This is a question raised by protestants and many orthdox christians, and creates confusion among even devout catholics. The answer is quite simple for someone with strong faith and a will to know the truth, not to oppose it.

In Luke 1:41 we see the Holy Spirit acknowledging Mary as the ""Mother of the Lord"", when Elisabeth on being filled with the Holy Ghost speaks our in a loud voice, ""And whence is this to me, that ""the mother of my Lord"" should come to me?"". And after being proclaimed as the ""Mother of our Lord"" Mary says in Luke:1:48: ""behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed"". Hence every generation does call her or rather reveres and honours her as blessed for which the Rosary plays a significant part through generations. Now the Lord who gave us the command to ""Honour our father and mother"", will not He himself keep this command. Yes, He surely will honour His father and mother, He has shown us thus by giving up His life on the cross just because as in His own words in Joh:4:34: ""My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work"". Likewise we know that He does honour His mother's words as well, like we see in John:2:3, 4 where on His mother's request He performs a miracle (""His first miracle"" as the Bible specifically says) even though 'His hour had not come'. We are guaranteed that Our Lord will listen to His mother who also happens to be Our Mother as well. So don't be hesitant in turning to our Mother who is always waiting for us to look towards her for her love and protection. We as her children can surely approach her for help in times of trouble, as where else will a child first look to when in trouble, of course into the caring hands of his mother. She won't let any of her kids down.

-- Abraham T (lijothengil@yahoo.com), April 21, 2003

Answers

The real question is - If Mary's Son is God, how could Mary not be the mother of God?? If Bush is the President, is there some way his mother could NOT be the mother of the President?? All agree that Mary was the mother of Jesus; therefore the only way one can deny that Mary is the mother of God is to deny the divinity of her Son. The problem of course, is in trying to relate the birth of Christ to the birth of any ordinary human being. In our case, we did not exist until we were conceived in our mother's womb. In the case of Jesus, He did exist before he was conceived in Mary's womb. In fact, He existed from all eternity. So people ask "if Mary is God's mother, how is it that God existed before she did"? This is trying to reduce God to human terms. We know that God did not come into existence by being born, as we did. But we also know that the eternal God, at a given point in time, chose to take on human nature, while not surrendering His divine nature. One cannot acquire human nature except by being born of a human mother. Therefore the pre-existant, eternal God used the usual means of acquiring human nature, that is, natural birth through a human mother; but He did not cease to be God in the process. Therefore it was indeed God who was born of Mary; and therefore it makes no sense whatsoever to deny that Mary is the mother of God.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), April 21, 2003.

I disagree with Paul. This is something that bugs me. Mary is not the mother of God, however, she is the mother of Jesus. According to the dictionary, here are a couple of the definitions:

A woman who conceives, gives birth to, or raises and nurtures a child. OR

A woman who creates, originates, or founds something

Paul states: "The real question is - If Mary's Son is God, how could Mary not be the mother of God?? If Bush is the President, is there some way his mother could NOT be the mother of the President?? All agree that Mary was the mother of Jesus; therefore the only way one can deny that Mary is the mother of God is to deny the divinity of her Son."

Barbra Bush is the mother of George W. Bush, making her the son of the president. But you didn't use the term in the same way as you did for Mary. Using it in the same term would sound like, mother of presidents. That that would be like saying she created the presidency which she didn't. So that goes the same with Mary. By saying Mary is the mother of God is like saying she created God. Not true, she was created by God. Therefore to use mother in the correct sense, you would have to say, Mary the mother of the Son, which would be the same as saying the Mother of Jesus. Using the term mother in it's correct usage is in no way of denying the divinity of Jesus.

Thats what bugs me, if people could use her in the correct terms (Mother of Jesus), it would be ok. By saying she's the Mother of God seems to make her more divine than any other human being on this planet. She was born human just like everyone else. "Handed" the same sinful nature as everyone. Yes, God did choose her to be the mother of Jesus but that really doesn't make her any different than anyone else. She did have that choise to totally reject her son thinking he could be a lunatic, but she didn't. She believed in him and that's why she's in heaven. The same way everyone else will get there.

Thats my two cents

God Bless

-- Grant (thefowler02@yahoo.com), April 21, 2003.

> "Barbra Bush is the mother of George W. Bush, making her the son of the president. But you didn't use the term in the same way as you did for Mary. Using it in the same term would sound like, mother of presidents. That that would be like saying she created the presidency which she didn't."

This is what bothers me most about Protestants. They have no interest at all by what we mean by the Mother of God, and seem determine to provide their own definition!!! We clearly have told you, that saying Mary is the Mother of God, is acknowledging Jesus's divinity but you reject that. If our meaning is not offensive to you, how can the title be? It makes no sense to make up your own meaning, and then apply it to us!!!

Treat all those around you fairly, as that is what it means to be a good Christian.

> "Yes, God did choose her to be the mother of Jesus but that really doesn't make her any different than anyone else.""

That hilarious! Of course not! One of the greatest honors in the history of the world bestowed on a young jewish woman, and you make nothing of it. That boggles the mind, more than I can imagine.

Arguing with you Protestants with your promotion of self-interpretation of the Bible is a waste of time, but it is important for us to refute you errors about our beliefs. Why don't you go back to arguing with your fellow Protestants as 20,000 or more greater Protestants sects, shows you to not be agreement with each other, on the very same book you all profess to believe.

Has the Holy Spirit guided you on this particular truth, or you just following the waterdown dribble that you fellow Protestants have indoctrinated you with? How can Protestants claim to be guided by the Holy Spirit and be in disagreement with each other on so many things?

If you come in to this forum, thinking we are easily going to be convinced by you twisted logic, man do I feel sorry for you. Give it your best shot, it's your life, and your waste of time.

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), April 21, 2003.

Grant,

Your "logical" argument about Mary is wrong. Mary IS the Mother of God! The Protestant notion or belief that Mary is only the Mother of Jesus and not of God is heresy, pure and simple. (More specifically, a heresy known as Nestorianism, which has been around since at least the fifth century)

As this great article about Mary the Mother of God http:// www.catholic.com/library/Mary_Mother_of_God.asp so plainly states…

“If Mary is the Mother of Jesus, and if Jesus is God, then Mary must be the Mother of God. There is no way out of this logical syllogism, the valid form of which has been recognized by classical logicians since before the time of Christ. ”

The article goes on to quote various Church Fathers over the centuries and what they had to say about this sacred truth. Here are four quotes in case you don't read the article)…

Cyril of Alexandria:"If anyone will not confess that the Emmanuel is very God, and that therefore the holy Virgin is the Mother of God, inasmuch as in the flesh she bore the Word of God made flesh [John 1:14]: let him be anathema" (ibid.).

Athanasius: "The Word begotten of the Father from on high, inexpressibly, inexplicably, incomprehensibly, and eternally, is he that is born in time here below of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God" (The Incarnation of the Word of God 8 [A.D.365]).

Gregory of Nazianz :"If anyone does not agree that holy Mary is Mother of God, he is at odds with the Godhead" (Letter to Cledonius the Priest 101 [A.D. 382]).

Jerome: "Do not marvel at the novelty of the thing, if a Virgin gives birth to God" (Commentaries on Isaiah 3:7:15 [A.D. 409]).

For more quotes from our Church Fathers on this subject, read the rest of the article http://www.catholic.com/library/Mary_Mother_of_God.asp.

I also highly recommend the reading list about Mary at the end of the article. Especially the almost Divinely inspired book entitled “True Devotion to Mary” by Saint Louis De Montfort… and “Hail Holy Queen: The Mother of God in the Word of God.”

Grant: Please, for the love of God, stop believing in heresy against our Holy Blessed Mother and open your heart to what the one true Church of Christ teaches and has taught throughout the centuries on this important subject.

“Mary conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee.” Amen

Michael

-- Michael Johnson (michaelj9@yahoo.com), April 21, 2003.

Mary is indeed the mother of God, as paul stated. There is no need to think deeply about this, for if you say she is not, you are saying Jesus is not God and that is heresy. He is indeed the human form of God, but like he told Philip during the last supper when he asked Jesus to show them the father in heaven, he stated that he and his father are the same and one. He assumed mortal form for us, but that doesn't make him any less divine.

-- Abraham T (lijothengil@yahoo.com), April 21, 2003.

I would say to Grant; please see it this way.
A perspective you may not have considered. Mary is not divine. But she is divinely chosen; not at the last minute, but from the beginning of Creation history. (Gen 3:15 ''the woman'' is the Mother of God. Her emnity with Satan is a characteristic natural to her alone. Not to ALL women.

Mary is preserved from all stain of Original Sin, in that very emnity her soul is granted ''with'' the Serpent. It becomes even clearer when eventually the archangel refers to her directly as ''Full of grace. (Luke 1 :28) The Lord is with you and blessed are you among women.''

Her grace is essential for her to become a vessel into & by whom the Son of God is made Man.

Mary's human gene-pool is the very bloodline making Jesus the Messiah a MAN. He is God already from eternity; and by Mary conceived and made Man. The Man-God is a Person, not two separate identities. He is God and Man in one Person, and the person is Mary's Son. Now, unless Jesus is NOT truly God, Mary has to be the mother of God-- God made Man. To deny she is is to deny Christ is God.

All this is a work of God's infinite Wisdom and power. No rare personal credit attaches to the virgin, other than her MOTHERHOOD. It is motherhood that gives her GOD FOR A SON ! Divinity remains the essence of God alone. Nevertheless, Mary is unique in that God Himself brought her from all eternity, the single human being who would be the bond of life & His Creation-- with His only-begotten Son. He is her flesh and bone. Our Blessed Mother; chosen to be Mother of God.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 21, 2003.

She humbled herself before the Lord. We can see that all the time she meditates deeply in her mind, hearing the words and teachings of God, and she followed him unto his death on the cross. The mere fact that she humbled herself and accepted God's will that she be a mother before marriage, in such a period and soceity is enough to explain her faith in God and her obedience. For this alone, God raised her all the way because he humbled herself all the way. Besides, for God to assume human form, it is necessary that he be born without original sin. She was indeed divinely selected before creation.

-- Abraham T (lijothengil@yahoo.com), April 21, 2003.

Michael and Abraham, I agree with Grant. Eugene and John G. already know why.

Emmanuel in Isaiah doesn't refer to Jesus but to King Hezekiah most likely. It was a sign for ahaz that a child wuold be borne to Alma = young woman and before the child reach a certain age, the kings that oppressed Judah would vanish. Isaiah 7:14-16. In Hebrew the word for virgin is bethulah. The Greek Septuagint uses parthenos which in Matthew they have translated as virgin, but in Hebrew it doesn't say that. Neither does the prophecy refer to Jesus.

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), April 21, 2003.

Elpidio,
The one we have to agree with is the evangelist. If what he reported as the Word of God fits in, relates, or fulfills the ancient prophesies, you would NOT contrive to dispute his gospel.

Saint Luke reports precisely what the Church must teach: Luke's first 3 chapters has prophesy come true with its attendant confounding of the Jews. (They are to this day.) They expected a royal Messiah; God sent Jesus Christ.

God wasn't bound by any need to exalt Hezekiah; He was bound by His own promises to send the Redeemer, and that He certainly did.

The clearly illumined revelation in Luke 1 that a virgin conceived (announced in advance by an archangel, ) leaves no doubt those Prophets pointed to the Holy Child of Bethlehem. Even Herod realised it, as well as the Three Wise Men. (They knew the same prophesies you seem to misunderstand--) and attempted his best to liquidate Him. You can't change the sense of a prophetical verse after it is obviously fulfilled.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 21, 2003.

Hi Eugene, nice to converse with you again.

My belief that Isaiah 7:14 doesn't apply to Jesus doesn't negate that Jesus is the Messiah, the Christ, the suffering servant of Yahweh ( Isaiah 53).

-- Elpidio gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), April 21, 2003.

Thanks, Elp.

Nevertheless, you can't follow Luke's inspired Good News that a virgin was chosen by God to bear His divine Son. Isn't this causing you to wonder? Or, are you never mistaken?

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 21, 2003.

Remember Eugene that the geneologies in Matthew and Like are different.

Matthew talks about a virgin (in Greek) having a child named Emmanuel, how he becomes Jesus, I don't get it. Then talks about Magi = Zoroastrian Priests, about herod the Great. About a killing of Innocent kids. About Jesus's family escaping to egypt. Then Jesus' family returning during Archelaus reign.

Luke talks about Jesus been born of a young woman ( who hasn't known a man). Related to Elizabeth, John the Baptists/s mother. No mention of Herod. The geneology of Jesus ancestors is different. No mention of Magi. Instead we find shepherds.No flight into Egypt. Instead, family goes to Nazareth. Luke says he investigated everything. Who should we believe, Eugene.

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), April 21, 2003.

OK, Elpidius:
See; Luke is relaying exactly what Mary herself tells him. She reveals the secret things held since the Annunciaton within her heart. Only she could have related detail upon detail about the lives of Elizabeth, her cousin and her husband Zachary, or her visit to Elizabeth. Whose child John leapt in Elizabeth's womb at the sound of mary's voice?

Matthew is Levi; tax collector, who is intent only on tracing the Messianic origins of Christ, the One who was to come.'' Mary and Matthew never consulted. Luke knew her personally. He is reputed to have even painted her first portrait. It comes down through the ages as the Virgin with her child; His little sandal hanging down by the string --Our Lady of Perpetual Help? No contradictions are noticeable. She is the Virgin mother of God. The gospels stand very well with no outside support & nothing contradictory.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 22, 2003.

Look, this "problem" is a matter of the Protestants - like early heretics, not understanding something because they fail to grasp that words can have more than one meaning.

I really don't think this is much more than misunderstanding based on the mere lack of cultural depth and sophistication. Their theological vocabulary is univocal - not having the needed nuance and richness needed for proper distinctions.

For example: In Matthew's Gospel Christ teaching to "call no man father" gets them all wrapped around the axle because they have no depth to distinguish between Fatherhood in God and fatherhood among men (which itself includes the biological begetting aspect and/or the moral "fathering", mentoring, guiding aspect).

Yet the Gospel itself shows sample after sample of the different use of the term "patros" - indeed Jesus Himself quotes favorably the Ten Commandments both before and after that scene in which he commends people for "honoring father and mother". The Gospel also begins with the list of "fathers" who begot the lineage of the Messiah, and it also makes clear the Joseph was not the origin of the Words incarnation, but was truly "father" to the boy Jesus....

So given all these various uses of the term "Patros" [Greek] and Pater [Latin], Father [English], one must conclude that there are real differences of meaning of the same word, which nevertheless have analogous similarities.

Both my Daddy and God the Father have a paternity over me but in a vastly different way. Yet, my dad is truly a father to me - just not in the same metaphysical way as God is.

So with regard to Mary, by calling her Theotokos, Mother of God, we are not trying to say she had some metaphysical superiority or pre- existence to the Word. But we are saying that she is a true mother and that her Son, being the Incarnate Word, is Divine. Hence, her maternity is not merely in relation to a human being but to God because Jesus Christ and the Word are one and the same.

She truly was and is Jesus Christ's Mother. Mother not in the same way that God is His Father, yet mother nonetheless.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), April 22, 2003.

Hello And God bless If we search the Bible for answers, God will reveal truths to us. I am a Catholic who makes the Bible his final authority, so I will respond through scriptures only.

We read about Melchizedek in Hebrews 7. And in connection with Melchizedek we understand from Hebrews 7 that he appeared to Abraham back in the Old Testament. In the language of Hebrews 7, however, we discover that Melchizedek was actually God Himself. The language will not permit any other understanding but that He was God Himself.

We read in verse 1 of Hebrews 7, "For this Melchizedek, King of Salem, Priest of the Most High God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him, to whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all, first being by interpretation King of Righteousness [now the only King of Righteousness is God, the Lord Jesus Christ], and after that also King of Salem, that is, King of Peace."

Remember what the angel declared when Jesus was born? "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace." Remember what Isaiah said concerning the coming Messiah? That He would be the Prince of Peace. More than that, in verse 3 of Hebrews 7 He declares, "without father, without mother." Do you know anyone else who was without father or mother, except Adam and Eve? No. Nobody at all was without father or without mother. Only Adam and Eve.

But it also says, "having neither beginning of days nor end of life." Now Adam and Eve had beginning of days and had end of life. And therefore it cannot be referring to Adam and Eve. It can only refer to God. He has no beginning, He has no end, He is without father or mother. He is from everlasting to everlasting.

"but made like unto the Son of God, abideth a priest continually [or forever]." He was a figure of the Lord Jesus Christ. He was a type of the eternal priesthood of Christ Himself. In order to establish typology in the Old Testament, God did set up a great number of types in the Old Testament. Abraham was a type or picture of God, Moses was a type of Christ, David was a type of Christ, Elijah was a type of John the Baptist, and so forth.

In order to establish a perfect type of the character and nature of the priesthood of the Lord Jesus Christ, there was no man who would be a perfect type, and so God Himself appeared in the form of a man. He did not take on a human nature, He did not become man as He did when Jesus Christ became man, but He did appear in the form of a man, in the person of Melchizedek, in order to set up a type, a perfect type of the eternal character of the priesthood of the Lord Jesus Christ.

We should look at more scripture to see if this truth harmonizes. We read in Luke 8:19-21:"Then came to him his mother and his brethren, and could not come at him for the press. And it was told him by certain which said, Thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to see thee. And he answered and said unto them, My mother and my brethren are these which hear the word of God, and do it."

Jesus used various occasions to give us information concerning the nature of the Gospel. Mary was His human mother; she gave Him a human nature. We read in Mark 6 that He had at least four brothers and a couple of sisters. Jesus was ministering in His hometown of Nazareth, and we read in

Mark 6:3:"Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him."

They were half-brothers and half-sisters because they were born of Joseph, and Christ was born of God, but all seven of them were born of Mary. Thus, when the Bible talks here of His mother and brothers, they were literally His mother and His half-brothers. Jesus says that spiritually, anyone who does the will of God is as intimately related to the Lord Jesus as His mother and His brothers. This is how closely Jesus associates Himself with the believers.

The Bible teaches that God is from everlasting past. He is not created. He is a mysterious being who created time and this universe. He gave us the Bible so that we can know a lot about God and the universe, but we do not understand God, who can speak and bring this marvelous universe into existence. We are not to think for a moment that someone created Him.

Jesus is God who took on a human nature in order to be our Savior. That was required for God to have a people for Himself. A human being had to pay the penalty for the sins of His people, and so God Himself took on a human nature in the person of the Lord Jesus Christ in order to be our Savior. Jesus is eternal God. The Bible says of Jesus in Colossians 2:9:"For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily."

There is one God and yet God reveals Himself as three distinct persons, and that is something we cannot understand. God has not given us minds that are able to understand our great God, and so we just read it and accept it because the Bible says it is so. We will always be bewildered and confused when we try to understand God. When you look at a little baby, as complex as that baby is, or when you look at a leaf of a plant, or a little animal like a cat or a dog, or anything in this creation, just remember that God spoke and brought it into existence.

In Philippians 2, we read that Christ did not count equality with God a thing to be held onto but He emptied Himself of His glory that He might pay for our sins. We read in Philippians 2:5-9:"Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name."

Christ temporarily emptied Himself of His glory to bear the wrath of God; He became the suffering servant to pay for our sins. In that sense, He says the Father is "greater than I." After He accomplished His work, He was given a name that is above every name, and we read in

verses 10-11 of Philippians 2:"That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."

I want to clear up one more fact. We read in Revelation 22:14" Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. "

Rev: 22:7"Behold, I come quickly: blessed is he that keepeth the sayings of the prophecy of this book."

Rev: 20:6"Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years."

Rev: 19:9"And he saith unto me, Write, Blessed are they which are called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb. And he saith unto me, These are the true sayings of God."

Rev: 16:15"Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame."

Rev: 14:13"And I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, Write, Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth: Yea, saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their labours; and their works do follow * them."

Rev: 1:3"Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein *: for the time is at hand."

God tells us all His elect or true believers are BLESSED! Its true Mary was the Blessed mother of Jesus (in flesh form)and because she was a true believer, She was called BLESSED. Mary like every human needs a saviour. Plus Mary is not from ever lasting past.

I guess when we don't trust the Bible, God's Devine word, as our only authority, we tend to get many false doctrine.

I respect Mary as a sister in Christ who had a special task, but God doesn't tell us to worship her. When the Apostles asked Jesus "How do we pray?" Jesus responded "Our Father who art in Heaven....."[the Lord's Prayer] Only Jesus Christ is our doorway to the Kingdom of God.

God Bless. I would gladly hear any response through scriptures (only) that indicate that I am wrong. Peace!....

-- Paolo (vze3ffrz@verizon.net), April 22, 2003.

Paolo writes: "I respect Mary as a sister in Christ who had a special task, but God doesn't tell us to worship her. "

Where does this notion come from that Catholics worship the Virgin Mary? Why do Protestants constantly say this? We do NOT "worship" the Virgin Mary! Paolo, I'll give you a hundred dollars (no joke) if you (or anyone else) can prove to me that we Catholics actually worship the Virgin Mary as God! You and your Protestant brethren are way off base to even think this about the Catholic Faith and its teachings about the Blessed Mother!

Please tell me, someone... where does this gross and persistant Protestant lie about the Catholic Church get its demonic origins from??! I'm so sick of hearing this "we worship Mary as God" mantra over and over again by Protestants who seem to have a mission against destroying and belittling our sacred devotion to the Blessed Mother.

Please read "True Devotion to Mary" by Saint Louis De Montfort. And if you really want to be enlightened, read the "Mystical City of God" by Mary of Jesus of Agreda. Then you'll understand how important the blessed Mother is to us Catholics and to all mankind, but we do NOT worship Her as God and never have!

"Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse thee"

Michael Johnson

-- Michael (michaelj9@yahoo.com), April 23, 2003.

Protestants make that mistake about Mary for the same reason they make other mistakes: a paucity of culture. Their idea of "worship" is univocal.

In the Old Testament we see the clear distinction between men praying to God and men worshiping God. Worship was always the highest form of relation, it always involved holocaust - the total offering of some good thing to God; the first born son, animals, incense, grain....

Of course this was accompanied by prayer and song, but prayer and song along were not considered "worship". The Jewish Synagogue was not the equivalent of the Temple. They prayed in the Synagogue and listened and learned from the Torah. But worship was rendered in the Temple.

In the New Testament we find the distinction between community and private prayer - not every prayer is "alone in your room". Some prayer is done publicly, with the community. The Christian "breaking of bread" was both prayer and sacrifice - thus true worship.

But with Calvin and other Protestants, the priesthood was lost and with it the Eucharistic sacricice - thus for most protestants "worship" means "prayer session".

That's why they automatically think Catholics worship saints or Mary when we pray "to" them (not realising that we are actually praying WITH them to God).

Because us Catholics are culturally and theologically sophisticated (it comes with the territory, we've been around for 2000 years), we can distinguish adoratio (worship) from oratio, (prayer) hyper-dulia (reverence) and dulia (honor).

We pray to God and read the Bible, but that isn't worship. We pray with the saints and Mary for other Christians, but that isn't worship.

Only when blood is shed, and the sacrifice of the cross is renewed in time in the Eucharist is worship rendered to God.

But Protestants were not scholars. They don't make distinctions.

Their "worship service" has no Eucharist, no Pass over, no sacrifice and so, they confuse prayer with worship! If they see you "praying" to Mary or the saints, they can't distinguish that with praying to God because prayer is all they have!

-- joe (joestong@yahoo.com), April 23, 2003.

I enjoyed your post, Joe. I totally agree with you (of course). Funny that the HUGE distinction between "praying" and "worshiping" goes right past our Protestant brothers' heads.

Michael

-- Michael Johnson (Micaelj9@yahoo.com), April 23, 2003.

You meet some real, off-the-wall fanatics here sometimes. Paolo comes with a true complex, almost fetish, and yet calls himself a Catholic. He isn't nearly Catholic, and he isn't nearly a skilled bible scholar. He is deficient in the latter part, and deluded in the former. He quotes:

Mark 6:3: "Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him."

Then misinterprets:
''They were half-brothers and half-sisters because they were born of Joseph, and Christ was born of God, but all seven of them were born of Mary.''

Patently a protestant mania debunked many times and even in our forum. In his signoff, Paolo says: ''I would gladly hear any response through scriptures (only) that indicate that I am wrong. Peace!''

But this is not catholic at all; nor even reasonable. he's entered a Catholic forum, as many other non-Catholics do, and demanded we suspend all that isn't discussed by search of the scriptures. It isn't our obligation to confine our words to simple cribbing from the Scripture. To be fair, the revelations in Holy Scripture are priceless and demand our attention. But not solely that attention to Scripture which Paolo considers the ONLY truth; because even the devil quoted Scripture. He misapplied and twisted Scripture (Luke 4:10,) quoting the words of the Bible. Paolo and the mainstream protestant sects always manage to twist and misunderstand many parts of the Word of God. If they would come back to the Catholic faith, they'd be released from this conditioned addiction to biblical parsing and errors.

Bibliolatry is the hardest fanaticism to correct. Because the bibliolater requires it should be done ''by scripture only.'' He/she lives in a vicious circle of mistaken interpretations.

Let us pray for GRACE; that Our Holy Redeemer give them His grace, to stop adoring the Bible.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 23, 2003.

Hello all and God Bless Why is it when a brother is trying to hummbly explain something, especially comming from scriptures, All I get is name calling and get abused. Is this what comes out of the heart? I am a born again believer of the Lord Jesus Christ. I am no memmber of any church. The only church I grew up in was the Catholic church and now I don't attend Church anymore because God is telling us to get out. Some of you make the Catholic church sound like a cult.

The more I read the Bible, the more God proves to me the apostasy of AAAAALLLLLLL(ALL) the Churches. The reason why you don't understand any of the scriptures is perhaps God is not opening up your eyes. You have a person who loves the Lord with all his heart and wants to talk about the Bible, And all I get is abuse. That is a good way to bring people to salvation. If you have all this pride, doesn't that tell you something?

These verses may explain what may be going on : Ezekiel 12:2"Son of man, thou dwellest in the midst of a rebellious house, which have eyes to see, and see not; they have ears to hear, and hear not: for they are a rebellious house. "

Luke 8:10"And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand."

So how can you blow everybody away if they are sincerely trying to show you something. If you can't understand these scriptures why don't you study them carefully and prayfully. That is if you truely believe they are God's words. I try to give very little opinions by giving verses that apply to our discussion. You are arguing with God not me. Name calling doesn't hurt me.

When people say the "Hail Mary" isn't that praying to Mary? PRAY to the FAther instead. This is how Jesus taught us. If you want to worship your church then don't listen to the BIBLE and worship man.

Aren't we grown ups here? Peace....

-- Paolo (vze3ffrz@verizon.net), April 23, 2003.

Dear Paolo,

What you are offering is not coming "from the scriptures". It is coming from your personal, unqualified, inauthoritative, unsubstantiated, extremely biased INTERPRETATION of the scriptures - one of thousands of conflicting interpretations offered by individuals and groups who have separated themselves from the Church of the Living God, which is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth (1 Tim 3:15). I agree that there is no reason for name-calling; however, if telling you outright that your personal guesses regarding the meaning of scripture are false constitutes "abuse", then I'm afraid you will just have to live with it. The teaching of the Church coincides perfectly with the Bible, not because the teachings of the Church came out of the Bible, but because the Bible came out of the teachings of the Church. The Church alone has the authority to interpret its own writings accurately. Human interpretations, like yours, which conflict with the interpretations given to the Church by the Holy Spirit are therefore categorically WRONG.

You say that the Bible convinces you that ALL Churches are apostate (presumably because none of them agree with your personal interpretations - a fact which in itself indicates how bizarre some of your interpretations are!) Yet the Bible tells us plainly that Jesus Himself founded a Church, that He desires all men to belong to it, that He guarantees the truth of its teaching, and that He will be with it until the end of time. How did you manage to miss these plain statements by the Son of God, in your private, unguided investigation of the Bible?

You accuse us of pride because we listen to the Church, as Christ commanded; yet you tell us that YOU personally have the fullness of truth which Jesus promised to the Church alone! Talk about pride! The passage you quoted from Luke 8 was addressed by Jesus to the hand- picked, personally ordained leaders of His Church - no-one else! Not to me, and not to you. This passage is an instruction to you and to me, informing us where we can find the fullness of truth. You do violence to the passage, using it in an attempt to justify your own rejection of the very truth Jesus was speaking of in the passage!

When people say "Hail Mary", they are saying "greetings" to another Christian person. Is there some place in your Bible where Jesus told us not to talk to other Christians? Is there a passage that says we should not ask other Christians to pray for us?? As long as you insist on being your own authority, everything you believe will necessarily be a product of your own imagination, not of scripture - or worse, of the evil one, who can also quote scripture to his own ends. God is inviting you back into the Church of the Living God, where the fullness of truth can be known and loved and lived. Alone, you can only wander farther and farther from the truth which otherwise might set you free.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), April 23, 2003.

I beg your pardon, Paolo; for saying some blunt things about you.

I wish they weren't important; I wish they were superficial differences, and could be ignored. But they are important. They go to heart of our Catholic faith.

Let me just say again, Bibliolatry is the hardest fanaticism to correct. Because the bibliolater requires it must be done ''by scripture only.'' He/she lives in a vicious circle of private, wrong interpretations. He or she means a ''bibliolater'', Paolo. A Christian fallen into error by losing faith in his mother the Church, and forcing thereafter his private interpretations on the written Word of God. It makes the book, our Holy Bible become an IDOL. An idol which must be elevated over everything spiritual, and defended with passion as the final or sole rule of FAITH. You turn from the Church to ''learn'' from Scripture; and end up worshipping Scripture. Because the Church was founded personally by Jesus Christ for the EXPRESS mission of preaching his Gospel; and no Book is able to preach. It is not of private interpretation at all. (2nd Pet 1:20) Even though many truths in the Bible are self-explanatory, a great many are open to the misapprehension and erroneous judgement of the private reader.

Such as your ludicrous conclusion that ''all seven were born of Mary.'' A gross error which occurs to you only because you are self-sufficient (you feel) as far as interpreting the Bible is concerned. You aren't. Neither am I; only the Holy Spirit can reveal absolutely all the truth contained in some of the Bible's more mysterious passages. And the Holy Spirit abides in the Church.

With the Church as your teacher, you will never fall into error. If this weren't the case, Christ would not have seen it worthwhile to send the Church to us in His apostles. He would just have dictated the Bible. He didn't. He appointed His apostles and the Church for our spiritual guidance and security. If you leave the Church, you quickly find yourself with no spiritual support; as far as the reading of the Bible goes.

Many of your subsequent statements are false, if not ignorant. I could spend all night refuting you, but I pick your BIBLIOLATRY as the most glaring problem.

Just one question for you to mull over as you investigate the Scripture, Paolo: If Mary the mother of Our Lord had seven sons/daughters, as you figure; why is it written that when she stood at the foot of the cross at Calvary,

Jesus commended His holy mother to the care of the disciple John? He wasn't Mary's own son, by any stretch of imagination. Jesus said to John; ''Behold, thy mother,'' Paolo. and from that day she lived in the house of a friend of Our Lord. Not with a daughter, not with another son somewhere; no-- and if she'd had six other offspring, we all know Jesus would not have entrusted His mother to John. He was an unmarried man, and no relation.

It would have been seen as shameful for Mary not to be taken in by her own children after the death of Our Lord. So much for the ''brothers & sisters'' you concocted for Jesus by private interpretation. (Bibliolatry.)

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 23, 2003.

....

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 23, 2003.

Paolo writes: "When people say the "Hail Mary" isn't that praying to Mary? PRAY to the FAther instead. This is how Jesus taught us."

We DO pray to the Father, Paolo. All the time! As a matter of fact, the Lord's prayer, the "Our Father", is the very first prayer we say before reciting each of the ten "Hail Marys" on the fifteen decades of the Rosary.

Paolo, after reading your last post I can sense that you mean well and that you love the Lord in your own way. I do too. But I also REALLY LOVE our Blessed Mother very deeply! I pray to Her (the Rosary) everyday and this has instilled within me a very deep devotion to Her.

It hurts me so much to hear God's Masterpiece - our Blessed Virgin Mary and Her Holy name -- dragged in the mud the way many Protestants do all the time. They continually attack Her perpetual Virginity, saying that She had 7 other children besides Jesus (ouch that hurts!) and they have the guts to keep falsely backing this ridiculous claim up with the same quote from scripture!

They also continually attack Her supreme Holiness over all other creatures besides Jesus. They attack her Immaculate Conception and the fact that She was conceived without original sin, etc.

If only you could know and understand, Paolo, how deeply outraged and hurt The Sacred Heart of Jesus is (your Jesus and my Jesus) when people blaspheme and spread lies and heresies against His most precious, beloved Mother. For whosoever does not honor our Blessed Mother with the respect and reverence She deserves, does not honor Her son Jesus either - and we will have to give an account of this irreverance on judgement day.

"Mary conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee."

Michael Johnson

-- Michael Johnson (michaelj9@hotmail.com), April 23, 2003.

Hello all and God Bless I am sorry if I come on too strong and if I offended anybody. I don't think I am smart at all and I definintely don't have all the answers. All I try to do is to show some scriptures that we might want to examine. Many things I read in the Bible is not pleasant at all. But how are we suppose to teach others the Love of God If we do not teach the Wrath of God. The Bible is constantly talking about judgement. I have been bringing up many ugly disturbing scriptures, but we need to look at them and figure out what God is trying to tell us.

My whole childhood days going to church, Not once was I taught about God's wrath and judgement. It seemed to me that the church does not want us to read and understand the Bible. I didn't even know the Bible was God's professed Holy Word.

You see, deception after deception. Then I hear in this forum how perfect and righteous the Catholic church is and how it has all truth and it is the only way to God's Kingdom. So then why is so much filth coming all out. Priest raping boys and scandals all over the world. This does not sound like God's perfect house of truth.

I read so many verses in how Satin will rule in the churches, and God uses Satin to put judgement on all the churches and then I get harrassed. I am giving you these scriptures, so tell me how to make sense of them. If we are not willing to listen to what the Bible says then God will hearden our hearts and put a deception on us, Making us believe a lie. I fear God too much to sleep on this.

If you haven't read some of the verses I gave previousely, just read these very carefully and tell me what they mean. I would be gladly to listen. We read in.....

2 Thessalonians 2::1"Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,

2:2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand."

[God is ready to give us some clues in the comming of Christ, so let's continue to read....] 2:3 "Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;" [so now God is telling us Christ will not come until we see this "falling away first" which will reveal Satin "the son of perdition". OK let's keep reading.....] 2:4"Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God. " [Now God is explaing this "falling away" which Satin is pretending to be God in the churches. This is terrible! Let keep reading...]

2:5"Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things? 2:6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time. 2:7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. 2:8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:" [Well we know it is God who restrains Satin from fustrating God's plan to evangelize the Gospel, but here we see that God "he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way." the Holy Spirit will let Satin in and the Holy Spirit will be out of the way. let's keep reading...] 2:9"Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders," [Now God gives us more clues in what Satin will be doing within the churches. Let's keep reading...] 2:10" And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: 2:12That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness."

Please can anyone explain these verses? Peace...

-- Paolo (vze3ffrz@verizon.net), April 24, 2003.

Jmj

My warmest congratulations to Michael J, Gordon, Paul, Eugene, Abraham, and Joe S for your beautiful and convincing defense of Catholic dogma.
How terribly sad it is to read the weak and illogical protests of Grant, Elpidio, and Paolo -- two of whom actually claim to be Catholic!

The progression is really so simple:
A. A woman becomes the mother of a person.
B. Mary is the mother of Jesus.
C. Jesus is a person.
D. That person is God.
E. Ergo, Mary is the mother of God.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 24, 2003.

Paolo:
Saint Paul was a Catholic, writing the epistle to his Catholic converts, and telling them all to remain faithful to the Gospel he has brought in the name of Jesus Christ. He spoke to the Church as it existed in the first era ~~ and Christ's Gospel is the same one preached in the Catholic Church today.

2 Thessalonians 2::1"Now we beseech you, brethren-- be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. (They wanted to quit working, because they understood wrongly the end of the world was just immediately ahead.)

[Paul explained, the world cannot end until a great apostacy is in the world--''except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin--(Antichrist) be revealed, the son of perdition;" [so now God is telling us Christ will not come until we see this "falling away first" which will reveal Satin "the son of perdition" NOT Satan; Antichrist, who denies the Father & Son.

Let's keep reading...] 2:10" And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, (the guidance of the Church & her apostles--) that they might be saved. 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion,

(YES! Delusions of private interpretations of Scripture, human wisdom placed over the Holy Catholic Church- -) that they should believe a lie: (Again, yes-- the lies of the ''reformers'', Martin Luther, John Calvin, and other heretics to come.) 2:12That they all might be damned who believed not the truth-- (The truth revealed in His Church by Jesus Christ. Given to the nations by His holy Apostles who converted all the known world at the time.)

Here is the correct interpretation of these passages. Never forget, there was no other Church in Paul's era. The people Paul wrote to were the first Christians, only called Catholics in a few years later. Catholic means UNIVERSAL --All over the world. The Church of Jesus throughout the world. It remains so today. Please read the first chapter of Romans. Paul describes the catholic Church in verse 8-- whose faith was celebrated all across the world. That is the same Rome where the Vatican is now. Nothing changes, except protestants have corrupted the faith of poor souls by teaching them they are capable of interpreting the Bible without the Church. Like you try to. Now you're aware, Paolo, of what Paul meant: 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie. You are named Paul-- listen to him, a Catholic saint. He died in Rome for the Catholic faith.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 25, 2003.

... Up for Paolo

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 25, 2003.

eugene God Bless, I thank thee for your explanation. I am not trying to offend anybody but we must declare what the Bible teaches. All I know is over two years ago this intense desire to seek God and to read the Bible had come over me. I can't really understand why but when I finally decided to read the Bible I could not put It down. As I diligently continued to researched the WORD, this great fear came over me. All I want to do is the LORD's will! Because I stopped going to church, I then tried looking for a faithful Bible teaching church. I had no luck because I kept getting bad vibes. So on Sunday's I try to do God glorifing things like wittnessing to people or just studying the Bible.

I stumbled on this forum and I noticed how everybody has like minds. Does everybody feel like what Paul stated when he said

"The teaching of the Church coincides perfectly with the Bible, not because the teachings of the Church came out of the Bible, but because the Bible came out of the teachings of the Church."

But doesn't the Bible say that God moved holy men of old to write as He guided them. The Bible in its original autographs (that is, in the original documents that were written), is exactly the message that God intended for man. Each book, each paragraph, each sentence, each word, and each letter of each word, is exactly as God intended it to be?

I like to compare scripture with scripture and I found a few verses that proves God is the author and not the Church; for example:

In II Timothy 3:16 "ALL scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness."

II Samuel 23:2" The Spirit of Jehovah hath spoken by me, And His word is on my tongue."

Jeremiah 1:4"Then the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,..."

I Thessalonians 2:13"13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe."

After reading these verses do you really feel that the church is responsible in writing the Bible?

-- Paolo (vze3ffrz@verizon.net), April 25, 2003.

Dear Paolo,

I didn't say the Church is responsible for what is written in the Bible. The Bible itself tells us that all scripture is given by inspiration of God. However, inspiration alone doesn't get the Word preached to the people, and doesn't put text on a page. Someone, responding to that inspiration, had to preach the inspired Words, thereby changing them from mere inspired thoughts into the inspired, infallible teaching of the Church. Then, someone had to pick up stylus and parchment and actually WRITE down those inspired teachings, so they could later be read by others. Leaders of the Holy Catholic Church were the men who were inspired to do that preaching and that writing. If they didn't DO it, the inspiration alone would have been of no benefit to anyone. Therefore, just as I said, the inspired writings of the New Testament came out of the inspired teachings of the Church. In fact, the writings of the Bible and the teachings of the Church make up one body of truth - the Inspired Word of God. However, merely having the inspired words set down on paper doesn't mean that anyone who reads them will interpret them the same way. Protestantism surely proves that point, thousands of times over. That's why the interpretation of the written words must also be Spirit led. The Holy Spirit provides this ssential charism through the Church Jesus founded for that purpose, which is consequently called (in the Word of God) "the pillar and foundation of truth" - not through anyone else. Which is why anyone else who tries to define doctrine by personal interpretation of scripture quickly falls into conflict, confusion, and ultimately heresy.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), April 25, 2003.

Paolo, please!

The Catholic Church will be the first, -She WAS first, to declare the books of our Holy Bible ''inspired'' and the Word of God. You wouldn't have the books, if the Church had not first disputed--under the Holy Spirit's hand, what books were inspired, what others holy but not inspired, and others which were neither of God nor inspired, but faulty. The Church issued our canon, the list of God's inspired books, and title them in one cover, New Testament.

You wish to place the Bible in opposition to the Church that gave it to the world, as God's Word! Plus, you are apparently ignorant of the plain fact that the writers of those holy books (under God's inspiration) were all Catholic saints! Saint Matthew, Saint Mark, Saint Luke, Saint John-- Saint Peter, and Paul, Sts. James and Jude and Timothy and Titus and every other Catholic saint. Many of them were entombed in Rome, under Catholic altars.

Others, martyrs, virgins, and holy men were buried underneath in the Roman catacombs.

Where do you learn your Church history? Out of anti-catholic publications? They wouldn't want anyone to realise where Christianity started. With Christ and His Catholic saints and apostles! You don't even bother about the Mother of Our Lord. To you she's a blank page. But the Church has kept everything revealed to her. In Scripture and Traditions. Your own ancestors were baptised in the Catholic faith! Get REAL!

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 26, 2003.

Hello All and God Bless Please why do you get so angry! Have patience I am trying to learn or at least understand where you are coming from. If you can't handle somebody asking questions then keep to your self because all I am doing is seeking truth. I must test all the spirits and let The Holy Ghost guide me!

OK Now, Paul I understand why you stand firm, i think! I am very grateful to God that He used the Saints to confirm his word and later on to gather all God's writings to be put together called the BIBLE. There is no arguement there. Now what I am confused is that you continually say the church. We should at least distiguish the true believers called the Elect which are the Spiritual church and then we have the physical church which the Lord designed by putting in place Priests, pastors, deacons..etc. Now don't you think this physical church with this design just a representation of the spiritual church which are scattered troughout the world?

And do you believe in the physical representation consists of true believers who are secure forever and non saved Christians?

I mean can't we see physical evidence that many church goers who claim to be catholics or born again christians, totally are in rebellion to GOD and still claim to be a Child of God?

Let me know what you think. Peace...

-- Paolo (vze3ffrz@verizon.net), April 26, 2003.

Dear Paolo,

Jesus Christ founded one Church. That one Church has both spiritual and physical dimensions. Perhaps that is your meaning; however it is confusing to refer to them as separate churches. there is but one Church. It is spiritual because God is its founder and head, and it operates under the continuous direction of the Holy Spirit. It is physical because it exists in real time and space, and is made up of human members. But it is one Church only.

No believer is secure forever while he is still alive on this earth. As long as we are still alive, we have our free will. We do not lose our free will when we become believers. If we used our free will to accept Him, then we can later use our free will to reject Him; and those who do so will not be saved. Such people are described in the parable of the sower - "Those on the rocky soil are those who, when they hear, receive the word with joy; but these have no firm root; they believe for a while, and in time of temptation fall away. (Luke 8:13) The parable makes it clear that these people will not be saved, even though they initially accepted Christ into their lives with joy. The Bible says we must endure to the end if we wish to be saved, not just make a one time profession of faith. (Matt 24:13; Mark 13:13) And, during that time we must not only believe, but also live our lives as Christians. Paul tells us "work out your salvation in fear and trembling". (Phil 2:12) Why fear and trembling? Fear of what, if we are already assured of salvation? But Paul did not think for a moment that he was assured of salvation. He wrote "I discipline my body and make it my slave, so that, after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified. (1 Corinthians 9:27) Disqualified! Does that sound like a man who was certain that his place in Heaven was assured? If the great Apostle Paul couldn't be assured of his salvation, then it would be pretty presumptuous of me to think that my salvation was assured.

You are certainly right that many church-goers who claim to be Catholics or born again Christians, are living in rebellion against GOD and still claiming to be Children of God. I'm not entirely clear about how that relates to this discussion however. Obviously, claiming membership in the Church while rejecting its teachings is not going to bring anyone to salvation. However, simply making a profession of faith in Jesus, claiming Him as your "personal Lord and Savior" won't guarantee salvation either.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), April 26, 2003.

Paolo,
I hope you understood all Paul said here. Now, your question:

''. . .I am confused that you continually say the church. We should at least distiguish the true believers called the Elect which are the Spiritual church and then we have the physical church which the Lord designed by putting in place priests, pastors, deacons, etc. Now don't you think this physical church with this design just a representation of the spiritual church which are scattered troughout the world?''

------------------------- -----------------------

No, there's NO ''spiritual'' Church scattered anywhere, Paolo. The elect is a name God gives all believers because He saves them. They are in the Church here during this life. It has to be the True Church, or what's the use of ''believing? One Church; where He brings about their sanctification and holiness. --It's simply another way of saying ''saints'', as Paul refers to us in his holy epistles.

All in the One Church. Not some separate salvation. Every soul that enters heaven must receive salvation through Jesus Christ. But the VISIBLE existence of His Church is simply a Church founded on the apostles strictly by Jesus--. Since He is Head of the Church, his salvation is necessarily through His Church. He is the Head in a ''mystical'' way, and the Church His Body in the Mystical sense.

Many non- Catholic Christians are confused because Bible studies explain about the Body of Christ, but not hundreds of bodies of Christ. If all sects and scattered believers can't be in ONE BODY, His Church--

They are effectively making Him a whole swarm of bodies; without any unity to speak of if it weren't for the Bible.

And it's very obvious they interpret that Bible each in his own particular way. No single ''believer'' really cares what other believers have interpreted!

There is no RULE. Which would be ridiculous. It makes a terrible organisation, supposedly given the Holy Spirit. Isn't that DUMB? It can't be perfectly established on earth with only the Bible. The Catholic Church is meant to be that RULE, Paolo. The only legitimate one.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), April 27, 2003.

Paolo: Let me add, that you do NOT make me mad. I love writing answers to young folks like yourself. It's just my ugly style; everybody accuses me of being grumpy. I had no intention of hurting your feelings.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), April 27, 2003.

The Catholic argument goes like this :

Jesus is God, Mary is the mother of Jesus therefore Mary is the mother of God.

There is a serious flaw in this argument. And it is this : Jesus was both human and divine. However, Mary's begetting only contributed to the humanity of Jesus. There are further complications when u admit that God has no beginning or end, and that Mary had a definite beginning.

Is the Father God ? Is the Holy Spirit God ? If you answered yes to both, would you be equally confident to say that Mary was the mother of the Father or the Holy Spirit ? You see the problem ? Mother of God is an ambiguous title. Sure, Catholics can say it's only ambiguous because we twist the meaning to something other than what is intended, but the truth of the matter is that I am only using the same kind of logic you are using.

-- christian (hearhear@hotmail.com), April 27, 2003.

It is only ambiguous to those who lack the fullness of truth. The fact that Mary did not gove birth to the Father is irrelevant, since Jesus was and is GOD - not part of God, but GOD, complete and entire. Jesus is one person, with two natures, human and divine. Everything that Jesus did on earth was done by man. Everything Jesus did was done by God. For He is both, complete and inseparable. Did a man die on the cross? YES! Did God die on the cross? YES! Was a man born of Mary? YES! Was God born of Mary? YES! Mary is the mother of one person. No woman can be mother of part of a person. The person who is her son is GOD. Therefore she is God's mother.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), April 27, 2003.

Good reply, Paul
Christianhearhear; Paul has told you there is a hypostatic union (search Google?) that Christ must have had-- repeat, must.

If His offering for our sins on the cross were to have infinite value in the sight of the Father; The work of our salvation must be the work of a man. Adam, a man, brought sin. A Man would conquer sin, by sacrifiice. But only an infinitely-priced sacrifice will do justice to God's Infinite Holiness. So, God must perform this work. If only Christ's Human nature performs it, He would fail to atone for MAN'S sins. If His Divine nature is the side doing the atonement, Man's NATURE was not truly addressed.

The hypostatic union of two natures in ONE Person makes that Person's action infinitely worthy. Christ took our nature UP, in His Person. Into infinite value for his Almighty Father. His sacrifice then can never be overestimated. God lays down His life for us. Man lays down his Life as One with Him.

Please, I hope I haven't muddied the water. Pray to Our Lord for the necessary wisdom to see.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), April 27, 2003.

Oh, my-- I think I blew that. My sentence, --If His offering for our sins on the cross were to have infinite value in the sight of the Father; The work of our salvation must be the work of a man.---

would be better explained as:

If His offering for our sins on the cross were to truly atone for the sins of men, that work of our salvation, must be the offering of a man.---

only an infinitely-priced (Divine) sacrifice will do justice to God's Infinite Holiness. So the two natures, God -- Man must be indivisibly united.

In one Person, the son of mary. She is then the mother of God. Not just half of Jesus' person.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), April 27, 2003.

Have you ever stood by like a child and watched your mother be beaten and battered? That is what we Catholics have to endure every time the name of the Blessed Mother is brought up. It is a painful thing to endure. Mary is our Mother, by grace. If it hurts us Catholics this much, imagine how much you offend the Lord by your impious statements about his biological Mom, the Woman He chose to be His Mother!

Consider this:

God sent an angel "of the Lord" to appear to Mary and address her thusly: "Hail, Full of Grace!"

Grace is the absence of sin.

Mary was sinless.

God preserved her from sin, because He chose her from all His creation to be an interal part of His Plan of Salvation.

He gave her the choice. She conformed her will perfectly to the Father's Will, accepting the message of the angel. "Be it done unto me according to thy word."

No, she was nothing special, really.

Just sinless, blessed among women, clothed with the sun...

You know, just like anyone else mentioned in the Bible.

I don't think so!

Hail, Full of Grace! The Lord is with you! Blessed art thou among women! And Blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus!

Holy Mary, Mother of God Pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. Amen.

-- Anna <>< (flower@youknow.com), April 27, 2003.

Double Amen to that! Anna, that was a beautiful tribute to our Holy Blessed Virgin Mary, **MOTHER** of God!

God Bless. Sincerely,

Robert

-- Robert (robertp234@hotmail.com), April 27, 2003.

Thank you Robert, (of course you know I meant "integral," not "interal"!)

Pax Christi. <><

-- Anna <>< (flower@youknow.com), April 28, 2003.

First of all, Mary is not the mother of God. Because Jesus is simply not "God". The bible calls Jesus " the first born of all creation" o.k. If Jesus is the first creation, then who created him? Jehova, Jehova God. If God is the creater of all things and nothing can be stronger that the creater(or equal to Him in power, wisdom, glory,worship etc)because Jesus said "No one is greater than the Father." And besides who was Jesus praying to when he was on earth. And another thing; if Mary is the mother of God, then how is an inperfect women "give birth" to an ooh soo powerful and perfect sprit? No man can see God and live!!!!

-- Gerald L. Young (lijothengil@yahoo.com), May 03, 2003.

Paolo,
Im not going to be angry with you, but like some others i have a rough style, so i appologize in advance... You said this: "I have given you these scriptures..." i ask that you pray to God on the nature of revelation and scripture. you have given us nothing other than your own interpretation... God has given us the scriptures. Your claim to have given us the scriptures worries me greatly and i will pray for you... Gerald,
Jewish? JW? or maybe Mormon? Jesus is simply not "God" This being why i ask if you are one of those three religions... The bible calls Jesus " the first born of all creation" wow, thats the first time i've ever heard that, please point us to the passage that says this... non new age Bibles only please. but let us consider another point too, Jesus was born of all creation... Jesus is the Son of Man, and his human aspect comes from the blessed virgin mary, mother of God. It is his human aspect, not his God aspect which was born of all creation. If God is the creater of all things Heres one thats going to shock you: God did not create all things, God is known in the vast field of philosophy as the first uncaused cause. God did not create himself because he always was and always will be. thus Jesus' God aspect has also always been, although it was not in the world until God came and took on humanity as well. and nothing can be stronger that the creater(or equal to Him in power, wisdom, glory,worship etc) because Jesus said "No one is greater than the Father." okay, so your quote from Jesus means you probably arent Jewish... but you are self (mis)interpreting this text, and thats bad. Jesus said no one is greater than the father... and you have misjudged that to mean greater than or equal to, what youre saying is that Jesus was not intelligent enough to know and distinguish between two very basic mathematical principles (greater than vs greater than or equal to) And besides who was Jesus praying to when he was on earth. God, the son, was praying to God the Father... two aspects of the same matter connecting through a spiritual link to one another. And another thing; if Mary is the mother of God, then how is an inperfect women "give birth" to an ooh soo powerful and perfect sprit? Mary was blessedly protected from original sin, and she was full of grace when she gave birth to our Lord. mary was not imperfect, and Jesus was not a SPIRIT... he is GOD. God does not have a spirit, God does not have a soul in the sense that we understand it... GOD SIMPLY IS!!! No man can see God and live!!!! Moses saw God several times and lived. Adam and Eve saw God all the time and somehow managed to live. Noah saw God and lived. There are others who lived after seeing God as well, but i guess that doesnt suit your justification does it? Seek understanding and it will find you.

-- paul (dontsendmemail@notanemail.com), May 03, 2003.

Keep up the good work, "little paul." It doesn't matter a bit if you have a "rough style," as long as you tell the truth.
God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@Hotmail.com), May 04, 2003.

You said Mary is the mother of God. How can Mary be the mother of God when Jesus is eternal. When Jesus was on earth He was %100 God and %100 man. As God He has always existed but as man He was born of the virgin Mary concieved by the Holy Spirit. Catholicism is like man other religions(trying to reach God on their own). Real Christianity says (Jesus came to seek and save that which was lost (Luke 19:10). You must be born again. May God shine in your heart my friend.

-- AliveinChrist (jesus_still_saves@yahoo.com), July 02, 2003.

"as man He was born of the virgin Mary"

That's right! And how could a woman NOT be the mother of the one she gave birth to?? The Trinity is eternal. But the Christ is not, for the Christ is God in the flesh. GOD - no-one else - took flesh by being born of the virgin Mary. That makes her his mother by any rational definition you wish to use.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), July 02, 2003.

Mary the Mother of God. That's the worst logic someone can use. (i.e, Mary is Jesus' Mother, Jesus is God, so Mary must be the Mother of God)). That is an incorrect statment. You might not mean to say she is the mother of the creator, but that's what your saying. The creature can't possibly be the Mother of the Creator. Mary is the Mother of Jesus-man.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@prodigy.net), July 02, 2003.

Jesus-man is not a different person from Jesus-God. Jesus is ONE person, and ONE person only. That ONE person has two natures, human and divine. Mary is the mother of that ONE person. A woman cannot give birth to part of a person. Everything Jesus did on earth was done by man; and everything He did was done by God, because He IS man and He IS God. He was fully man and fully God at every moment of His existence after His conception in the womb of Mary. His two natures cannot be separated, though several classic heresies attempted to do so. Jesus died on the cross. That means a man died, and God died. Jesus rose from the dead. A man rose and God rose. Jesus was born of a virgin, His mother. A man was born, God was born. A man's mother. God's mother. There is simply no way around it, in spite of your desperate need to avoid giving due honor to Mary. The only way to deny that Mary is the mother of God is to deny the divine nature of her Son.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), July 02, 2003.

Is Mary the mother of the Father or the Holy Spirit ? For both are God.

-- anon (anon@hotmail.com), July 03, 2003.

Of course not, Anon. Mary is the mother of Jesus, the God-man.

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), July 03, 2003.

Mary gave birth to God the Son after becoming pregnant by the action of God the Holy Spirit, at the decision and direction of God the Father. So the Trinity was intimately involved in the conception and birth of the Savior, but it is only the Christ - God in the flesh - who was actually born of the virgin Mary, for it was only the second person of the Trinity who actually became man. Still, the Christ is fully God; therefore everything that happened to Him happened to God.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), July 03, 2003.

Hello there, James Cuming here:). Hm, I know this answer, very easy answer cause I have read a lot into this and thought about it also.

In the Roman Catechism in Artticle 3 "He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit, and was born of the Virgin Mary", Paragraph 1. "The Son of God Became Man", Roman Numeral III "True God and True Man":

464 - The unique and altogether singular event of the Incarnation of the Son of God does not mean that Jesus Christ is part God and part man, nor does it imply that he is the result of a confused mixture of the divine and human. He became truly man while remaining truly God. Jesus Christ is true God and true man. During the first centuries, the Church had to defend and clarify this truth against the heresies that falsified it.

465 - The first heresies denied not so much Christ's divinity as his true humanity (Gnostic Docetism). From apostolic times the Christian faith has insisted on the true incarnation of God's Son "come in the flesh." But already in the third century, the Church in a council at Antioch had to affirm against Paul of Samosata that Jesus Christ is Son of God by nature and not by adoption. The first ecumenical council of Nicaea in 325 confessed in its Creed that the Son of God is "begotten, not made, of the same substance (homoousios) as the Father," and condemned Arius, who had affirmed that the Son of God "came to be from things that were not" and that he was "from aonther substance" than that of the Father.

466 - The Nestorian heresy regarded Christ as a human person joined to the divine person of God's Son. Opposing this heresy, St. Cyril of Alexandria and the third ecumenical council of Ephesus of 431 confessed "that the Word, uniting to himself in his person the flesh animated by a rational soul, became man." Christ's humanity has no other subject than the divine person of the Son of God, who assumed it and made it his own, from his conception. For this reason the Council of Ephesus proclaimed in 431 that Mary truly became the Mother of God by the human conception of the Son of God in her womb: "Mother of God, not that the nature of the Word or his divinity received the beginning of existence from the Holy Virgin, but that, since the holy body, animated by a rational soul, which the Word of God united himself according to the hypostasis, was born from her, the Word is said to be born according the flesh."

Here is says:

IV. HOW IS THE SON OF GOD MAN?

470 - Because "human nature was assumed, not absorbed," in the mysterious union of the Incarnation, the Church was led over the course of centuries to confess the full reality of Christ's human soul, with its operations of intellect and will, and of his human body. In paralled fashion, she had to recall on each occasion that Christ's human nature belongs, as his own, to the divine person of the Son of God, who assumed it. Everything that Christ is and does in this nature derives from "one of the Trinity." The Son of God therefore communicates to his humanity his own personal mode of existence in the Trinity. In his soul as in his body, Christ thus expresses humanly the divine ways of the Trinity:

The Son of God... worked with human hands; he thought with a human mind. He acted with a human will, and with a human heart he loved. Born of the Virgin Mary, he was truly been made one of us, like to us in all things except sin.

Basically, if you deny that Jesus Christ is Truly God and Truly Man and that Mary is the Mother of God and that the Son of God, the Second Person of the Trinity assumed, not absorbed, human nature, and that Jesus Christ became fully human, then you deny the Incarnation of the Son of God to earth, and deny that Christ died for our sins. Jesus had to become fully man and yet he was fully God so that he could bring us back to the Father.

Abraham T is correct when he quotes from the bible, ""And whence is this to me, that ""the mother of my Lord"" should come to me?"". Stress the word, LORD! Because she is not just the mother of a mere human, but she is the Mother of the Second Person of the Trinity, the Son of God Jesus Christ, the Mother of God.

Jesus Christ is one unique person, truly God and truly Man. As man He suffered for our sake and lived like us, and as God He saves us from our sins. He became sin itself, to take one all our sins, in order that we may be forgiven.

That is why we profess that afterwards what Mary professed, inspired by the Holy Spirit: ""behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed"".

We honour Mary by the fact that she gave birth to the Saviour, the God-Man, Emmanuel, in order that we might be saved. I mean, who would not honour the mother of the Lord Jesus Christ, who is God and Man? Jesus would be very grateful for the fact that she did give birth to Him in order for Him to come and save the lost children of Israel.

Luke 8, 21 says: "Jesus said to them all, "My mother and brothers are those who hear the word of God and obey it." Jesus was on confirming that Mary was His mother, the Mother of God, Mother of the God Man, of the Son of God, or Himself, both God and Man. The fact is, that Mary believed and acted apon that belief. Read what happened in Cana: John Chapter 2. Mary did not wait around for the wine to run out and for the Bridegroon and Bride to be embarrassed, but she immediately asked Jesus to work a miracle, knowing fully that Jesus would take care of the situation. She had that great a faith in Jesus that she said, "They are out of wine." Jesus responded, and you might think that she would have been disappointed, but she did the opposite. She said to he servants, "Do whatever he tells you." What great faith:)! This proves that she is the Mother of God because Jesus Christ is God and because she : "My mother and brothers are those who hear the word of God and obey it." AND "Blest is she who trusted that the Lord's words to her would be fulfilled."

If what is said above is true, them Mary must be truly Jesus Mother, Mother of God, because Jesus is truly God and truly Man, and Mary heard the Word of God when Gabriel came to her and obeyed it, and then after did the same.

Luke 1, 45 says: "Blest is she who trusted that the Lord's words to her would be fulfilled." Elizabeth said this by the inspiration of Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is not wrong!

I cannot understand why you believe that Mary is not the Mother of God and believe that she is just the mother of Jesus. Do you deny that Jesus is God? Cause He is God, the Son of Man, the Son of God, both!

Here is another way of going about it. Is your mother the mother of your body, or of you? I have a mother and she is my mother not only of my body but also of my personality, my wholeself, cause she gave birth to me, not just my body. If she just gave birth to my body, then I would be nothing but flesh because I would not be able to walk. I am me in my wholeself. Not just my body. That goes the same for Jesus, cause He is truly and fully and totally God and Man. He had to become man in order to save us from our sins. He had to die on the cross, die for our sins so that we may be saved.

I think that I understand where you are coming from. But the thing is that Jesus is God even when He is in His human body. He appeared to His disciple in all His glory but also in His humanity, and He is in Heaven right now as God but also Man in one person:).

Read John Chapter 20, verses 24 to 29. Thomas could actually touch Christ's human body. If Jesus Christ appeared before you right now, you would be able to and profess: "My Lord and God!"

Remember, even in Heaven, Mary is Jesus Mother, and who is Jesus? Jesus is God but also Man, Our Lord and God but also a human being

Thankyou.

-- James Andrew Cuming (jac_man8@hotmail.com), August 17, 2003.

I'm not trying to be offensive in any way. I don't understand how someone could beleive Mary is the mother of God.

God created us....God is the creator of Man and Women. Mary was created by God. Not the other way around.

I've been thinking of attending a catholic church however I'm struggling with some of the beleifs and traditions of catholics. I'd appreciate any arguements to what I beleive the truth is.

Thanks

-- Joe (kennerley@comcast.net), September 29, 2003.

Dear Joe,

A mother does not "create" - she "gives birth to". Mary gave birth to Jesus Christ, who is, always has been, and always will be GOD. Do you deny that Jesus is God? Do you deny that Mary is the mother of Jesus? If you don't deny either of those Christian truths, then you cannot logically deny that Mary is the mother of God.

Obviously this does not mean that God didn't exist until Mary gave birth to Him. God, as God, does not need a mother. But God, in order to become man, did need a mother because that's how men come into existence. And so the eternal God was born of Mary, taking on humanity in the process. The woman one is born of is one's mother. The woman God chose to be born of is therefore His mother. How can it be otherwise?

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), September 29, 2003.

little paul here, my friend.

you said this: I'm not trying to be offensive in any way. I don't understand how someone could beleive Mary is the mother of God.

to which i must reply... did your mother create YOU? or did God create you? how can you believe that your mom is the mother of YOU? the job of a mother is not to create a child, that lies not within the power of all of humanity. no, the job of the mother is to bear the child which God creates... therefore Mary must be the mother of God, for if God is Jesus and Jesus was begotten of mary there can be no other conclusion.

-- paul (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), September 29, 2003.

Joe K,
I agree with what Paul and paul told you.
However, I'd like to turn in a different direction, in case you need further persuasion.

Consider what St. Elizabeth, wife of St. Zechariah/Zachary the priest, said to her kinswoman, Mary:
"And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?"

Joe K, are you aware of the fact that a devout Jewish woman like Elizabeth meant "my God" when she said "my Lord"? Thus she called Mary, "the mother of (my) God," just as Catholics have done for almost 2,000 years.

A mother is the mother of a person -- a "who" -- not the mother of a "nature" (e.g., human, divine) -- a "what".
Jesus is the second Person of the Trinity.
The second Person of the Trinity is God.
Therefore it follows inescapably that Mary is the mother of God.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), September 29, 2003.

Logically, Yes Mary is the mother of Jesus. Is it wrong for me to believe that Mary is only the mother of the man Jesus (meaning only when Jesus was a man and only when he walked the earth).

Otherwise, couldn’t you say since all humans are descendents of Adam and Eve, so using your method of thinking, God is a descendent of Adam.

Onto another question I have: It is my understanding that some Catholics believe Mary was without sin. Is this true? If so please explain why Mary wouldn’t be included in the following verse.

“For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.” (Romans 3:23).

Thanks, Joe

-- Joe (kennerley@comcast.net), October 01, 2003.

Joe,

Don't be so quick to bounce from one subject to another. Why would you ask question # 2 when you are so mixed up about Mary as the Blessed Virgin? Your analogy of Adam and Eve show your "LUG" like thinking.

You must crawl before you walk, Joseph!

-- . (David@excite.com), October 01, 2003.

joe, let me again attempt to address some of your concerns...

Logically, Yes Mary is the mother of Jesus.

thats the first step, next is recognizing that Jesus is fully man and fully God at the same time.

Is it wrong for me to believe that Mary is only the mother of the man Jesus (meaning only when Jesus was a man and only when he walked the earth).

well, you wouldnt be right. when your mom dies, does that mean you dont love her anymore? does that mean that shes no longer considered your mother. We know for a fact that Jesus loved and was obedient to his mother and his earthly father... and we see scripturally that Jesus loved his mother so much that he changed his plans to suit her needs from time to time. this shows us that when no other person on earth could bend Jesus' will, that his love for his mother held special sway.

we believe in life after death, Joe. even if you dont believe in the assumption of Mary, it is still necessary to recognize that her soul is alive, in heaven with her Son. stop thinking in wordly terms. death is not the end of life or relationships. She is still the mother of God, joe.

Otherwise, couldn’t you say since all humans are descendents of Adam and Eve, so using your method of thinking, God is a descendent of Adam.

if you read the gospels this becomes very clear, and it is a very important fact in the life of Christ. read the geneologies presented in luke(?). it is very important to note that it traces EVERY person back through king david all the way to adam and eve. why? because the prophecies told that Christ would be a decendent of David. we know for a fact that it was important for Jesus' geneology to trace back to adam and eve, so yes, it is logical and highly important to say that Jesus was a decendent of david and hence a decendent of adam and eve.

Onto another question I have: It is my understanding that some Catholics believe Mary was without sin. Is this true? If so please explain why Mary wouldn’t be included in the following verse. “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.” (Romans 3:23).

you are quite right, it is our belief that Mary was sinless. why, you might ask? well, Jesus, being God, does not have origins in evil. if mary was stained with sin, how could Jesus' birth have been considered pure? no, the concept that mary is sinful is because protestants know that they cannot elevate mary, since so many of mary's apparitions have shown such backing for the catholic faith.

so now youre wondering how im going to justify that scripture... and i'll do that in a couple of ways. first, paul wasnt preaching at the time of mary. is it not possible that paul was speaking about everyone left on earth? that since mary was no longer on earth that everyone then could be deemed as having been a sinner? just something to ponder... remember, scripture is divinely inspired, but it is still influence by the current perception of the author. Okay, point number two... the statement doesnt hold water. Mary was pure of sin, so she doesnt fit that bill. Jesus wasnt a sinner, so he goes against that scripture. we know the saints are in heaven, so obviously they somehow measured up, denying the accuracy of that scripture. this lends more credence to the idea that that statement was directed specifically at the culture and time that paul was writing the letter to. Finally, i dont think you speak aramaic and greek, which is what the original scripture is written in. translations throughout history have produced mottled (at best) copies of the Bible, which are still horribly unclear to a reader without extensive background. that is why it is nice to know that our church has every scripture interpreted with divine inspiration down to such subtle details as whether or not a greek word is spelled with an 'a' or on 'o.' we know we have a reliable source of information and dont feel the need to misinterpret the scriptures in a bludgeoning uneducated way.

-- paul (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), October 01, 2003.

Quote from 1-10-2003 David wrote:

Joe,

Don't be so quick to bounce from one subject to another. Why would you ask question # 2 when you are so mixed up about Mary as the Blessed Virgin? Your analogy of Adam and Eve show your "LUG" like thinking.

You must crawl before you walk, Joseph!

-- . (David@excite.com), October 01, 2003.

What do you mean by that ????

Salut & Cheers from a NON BELIEVER:

-- Laurent LUG (.@...), October 01, 2003.

Dear Joe,

You ask: Logically, Yes Mary is the mother of Jesus. Is it wrong for me to believe that Mary is only the mother of the man Jesus (meaning only when Jesus was a man and only when he walked the earth).

A: Yes, such a view is totally wrong. There was never a moment when Jesus was only man and not God. Nor was there ever a moment when the human nature of Jesus was separated from His divine nature. Therefore it is not possible for anyone to relate to Jesus only as man. A man died on the cross. God died on the cross. Jesus was and is both. A man was born in Bethlehem. God was born in Bethlehem. Where Jesus is, there is a man. Where Jesus is, there is God. There is no possible way to separate the two realities. Jesus Christ is one person, a divine person, who took on an additional nature, a human nature. Mary gave birth to that one person, in His totality. A woman cannot give birth to part of a person.

You ask: Otherwise, couldn’t you say since all humans are descendents of Adam and Eve, so using your method of thinking, God is a descendent of Adam.

A: No, God in His divine personhood, in his essence, is not a descendent of Adam, but the creator of Adam. However, Jesus Christ, in taking on human nature, did indeed take on descendency from Adam. Otherwise He would not be fully human. The Bible identifies David and numerous others as the ancestors of Jesus, and these men are certainly descendents of Adam; therefore, so is Jesus.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 01, 2003.

Jmj

Hello again, Joe K.
I agree with almost everything paul told you, and I'd like to add a couple of comments.

You asked: "Is it wrong for me to believe that Mary is only the mother of the man Jesus (meaning only when Jesus was a man and only when he walked the earth)."

Yes it would be wrong. I tried to pre-empt this question last time when I wrote: "A mother is the mother of a person -- a 'who' -- not the mother of a "nature" (e.g., human, divine) -- a 'what.'"
By wanting to say "that Mary is only the mother of the man Jesus," it is almost like saying that she is the mother of Jesus's human nature. But, as I said, Jesus is both God and man. If someone asks, "WHO is Jesus?" -- I can answer, "He is God" or "He is a Man" or "He is the God-Man." It follows then that it is permissible to say that "Mary is the mother of God" (or "... mother of the God-Man Jesus"). It is true that she was not his mother until he was conceived in her womb, but (as paul said) she remains his mother today.

Joe, you then asked: "Otherwise, couldn’t you say since all humans are descendents of Adam and Eve, so using your method of thinking, God is a descendent of Adam."

YES! That is one of the paradoxes that flow from Jesus being both God and Man. Jesus is a descendant of Adam, so God (the Son) is a descendant of Adam. Jesus suffered and died on a cross, so God (the Son) suffered and died on a cross. What a paradox! God died! God rose from the dead! It doesn't come off the tongue so easily, because we say it very infrequently or not at all -- but it is nonetheless true. [Don't misunderstand me to be saying, though, that the Father and Holy Spirit died, for they are distinct divine Persons from the Son, and they could never die because they do not have mortal flesh.]

You then asked: "... please explain why Mary wouldn’t be included in the following verse. 'For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.'"

Apparently, Joe, you are not reading other threads at the forum. Just a day or two ago, I answered this same question for another inquirer. Paul was right to mention to you that St. Paul's statement was not to be taken 100% literally -- but to be understood to have exceptions. He mentioned Jesus as the most obvious exception. To Jesus, I want to add the following who have never "sinned and come short of the glory of God": people who have been comatose all their lives ... children who die before reaching the "age of reason" ... people who are profoundly mentally retarded ... people who have always been autistic or mentally ill. See what I mean about St. Paul and exceptions? Since there are these, we are all able to believe that Mary too is an exception.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), October 01, 2003.

Joe, there are two men named "Paul" here -- both of whom have responded to you. When I referred to "paul" in my message, I was referring to the first one who responded to you --- aka "little paul." Immediately after submitting my message, I went to check its appearance and noticed that the other "Paul" (big-P Paul) had responded almost simultaneously, but a moment before, me. (I once tried to persuade at least one of them to use the first initial of his surname, to avoid confusion, but they either didn't see my suggestion or decided that they'd prefer not to do that.)
JFG

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@Hotmail.com), October 01, 2003.

So you conclude that Jesus is a descendent of Adam and Eve. Which means God is a descendent of Adam and Eve.

"you are quite right, it is our belief that Mary was sinless. why, you might ask? well, Jesus, being God, does not have origins in evil. if mary was stained with sin, how could Jesus' birth have been considered pure? No"

So you are saying we have to assume Mary had to be without sin to give birth to Jesus. How about Mary’s parents, were they without sin? If Mary’s parents were stained with sin, how could Mary be considered pure?

Mary was blessed, that God chose her to give birth to his son. God has used many people to do his work, granted this being the most important. It doesn’t make her sinless, Mary is human. Paul I agree with you 100%. We all think too much in “Worldly terms”. God is All Powerful, he created this universe and everything in it.

Thanks, Joe

-- Joe (kennerley@comcast.net), October 01, 2003.

Hi, Joe.
In response to your first comment ... Yes, it is a mind-boggling paradox to realize that God is both the creator of Adam and Eve and a descendant of theirs. Similarly, Mary is a creature of God and God's mother.

You wrote: "So you are saying we have to assume Mary had to be without sin to give birth to Jesus."

No, the Church doesn't teach that she "had to be without sin," for with God all things are possible. However, it was most fitting/appropriate that she be totally pure in order to bear the perfect God within her for nine months -- don't you think so too? I don't think that you want the tiny Baby Jesus in the womb of a big sinner. It was within the Father's power to create a perfect mother, so he did so. If you could have created your own mother, I hope that you would have created a sinless one.

"How about Mary’s parents, were they without sin? If Mary’s parents were stained with sin, how could Mary be considered pure?"

They were not without sin. However, we do not inherit our parents personal sins. We only inherit the defects associated with the "original sin" of Adam and Eve. God chose to preserve Mary from those defects, from the moment of her conception.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), October 01, 2003.

“Fitting/appropriate” is not definitive enough to make me assume she was pure. However with scripture we can definitely say that in God’s power he created a perfect son. God didn’t need a sinless mother to bear a perfect son. Let me ask you this: Do you believe that God with all his power could create a perfect son without a perfect mother? If not, why?

You also said “God chose to preserve Mary from those defects, from the moment of her conception.” Is this based on scripture?

Thanks John, I’m glad we can discuss these types of things without getting offended by one another.

-- Joe (kennerley@comcast.net), October 03, 2003.

Joe:
Why ask if it's ''based on scripture''--? Scripture isn't given us to work out all our doubts, or provide certainty about all the events of the past. It's enough to know that without doubt, Jesus Christ is God incarnate. God come in the flesh; and that means the flesh of a virgin. It shouldn't require a bible passage to convince us Mary was altogether free of any stain of sin. Because she was chosen as the sole vessel in this universe good enough to receive God as a human being.

The only thing you accomplish by raising questions about God's works in Mary is to diminish the importance of His Holy Son. It's as if you think: ''What's the big deal; Jesus is born man, any woman could have borne Him; with sin or without.

The Bible gives us indirect evidence for Mary's glorious holiness. Gabriel the Archangel called her --''Full of grace;'' Not ''Hail Mary, just another good woman.'' You aren't following Christ if you belittle Mary.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 03, 2003.

Thanks, Gene, for answering Joe so well.

Joe, are you aware that, like all Christians prior to the 16th century, we Catholics don't believe in the protestant theory of "sola scriptura" (Bible as the sole source of religious truth)?

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), October 04, 2003.