From:   MX%"ejclimer@mdhost.cse.tek.com" 14-JUL-1997, 19-SEP-1997
To:     MX%"nemo@ludens.elte.hu"  >>-to"l kezdve az enyem.
Subj:   Re: Mariology

>>My name is Ferenc Nemeth. I am Hungarian, male, aged 23.
::I am glad to meet you (So to speak).    :)
>[After long thinking and pondering, here is my answer]
:Thank you for putting such serious thought toward this very old email.
:Your long and thoughtful deliberation is testament to your sincere
:concern and interest.

>>>>The concept of sole mediator means that he is the only one you have
>>>>to go to, and is the primary person to whom prayers are addressed.
:>>>Yes, Jesus is the only one you HAVE to go to. When a child gets
:>>>into trouble, he can try going to his father. Most of the time,
:>>>this is often a big problem to the child who is in trouble already.
:>>>(This is when most children choose to go to their mom instead of dad)
>>>This analogy doesn't hold when it comes to Him Who loved us enough to die
>>>on the cross. Plus the Bible also says that there is NO other name given
>>>under Heaven among men by which we must be saved. Jesus isn't the One we
>>>HAVE to go to...He's the only One we CAN go to.
>:This analogy was a simple attempt to explain why anyone, let alone
>:a Catholic, would find good reason to talk/pray to Mary.
>:Many people FEAR God, as well they should. Few catholics FEAR
>:Mary, nor should they, so catholics feel much more inclined to
>:approach her with their problems. It is really that simple. It is
>:just like here on earth when a child gets into trouble. Who are
>:you gonna call? Mom or Dad? It all depends on your experience with
>:your earthly parents of course...
>>In such cases I'd choose that one of whom I know to be a faithful
>>Advocate. And when I look behind your ridiculous picture from which
>>the sole mediator is bluntly excluded, the face of my great Saviour
>>looks at me, as He had long ago promised: "I am always with you", and
>>as the apostle testifies, "if any one sins, we have an advocate with
>>the Father, Jesus Christ, the righteous one."
::Of course Jesus is my advocate. It is silly, bordering on offensive,
::to think or even suggest that He is not.
>           *******************************************
>           *** Who are you gonna call? Mom or Dad? ***
>           *******************************************
>
>In your puerile and superstitious picture no Jesus is found.
:Jesus said to His detractors that anyone who has seen Him
:(Jesus) has seen the Father. Clearly, Jesus is one with the
:Father in my example of the family.
This argument buries into oblivion an important factor, viz. the
mediatory function of the Lord. Only at the expense of this truth
can you thrust "Mom" into the picture. Moreover, you misprove your
point. It is true that "Whoever saw Jesus actually saw the Father",
but you use it the other way round: Jesus must be considered through
His unity with the Father. Consider where your Mariac zeal has brought
you: you say that the one and only Mediator doesn't show Himself to
us, as He hides from our eyes behind the fearful Father. So you, when
asserting that 1. We fear the Father, and 2. Jesus is to be found
in your picture in the Father, you necessarily say as well that you
fear Jesus Christ our compassionate High Priest and opt for Mary
instead. Congratulations.

>:There is no rocket science working here, and no theological or
>:scriptural slight of hand. When you are in trouble, you should
>:feel free to go talk with mom (Please foregive my casual
>:reference to Mary, but, she is my friend). I can't imagine a
>:family on earth where it is not more than OKAY to go talk with
>:mom when a child is in trouble.
>>But then, where is Jesus in your "family"?
::Jesus is sitting at the right hand of God.
>So why do you still insist on "Mom"?

>>Where on earth have you hidden the very One of whom it is promised
>>to be our Advocate?
::Jesus is not hidden. Jesus is Eucharist, body and blood,
::soul and divinity.
>You excluded Him from your "family" simile.
:He is one with the Father.
With no human feelings? Only this could account for inserting "Mom"
between Him and us. Further, a simile must be understandable, and not
rely on any other dogma which would make it even more sophisticated.

>>How dare you recommend another one instead of Him?
::I do no such thing. You can take the bus to Paris, or you can take the
::train to Paris. You can walk to Paris, or you can peddle a bicycle to
::Paris. In all cases, Paris is your destination. In my case, Jesus is
::the destination. You can go directly to Him, or you can follow His
::the leading of His Mother Mary. In either case, you arrive at Jesus.
::Jesus is, as we all agree, the way, the truth and the life.
>A grievous blunder. In your "family" picture you sketched out a furious
>Dad and a sweet Mom. Is "Dad" Jesus? Then why are you strenuously
>trying to depict Him as an unapproachable Dad?
:While Jesus is Love, He is also our Judge. It is not Jesus' grace,
:love or mercy that I fear, but His perfect divine judgement. I am
:a sinner. It is not Jesus who is unapproachable, but I in my sin
:who is afraid to approach Him who has power over eternal life and
:death.
And can "Mom" free you from this fear? From the hand of the "faithful
high priest" who can feel compassion at our weaknesses?! Your Mariology
drags along a Nestorian Christology, ie. that Jesus the man and Christ
the God are two separate beings.

:Scripture says that we are not to fear him who only has power
:over our physical lives (Satan) but to fear Him who has power over
:our eternal lives (God).   (My paraphrase)
We have our way to God through Christ. That celebrated passage
(1Tim 2:5) which has ever been a thorn in the side of Mariacs says
directly "One is the mediator between God and men, the MAN Jesus
Christ." Him do you have to eliminate together with His human nature,
if you still insist with Bernard that "we need a mediatrix to the
mediator."

>Of course, if the "Dad" of your limping simile is the Father then I am
>justified in judging that your "family" doesn't have the equivalent of
>Jesus. Indeed, the monstrous book of "St" Alphonsus of Liguori "Glories
>of Mary" shows us an instance when someone is climbing up a ladder to
>heaven but at the top he sees Jesus' angry face and falls down headlong.
>Another one goes up another ladder with Mary's sweet, encouraging face
>at the top. And - guess what - he reaches heaven. This outrageous
>blasphemy very well characterizes the disposition of your denomination
>towards our only Mediator.

>>Don't try to weasel out, saying you don't replace Him with Mary -
>>this very pit you fall headlong in, with your nefarious simile about
>>the family in which I can't find Christ.
::If you can not find Christ, come to mass. You will find Him in the
::eucharist.
>Obfuscation. By means of it, you give away that your "family" argument
>was originally intended to exclude Jesus Christ, just to give His place
>to your pseudo-Mary.

>:Is it not even more so with Jesus and Mary?
>:Is Jesus not willing to have people honor His own mother by
>:coming to her?
>:Is Jesus unwilling to honor His mother in Heaven, by listening
>:to her intercessions?
::Are you afraid to answer these questions?
::Have you NO answers to these questions?
>1. They weren't posed to me.
>2. By confuting your "family" simile (no Jesus therein!) the answer is
>   made unnecessary. "Is it not even so?" falls flat on its braggart
>   face when it becomes clear that "it" is not "so" even in the childish
>   simile you constructed off the top of your head to build yout theology
>   on it.
>3. Jesus isn't willing to allow other ways to the Father than Him.
:I have offered no other ways.

>4. Jesus will be offended if we don't believe that He is a compassionate
>   High Priest (I know that the Bible has less weight with you than your
>   own gratuitous similes, but here is a reference: Heb 4:15).

>:The scripture you refer to speaks to the power that is in
>:the NAME of Jesus. The RCC does not teach that there is
>:power in the name of Mary, however, it does agree with you
>:and with scripture that there is power in the name of Jesus.
>>But what kind of power is it, if you still dare exclude Him
>>from your picture?
::We both know what kind of power is in Jesus' name. There is no argument
::here. We know where Jesus can be found, wherever two or maore are
::gathered in His name, in the eucharist, at the right hand of God, and
::coming on the clouds on the great day of judgement. I think there is
::no argument here.
>Then drop your frivolous "family" simile, together with the theology,
>or rather Mariology, built on it.

>:This scripture you refer to does NOT say that Jesus is the
>:ONLY one we HAVE to go to or even the only one we CAN go to,
>:it simply says that there is power in Jesus' name. You seem
>:blind to the simple facts, and bound by a spirit of unbelief.
>>This verse says tersely that there is no other name in which
>>we can have salvation. Not just that there is (some) power in it.
>>The very power of Jesus' name is that it's an exclusive way to
>>God. Or you indeed want me to take up your line of reasoning
>>and argue that "although there is some power in Jesus' name, yet
>>it doesn't exclude other ways to God, namely the Law of Moses."
>>What could you say against this?
::Mary is not a way to God the Father, except in that she is a way
::unto her Son Jesus, who is the way, the truth and the life. As such,
::Mary can be seen as a way to THE WAY, THE TRUTH, and THE LIFE which is
::found in her son Jesus.
>Christ is ever accessible. Heb 4:16. Thus Mary is not needed to
>approach Him.
:Of course. I agree. Mary is not needed. She is there only
:if WE need her. Jesus does not need her. God does not need her.
:We might. We might not. Mary is there and willing to help you
:to her Son Jesus if you need her to.
Your denomination repeatedly anathematized those who deny the efficacy
of the prayers to departed saints. So you cannot now take refuge in such
conciliating phrases like "we might not." Apart from this, here is your
pseudo-argument about "Jesus is one with the Father" confuted by yourself,
as your own words admit that Jesus Christ is ever accessible, whereas in
the simile you considered Him the One whom you have to approach via Mary.

>>>Instead he goes to his mother, whom he has learned has a better
>>>manner, a softer voice, a pleasing embrace, a welcome greeting,
>>>something to eat, etc... There are many reasons why a Catholic,
>>>or any Christian for that matter, could choose to pray unto Mary,
>>>the mother of Jesus. It is not because they HAVE to. It is simply
>>>a good idea, and has been for nearly 2,000 years! When something
>>>works, don't try and fix it.
:>>If it isn't from the Word of God, it is broken and needs to be fixed. This
:>>paragraph holds with the strange idea that we should be afraid of Jesus and
:>>if we talk to Mary she may calm Him down and He won't be mad at us anymore.
:>>There is no other mediator between man and the Father but Jesus. This is
:>>the Word of God, not the tradition of man.
>:I don't think any Catholic, let alone me, is going to argue about
>:who our saviour is. It is Jesus. It is NOT Mary. So, I think you are
>:in agreement with us. Imagine that! We are in agreement!
>:I will not debate the meaning of my simple analogy with you. It
>:speaks for itself. If you want to go off on some tangent, I will
>:not follow you there. There are better things to do with my time.

>>A characteristic method of a heretic who, being prompted to explain
>>his heresies, refuses to do so, saying "you wouldn't understand it".
:I have not suggested that "you wouldn't understand it" as you
:state. Neither have I implied it. If you are quoting me, you are a liar.
I have to apologize: you said this thing to RevMike, not to me.
A quotation from the first article I noticed (with shortened lines):

 | >>Instead he goes to his mother, whom he has learned has a better
 | >>manner, a softer voice, a pleasing embrace, a welcome greeting,
 | >>something to eat, etc... There are many reasons why a Catholic,
 | >>or any Christian for that matter, could choose to pray unto Mary,
 | >>the mother of Jesus. It is not because they HAVE to. It is simply
 | >>a good idea, and has been for nearly 2,000 years! When something
 | >>works, don't try and fix it.

 | >If it isn't from the Word of God, it is broken and needs to
 | >be fixed. This paragraph holds with the strange idea that we
 | >should be afraid of Jesus and if we talk to Mary she may calm
 | >Him down and He won't be mad at us anymore. There is no other
 | >mediator between man and the Father but Jesus. This is the
 | >Word of God, not the tradition of man.

 | I don't think any Catholic, let alone me, is going to argue about
 | who our saviour is. It is Jesus. It is NOT Mary. So, I think you
 | are in agreement with us. Imagine that! We are in agreement!

 | I will not debate the meaning of my simple analogy with you. It
 | speaks for itself. If you want to go off on some tangent, I will
 | not follow you there. There are better things to do with my time.

Analysis of your words:

*************************************************************************
* I will not debate the meaning [1] of my simple [2] analogy with you.  *
* It speaks for itself. [3] If you want to go off on some tangent, [4]  *
* I will not follow you there. [5]                                      *
*************************************************************************

[1] You SAY RevMike wants to debate the meaning of the analogy with
    you. It is conclusive from this that you think his understanding
    of your analogy to be different from yours.
[2] You SAY your analogy is simple, and it even [3] speaks for itself.
[4] You SAY RevMike wants to go off on a tangent. So you blame the guilt
    of disagreement solely on him: that he doesn't want to interpret
    your easy-to-understand simile according to your taste whereas no
    other reasonable way can be found.
[5] You SAY you won't follow him on that "tangent." Thus you make a
    notorious arguer out of him, who is prevented from understanding
    your shrewd and majestic simile by his being possessed by party-
    spirit and controversial animus. So you actually said with the
    whole drift of your letter that RevMike didn't _want to_ understand
    your simple simile. It is wholly equivalent to my charge against
    you, viz. that you say that if the debate continued, he wouldn't
    understand your simile.

And what words do you fraudulently brand as a "tangent"? The just and
never parried accusation that "This paragraph holds with the strange
idea that we should be afraid of Jesus and if we talk to Mary she may
calm Him down and He won't be mad at us anymore." - You didn't address
this charge. And indeed, you keep on voicing this "strange idea" - a
better phrase would be "nefarious effrontery" - even in my face. So
you can't even deny that your religious system managed to dispose of
Christ, as far as it concerns mediatorship. Do you ever mention Christ
as a compassionate, loving, tender One in your letter? No. You want to
bury these features of Him in order to have your soft, pleasant, and
motherly pseudo-Mary venerated as God's reconciliator.

:It is one thing to ask me what I mean and quite another to tell
:me what I mean. I enjoy explaining what I mean, while I grow weary of
:hearing you trying to tell me what I mean. I see nothing productive in
:debating the meaning of my analogy. I already KNOW what I mean. If you
:need clarification then ask, but, please don't waste my time trying to
:tell me what I mean. It is bad enough that I must endure being called
:a heretic.
Then disentangle yourself. Argue! If you are right then why do you
fear it? By the way, your analogy still doesn't have Christ anywhere.
It is an ignominious blasphemy against the Most High God, although
you wriggle desperately to loosen your self-tied bonds by making bad
use of the Father's and the Son's SUBSTANTIAL unity, which, on the
other hand, still requires that Christ be a distinct PERSON from the
Father. This Person you repeatedly omit from your childish "family"
simile, thus betraying that you trust not in Christ's one and only
sacrifice and propitiatory death, as if it had never happened. You
try to rescue your chaff-like simile by merging Christ into the Father
(Modalist heresy). That this defense of yours is just an ad hoc one,
is finely mirrorred in the fact that formerly you insisted on His
alleged presence in the Mass, when being challenged on the absence
of Christ from your simile; and the consubstantiality of the Father
and the Son is a recently discovered argument of yours in our
discussion.

>>Now, it was you to have proposed this frivolous simile about the
>>family from which our mighty Advocate is missing. And if you can't
>>defend it, please drop it and don't accuse us of "going off on some
>>tangent".
::Call me a heretic if you will. It is your conscience, your soul, your
::will and decision to do so. I seek after Jesus. I have found Him
::through His grace, through His mother Mary. I am sad that you can not
::be happy for me.
>So your "family" simile is off, agreed? You dropped it.
:No. It is not agreed and I have not dropped it.
Then defend it. It is full of Nestorianism: it implies that Christ's
manhood is totally devoured by His divinity, and we have to so fear
Him that another mediator has to be inserted between Him and us.

>:Now, if you can look at things this way, it was through Mary
>:that Grace entered into the world, for it was through Mary that
>:Jesus (Grace) entered into the world. You could also say that through
>:Mary, Love entered into the world, and forgiveness, and every other
>:attribute of Jesus Christ, and you would be speaking the truth.
>:Because Jesus who embodied and personified these attributes entered
>:into the world through the obedience of Mary, and through the womb
>:of Mary. In at least two significant ways, physically and obediently,
>:Jesus entered into the world through Mary.
>>This reasoning applies to Abraham, too except for "womb", but you
>>can substitute "loins" if you wish.
::My so called reasoning is sound.
>So is mine with Abraham instead of Mary. See the other letter.
:Yes, the church honors Abraham as our "father in faith".

>:It is this truth that Catholics recognize and honor. More simply,
>:we honor Mary's obedience to God the Father and her obedience and
>:subjection to the Holy Spirit of God which "Overshadowed" her.
>>Abraham was also obedient to God. Do you pay him the same amount of
>>veneration as to Mary? Be careful, without Abraham you wouldn't even
>>have Mary!
::God can raise men from the dust of the earth. Yet, it is obedience
::which He honors, not the flesh and bone from whence obedience comes.
::It is the same with Mary.
>Abraham was also obedient. His "yes" was necessary for the birth of
>Mary. Then pay him the same veneration!
:The church honors Abraham as our "father in faith".
So, please, make your comments on my Abrahamology.

>:It is Mary's obedience that we rely on, that we put our trust in,
>:to this very day. It is that simple.
>>Oh dear, we must rely on Jesus' obedience, not on that of any human!
>>No human can be the guarantee of our reliance. Mary, as a mere human
>>is unstable as a reed, and will pierce our palm if we lean on her.
::We must rely on obedience, not the flesh. I agree. Neither I, nor the
::RCC teach that Mary can Guarantee our reliance (Whatever that means).
::Our assurance of salvation comes from Jesus alone. Mary is simply a
::clear and straight path to Him who is reliable in all things. Because
::of Mary's obedience, we can put our trust in her to be a straight path
::to her son.
>Abraham was prior to Mary, so he is the straight path to Mary.
>Go to him first!
:Christian's are free to pray for the intercession of any saint
:including Abraham.
Your official prayers tend to another direction, ie. towards Mary.

:Abraham is honored as our "father in faith". He is not honored as the
:Mother of our Lord Jesus. It would be stupid to do so, do you agree?
In my other post, you'll find him being called "Forefather of God".

:In reading the bible, Abraham lived first before Mary, I agree.
Go on: his "Yes" was the necessary prerequisite of Mary's birth.
Your "mediatrix" is dependent on my "other mediator"! Go to him first!

:In Luke 1:28 we read that Mary is favoured, and that Mary is
:blessed among women. Mary's honor is clearly different from
:Abraham's.
Due to her gender. Nothing else. We read of Abraham than in him
shall all generations be blessed. See the other post.

>:Now, you can go off and say something about how we only really
>:need to put our faith in Jesus, or how Mary's obedience is really
>:meaningless compared to Christ's obedience even unto death, and
>:you too would be right. But, then, we would both be right. There
>:is no law that says we can't BOTH be right you know.   :)
>>I wouldn't stop at saying "Mary's obedience is really meaningless
>>compared to Christ's obedience" but continue with the apostle: "I
>>don't want to know of anything but about Jesus Christ crucified".
>>Then how can you elevate your "Mary" to the position of "mediatrix"
>>provided her obedience is meaningless compared to that of Christ?
:: [Semmi]
>You didn't answer.
:Mary points us to Christ alone. What more is there to say?
Abraham does the same. Accept Abrahamology, then!

:As I said, there is no law which says we can't both be right.
:Christ's obedience is greater than Mary's, but, that does not
:mean that Mary's obedience is any less important to salvation.
Abraham's obedience ditto.

:Without Her obedience, Christ would not have been born unto her.
He would have been born to another Jewish maiden from the kin of David.

:Therefore, Mary's obedience was first, while His was greater.
:They both are honored for their obedience. To say that Mary's
:obedience is meaningless compared to Christ's is not to say that
:it was meaningless. It is clear to me that the Angelic praise of
:Mary in Luke 1:28 is an honor which God bestowed upon Mary and
:which are all called to emulate in our own lives.
The angelic "praise" was a simple greeting of a favoured one, and the
announcement of the divine plan with her. And the reason why she got
disturbed was that in those times greeting women was unusual.

>:Just as Jesus honored His mother on earth, so too does Jesus
>:ask us to honor His mother Mary.
>>^^^
>>Where? In a fabricated apocryphal ""gospel"" ??
::We are asked to emulate Him in all that He did. Since He honored His
::mother Mary, we are to Honor her as well. Simple enough.
>Simplistic enough. Are we to say "I am the Way, Truth and Life"? He did.
:No. We are to say "Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life".
So your argument, boldly generalizing "We are asked to emulate Him in
all that He did" etc, is spectacularly overthrown. You very readily
changed the pronoun for Jesus' name. Then what do you earn with the
saying "Jesus honoured His mother", provided I can also use your
method and say "I honour my mother"?

:He did not ask us to say "We are the Way, Truth and Life".
Neither did He ask us to honour His mother.

:In Luke 1:28 the Angel of God bestows honor on Mary.
He does not. He declares that Mary is blessed above all women.
It is not a payment for her obedience but the revelation of God's plan.

:I am doing the will of God by honoring Mary.
Non sequitur. (ie. It does not follow from your previous arguments.)

::We are not to worship her, as He did not worship her. Just as He
::found consolation in her, so can we. What mother is not a consolation
::to her child?
>According to the flesh. But He said very succinctly that "whoever does
>the will of the Father is my brother, sister and mother." So every
>Christian who does the will of the Father can be ranked with Mary.
:Exactly. That is called the communion of the saints.
So quit Mariology which asserts that she is our go-between to Jesus.

>>Moreover, as He honoured His mother, so do I honour my mother.
>>This is what the Law requires, not honouring someone else's mother!
::Jesus said that those who follow Him and do the will of His Father are
::His mother, brother & sister. Do you not see that, Mary was
::chosen as Jesus' mother because of her obedience?
>No, vice versa. Her obedience was the result of God's election.
:You can argue with someone else about election, freedom of choice,
:karma, fate, fatalism, etc... The Catholic position is well known.
God's election is a Catholic, nay, a Roman Catholic doctrine. Ask a
priest about Augustine and his treatise "About the gift of perseverance"
or the second council of Orange which expounded very cleary the Catholic
understanding of predestination. - And, being so conspicuously unlearned
in your own theology, please don't rank me with karmaists. You are very
Pelagian in attributing the glory of our redemption to a creature.

:Mary's obedience, whether you believe it was due to God's election,
Don't you believe it?! Are you Pelagian? Include this into your next
auricular confession.

:or to her own decision as a woman free to make her own choices,
:is what is honored in Mary.
The same decision can be honoured in Abraham.

::Do you not see that we are to honor all those mother's who follow after
::Christ? All those brother's? All those sister's? Do you not see in this
::the Saints of the church whom the church honors?
>I myself do the will of God. Am I to honour myself and call myself
>the straight way to Christ?
:I don't think so, but, if you are in any position to bestow
:such honor upon yourself, try it.
Of course, it was wilful folly on my side. But it's an inevitable
consequence of your reasoning: 1. You RC honour your "saints" for the
very reason that they follow Christ. 2. I follow Christ. => You have to
honour me, on this showing.

:If you feel able to bestow this honor on yourself, go for it. You
:would be doing something which Mary has not done. How arrogant!
But what did Mary do? She believed the angelic message. I myself
believed God's message when being first preached to me. Of course
it's still up to you to charge me with arrogance, but then you are
the judge of but yourself, as I did nothing but utilized your
reasoning in my favour.

:It was the Angel of God who bestowed honor on Mary. I am a sinner.
:I can not make your claim.
Sinner or not, your reasoning affords me to posture as "Mother of
God." If you are discontent with the result, don't blame it on me.

>>Further, Jesus honoured His stepfather too. Do you make a mediator
>>out of Joseph?
::No. Joseph is honored as "St Joseph the Worker". Joseph is honored for
::his decision to accept the humiliation to become the husband of a
::pregnant woman with whom he had not had relations. Joseph is honored in
::many ways for many reasons. You should learn more about the church. You
::are obviously interested in knowing more.
>But you don't make a mediator out of Joseph, however, he was the
>stepfather of our Lord. Jesus obeyed His earthly foster-father and
>loved him no less than Mary. Do you obey him and love him just as
>you do with Mary? You don't. This self-contradiction is the result
>of your scholastic quibbles.
:The Angel of God did not honor Joseph as he did Mary,
Of course, as he couldn't be a biological mother.

:so the church honors Joseph for different reasons in a different way.
:Like all of the Saints, Joseph can be prayed to for intercession.
Joseph's decision was of more moment than that of Mary. Imagine, Mary
being stoned for adultery with "God in her womb"! Jesus' birth then
totally depended on Joseph's free consent. Josephology starts from here.

:I am not called to obey Mary or Joseph, I am called to obey God.
:Is this not clear to you? What part of this do you not understand?
You miss the gist of my argument. You said that we have to emulate
Jesus in eg. honouring Mary. I transferred this to Joseph: Jesus
fulfilled the Law even by obeying him. So Joseph has to be obeyed.

>:Just as Jesus dying on the Cross gave Mary to John, so Jesus gave
>:her to us.
>>It was to provide for her and to teach her. As far as I know, Mary
>>in heaven doesn't need our provision or our teaching.
:: [Semmi]
>Again, no answer.
:In John 19:26-27 Jesus gives John to Mary first, and then gives
:Mary to John. If what you suggest were true, there would be no reason
:for John to have been given to Mary. Think about that. There is a
:reason for John to have been given to Mary. So it is to this day
:that we have been given to Mary, and Mary has been given to us.
:This tradition, this understanding, has not changed since then.
Christ gave John to Mary as a son instead of Himself, being then
crucified.

:Your humanistic interpretation does not give justice to these
:passages nor to the history of the church.
You went far more "humanistic" in ascribing our redemption to the
consent of a mere mortal. Pick the beam out of your own eye first.

>:Just as John accepted her, being obedient to Jesus, so Jesus expects
>:us to accept her.
>>Why? Why should >we< accept Mary to our house if it was >John< to
>>whom Jesus entrusted her, and he has done what the Lord asked?
:I choose to accept Mary the mother of Jesus. The alternative is to
:ignore or to reject her.
Only if we have a command to do so. Otherwise not.

:Throughout the history of the church, Mary has
:been appearing to people to uphold them in the faith of her Son Jesus.
:She has been a steadfast supporter of her Son's church throughout
:history. These apparitions and her support are well documented.
:Her intentions are totally clear.
Yes: she has always urged obedience to the pope. This is why I
reject her as a satanic apparition. (Of course, I don't reject
the real Mary, mother of our Lord.)

:Just as John was obedient to our
:Lord, so we too are called to be obedient to our Lord. Obedience is the
:common thread amongst all these questions. I think our Lord is
:challenging your assertion that you are doing His Will.
It is not us to invent what to obey, but God is. He rebuked Saul
for having offered a sacrifice without command (1Sam 15:22-23).
So your blank-cheque tactic is unmasked.

::The question is, why would we reject or refuse her?
>This "question" does not emerge at all. She wasn't entrusted to us.
>She was entrusted to John.
:John was first entrusted to Mary. Read the scripture.
:Read and believe and become obedient to our Lord.
You grasp at every possible straw, but my answer still holds.
I wasn't entrusted to Mary. John was.

>:Jesus asks us to emulate Him, to do what He did! How wonderfully
>:elegant the simple truth is!
>>I must admit that I cannot provide for Mary neither can I teach her.
::I can honor and trust her. That is all. Many people, for some reason, do
::like the idea of trusting someone elses parents. When it comes to Mary,
::I have no trouble.
>Sidestepping. Can you provide for her? Of course not. Can you teach her?
>Of course not.
:John was not asked to provide for her nor to teach her.
So you imagine that "being entrusted" excludes these things. Fine logic.

:John was first entrusted to her! She was then entrusted to him.
:Jesus clearly establishes here the relationship between Mary and
:His church for all time. It is so clear. I hope you can begin to see
:and accept this beautiful which Jesus Himself has given to us.
The evangelist himself set the thing straight when commenting
"from that hour that disciple took her into his own." It is nothing
but mere material provision, or at best: teaching. Of course, you
can build your defense on Mary's teraphim (home-used idols) being
found in many Roman Catholic houses, saying "We did bring her to
our own", but it would be too audacious an answer for me to leave
it unmocked in advance.

>Your usual RC speech goes like "For what reason did Christ
>entrust His mother to John if Mary had other children?" This necessarily
>implies that the basic reason for His having done so was to appoint someone
>to provide for Mary. (If you deny that, you will be found undermining the
>proof of Mary' alleged perpetual virginity.) So when you cite this case,
>please stick to that aspect which the Lord thought to be crucial in this
>matter: viz. to appoint someone to provide for Mary. Do you consider Mary
>your mother? Then provide for her. You cannot? Then how dare you call her
>your mother?
:I have made no such comment. If you are quoting me, you are a liar.
I am quoting millions of RC believers who "prove" Mary's perpetual
virginity with an interpretation of Jn 19:26 which goes contrary to
your present allegorization, viz. that it happened out of her need
for material provision, other sons totally lacking.

:And I will not follow you off on this wild baited tangent of yours.
It is not a tangent. By this, I proved that it is your denomination
which gave me my interpretation. You are fighting your own Church.