Why do Catholics adore, worship and deify Mary so much?

[theefaith]

Chuckle!!! The WOMAN in Rev 12 is the church - the bride of Christ. Catholics desperately try to make this out to be their "Mary thing", but she isn't that at all.

is the child Christ? Yes!
Mary is his mother not the church

 

[Taken]

also say full of grace!

Aw, isn’t that awesome regardless of ones standing, God extents His favor to the unworthy? A lowly handmaiden.

Sort of like David eh...?
Sort of like Abraham eh...?
Sort of like Saul/Paul eh...?
Sort of like Noah eh...?

Gen 6:
[8] But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.

How are you? Has God extended His favor to you?

 

[Taken]

does not need to be either

it’s in the divine tradition and in the apostolic tradition!
...teaching...

Teaching was established, to be According to Gods Word.

Don’t care about your long standing traditions that include teaching beyond, outside and in opposition to: According to Gods Word.

I find it alarming rather than good.

 

[theefaith]

Aw, isn’t that awesome regardless of ones standing, God extents His favor to the unworthy? A lowly handmaiden.

Sort of like David eh...?
Sort of like Abraham eh...?
Sort of like Saul/Paul eh...?
Sort of like Noah eh...?

Gen 6:
[8] But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.

How are you? Has God extended His favor to you?

but she found salvation lk 1:30

 

[theefaith]

Teaching was established, to be According to Gods Word.

Don’t care about your long standing traditions that include teaching beyond, outside and in opposition to: According to Gods Word.

I find it alarming rather than good.

tradition is God’s word

all scripture came by tradition!

And by divine tradition!

tradition means teaching!

the church of the apostles founded by Christ on Peter received all of the faith, all truths revealed by God personally taught by Christ to his apostles!

the rule of faith is the doctrine of the apostles! Acts 2:42

must hear the church Matt 18:17 the church is the pillar of truth 1 Tim 3:15 cos Christ and his apostolic church are one!
Matt 5:14
Jn 15:5
Acts 9:4
eph 5:32

truth must be revealed by Christ Jude 1:3 and taught by his apostolic church Matt 28:19

the church does not require scripture to know truth cos the church received the “deposit of faith” Jude 1:3 from Christ in person and the church of the apostles by apostolic authority and inspired human authority wrote the scriptures.

Scripture is the possession of the church!

Given her by Christ
To safeguard against all error!
To faithfully teach all nations!
Matt 28:19


all scripture came by tradition!

And by divine tradition!

tradition means teaching!

the church of the apostles founded by Christ on Peter received all of the faith, all truths revealed by God personally taught by Christ to his apostles!

the rule of faith is the doctrine of the apostles! Acts 2:42

must hear the church Matt 18:17 the church is the pillar of truth 1 Tim 3:15 cos Christ and his apostolic church are one!
Matt 5:14
Jn 15:5
Acts 9:4
eph 5:32

truth must be revealed by Christ Jude 1:3 and taught by his apostolic church Matt 28:19

the church does not require scripture to know truth cos the church received the “deposit of faith” Jude 1:3 from Christ in person and the church of the apostles by apostolic authority and inspired human authority wrote the scriptures.

Scripture is the possession of the church!

Scripture was written by the church!

The church by apostolic tradition & authority declare what is & what is not scripture!

Given her by Christ! Jude 1:3
To safeguard against all error!
To faithfully teach all nations!
Matt 28:19

 

[Pearl]

the mother of a king MUST BE A QUEEN!

only a queen can bear a king!

rev 12:1 queen with a crown!

So which 'king' do you mean? She was married to Joseph, so was he a king? To be a queen a woman has to either inherit the monarchy from her Father - like our Queen Elizabeth 2nd or Victoria from her uncle; or she must marry a man who is already a king or who will become king - like our Queen's mother, who was not a queen in her own right, and like Camilla, Prince Charles'a wife and Prince William's wife. And the future king, Prince William's mother was not a queen so as Mary did neither of those things your argument doesn't stand @theefaith .
Where in the bible is she called queen, don't give us obscure scriptures but one where it actually says she is a queen. Esther was a queen because she married a king, but not of her own choice remember, and she was not his only wife either.

Matthew 12:50
For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”

Mark 3:35
Whoever does God’s will is my brother and sister and mother.”

I think it is almost like blasphemy to say Mary was a queen because she was either married to God or King Jesus whom she bore. The Catholic beliefs are really twisted. Sorry but they are.

 

[Pearl]

they could repent of denying him that’s true, but since they can (possibility) deny him they are not saved!

Lk 9:62 62 And Jesus said unto him, No man, having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.

Well Peter denied him so was he saved or not? A church Christian may well deny him but i doubt that a true born again person would. You may think you are born again because of the ritual you went through at sixteen weeks old but you are deceived my friend and we are try to warn you before it is too late for you to do something about it. Jesus and a relationship with him is far more important than rituals and doctrines of the Catholic church or indeed any church. You have to be rooted in Jesus as an individual not just part of a corporate body.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

so it really says born of water and born again by the spirit

And not
Jn 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

AND!!!!!!!

(see ez 36:25-27 Mk 16:16 acts 8:36-38)

And so, because the Bible indicates the Born Again People shoulf be Baptized, I Was back in '63. It had nothing to do with my salvation (which had takem place 4 days earlier), but I did feel that I'd been obedient in doing so.

 

[Pearl]

And so, because the Bible indicates the Born Again People shoulf be Baptized, I Was back in '63. It had nothing to do with my salvation (which had takem place 4 days earlier), but I did feel that I'd been obedient in doing so.

Same here.

 

[Taken]

Catholics believe that this verse Luke 1:28 is an indication of the sinlessness of Mary – itself the kernel of the more developed doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. But that is not apparent at first glance (especially if the verse is translated “highly favored” – which does not bring to mind sinlessness in present-day language).

* I do see Multiple Times, Clearly, Plainly Scripture reveals Jesus is SIN-LESS.
* I do not see the slightest inference, indication, tad, kernel, that Mary was SIN-LESS.
* In FACT I do see the complete opposite IN the Text of Scripture itself.
1) God forms/shapes/gives every Earthling its own Body.
2) An Earthling IN the Worm IS sharpened IN equity.
3) All Earthlings Are Born IN Sin.
4) Some Earthlings Are Forgiven their Sin Against God.
5) Some Earthlings Are not Forgiven their Sin Against God.

‘IF’ Mary “was” SIN-LESS...WHY does Scripture not Flat out Clearly says so?
‘IF’ Mary “was” SIN-LESS...WHY did Jesus Himself FAIL to mention that important FACT, “supposedly” not applying to ANY OTHER Earthling?
‘IF’ Mary “was” SIN-LESS...WHY did she herself and every one of Jesus’ disciples NOT KNOW THAT “supposed” FACT?
Because the FACT IS: Mary along with the disciples and about 100 other persons all gathered together AND RECEIVED “forgiveness” FOR THEIR SINS, and salvation of their souls and quickening of their spirits.

It is curiously disturbing that Jesus did not teach that, the Disciples/Apostles did not teach that, Jews did not teach that, Mary did not claim that............
Yet LONG after Marys bodily death....
* GENTILE MEN huddled together APPOINTING themselves to Church Overseer Positions....come up with a Scheme and Twisted tale of Mary’s “supposed” SINLESSNESS....BECAUSE........WHY? What was their GAIN?

* WHY...the basic is their own IGNORANCE and FAILURE of competency to “teach” HOW SINLESS Jesus could be BORN forth from the womb of a SINFUL female.
* THE WHY...considering the Conditions of that era. The major majority of the Listeners / Congregation WAS ILLITERATE, nor had Access to the Written Text.
* THE WHY...considering the CLOUT given the “teachers”.
* The WHY....considering the MONEY given by the “Congregation”.

And two thousand years later....WHAT has changed in THAT scenario?
Illiteracy? Availability to the written Text? AND...the Advantage?
So whoop, whoop, people can read. Whoop, whoop, people can buy and own their very own Bible.....pffff......
Full well known, the majority DO NOT READ the Bible.
Full well known, men are lazy and content to be TOLD what to Believe by other men, especially, IF they ware a long robe, hold a Bible, and stand with a microphone in hand.
And HOW handy, to have a side-book, to read and study tell you what to believe and some ridiculous convoluted reasoning WHY, and in-turn getting a back-pat for “going along”. Easy peasy.

Protestants are hostile to the notions of Mary’s freedom from actual sin and her Immaculate Conception

Scripture itself is hostile to such a notion.

(in which God freed her from original sin from the moment of her conception)

Not Scriptural.

because they feel that this makes her a sort of goddess and improperly set apart from the rest of humanity.

Because if she was SINLESS, in fact she would NOT have been created “GOOD” as God did create Earthlings....she would HAVE BEEN CREATED...”HOLY” (which is what constitutes SINLESS).
Nothing in Scripture teaches Mary was EXCEPTED from the rest of all earthlings and “created holy”... ie SINLESS.
Nothing whatsoever makes the Created Equal with the Creator.

They do not believe that it was fitting for God to set her apart in such a manner, even for the purpose of being the Mother of Jesus Christ, and don’t see that this is “fitting” or “appropriate” (as Catholics do).

Of course it is not “fitting” “appropriate” or true.
Mary was never Scripturally given the Position or Title of “Mother of Jesus Christ”....or as some Catholics contend...”Mother of God”.
Mary was given the Position and Title of mother of the “Son of man.”
God has no mother.
No human is the mother of Gods Power (Christ).
Mary during her Earthly life willingly fulfilled a role in Service unto God.
Not phenomenal, men and woman long before Mary willingly during their Earthly lives fulfilled roles in Service unto God.

Your Catholic equal @theefaith has expressly said, Mary IS “ALL POWERFUL”.
No Catholic has “corrected” or “disagreed” with that position,
Which ALSO false, Yet leans to be a Catholic teaching.
ALL Powerful is expressly Attributed to God, even expressed in the fullness of His name; Lord God Almighty.

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[theefaith]

So which 'king' do you mean? She was married to Joseph, so was he a king? To be a queen a woman has to either inherit the monarchy from her Father - like our Queen Elizabeth 2nd or Victoria from her uncle; or she must marry a man who is already a king or who will become king - like our Queen's mother, who was not a queen in her own right, and like Camilla, Prince Charles'a wife and Prince William's wife. And the future king, Prince William's mother was not a queen so as Mary did neither of those things your argument doesn't stand @theefaith .
Where in the bible is she called queen, don't give us obscure scriptures but one where it actually says she is a queen. Esther was a queen because she married a king, but not of her own choice remember, and she was not his only wife either.

Matthew 12:50
For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”

Mark 3:35
Whoever does God’s will is my brother and sister and mother.”

I think it is almost like blasphemy to say Mary was a queen because she was either married to God or King Jesus whom she bore. The Catholic beliefs are really twisted. Sorry but they are.

In the line of king David the mother of the king is always queen

Christ is king so Mary is queen

Christ is king of heaven Mary is queen of heaven rev 12:1 crowned queen in heaven

The possessions of child mermaid belong to their parents

 

[theefaith]

Well Peter denied him so was he saved or not? A church Christian may well deny him but i doubt that a true born again person would. You may think you are born again because of the ritual you went through at sixteen weeks old but you are deceived my friend and we are try to warn you before it is too late for you to do something about it. Jesus and a relationship with him is far more important than rituals and doctrines of the Catholic church or indeed any church. You have to be rooted in Jesus as an individual not just part of a corporate body.

what prevents a quote saved born again believer from denying Christ?

scripture says “IF” therefore of course you can

 

[theefaith]

And so, because the Bible indicates the Born Again People shoulf be Baptized, I Was back in '63. It had nothing to do with my salvation (which had takem place 4 days earlier), but I did feel that I'd been obedient in doing so.

explain Mk 16:16 acts 8:36-38???

 

[Taken]

The great Baptist Greek scholar A.T. Robertson exhibits a Protestant perspective, but is objective and fair-minded, in commenting on this verse as follows:

“Highly favoured” (kecharitomene). Perfect passive participle of charitoo and means endowed with grace (charis), enriched with grace as in Ephesians. 1:6, . . . The Vulgate gratiae plena “is right, if it means ‘full of grace which thou hast received‘; wrong, if it means ‘full of grace which thou hast to bestow‘” (Plummer). (Robertson, II, 13)
​

Kecharitomene has to do with God’s grace, as it is derived from the Greek root, charis (literally, “grace”). Thus, in the KJV, charis is translated “grace” 129 out of the 150 times that it appears. Greek scholar Marvin Vincent noted that even Wycliffe and Tyndale (no enthusiastic supporters of the Catholic Church) both rendered kecharitomene in Luke 1:28 as “full of grace” and that the literal meaning was “endued with grace” (Vincent, I, 259).

Grace is the basis of justification and is also manifested in it (Rom. 5:20-21). Hence grace is in some sense a state (5:2), although one is always called into it (Gal. 1:6), and it is always a gift on which one has no claim. Grace is sufficient (1 Cor. 1:29) . . . The work of grace in overcoming sin displays its power (Rom. 5:20-21) . . . (Kittel, 1304-1305)​

Protestant linguist W.E. Vine concurs that charis can mean “a state of grace, e.g., Rom. 5:2; 1 Pet. 5:12; 2 Pet. 3:18” (Vine, II, 170). One can construct a strong biblical argument from analogy, for Mary’s sinlessness. For St. Paul, grace (charis) is the antithesis and “conqueror” of sin (emphases added in the following verses):

Romans 6:14
We are saved by grace, and grace alone:
Ephesians 2:8-10

Thus, the biblical argument outlined above proceeds as follows:

1. Grace saves us.
2. Grace gives us the power to be holy and righteous and without sin.

Therefore, for a person to be full of grace is both to be saved and to be completely, exceptionally holy. It’s a “zero-sum game”: the more grace one has, the less sin. One might look at grace as water, and sin as the air in an empty glass (us). When you pour in the water (grace), the sin (air) is displaced. A full glass of water, therefore, contains no air (see also, similar zero-sum game concepts in 1 John 1:7, 9; 3:6, 9; 5:18). To be full of grace is to be devoid of sin. Thus we might re-apply the above two propositions:

1. To be full of the grace that saves is surely to be saved.
2. To be full of the grace that gives us the power to be holy, righteous, and without sin is to be fully without sin, by that same grace.

A deductive, biblical argument for the Immaculate Conception, with premises derived directly from Scripture, might look like this:

1. The Bible teaches that we are saved by God’s grace.

2. To be “full of” God’s grace, then, is to be saved.

3. Therefore, Mary is saved (Luke 1:28).

4. The Bible teaches that we need God’s grace to live a holy life, free from sin.

5. To be “full of” God’s grace is thus to be so holy that one is sinless.

6. Therefore, Mary is holy and sinless.

7. The essence of the Immaculate Conception is sinlessness.

8. Therefore, the Immaculate Conception, in its essence, can be directly deduced from Scripture.
​

The only way out of the logic would be to deny one of the two premises, and hold either that grace does not save or that grace is not that power which enables one to be sinless and holy. It is highly unlikely that any Evangelical Protestant would take such a position, so the argument is a very strong one, because it proceeds upon their own premises.

In this fashion, the essence of the Immaculate Conception (i.e., the sinlessness of Mary) is proven from biblical principles and doctrines accepted by every orthodox Protestant. Certainly all mainstream Christians agree that grace is required both for salvation and to overcome sin. So in a sense my argument is only one of degree, deduced (almost by common sense, I would say) from notions that all Christians hold in common.

One possible quibble might be about when God applied this grace to Mary. We know (from Luke 1:28) that she had it as a young woman, at the Annunciation. Catholics believe that God gave her the grace at her conception so that she might avoid the original sin that she otherwise would have inherited, being human. Therefore, by God’s preventive grace, she was saved from falling into the pit of sin, rather than rescued after she had fallen in.

All of this follows straightforwardly from Luke 1:28 and the (primarily Pauline) exegesis of charis elsewhere in the New Testament. It would be strange for a Protestant to underplay grace, when they are known for their constant emphasis on grace alone for salvation. (We Catholics fully agree with that; we merely deny the tenet of “faith alone,” as contrary to the clear teaching of St. James and St. Paul.)

Protestants keep objecting that these Catholic beliefs are speculative; that is, that they go far beyond the biblical evidence. But once one delves deeply enough into Scripture and the meanings of the words of Scripture, they are not that speculative at all. Rather, it looks much more like Protestant theology has selectively trumpeted the power of grace when it applies to all the rest of us Christian believers, but downplayed it when it applies to the Blessed Virgin Mary.

What we have, then, is not so much a matter of Catholics reading into Scripture, as Protestants, in effect, reading certain passages out of Scripture altogether (that is, ignoring their strong implications), because they do not fit in with their preconceived notions...

...Most Protestant thinkers and opponents of Catholic doctrine would, I think, assume that the Immaculate Conception could easily be disproven from Scripture. But from an analysis of the verses cited, we see that, although it cannot be absolutely proven from Scripture alone, it cannot be ruled out on the basis of Scripture, either. What is more, a solid deductive and exegetical basis for belief in Mary’s sinlessness, and thus her Immaculate Conception, can be drawn from Scripture alone.

Luke 1:28 (“Full of Grace”) and the Immaculate Conception | Dave Armstrong

Regarding your commentary...overall irrelevant to me, but touching on a few of your points.

* I don’t title men with the term “great”, and am suspect of others who do term men “great”.

* I don’t look to or consider “other mens thinking, other mens either or premises they have established, other mens logic, other mens limitation of only their therefore conclusion.”

* I find men trying to Convince men with the thoughts of a Logical Mind, to conclude the Truth of a Spiritual Understanding hinges closely on Satanic trickery tactics and not what I favor.

* I find zero necessity of a Catholic Doctrine, when I have available to me Jesus’ Doctrine, as well as warnings against mens doctrines.

* Disagree with your view of Grace.
I believe Grace of God is His favor toward the unworthy.


Glory to God,
Taken

 

[Taken]

This thread title "Why do Catholics adore, worship and deify Mary so much?" presupposes a three-fold falsehood, is stupid and absurd, insulting, and violates the rules (which don't seem to apply to ignorant Catholic bashers.) Since anti-Catholics are too lazy to find out what Catholics really believe, they make stuff up like this ridiculous thread title.

Now now, while you are complaining, you are exhibiting the behavior you are complaining offends you.

It is clear, some Catholics on this forum say what the Catholic Church promotes AS A COLLECTIVE DECIDED TRUTH....
And also noting, the TRUTH changes, when positional “catholic leadership” appointments change.
( So don’t be too quick to accuse one of laziness...having to muddle through all the Changes. Boring. )

Yet, it is also CLEAR, people on this forum have friends, neighbors, acquaintances that Are Catholics, and THEY make all kinds of CLAIMS what they think, they believe, they do...outside of the “supposed” Catholic Church protocol.

It’s amusing really, to hear a Catholic carry on about Protestant Splintered Churches....when umpteen men collectively call themselves Catholics, yet have umpteen splintered, views, thoughts, beliefs and doings.

It doesn’t require a person to make up a Catholic’s beliefs or what a Catholic does. There are plenty of Catholics who speak for themselves, from being Born Catholic, to worshiping Mary, to feeling FREE to repeatedly commit crimes because they have an instant forgiveness clause to their advantage.
Sorry, but you are not the holder of power over individuals beliefs, claims or actions.

Since you espoused the favoring of Logical “therefore”....
Does that mean...Catholics who do not agree with Protestants....should rightfully be called... “anti-Protestant”, stupid, absurd, insulting, lazy, ridiculous, ignorant Protestant bashers....thus keeping inline with the rules?

 

[Bob Carabbio]

explain Mk 16:16 acts 8:36-38???

What's to explain??? They were born again, and then they got Baptized by immersion, just like I did - according to the Biblical pattern.

 

[Taken]

but she found salvation lk 1:30

Uh no....she found favor with God.


Luke 1:30

[30] And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God.

 

[Taken]

never made her equal

Per Gods Word Jesus...sinless
Per Catholic word Mary...sinless

You might fool yourself, but you do not fool me.

 

[Pearl]

what prevents a quote saved born again believer from denying Christ?

The Holy Spirit living within us. That is what makes us born again - not being wetted as infants.

 

[Pearl]

Because if she was SINLESS, in fact she would NOT have been created “GOOD” as God did create Earthlings....she would HAVE BEEN CREATED...”HOLY” (which is what constitutes SINLESS).
Nothing in Scripture teaches Mary was EXCEPTED from the rest of all earthlings and “created holy”... ie SINLESS.
Nothing whatsoever makes the Created Equal with the Creator.

Please provide your reason for this belief; not just with numbers but with actual words.