From:	MX%"Hisreturn@aol.com" 14-JUL-1997
To:	MX%"nemo@ludens.elte.hu"
Subj:	re: Mariology


>I am Hungarian, male, aged 23, Protestant, called Ferenc Nemeth.

That would explain the "anti-Mary" bias. However, let me quote
what Martin Luther himself said about our Blessed Mother.

1. Commentary on the Hail Mary (Luther's Works, American edition, vol. 43,
p. 40 , ed. H. Lehmann, Fortress, 1968)". . . she is full of grace, 
proclaimed to be entirely without sin. . . . God's grace fills her with 
everything good and makes her devoid of all evil. . . . God is with her, 
meaning that all she did or left undone is divine and the action of God in 
her. Moreover, God guarded and protected her from all that might be hurtful 
to her." 


2. Sermon on John 14. 16: Luther's Works ( (St. Louis, ed. Jaroslav, 
Pelican, Concordia. vol. 24. p. 107: ". . . she is rightly called not only 
the mother of the man, but also the Mother of God. . . . it is certain that 
Mary is the Mother of the real and true God." 

3. On the Gospel of St. John: Luther's Works, vol. 22. p. 23, ed. Jaroslav 
Pelican, Concordia, 1957): "Christ our Savior was the real and natural 
fruit of Mary's virginal womb. . . . This was without the cooperation of 
a man, and she remained a virgin after that." 

>My intention with this letter is to teach you a lesson (mildly).

We have the same goal it seems. Hey, we agree on something!

>I don't post it for technical reasons: for one year my posts tend
>not to appear in the group (and I don't get back them with a
>moderatorial remark that I should further edit them). Otherwise
>I'd be exceedingly glad to unmask your overbold assertions in
>the public.

I would be happy to have you post them. In fact, I will post this
exchange and see what happens.

>>>Actually Jesus wasn't describing His mother or His brothers. A closer look
>>>and by contrasting it with another view from the Gospel of Matthew, one
>>>finds a more complete picture:
>>>Matthew 12:48-50 (after someone told Jesus His mother and brothers were
>>>outside): He replied to them, "Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?"
>>>Pointing to His disciples, He said, "Here are my mother and my brothers.
>>>For whoever does the will of my Father in Heaven is my brother and sister
>>>and mother."

>>Yes, true. But your implication, stated next, falls apart.
>>Stating that we are all mother and brother is true spiritually.
>>The Blessed Mother was Jesus' REAL Mother - no other human had
>>or will have that privilege. Right?

>Note well, the REAL mother was just standing outside the crowd!
>And despite her "privilege" and her claims that she wanted to speak
>to Him, the Lord declared His mother and brothers those who obey Him.
>You got nowhere - it is the Lord to debunk your puerile conjecture.

Come on now!

Was Jesus a human? Was He born? Yes and yes. The Blessed Virgin
Mary is His real earthly Mother. She gave Him the human nature
to the Divine Nature of Jesus, Son of God. And that is also why
He is called Son of Man, since He was like man in all things
but sin, right?

>>>This clearly shows that Jesus did not view Mary as any more of a human
>>>than we should. To pray (ask for intercession; same thing) to her is
>>>complete blasphemy to the Son of God.

>>Mary, the Blessed Mother, was and is human, created by God,
>>and not divine. So we agree on that part. So do you really say
>>that the MOTHER OF GOD is "just" another human, nothing
>>special? True, not divine, but "just another human?"

>First: she isn't the mother of God.

If you say that is true, how then did Jesus come to earth?
(See Luther's comments, too.)

Luke chapter 1:
31 Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and shalt bring
   forth a son; and thou shalt call his name Jesus.
32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the most
   High; and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of David
   his father; and he shall reign in the house of Jacob for ever.
33 And of his kingdom there shall be no end.
34 And Mary said to the angel: How shall this be done, because 
   I know not man?
35 And the angel answering, said to her: The Holy Ghost shall
   come upon thee, and the power of the most High shall overshadow
   thee. And therefore also the Holy which shall be born of thee
   shall be called the Son of God.

> God has no mother.

The Son of God has a Mother. And He was conceived by the Holy
Ghost. So with God in Three Persons, the Blessed Trinity,
Mary is the Daughter of God the Father, Spouse of God the
Holy Ghost, and Mother of God the Son. She's quite well
connected to God, isn't She? One heck of a perfect human!
Do you really think that God would be espoused to
ANYONE with ANY SIN in all eternity?

> Jesus Christ
>was born of Mary according to the flesh.

YES! So how do you claim God has no Mother?

> Second: Mary is human,

YES! And God's unique in the universe of Creation human, the
Mother of God the Son. Remember that we Catholics do NOT
say Mary, the Blessed Virgin, is Divine. Only God is Divine,
Father, Son (Jesus) and Holy Ghost.

>and God doesn't look at the faces of men. We have our scriptural
>testimonies to back up our claim. Go and find one in favour of
>yours before making such pompous assertions.

Did Jesus walk the earth? Did He look at the face of men?
Yes and yes. So what are you talking about? Is Jesus God
in your belief?

>>What is the 4th commandment? Did the Son of God have a Mother?
>>Does Jesus follow His own commandments? Therefore does Jesus,
>>Son of God, honor His Mother?

>The Son of God had a mother. But He didn't have a "Mother".

Yes He did, as shown above.

>And He honoured her. So I do honour my mother. What's your problem?

No problem here. But you do not want to honor the Blessed Mother.

>Beside this, the "beloved disciple" John is just as human as
>anyone of us, in spite of that Jesus Christ is specifically
>said to have loved him.

Yes, St. John the beloved disciple is just as human as us.
But John was not God's Mother. So what's your point?

John chapter 19:
25 Now there stood by the cross of Jesus, his mother, and
   his mother's sister, Mary of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalen. 

26 When Jesus therefore had seen his mother and the disciple
   standing whom he loved, he saith to his mother: Woman,
   behold thy son. 

27 After that, he saith to the disciple: Behold thy mother.
   And from that hour, the disciple took her to his own. 

Jesus specifically tells us that all of us are to consider
the Blessed Virgin as our Spiritual Mother and She to
consider all of us as Spiritual Children.

>>If Jesus honors His Mother, are we correct in not honoring Her?

>Yes. She was the mother of Christ only according to the flesh,

Yes, She is the flesh heritage of Jesus. And Her Spouse is
God, the Holy Ghost.

>and I have my own mother according to the flesh.

Yes.

> To stretch the
>analogy further would make Mary a spiritual mother of Christ.

No. You stretched your analogy in the wrong direction.
BUT She is our Spiritual Mother with God as our
Spiritual Father.

>>If not to honor is your answer, do you know better than Jesus?

>Where did Jesus Christ command us to honour His mother?

Are the 10 commandments from God and is Jesus God?
Surely you do not suggest to eradicate the 4th commandment?
How about Jesus reminding us of that it still holds (until 
Heaven and earth pass away)?

Matthew chapter 15:
4 Honour thy father and mother: And: He that shall curse
  father or mother, let him die the death.
5 But you say: Whosoever shall say to father or mother,
  The gift whatsoever proceedeth from me, shall profit thee.
6 And he shall not honour his father or his mother: and
  you have made void the commandment of God for your tradition.

>These are not rhetorical so let's hear your answers.

>You are arrantly mistaken, not being able to apply the commandment
>of God correctly. It says "honour thy mother" etc. and not "honour
>someone else's mother". If you know better than the Author of the
>Ten Commandments, please correct Him.

He has informed me, therefore I follow His Word.

>>The Blessed Mother is also the ONLY human to have NO SIN,
>>original or actual during her life.

>Just another Romish invention. Paul says "all have sinned in Adam".

First of all, see Luther's own comments.

Protestants didn't come around for 1600 years or so after Jesus, right?

There are many Protestant denominations, all with different
Bible interpretations, right?

So how is it that all are different and all claim to be right?

2 Peter 3:16
"As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things;
 in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the
 unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures,
 to their own destruction."

Second of all, Jesus own Catholic Church is COMMANDED to be
THE Teacher.

Matthew 28:
19 Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in
   the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.
20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded
   you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation
   of the world.

So I can also pull out of the infallible dogma on the subject
of our Blessed Mother too. I can send those if you want.

>>Wouldn't you say that following Her example would lead you to Eternal
>>life with God?

>No, that's why Christ pointed to Himself as an example to follow.

NO??!??!?!?!?

Following an example of NO SIN does not lead you to God?

So we have two role models, Jesus and Mary. If Mary is
without sin, only the Will of God could have allowed that.
Therefore, how can Jesus be "jealous" of us following
either example.

>>Do you think that Jesus would want us to reject a perfect human?
>>Please answer these.

>No, He wouldn't. That's why He pointed to Himself as an example.
>He is a Perfect Human. Why opt for another, in turn imperfect, one?

Not imperfect - no sin - original or actual. Two role models
for us. ONLY God's Will could have kept Our Lady sinless
forever.

>>As for praying to the Blessed Mother as blasphemy, not true at all.
>>If a friend asked you for help with dealing with your father,
>>do you reject him yelling blasphemer? If not, why not?

>No. Because my father is no God. To God, a better intermediary is
>needed than poor wretched me. By the way, when paralleling me with
>Mary, do you hold me to be a perfect human? Or sinless? Or above
>the average humans? I hope you don't.

Your human father is no god. Jesus says that His Kingdom
is not of this world, so let's keep the discussion
spiritual in this regard. God IS your spiritual Father,
as He is mine also.

The Blessed Mother IS better than you or I - a life of sinlessness.
No, you and I are not perfect - far from it.
But She is.

>>If you have friends, do you not seek out their advice,
>>their insights?  If yes, then why? The way we communicate
>>with those in Heaven is to pray.

>But if I have the greatest One in the universe as my Advocate
>and His Spirit as my Counsellor, why would I turn to mere humans
>when it comes to furthering my requests to God?

See discussion later. Do you believe that all humans
are equally glorified in Heaven, i.e. works of Charity
on earth have no effect on your "level" in Heaven?

> Should I despise
>the Son of God by not daring to turn directly to Him?

No. Of course, I do NOT say that you MUST pray to
Our Lady or the Saints, but that you CAN. You can
always go direct.

>He, after all, promised to intercede with the Father for us.

Yes He did. And we both again agree that no man can come
to the Father except through the Son.

>>>Offering up a reflection of a greater truth than the Old or New Testaments?
>>>To say that you know a greater truth than the Holy Bible, which is
>>>breathed from the very mouth of God Almighty is saying that you are
>>>greater than He who created the universe WITH A MERE WORD. Watch what you
>>>say from now on. To say that is to blaspheme the Most High God, and it
>>>deeply offends me that you think you know something greater than the
>>>GREATEST SPIRITUAL TRUTHS SEEN BY MANKIND.

>>The whole issue of Scripture and nothing but the Scripture
>>is a fundamental error. God's Truth existed, and has always
>>existed, whether we KNOW it or not. Yes, the Bible is
>>ONE of God's Great Truth's. But do you say that Jesus,
>>upon ascending into Heaven, says "here's the Bible humans,
>>it's all up to you now?"

>You are sidestepping here, not being able to justify your ridiculous
>"reflection". You try to bully me into your inventions, and back them up
>with God's authority. To you yourself does this kind of vaunting apply:
>"here's the infallibility, pope, it's all up to you now"

I will be happy to send more details of the flaws with Sola
Scriptura. It goes against God's Word in the Bible itself.
I have already posted it titled "The Church or the Bible."

Quick summary - what did the first Christians (Catholics
actually) do without a Bible in the first several dozens of years?

How is it that until about 1500, when printing became practical
and people could begin to READ, all those people who COULD
NOT READ and HAD NO BIBLE know the Word of God?

From the Catholic Church, of course!

>>Don't you read in Scripture that St. Peter is handed the keys to the
>>Kingdom, what you bound on earth is bound in Heaven, to feed My (Jesus')
>>sheep (us humans), and the gates of hell shall prevail not?
>At last, we see the Roman dragon in its whole pomp! Being unable to
>prove your weird claim, you betake yourself to the standard subterfuge
>of your denomination: you resort to the Big Blank Papal Cheque.

Read the Church or the Bible posting or file I send for details.

>These keys are preaching and church discipline.

Please explain what you are talking about.

> We can very well see Peter applying these keys.

See above.

> But we cannot see Peter coining any dogmas
>off the top of his head.

The Apostles, St. Peter being the head and therefore
first Pope, had their words and writings - Gospels
and Epistles. After the Apostles, the dogma is called
just that. Are you saying that St. Peter's writing
doesn't count for anything? Are you saying his
words do not count for anything? The words are
called Holy Tradition (capital T).

>This is just a Popish claim which neither Peter nor Christ thought about.

I await your proof of said claims. Of course, we didn't have
a Bible for hundreds of years and then not for 1500 years did
there exist a low cost mass distribution of the printed Word.
Again, why do several Protestant denominations argue about
the Bible meaning?

We probably both agree that the Bible is the infallible Word of
God? Of course, the KJV has been reported to have 30,000 errors
in it, so I use the Church approved Douhy-Rheims version.

>>The Catholic Church Jesus established on earth

>He didn't establish your denomination, together with a pope, cardinals,
>priests, Mass, statues and purgatory. These are but later innovations.

I await your proof of said claims. So then the Church just wandered
around until 1600 or so when the "light" of the protestant finally
made God's Word clear? All the many "lights" where none agree?

I hope you find out before your judgement day, my friend.

>>continues in revealing further details on God's great Truth.

>The Church of Christ is commanded to keep what she has learnt from
>her Master, and not to add to it.

True. And not throw out parts you don't like and not have
everyone figure out their own interpretation of which none
agree. If the Word of God is perverted, then the gates of
hell HAVE prevailed, right?

> Your denomination, on the other
>hand, arrogates to herself such power which was never given to the
>Church of Christ. This shows that yours is not the Church of Christ.

So is this "faulty?"

Matthew 28:
19 Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in
   the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.
20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded
   you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation
   of the world.

>>This is stated clearly about Mary in the dogma of Her Immaculate
>>Conception and Assumption, body and soul, into Heaven.

>This just proves that heresy has to grasp at unwarranted and despotic
>means (arrogant and cursing papal bulls etc.) to prevail against your
>denomination. It's your problem that you endure Satan to get his grip
>on your denomination.

it is interesting that you bring up Satan, the father of lies. How like
him to claim the Truth is false and falsehood the Truth. And I know the
Truth is spoken as the hatred shows itself aimed at me.

>>And who is the head of the Catholic Church on earth

>The head of the Church of Christ is, quite surprisingly, Christ.

On earth, He has His Vicar, the Pope. Jesus works through human
hands right now, until He comes again. However, Jesus is truly
present on this earth through the Blessed Eucharist, which is
the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus.

>And if you claim to have a different head then let you realize that
>either you have to throw away Christ or you have to make your
>denomination a two-headed monster.

Following your logic, so then protestants have a "hundreds- or
thousands-headed monster" since they cannot all agree, with every
denomination being different. Why would God let His sheep wander
in all these ways to get to Heaven? Why can't Jesus get it straight,
with all these denominations anyway, Him being the Head of the
many churches? Please explain why?

> Your additional clause "on earth"
>resolves nothing. What do you think, why does Paul in Ephesians say
>to Christians on earth that the head of the Church is Christ - if not
>because he felt that Christ in Heaven is a sufficient head for the
>Church on earth?

I assume you refer to Eph 1:22 or 5:23.

See above comments already. Are you then claiming that the
other Bible Gospels, which say clearly to teach the world
are made null and void or what?

These verses simply state that the Church comes from God,
and not man as in the pagan worship of those days (or even
today like buddhist and the like). I do not know what
religion the Ephesians were at that time (before
Catholic that is).

>>- the Pope, the Vicar of Christ, successor of St. Peter the 1st Pope.

>The pope is not the "Vicar" of Christ,

He is indeed.

> as Christ is with us always through the Comforter, the Holy Spirit.

And in the Blessed Eucharist too, in physical form no less,
via transubstantiation.

> Him do you have to eliminate
>if you want to have your Roman boss accepted as "vicar".

Let's get one thing straight. Jesus IS the head of His
Church, and the Pope is His CHIEF representative on earth.
You imply we treat the Pope as a replacement for Jesus -
we do not.

> Add the numbers
>of VICarIVs fILII DeI according to the Latin counting. What's the result?
>666. So, your pontifex maximus can only be the Vicar of the Antichrist.

An interesting perversion. Are you a new ager or freemason?

>Worse, Peter was no pope. It' clear from Gal 2, where he is reported
>to have accepted Paul's correction in a grave doctrinal issue - such
>thing no pope is likely to do ever.

Really? Perhaps you can expound in detail. I do know the story
and want to hear your claim.

>>So when our modern Pope declares such dogma, it comes from God.

>As I refuted all your pretensions, this conclusion is flawed, too.

As you rejected, not refuted.

>>So your rejection of God's continued teachings might actually be the
>>blaspheming. Doesn't Jesus say that rejection of those who follow Him
>>are rejecting Him?

>God made His final word in Christ (Heb 1). If you argue for "continued
>teaching", please quote chapter and verse. Your argument about those
>following Christ fails to make a case for the papacy unless you prove
>that the popes are following Christ.

I did - see above. So why did Jesus speak only to St. Peter
specifically? God doesn't do anything without a specific
reason.

>>Since Mary, the Blessed Mother, is the Mother of God

>Be sure, she isn't. She is just the mother of Christ. And even that
>according to the flesh.

"Just" the Mother of Jesus Christ. "Just" blessed among women?
That's more than any other human ever was or ever will be.

>>and Jesus is the Founder of the Catholic Church,

>Another false allegation. Your denomination doesn't have anything but
>her own words in her favour.

So why is it that the protestant didn't arrive on the scene until 1600
or so?

>>can't you see how Mary is the Mother of the Church?

>Mary, the mother of our Lord, isn't the mother of the Church of Christ.
>But if you want to argue that the monstrous idol you have substituted for
>her is the mother of your denomination, I'll willingly give you credit.

I'll take the credit, since She is indeed the Mother of the Catholic
Church, with Jesus as the Head, or Father.

>>>John 14:6- Jesus said, "I am the way, and the truth and the life. No one
>>>comes to the Father except through Me."
>>>You can only go through Jesus to the Father. You HAVE to go through Jesus
>>>to the Father. If you do not go through Jesus (ie- saints, Mary, whatever
>>>b.s.) you DO NOT go to the Father.

>>True that you must go though Jesus to get to the Eternal Father.
>>The Blessed Mother and saints are intercessors, helpers. They
>>lead you TO Jesus. Mary leads you to Her Son - not to Herself
>>and not directly to the Eternal Father - but ALWAYS to Jesus.

>It's your opinion. In the Bible we find the Holy Spirit in this role.
>Although, if you want to dispose of Him, do it quickly.

Hmmmm.. Perhaps we argue over the ROLE of the Holy Spirit.
I do NOT dismiss Him, not in the least. He is the Love of
God, from the Father and the Son. And Our Lady was present
with the Apostles when the Holy Spirit descended at
Pentecost.

>>>Even is this
>>>isn't so, catholics worship (pray to; ask for intercession; all the same
>>>whether you choose to believe it or not) Mary because of her obedience to
>>>God's will when Scripture clearly tells us that "Anyone who claims to be
>>>in Him (God) must walk as Jesus did." (1 John 2:6). This clearly shows
>>>that we are to follow Jesus' example, not Mary's.

>>Yes, the Blessed Mother completely followed God's Will -
>>completely so that She never sinned.

>It is debatable even according to your denomination. The dogma of the
>"immaculate conception" doesn't say she never committed any light sin
>but that she was allegedly devoid of the stain of original sin.

We need to get through the foundational issues before dealing with this
one. Since you reject all Catholic teachings, digging into the details
here is an exercise in futility. Rejecting to buy my house from its
external curb appeal means that I won't bother showing you the
kitchen, if you get the drift.

>>So, if we strive to do no sin, not possible without God's specific
>>Grace given only to those two individuals, isn't that following
>>Jesus' example?

>Which "two individuals" do you have in mind? Jesus and Mary?
>Nice couple - God and Goddess.

God and NOT goddess. I discussed the role model thing earlier.
We NEVER claim to make Mary, the Blessed Mother, divine - never.

>>>You surely do not think that she could be all that much more
>>>trustworthy than any other human? After all she is just that.

>>Indeed not! She is much more that the normal human,
>>no sin ever, body and soul in Heaven, the REAL Mother
>>of God. I will gladly, along with my brother here, ask
>>the Blessed Mother for help, gladly pray to Her to
>>lead me to Her Son. Gladly.

>"No sin ever" is just your misinterpretation of your false dogma.
>Ask a learned one if you don't believe me.

You are entitled to an opinion.

> "Body and soul in heaven"
>is just a fifth century apocryphal fabrication.

Your statement is one of many protestant heresies actually.

> The bold reference
>to her being "REAL" mother falls flat on the face when you realize
>that by saying

We discussed this above.

> "Those are my mother and brethren who do the will
>of My Father" Jesus Christ Himself placed obedience to the Father's
>will above mere carnal relationship - as His REAL mother was then
>standing outside and waiting for Him in vain. If the Son of God
>gives precedence to the Father's obeyers over His carnal relatives,
>why should I still cling to the latter ones, if I don't pray even
>to the apostles?

A heart of stone, as Jesus says.

>>There are specific prayers and sacramentals which the
>>Blessed Mother obtains God's various Graces for us.

>They are just impious novelties.

Your loss.

Matthew 7:6
"Give not that which is holy to dogs; neither cast ye your pearls
 before swine, lest perhaps they trample them under their feet,
 and turning upon you, they tear you."

>>For example, the Brown Scapular in which She promised, through
>>God's Grace (always), that the wearer will not goto hell (may be
>>in purgatory though) upon death. I'll take an intercessor like
>>Her any day!

>Thus, wearing this scapular will magically squeeze you into heaven,
>even if you sin "mortally" daily, and die unrepentant! What a horrid
>blasphemy! And you still call it "through God's Grace!" Phew! What
>kind of "grace" is a blank cheque which allows you to sin as wildly
>as you can, and still go to heaven (through the so-called purgatory)?!

Making claims without knowledge.

God forgives ALL sins, BUT ONLY IF REPENTANT! Read your Bible, man!
And how DO YOU KNOW that one is not repentant at the moment of death?
And if you behave as foolishly as you suggest, then you will indeed
have a very, very long purgatory. In fact, although I doubt you will
believe this, from a book on Purgatory comes the story of a man dying
in a Catholic hospital. The staff put on him a scapular and he
took it off saying it gave him burning sensations. So God WILL NOT
allow the foolish unrepentant behavior that you describe. And God
keeps His promises, right?

Of course, you probably don't believe that it was allowed by God.
Just like anything else from God, one must have Faith too.

>>Did it ever occur to you that when we are in Heaven, that we can
>>still ask for things which are compatible with God's Will and get
>>them for our friends still living on earth?

>Alas, even those in heaven don't precisely know God's will. We have
>a example from the book of Revelation where they were refused by God,
>saying "Wait until your companions are murdered too". Look it up.

You imply that not having all knowledge means one is blind.
All knowledge is given from God, so He can tell you about
what is going on if He wants. Are you saying He is incapable
or He refuses if a child of His on earth asks for help from
a spiritual friend in Heaven? Just because you do not ask
doesn't mean that others, like me, don't ask.

BTW, that event in Revelations is not all that far away,
believe it or not.

>>Friends here means the whole human race since our love will be
>>perfect, not limited to the human love we can have.

>It is irrelevant to the issue. But we still won't have a perfect
>knowledge (see above), which in itself will prevent us from learning
>of all the needs on earth.

We will learn about earth as God's Will allows us.

>>Did it occur to you that you, on the earthly end of the stick,
>>can ask your spiritual friends in Heaven for help?

>No, never. Where have you read such a vile heresy?

Too bad, you throw out a whole group of friends!
The whole Catholic Church teaches this.

>>> Let us get a grip here. In context, when Jesus says "My mother and my
>>> brothers are these who hear the word of God and do it." He is speaking
>>> of who He considers to be His Mother and Brothers. Now, if Mary heard
>>> the Word of God, and did not do it, then you could have cause for
>>> your judgement against her. I do not see that judgement here.

>>Your context is confused. Read Matt. 12:46-50. It is clear from
>>a study of both of these gospels combined what Jesus truly meant.

>You didn't answer to this man. Or weren't it you to have committed
>the above misquotation? It speaks volumes about the much-claimed
>"correct interpretation" in your denomination.

I didn't write it, but let me answer.

Jesus states that in the SPIRITUAL form. For in the eyes of
God, all souls are equal. But also know that souls do earn
merit through their works on earth - faith worketh by charity.

Perhaps that is troubling to those who run around yelling "I
am saved" thinking that is enough. The "equal" here is like
the USA - all have equal OPPORTUNITY for success but not all
people have the same AMOUNT of success.

Mary, was Jesus' Mother, as described many times above.
And yes, She did God's Will - always. That is why She
is "Full of Grace."

>>> I do agree that she has no favored status by being a biological
>>> parent. That is clear.

>>The only human in the history of all creation, being the
>>Mother of God, having no higher status in God's eyes?

>He was the only one to bear the Son of God in her womb. But this doesn't
>make her "Mother of God", as then she would also be the "Mother of the
>Father" and "Mother of the Holy Spirit".

We discussed this all above. Mother of God the Son, Spouse
of God the Holy Spirit, and Daughter of God the Father.
She is second only to God, with St. Joseph next in line.
The Blessed Mother is higher than Lucifer too, that is
why She will crush his head (Gen 3:15).

>An interesting detail: When Roman Catholics are hard pressed for
>evidence regarding the Theotokos ("God-bearer") dogma, they usually
>resort to the stock argument that "this title has to do with Christ
>rather than to Mary". The context of the Council of Chalcedon which
>coined the phrase, said: [Christ] "was born of the God-bearer virgin
>Mary according to His humanity". Nothing like "Mary is the Mother of
>God". It was then a peripheral issue, Christ being the centre. And RC
>arguers ever and anon say: "The title is given to Mary to emphasize
>Christ's true manhood, and not in order to magnify her". With this
>they usually manage to abate the Protestant flames.

>But when everyone has forgotten the context of Chalcedon, presumptuous
>men arise and roar: "Mary is the Mother of God, let's magnify Her!"
>So they tread upon the very pretext under which they could have their
>dogma accepted, and infer from it a doctrine which was totally alien
>to the Council of Chalcedon. But never mind: your denomination has
>survived greater inconsistencies.

And if you reject the teachings of God's Church on earth,
the One who possesses the fullness of Truth, your claim for
all the various disagreeing protestant doctrines as "true"
is light-years from being definitive. So while you reject Her,
I will again gladly accept Her prayers and Her help.

>To cause you lose your sleep, I mention a couple of interesting things.
>Two popes were impious heretics and were condemned by ecumenical councils.
>The condemnation of one of them was confirmed by the following popes.
>Another pope tried to have his power inaugurated by a council by showing
>a forged canon of the council of Nicea. Another exerted himself in the
>face of the African church by referring to the canons of a provincial
>council as if they were Nicene. Another had a donation letter forged in
>which the Emperor Constantine the Great is made to have given the whole
>Western Empire under the yoke of the papacy. Another had "ancient
>patristic" decrees made in which papal supremacy was declared. Another
>declared that papal infallibility is the invention of the devil.
>Another denied Mary's alleged immaculate conception. The same rebuked
>the patriarch of Constantinople as the follower of Lucifer when he
>termed himself "universal bishop."

The trials and tribulations of man do not cause me to lose sleep.
For I know that no matter what the Pope as a man does, God can use
His Vicar to declare His Word. The infallibility applies under
specific conditions. Did you know that even the Pope has a confessor?
Why? All men sin (except Jesus and Mary).

Since you don't agree with infallibility and the Pope, how
does a protestant reconcile the "gates of hell shall prevail not?"
Or do they accept that errors do exist in the faith and hope
that God "doesn't mind?"

>These are NOT Fundamentalist cavils. Go and ask a priest about
>Vigilius and the Three Chapters, Honorius the Monothelite, Leo and
>Chalcedon, Zosimus and Carthage, the Constantinian donation and Valla,
>Pseudo-Isidorian decrees, John XXII and his bull in 1324, Gregory I
>and "only Christ was conceived without sin", and the same pope with
>his title "servant of servants of God".
>The priest (or anyone more educated in your religion than you)

Are you saying that you are complete in knowledge and
therefore are on a "higher plane?"

>will corroborate me and destroy your one-sided imaginations about
>the >doctrinally< pure and unchanging papacy. Note that I am not
>contending for the >moral< sanctity of the popes, which was long
>ago deemed unnecessary for them.

Your whole argument is mislead. The Pope

>>I would think again about that. Giving the Blessed Mother a higher
>>status is Heaven does NOT take away your ability to have eternal
>>life in Heaven.

>But it detracts much from the majesty of Jesus Christ our only Mediator.




>>Are you perhaps jealous?

>I am not. Jesus Christ, on the contrary, is.

Actually, you doubly sin. First, you reject His Teachings through
the Church and then you impose your human jealousy on Him since His
Church teaches otherwise.

>>Or are you putting your jealousy on Jesus assuming He would not want
>>you to goto His Mother for help?

>I am not putting anything on Jesus. It was Him, and not me, to have
>said "I am the way, and no one can go to the Father except through Me".
>If you devise another way beside Him you provoke His jealousy. If you
>insert a mediator between Him and mankind you necessarily belittle His
>compassionate heart.

>>> Her status is as a result of her OBEDIENCE
>>> to the Divine Will of God, which is what Jesus states for all to hear
>>> and to emulate. He does not raise her in His statement, he raises ALL
>>> who are obedient. For it is not possible for men or for other women
>>> to bear the Christ Child in their womb. But is is possible for them
>>> to choose obedience!

>>Obedience too is another reason for Her Heavenly status - no sin ever.

>Quit this heresy. Even your denomination debates it.



>>How many humans can you say have ever done that? I can think of only
>>One Other - the Son of Man.

>Jesus Christ must thank you for providing a place for Him at the side
>of Mary! What an outrageous comparison! Nay, it's fostered by your
>childish pictures and statues of Mary in whose lap the infant Jesus
>must be grateful to have his place.

>>>Rahab the prostitute was found righteous by God because of her obedience
>>>(Hebrews 11). Why doesn't the RCC tell its followers to pray to Rahab? Or
>>>maybe they do. Of course then, there's Noah, Moses, Abraham, Abel, and
>>>others (Jepthah, David, Samuel) did amazing things by faith and following
>>>the will of God. Why don't we pray to them??

>>In the Catholic Church, we do pray to God's friends for help, we call
>>them Saints.

>The NT calls all believers saints.

And the Catholic Church calls the ones most following God's
Will Saints (capital S). There is a long involved process to
get classified as a Saint.

>>Saints are those who lived a Godly life far above the average human.

>Beware whom you despise! James puts forth the example of Elijah
>while stating "he was a man, like us". No air of semi-divinity.
>Apart from this, you take away the inheritance of the saints (Col 1:12)
>to give it to some privileged ones.

I am not claiming Saints have any divinity! And who am I despising?

Saints have, by definition of being declared a Saint,
lived an exemplary life on earth - following God's Will
more than their own human will. They are indeed fully
human. What is it with you that immediately throws
in the word divinity all the time?

>>Good role models. So if we ASK for their HELP, are you saying that
>>is blasphemy?

>Yes, because they themselves didn't ask the help of deceased ones -
>they have run the race with the exclusive help of the Almighty God.


>>Only God gives the Grace, but the Saint can help us obtain
>>God's Grace.

>It's just a statement, wanting proof.

Since you reject the teachings of God's Church, that becomes
difficult. Of course, a lot of things are impossble to solve
with Sola Scriptura - look at all the different protestants.

>>Now, let's get practical. If you need help and you ask a Saint
>>or the Blessed Mother in Heaven, that benefits you thusly:

>>One, while you cannot pray constantly for your intentions,
>>the saint can - 24 hours a day. You do sleep and eat don't
>>you, so praying 24 hours a day is not humanly possible, true?

>Provided they hear you at all. But it's uncertain.

It is certain.

> And have you
>never read "don't speak much in prayer as the pagans who think
>that they are heard because of their much speech"? Do you want
>me to buy into your torpid and supine mantraization?

You are way off base here. The context was not to
pray to "show your piousness" to man. And good deeds
and fasting are similar - do them in secret so only
your Father knows. Why? Showing off to man is pride
and showing only to God is humility in front of other
men.

>>Two, the saints are EAGER to help - after all, giving in charity
>>is the number one virtue according to God. Right? So the saints
>>in Heaven please God as they help you. The help of God,
>>through Grace, obtained by the saint also helps you get
>>closer to God, right? Isn't that a win-win scenario?

>Provided they hear you. But God forbade to consult any deceased one,
>let it be even Moses or Abraham. So He ruled out your scenario.

You fail to distinguish between the "occult" demonic spirits
and the Saints.

>>Three, when you get help, aren't you pleased? Doesn't God
>>also wish to please you, in addition to your daily sufferings?

>He can do so without any saintling's mediation. After all, we have
>Jesus Christ for our Advocate and the Holy Spirit as our Comforter
>not in vain.

You can get by without any Saints help. However, you can also get to
London from New York by plane or ship. I'll take the plane myself,
using my favorite Saints, Blessed Mother and Guardian Angel as jet
fuel. By no means do the Saints or Angels or the Blessed Mother
replace God - not at all. But they can join me in my prayer if
I ask them. And who do they pray to with me? God of course!
Like two heads are better than one.

>>Four, if you contemplate a saint's life, modern ones like St. John
>>Bosco, or OT ones (called Patriarchs or Matriarchs for that time
>>period), would not that lead you closer to God? A real life example
>>of how some particular humans put God first above the world. Doesn't
>>God tell us in Scripture to reject this world but long for the next
>>- His Kingdom?

>The first correct point so far. But I can do it very well without
>addressing them with prayers.

You can do it without them, officially. But why limit yourself?
I could pull out some Catholic info on why it is pleasing to
God to do this, if you are interested.

>>Five, have you considered that the prayers of the Saints
>>and Blessed Mother carry more weight than yours alone?

>No, never.

Too bad. I always thought 2 or more was greater than 1.

And such is God's Will that certain Saints have a
more specific orientation, hence the Patron Saints.
Like St. Christopher for travel and St. Anthony
for finding lost things. Try St. Anthony with
FAITH and you will be amazed how well he works!
And don't forget your Gaurdian Angel.

> And even James who said "pray earnestly" after the example
>of Elijah, urges us to "pray for one another".

Yes, for us while we are still on earth. We have not yet been
cleaned of our sinful nature yet.

> Then shall I pray FOR Mary?

No, since She is 100% spotless in full view of the Face of God
and does not NEED your prayers. But She can pray for you! Only
if you ask though. I do.

> Apparently James has in mind prayer requests to those on earth
>who can undoubtedly hear us.

On earth, we do not pray TO those on earth, only TO those
in Heaven, and then only to HELP us obtain our petition FROM
God. We can pray FOR those on earth while we are on earth or
in Heaven, again to HELP us obtain our petition FROM God.
We can and should also say prayers of THANKS, not just
petitions.

>>They can AMPLIFY your prayers with their intercession. And it's
>>all free - all you must do is have Faith - consistent, ain't it?

>Maybe they can. Yet they themselves didn't ask deceased ones to
>pray for them.

Really? How do you know which Saints various individuals
pray to? Only God knows all that.

> When emulating them, why should I do the opposite?

Your presumption was incorrect, so this question is invalidated.

>>It's the protestant groups that ignore this Grace from God,

>In our fallible opinion God's grace is in Jesus Christ.
>Do you assert that we ignore Him any more than you?

I am not asserting you ignore Jesus, but I am asserting
you ignore the Blessed Mother and the Saints, and perhaps
Angels too? And ALL Grace comes from God. It's that
the Saints, Angels and Blessed Mother can HELP us
obtain more Grace with their prayers, added to ours.
Again, you have to ask them and have faith.

>>to ask His friends and His Blessed Mother for help.
>>Why waste what you have free access to?

>I am not sure I have "free access" to any such help.
>I cannot see any reliable testimony to this effect.
>But God promised to hear my prayers in Jesus' name.
>It will suffice for me, a poor sinning worm.

All humans have free access. Ask and it shall be given you...

>>Finally, look in the Bible when St. Elizabeth says "full of grace"
>>to Mary.

>I'm sorry to contradict you, but it is just the Latin Vulgate and not
>the original text of the Gospel that says "full of grace". The Greek
>says "kekharitomene", that is, "graced" or "favoured". If you are not
>too bored to check up on what I said now, please verify it from the
>widely acknowledged Nestle-Aland text. It may be found on the shelf
>of every learned priest.

Actually I goofed. It was St. Gabriel the Archangel who said
"full of grace" and not St. Elizabeth. I was thinking of the
"blessed is the fruit of thy womb" phrase.

I can certainly look up the text you mention, but how
do you think it makes any difference?

>>What other person EVER mentioned in the Bible has that said to them?

>For your information, it is the Son of God Himself. But He is not
>described just as "a favoured one" as Mary, but outrightly FULL
>of grace, "pleres kharito". See the same Greek text at John 1:14.
>Then be ashamed to be found having stolen what is Christ's and
>having attributed it to your pseudo-Mary!

OK. By person I should have said - "straight humans." Of course
Jesus is Full of Grace - He is God and is the SOURCE of Grace.

>>Where does the Grace come from?  God. Who is FULL (not
>>just some, but all) of Grace? Mary, the Blessed Mother.

>You seem very confident in your loud and heretical assertions.
>Again, I urge that you reviewed the Greek text with a dictionary.

The "Full of Grace" is in the Catholic Church approved Bible.

Not heretical at all. I have the whole Catholic Church doctrine
which says so. And we have proof of the faulty premise of all
your doctrines since the protestant denominations all presumably
did just what you said and all came up with different answers.
How can they all be true?

>>Her and Her alone from the whole human race - forever.

>Stop blaspheming Christ, stealing His glory and putting it on your
>pseudo-Mary. We have a jealous God who won't lend His glory to idols.

True on the latter, but rejecting God's Mother is nothing but
human jealousy misplaced on God. I can hear the outcry already
when the dogma of Co-mediatrix and Co-redemptrix is declared.

>>Let's hear a specific response on all of these questions, please.

>You got them. Try to disentangle yourself.

Thank you (sincerely)! No disentanglement needed.

One last thought, what if Mary, the Blessed Virgin, said no?
She had free will and could reject God. Think about those
ramifications, man. Think real hard.

bj