>Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it.

>>18235444
Doesn't "assumption" just mean they assume someone went to heaven? Why would this even be controversial?

File: 1765829325776.gif (1.47 MB, 360x360)

1.47 MB GIF

>>18235462
>Doesn't "assumption" just mean they assume someone went to heaven?

Arius could have prevented this...

>>18235444
Catholics will just slap any shit onto their goddess. "Queen of Heaven", "Holy Spirit's Spouse", "The New Ark of the Covenant", whatever. Anything to get people to fall for the goddess lie.

>>18235481
>Queen of Heaven
>The New Ark of the Covenant
These actually make sense though.
Queen of Heaven makes sense because in the Hebrew tradition back in the OT the queen of the kigdom was not the wife of the king, but the mother of the king. Mary being the mother of Jesus Christ the king makes her queen.

Her being the new Ark also makes sense. The Ark was a dwelling place for God and Mary literally birthed God, so her being the new ark checks out.

File: FOMjnvNUcAMgOaq.jpg (35 KB, 500x500)

35 KB JPG

>>18235462
Anon, it means She went to heaven in body and spirit as opposed to only in spirit as most of us as She was free from original sin.

>>18235503
>he was free from original sin.
That part makes no sense, how was she free from original sin? Even if we do not sin ourselves we're all tainted by Adam's pozzed seed, ain't escaping that. Whole point of the virgin birth in a woman that never sinned was to prevent Christ's from acquring death from Adam

>>18235508
Elohim's big kolobian cock pumped the original sin out of her.

>>18235508
Among other things it means She chose God out of her own volition as she was not tainted by the twisted will that comes with original sin, so Her will was in perfect concordace with that of God.

>>18235491
You would've thought this would be communicated directly by Jesus to his disciples, rather than something subsequent theologians would need to intuit via Old Testament parallels (and 100% not using motivated reasoning to do so!)

>>18235491
>Mary being the mother of Jesus Christ the king makes her queen.
No. No it doesn't.
>The Ark was a dwelling place for God and Mary literally birthed God, so her being the new ark checks out.
Has zero scriptural basis and is just Catholics making shit up.
>What about this headcanon
>What about that headcanon
No, fuck off. Jesus Himself refutes Mary's exalted status multiple times. Paul and the other disciples are completely radio silent on her. Catholics have absolutely zero.

>>18235593
>>18235588
What about the wine passage? Jesus does it at Mary's request

>>18235613
Only after Mary capitulates to Him in faith with "Do as he says". Showing faith was what had her request granted, not because of who she was.

>>18235593
>No. No it doesn't.
Yes it does, in antiquity the mother of the king was the queen because the king had many concubines. This is literally on 1 Kings 2:19.
>Has zero scriptural basis and is just Catholics making shit up.
Tradition matters as much as scripture, but I know we can't agree on this and is part of a different discussion
>What about this headcanon
Exactly what makes your exact, personal interpretation of the Bible not a headcanon? Why is the interpretation of JW's wrong exactly if it is based on their interpretation of the bible?

>>18235613
Jesus raises Jairus's daughter from the dead at his request.

>>18235629
Yeah and infallibility directly contradicts Peter's very fallible scriptural self. Which is why Pius XII is very likely enjoying a certain place downstairs.

>>18235643
Infallible doesn't mean inerrable, our Popes have made a lot of mistakes on the past just a Peter did.

>>18235629
>Yes it does, in antiquity the mother of the king was the queen because the king had many concubines. This is literally on 1 Kings 2:19.
A tenuous interpolation because of the David line, despite Mary having no real authoritative role in Jesus's earthly ministry and Jesus downplaying any exalted status given unto Mary solely for being His mother.

>>18235659
How do you interpret John 19:26?

>>18235662
That Jesus loves Mary? Wasn't trying to claim otherwise. Did He say "My queen, look upon your Son"?

>>18235648
>being unable to be wrong doesn't mean the inability to be wrong.
Big brain moment.

>>18235665
Oh, I see. "John here is your mother, Mary here is your son". Jesus was about to die, and is establishing a familial care dynamic, entrusting John with Mary's well-being, because she'll have nobody to care for her after Jesus is gone.

File: 1983pasca.jpg (72 KB, 500x632)

72 KB JPG

Imagine being de facto married to this for 40 years

>>18235665
It's kind of relevant because he said it as one of his last acts on the Cross, which is doubly significant since John was not Mary's relative and he was deliberately avoiding naming the loved disciple troughout the whole Gospel as the loved disciple is meant to be an archetype for the new Church.
>>18235669
Being unable to be wrong on doctrinal issues under very specific circumstances does not mean he can't be wrong on his personal interpretations and opinions on that or other matters. Peter proclaimed the truth of Jesus being the Messiah in front of everyone and at the same time refused to eat with gentiles out of fear of judaizer for which he was reprimanded by Paul.

>>18235691
>Being unable to be wrong on doctrinal issues under very specific circumstances does not mean he can't be wrong on his personal interpretations and opinions on that or other matters.
>Peter is wrong on one of the most pressing doctrinal issues of early Christianity and requires a different Apostle to correct him.
Hmmmmmmm

>>18235691
>It's kind of relevant because he said it as one of his last acts on the Cross, which is doubly significant since John was not Mary's relative and he was deliberately avoiding naming the loved disciple troughout the whole Gospel as the loved disciple is meant to be an archetype for the new Church.
See:
>>18235678
Also keep in mind that all the disciples had fled, and it was just Mary Magdalene, Mary, and John. John is the only candidate to play the role of protector best.

>>18235682
Imagine acknowledging that you could let priests marry, but simply choosing not to let them marry and then repeatedly having to cover up sex scandals.

>>18235695
>Peter is wrong on one of the most pressing doctrinal issues of early Christianity and requires a different Apostle to correct him.
Peter never thaught that you shouldn't eat with gentiles, he was refusing to eat with gentiles out of fear for the judaizing party. He was making a personal and hypocritical mistake.

Doctrine =/= Opinion

Pope Francis said he wished heaven didn't exist, doesn't mean heaven doesn't exist under Catholic doctrine.
>>18235696
Again, you are ignoring the symbolic aspects of revelation. I get what you are getting at but there is a deeper meaning to Jesus making Mary the Mother of "His most beloved disciple" as one of his last actions on the Cross.

>>18235720
>Pope Francis said he wished heaven didn't exist, doesn't mean heaven doesn't exist under Catholic doctrine.
Hell, not heaven, stupid mistake

File: 1762454182450715.jpg (108 KB, 602x903)

108 KB JPG

>>18235720
>I get what you are getting at but there is a deeper meaning to Jesus making Mary the Mother of "His most beloved disciple" as one of his last actions on the Cross.
No, not really, and I can say this because Jesus already rebutted Mary's mother status being exalted in Luke, which Catholics just pretend that the verse doesn't exist. Any meaning to be gotten is in the intimacy that John was Jesus's man through and through and was entrusted with his own mother as a show of great trust and love.

>>18235720
Anon. The question was so important that it is addressed in Revelation 2:12-17 Peragamum message. It is one of the defining issues of doctrine of that period. Peter needing Paul to guide him on it shows that Peter was not infallible and was in many ways less than even a first among equals.

>>18235735
How do they recite the Magnificat and believe she is some kind of demigod? Like at 48 she is blessed with being the Mother of God, but that is an honor to her as a mortal, not as some kind of Goddess. Like she seems as humble as Simeon in Nunc dimittis.

>>18235750
Here's the problem with the Catholic Church: They'll lay out all these honorifics, all these designs to delegate prayers to Mary, give Mary her own special prayer, erect statues of her, but then go "Whoa there, buddy. We heaped all this special shit on her, but don't get too ahead of yourself with going past veneration". It's like they're winking to each other knowing they're setting it up to go past the point of veneration, which it absolutely does.

Mary, through no fault of her own, has been elevated into a glorified fertility idol where the lines between saint and mediator become extremely blurred.

>>18235762
I enjoy The Early History of God by Mark S. Smith where it describes the Asherah cult and then fully admits the RCC Mariology is effectively the same thing.

>>18235762
>It's like they're winking to each other knowing they're setting it up to go past the point of veneration
I disagree because there's no difference between veneration and worship, and everything you described is already worship.

>>18235444
>444 get
Kek at Catholic Quadrinity.

>>18235750
She is not a goddess and we have never claimed that.
>>18235735
>and I can say this because Jesus already rebutted Mary's mother status being exalted in Luke, which Catholics just pretend that the verse doesn't exist.
what do you mean, Luke 11,27 is literally one of the most widely analized verses precisely because it is fundamental to our mariology, not only does it not deny her exaltation, it outright establishes it, Saint Augustine literally says it
>“Mary is blessed because she heard the word of God and kept it. She kept the truth in her mind before she conceived it in her womb.”
Mary conceived first by Faith and then by flesh, it is literally the meaning of the verse. Look at it this way.
"you are a great son because you do your homework"
"actually, people that respect their parents do their homework"
Respecting your parents leads you to doing your homework, Mary conceived God because she listened and kept his Word
It is a silly example but I hope that the point can be understood.
>>18235739
I am sorry if I fail to understand your point, I already explained that Peter refused to eat with gentiles out of personal fear, he never laid it as a doctrine which is more than evident by the fact that he still ate with gentiles when there were no jews present. Doctrinal issues were first treated in the council of Jerusalem, what Peter personally thought or did is a different issue but in the end he did end up guiding the Church towards the orthodox posture, remember that Peter was the middle ground between Paul's proselyte Christianity and James jewish Christianity (and why the figure of the Pope is important in the first place).

>>18235808
>it outright establishes it
No it doesn't, because Marian dogma is predicated on Mary's unique biological relationship to Jesus. Without it, Immaculate Conception, Perpetual Virginity, Assumption, and Queenship completely collapses. By redirecting blessings in regard to Mary's maternal relation and focusing on obedience, Jesus singlehandedly nullifies all validity Marian dogma lays claim to.

>>18235669
NTA but you seem like a speego redditor itt
>resorting to no u’s and cursing
>Ad hominem infinitum

Why are proddies so childish at debates? Is it because pastor anna or whatever told you to not debate?

>>18235529
How wasn't her will twisted by original sin? Can my will be untainted by original sin? Can yours? And if no, why not?

There have been a lot of righteous people who have great things done through them by God. Why don't they get credit as being without original sin?

>>18235808
>Pope is above Paul
Paul wrote almost a quarter of the New Testament anon. Peter wrote two very short little letters.

>>18235808
Pope worship also comes from the Rome pagan religion. That's why they call him pontifex maximus. There is absolutely no Christian basis for his position as articulate by the RCC.

>>18235836
>Marian dogma is predicated on Mary's unique biological relationship to Jesus.
According to whom? We have literally never thaught this. Biology is completely secondary to the rest, Mary's special condition as the Mother of God and Queen of Heaven depends on her Grace (hail Mary full of Grace...) and Her mission. It's not just "She is the Mother of God because... SHE JUST IS OK???", she had an special mission and that is why She was granted all these gifts of the Holy Spirit.
>By redirecting blessings in regard to Mary's maternal relation and focusing on obedience, Jesus singlehandedly nullifies all validity Marian dogma lays claim to.
Even if this redirection you claim was true it doesn't change anything, literally all of the old testament is God acting both through a biological reality (the tribe of Israel) and a reality of Faith (his pacts). The fact that Mary was chosen because of a biological or theological reality is irrelevant in this case since God acts through both, that is the point of his incarnation.

>>18235853
You really don't have an answer to that do you? The only reason the Roman Catholic church even exists is because Charles V needed it as a power structure. It absolutely got BTFO'ed in debates and had to simply refuse to debate until Vatican II.

>>18235708
They wouldn't be able to marry underage boys anyways, so I don't see how that would fix it

>>18235890
Ahh so you fell for jack chick’s meme rhetoric who was inspired by a literal jeet tier con man

>>18235720
>While he was still speaking to the crowds, his mother and his brothers were standing outside, wanting to speak to him. Someone told him, “Look, your mother and your brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you.” But to the one who had told him this, Jesus replied, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” And 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.”
Christians are supposed to be a family to each other. Mary was John's mother because she was am older righteous Christian woman. You can call her your mother too, but keep in mind that that would also make every deceased righteous Christian woman your mother. Going by this passage, Mary was not the only mother of Jesus in a spiritual sense (which seems to be more important than one's biological mother). It would also be fair to say that Salome and Joanna were also Jesus's mothers.

>>18235921
>Jesus replied, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” And 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.”
Huh. Seems like a wasted opportunity to reiterate that Mary was his co-redemptrix

>>18235885
>According to whom?
Your own church? I just laid out the doctrines. Mary can't be queen without being Jesus's mother, Immaculate Conception shows her sinless in order to carry God, and Perpetual Virginity ensures her womb is "clean" to hold God. All of it is in relation to her status as His mother.
>Even if this redirection you claim was true it doesn't change anything, literally all of the old testament is God acting both through a biological reality (the tribe of Israel) and a reality of Faith (his pacts). The fact that Mary was chosen because of a biological or theological reality is irrelevant in this case since God acts through both, that is the point of his incarnation.
Once again, it isn't irrelevant, because Jesus is outright redirecting blessings upon her womb to obedience, and I just demonstrated your own church's dogmas HAVE to have Mary's maternity as the focal point. Jesus Himself is ensuring His own words undermine faulty doctrines of mother exaltation.
Matthew 12:46-50
>While he was still speaking to the people, behold, his mother and his brothers stood outside, asking to speak to him. But he replied to the man who told him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” And stretching out his hand toward 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.”

>>18235940
I like how the perpetual virginity is just not true based on Matthew 12:46-50. Romecucks and Orthotards once again BTFO.

>>18235940
>Immaculate Conception shows her sinless in order to carry God
Traducianist position on original sin. Yet the RCC Catechism teaches Creationism...

>>18235444
I like how he literally exploded.

>>18235508
If Mary had sin and birthed Jesus doesn't that mean he had sin as well? That can't be right because Jesus was sinless. How can God, a sinless being, be born to a sinful woman?

>>18236651
What sinless woman gave birth to Mary

>>18236651
if anne had sin and birthed mary wouldn't she have sin as well? if anne's mom so on so forth

>>18236710
>>18236781
No because God chose Mary to conceive Jesus not Anne. Mary is the immaculate conception.

File: hailfullofgrace.jpg (78 KB, 784x293)

78 KB JPG

>>18235508
Luke 1:28. "full of grace". In greek it's a very particular word, κεχαριτωμένη

χαριτω is related to charity/grace in the divine sense. Something freely given, as Jesus Christ was to the world. That's why Mary is considered without sin, she is a perfect vessel for a perfect being. The arguments about assumption are later. Mary being sinless is scriptural.

Just to be clear: Mary was not pregnant yet with our Lord in that scene. Scripture says right there she was a virgin. She (Mary) was full of grace HERSELF, not because she was carrying the savior yet (she wasn't).

File: Annunciation-Fra-Angelico(...).jpg (568 KB, 1296x941)

568 KB JPG

>>18235448
This is Jesus praising Mary.

>Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be done to me according to your word.

It's like Prots forget that that line from Jesus comes from Luke's Gospel, the same Gospel that has the Annunciation in it.

>>18237144
Jesus doesn't even say that, it was Mary. Catholics really don't pay attention, especially because earlier in this thread they're seen not even knowing what their own Mary dogmas are based on. Say what you want about Protestants, but they actually pay attention to scripture, whereas Catholics are just constantly making shit up with doctrines of "It was real in my mind".

>>18235444
>God won't move a finger to make it so three entire continents have a missionary on them before 1500 but will go out of his way to make some guy rot faster if he says something that isn't Soul-Kosher.
Direct divine intervention into our world is a stupid, untenable superstition. You only need eyes to see that God is letting the world sort itself out.

>>18237176
At least ever since the apostolic age. Miracles not withstanding.

File: G8KSmQYW4AYKhmO.jpg (90 KB, 540x554)

90 KB JPG

>>18237153
Of course it's Mary saying that, do you expect me to be ignorant of Scripture?

The point is, in Luke's Gospel, Mary says that she is the handmaid of the Lord, and that she will allow God's will to be done to her. This is exactly the sort of person that Jesus is praising in Luke 11:28. Jesus isn't denigrating His Mother, He is praising her because she is the most faithful of all to God's commands.

>>18237209
Nobody is talking about denigration, we're talking about priority in shifting from bloodline inherited exaltation to belief shared by all. Just as praise goes onto Mary for her belief, so too does it go onto all the other believers. There is no difference between her and others in status.

File: Virgilio_Tojetti_1877_Our(...).jpg (78 KB, 825x960)

78 KB JPG

>>18237225
She was conceived without sin and assumed into Heaven after her death. This is just a fact.

If she weren't so favored by God, why would she get so many apparitions?

>>18237229
>She was conceived without sin and assumed into Heaven after her death. This is just a fact.
I don't even know what to say here. Read: >>18235940
>If she weren't so favored by God, why would she get so many apparitions?
Because the apparitions in question are complete bullshit. It's Christ who should be making any apparitions, not His mama. Give me a break already.

>>18235462
We can't know. Only God can know 100%.

>>18236651
See >>18236087
Even the RCC's own theological position means each soul is individually created with original sin. So it isn't inherited. Jesus was born but wasn't created "Begotten not made" and so he wasn't created in this process. Even if you used a Traducianist position, Jesus was a specific situation where the soul was not inherited from either Joseph or Mary, but was provided from Heaven where Jesus previously resided.

>>18237229
Lots of Protestants do and historically believed that she was Bodily assumed into Heaven. Enoch and Elijah were also bodily assumed into heaven, in the literal text, but for some reason this wasn't declared Dogma. Moses seems to have been assumed in roughly the same way Mary is in Orthodox Christianity. And maybe the Apostle John.

File: Gift of truth.jpg (571 KB, 960x1381)

571 KB JPG

>>18235588
Its almost as if they where afraid to speak about their beliefs openly. I wonder why?

>>18235593
“Behold your mother!” And from that hour that disciple took her to his own home.

>>18237405
*were

>>18237405
Because they are trying to give God a wife? Something that the Old Testament Jews were specifically told not to do?

>>18237414
So they were being killed for talking? That's brutal. I'd probably start speaking in code too.

>>18237405
>We have zero mention of Mary from the disciples, because they were scared they would get killed for it!
God damn, just how deep does the Mary cult brainwashing go?

>>18237426
Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written

>>18237417
Are you talking about the Apostles? We have the Sub tuum praesidium from 250, but the Hail Mary is from after the 11th century. But again, one can be protestant and still pray the Hail Mary, it's used by both Lutherans and (some) Anglicans (Anglicans being more exposed to what they consider to be Mary worship by Irish Catholics makes them largely against the Hail Mary, kind of like the meat sacrificed to idols question, it's not that they mind the theology, but it's a view that it's a path to what they consider to be Mary worship).

>>18237483
>worship
They dont worship Mary. They venerate Mary. They have made a distinction. If you really question a catholic priest, they will admit that you dont need Mary to intercede.

>>18237483
>they consider
Im not a huge fan of the Hail Mary either.

And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words

The repetition is more hypnotic than it is informative. Maybe some people want to be comforted by their mother. They seek to be rocked back and forth to find peace.

>>18237495
>>18237510
Irish and Hispanic folk Catholicism definitely worships Mary. Which is where the concern comes from. The issue isn't the theology, it's the lay results. It's like how Anglicans can have icons but they don't kiss them, as it starts to get really weird really fast. For some reason stained glass windows have never posed this problem in the west, so like you have to be absolutely extreme Calvinist the be against them. But it's interesting how in the West Mary worships just seems to happen and in the east they get really weird about pictures.

>>18237519
Definitely something to keep an eye on. The good thing about idol worship, is that it is passive. The bad thing about idol worship, is that it is passive.

>>18237535
That's why it's always such a weird debate, as Rome's apologetics never match what you see on the ground. I can watch a million Catholic youtube videos and read articles on Catholic answers saying they don't worship Mary, and then go see someone worship Mary. It's the Catholic version of Eternal Functional Subordination. They constantly deny it when asked, but just keep doing it.

>>18235444
Look at the Roman Cope Church's Mater Populi Fidelis issue. They themselves are struggling with realizing they are wrong, but also spent the last 450 years saying they are always right. It's a clown show.

>>18237448
Given the importance of Mary in Catholic theology and practice it seems a bit disingenuous to imply Jesus' views on it somehow fell through the cracks like a minor parable or miracle deemed unimportant for the apostles to record

>>18236884
you misunderstand the argument; it's "if god can divinely intervene to prevent the transmission of original sin (anne -> mary), there's no reason to think that he couldn't prevent the transmission from mary to jesus, especially given that he's literally god

What's the theory here? That God used his superpowers to cause the dead Pope to rot extra hard?

>>18237743
Yeah. And that's why the next Pope called Vatican II because he realized Pius XII was a hell enjoyer.

>>18235481
Thats before the Catholics, though.

Who is queen Esther if not Ishtar herself?

She is not a Christian creation. But she is wormed within it because of the religion it branched off from.

I used to lump all three as Abrahamic but I recently learned the problem might have started more with Moses, who knows.

>>18237923
The history books in the OT specifically cover this. The Asherah pole was to honor El's wife Asherah. Which is why a Queen of Heaven is specifically attacked with polemics in the OT and why Queen of Heaven is specifically an issue as a title, as the "Queen of Heaven" is Asherah, who specifically isn't supposed to be worshipped or exist.

Why he's staring at me like this

>>18237946
your inner child is so mature for its age...

>>18237946
He's got that diddler gaze.

>>18237740
He prevented the transmission by making Mary not have original sin in the first place. You're saying that why didn't he just do it later instead of when she was born.

>>18238032
The Roman catechism says that each soul is individually created at concert and that original sin isn't inherited from your parents like that. They boxed themselves in and because they set both that rule and this rule as infallible they can't change it without admitting they aren't infallible.

>>18238055
At conception.

>>18238055
I didn't say anything about inheritance?

>>18235444
qrd

File: eyeroll.gif (914 KB, 245x155)

914 KB GIF

>>18237483
>one can be protestant

>>18237229
>She was conceived without sin and assumed into Heaven after her death. This is just a fact.
Only catholics believe this, orthodox don't and they venerate Mary too

>>18235491
First of all, we know from ancient Egypt and other places that deities are expected to sit on top of the bark/barque not inside. That's why there are guardian spirits on top of the Ark, not on the sides like you see in few ancient Egyptian coffins.
To equate Mary as the mother in this context with the Ark of the Covenant doesn't make sense.

Secondly, the Queen of Heaven in Jeremiah is a title was given to Asherah. We know this because of how they venerate asherah with cakes.

Catholics aren't beating the idolaters allegations with these explanations.

>>18238172
Anon...Jeremiah was talking to pagans.

>>18238172
My dude you’re kinda being a little dense with this rhetoric

>>18236899
>And Stephen, full of grace and fortitude, did great wonders and signs among the people.
Based sinless Stephen.

>>18238228
The Greek words given to Stephen were different than Mary's.

>>18238209
Jeremiah 44:1 and 24-25 is clearly about Jewish people.

>>18238278
They were worshiping a different God. They aren't Jewish according to the Jews themselves.

>Pope John Paul II gets shot
>Immediately thanks Mary for saving him
This is how serious they are about their goddess. Jesus Christ isn't even a thought for them.

>>18238209
Yeah. Which Romists are.

>>18238032
this isn't what i'm saying. jesus is god and thereby doesn't need any special properties or heritage to be sinless if sinless humans (mary) don't need sinless parents (joachim and anne), then jesus doesn't need a sinless parent in the form of mary

>>18237677
It's because it's strictly Catholic imagination that goes beyond Jesus and scripture. There's more biblical basis for not exalting Mary like the Catholics do, than there is for it.

>>18238288
So Romists are not Christian?

>>18238209
Right, which Catholics are

File: 1_DdxadDXIQn0efrIQ20MtQg.jpg (105 KB, 1280x720)

105 KB JPG

>>18235444
When do you guys think we'll get Pius XIII? We'll probably have to wait for a Millennial Pope to take the name, or a Zoomer.

>>18238389
The church is going to collapse in the end days and be replaced with something better. Don't worry about any more fraudulent popes coming your way.

>>18238414
I'm a Catholic, your words have no effect on me.

>>18238438
Why would his words affect you when the Bible's don't either?

File: 625102389126.png (193 KB, 479x493)

193 KB PNG

>>18238438
>Words don't affect Catholics
explains a lot.

>>18238389
He will infallibility declare the Dogma of molesting boys not being a sin and will be a 600lb Mexican American.

>>18238438
Neither does The Bible's

>>18238505
Maybe the Bible should have spent more time talking about Mary and Peter and less on stuff that he doesn't care about.

>>18237935
>honor El's wife Asherah
>Asherah, who specifically isn't supposed to be worshipped or exist
I thought she was hated by him? Or was it another god who hated her and didnt want her to be worshipped? Why honor her then? Why even call her anyone's wife to begin with?

>>18238552
Because judaism is polytheistic. Then it became henotheistic and then later monotheistic and the christians here cope about the polytheistic parts of the old testament because these destroy their anti-pagan arguments.

>>18238552
>>18238733
I am only talking about Asherah in the Biblical and Biblical archaeological setting, where they had the Asherah pole, and Asherah was a consort to the hybrid El/Yahweh god of the first temple period prior to Josiah's reforms.

>>18235444
Retroactively refuted by the Dimond bros

FYI, all of this is fabricated drama.

No one wants the queen of anything. No one wants her. The big Lord doesn't want her.

Is he ever wanted her this would have been a non-issue. Because there is nothing easier than a male deity to say and proclaim to have a female deity companion and make it known without resistance.

But if he doesn't it's because there is an inherent issue and problem with her at her core.

So please desist from this nonsense already. I understand that some of you get paid to create drama and more arguments and generate discourse.

But most people are already exhausted of your bullshit. Keep us out of it.

>>18239258
Does this explain why he became so violently corrupted?

File: ishtar862.jpg (215 KB, 1230x1300)

215 KB JPG

>>18235481
>"Queen of Heaven",

strange that's also a title for innana Ishtar I'm sure its just a coincidence

>>18239258
Why didn't Jesus just clearly say "Mary is not the Queen of Heaven"?

>>18235883
>pontifex maximus

pre Chrtianity emperor's held this title too. Chrtianity in its early forms is a judeo pagan frankenstine

>>18239486
Don't call Jesus King of Heaven because that was a term used for Zeus by pagans.

File: kabbalistrinity.png (217 KB, 742x629)

217 KB PNG

>>18238733
it sort off becomes polthystic again too as a judeo pagan hybrid with with a triune God that's totally not polytheism for reasons.

Also no mention of the trinity in any of the texts

File: gaycatholic1.jpg (165 KB, 1200x675)

165 KB JPG

>>18239500
don't call any man father either


>And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

Matthew 23:9-11

>>18239509
I hope you didn't call your "teachers" in school teacher either lol

>>18239500
Jesus is called King of Kings, no need for lame pagan titles like the ones given to Mary

>>18239947
Vishnu is called King of Kings. Can't use that title either mate

>>18239960
Was there a depiction of pagan worship using the title in The Bible like Queen of Heaven?

>>18239982
Yes Indians worship Vishnu

>>18239987
We know why you avoided the question

>>18239993
>we
It's just you mate. I'm already familiar. But you missed my point. Titles are just titles. I pointed out Jesus being called 'King of Heaven' or 'King of Kings' are idolatrous terms because other religions also use them too. And you just used one of those terms to relate to Jesus just now.

>>18240001
I just asked you to point in The Bible where the explicit term was used for pagan worship.

>>18240010
You just deflected again. Because you realize I'm right. 'Queen of Heaven' is in the bible as well as 'King of Kings'. If one is idolatrous the other is as well. They are associated with non-christian worship.

>>18240015
>I just asked you to point in The Bible where the explicit term was used for pagan worship.

>>18240021
Jeremiah 7:18. Now with 'King of Kings'. That is used by Hindus. Would you consider that to be idolatrous as well?

>he ran away because he was going to lose the argument
every. time.

>>18240024
That's Queen of Heaven, not King of Kings. Am I speaking in Swahili? I'm asking you to point to the text where King of Kings is used in reference to pagan worship in The Bible.

>>18240041
Only the Bible contains pagan worship? So if it's not in the Bible and I worship it, it's ok?

>>18240044
You're setting the standard of misused idolatry for exaltation in the framework of The Bible by using other external examples. It's like taking into question Noah's account, because other civilizations had flood myths. The argument isn't there's no pagan worship outside The Bible, the argument is if we're setting the standard on The Bible and what is called for, then where in scripture is it making Jesus's title tenuous?

>>18240053
>It's like taking into question Noah's account, because other civilizations had flood myths
Uh, yes? lol
>The argument isn't there's no pagan worship outside The Bible
If we are making the connection to the original post where the anon was making the claim 'Queen of Heaven' is a title likened to Ishtar, then yes we are. And you are avoiding it because you know what comes next. If something that is idolatrous is not in the Bible that makes it ok in your eyes because it has to be explicitly said in the Bible to make the connection for you. But that's not how it works because I don't think any Christian would be ok with worshiping Izangi even though he's not in the Bible.

>>18240063
>If something that is idolatrous is not in the Bible that makes it ok in your eyes because it has to be explicitly said in the Bible to make the connection for you.
I never said this, I'm calling you to take account by what biblical standard are you trying to conflate Queen of Heaven with King of Kings in terms of biblical exaltation and what would be considered idolatrous in applying it to the subjects, which is Mary and Jesus. One is stated in the Bible for pagan worship, one isn't. This is acting under the purview of scripture being God breathed, and anything outside that you want to contend with is just skepticism of the religion that I'm not interested in engaging with. Whatever titles other religions deemed fit to place on false idols isn't my concern.

>>18240084
>One is stated in the Bible for pagan worship, one isn't.
And because one isn't, it's fine and of no concern? You take issue with the 'Queen of Heaven' because in the bible itself it was used for pagan worship so you conflate it with Mary and therefore it's bad altogether. However why stop there? Just because it's not said in the bible does not also make it bad. There are plenty of bad things not said in the bible that the bible would disagree with even if not implicitly said. If I called Ra 'King of Kings' (even though the title is for Jesus) and worshiped him like those in Jeremiah do with their 'Queen of Heaven' would I also not be committing idolatry in the eyes of Christians? But because that example is not said in the Bible it's of no issue then... I don't think you would agree.
>Whatever titles other religions deemed fit to place on false idols isn't my concern.
This whole topic was started on a title used by another religion and making the connection. Also I don't believe you either with that statement. You'd argue only Jesus is 'King of Kings' as any true Christian would and would take offense if someone called their "false" God 'King of Kings'.

>>18239499
Why in the structure of the church in Revelations and the Epistles is there no top Bishop? Why is the organization roughly somewhere between the Anglicans and the Eastern Orthodox?

Revelation 19:16: On his robe and on his thigh he has a name inscribed, “King of kings and Lord of lords.”

>>18240099
Because the point of contention was Mary in the first place, with being called "Queen of Heaven". This is how this all started. We were dissecting Catholic dogma and how it relates to what was depicted in The Bible in regard to paganism. Specifically, the issue was with Catholicism and how they were going beyond scripture and even incorporating dubious aspects under the guise of Christianity. External examples of "Ishtar" is just another consequence of pagan worship for female figures, but in regard to "Queen of Heaven", Catholics are using the same text that speaks out against it to apply it to a figure that's depicted in The Bible. That is the main point of the issue, not combing through the history of the world to discuss what is and isn't idolatry.

>>18239486
I mean, Ishtar literally is the Queen of Heaven. She seduced Yahweh, the war god of the Israelites, among whom she was known as Asherah. The Jews don't like to admit that their God got dommed by an ancient Sumerian slut, but that's just how it is.

>>18240135
>Because the point of contention was Mary in the first place, with being called "Queen of Heaven". This is how this all started.
No the point of contention was here >>18239486.
Anyway, titles are just titles. Just because it can be associated with some retarded God in another religion doesn't matter and "isn't your concern" ( which you actually agreed with here >>18240084 )
hence why I kept making the comparison to 'King of King's as that title is used in other religions and that doesn't make it automatically idolatrous. You're contention was that the name is the same to the idolatry happening in Jeremiah 7 when the context says it was a whole another God they were worshiping who had that name. The 'Queen of Heaven' connection is only a connection in title only. It isn't the same God the pagans were worshiping in Jeremiah 7. The Catholics don't even view Mary as a God (inb4 yes they do cuz i said so). You would have a point if they did view Mary as a God and used that title.

>>18239947
he is also called king of the jews according to sources
>After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi from the east came to Jerusalem and asked, “Where is the one who has been born (((king of the Jews?))) We saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him.”

Mathew 2:2
>=="Pilate also wrote an inscription and put it on the cross. It read, 'Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews.'

John 19:19

>>18239455
I wouldn't be surprised that her addition created a terrible rift in communication, as there is a competition between at least 4 main separate entities. So depends what you refer to corruption - could be legitimate fuckery or getting conflated with another entity.

>>18239487
Probably because it wasn't an actual thing so maybe the subject never came up to address it. Otherwise he would've spoken to a heavenly mother. If there is nothing to address, then he doesn't need to say anything.

I have nothing to do with you.

And its also a very likely chance that the female never existed and it was either
>personification of something like alcohol and drugs
>one male bottomed during a "sexual" encounter
>embodiment of venus which is flipped down compared to the rest of the planets
>all things combined and the new positioning of venus allowed for an easy hijacking of all manner of rituals, and weaponizing sexuality even more so

Well, honestly, talk amongst yourselves now

>>18235588
Jesus didn't speak clearly on a lot of things. Often intentionally.

>>18240163
See >>18240134 title is specifically from Revelation.

>>18240160
You are Specifically supposed to called Jesus "King of Kings" as depicted in Revelation 19:16. You are specifically not supposed to have a "Queen of Heaven" also described in Jeremiah 44:17-25. You are required to called Jesus King of Kings (Rev19:16). You are not allowed to have a "Queen of Heaven" (Jer 7:18). Pope Pius XII declared in Ad Caeli Reginam infallibly btw, that Mary was "Queen of Heaven" the RCC fucking btfo. Simple as.

>>18240224
We're not expecting some Momo autism explicitly outlining how many times a day Mary is to be thanked out loud and when, just something a bit more tangible that wouldn't require Marian theologians to tease out from references to the ark of the covenant in the OT

>>18240273
I just fail to understand why the RCC insists on Mary worship. Like why? Such a weird hill to die on.

>>18239500
The whole “Queen of Heaven” thing is explicitly denounced throughout the OT though, so it’s not exactly some random term. It’s like if the Pope made some new post in the church called “The Devil” and explained it by saying “ no we mean some other ‘The Devil’, no relation.”

>>18240326
Far too late to walk it back without appearing like clowns, let alone the damage it would do with the Marian devotees.

>>18235444
What grounds were there back then to declare the Assumption of Mary as a mandatory dogma? Was it simply a case of what the majority of the church believed at the time, especially its clergy? What about those who dissented? How long did it take to get every clergyman to agree with the dogma? How long did anybody hold out from accepting it? Does the Roman Catholic Church today acknowledge that some past Catholics in decent to good standing did not hold to the idea?

>>18240326
Softening people up for the antichrist, which is going to come in the form of a goddess

>>18240377
Like the Jew's totally different Jesus of Nazareth who is boiling in excrement in the Talmud?

>>18241005
This is why they think he is burning in feces.

The claim of a virgin birth lacks credibility and may stem from an attempt to cover an illegitimate conception.

Portraying Jesus as a faithful fulfiller of Torah overlooks evidence that he was a rebellious student who rejected rabbinic authority and turned to idolatry.

Attributing miracles to divine power is unconvincing when they can be explained as sorcery learned in Egypt.

The Gospel narrative of an unjust Roman crucifixion ignores the legitimate Jewish trial and execution for sorcery and leading Israel astray.

The success of Jesus' disciples in spreading his message appears overstated, given accounts of their incompetence and defeats in rabbinic debates.

Assertions of Jesus' resurrection and eternal victory are undermined by traditions depicting his spirit admitting divine punishment for mocking the Sages.

These are the points you need to address.

>>18241019
>The claim of a virgin birth lacks credibility and may stem from an attempt to cover an illegitimate conception
Now I know where Pantera Anon got his narrative from.

>>18241005
There was a sorcerer who turned the grace of God into the patron of a pimp with a scat fetish. There were no sewers to wash away the filth, because all of the shit was consumed by the patron of the pimp. He thought it would not defile him, and so, It boiled around his heart, and none of the fields were fertilized.

>>18241019
Wait so the official Jewish position is all of Jesus's works are real, but they were bad because he criticized the Jews? Fucking kek.

>>18240408
>>18240469
I cannot comprehend how people are Roman Catholic. It blows the mind.

>>18235588
Oh, like Sola Scriptura?

James has a book on Mary.

File: images (96).jpg (44 KB, 559x549)

44 KB JPG

>>18240326
Every Apostolic Church does it. The Orthodox do it even more during the Hours and Liturgy. The Reformers also initially didn't deny the importance of Mary. It was a later evolution, which shows how schism and heresy build on themselves. Note that the groups that sent the divinity of Christ stem from the branch that began by denying the Body and Blood and the Theotokos.

>>18241435
The Hail Mary prayer used by Lutherans, Anglicans, and Eastern Orthodox doesn't call her Queen of Heaven.

>>18241435
>Muh early prayer
>Source: Some words written on Egyptian toilet paper that is (((100 percent true)))

>>18241435
>>18241465
See this post: >>18237483 Ave Maria prayer is from 1050 AD.

>>18241435
The combined Lutheran and Anglican Churches in the late 1500s consisted of the vast majority of Latin bishops and parishioners. Technically speaking, the Pope is the schismatic not the Reformation, as if you had all the Apostolic Bishops in 1550ish have a Synod the Protestants would have had the majority.

>>18241478
Pope had declared the Execrabilis in the lead up to this so councils no longer had decision making powers. RCC has been 100% in the wrong since 1460 when it decided that suddenly the Pope could override ecumenical councils.

>>18237483
>Sub tuum praesidium from 250
>The Papyrus No. 470, containing a substantial portion of the prayer was dated initially to the 3rd or 4th century; later dated as late as the 9th century A.D. The dating of the Papyrus remains uncertain.[1]
Do you have something more secure?

>>18241570
Sub tuum praesidium like the Ave Maria, aren't the subject at issue. Anglicans, the various Lutherans, and the five or so Orthodox communions all use both. Issue is Queen of Heaven.

Stop praying to dead people. Simple

>>18241435
>Every Apostolic Church does it.
If a teaching not supported/found during the apostolic age then it isn't apostolic.

>>18241650
Noooo but prior to Vatican II we received communion on the tongue. I don't care that the last super in the Bible depicts communion being received on the hand reeeeeee.

>>18241646
The Saints are alive in Heaven anon.

>>18241794
Don't care, I've never once asked a saint anything in the form of prayer, always Christ, and it hasn't failed me. Stop praying to dead people

>>18241650
Saint Justin Martyr and Saint Irenaeus of Lyon mention the Theotokos as the New Eve. Irenaeus was taught by Saint Polycarp who was taught by Saint John.

The Protorvangelium is from second century, probably not that long after the Gospel of John. And ancient sources didn't dismiss that Saint James had been involved in at least some of its composition.

Irenaeus also speaks of child baptism and virtually all the Fathers reference Baptism and the Eucharist as efficacious. Origen's argument from the Alexandria See for infant baptism is literally: "since we all agree everyone has done this since the Apostles, let us continue."

>>18241883
Theotokos just literally means 'God-bearer'. And during the time it was about the nature of Jesus' nature, not really Mary.

>Irenaeus also speaks of child baptism
He actually doesn't. He believed that Jesus being born and endured various phases of life he sanctified said phases of life. That's why he declaired that Jesus was over 50 yo according to apostolic tradition which is a lie.

>Eucharist as efficacious
>Mistaken every non-catholic for methodists and zwingli

>Origen's argument from the Alexandria See for infant baptism
Virtually all non-catholic accept IB except for Baptists. Alexandria was the exception when it comes to the pedobaptism because of a plague that effected the area, while places like Rome protested again the practice. And apostolic texts expected confessions accompanied with confession which infants can't preform and is against Christ's view of child innocence.
Also
>Origen is apostolic

>Protorvangelium
Gnostic. Not worth acknowledging unless Catholic/EO are willing to confess their hidden beliefs. Like the idea Peter was hung upside down in Rome came from the Acts of Peter which is a gnostic text.

File: kekku.jpg (11 KB, 225x225)

11 KB JPG

>>18235444
The funny thing is that this is all just church politics. Someone probably claimed to find mary's grave and caused an uproar because catholics couldn't help themselves but worship it. So eventually they're like "ermmm ackshully mary went to heaven in body too."

Enoch is Mary

>>18235444
You’re jewish

>>18242021
You literally worship a Queen of Heaven. You are literally who the book of Jeremiah says God hates. There is an entire book of the Bible about hating you.

>>18242005
Cool head canon.

>>18242005
There is a tomb of the virgin Mary in Jerusalem. It is just empty. Her being Bodily assumed into heaven isn't that weird, same thing happened to Elijah, and he isn't supposed to be worshipped.

File: what a leap.jpg (20 KB, 736x395)

20 KB JPG

>>18237144
Mary: I am a servant, I am a handmaid, I am a servant of God, I am human, I am like a Levite. I carried God's presence (Theotokos) under God's command. I am a servant. Here I am, servant!
Romans: Hey, that means she was immaculate from birth, the eternal queen, and a co-redemptrix. She didn't need God to be saved because she was already sinless. All humans are sinners, but not Mary.

>>18237935
God was especially mad about the Asherah pole for the same reason he was mad about Israel sacrificing to idols.

In the latter case, they had confused him with false images or gone after strange gods.
While in the first case, they had confused the real Queen of Heaven (Mary) with a pole.

See, the real Queen of Heaven is a living woman.
And the real God is a living God.

>>18242870
Are you asserting that Mary preexisted her conception?

>>18242909
No. This is nothing more than a rhetorical question, because prot polemics are entirely characterized by hostility and bad faith.
I can posit obviously untrue insinuations about your position too.

For example?
Are you arguing that God did not know of Mary before he formed her in the womb?

She is the true Queen of Heaven, which is why Asherah worship was insulting.
God does not experience time linearly in the same way you do, confusing your own limited perspective with God's is another manifestation of concupiscence.

>>18242929
This is definitely worse than I even expected your response to be. I can't seriously believe you are being sincere. You have to be a troll.

>>18242986
No, this is how Catholics actually think.
>She is the true Queen of Heaven, which is why Asherah worship was insulting.
Lmao what do you even say to looney tunes shit like this?

>>18242929
>Are you arguing that God did not know of Mary before he formed her in the womb?
If God created Mary he knew how he would form her, and thus she didn't preexist her formation in the womb. Very key as she isn't God the son and didn't exist in the beginning. She was made and begotten, no begotten not made. You are saying she was either begotten not made (So a literal goddess), or perhaps made in the beginning or at some early point.

>>18243002
I am just so confused by this. The a major point of book of Jeremiah, and a significant amount of Kings is specifically about how there is no Queen of Heaven, and that it is literally the same as worshipping Baal or Moloch. I just cannot comprehend how this is doctrine in the Roman Church. The idea that she is like the Word and preexists her birth is bonkers and seems to be literally exactly the criticism is Jeremiah.

>>18243006
No, that is a strawman you want to foist unto my argument.

Mary is not a goddess, and is not worshipped.
A woman is the Queen of Heaven, and the mother of God. She is Queen of Heaven because she is the mother of God, because Jesus inherits the kingship of David and rules the kingdom of heaven.
Because David's mother was called Queen, and Jesus rules heaven, Jesus's mother is called the Queen of Heaven.

>>18243061
>she preexists her birth
There is no dogma or doctrine anywhere in the Catholic faith which teaches this.
You give all protestants a bad name through your faithless pretense and repeated lies.

Not only are you scripturally illiterate, you are currently comparing your own spiritual mother (the spiritual mother of ALL true Christians) to an Asherah pole as if she were an idol.
That is insulting not only to her, but to Jesus. YOU are the one treating her as an idol, not the Catholics.

The fact that you would confuse the true central rite of Christian worship with intercessory prayer betrays the fact that you have no true worship.
You have never known it, and this is why you are unable to differentiate between the latria St Augustine himself spoke of in Contra Faustus (in which he obliterated the claim of the gnostic Manichean heretic that Catholics worship saints and are idolators) which is marked by the altar, and the dulia he likewise outlines.

>>18243244
Was David both Man and God too? Because Jesus was from his line, they're the exact same and their roles were the exact same? We don't need a spiritual mother, and neither does Jesus, because He can handle things just fine on His own.

>>18243244
You are such a pompous idiot. Even the Vatican is walking this back as it's so laughable. Mary isn't a Coredemptrix, yet you are asserting she is. Because you are just mincing words to try and keep your ego. She isn't. God the son, Jesus is the only Mediator between God the Father. Anything else is having an extra God. You are no different than Eternal Functional Subordination of the Son protestants. Pius XII was wrong. But he declared himself infallible so Leo can't change course and is doing backflips to fix this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lg4S1VYac-Y&t=74


There's no such thing as "Protestant worship," since there are huge variations in how Protestants approach Sunday services. But one area upon which Protestants are nearly unanimous is in their denial of the sacrificial nature of the Mass. But what does omitting sacrifice from Sunday do to our ability to call Protestant services "worship"?

>You gotta love how the catholic definition of worship is so precise that you can execute religious gestures that do not even qualify as worship and protestants have a definition of worship that is so broad, it's something you can do by accident.

TLDW
most evangelicals think teaching or preaching is the central act of worship
it's not though, because to apostolic Christians the Eucharist is the source and summit of the worshipful faith because it is the Son being offered to the Father

>>18243278
At least I'm not the one jerking off imagining a decomposing corpse and crowing about it on a hentai website, calling other Christians the Synagogue of Satan.

You know that Mary as coredemptrix was never actually official Catholic doctrine.
I never mentioned this private devotional title some people use, but you did because you're desperate to misrepresent what I'm saying and confuse or otherwise derail the discussion.

Despite knowing better, having this explained to you multiple times, you come right back and pretend you've never heard the truth the next day. Day after day.
This is because you're a born liar; you take after your father, the father of lies.

>she isn't
The human blood Christ shed on the cross, his precious blood, is her blood too.
His entire body was gotten from her.
It is her fiat, her freely given consent to the will of God as spoken to the angel, that reverses the disobedience of Eve.

this is OP btw

>Truly poetic how Pius XII demonic body swelled up and popped with inner putridity. The intense cope about this shows how the RCC lies through it's teeth and was, through miraculous intervention, shown to be a Synagogue of Satan.

https://desuarchive.org/his/thread/18232386/

yes, this so called "protestant's" idea of a miracle is simply natural putrefaction
he truly does believe the Holy Spirit would supernaturally desecrate a corpse, that the fruit of the Holy Spirit would be flies and corruption

this is an unholy inversion of how real Christians contemplate and relate to the divine energies
while Catholics say the bodies of saints are miraculously preserved by the power of the Holy Spirit, this profligate heretic professes that the same Holy Spirit instead corrupts and degrades the image of God in which men are made

that's how they think about God, that's what they feel and say, because in truth that is the current state of their heart, their spiritual sickness is in extremis and this is the ultimate fruit of their personal iniquity

when someone speaks about miracles like this, it is because they have never experienced one
if they did, they would have far more reverence for this work of God

>>18243298
>You know that Mary as coredemptrix was never actually official Catholic doctrine.
So she isn't essential to redemption then...

>>18243329
Pius XII is 99.9999% enjoying hell anon.

>>18243335
Is the incarnation essential to redemption?
Because the matrix of that very incarnation belongs to her alone.

If the incarnation was essential for redemption, and Mary is essential for the incarnation, it follows necessarily that the redeeming blood of Christ shed for the whole world has her human essence to it in addition to that of the fullness of divinity.

Both Christ's natural humanity and divinity (of which his person is fully constituted not merely in part regarding either, but instead he is fully man and fully God) are essential to the ultimate reconciliation of God and man.
You're probably one of those weirdos who don't celebrate Christmas.

File: IMG_2843.jpg (117 KB, 350x700)

117 KB JPG

>>18243364
Abraham, Jacob, David, etc, have to have existed for her to exist. You don't pray to anyone but God (in his three forms). You can ask for intercession, but it's God's decision alone. And only God the son Jesus Mediates between you and God the Father.

>>18242929
God knew Jeremiah before he was formed in the womb. Jeremiah 1:5. Did he also preexist?

>>18243397
So you're arguing that it's ultimately Eve who is essential for redemption.

Try and think critically about this, I've already explained to you that the fall of man is due to Eve's disobedience, while the new age marked by the coming of Christ began with Mary's reversal of Eve's disobedience through her fiat as witnessed by the angel.

It's the *saints* who offer the prayers of the faithful as incense before the throne of heaven.

>Abraham, Jacob, David, etc, have to have existed for her to exist
But God chose Mary specifically for the honor of being his own mother.
What this means; she *personally* is essential to the very incarnate person of the Son, the will of God has been worked through her.

There are any number of women who descended from Abraham.
That doesn't make them special in the way Mary certainly is.
God didn't choose them, he chose Mary.
Just as he didn't choose just anywhere for his presence to dwell, he chose the tabernacle. He didn't just choose any nation for Mary, as if anyone born of Abraham would do, he chose Judah.

He didn't force her, otherwise there would be no antithesis for man's disobedience. The word "obedience" has no meaning if God forces people to obey.

It's like pulling teeth arguing with these fertility idol weirdos. Their whole basis is basically saying "You need Mary". That's what it really comes down to. Christ isn't good enough, because without Mary, your prayers just aren't strong enough to reach Him. It's completely fucking ridiculous.

>>18243431
I want you to explain to me the necessity of Mary. Why do I need her as an intercessor? What happens if I just go directly to Christ in my heart? Is what he'll return not as strong because I didn't check in with Mary first? Will he just straight up refuse me?

>>18243411
Mary is the mother of God.
If you cannot admit this, you are a heretic who denies the fullness and unconfused nature of Christ's personal deity and humanity.

I never said Mary pre-existed creation.
That is a lie of your own imagining that you are trying to spit into my mouth.

File: Humiliation ritual.jpg (183 KB, 1080x794)

183 KB JPG

>>18243433
It makes sense when you realize a lot of pagan religions have both a Mother and Father figure God. Catholics felt they had to appeal to pagans, thus all their religious trinkets, mantras, idols, and goddess.

>>18243437
Cool strawman.
Until you can quote me a specific line from the catechism of the Catholic church it will remain that way.

The grace, peace, and good will which Christ's incarnation won for the whole of mankind, which is poured out through the Holy Spirit, was channeled through her.
That is why the angel hailed her, calling her "full of grace".

To be filled entirely with grace, who else in the history of man could claim this?

>>18243461
So, you're basically saying she's a necessity for prayer. Also, why can't you answer my questions? What happens if I just pray directly to Christ?

>>18243448
>>18243433
You'll note that as soon as the shills are obliterated in actual debate they immediately pivot to speaking past their opponent.

They aren't here to have a real discussion, their entire mission is one of antipathy and empty noise making.
These posts are nothing more than a concession of defeat.

>>18243463
You have based every argument in this thread on strawmen, just as your house is built on sand.

>>18243466
>>18243468
I ask a simple and direct question and all I'm getting is "Oh gawd, you lost. Get over it already". Why do we need to pray to Mary? What happens if I don't pray to her and just to Christ/ You were fine spewing out text to justify her, but when you come across a line of questioning that makes you uncomfortable, you suddenly aren't as eager to offer rebuttals?

>>18243431
Well you need God to create Adam first, so you need God.
>>18243446
Mary is the Mother of God. Why would I be unable to say that? When God the son was begotten she was who was chosen to be his mother. Why would that make me pray to her? Am I supposed to pray to Moses, Elijah, and Abraham also?

>>18243468
Answer these yes and no questions:
>do you have to pray to Mary to be saved?
>did Mary take any action prior to her birth in events in scripture, excluding times where she is mentioned in prophecy?
>Does Mary have agency over who is or is not saved independent of God's?
Thanks.

To be "full of grace", as the angel hails Mary, means to be filled entirely with grace.

And but one grace, or several?
No, the fullness of grace in every kind.
In short, all graces.

Since grace is superabundant, and Mary's proverbial cup is filled to the brim, it must follow that with her fiat these came in that very same fullness into the world through the incarnate person of her son.
And which, through the shedding of his blood and the pouring out of the Holy Spirit which he has sent, are dispensed to men of all kinds. She witnesses all of this.

>>18243475
I don't have to entertain rhetorical questions about things the RCC has never taught.
Until you can cite the catechism, you are wasting everyone's time and creating confusion.

But you won't, since creating confusion and wasting time is your main task here.

>>18243477
The litany of saints.

Yes, you can petition the unceasing prayers of all saints.
Because they are spiritually alive in Christ.

>>18243491
And who exactly made Mary full of grace?

>>18243491
>I don't have to entertain rhetorical questions about things the RCC has never taught.
So, you're blindly following these dogmas that don't even have an explanation for their necessity in the first place? You don't think that's a red flag in of itself, and that maybe the whole prominence put on Mary isn't exactly originating from the best of intentions? Is it just a coincidence that "Queen of Heaven" is bestowed on Mary, when the Bible itself also uses the name in conjunction with pagan worship?

I'll actually help you out here. Catholic belief is that the "communion of saints" can bolster prayers, because it's stated in The Bible that "praying for one another" is effective. However, what happens when you charge Mary into this superwoman figure and she can bolster your prayer? She's "Queen of Heaven", wouldn't logic follow that her intercession would be "Super effective"? It would, wouldn't it? The problem then becomes, why even go to other saints in the first place? Superwoman Mary is the closest to Christ, so why add the 1 percent of communal prayer to the already 99 percent that Mary can provide? She already has her own special prayer. The communion of prayers is now made redundant, because Mary is always the one you'll go to.

>>18243479
Can these get answers please. I know you have read this post.

>>18243500
>It would, wouldn't it? The problem then becomes, why even go to other saints in the first place? Superwoman Mary is the closest to Christ, so why add the 1 percent of communal prayer to the already 99 percent that Mary can provide? She already has her own special prayer. The communion of prayers is now made redundant, because Mary is always the one you'll go to.
Actually my number one question about Catholicism is why they even bother to do anything but pray to Mary. She clearly is the key thing, holding a similar role to Jesus in an Evangelical setting, so why pray to anyone else?

>>18243509
That's kind of my point, because from what I understand, Catholics put priority of Mary's prayer effectiveness due to her relation with Christ. The closer you are = the more effective your prayer is. With all the titles they threw on her, how could anyone not think she would be the go to? She pretty much is the go to, she's the only one of the saints with a special prayer as far as I know.

>>18243479
>>18243505
Your mode of discourse is nearly identical to that of the Pharisees and Sadducees who sought to entrap Jesus through false questions such as, is it lawful to pay taxes to Rome and, in the resurrection what becomes of the widowed wife of seven brothers.

It is no coincidence, but a discernable pattern you have repeated over and over again ITT.

>do you have to pray to Mary to be saved
Prayer is not what saves you.

>did Mary take any action prior to her birth in events in scripture, excluding times where she is mentioned in prophecy
That's a dumb question.
Might as well ask if Adam helped create the world.

>Does Mary have agency over who is or is not saved independent of God's?
Christ has ultimate judicial agency over the souls of all men, while his mother pleads with him to exercise mercy in judgement.

When someone has sinned mortally against God, thus incurring his wrath, she personally intervenes for them before the mercy seat.
Penitentially, she serves as an advocate for those seeking temporal reconciliation to Christ's body. Just as Bathsheba advocated for Adonijah before Solomon.

All these questions are rhetorical. Images you'd like to project on Catholicism, rather than true fidelity to anything they teach.
There is no chance that you heard anything like these from actual Catholics you've talked with.

>>18243517
Give those yes or no answers. They aren't hard questions.

>>18243517
>There is no chance that you heard anything like these from actual Catholics you've talked with
NTA but the only catholics I know are filipinos that think st. augustine is a city in florida lol

>>18243521
I am 100% sure if I had the Pope ITT he would easily answer no to all three. Can't say the same about the majority of Roman Catholics.

>>18243500
>Catholic belief is that the "communion of saints" can bolster prayers, because it's stated in The Bible that "praying for one another" is effective. However, what happens when you charge Mary into this superwoman figure and she can bolster your prayer? She's "Queen of Heaven", wouldn't logic follow that her intercession would be "Super effective"? It would, wouldn't it? The problem then becomes, why even go to other saints in the first place?

Personal devotion.
Believe it or not, the Catholics have personal relationships with different saints.
Often it's as simple as seeing parallels between things both parties went through in the struggle.

The communion of saints doesn't "bolster" prayer, it is the boundary between the sacred and the profane.
The prayers of the saints are like a shield.

As they pray for you, so too should you pray for others.
Think about it like fighting in a shield wall formation, you don't use your shield to protect yourself primarily. You protect the man to your immediate left with it instead, and the man to your right protects you.

Or how sniper teams work in pairs. A shooter, and a spotter.
While one is focused on the target, the other remains vigilant to dangers or developments he might not be able to detect. Kind of like someone delegated to an overwatch position.

>>18243528
What would the point of asking other saints to intercede if Mary is 100x more effective? Actually why do anything but say the Angelus in a room 24/7?

>>18243528
James 5:16
>The prayer of a righteous person is powerful and effective
Who is more righteous than the sinless Queen of Heaven? Only Jesus Christ and God Himself would be. See what I mean by redundancy.

>>18243535
>>18243536
You're thinking about this life (the saints are alive) as a cost benefit analysis for minmaxxing your vidya Oblivion build.

That's real cringe btw.
Not organic at all.

You seem to have some kind of weird idea that the body of Christ is a machine or math equation.

When you wash yourself, do you only wash your head and neck, or do you wash your ass crack and taint as well?
And what's more, do you wash your legs before or after your nether regions?
Do you still expect mommy to do that for you all by yourself?

Maybe you get the idea.
When you're a little baby, your mother cleans you up and changes your diapers.
She might ask your father not to be so harsh on you from time to time, or conversely tell him he should not spare the rod.

But as you grow older, your relationship with other men takes a degree of precedence, just as Christ himself left his mother to walk with his apostles.
You don't live in your mother's basement forever, but never forget to pay her a visit because she changed your diapers.

>>18243565
I don't believe that Mary is a co-redemptrix, and neither does the Pope, so you are just arguing with yourself.

>>18243565
I get that you thought that was really profound but it doesn't answer anything the other anon was talking about.

>>18243565
Kind of weird you are defending worshipping the Virgin Mary and talking about mommies all the time. Is the Mary fixation related to some kind of large scale Mommy issue in the Catholic community? Like it's being driven by the laity and openly opposed by the Pope so I am curious.

>>18243565
Every post of yours is just raising more questions and confusing beliefs than actually answering anything. The Damon Lindelof of Catholic apologetics.

What exactly are you trying to say here? That because Mary fits a maternity role, she's the more approachable figure and helps us to get to Christ? That may be true for a majority of Catholics, but that doesn't mean it's doctrinally and spiritually sound.

For example, imagine being sacramentally ordained by a literal saint and not having some feelings of affection or devotion for the man.

Or belonging to a mendicant order instituted by and living according to the rule of a particular saint, and regarding this person with detached emotionless disregard.

Maybe this makes sense for faceblind autists, and truly Christian faceblind autists are out there indeed, but for everyone else these degrees of relation are very meaningful.

It's a way of showing respect for those who have come before, laid the foundations for your own work.

>>18243596
More flowery prose dancing around the point.

>>18243596
You still aren't supposed to directly pray to them. You can ask them to intercede and join you in prayer, but not pray to them. That is weird and Hindu.

>>18243584
No, I thought it was very simple and easy to understand actually.
Even slightly humorous in it's vulgar crassness.
Which is appropriate for this setting.

Your reaction though, that one really takes the cake.

>>18243588
You cannot define worship in any coherent way howbeit.

>>18243590
Mary's role as the mother of all faithful makes her uniquely more approachable and comprehensible than other saints because everyone you ever met has a mother, while the aspects of other saints aren't so universal.

So yeah, in terms of being someone who can efficiently introduce absolutely everyone to the person and nature of our incarnate Lord there is no one better equipped for that task.

>>18243611
https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/it/bollettino/pubblico/2025/11/04/0829/01462.html#inglese

>>18243614
Given the necessity of explaining Mary’s subordinate role to Christ in the work of Redemption, it is always inappropriate to use the title “Co-redemptrix” to define Mary’s cooperation. This title risks obscuring Christ’s unique salvific mediation and can therefore create confusion and an imbalance in the harmony of the truths of the Christian faith, for “there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). When an expression requires many, repeated explanations to prevent it from straying from a correct meaning, it does not serve the faith of the People of God and becomes unhelpful. In this case, the expression “Co-redemptrix” does not help extol Mary as the first and foremost collaborator in the work of Redemption and grace, for it carries the risk of eclipsing the exclusive role of Jesus Christ — the Son of God made man for our salvation, who was the only one capable of offering the Father a sacrifice of infinite value — which would not be a true honor to his Mother. Indeed, as the “handmaid of the Lord” (Lk 1:38), Mary directs us to Christ and asks us to “do whatever he tells you” (Jn 2:5).

>>18243619
The Second Vatican Council’s terminology regarding mediation primarily refers to Christ; it sometimes also refers to Mary, but in a clearly subordinate manner.[49] In fact, the Council preferred to use a different terminology for her: one centered on cooperation[50] or maternal assistance.[51] The Council’s teaching clearly formulates the perspective of Mary’s maternal intercession, using expressions such as “manifold intercession” and “maternal help.”[52] These two aspects together define the specific nature of Mary’s cooperation in Christ’s action through the Spirit. Strictly speaking, we cannot talk of any other mediation in grace apart from that of the incarnate Son of God.[53] Therefore, we must always recall, and never obscure, the Christian conviction that “must be firmly believed as a constant element of the Church’s faith” regarding “the truth of Jesus Christ, Son of God, Lord and only Savior, who through the event of his incarnation, death, and resurrection has brought the history of salvation to fulfillment, and which has in him its fullness and center.”[54]

>>18243624
53. No human person — not even the Apostles or the Blessed Virgin — can act as a universal dispenser of grace. Only God can bestow grace,[134] and he does so through the humanity of Christ[135] since “the man Christ possessed supreme fullness of grace, as being the only-begotten of the Father.”[136] Although the Blessed Virgin Mary is preeminently “full of grace” and “Mother of God,” she, like us, is an adopted daughter of the Father and, as Dante Alighieri writes, “daughter of your Son.”[137] She cooperates in the economy of salvation by a derived and subordinate participation. Therefore, any expression about her “mediation” in grace must be understood as a distant analogy to Christ and his unique mediation.[138]

>>18243629
c) We must understand Mary’s mediation not as a complementary aid that would enable God to work fully, with greater richness, and more beauty; instead, her mediation must be understood in such a way that “it neither takes away anything from nor adds anything to the dignity and efficacy of Christ, the one Mediator.”[167] When explaining Mary’s mediation, it must be emphasized that God alone is our Savior and that it is God alone who applies the merits of Jesus Christ, the only merits that are necessary and entirely sufficient for our justification. Mary does not supplant the Lord in any action he has not already done (i.e., she does not take anything away from him) nor does she supplement him (i.e., she does not add to him). Since she does not add anything to Christ’s salvific mediation in the communication of grace, she should not be regarded as the instrumental agent of that free bestowal.[168] If she accompanies an action of Christ — by virtue of his own work — she should never be thought of as being parallel to him. Rather, being associated with Christ, Mary is the recipient of a gift from her Son that places her beyond herself, a gift that enables her to accompany the Lord’s work with her maternal character. We return, then, to the safest point, which is Mary’s contribution in preparing us to receive God’s sanctifying grace; in that context, one can indeed think of her as acting to contribute something of her own insofar as she “can cause some disposition”[169] to others. For “it belongs to the highest power to reach the last end, while the lower powers contribute to the attainment of that last end, by preparing one for it.”[170]

>>18243611
>So yeah, in terms of being someone who can efficiently introduce absolutely everyone to the person and nature of our incarnate Lord there is no one better equipped for that task.
1 Timothy 2:5
>"For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus."
Jesus is already the main point of entry to get to God at all, but now we have to add Mary in to even get to Jesus? Do you see how your logic ensares you? You ARE arguing for the necessity of Mary, even when you said earlier:
>I don't have to entertain rhetorical questions about things the RCC has never taught.
Do you see what happens when you start playing away games and go off the reservation from scripture? You start to lose sight of the truth. I don't even blame you, honestly, your own church has set up Mary in a position to naturally lead to these kinds of self-deceptive conclusions. This is the problem of bestowing Mary with these honors and placing emphasis on her in the first place.

>>18243614
You're not telling me anything I didn't know about already.

I have never used the term coredemptrix, or posited that Mary offered her own son to God at the foot of the cross.
Unlike some who have, and I don't really hold it against them even though I disagree.

Since that would entail her taking on the priestly role in sacrifice that Jesus alone has.
What's more, the church has never officially taught this either.

This document isn't even banning the use of the title coredemptrix either, just instructing people not to promulgate or publicly.
"Mediatrix of all Graces" however, that's something I can comprehend and deliberate intellectually as being edifying doctrine. To my knowledge though, the magisterium has not officially endorsed this title.

>>18243632
If you read the link I posted for subtext you get the reality: the vast majority of Catholicism is in Latin America, the Philippines, and other developing countries which have massive cults of Mary and they are trying to keep those people in the train without it going off the rails. The RCC's lay community is globally probably 90% heretics who truly believe Mary is the Mediator, and they are desperately trying to keep the train on the tracks.

>>18243641
Some titles, such as “Mediatrix of All Graces,” have limits that do not favor a correct understanding of Mary’s unique place. In fact, she, the first redeemed, could not have been the mediatrix of the grace that she herself received. This is not a minor point since it reveals something central: even in Mary’s case, the gift of grace precedes her and comes from the absolutely free initiative of the Trinity in view of Christ’s merits. Like all of us, she did not merit her justification by a preceding action of her own,[171] nor did she do so by any subsequent action.[172] Even in Mary’s case, her friendship with God by grace is always freely bestowed. Her cherished figure is the supreme testimony of the believing receptivity of one who, more than anyone else, opened herself with docility and complete trust to Christ’s work, and who, at the same time, stands as the greatest sign of the transforming power of that grace

>>18243641
Virgin Romecuck
>>18243646
Chad Protestant teaching him about his own religion.

>>18243632
>Jesus is already the main point of entry to get to God at all, but now we have to add Mary in to even get to Jesus?

You might not be considerate of the fact that some people consider the incarnation itself to be a lie.
In fact the denial of the body of Christ in the consecrated sacrament is truly ancient and goes back to the first generational of the church, those were called gnostics then but now we have other names for them.

The body of Christ demands an explanation, and it is found in his most holy mother.

>1 Timothy 2
This is not anything the church disputes.
In so far as all graces are present in the body of Christ, and that Virgin Mary hailed full of grace bore and birthed that same body, she is the mediating channel of those graces to the whole world.

Mary in fact is necessary for the incarnation, as necessary for that as the Tabernacle was necessary for the law of Moses.

>>18243653
>dude if I copy paste from an encyclical that they already read it looks like we're winning

sad really, how you feel the need to fellate this bottom of the barrel conduct

>>18243646
neither one of you are willing to actually discuss this topic
because you're propagandizing, not having dialogue

>>18243658
I am just so confused by why people can't just be normal about Mary, and compare her to other basket themed bearers of the lord, like Moses, perhaps Noah (both Arks are baskets in the Hebrew) and like someone Assumed into Heaven, like Elijah and Enoch?

>>18243658
No, because your premise hinges on the assumption that Jesus is unapproachable in the first place. What you're essentially arguing is that there is a deficiency for Jesus in how He can approach and draw people to Him, and that needs to be corrected with the intervention of Mary. I know you think it's innocent, because you're still trying to include Christ Himself, but that's functionally what your argument is stating.
John 12:32:
>“And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.”
You're essentially arguing against Jesus Himself, saying "No, you're too out there. We need to ease people in to you, because you're not enough on your own"

>>18243667
That quote specifically proves you didn't read it, as the encyclical specifically says the opposite of what you said. The obvious joke that poster was making is that like how Catholics are frequently criticized for being bad at reading the Bible, they also appear to be bad at reading papal documents.

>>18243658
Do you pray to the Tabernacle?

>we are chad, you are virgin
the sheer arrogance and egotism on display ITT by people pretending to be Protestants claiming to understand Catholicism while making egregious error after error

they wouldn't understand that virginity is a virtue, that the etymology of chad comes from cad

>>18243672
how about the bible itself as a vessel or repository witness

>>18243687
Come up with actual rebuttals, junior, instead of waddling in with shit in your diapers.

>>18243687
>how about the bible itself as a vessel or repository witness
Psalms imply the word itself of the Torah section is holy and to be worshipped.

>>18243683
In this case, the tabernacle signifies her body in the way she is referred to as it.
I wouldn't speculate how it relates to the soul.

It is God who is worshipped, and the tabernacle that is recognized as being sanctified and consecrated.
In a sense, sacred ground.

But the tabernacle is just a single representative facet or dimension of her real life, which is not that of an inanimate object or furniture but that of a living woman.

God commanded Moses to speak to a stone to draw water, but Moses struck it with a rod instead.
Mary is not a furniture. Catholics do not worship Mary, nor the tabernacle.
They recognize this person and that object as holy.

And this person as inteinsically being of unesteemably more importance and value to God than any mere object or idea.

Mary, as a person, is conceptually and really elevated over the tabernacle in as much as man is created in the image of God and animated by his breath. This mere epithet, by which the calling of Tabernacle becomes her not in totality but fraction compared to the body and soul in itself.

>>18243677
No one can approach Jesus without the Father drawing them first.
How you cannot see why the Virgin Mary of all saints is evangelically important is beyond my natural power to undo.

>>18243867
>How you cannot see why the Virgin Mary of all saints is evangelically important is beyond my natural power to undo.
Because she isn't, and what you tried to argue collapsed on itself, because it would mean admitting that Jesus has a deficiency that Mary needs to make up. Your last pathway to argue for Mary's necessity is no longer available.

But do you see how dangerous it is? You, without realizing it, inadvertently argued that Jesus was less than what He is, and that Mary had the ability to fill in for what He lacked. I realize that wasn't your intent, but your argument spoke for itself. This is what I'm trying to tell you, that this is the natural consequence of placing any kind of spiritual priority on anybody but The Father and The Son and The Holy Spirit. It's not irrational seething at Mary, it's to not lapse into self-deception and misjudgments, just like every other pagan worshiper when they engaged in false idols. It's spiritually dangerous, anon, and I wouldn't be trying to speak out against it if it wasn't.

>>18243867
Perhaps the theme with Mary, like the theme of the temple's veil are intended to be related. As in God the Son is incarnate from the virgin by his birth, so is general access to God born in a sense from the Holy of Holies where it, like a virgin mother, is opened by the veil ripping. Unrelated, but you don't worship the Temple, note Matthew 23-21-22. But also note the Altar is more precious than that upon it. So a hierarchy exists or is implied.

>>18243888
Jesus uses his apostles to spread the gospel.
That's not because of any deficiency on his part.
It's his choice to promulgate his message that way.
It's weird that you would think so negatively about this. That's because you are desperate to find any fault whatsoever in what I say that you invent it.

The holy virgin is a critical part of that message whether you like it or not.
Because it is because he took on the mortality of flesh through her that we can proclaim his death.

bump

>>18244163
Why do you insist on having an extra member of the trinity. Do you also pray to Paul?

What waifufaggotry does to a religion.

>>18244163
>The holy virgin is a critical part of that message whether you like it or not.
Why? After Mary fulfills her role of birthing Jesus, she doesn't really do much in Jesus's ministry, nor is anything she really said something believers take to heart like they would from the disciples. Do you want to go back to arguing that Mary is needed to reel in believers from all over, which again argues that Jesus isn't good enough to do that Himself?

>>18245986
The argument that it helps getting converts is in many ways an admission it isn't sound doctrine...

>>18245986
Do you want to continue disrespecting the apostles simply because Jesus chose them specifically to reel in believers and spread his gospel?

Dude who needs the apostles or Mary, anyways.
It's not like they're vital witnesses chosen by Jesus or anything.
Jesus just does everything himself, he doesn't even have messengers or a church with a specific mission to be carried out.

You have this strange idea that Mary is immediately disposable and should be ignored just as soon as she finished giving birth to Jesus, like she's nothing more than an artificial womb or surrogate.
Jesus told John at the *foot of the cross* that she was his own mother, and entrusted her to his care.

>nor is anything she really said something believers take to heart
Maybe you don't take it to heart.
But believers hold her fiat in very high regard.

>>18246111
>if doctrine is effective in converting people that means it must be false
top kek
the absolute state of heretic polemics

>>18247409
I think a major conflict within certain strains of Christianity is the simultaneous desire to venerate her, as she is the first apostle, and the desire to deny the existence of female apostles.

>>18247409
I'm sorry, but is Mary an apostle all of a sudden? Did she too also have miraculous powers to spread belief among the people, and was guided by the Holy Spirit to discern doctrines for the church? This is the problem with Mary worshipers: the idea they've built of her in their heads far exceeds any role she actually played within the ministry of Christ.

>>18247455
What defines apostle? Are we talking strict 12/70? Or like just them and people like Junia named by Paul as apostles? Is Augustine of Canterbury an Apostle?

>>18247455
When was the last time you even referred to her even in thought as most holy virgin?

Every time you tell someone Jesus is human and died for the sake of men, remind yourself to give thanks for Mary because she is the sole and privileged means by which Jesus took on this flesh.

Your denigrating attitude towards her, as if she is just some kind of window dressing to the gospel or superfluous, it's like you don't treat Jesus and his mother as if they're real living people but mental constructs.

>played
This is what I mean, you think of her as just a means to a single end. One which becomes superfluous and disposable as soon as it's task is completed. Like a candy wrapper you can throw away once you've taken the candy out.

Would you say the role your mother plays in your life ended with her giving birth to you, or you leaving her house to engage with your profession?
No, that's not accurate. In fact, far from being unimportant to Jesus' *earthly* ministry the very first miracle he worked in the course of that ministry was at her behest.

>the Holy Spirit
Glad you mentioned it.
Were you under the impression that all the grace Mary was supernaturally filled with simply abandoned her as soon as she gave birth?
Of course not, she was filled with grace for her entire life. An exemplary life.

>>18247455
>Did she too also have miraculous powers to spread belief among the people, and was guided by the Holy Spirit to discern doctrines for the church?
I mean, she gave birth to a God.

>>18247492
The ones ordained by Christ to spread the gospel with the aid of miracles and true discernment. It's like calling Mary Magdalene an apostle in the same framework. You can call both Marys disciples, I don't think there's a problem with that, but apostle is really just going overboard.
>>18247511
It's just non-stop babble from you. You can't give a straight refutation, just fall back to "Mary is just great, you fool. She's super duper awesome. We need her.". This is what happens when you go all in on a glorified fertility idol. You don't even know what's up and down anymore. Also:
>In fact, far from being unimportant to Jesus' *earthly* ministry the very first miracle he worked in the course of that ministry was at her behest.
See:
>>18235628
This is literally all Catholics have is the "Miracle at Cana" and they still get it wrong anyway. Embarrassing.
>>18247514
And?

>>18247565
Call the mother of God an idol one more time.
Go on, continue comparing her living person to an Asherah pole.

What could go wrong?

>babble
The only one scattered and confused in tongue is you, all the protestants are like that.
Scattered just like the ten tribes of Israel were, whose leadership separated themselves from the Temple of Jerusalem for political reasons and created false cults to keep their people away from the true Temple where true worship of God was carried out lawfully.

>>18247565
So the 70 or the 12?

>>18247598
>Call the mother of God an idol one more time. Go on, continue comparing her living person to an Asherah pole.
Are you implying that the statues of her are living?

>>18247598
Mary in of herself is not an evil figure. You know who turned her into a fertility idol? Catholics themselves. You have nobody else to blame, but yourselves, for allowing these honorifics and the dams being burst open to lead the way into outright pagan worship. Just look at you, she's the only one you even give a shit about. She's your goddess and Jesus Christ is just a secondary supplementary figure to exalt her even higher. You were arguing that Jesus needs Mary for things He can't do Himself. You're beyond confused, both spiritually and mentally.
>>18247603
Are we not all disciples of Christ?

>>18247610
I am asking about Apostles. Are they just the 12, the 70, just those plus people named by Paul, just specific individuals named as Saints (which can and do continue to occur), or anyone who spreads lots of the Gospel?

>>18247616
Apostle means "one who is sent" and all the ones you listed were fundamental in preaching to communities and establishing the foundations of the church. The difference being that the original 12 held gifts that the others didn't. Tying this back to Mary, she isn't depicted in that same vein. Matter of fact, she isn't depicted at all. So no, I wouldn't call her an apostle.

>>18247606
You're indistinguishable from a Pharisee.

Catholics do not worship statues, and they don't worship Mary.
Mary is a living woman, not a statue or an idol. Just as the living God is not an idol.

Neither do Catholics venerate statues, they venerate the saints represented to the carnal senses by a simple statue or image.
These people dwell in heaven, not within a statue.

Catholics venerate the most holy virgin Mary, and for good reason. Because she is the most virtuous woman ever born.

>>18247610
>your goddess and Jesus Christ is just a secondary supplementary figure to exalt her even higher

You are sick.
One could pray the affliction might not be terminal.

>You were arguing that Jesus needs Mary for things He can't do Himself.
You're a open faced liar, lying even when everyone can see it's a lie and expecting them to stay silent.

That is because you were born that way, you take after your father.
The father of lies.

>>18247633
>You're a open faced liar, lying even when everyone can see it's a lie and expecting them to stay silent.
Nope, I already pointed out you doing that exact thing earlier:
>>18243677

You can't even distinguish reality anymore. Catholics really want to go around and say that there's zero problem in their practices and thoughts towards Mary. You are living proof that's not the case at all.

>>18247629
>The difference being that the original 12 held gifts that the others didn't.

Gifts are given severally to the varied members of the church, which is the body of Christ.
Depending on and appropriate to their office, that is to say their specific calling.

I never said Mary was an apostle. That is yet another strawman you are trying to put in my mouth. And this only in response to my point that Jesus chose men to evangelize for him, after you accused me of saying Jesus relies on Mary to evangelize.

To say that Mary, uniquely called full of grace, is somehow unimportant to the gospel or of no evangelical virtue is a knowing and purposeful lie born of a schismatic mind always seeking to distance others from the apostolic faith.

For whoever does not gather with him, scatters abroad.

What more fitting an image for the "reformation" that spawned a thousand denominations, JWs and Mormons alike.
How could have Luther and Calvin gathered with Christ, when their fruit of division is so readily apparent to anyone who looks at the problem in good faith?

>>18247654
>What more fitting an image for the "reformation" that spawned a thousand denominations, JWs and Mormons alike.
That line doesn't really work when you need to invite cope lines about "apstolic churches" to pretend there's some kind of unity among the catholic and eastern orthodox churches

In short, the example of Mary communicates the full humanity of Jesus Christ to everyone who hears the gospel better than any other saint possibly could.

This creates a relational aspect in the audience to Christ, since they are men born of woman and he is a man born of woman.

Meanwhile, the protestant ITT pretends that what I mean by that is Jesus isn't good enough to spread the gospel all on his own, as if that was his entire game plan the whole time and never had apostles or a visible church at all.
This is because they feel the need to take everything good I say and twist it into something evil and perverse, because they are internally twisted that is how they conduct themselves.

>>18247666
>Meanwhile, the protestant ITT pretends that what I mean by that is Jesus isn't good enough to spread the gospel all on his own
That's exactly what you mean. That Mary is more "human" in example than Jesus, who is fully Man and God. More relational, more soothing, more incorporating, more full of grace. We don't need to hear your copes for what the core of your posts is saying. "We need Mary to get people to Jesus".

Nice trips, by the way, it's appropriate for you.

>>18247670
Why would you even bother lying so openly about this when the very post you replied to makes abundantly clear the fact of Jesus Christ's fullness of humanity.
Which was taken up through the most holy virgin.

It could only be due to your terminal status as a liar, you will continue to lie until you finally succumb not only spiritually to the world but finally in your body and die visibly.

As fully as Jesus is both God and man.

So to is Mary filled with grace; the presence of the Lord is with her always.

>>18247681
Just keep using the word lying, it might eventually resemble some sort of articulate rebuttal. I swear, I've come across this same kind of back and forth with Muhammadans. Keep worshiping your goddess, nobody is stopping you. You made it clear that it's absolutely 100 percent not distorted your thoughts in regard to the faith whatsoever.

>>18235503
>>18235508
Catholics teach that Mary was also a virgin birth. But Elijah and Enoch were assumed to Heaven too, and no one claims they were virgin birth.

>>18235593
>Anon thinks he is saved by denigrating Jesus Christ's mother

Luke 1:28: And having come in, the angel said to her, “Rejoice, highly favored one, the Lord is with you; blessed are you among women!”
Luke 1:30: "Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God."

Luke 1:41: "And it happened, when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, that the babe leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. 42 Then she spoke out with a loud voice and said, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! 43 But why is this granted to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?

Luke 1:45: Blessed is she who believed,"

Jesus refuted nothing. The misinterpreted English translation of Luke 11:28 and other verses - "More than that, blessed are those who hear the word of God and obey it" is an affirmation that Mary is blessed not simply because she bore Jesus - but because she heard the word of God and kept it.

Do you really think God would choose a random vessel for His Incarnation, and not the most righteous woman to live?

>>18247992
>Do you really think God would choose a random vessel for His Incarnation, and not the most righteous woman to live?
This. God knows every woman who ever lived and will lives, and He picked this one to birth Christ. If you denigrate her you are under some serious demonic influence.
The average protestants has more respect for John Calvin and Luther (luther's an oath breaker), than the Holy Mother of GOD, that just ain't right

>>18235682
Looks pretty good considering she's 88 there

>>18247997
>If you denigrate her you are under some serious demonic influence.
kek, love how the resident e-caths sound like evangelical nutjobs ranting about demons as soon as mary is not treated as a slightly lesser jesus

>>18248018
If you don't believe in demons you're not even a Christian, so why are you arguing about Christian theology?

>>18235735
See
>>18247992
The Orthodox know this because the Greek Orthodox still read the Bible in the original Greek. But they do not affirm some of the weirder Catholic doctrines like Mary being a virgin birth herself.

>>18247606
Venerating a statue or an icon is akin to looking at a photo of a deceased love one (or their headstone) and saying a few words to them. Except they're saints who we know are in Heaven and who we know can pray for us.

>>18248035
Seems like Jesus had the perfect opportunity to reiterate the blessed nature of his mother and deigned not to do so to me >>18235735

I know, I know, "actually he was INDIRECTLY/IMPLICITLY reinforcing the blessed nature of Mary by not directly/explicitly saying anything"

>>18245735
>Why do you insist on having an extra member of the trinity. Do you also pray to Paul?
Catholics and Orthodox pray to any and all saints.

>>18243500
>>18243509
> Superwoman Mary is the closest to Christ, so why add the 1 percent of communal prayer to the already 99 percent that Mary can provide?

It's just something that comes naturally. We already ask friends etc on Earth to pray for us. So praying to saints besides Mary is natural too. Like Paul said, every member of the Church is akin to a different organ of the body. Each has a different role and different talents. So as far saints goes there will be different ones we feel called to pray to depending on the time.

It's like asking "why talk to your brothers and sisters when you could just talk to your mother only?"

>>18248056
>Seems like Jesus had the perfect opportunity to reiterate the blessed nature of his mother and deigned not to do so to me
So you think the Bible contradicts itself?
You think that Luke 1 says Mary is blessed, but that Luke 11 says she isn't?

>>18248056
Do you think Jesus contradicts the Holy Spirit who spoke through Elizabeth?