Is Mary worthy of worship? (part 2)

(please see the first post for context)

Is truth important? Are strongly held beliefs harmless if they contradict what is plainly true? Could Christ be a saviour if he was a sinner? Is God sinless? All fair questions that need answers.

I have known people with ten bibles who were the worst example of christians, and I have seen catholics appear heads and shoulders above christians. There is no bull’s eye on any religion, but let God be true.

Belonging to a sect is neither approval or denial of God’s favor, but ‘what think ye of Christ,’ ah that is the question. My main concern here is Mariolatry, and that surely can have an effect on ones allegiance to God.

Papal decrees have given Mary the claim of being born sinless, also known as the Immaculate Conception. Many have wrongly thought this term was given to her motherhood in bearing the Christ child, but tradition is a strong teacher which crushes a soul that is not rooted in truth.

The first post stated clearly there is none good, save God, and this is affirmed by the warp and woof of scripture from Genesis to Revelation. Mary conceived without sin? Well now, that would make her a saviour of sorts, and this is precisely the intention of many.

This poor ‘assumption’ elevates a person to a stature clearly foreign to a spiritual mind. That Mary was assumed into heaven also carries the egregiousness to another level.

She is not Melchizedec, having no beginning nor end, no, Mary the mother of the Lord had a geneology;  some say Joachim was her father, and Anne her mother, but understand this young woman was not born to sinlessness.

Tradition says she was born without original sin, that God preserved her so she could house the Lord, yet the good intentions have promoted the very worst of results.

Mary has also been called:

  •  Queen of Heaven (allow a pause in thought to weigh this)
  •  Co-Redemptrix    (scripture speaks of One redeemer)
  •  Queen of Apostles
  •  Queen of Angels
  •  Morning Star (the Lord is clearly the bright and the morning star)
  •  Ark of the Covenant
  •  Destroyer of Heresy
  •  Mother Thrice Admirable
  •  Mother Most Pure
  •  Our Lady of the Doves
  •  Our Lady of Cana, and the list goes on for ever.

Quite a challenge to go on record and speak in a manner that would defy they who gave such attribution to another person. I again remind you ‘what is truth,’  and are the scriptures enough to combat these wonderful ascriptions?

It would be far better to challenge nothing, and allow the simple narrative of the word of God to reach its audience, but we are lazy thinkers and need to be reminded what we actually believe.

When I conversed with a man regarding the Immaculate Conception, his face turned beet red when I told him it referred to Mary and not Christ. He was more distressed that I knew more of the religion that he was devoted to, but at least he took it well.

Mary was a vessel, for ‘when the fulness of time was come,  God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, to redeem them that were under the law.’

https://www.google.com/urlcommons.wikimediaAJanStykaSaintPeter

Salvation is of the Lord, Mary would agree with John: ‘I must decrease,’ but the papal bulls would say no, ‘She must increase.’  Mary was mother of the Lord’s humanity, NOT His divinity, and this is the truth that is denied by far too many.

At Cana of Galilee, there is a remarkable nugget of truth usually omitted from the narrative. We know of the nine water pots, we know that the first recorded miracle was performed, the best of wine was served last, we know Mary was there, and we know she had a suggestion as to what the Lord would do; yet THE most important fact is untouched.

The text tells us, and oh by the way, ‘the Lord manifested forth his glory.’ Did not John the apostle say ‘we beheld His glory?’ Did not the three men say that on that holy mountain, ‘we were eyewitnesses of his majesty?’ Do we not read that the Lord was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father?’ Do we not know that ‘at the name of Jesus, every knee should bow, all things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father?

Now then, was the glory of Mary manifested at Cana? Did Peter, James, and John see Mary transfigured? Will every knee in heaven, on earth, and under the earth bow to Mary? Was the glory of Mary witnessed in the upper room when the Spirit of God arrived at Pentecost? Does the gospel according to the scriptures state that Mary died for our sins?

These answers are quite easy, for only One is qualified as Saviour. Truly, the Lord had sympathy for His earthly mother as he pointed her to John the beloved, that they would look after another, but His purpose was higher still. We have no record of Mary instructing the apostles; even in Jerusalem after the Lord’s ascension, we see Mary in the upper room, noting only that ‘she was there.’

Mary taking a lesser place in no wise diminishes her worth; humility never decreases spiritual value, and her place among the apostles was not one of ‘queen.’ She would eternally sob at this suggestion. Nobody could deny her respect, but respect is not worship, she is not God, and spiritual minds taught of God could never raise her to a level that Satan desires for himself.

This is God’s way. Contrite, unassuming, taking the lower place, commending not herself but God’s will, content in seeing the apostles take the lead for the advancement of the gospel, and quietly understanding that her time in history has served its purpose. This is Mary, mother of the Lord.

We never see a prayer uttered her way, we never see an inference as to her alleged sinlessness, and as the book of Acts unfolds, she disappears from the page of scripture. God had truly blessed her, it would now be time for this blessing to go toward others.

For a closer examination of titles, and for further thought on this important topic, please see:

http://www.roman-catholic-saints.com/titles-of-mary.html

(Part 3)

https://thenakedtruth2.wordpress.com/2014/02/28/didnt-the-apostles-worship-mary-part-3/

Advertisements

About ColorStorm

Blending the colorful issues of life with the unapologetic truth of scripture.
This entry was posted in Characters of scripture and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to Is Mary worthy of worship? (part 2)

    • ColorStorm says:

      Tkx Jim.

      Scrutiny unravels defects in matters of truth; it isn’t easy speaking on this topic, if you happened to open the link on ‘titles,’ the list is disturbingly long, as there are other ‘things’ at work to generate this attention.

      Posts 3 and 4 are in final editing stages. so be sure to keep one eye open.
      All the best,
      jack

      Liked by 1 person

  1. Citizen Tom says:

    Very interesting! And I respect your attempt to provide a balanced perspective.

    It has been over four decades since I gave this matter any thought. I had forgotten what the Immaculate Conception was suppose to be. Nevertheless, your readers ought to give some thought as to WHY Catholics think Mary’s conception was was immaculate.

    If the donkey talks (even though donkeys are not suppose to talk), it may be a good idea (as Balaam discovered) to listen. I suggest reading an article in The Catholic Encyclopedia published in 1917.
    http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm

    It is an unfortunate fact, but Catholics do give too much weight to sources other than the Bible. That said, Jesus was conceived in Mary, and God did bless her. Yet we know so little about her, and we so desperately want to know more. So we speculate, and we sometimes give the speculations of church leaders too much weight. When the Pharisees did that sort of thing…..well, I suspect Jesus will not be too harsh with those who attribute just a bit too much of the divine to His mother. He did, after all, as He hung dying upon the cross ask John to watch over her.

    Like

    • ColorStorm says:

      Thanks Tom. This has been most difficult to render as you say ‘fairly.’ That link alone that you provided proves a wealth of information; how can one compress thousands of years of writings, opinions, bulls, and come off sounding credible?

      Your hint is what is necessary: more scripture, less traditions of men.

      Like

  2. Planting Potatoes says:

    another good read on this subject, and good in depth study too. I may be pointing out the obvious here, but remember when Mary and Joseph couldn’t find Jesus, when they finally found him, Jesus was told his mother was looking for him….didn’t he ask “who is my mother?” No matter how much reverence we give Mary (and I do give her a lot) she was a part of God’s plan, not the whole plan. I was never taught that Mary was sinless…but that she must be a pure vessel. I guess it is a line fine enough to bring confusion to some.

    Like

  3. Pingback: Isn’t Mary worthy of worship? | ColorStorm

  4. Pingback: Kings and queens | The Lions Den

  5. Tricia says:

    “Mary was mother of the Lord’s humanity, NOT His divinity”. That small sentence says quite a lot ColorStorm. Jesus was put on this earth in human form so we pitiful people could relate to him. Mary may have been blessed by God and given an enormously important and special task to give birth to Chris,t but this does not mean she was of the divine.

    Liked by 1 person

    • ColorStorm says:

      I’m pretty sure trish, that the apostle Paul would have some rather caustic words for bringing ‘another’ gospel.

      As a matter of fact he did when he spoke of the angels of light, and he spared no harsh words.

      Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s