/christianity/ - Christian Theology & Philosophy

Is this the thread where we point out bad Romanist theology? Ok

>Mary is the mother of Jesus

>Jesus is God

>God is our father

therefore

>Mary is our mother

>Mary is queen of heaven

>Mary is queen of the universe

Total eisegesis. They go on to say the woman crowned in Revelation is Mary, but that woman is the church.

>>8229

>Mary is our mother

Do you think you're a disciple of Christ? If so, behold your mother.

>Mary is queen of heaven

Because of her maternal relation to the Davidic King of Heaven, Jesus Christ.

>Mary is queen of the universe

Because of her maternal relation to the Davidic King of the universe, Jesus Christ.

>but that woman is the church.

She's symbolically the Church, but in actuality it's the Blessed Virgin. It's impossible to say that the child she is with is not Jesus, because it says he will "rule with a rod of iron" a Messianic reference to Psalms. The chapter is a retelling of Genesis 3:15.

There's a world of a difference between acknowledging Mary as a singularly graced women in the plan of God and calling her "mediatrix of all graces", "co-redemtrix", "mother of all mercies", and other ridiculous titles.

The blatant audacity of Papist sophistry to imply that the Logos can have His mind changed by the whims of a mere creature are at best blasphemous.

Not to mention the clearly unbiblical "privileges" involved with Marian devotions, such as the sabbatine privilege (having your soul rescued from Purgatory the next Saturday after your death if you wear the brown scapular), various promises if you regularly pray the rosary (such as avoiding misfortune, merit glory in heaven, obtain all you ask for, etc), promises if you pray certain novenas, etc.

If even the titles of Queen can be legitimately conferred by virtue of her giving birth to Jesus Christ, the overwhelming excess of Rome taints any use of the phrase and, like the Bronze Serpent, must be cast out.

And before I inevitably am accused of hating Mary, let me categorically say that I bear no ill will toward her.

She was and IS a saint, given a tremendous place in the plan of salvation by Almighty God and as a result is blessed.

However, this is not license to give her undue praise, veneration, and attribute nigh-divine things to her.

My disagreements with the Roman practices involving Mary does not mean I hate her, just as my disagreements with Papists does not mean I hate them.

>>8232

The Christ never called Mary his mother, and never suggested either she nor Joseph were to be venerated in any way. He called her "woman".

Pagan crap

>>8242

>"Behold your mother" means she's mother of all

I forgot about this one, it's even worse. TEXTBOOK eisegesis.

Language has a metaphorical use. John graciously took Mary as a mother, in a time when she was in need.

https://biblehub.com/commentaries/john/19-27.htm

Here, find a commentator that reaches that conclusion. I'm not sure that the Roman church even officially teaches that reading.

>>8245

Am I missing something? That isn't teaching Mary as mother of all either, it's deliberately identifying her role as mother in relation to Jesus.

What is that from anyway? You didn't give a citation, just a screenshot and an unrelated painting that you think conveys your position is just so much more higher minded than ours.

>>8245

>According to Protestants, Mary even had earthy children besides Jesus.

You mean according to the Bible

Matthew 12- 46 While he was still speaking to the crowds, his mother and his brothers were standing outside, wanting to speak to him. 47 Someone told him, “Look, your mother and your brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you.” 48 But to the one who had told him this, Jesus replied, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” 49 And pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! 50 For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”

.

>Protestants know nothing about Church history or Catholicism

Yes because no one can read a history book but the correct people in the RCC.

Why do Catholics insist on the title "Queen of Heaven" for Mary? Even if they were right about all the facts of the matter and Mary really were some kind of "co-redemptrix", wouldn't it be a mistake to use a title that's only ever associated with a pagan goddess in the Bible?

This is the kind of thing that makes me think they aren't just misguided, they're unrepentant idolaters.

>>8256

>Why

>Pagan

You answered your own question.

>>8224

Their real problem is that if they use the original, they can't make the text say whatever they want, like they can with a translation. Hence why these autists prefer the Vulgate to the original Greek of the NT.

>>8224

>But so was the LXX, literally, it was translated by 70 Jews in Alexandria.

No it wasn't. It was translated by Hebrews. Jews are not Hebrews, jews are a few different ethnic groups that converted to rabbinic talmudism. They have nothing to do with the Hebrews or the Israelites or the Judeans.

>>8256

>>8259

I guess the Second Person of the Holy Trinity is pagan, because he's the Son of God.

>>8295

That doesn't follow at all. Christ calls Himself the Son of God and this is recorded in the Gospels. The only place "queen of heaven" occurs in the Bible is in Jeremiah where it's a title of a pagan goddess. Christ didn't call Mary that, the Apostles didn't call Mary that, the angels didn't call Mary that.

>>8295

not an argument