEDIATRIX OF ALL GRACE AND ADVOCATE – 22 July 2019 | Little Pebble


Mary as Mediatrix (catholiceducation.org)
Mary as Mediatrix
  • FR. WILLIAM SAUNDERS


Why is Mary referred to as the "mediatrix?"


print.png



motherofgod.jpg

The Second Vatican Council dedicated the eighth chapter of the "Dogmatic Constitution on the Church" to our Blessed Mother. Since our Lord continues His work and saving mission through His body, the Church, the council fathers, particularly under the guidance of Pope Paul VI, decided that it was most appropriate to address the role of our Blessed Mother here because "she is endowed with the high office and dignity of the Mother of the Son of God, and is...the beloved daughter of the Father and the temple of the Holy Spirit" (No. 53). The whole Church honors Mary as a pre-eminent and wholly unique member of the Church, and as a model in faith, hope and charity.

The Virgin Mary as co-redemptrix, mediatrix and advocate (religioustolerance.org)

I can post 100 or so more. Teh catholic church knows all this knows what Mary is called (as Vatican 2 proves) and have never disavowed the titles co-mediatrx and co-redemptrix. And if Francis and that ecclesiastical council did, then they avowed masery as those things until just recently.

Thoise are the facts no matter ho wmuch you deny them.
 

Ronald Nolette

Well-Known Member
Aug 24, 2020
12,762
3,787
113
69
South Carolina
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Calling Mary a co-redemptrix has been discussed for years.
You post a lot of information, but I'm sure you must understand that the teaching of the CC comes only from the
CCC....the Catechism of the Catholic Church which was published at the request of John Paul II and was printed in 1992.

I don't know of anywhere in the CCC where it is stated that Mary is a co-redemptrix.
Have you found any such information?

Well I just received the 1992 CCC so I will look at it concerning Mary. But I fully know that it is not offical dogma of the RCC. However the Vatican knows these titles are widely held by Catholics, past Popes have accepted those titles- if not officially, so by not openly disavowing and discouraging Catholics from using these titles for Mary, the real difference between official and unofficail is merely a signature. It is in practice if not in canon law.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GodsGrace

Ronald Nolette

Well-Known Member
Aug 24, 2020
12,762
3,787
113
69
South Carolina
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
More rubbish opinions.

You still haven't shown me where any of the links you posted say that Mary is co-redeemer or the fount of all grace as you claimed.

You also said "guess we are done tehn. I have tired of your foolishness. Have the last word if you wish" but that wasn't true either.

You should taked a peek at your own Cathechism of the Catholic Church paragraphs 964-975. Yes as the writers of this offical doctrine of the Romanists wrote- devotion to Mary is integral to christian worship.

Now I am sure they knew the definiton of integral:

integral
[ˈin(t)əɡrəl, inˈteɡrəl]
ADJECTIVE
  1. necessary to make a whole complete; essential or fundamental.
So they are saying if you are not devoted to Mary in all the Romanists say about her- you do not have complete Christian WORSHIP!!!!

I guess I will hang around some more. I kond of like (I think though wrongly) showing you your own faith denies the wwords you speak!
 

GodsGrace

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2017
10,727
5,716
113
Tuscany
Faith
Christian
Country
Italy
Well I just received the 1992 CCC so I will look at it concerning Mary. But I fully know that it is not offical dogma of the RCC. However the Vatican knows these titles are widely held by Catholics, past Popes have accepted those titles- if not officially, so by not openly disavowing and discouraging Catholics from using these titles for Mary, the real difference between official and unofficail is merely a signature. It is in practice if not in canon law.
I agree with you...
But what do you mean by IT IS IN PRACTICE?

Tomorrow.
 

Grailhunter

Well-Known Member
Jun 19, 2019
11,317
5,352
113
66
FARMINGTON
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Opinions vary, right.
The Bible only has good things to say about Mary--Miriam. But nothing past that.
The history of how Miriam came to be venerated is well documented....but religiously speaking, what does that matter to Fundamentalists?
Since the Catholics reluctantly developed doctrines and titles for her, that turns the Fundamentalists off.
So discussing her divine activities, miracles, and visitations over the last 2000 years with Fundamentalists is nearly irrelevant.

Although I love the Catholics....I have no use for the Vatican. Not that I hate them. It is just that most of the atrocities they have accumulated in the past and their incompetency and self centeredness as spiritual leaders is just something I am not going to pay any attention to. On the other hand most of the local priests are great....had lunch with one just the other day.

The Bible documents the first 65 years of Christian history.....I am interested in all that has happened over the last 2000 years. And during that time Miriam has been very active. Her shrines cover the globe as well as her miracles and there have been thousands of witnesses to her activities.. I have seen her and spoke with her so I know she is real and active, so I am a believer, blessed in that. The same thing goes with the Holy Spirit I have witnessed so much of the Holy Spirit but there are Fundamentalists that do not believe that either. I am okay with that too, that is why they call it beliefs.

But still I do not hold it against the Fundamentalists for not believing or getting it. Why would they get it? Belief in Mary is not required to be saved and Fundamentalism does that well and in the long run that is what is most important.
 

Mungo

Well-Known Member
May 23, 2012
4,332
643
113
England
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
I changed my mind about the end.

and I showed you catholic web sites that declared Mary is co-redemptrix and co mediatrix- you just are Cleopatra thie Queen of "de-nial".
But not co-redeemer or fount of all grace as you claimed.

Just because {Popes affection for MJary wax and wane over time means nothing. The fact that Rome knows all these Catholic approved organizations exist and know what they teach and espouose and they do not openly disavow what they say says much.

Romanism has lifted up Mary to a position she does not have in reality. You cannot prove that.

MARY, CO-REDEMPTRIX AND MEDIATRIX OF ALL GRACE AND ADVOCATE – 22 July 2019 | Little Pebble


Mary as Mediatrix (catholiceducation.org)
Mary as Mediatrix
  • FR. WILLIAM SAUNDERS


Why is Mary referred to as the "mediatrix?"


print.png



motherofgod.jpg

The Second Vatican Council dedicated the eighth chapter of the "Dogmatic Constitution on the Church" to our Blessed Mother. Since our Lord continues His work and saving mission through His body, the Church, the council fathers, particularly under the guidance of Pope Paul VI, decided that it was most appropriate to address the role of our Blessed Mother here because "she is endowed with the high office and dignity of the Mother of the Son of God, and is...the beloved daughter of the Father and the temple of the Holy Spirit" (No. 53). The whole Church honors Mary as a pre-eminent and wholly unique member of the Church, and as a model in faith, hope and charity.

The Virgin Mary as co-redemptrix, mediatrix and advocate (religioustolerance.org)

I can post 100 or so more. Teh catholic church knows all this knows what Mary is called (as Vatican 2 proves) and have never disavowed the titles co-mediatrx and co-redemptrix. And if Francis and that ecclesiastical council did, then they avowed masery as those things until just recently.

Thoise are the facts no matter ho wmuch you deny them.

I've shown you that co-mediatrix and co-redemptrix are not official titles whatever some "Catholic" web sites would like to have it.
You are just rehashing failed claims.
 

Mungo

Well-Known Member
May 23, 2012
4,332
643
113
England
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
Well I just received the 1992 CCC so I will look at it concerning Mary. But I fully know that it is not offical dogma of the RCC. However the Vatican knows these titles are widely held by Catholics, past Popes have accepted those titles- if not officially, so by not openly disavowing and discouraging Catholics from using these titles for Mary, the real difference between official and unofficail is merely a signature. It is in practice if not in canon law.

Blah blah blah,
Recycling failed claims.
 

Mungo

Well-Known Member
May 23, 2012
4,332
643
113
England
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
You should taked a peek at your own Cathechism of the Catholic Church paragraphs 964-975. Yes as the writers of this offical doctrine of the Romanists wrote- devotion to Mary is integral to christian worship.

Now I am sure they knew the definiton of integral:

integral
[ˈin(t)əɡrəl, inˈteɡrəl]
ADJECTIVE
  1. necessary to make a whole complete; essential or fundamental.
So they are saying if you are not devoted to Mary in all the Romanists say about her- you do not have complete Christian WORSHIP!!!!

I guess I will hang around some more. I kond of like (I think though wrongly) showing you your own faith denies the wwords you speak!

Wow shock horror - Catholics worship Mary! :eek:
No, not really, just your attempt to make it look like that.

Firstly my paper Catechism and the version on the Vatican web site do NOT say " devotion to Mary is integral to christian worship."

It says "The Church's devotion to the Blessed Virgin is intrinsic to Christian worship."
Intrinsic is NOT the same as integral.

Definition of intrinsic
1a belonging to the essential nature or constitution of a thing (Merriam Webster)
1. Of or relating to the essential nature of a thing; inherent (Free Dictionary)

The essential nature of worship is directed to God. Devotion to Mary belongs or relates to that. Of course it does - Mary does not stand alone, separate from Christ.

Moreover you do the standard Protestant deceit of plucking something out of context, thus distorting it's true meaning.

Let's look at some of paras 964-975 that you reference.
964 Mary's role in the Church is inseparable from her union with Christ and flows directly from it......
965 After her Son's Ascension, Mary "aided the beginnings of the Church by her prayers.....
967 By her complete adherence to the Father's will, to his Son's redemptive work, and to every prompting of the Holy Spirit, the Virgin Mary is the Church's model of faith and charity....
970 "Mary's function as mother of men in no way obscures or diminishes this unique mediation of Christ, but rather shows its power. But the Blessed Virgin's salutary influence on men . . . flows forth from the superabundance of the merits of Christ, rests on his mediation, depends entirely on it, and draws all its power from it." "No creature could ever be counted along with the Incarnate Word and Redeemer.

Mary is secondary,
her role flows from Christ,
she aids the Church,
he adheres to the Father's will,

her function in no way diminishes Christ's unique mediation,
she cannot be counted along with Christ.

Then we get para 971
971 "All generations will call me blessed": "The Church's devotion to the Blessed Virgin is intrinsic to Christian worship."The Church rightly honors "the Blessed Virgin with special devotion.... This very special devotion ... differs essentially from the adoration which is given to the incarnate Word and equally to the Father and the Holy Spirit, and greatly fosters this adoration."

Mary is secondary. She is not the object of worship as you would like to suggest.

As para 487 of the Catechism states:
487 What the Catholic faith believes about Mary is based on what it believes about Christ....
Christ first, Mary afterwards.
 

Tong2020

Well-Known Member
Apr 30, 2020
4,854
848
113
*
Faith
Christian
Country
Philippines
To all Catholics here:

Is Mary immaculate or sinless?

Was there need for her to be saved or need Jesus Christ to save her?

Tong
R4652
 

theefaith

Well-Known Member
Aug 25, 2020
20,070
1,354
113
63
Dallas
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Who elects the successor of Peter, the Pope of the RCC?

Who says whether a Pope is valid or invalid?

Could an ordinary member of the RCC have a say on that, whether the Pope is an invalid Pope or a valid Pope?

<<<I have my doubts but could not declare him to be invalid>>>

So, what are you saying? You doubt the teachings of your Pope, the successor of Peter?

Tong
R4620
The cardinals who are bishops elect the successor to saint peter so if no cardinals exist the bishops could

the conclave is held in secret so there is no definition of valid or invalid, so what they teach speaks volumes

only God may judge a pope
 

theefaith

Well-Known Member
Aug 25, 2020
20,070
1,354
113
63
Dallas
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I have no idea why you inserted that Jesus is at the right hand of God the Father. That was not part of my post you quoted and I decline to mix that with this discussion of grace and Mary.

Let me start by reporting what I found with a quick Google of the Wycliffe Bible. According to Wikipedia, its original text was translated from the Latin Vulgate Bible, which, when Googled, Wikipedia shows it was the first Bible of the Catholic Church. That explains why Luke 1:28 contains 'full of grace'. I'm not trying to create a 'battle of translations' here...only an explanation of why Wycliffe and Douay-Rheims appear to be the only versions that contain 'full of grace'.

Let's look at John 1:14-17 in more detail -

Joh 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
Joh 1:15 John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me.
Joh 1:16 And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace.
Joh 1:17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. (KJV)

As verse 14 shows, Jesus is the one full of grace. Your statement concerning Jesus came through Mary, while being accurate, seems to me to imply that Jesus' grace 'came through Mary' as well. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you wrote. Grace is not genetically inherited, and it didn't 'pass through' Mary, either. One might argue that the 'sperm' that God the Father supplied to fertilize the chosen egg within Mary contained grace. Perhaps. But it didn't come from Mary's egg. Since Jesus is 100% God and 100% human, He was automatically full of grace as He is God. One could debate 'when' he first became full of grace endlessly, so it is not and should not be part of this or any other discussion. As an aside, medicine confirmed many years ago that the blood of the mother never mixes with that of the zygote, embryo, fetus, child growing within her. If it did, it would be impossible for a mother to bear a child of a different blood type or different RH factor, both of which happen frequently. It would kill the baby and possibly the mother as well. Which is why they always make sure that transfusions match the donor type and RH with the recipient.

I'm not sure why you included a reference to John 1:23. John 1:19-28 speaks solely of John the Baptist, not John the disciple and author of the Book of John, 3 Epistles, and Revelation.

Joh 1:19 And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who art thou?
Joh 1:20 And he confessed, and denied not; but confessed, I am not the Christ.
Joh 1:21 And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No.
Joh 1:22 Then said they unto him, Who art thou? that we may give an answer to them that sent us. What sayest thou of thyself?
Joh 1:23 He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias.
Joh 1:24 And they which were sent were of the Pharisees.
Joh 1:25 And they asked him, and said unto him, Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet?
Joh 1:26 John answered them, saying, I baptize with water: but there standeth one among you, whom ye know not;
Joh 1:27 He it is, who coming after me is preferred before me, whose shoe's latchet I am not worthy to unloose.
Joh 1:28 These things were done in Bethabara beyond Jordan, where John was baptizing. (KJV)

I'm also not sure why you referenced Genesis 3:15 in relation to Jesus' grace. That is the very first verse of prophecy in the Bible, and must be looked at in the context of Genesis 3:14-16 to fully understand -

Gen 3:14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
Gen 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
Gen 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. (KJV)

Verse 14 shows that God is talking the the serpent, aka, Satan. Even knowing that, it's somewhat difficult to understand who's who in verse 15. 'And I will put enmity between thee (Satan) and the woman (Eve). 'and between thy seed (Satans' descendants) and her seed (Eves' descendants)'. 'it (Jesus) shall bruise thy head' (a moderately severe concussion to Satan, perhaps?, and ties to Revelation 13:3 And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast. (KJV)) 'and thou (Satan) shalt bruise his (Jesus) heel (He overcame the curse of death and rose again on the 3rd day).

One of the interesting things about the Bible is various symbolism consistently used except when very obvious it's talking about something physical. One of those is the use of 'woman'. It's clear that throughout Revelation, 'woman' always symbolizes Israel. Multiple sources I've read and heard indicate that Genesis 3:15 refers to Eve in the present tense and simultaneously refers to Israel in the future tense. Why is Israel the most hated nation in the world since Jacob? Because if Satan can destroy all Israel (descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (renamed Israel by God), that would be 'proof' that God lied about Israel being His chosen people and the very numerous prophecies and covenants God made to Israel are null and void, thus making the entire Bible worthless fiction.

Even though God temporarily 'set aside' Israel in 70 AD when the temple was destroyed and went to the Gentiles through Paul and his writings for almost 2000 years thus far, Israel's re-creation in 1948 clearly shows God has started dealing with Israel once again, fulfilling Ezekiel 37 bringing the dried bones - the House of Israel - back together and putting them back in the land He covenanted to the descendants of Abraham in Genesis 15-18 -

Gen 15:18 In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates:
Gen 15:19 The Kenites, and the Kenizzites, and the Kadmonites,
Gen 15:20 And the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the Rephaims,
Gen 15:21 And the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Girgashites, and the Jebusites. (KJV)

The war that immediately followed Israels' becoming a nation again (By the way, President Truman was the first world leader to publicly acknowledge Israel as a nation), the 6-Day War and the Yom Kippur War are all evidence that God is once again guiding Israel to victories. Trumps' declaration that Jerusalem is the capitol of Israel is further fulfillment of Israels' prophetic restoration. No other nation, once scattered around the globe, has ever come back together again other than Israel. God is in control!

sorry jn 1:23 should have Been Matt 1:23

gen 3:15
Lk 1:28
Rev 12:1
All say Mary is full of grace
Christ is the source of grace but Mary the depository
 

Mungo

Well-Known Member
May 23, 2012
4,332
643
113
England
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
To all Catholics here:

Is Mary immaculate or sinless?

Was there need for her to be saved or need Jesus Christ to save her?

Tong
R4652

Mary was immaculately conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit that overshadowed her.
She committed no sins.
Jesus saved her from the effects of Original Sin, which is what the Immaculate Conception is about.
 

Ronald Nolette

Well-Known Member
Aug 24, 2020
12,762
3,787
113
69
South Carolina
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I agree with you...
But what do you mean by IT IS IN PRACTICE?

Tomorrow.


Many many catholics and priests and bishops and cardinals and past popes have referred to Mary as co-redemptrix and co-mediatrix in practice even though it is not offical dogma or doctrine of the catholic church. It is implied acceptance by enormous amounts of Catholics.

My catholic action family bible I passed to one of my sons (as was passed to me) has a whole section on Mary and calls her coredemptrix and co- mediatrix along with many of her other catholic titles.
 

Ronald Nolette

Well-Known Member
Aug 24, 2020
12,762
3,787
113
69
South Carolina
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
But not co-redeemer or fount of all grace as you claimed.

Yes I did, you just turned a blind eye. Dispenser of all graces is also fount of all graces. fount is an used word today for the most part except in old hymns.
Firstly my paper Catechism and the version on the Vatican web site do NOT say " devotion to Mary is integral to christian worship."

Well sorry, but CCC of 1992 says intergral.

Intrinisic also concludes it is an essential part! So devotion to Mary is essential to Christian Worship according to the Romansits.


Mary was immaculately conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit that overshadowed her.
She committed no sins.
Jesus saved her from the effects of Original Sin, which is what the Immaculate Conception is about.

And you won't find that even implied in gods Words, just the romanists words.

Let's look at some of paras 964-975 that you reference.
964 Mary's role in the Church is inseparable from her union with Christ and flows directly from it......
965 After her Son's Ascension, Mary "aided the beginnings of the Church by her prayers.....
967 By her complete adherence to the Father's will, to his Son's redemptive work, and to every prompting of the Holy Spirit, the Virgin Mary is the Church's model of faith and charity....
970 "Mary's function as mother of men in no way obscures or diminishes this unique mediation of Christ, but rather shows its power. But the Blessed Virgin's salutary influence on men . . . flows forth from the superabundance of the merits of Christ, rests on his mediation, depends entirely on it, and draws all its power from it." "No creature could ever be counted along with the Incarnate Word and Redeemer.


Mary is secondary,
her role flows from Christ,
she aids the Church,
he adheres to the Father's will,

her function in no way diminishes Christ's unique mediation,
she cannot be counted along with Christ.

Then we get para 971
971 "All generations will call me blessed": "The Church's devotion to the Blessed Virgin is intrinsic to Christian worship."The Church rightly honors "the Blessed Virgin with special devotion.... This very special devotion ... differs essentially from the adoration which is given to the incarnate Word and equally to the Father and the Holy Spirit, and greatly fosters this adoration."

Mary is secondary. She is not the object of worship as you would like to suggest.

As para 487 of the Catechism states:
487 What the Catholic faith believes about Mary is based on what it believes about Christ....
Christ first, Mary afterwards.

Well they say it is different but there are enormous prayers to Mary, there are enormous statues of Mary, Masses dedicated to Mary, Kneeling to Mary, Fasting because of Mary etc.etc. Churches dedicated to Mary, Songs enormous to Mary (hail Holy Queen enthroned above), idols of Mary.

Even th echurch teachings give Mary a unique position above all other saints. And her role as mediatrix and advocate is unique and above all saints- this is unbiblical.

I know what the Hierarchy of the church says and writes but sorry the bible says there is only mediator between god and man.

As para 487 of the Catechism states:
487 What the Catholic faith believes about Mary is based on what it believes about Christ....
Christ first, Mary afterwards.

Yes thsat is true, but teh elevation of Mary as the Romansits have done is unbiblical and idolatrous.
 

Mungo

Well-Known Member
May 23, 2012
4,332
643
113
England
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
Many many catholics and priests and bishops and cardinals and past popes have referred to Mary as co-redemptrix and co-mediatrix in practice even though it is not offical dogma or doctrine of the catholic church. It is implied acceptance by enormous amounts of Catholics.

My catholic action family bible I passed to one of my sons (as was passed to me) has a whole section on Mary and calls her coredemptrix and co- mediatrix along with many of her other catholic titles.
So you claim
 

Bruce Atkinson

Active Member
Sep 25, 2021
113
66
28
76
Western MA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
People are allowed to speculate but should not contradict official Catholic doctrine.

Obviously, as a Catholic, you're saying that no one is allowed/permitted to say ANYTHING that opposes Catholic doctrine. WOW. You seem to be unabashedly opposed to anything anti-Catholic. Now I clearly understand your point of view.