Pope's New Tweet

Again, if anyone wants to talk about this even further, we can either create a new forum or do a private conversation. The latter is recommended because it will allow more one-on-one and less chance of rules being broken.
 
C1oudwatch3r said:
Thank you for your quick response, Godspell. The first incident of Mary interceding at the wedding seems to be the only one you draw from in order to justify (your word) the elevated title of mediatrix. I've never fully understood what the water-into-wine incident truly means; however, because there is nothing else to draw from (as far as I can see), it seems a big leap to make it mean she is mediatrix.

The logic in the second item you are using seems very flawed to me. Does not the fact of being a mother mean you have to pre-exist your offspring? I see Mary as the mother of the human nature of Jesus, but NOT the divine nature. She would have to be divine herself in order to be the mother of His divine nature. His divine nature came from the pre-existing divinity of the Holy Spirit.
Click to expand...

That is correct. The blood of Jesus was the blood of God or it would not have the power to cleanse man from sin. Therefore the Blood had to come from the Father, the Holy Spirit.
 
LysanderShapiro said:
No, no problem -- I don't feel attacked one bit.
I understand what you are saying.

With Mary being the new Eve, this is to mean that Mary fulfilled what Eve could not, though the more important aspect is Jesus fulfilling what Adam could not. But just as Adam required an Eve, Jesus required a mother as it was God in the flesh, and this is where Mary comes along -- hence the new Eve. God could have taken all of this is a different direction -- in fact, if God willed it, Christ could have been made the same exact way Adam was and Mary wouldn't even be necessary at all. But this was not God's will -- His will was that he was born of a virgin.

If we wanted to look at the comparison of Mary and Eve, we wouldn't attribute it to their relationship being identical to Adam and Eve's. Adam and Eve were husband and wife while Jesus and Mary were son and mother. We wouldn't call Mary the new eve for that reason of course. Some people consider the idea of Mary being a queen blasphemous because they believe it suggests that they were married. Of course that is silly. The reason for this title is that she isn't a queen-wife, but a queen-mother, as it was the custom in ancient Israel (like King David's mother being the queen mother).

You and I seem to be in full agreement in regards to who Mary was to Jesus and that she was by no means his wife. Rather, she was a servant of God--pretty much the first Christian in fact--who showed obedience to Him to be used in His plan to save man from sin through Christ.

But I guess if it's the title of her being the New Eve that is uncomfortable, this title isn't dogmatic if you will -- the substance of it is what is important. Most Catholics don't refer to her as this, but understand what she is. One book I highly recommend reading if you are serious about getting the full understanding of this perspective of Mary is Mary Revealed through Scripture written by Scott Hahn. It goes into every account, every passage, written in layman's terms as to how Catholics perceive her and why.

If you are serious about getting to the bottom of it, check it out. It is written so well, I couldn't even begin to put it as well as the author did.
Click to expand...

Is the title "New Eve" something that we can go to the Scriptures and find Larry?
 
LysanderShapiro said:
Indeed, honoring our own mothers is modeling off of Jesus, but we also honor Mary as the mother of God. We recognize that as Jesus is the new Adam, Mary must be the new eve.

I'm on the metro at the moment, so when I get to my office, I'll go deeper with this using scripture.
Click to expand...

I will have to disagree with this one Larry.
 
Major said:
Is the title "New Eve" something that we can go to the Scriptures and find Larry?
Click to expand...

You mean does the Bible every literally call Mary "the new Eve?" No, there is no passage, and I think the wording I used is now being taken literally as if it is a dogmatic phrase of some sort -- I'd suggest looking at what this term's meaning.

This is a term I think coined in the 2nd century by Justin Martyr -- a student of Paul -- and drew the comparison in one of his Apologies, though he may have said "second Eve" after he referred to Christ as the "second Adam." He wrote a little on Christ's use of the word "Woman" when addressing her and its meaning.

I'd recommend looking into what this term means rather than the words themselves. If the wording is what makes you uncomfortable, I'd recommend putting that aside and reviewing the purpose of Mary beyond what you've heard -- just to see if it's sound or not. If you only stick to a phrase and not its meaning, you won't go very far.
 
Last edited:
By the way, I think I am not getting off of what I intended to do, which was explain the Catholic perspective, not push it on people in this group. If anyone is honestly interested in knowing, you'll ask. If you are planning on doing a back-and-forth until the other forfeits, we cannot do that here.

We have access to private conversation features or even creating new threads.

Unless you're new here, everyone knows where each of us stand in regards to what we believe.
 
LysanderShapiro said:
You mean does the Bible every literally call Mary "the new Eve?" No, there is no passage, and I think the wording I used is now being taken literally as if it is a dogmatic phrase of some sort -- I'd suggest looking at what this term's meaning.

This is a term I think coined in the 2nd century by Justin Martyr -- a student of Paul -- and drew the comparison in one of his Apologies, though he may have said "second Eve" after he referred to Christ as the "second Adam." He wrote a little on Christ's use of the word "Woman" when addressing her and its meaning.

I'd recommend looking into what this term means rather than the words themselves. If the wording is what makes you uncomfortable, I'd recommend putting that aside and reviewing the purpose of Mary beyond what you've heard -- just to see if it's sound or not. If you only stick to a phrase and not its meaning, you won't go very far.
Click to expand...

I was only pointing out that it was generated under the heading of "traditions" and not the Scriptures which as you know is always my level of acceptance.
 
LysanderShapiro said:
No, no problem -- I don't feel attacked one bit.
I understand what you are saying.

With Mary being the new Eve, this is to mean that Mary fulfilled what Eve could not, though the more important aspect is Jesus fulfilling what Adam could not. But just as Adam required an Eve, Jesus required a mother as it was God in the flesh, and this is where Mary comes along -- hence the new Eve. God could have taken all of this is a different direction -- in fact, if God willed it, Christ could have been made the same exact way Adam was and Mary wouldn't even be necessary at all. But this was not God's will -- His will was that he was born of a virgin.

If we wanted to look at the comparison of Mary and Eve, we wouldn't attribute it to their relationship being identical to Adam and Eve's. Adam and Eve were husband and wife while Jesus and Mary were son and mother. We wouldn't call Mary the new eve for that reason of course. Some people consider the idea of Mary being a queen blasphemous because they believe it suggests that they were married. Of course that is silly. The reason for this title is that she isn't a queen-wife, but a queen-mother, as it was the custom in ancient Israel (like King David's mother being the queen mother).

You and I seem to be in full agreement in regards to who Mary was to Jesus and that she was by no means his wife. Rather, she was a servant of God--pretty much the first Christian in fact--who showed obedience to Him to be used in His plan to save man from sin through Christ.

But I guess if it's the title of her being the New Eve that is uncomfortable, this title isn't dogmatic if you will -- the substance of it is what is important. Most Catholics don't refer to her as this, but understand what she is. One book I highly recommend reading if you are serious about getting the full understanding of this perspective of Mary is Mary Revealed through Scripture written by Scott Hahn. It goes into every account, every passage, written in layman's terms as to how Catholics perceive her and why.

If you are serious about getting to the bottom of it, check it out. It is written so well, I couldn't even begin to put it as well as the author did.
Click to expand...

I cannot afford the book, but I found a YouTube video of him speaking on the subject. Would you recommend this video?

Also, how do I private message you? I don't see a link for that purpose.

Thank you!
 
First of all hello to everyone, I am a born again Christian and was just reading here since yesterday.

With all due respect LysanderSahpiro, I used to be a catholic and they do worship Mary, they bring offerings and they ask for miracles of her.
She was not full of grace, she FOUND grace in the eyes of the Lord just like Moses and many others did. Also, people in heaven cant pray for us and the saints theyre talking about is us, the born again Believers.
Dont forget that the catholics call her, "Virgin Mary" not just "Mary". Dont forget Matthew 1:25, they didnt consummate the marriage until she gave birth to our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
Jesus is the way, the truth and the life, noone goes to the Father but through Him.
God bless you all.
 
LysanderShapiro said:
Mary conceived without sin is another subject which this forum has had many of. If you'd like, we can discuss in a private conversation, but I don't want to bring in extra topics into this thread which is reserved for another topic.

But the Catholic position is that God made it so she was conceived without original sin as fitting for Christ's being divine. I'd suggest having a private discussion on this though.
Click to expand...

I will be happy to have a private discussion, although I prefer a public forum. Am I in danger of breaking forum rules?

I would like to point out that while Mary conceived Jesus without sin, she herself was NOT conceived without original sin. The way you said that makes it sound as if Mary was sinless and God made her that way so she could provide a sinless womb for Jesus. Just saying....
 
Major said:
I was only pointing out that it was generated under the heading of "traditions" and not the Scriptures which as you know is always my level of acceptance.
Click to expand...

I'd even suggest that the title "New Eve" isn't tradition. However, the substance behind the title isn't only tradition, but also Scriptural.
 
C1oudwatch3r said:
I cannot afford the book, but I found a YouTube video of him speaking on the subject. Would you recommend this video?

Also, how do I private message you? I don't see a link for that purpose.

Thank you!
Click to expand...

Yep, you got it -- and I would indeed recommend the video. I'd recommend listening to the entire thing, but also do your own investigation. Continue to read the Scriptures -- get as much info as you can. Read official statements the Catholic Church has made on this subject, just so that if you stand by your position, you'll at least know 100% what it is you oppose, to the letter.

But Scott Hahn is excellent. He is very good at explaining Church teaching from a perspective Protestants can totally understand since he was an ordained Presbyterian pastor.

Also, I'll "Start a Conversation" with you, and you can just respond :)
 
LysanderShapiro said:
Yep, you got it -- and I would indeed recommend the video. I'd recommend listening to the entire thing, but also do your own investigation. Continue to read the Scriptures -- get as much info as you can. Read official statements the Catholic Church has made on this subject, just so that if you stand by your position, you'll at least know 100% what it is you oppose, to the letter.

But Scott Hahn is excellent. He is very good at explaining Church teaching from a perspective Protestants can totally understand since he was an ordained Presbyterian pastor.

Also, I'll "Start a Conversation" with you, and you can just respond :)
Click to expand...

Okay, I will go check out the video in its entirety and get back with you. Thank you!
 
LysanderShapiro said:
Sorry, I mean #54
Click to expand...
I understand that you are not bound by the principles of Sola Scriptura, but surely you would not seriously try to replace the word of God with RCC liturgy.
Here is a reasonable example of what I mean. Taking a small part of your post #54,
3: We know through Luke 1:26-28 that Mary was full of grace even before the incarnation: in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary. And he came to her and said, "Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you!"
Click to expand...
Even the Jerusalem Bible (which I understand is used by the RCC) says in contradiction to what you have posted,
28 He went in and said to her, 'Rejoice, you who enjoy God's favour! The Lord is with you.'
Click to expand...
I see no 'hail full of grace 'here.
Sorry Lysander but if this is the best you can do with a serious study of God's word, then thanks but no thanks.

You don't like it when posts offensive to the RCC are posted, perhaps you might consider rule 3.2.b. and apply it to yourself.
Members of the body of Christ outside of the RCC do by and large take offense at the corruption of or misuse of what we consider to be the word of God.
Please discipline your remarks accordingly.
I am addressing you as a fellow member only and do not consider that I am in breach of rule 5.2.
 
calvin said:
I understand that you are not bound by the principles of Sola Scriptura, but surely you would not seriously try to replace the word of God with RCC liturgy.
Here is a reasonable example of what I mean. Taking a small part of your post #54,

Even the Jerusalem Bible (which I understand is used by the RCC) says in contradiction to what you have posted,
I see no 'hail full of grace 'here.
Sorry Lysander but if this is the best you can do with a serious study of God's word, then thanks but no thanks.

You don't like it when posts offensive to the RCC are posted, perhaps you might consider rule 3.2.b. and apply it to yourself.
Members of the body of Christ outside of the RCC do by and large take offense at the corruption of or misuse of what we consider to be the word of God.
Please discipline your remarks accordingly.
I am addressing you as a fellow member only and do not consider that I am in breach of rule 5.2.
Click to expand...
Calvin, once again, this is not a place for argument. If you want to engage, we will have to either begin a new thread or in a private conversation. If be happy to respond and explain, but the thread cannot go off topic. I've been saying this quite a lot.
 
LysanderShapiro said:
Yep, you got it -- and I would indeed recommend the video. I'd recommend listening to the entire thing, but also do your own investigation. Continue to read the Scriptures -- get as much info as you can. Read official statements the Catholic Church has made on this subject, just so that if you stand by your position, you'll at least know 100% what it is you oppose, to the letter.

But Scott Hahn is excellent. He is very good at explaining Church teaching from a perspective Protestants can totally understand since he was an ordained Presbyterian pastor.

Also, I'll "Start a Conversation" with you, and you can just respond :)
Click to expand...

Well, I watched the whole video by Dr Hahn, and (as I said in the private conversation to you) I am no where closer to agreeing with this doctrine of Mary. As a matter of fact, I kind of just shook my head (to myself) and felt bad about all the non-scripture sources that were given to support her elevation. Dr Hahn is an articulate speaker, and easy to listen to but I didn't feel good about what he was saying. I felt sad...very sad.

Typology is new and interesting to me, and I often find Bible passages that draw analogy between Christ and His bride (the church), or Christ Himself, or the Anti-christ even...but I have never seen the same mother/son analogy that Dr Hahn or you draw. And I definitely feel that the samples given by Dr Hahn were very weak.

Consequently, while I do respect you for taking the time to explain the RCC interpretation of Biblical passages, I am still (metaphorically) shaking my head at it.

We can end this discussion here, unless there is more proof that is EASILY discernible to be offered.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top