Tags
Quiavideruntocli and I get on here like oil and water, although because we both hold firm beliefs firmly, I like to believe there is a mutual respect; at any rate, I respect his views, and like a virile and robust statement of belief – all of which is a prelude to saying that whilst I am grateful for his post about Mary being mediatrix of all graces, I am baffled by it. When I translate it into English – it is written in that curious jargon RCs fall into when talking about Mary, which always makes me wonder what it would sound like in English as she is spoken and understood by most of us – it seems either to be saying not a lot, or a great deal. Let me expand.
I’m leaving aside the gender pronoun stuff – as that risks falling into the modish rubbish about gender identity being fluid – but it does point up the dangers of thinking in this way. If the soul is female, then what of Paul saying there is neither male nor female in Christ. Men who have a desire to be a bride? Well if QV says so. I’ll leave it to him. I feel no call to be a bride, and can see nothing in Scripture which says I have to become one to to be saved.
If every ‘pure and holy soul’ is to some extent co-redemptrix, mediatrix and any other sort of rix, fine, but so what? Where everyone is something, there’s no particular honour in being that something. But then we get that leap of logic which no doubt makes sense to Catholics but to the rest of us looks like someone has just put into the equation the answer they wanted. If she is the God-bearer, he says – well she is – then that proves she is the “Mediatrix of All Grace’ – sorry, several stages got lost there. You can state it is it is what you believe, but you can’t just state it as though in some way you have proved it. He writes: ‘Communicating the author of Grace, it is plain that she communicates thereby all graces.’ I have no idea what use of the word communicate this might be in the first clause; she gave birth to Jesus, if that is communicating him, fine, and if he means that she gave birth to Jesus who is the source of all grace, fine, but to say she ‘communicates all graces’ is an abuse of English and of logic. She communicated, if you allow the odd use of the world, the source of all graces, but that’s it folks. It would be like saying my mother was the generatirix of my children – true, but what’s the point being made? It is either a truism – she’s one of their grandmothers, or is is to imply some greater claim.
QVO goes on to write:
Our Lady cooperates in the economy of salvation with Our Lord’s work of redemption in a way that is wholly unique. Her participation in His life becomes, by inevitable extension, a participation in the life of every Christian
As a statement of what he and his church believe, fine, but again he presumes the major premise he is proving. Of her participation in his life we know but little. We know he was not terribly keen on starting his mission at Cana, but agreed, presumably to honour his mother. We know that Mary and his family had their doubts about his mission at one point, but we know she was there at the end. This is all excellent, but hardly makes her in some special way a cooperator in the economy of salvation. Salvation comes through faith in Father, Son and Holy Ghost – Mary certainly was the chosen one through whom the Lord came, and we should honour her for that – but at the least it creates a misleading impression to start talking about her being involved in salvation. Yes, it you mean she was the chosen woman; but there is nothing in that to suggest we go to her with prayers or petitions – there is ONE Mediator – Christ. To make statements about anyone else being a mediator in the same way is to imply what is not being stated. If the RCC simply means she’s the Mother of God, excellent, full agreement – but if it does not realise that calling her a mediator raises the idea that she has a role similar to that of her son, they they are either by intention or accident, tone deaf to the use of language. It is like the language used. It is no good saying it is not ‘worship’ if it looks and sounds like it. There’s no point complaining people are not understanding the subtleties of your position – for most if it looks like worship that’s what it is – who, in real life, ever used a word like hyperdulia? No one. It gives the impression you are being at best shifty – well there’s this special word which means our actions do not mean what any observer would assume they mean.
None of this is not respecting Mary; indeed I would be prepared to argue that from everything we know about her, she’d be a bit embarrassed at the extent t which some followers of her son have taken her cult. I am happy to bless her name, as the Spirit said would be the case. But as to all this stuff about female souls and mediatrixes, it all sounds as dodgy as you can get. Mary played an honourable and indeed notable part in the life of Our Lord, she bore the saviour in her womb – for all this she is to be honoured. The rest of it – the whole Marian cult – seems to me an exaggeration, and adding to what we know on a scale unjustified by any Biblical practice. I don’t see it in Acts, I don’t see it in the Apostolic Fathers, and I don’t see it in the way the Orthodox act. They honour the Theotokos – but they don’t have the statues, the hyperdulia and the rest of it. Rome is welcome to the exaggerated veneration, but I think even it realised some time ago that it is a great obstacle to unity. It is a shame that it has chosen to condone some of the things it has, and as long as it does, the mother of Our Lord will be what she was never meant to be – a focus of disunity. All Grace is from God, he doesn’t needs servants to help him there – he’s omnipotent – One Mediator – Christ Jesus. That’s what St Paul said, and I’m being Biblical there. Yes, I know one can extract from the OT fantastical stories to justify something unBiblical – but I would commend the Orthodox practice here to my RC friends.
NEO said:
Much sense here, Geoffrey. I find myself agreeing with old Luther:
“(She is the) highest woman and the noblest gem in Christianity after Christ … She is nobility, wisdom, and holiness personified. We can never honor her enough. Still, honor and praise must be given to her in such a way as to hurt neither Christ nor the scriptures.” (Sermon, Christmas, 1531)”
Not always an easy needle to thread, but I, like Luther, do find her a comfort.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Geoffrey RS Sales said:
I can understand that, but the rest of it has me beat!
LikeLiked by 1 person
NEO said:
Me too, actually. but i run under the assumption that if something can’t be stated using reasonably common words in their common meaning, one is simply hiding something. not always true, of course, but more often than not!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Gareth Thomas said:
“i run under the assumption”
You have a sports day on the 15th August?
LikeLiked by 3 people
NEO said:
Nicely asked! 🙂
LikeLike
Geoffrey RS Sales said:
Dratted typos!
LikeLike
Jock McSporran said:
…. oh, you mean the assumption that Scripture is insufficient. That’s the main assumption that Catholics celebrate on 15th August.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Geoffrey RS Sales said:
It goes further Jock. It seems to be that the Trinity is insufficient and needs Mary to help it out. I don’t know how to get across that we have no problem with Mary, it is the exaggerated and made up claims about her that are the problem. Have you ever read de Montfort’s ‘Consecration’? The modern defence seems to be it is figurative and allegorical language – well it has to be, because read plain it is idolatry.
I am very worried by the theme developing here which says there is some esoteric knowledge and way of thinking known only to experts in marian veneration. That seems about as far away from what Jesus spoke about as you can get.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jock McSporran said:
I lived and worked in Ireland for a four year period, during which there was a general election. I couldn’t understand the differences between the political parties and when I asked, I was told, ‘oh there are profound differences between the parties.’ When I asked what they were, I was told, ‘well, those who know don’t need to ask and those who need to ask don’t need to know’.
I think there’s something similar going on with the fans of Marian devotion.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Geoffrey RS Sales said:
This need for an esoteric cult bothers me – pure gnosticism. Jesus died for me, he says to come to the Father via him – which bit of that needs esoteric knowledge> Mind you, I suppose you couldn’t build a palace on that or get much in the way of power from it either.
When Adam delved and Eve span, who then was the gentleman?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jock McSporran said:
I believe that there are people of God in the RCC. My reasoning is the following: look at Jephthah from the book of Judges. He was a man of God, yet his understanding of God was seriously wrong. The vow he made was starkly opposed to anything that could possibly have pleased God – and God extracted a terrible price. There is no doubting his faith, even though he was seriously misguided in his understanding of God.
The main problem, though, is that in order to popularise itself, the RCC has, throughout the ages, taken the easy way. When presenting Christianity to the pagans, isn’t it so much easier to get them to convert if they can say, ‘oh look, we have a Mother of God figure, who was without original sin and lived her life untainted with sin and is now a co-Mediatrix’.
They avoided the hard work of explaining why the pagan religions were so wrong. And we have the effects of this today. This belief about Mary contradicts Christianity at a fundamental level. We are all sinners; we have all fallen short of the glory of God (exceptions to this: ‘not even one’); the wages of sin is death; this is why Christ had to suffer. In Calvary, Christ did the whole job for my salvation.
Mary was a sinner who was called by God to an extraordinary calling and was true to her calling. We thank God for this and we turn to God (and God alone) and ask Him to put our own lives in order and guide us to the heavenly kingdom.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Geoffrey RS Sales said:
I have no doubt at all about the faithfulness of most Catholics I know, and I have come to an admiration of much the church does – but this seems to me a blot on the landscape – and you have expressed why better than I did.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Geoffrey RS Sales said:
Whenever something needs dressing up in fancy words which say that words don’t man what they seem to mean, one is usually in the presence of a scam.
LikeLiked by 1 person
NEO said:
Roger that! 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Philip Augustine said:
I go to the Mary Feast days, I sing the songs, and I’ll say Hail Mary–The Rosary. However, everything is very Christ oriented in my mind and in my actions of faith. To venerate Mary–honor– is to worship Christ as God. She is theotokos.
In regards to Protestantism, I think the issue is whether we can ask Saints in heaven to pray on our behalf like asking those here on earth for prayers. The Catholic position I think clear to understand on the matter. In Revelations prayers offering are offered in John’s vision of Heaven.
In this regard, I have no issue to ask Mary to intercede on my behalf to her Son like at the miracle at Cana.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Geoffrey RS Sales said:
It all baffles me, as will be clear. Why ask Mary when you can go straight to Jesus?
LikeLike
Philip Augustine said:
Why not ask both? Why does anyone ask anyone of us on earth for prayers?
It baffles you, but I think it make perfect sense.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Dave Smith said:
It seems that at the heart of the matter is the understanding of worship.
Worship is the feeling or expression of reverence and adoration for a deity. At least, that is how the word is used when speaking of God or gods. However, a feeling or expression of reverence and adoration can and is used for others – such as our mothers, fathers, spouses or children. Along with this hightened expression of reverence and adoration is also an implied feeling and desire to sacrifice our own desires for love of them – for their good even if it requires a loss to us is wholly righteous and an act of human love. Thus sacrifices to God have been with us from the beginning as have our willingness to show acts of human love via feelings, reverence and adoration. And ‘adoration’ seems to be a word that expresses a reverence or veneration that is motivated by love rather than fear. For a Catholic . . . there is no full act of worship without sacrifice. And thus we have a bloodless sacrifice each Sunday known as the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
So there are two planes upon which adoration and reverence operates; one, in the spiritual realm and one in the natural realm. To honor ones father and mother and to honor and obey ones husband or to love our wives all have these elements. We are humanly willing to give even our lives for these people and we may even ‘humanly’ say that we adore or worship them. However, we in no way say this in the plane of worship which refers to our God. We are not saying that they are our gods.
Likewise, we venerate Mary and the Saints in the human plane or meaning and extend to them an intended act of love to God for the Grace that He bestowed on them. But unlike the other Saints, a superior Grace was given to Mary and a superior place in the lives of Christians. Why? Because if she is the Mother or Christ and Christ is our brother then she is also our Mother spiritually. We can even say that if the Church is the Body of Christ that Mary is then the Mother of the Body of Christ, the Church. So when we give her honor and reverence and we adore her (humanly) we extend our love, thanks, and glory to God who gave her to us as our mother as well . . . and thus the words of Christ to John (representing us) and His Mother at the foot of the cross. Ave Maria, gratia plena.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Geoffrey RS Sales said:
It really does baffle me. Jesus prayed to God, he taught us how to do it. At no time and nowhere did he tell us to pray to anyone else. All of this seem to me unnecessary and potentially misleading. We are sons by adoption, not blood, so at best she’s an adopted mother. I bless her name for her sacrifices, but I guess a lot of folk have a lot of time on their hands if they have time for all of this on top of Bible study and prayer.
I didn’t get what QV was saying – it is either a truism or something much more.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
I would lay claim to the importance of Mary by the very fact that Christ chose His gift of Her to the Church as one of the last seven things He said on this earth whilst in the midst of His agony and where speaking was almost impossible for the pain and the lack of oxygen.
Yes, Christ is the center of our faith and the only Mediator for Christians. Yet, that is not to say that I disparage gifts that Christ Himself has laid at our disposal: the Holy Spirit given to the Church and given to our souls in Baptism, the gift of having a successor to the Apostles bind us to virtues and loose us from sins, His gift of Himself in the Eucarist to feed not only the spirit but the body of man etc. Mary was one of these gifts. As to why I might ask Mary instead of going to Christ I might also answer by remembering why I went to mom for something I wanted from dad: a powerful intercessor.
LikeLike
Geoffrey RS Sales said:
I see what you are saying, but I think the analogy incorrect – and possibly misleading. Mother and Father in the family have places at the top table if you like – Mary is not at the top table with Jesus, and I think it is very misleading to act as though she is. She is to be honoured and blessed, but not prayed to. This is a medieval, feudal model of heaven – go via the Queen Mother or one of the powerful nobles (the saints). God says we can go straight to him, so why mess around?
LikeLike
ginnyfree said:
Look Geoffrey, two heads are better than one. It isn’t an either or thing, but a both and. We aren’t choosing Mary over Jesus, we are making use of all means of obtaining our ends. Both Jesus and Mary, not either Jesus or Mary. Can ya get that much at least? God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLike
Geoffrey RS Sales said:
I have no idea why you need anyone else. It is close to blasphemy to believe God needs help from a human being. I need God, so do you; if he’s not enough, we’re doomed.
LikeLike
ginnyfree said:
God chose to come to us thru a woman. Yes, He needs the help of every human being that bears the name Christian. He has no hands but our hands. You are a fool and a hypocrite. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLike
Geoffrey RS Sales said:
If you think God needs your help, try reading the Bible – or even understanding what omnipotent means. Thank you for your example of love and charity. Adding ‘god bless’ after insulting someone? Really? Ah well.
LikeLike
Geoffrey RS Sales said:
No, you asserted a lot of stuff with no explanation at all. This stuff about Mary is entirely made up. The Orthodox, who have been less inclined to keep adding to the faith than the RCC, honour her without all this imaginary Queenship malarky.
As ever with RCs on this, you go to a position I don’t hold. At no point do I deny her role in the Incarnation. What you do is build on it a Bavarian fantasy castle. Mary will not save you. She dispenses no graces – heaven is not medieval Europe, it doesn’t have a Queen, and your church riffing a la Bosco on Revelation doesn’t make it so.
LikeLike
ginnyfree said:
No Geoffrey, the Orthodox honor her as Queen also. Get your facts straight. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLike
Geoffrey RS Sales said:
Fair enough – but they don’t call her mediatrix of all graces and make all the fuss you do.
LikeLike
Geoffrey RS Sales said:
I don’t see them going to the extremes of de Montfort.
LikeLike
ginnyfree said:
No, they aren’t QVO. You’re right and in fact at various times in history they’re rivaled us in the West and even during some periods excelled us. That only briefly, but it is so. But these sour pusses aren’t worth the time anymore. Too rude. Even if I showed them the facts, they’d ignore them or deny them. Too bad. I’ve not much more time for this stuff. It does get tiring. Happy to have met you and Dave here. I’ll see you elsewhere I suppose. Pray for me. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLike
Bosco the Great said:
Jesus himself said call no man on this earth your father. Jesus considerd Mary just a woman….and that’s how he referd to her, as woman.
Jesus entrusted John with the housing of Mary. If Jesus was giving Mary to everybody, he would have said….Hey everybody, im giving Mary here to all yall.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Gareth Thomas said:
What a fascinating Lent we are having here. Now Geoffrey strays into the complex world of theological anthropology! Is the soul female? Choose your metaphors carefully, Geoffrey, but remember they are metaphors.
Love of God requires receptivity, so a metaphorical feminine quality is given to the soul. The Greek Psyche is feminine, and Christian theology has been informed by Greek philosophy. The Song of Songs, and Bernard of Clairvaux’s commentaries. Gregory of Nyssa, on the soul and the resurrection. The parable of the wise and foolish virgins. The theme of the soul as female is rich and long-established.
A huge subject you have ventured into. Where to begin? Begin with the idea that the soul as female is a metaphor. Therefore let’s not get too exercised about it. When Bosco wrestles pointlessly with Catholic symbolism and ties himself up in contradictions, it doesn’t worry me very much. When more intelligent voices seem to do so, I am concerned. 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
Geoffrey RS Sales said:
As Fr Ted would have said, down with this sort of thing! What wrries me here is that we get close to creating a form of gnosticism which only the learned elect can comprehend.If theologians want to play with such ideas, fine, but as the ‘Sophia’ school of theology shows us, this can lead even the learned into dangerous territory!
LikeLike
Geoffrey RS Sales said:
Well put.
LikeLike
Jock McSporran said:
Geoffrey – I’ve been missing your comments and I trust all is well with you.
A good post – and I’ll weigh in tomorrow afternoon, when I should have time.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Geoffrey RS Sales said:
Yes, we went down to Kent to see the grandchildren and the daughter and son in law during their half-term, hence my absence.
Much look forward to your comments.
LikeLike
Dave Smith said:
Perhaps this is another way to understand this apparent dilemma.
This might be likened to some of the counter-intuitive Truths of God. Like love, if it is not shared and given to others, it shrivels and dies. But the more love we give, the more love we are likely to have which can be given to others.
Grace is a form of God’s Love . . . a gift. You must ask yourself if He gave His love and Grace to those Saints in Heaven and especially His Mother to keep only for themselves and not use for the help of others. If you have it in your mind that once dead they have no need of Love or Grace then that would be an answer that might satisfy you. However, I would find that such an understanding of God diminishes Him where He rejoices in the never ending stream of Love and Grace from His Mother, His Angels and His Saints. Their Love and Grace (which is full) is always operative and always flowing out of them. And the more that they give to their brothers and sisters in this valley of tears the more they delight in God, and the more that God delights in them and in us.
If I have a very young son that asks his older brother to help him then am I jealous or angry that he did not ask me instead? In fact it is an act of confidence in me, that I raised a responsible older child, that the younger one did so. It reflects confidence that my rearing of the older child into a responsible person who can be Trusted and Loving and Caring for the younger is an occasion of great pride and satisfaction for me. Likewise, this makes God more magnanimous than the gods of old. He is all about sharing Himself, His Love, His Grace and He wants us to do the same. When we do this, He delights. He may be a jealous God when it comes to those who are worshipping false Gods but there is nothing selfish in God. His Kingdom is a family that He wants us to be at home in. And being at home means that we do not forget or quit talking to our brothers and sisters and certainly not our Spiritual Mother. We are, after all, entering the Perfect Family.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Geoffrey RS Sales said:
I’m sorry, this really is a feudal vision of the world. God dispenses all Grace, we are nowhere told he uses Mary or saints for that purpose – this is all man-made thinking, dating from a time when medieval Europe was governed by kings, who dispensed grace/favour through their powerful nobles. It has been cobbled on to Christianity, where there is no need for it. We don’t need a Queen of Heaven – there isn’t one – that reading of Revelation is as fanciful as some of Boscos, nor do we need a great group of folk dispensing Grace – God does it.
The analogy with an earthly family worries me. Mrs S and myself have joint responsibility because they are our children – I am not Mary’s child, she is not the equal partner of God in rearing me as a Christian. Mary is not my spiritual mother, she is the mother of my Lord and I honour her part in the economy of salvation, but in elevating her as the RCC does, you open the way up for people treating her as a minor deity. I know men like you and C don’t, but some of the stuff that has been written does. No one can read de Montfort’s tract and not see he is elevating Mary to quasi-divine status. This is dangerous, not least to those without any theological sophistication.
LikeLike
ginnyfree said:
Geoffrey, may the good Lord in His mercy to me never allow be to become so “theologically sophisticated” that I leave off loving His Mother. In plain English that spells out to too smart for my own good. You may qualify already.
I’m kinda beginning to think you only brought this up to rehash some old tired worn out arguments. You’re really not trying to understand or deeper your prayer life at all. You just want to run thru the same old same old and sit back in your same old thread bare easy chair after the dust settles, smugly secure in your obstinate rejection of all Catholic Marian teaching. The only concession you’ve ever acknowledged is that she is the Mother of God, but other than that, not much else. And this rejection is after a few years of being given honest explanations by many regarding our belief and practice. Why is this? Self-satisfaction? Or are you trying to persuade others to leave her behind and be “saved” from some imaginary sin of Mariolatry? Which is it?
God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLike
Geoffrey RS Sales said:
No one is saying you shouldn’t love her – its the rest – the mediatrix, the de Montfort nonsense which is being objected to. If you kept it to loving her, no one would object.
If you see no dangers in the idea that there is some esoteric language accessible only to initiates, I suggest you google ‘gnostic’.
She is the Theotokos – that’s it – a great honour and enough. If you want to make up fairy stories about her being Queen of Heaven do, but don’t claim it is Christian – it isn’t. You can cite not one Apostolic Father in aid of this preposterous idea. You won;t find it in Augustine, or Leo the Great – it is a medieval accretion – if you need to stay in the Middle Ages, ask yourself why?
LikeLike
ginnyfree said:
Geoffrey, St Louis Marie de Montfort is my spiritual father in Christ. You blaspheme his method, you insult me, call my Consecration nonsense and show how foolish you really are. You revile holy persons and holy things. As for St. Augustine, he wrote a timeless prayer in Commemoration of the Blessed Virgin Mary. It is over 1500 years old and is still prayed around the world daily. Shame you have such a narrow minded view of religion or I’d share it with you. You’d blaspheme again and call his adoration (and yes, he uses that word in the prayer) Mariolatry. Too bad. Wise men love her as Jesus did. He honors her. I really don’t need to point to the passage in Revelation that shows her adornment. You know it well, yet remain stubbornly, foolishly unmoved. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLike
Geoffrey RS Sales said:
If you can show where I have said Augustine’s prayer is a bad one, then there would be some sense in you lumping hm in with the de Montfort fellow. I have read Augustine, in the original Latin too, and de Montfrot in the French, and if you think they have anything in common other than that they regard Mary with honour, you haven’t. De Montfort is a sickly, sweet series of inventions for elderly ladies – if that’s you, fine. Yes, I know you read into Revelation as Bosco does – when he does you mock – yet you expect respect for your own interpretations. The Orthodox were right in wanting the thing kept out of the Canon – it causes more harm than any good it has ever done. None of you seem to know how to read Apochrypha.
LikeLike
Geoffrey RS Sales said:
By the way, you can only blaspheme against God – that you seem to think criticising the barmy French priest is blasphemy is, itself, blasphemous as you put a man in place of God.
Keep digging, this is fun.
LikeLike
ginnyfree said:
Geoffrey the problem isn’t Mary and her ability to obtain graces for folks. The problem is the extension of her ability by a thee letter word, “ALL.” Some added that word and started a fire storm. Original references to her as a Mediatrix of grace were changed. Your essay used the word “all,” therefore you were in error and misrepresenting the actual idea of her as a Mediatrix of grace. Whether you did this simply because you’ve been handed bad information or copied from someone else or if you added the word “all” so as to bait, well, I’m am wondering, but I’m not going to loose any sleep over it. You’re a big boy. You can figure out what we mean if you choose to. I know this is not the first time this particular title of our Blessed Mother has been discussed either with you or by you, so you’ve heard the defenses before. Make your choice: love Mary because she is the Mother of God and He honors her with all kinds of titles and abilities or don’t and stick with Jesus alone, all the time and only Jesus to the exclusion of all the Saints you may think you’re in Communion with. Baptists do supposedly believe in the Communion of the Saints. I know. My mom was one. Angels and Saints have the ability to help us and that was taught me by Baptists as child. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLike
Geoffrey RS Sales said:
This is from one of your fellow Catholics in a recent comment:
“I explained how all souls are like Mary in a small way; Mary is like it in a big way. In fact, to the greatest degree possible. This is why she deserves the definite article and lots of modifiers “THE Mediatrix of ALL Graces”.
Will you all kindly agree on what the fable is and stick to it? De Montfort calls her dispenser of all graces – but hey, he’s just a saint and to be corrected by you – yes or no?
There is no evidence God honours Mary with any title because the one she has is sufficient – Theotokos. The RCC is infected by medieval patterns of thought – Mary is not an angel, and there is no biblical evidence God needs help in dispensing Grace.
When the RCCs here get their story about a” graces’ straight, let me know.
LikeLike
ginnyfree said:
Geoffrey, I already explained that for those of us who are Consecrated to Jesus Thru Mary according to the Montfort formula of Marian Consecration, she DOES become the Mediatrix of all grace, but only for us. No one else. There is no mistake in Montfort’s explanation. It is you who misunderstand. I am a member of the Montfort Family of Consecrated persons. You’re getting this from a horses mouth, so don’t be a horses rear end about it.
It has already been explained. Why don’t you pay any attention to what is told to you? If this were a class you’d get a “F” for refusing to get the material covered. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLike
Geoffrey RS Sales said:
Those of us who know Jesus believe what the Bible says – One mediator, Christ Jesus. If you have a Bible which says you come to the Son via the Mother, I suggest you’re spending too much time reading de Montfort’s rot and not enough on the Bible.
That you keep making u stories is clear, that they have anything to do with Christianity is not clear. Can you cite one Apostolic father who takes the line you do on mary? Remember these fellows knew the Apostles and are the best repository of the oral tradition, apart from the Bible – and there’s nothing in it.
You get an A for creative imagination and a U for Christian knowledge.
LikeLike
Geoffrey RS Sales said:
No one questions that your church has added accretions to the original deposit of faith; what is questioned is that their claim to have have found it there.
LikeLike
Gareth Thomas said:
Geoffrey, I have a busy week teaching, and I have made time to try and understand what you are saying, but without much success!
Yes, the Orthodox “honour the Theotokos – but they don’t have the statues.” No they have beautiful icons of Mary instead. I don’t think Catholics have the Dormition as a great Marian theme, as the Orthodox do. The Orthodox have paintings and the Catholic have paintings and statues, yes. Like much of what you say above, on a second reading, I find only confusion: what is being confused here is symbolism and theological realities, both of which have been open to interpretationm throughout two thousand years of Christian history. It doesn’t get settled in soundbites, and some people will not be impressed with the attempt to do so.
You say, “I feel no call to be a bride, and can see nothing in Scripture which says I have to become one to to be saved.” Absolutely right. If that metaphor doesn’t work for you, steer well clear of it. In the articles by myself and Jess this week, the Bride of Christ theme has been quite prominent: it has been in the context of a metaphorical scheme that was quite popular in the medieval Church. Some men may reject it because they think it means we all have to become spiritual transvestites. There are always those who miss the point of symbolic language. We have also to remember verbal language is also symbolic. Hence the constant problems of theological exegesis.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Geoffrey RS Sales said:
I’m grateful Gareth – as an old schoolmaster I know the toll the job takes.
My worry was expressed in a previous comment, which is the risk of ending by setting up a quasi-gnostic cult which only the ‘learned’ can grasp. I have had some dealings, locally, with ‘Sophia/Wisdom’ groups who major on this stuff. Of course folk can always pervert good ideas. It is, I think, the excesses and extravagances of languages which worry me.
LikeLike
Jock McSporran said:
Geoffrey – the root of the problem is that the RCC has given Mary a status that is somehow embedded in the psyche of the natural man. This is something that I do not understand, but something that I observe. All other religions (those that were present in the Western world during Hebrew times and the time of Christ) seem to have.
The interesting thing is the vigour with which the ‘Mary’ fans defend the status given to her by the RCC even though it goes against Holy Scripture. The RCC jargon is saying a great deal and it is flatly contradicted by Paul in his letter to the Romans.
According to RCC, Mary was without original sin (perhaps this is OK), but much more importantly, she lived her life on this earth without the taint of sin. Paul says, ‘all have sinned and have fallen short of the glory of God’ (Romans 3v23) and earlier, when he clarifies what he means by ‘all’ (sometimes Scripture is loose with the term), he says, ‘not even one’ (quoting the Psalms). So the RCC have given her a God-like status, in flat contradiction to Scripture. Of course, if she really had lived her life on earth free from the taint of sin, she really would be in a position to be a ‘mediatrix’.
Of course, if God could leave Mary free of original sin, and if it had been possible, as a result, for Mary to live a life free from the taint of sin, then God could have done this with the rest of us; there was no need of a redeemer to suffer at Calvary for our sins.
It’s interesting that people hold on to this with such vigour, despite what the Holy Writ actually says – and I believe that this is something written into the psyche of the natural man. That explains the fervent support for Mary as Mediatrix that we find here.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Geoffrey RS Sales said:
Seems likely Jock – I simply see no need for all this fiction – it is like they need something other than Jesus.
LikeLike
Jock McSporran said:
Enoch is not called ‘perfect’ in my bible. My bible says, ‘After he became the father of Methuselah, Enoch walked faithfully with God 300 years and had other sons and daughters. Altogether, Enoch lived a total of 365 years. Enoch walked faithfully with God; then he was no more, because God took him away.’
The key here is that he (like the apostle Paul) walked faithfully with the Lord. It does not say anywhere that he was ‘perfect’; it does not say that he did not sin. Nor does it state anywhere does it say that Elijah did not sin.
On the contrary, Paul says ‘all have sinned’ and, to clarify what he means by ‘all’, he gives the number of exceptions to this a few verses earlier; ‘There is no one righteous, not even one.’
That is what the Holy Scripture states.
It is not possible to live a perfect life and not sin. If it was, we would not need a redeemer; Christ’s suffering was unnecessary.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jock McSporran said:
QVO – ah yes. Noah. When he got out of the ark, the first thing he did was to plant a vineyard and then get horribly drunk on what it produced. He fell fast asleep, in a drunken stupor with his willy exposed, and then took a hissy fit against Canaan when Ham said to everybody, ‘oh look at that willy’. You say that this man was untainted by sin?
Scripture tells us that Noah died – so I don’t follow the last point you made.
About Noah: scripture states, ‘Noah found favour in the eyes of the Lord’. It does not say he received a deserved reward; it says he found favour.
Yes, the next verse states, ‘Noah was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he walked faithfully with God.’ The apostle Paul has something to say about righteousness. In the fourth of Romans, he quotes Genesis:
“Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”
Now to the one who works, wages are not credited as a gift but as an obligation. However, to the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness. David says the same thing when he speaks of the blessedness of the one to whom God credits righteousness apart from works:
“Blessed are those
whose transgressions are forgiven,
whose sins are covered.
Blessed is the one
whose sin the Lord will never count against them.”
From this, we can understand the verse (Genesis 6v9) and the basis of Noah’s righteousness.
LikeLike
Jock McSporran said:
QVO – note the order of this. Firstly, it states that Noah ‘found favour’ and only after this does it state ‘Noah was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he walked faithfully with God.’ We see from the later passage that he was a sinner; the ‘blameless among his people’ is therefore a relative phrase.
We see Genesis 15v6 where ‘Abraham believed and the Lord credited it to him as righteousness’ and this is what happened here. First Noah found favour and then the Lord worked within his heart and mind so that he was ‘blameless among the people of his time’.
LikeLike
Jock McSporran said:
QVO – try Ezekiel 18 ‘the one who sins is the one who will die’. No; unrighteousness is actual sin; not original sin. Of course, because we are possessed of original sin it means that we cannot escape actual sin, but it is our personal sin, the sins that we commit that make us unrighteous and which condemn us in the eyes of God.
LikeLike
Jock McSporran said:
QVO – the statement ‘Original sin by itself purchases death’ runs contrary to Scripture. The passage Ezekiel 18 that I pointed to seems to me to have been written with people like you in mind, to emphasise that it is the soul that sins that dies. When explaining what he means, he makes it very clear that he means actual sins and not some inherited ‘original sin’.
Of course, the corollary of Ezekiel’s words is that if an infant who has not reached the age to discern right and wrong dies, the soul of the infant does not die.
This is the clear and plain corollary; there is nothing at all in Scripture to suggest anything to the contrary; there is nothing to suggest the souls of infants, who depart this life prematurely, before they have been able to commit an actual sin, actually die.
LikeLike
Jock McSporran said:
OK – yes – but who cares about corporeal death if the soul does not die?
This life is only a poor imitation of the heavenly life to come, even at its best. This life is a preparation for the next.
LikeLike
Jock McSporran said:
QVO – yes – I think it was Spike Milligan who tried to develop the sketch without a punchline.
What makes you think that Elijah and Enoch will return at the end of the world and then suffer martyrdom? I don’t think I ever heard that hypothesis before.
LikeLike
Jock McSporran said:
Ah – OK. It seems unlikely to me. It seems much more likely that Elijah and Enoch have run their earthly race and are now enjoying eternal heavenly bliss.
LikeLike