Happy Immaculate Conception!

[spauline]

Happy Immaculate Conception!

Happy celebration of the sinlessness of the Virgin, the New Eve.

Mary undid everything that Eve did.

Eve said no to God through a fallen angel and transgressed the divine law under a tree.

The New Eve said yes to God through a good angel and accepted the Will of God under a tree, from which Her Divine Son hung for our redemption.

The old Eve seduced her husband, Adam, to commence the fall of the human race, that is, she negatively interceded for the supreme problem of this world.

The NEW Eve interceded and moved the New Adam to begin the healing of the fall of humanity at the Wedding at Cana,

"They have no wine."

"What is that to Me, WOMAN (that is, the NEW Woman)?" "Do whatever He tells you!"

Hence began the solution to the fall of the world.

Eve said no to the will of God under a tree and took the forbidden fruit.

Mary said yes to the will of God and allowed Her Son, Our Savior, to remain there on the tree, in order that eternal life might come to all men.

Eve is the mother of all the Living, but also of all fallen human persons. But from the Cross, Jesus gave Mary, the New Eve, to be the mother of all the SUPERNATURALLY living, those healed from the Fall.

Eve entered the world sinless but left it in sin and suffered death and decay.

Mary, the New Eve, entered the world sinless, by preemptive grace from God, but left it sinless and did not suffer corruption of body.

Eve said, "I am NOT the servant of God, and I shall do MY will instead of His" at the tree.

The New Eve said, "I AM the handmaiden of the Lord and may His will BE done in my life and unto me!"

Let us therefore sing the praises of Mary forever more!

Alleluia! 

[Mike7]

This is blasphemy. The bible teaches no such thing.

No where does the bible say that Mary was sinless or that she is in heaven. The New testament always put the blame on sin entering the world on Adam not Eve. And the triumph over sin on Jesus NOT Mary.

Romans 5:12 “Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men...”

Also Mary did not offer up her son to die. The Father did.

John 3:16 For God so loved the world that He gave his one and only son, that whosoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

This event was pictured when Abraham offered Isaac.

It seems that the Roman church's desire to worship (venerate) the woman mary, a created being, they are following it the footsteps of the Ancient Romans who also worshiped created beings.

Rom 1:25 "They exchanged the truth of God for a lie. and worshipped and served created things rather than the creator."

[James-Scott]

Spauline,

Except for the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin from Original Sin, I pretty much agree with you.

I've been reading a book from our church library called, "The Life of the Virgin Mary the Theotokos." It's pretty amazing. It speaks a good bit about the things Eve did, but were reversed by the Most-Holy Theotokos.

[James-Scott]

This is blasphemy. The bible teaches no such thing

I understand you disagree, but to call it blasphemy...?

No where does the bible say that Mary was sinless or that she is in heaven.

If she's not in heaven, no one is. I know I won't be. Or are you advocating 'soul sleep' by this statement?

Also Mary did not offer up her son to die. The Father did.

I agree. Nevertheless, the Blessed Virgin did submit to the will of God, that is, to give Birth to His incarnate Son. And, no doubt, she went through unequaled grief and sorrow to see her Son murdered.

It seems that the Roman church's desire to worship (venerate) the woman mary, a created being, they are following it the footsteps of the Ancient Romans who also worshiped created beings.

Veneration is not synonymous with worship. Worship of the creation is idolatry. Veneration of the Mother of God and the Saints is a pious practice, for God did great and wonderful things in and through them.

[Mike7]

I understand you disagree, but to call it blasphemy...?

Yes Blasphemy!

she's not in heaven, no one is. I know I won't be. Or are you advocating 'soul sleep' by this statement?

Soul sleep

i agree. Nevertheless, the Blessed Virgin did submit to the will of God, that is, to give Birth to His incarnate Son. And, no doubt, she went through unequaled grief and sorrow to see her Son murdered.

That does not make a person a Godess.

veneration is not synonymous with worship. Worship of the creation is idolatry. Veneration of the Mother of God and the Saints is a pious practice, for God did great and wonderful things in and through them.

Veneration is one of the three degrees of Papal worship. If you look at the blasphemous book called "The Glories of Mary" you will see that she has been made into a divine being by RCC theology.

[James-Scott]

Yes Blasphemy!

Well... Ok, then.

Soul sleep

Alright, I thought so. I happen to disagree.

That does not make a person a Godess.

I absolutely agree.

Veneration is one of the three degrees of Papal worship.

I'm not Roman Catholic. I'm Eastern Orthodox. So, you can bet we don't venerate the Papacy. Yet, we do believe in veneration as a pious practice.

If you look at the blasphemous book called "The Glories of Mary" you will see that she has been made into a divine being by RCC theology.

I'll have to get a Roman Catholic to confirm this. I don't know a whole lot about RCC theology.There are alot of things the RCC says about the Virgin Mary that we reject. But I don't think they go so far as to make her into a divine being.

[maudman]

If borrowing terms Like Father or Son or any such things is Blasphemy...

Why is it done in the Bible by the Apostle.. I guess Paul is Blaspheming Christ? 1 Corinthians 11:1 Be ye followers of me, as I also am of Christ..

Why are the Apostles commanded by Christ to do the things he has done... To imitate him.. No one in RCC elevates anyone ABOVE Christ or that anyone is his equal..

It might be interesting to note or ask where in scripture is Mary Baptised for remission of Sin?

And according to Jewish Law no woman or person in the Flesh could give birth to God in the Flesh because of Sin.. So how could Mary give birth to Jesus if she was with Sin? At what Point did God decide that Mary is without Sin according to the Law?

[Mike7]

If borrowing terms Like Father or Son or any such things is Blasphemy...

No. Elevating Mary to the level of divinity is blasphemy.

one in RCC elevates anyone ABOVE Christ or that anyone is his equal..

But they do make Mary into a divine being to be worshipped/venerated. If you read the blasphemous book "The Glories of Mary" by Alphonso Ligori you will see that she is put on the same level as God himself!

might be interesting to note or ask where in scripture is Mary Baptised for remission of Sin?

It is not recorded like a lot of other peoples baptisms are not recorded. Were they sinless also?

At what Point did God decide that Mary is without Sin according to the Law?

At no point at all. You will not find the false doctrine of the sinlessness of Mary in the bible at all.

[James-Scott]

But they do make Mary into a divine being to be worshipped/venerated. If you read the blasphemous book "The Glories of Mary" by Alphonso Ligori you will see that she is put on the same level as God himself!

Well, since maudman appears to be Roman Catholic, I think he knows whether or not he worships the Virgin Mary.
I don't know why you keep saying, "worshipped/venerated." They are very different things. One's idolatery, and the other's not.

What is said in this book that makes you think she is elevated to the level of God?

You will not find the false doctrine of the sinlessness of Mary in the bible at all.

Well, I'm not sure about complete, total, sinlessness, but she had to be pretty holy to bear God the Word within her.

[Catholicity]

I am also a Catholic. I am going to make Two things very very clear. Mary is not divine nor a goddess. The Roman Catholic Church does not teach that Mary is divine nor teach that she is a goddess. We do not as a Church worship Mary.
We venerate or give honor to her as Jesus mother, and as our mother. it says in Luke "All generations shall call me blessed" When was the last time you called Mary blessed mike7?
That is essentially the core of the RCC teaching. But again we do not worship Mary, we worship God.

[James-Scott]

I am going to make Two things very very clear. Mary is not divine nor a goddess. The Roman Catholic Church does not teach that Mary is divine nor teach that she is a goddess. We do not as a Church worship Mary.

So... what are you trying to say?

[Kelp]

My two cents.

Looking at it from the outside, I tend to look at it being something like saluting the flag or giving a bow to someone respectable. It's a sign of respect. I salute the flag because I love this country, I owe so much to it. In the same way, a Catholic might "hail" a saint in recognition of their incredible faithfulness, the wonderful example they've left behind and in terms of RCC/EO theology for continuing to pray for them. It's a measure of gratitude and love. Now of course with a different view of the Communio Sanctorum, a Protestant would understandably have difficulties with this since they're "dead and gone." But I don't think it is at all wrong from the point of view of their own theology much like the Adoration of the Right logically follows from the Catholic view of the Real Presence. If saluting the flag or one's superior office in the military can be non-idolatrous, then it would seem at least possible for veneration to not be.

As for Mary "saving" us, I don't have a problem with that in the sense that through her obedience and through raising and protecting her Son, giving Him up (her only Son from the RC perspective) and watching in abject sorrow as He died for the world right in front of her. In these ways she contributes (from an earthly perspective) in the very existence of the church and the furthering of God's plan on earth. In the same way that Timothy was told to, "Take heed to yourself and to the doctrine. Continue in them, for in doing this you will save both yourself and those who hear you." Obviously neither Paul nor Timothy can save anyone, but God used them to bring His saving Gospel to others.

Prayer works mysteriously, I suppose. Obviously by praying for the lost, none of us can change God's eternal plan one iota and yet as James says, "The prayer of a righteous man avails much." So, from the RC perspective, a sinless person must be (within God's sovereign direction) availing quite a bit for everyone.

Now, the question might be asked, "Why not just thank Jesus?" One could, surely, but from the RCC perspective, I think this is like asking why one ever asks any earthly brothers and sisters to pray for them or thanks them when they do. After all, could not a person, any person become a distractions from our proper praise and gratitude due Christ?

Although Christ is supreme and the center of our lives, He also made us to live in community and to share His love and glorious Presence with each other. We help one another through prayer, we compliment and rejoice with each other when God has worked a victory in our lives. When a Catholic praises Mary, theologically all they are doing is rejoicing in God's work through her. "Glory to God who is marvelous in His saints," as the Orthodox say. Again, it comes back to their view of the Communio Sanctorum, believers living and dead are all one in Christ so speaking to Mary is like speaking to any Christian friend.

Keep in mind, Mary said, "My soul rests in God, my Savior," Catholics believe her sinlessness would not have possible without the saving action of her Son, without His action she would just be any other sinful woman. I don't know, maybe I'm not seeing something but to me the sinlessness of Mary could easily be seen as God "saving her early." I mean, we don't object to this when the Bible says we will be perfect and sinless someday, so far be it for me to object if decided to take one person and have them be saved within history. I might as well object to God not ending the world this moment and saving all of us.

As for the, "it's not in the Bible," objection, this is quite simply cart before the horse. From their perspective, it doesn't have to be. One needs to argue that extra-biblical tradition is not a source of doctrine. Asking for Bible verses first is the wrong way to go about it because they don't think they need them.

So, the last issue I see is one of extremity. Can one go too far emotionally in praising Mary just as one can idolize an admired person or a country? I would think the answer to that is yes. Do various Catholic and Orthodox writings and litanies do this? I don't know, maybe. I suppose if I were Catholic or Orthodox, I would suspend judgment on these difficult things just like the difficulties of some passages of Scripture, since I would believe they were ordained by God/and or approved by many more Godly men than myself and therefore must have some good in them. Although, as a Protestant I can't really take that stance. I suppose what I'm saying is, I can see the issue from both sides.

[maudman]

My two cents.

Looking at it from the outside, I tend to look at it being something like saluting the flag or giving a bow to someone respectable. It's a sign of respect. I salute the flag because I love this country, I owe so much to it. In the same way, a Catholic might "hail" a saint in recognition of their incredible faithfulness, the wonderful example they've left behind and in terms of RCC/EO theology for continuing to pray for them. It's a measure of gratitude and love. Now of course with a different view of the Communio Sanctorum, a Protestant would understandably have difficulties with this since they're "dead and gone." But I don't think it is at all wrong from the point of view of their own theology much like the Adoration of the Right logically follows from the Catholic view of the Real Presence. If saluting the flag or one's superior office in the military can be non-idolatrous, then it would seem at least possible for veneration to not be.

As for Mary "saving" us, I don't have a problem with that in the sense that through her obedience and through raising and protecting her Son, giving Him up (her only Son from the RC perspective) and watching in abject sorrow as He died for the world right in front of her. In these ways she contributes (from an earthly perspective) in the very existence of the church and the furthering of God's plan on earth. In the same way that Timothy was told to, "Take heed to yourself and to the doctrine. Continue in them, for in doing this you will save both yourself and those who hear you." Obviously neither Paul nor Timothy can save anyone, but God used them to bring His saving Gospel to others.

Prayer works mysteriously, I suppose. Obviously by praying for the lost, none of us can change God's eternal plan one iota and yet as James says, "The prayer of a righteous man avails much." So, from the RC perspective, a sinless person must be (within God's sovereign direction) availing quite a bit for everyone.

Now, the question might be asked, "Why not just thank Jesus?" One could, surely, but from the RCC perspective, I think this is like asking why one ever asks any earthly brothers and sisters to pray for them or thanks them when they do. After all, could not a person, any person become a distractions from our proper praise and gratitude due Christ?

Although Christ is supreme and the center of our lives, He also made us to live in community and to share His love and glorious Presence with each other. We help one another through prayer, we compliment and rejoice with each other when God has worked a victory in our lives. When a Catholic praises Mary, theologically all they are doing is rejoicing in God's work through her. "Glory to God who is marvelous in His saints," as the Orthodox say. Again, it comes back to their view of the Communio Sanctorum, believers living and dead are all one in Christ so speaking to Mary is like speaking to any Christian friend.

Keep in mind, Mary said, "My soul rests in God, my Savior," Catholics believe her sinlessness would not have possible without the saving action of her Son, without His action she would just be any other sinful woman. I don't know, maybe I'm not seeing something but to me the sinlessness of Mary could easily be seen as God "saving her early." I mean, we don't object to this when the Bible says we will be perfect and sinless someday, so far be it for me to object if decided to take one person and have them be saved within history. I might as well object to God not ending the world this moment and saving all of us.

As for the, "it's not in the Bible," objection, this is quite simply cart before the horse. From their perspective, it doesn't have to be. One needs to argue that extra-biblical tradition is not a source of doctrine. Asking for Bible verses first is the wrong way to go about it because they don't think they need them.

So, the last issue I see is one of extremity. Can one go too far emotionally in praising Mary just as one can idolize an admired person or a country? I would think the answer to that is yes. Do various Catholic and Orthodox writings and litanies do this? I don't know, maybe. I suppose if I were Catholic or Orthodox, I would suspend judgment on these difficult things just like the difficulties of some passages of Scripture, since I would believe they were ordained by God/and or approved by many more Godly men than myself and therefore must have some good in them. Although, as a Protestant I can't really take that stance. I suppose what I'm saying is, I can see the issue from both sides.

I like this, Nice to see someone who is trying to see an issue in context, without other things driving a response...

Folks many people respond in a way to something for other reasons... Like some who are convinced that the Papacy is evil and the Anti-Christ.. The topic of debate isn't what drives the spirit of opposition.. Its something else and the topic is used to enguage the difference or to slip in a reason.. They aren't interested in delving deeper into the spirit of those who desire to please God.. To show their Love for all God has done and through whom God has expressed his Love for our bennifit.. Its not just pronouncing the words that lead to understanding its the other things that tell a truth of something...

I will answer the last comment to better clarify that there has always been the extremes.. And yes some people in their Zeal for certain things have gone to far in the churches View historically... Often this gets generalized into a charator assassination of the Church as a whole... Correction is often done in Private.. And at times historically some have responded negatively to certain re-education... But usually that involves a personal trait of an individual or individauls unwillingness to see things differently.. There is always something else nawing on them... We aren't all the same and many see things differently because of our individual charactor... We have lenses we see through... Some lenses don't allow certain light through.. We have filtered lenses... This has always been the case in a Church as large as the RCC. It expands many cultures an nations...

Unlike some Protestants that may start a different Church when they disagree Theologically.. They walk away and start something that best describes or conveys a theological distinction... We don't believe this or were not like that... This is Church history..

The RCC has always delved into the why's of God.. It's not just the truth in whats written? But the truth because of whats written.. If the Bible says this? Then this must or can be.. People too often try to use the Bible to micro manage each Person and that wasn't it's purpose.. It is but a miniscule record of certain things written because others mostly Jews were having problems getting certain things.. Or relating gentiles context in relation to Israelite theology... It's not addressing the questions that haven't been ask directly but is written in such a way that it can.. Often this requires a better understanding of how people thought in those times which is at times different than the world we live today.. There were belief systems... Not even the Jews were united but rather fragmented much llike the Church today...

Peace and Godbless...

[themuzicman]

Does it seem odd to anyone that the original Eve was taken from Adam's rib, and they then became "one flesh", but the "new Eve" gave birth to the second Adam, who was beholden to honor her as His mother?

Sounds like a weird Oepidus kind of thing, if you term it that way.

[Thersites]

Does it seem odd to anyone that the original Eve was taken from Adam's rib, and they then became "one flesh", but the "new Eve" gave birth to the second Adam, who was beholden to honor her as His mother?

Sounds like a weird Oepidus kind of thing, if you term it that way.

By your logic, one could argue that Adam and Eve's relationship was either masturbatory or incestuous.

Point being, this mode of argument is completely unproductive. There are lessons to be learned from the New Adam/New Eve relationship, but an Oedipus comparison is a cheap argument that completely ignores what is actually meant by the title.