Notwithstanding this, I do respect them in a sense that the "Church" has a systematic responses to Protestants' challenges.  Just simply google for catholic websites, you can see their responses are pretty systematic, which the Protestants do not have.

Unfortunately there is no such thing as secondary doctrine when it comes to salvation. Peace!

I could, but when presenting to you guys, I have to start at your level, right?

that's good mah.  Save time.

No. Else how would I quote Scripture to you? Catholics are encouraged to read the Bible, that's for sure. But when it comes to verses which at surface sounds difficult to understand or what might seem contradictory to other verses, to consult the Church about such 'contradictions', rather than to make up our own novel teachings. Saint Jerome, who translated the Latin Vulgate under the command of Pope Damasus, said ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ. So there!

No. Else how would I quote Scripture to you? Catholics are encouraged to read the Bible, that's for sure. But when it comes to verses which at surface sounds difficult to understand or what might seem contradictory to other verses, to consult the Church about such 'contradictions', rather than to make up our own novel teachings. Saint Jerome, who translated the Latin Vulgate under the command of Pope Damasus, said ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ. So there!

"And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican."

"But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth."

Truth is objective. It does not matter if another person is very convinced or not. I could probably say if Hitler was convinced that what he did during the war was morally right, does it objectively means that it was moral? The atheists whom you battled in another thread holds to the same relativist concept of morals. Are you going into their line of thought now?

I've given the reasons why I think your intepretations are wrong. That's all.

I've read every single reply so far from you, and given the corresponding response. Didn't see the same thing happening the other way round. I am open to correction, but I've yet to see anything convincing to change my mind.

It is Scripture which says the Church is the pillar and bulwark of the Truth and nowhere is "Bible alone" mentioned. Zilch. If you say 'my theology' is wrong on Mary, then show your understanding lah. Like I've repeated many times, show it, prove it. Don't just claim it.

Oh now you are saying the Church is a man-made institution eh? Hmm...interesting. So we shouldn't have a Church eh? Not even the one founded by Christ Himself eh? Or maybe you are saying that Christ didn't found any Church here on earth? Which is which exactly? I'm getting more surprises from you every single time you post here.

Holy Trinity is implied in the bible, but definitely not Scripture alone.

"If anyone cannot deduce that Mary wasn't viewed as important by Jesus after reading the scriptures for many years, maybe God has determined that this knowledge really isn't for this person." -> So those who do after reading the scripture for many years, what say you? 

You can go on and on with your ad hominems and write long blocks of text which claims many things but proves nothing, and not even biblically-based (if your position is Bible alone).

Tradition does not change at whims or fancy. =>

In the 5th century, St. Vincent of Lerins saw that the people were faced with various errors and heresies of Donatus, Arius, Photinus, Pelagius and others, and gave them this good advice on how they could know with security the true Catholic Faith. Even if it is taught by distinguished men or Prelates, the bad doctrine should not be accepted by Catholics, who should cling to Tradition and what has been believed everywhere, always, and by all [quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est]. Actually, he stated: "I have continually given the greatest pains and diligence to inquiring, from the greatest possible number of men outstanding in holiness and in doctrine, how I can secure a type of fixed and, as it were, general, guiding principle for distinguishing the true Catholic Faith from the degraded falsehoods of heresy.

"And the answer that I receive is always to this effect: That if I wish, or indeed if anyone wishes, to detect the deceits of heretics that arise and to avoid their snares and to keep healthy and sound in a robust faith, we ought, with the Lord's help, to fortify our faith in a twofold manner, first, that is, by the authority of God's Law, then, by the tradition of the Catholic Church.

"Here, it may be, someone will ask: ‘Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and is in itself abundantly sufficient, what need is there to join to it the interpretation of the Church?’ The answer is that because of the profundity itself of Scripture, all men do not place the same interpretation upon it. The statements of the same writer are explained by different men in different ways, so much so that it seems almost possible to extract from it as many opinions as there are men. Novatian expounds in one way, Sabellius in another, Donatus in another, Arius, Eunomius and Macedonius in another, Photinus, Apollinaris and Priscillian in another, Jovinian, Pelagius and Caelestius in another, and latterly Nestorius in another. Therefore, because of the intricacies of error, which is so multiform, there is great need for the laying down of a rule for the exposition of Prophets and Apostles in accordance with the standard of the interpretation of the Catholic Church.

"Now in the Catholic Church itself we take the greatest care to hold that which has been believed everywhere, always and by all. That is truly and properly 'Catholic,' as is shown by the very force and meaning of the word, which comprehends everything almost universally. We shall hold to this rule if we follow universality, antiquity, and consent. We shall follow universality if we acknowledge that one Faith to be true which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is clear that our ancestors and fathers proclaimed; consent, if in antiquity itself, we keep following the definitions and opinions of all, or certainly nearly all, Bishops and Doctors alike.

"What then will the Catholic Christian do, if a small part of the Church has cut itself off from the communion of the universal Faith? The answer is sure. He will prefer the healthiness of the whole body to the morbid and corrupt limb.

"But what if some novel contagions try to infect the whole Church, and not merely a tiny part of it? Then he will take care to cleave to antiquity, which cannot now be led astray by any deceit of novelty.

"What if in antiquity itself two or three men, or it may be a city, or even a whole province be detected in error? Then he will take the greatest care to prefer the decrees of the ancient General Councils, if there are such, to the irresponsible ignorance of a few men.

"But what if some error arises regarding which nothing of this sort is to be found? Then he must do his best to compare the opinions of the Fathers and inquire their meaning, provided always that, though they belonged to diverse times and places, they yet continued in the faith and communion of the one Catholic Church; and let them be teachers approved and outstanding. And whatever he shall find to have been held, approved and taught, not by one or two only but by all equally and with one consent, openly, frequently, and persistently, let him take this as to be held by him without the slightest hesitation."

(The Vincentian Canon, in Commonitorium, chap IV, 434, ed. Moxon, Cambridge Patristic Texts)

The Immaculate Conception

It’s important to understand what the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is and what it is not. Some people think the term refers to Christ’s conception in Mary’s womb without the intervention of a human father; but that is the Virgin Birth. Others think the Immaculate Conception means Mary was conceived "by the power of the Holy Spirit," in the way Jesus was, but that, too, is incorrect. The Immaculate Conception means that Mary, whose conception was brought about the normal way, was conceived without original sin or its stain—that’s what "immaculate" means: without stain. The essence of original sin consists in the deprivation of sanctifying grace, and its stain is a corrupt nature. Mary was preserved from these defects by God’s grace; from the first instant of her existence she was in the state of sanctifying grace and was free from the corrupt nature original sin brings.

When discussing the Immaculate Conception, an implicit reference may be found in the angel’s greeting to Mary. The angel Gabriel said, "Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you" (Luke 1:28). The phrase "full of grace" is a translation of the Greek word kecharitomene. It therefore expresses a characteristic quality of Mary.

The traditional translation, "full of grace," is better than the one found in many recent versions of the New Testament, which give something along the lines of "highly favored daughter." Mary was indeed a highly favored daughter of God, but the Greek implies more than that (and it never mentions the word for "daughter"). The grace given to Mary is at once permanent and of a unique kind.Kecharitomene is a perfect passive participle of charitoo, meaning "to fill or endow with grace." Since this term is in the perfect tense, it indicates that Mary was graced in the past but with continuing effects in the present. So, the grace Mary enjoyed was not a result of the angel’s visit. In fact, Catholics hold, it extended over the whole of her life, from conception onward. She was in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of her existence.



Fundamentalists’ Objections

Fundamentalists’ chief reason for objecting to the Immaculate Conception and Mary’s consequent sinlessness is that we are told that "all have sinned" (Rom. 3:23). Besides, they say, Mary said her "spirit rejoices in God my Savior" (Luke 1:47), and only a sinner needs a Savior.

Let’s take the second citation first. Mary, too, required a Savior. Like all other descendants of Adam, she was subject to the necessity of contracting original sin. But by a special intervention of God, undertaken at the instant she was conceived, she was preserved from the stain of original sin and its consequences. She was therefore redeemed by the grace of Christ, but in a special way—by anticipation.

Consider an analogy: Suppose a man falls into a deep pit, and someone reaches down to pull him out. The man has been "saved" from the pit. Now imagine a woman walking along, and she too is about to topple into the pit, but at the very moment that she is to fall in, someone holds her back and prevents her. She too has been saved from the pit, but in an even better way: She was not simply taken out of the pit, she was prevented from getting stained by the mud in the first place. This is the illustration Christians have used for a thousand years to explain how Mary was saved by Christ. By receiving Christ’s grace at her conception, she had his grace applied to her before she was able to become mired in original sin and its stain.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that she was "redeemed in a more exalted fashion, by reason of the merits of her Son" (CCC 492). She has more reason to call God her Savior than we do, because he saved her in an even more glorious manner!

But what about Romans 3:23, "all have sinned"? Have all people committed actual sins? Consider a child below the age of reason. By definition he can’t sin, since sinning requires the ability to reason and the ability to intend to sin. This is indicated by Paul later in the letter to the Romans when he speaks of the time when Jacob and Esau were unborn babies as a time when they "had done nothing either good or bad" (Rom. 9:11).

We also know of another very prominent exception to the rule: Jesus (Heb. 4:15). So if Paul’s statement in Romans 3 includes an exception for the New Adam (Jesus), one may argue that an exception for the New Eve (Mary) can also be made.

Paul’s comment seems to have one of two meanings. It might be that it refers not to absolutely everyone, but just to the mass of mankind (which means young children and other special cases, like Jesus and Mary, would be excluded without having to be singled out). If not that, then it would mean that everyone, without exception, is subject to original sin, which is true for a young child, for the unborn, even for Mary—but she, though due to be subject to it, was preserved by God from it and its stain.

The objection is also raised that if Mary were without sin, she would be equal to God. In the beginning, God created Adam, Eve, and the angels without sin, but none were equal to God. Most of the angels never sinned, and all souls in heaven are without sin. This does not detract from the glory of God, but manifests it by the work he has done in sanctifying his creation. Sinning does not make one human. On the contrary, it is when man is without sin that he is most fully what God intends him to be.

The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was officially defined by Pope Pius IX in 1854. When Fundamentalists claim that the doctrine was "invented" at this time, they misunderstand both the history of dogmas and what prompts the Church to issue, from time to time, definitive pronouncements regarding faith or morals. They are under the impression that no doctrine is believed until the pope or an ecumenical council issues a formal statement about it.

I'm not sure if we are even on the same level of reading comprehension. I think the author is repeating the usual claim by Protestants that Catholics put Mary on the same level as God, that's all. No big deal. Nothing to do with integrity. 

Would worshiping of Mary resembles Exodus 32?

Like I said before, the more the merrier. It's not creating layers. Think of it like more prayer requests storming Heaven...that's all. The chief steward could have gone directly to Jesus of course, but it was recorded as such in Scripture, and as everyone here agrees, all Scripture is inspired:

And the third day, there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee: and the mother of Jesus was there.
2 And Jesus also was invited, and his disciples, to the marriage.
3 And the wine failing, the mother of Jesus saith to him: They have no wine.
4 And Jesus saith to her: Woman, what is that to me and to thee? my hour is not yet come.
5 His mother saith to the waiters: Whatsoever he shall say to you, do ye.

-- John 2:1-5

"Whatsoever he shall say to you, do ye." That's Mary leading us to Jesus, not leading us astray as some would think with Catholic veneration of Mary.

1.  A queen mother played a significant role in the establishment of her son upon the throne.  "This does not simply mean that she conveyed 'royal blood' as a result of her marriage to the king, his father.  There were usually many possible heirs to the throne and it often happened that the least likely candidate (from a legal point of view it was the first-born who should have succeeded to the throne) became king."  Because the king had many wives, he entrusted the education of his children to their mothers.  She chose the heir to the throne and hence she was responsible for his reign and closely linked with the exercise of his kingship.
Applied to Mary, we can observe that she too is closely related to Christ's kingship and her whole being is involved in the spread of His kingdom. In contrast to many of the queen mothers, Mary did not seek the throne for her Son because of any personal ambition.  Her ministry was one of service, to the point of sacrificing her motherly rights for our sake.

2.  The queen mother in Israel had a powerful influence in the kingdom.  This power and authority flows from her status as Gebirah (queen mother) and not from her as a person. In Israel the queen mother preceded her son in existence, sometimes she would rule in his stead (Cf. 2 Kings 10:13: "We are kinsmen of Ahaziah," they replied. "We are going down to visit the princes and the family of the queen mother" and at times also abuse her authority.  (Cf. 2 Jeremiah 13:18: "Say to the king and to the queen mother: come down from your throne.")
As Queen Mother Mary never rules in Christ's stead; she does not , command her Son, yet He is inclined to fulfill her wishes. Her authority in the kingdom is authentic but always dependent on the King. (Cf. John 2:5. 'Do whatever He tells you.')

3.  The queen mother of Israel interceded in behalf of the subjects of the kingdom. She was their most powerful, and therefore preferred, advocate.  Her specific place of honor and intercession is dramatically illustrated in the following passage from 1 Kings 2: 13-21:

"Adonijah, son of Haggith, went to Bathsheba. the mother of Solomon.  "Do you come as a friend?" she asked. "Yes," he answered and added. "I have something to ask to you."  She replied, "Say it." So he said, "There is one favor I would ask of you.  Do not refuse me."  And she said, "Speak on."  He said, "Please ask King Solomon, who will not refuse you, to give me Abishag the Shunamite for my wife." "Very well," replied Bathsheba, "I will speak to the king for you."  Then Bathsheba went to King Solomon to speak to him for Adonijah, and the king stood up to meet her and paid her homage.  Then he sat down upon his throne, and a throne was provided for the king's mother, who sat at his right.  "There is one small favor l would ask of you," she said. "Do not refuse me." "Ask It, my mother," the king said to her, "for I will not refuse you.  So she said, "Let Abishag the Shunamite be given to your brother Adonijah for his wife."

Mary's queenly function consists in interceding on our behalf.  It is anchored in her early role as Mother of the Redeemer and Mother of the redeemed.

Thank you Sylar111. That is exactly what we do.
I think this dialogue has gone in circles for far too long. There seems to be a discordance between what Catholics practice and teach and what others think we practice. This seems to be especially so for our practice of honoring Mary, the saints and all of the heroes that have gone before us.

You can rest assured that whatever the Church teaches (which is the same throughout the centuries), has its roots in Sacred Scripture and Sacred tradition which has been defended at length by Yeeck. If you would like to know more about the teachings of the Catholic faith, you will be best served to read the teachings and beliefs of the Church as espoused in The Catechism of the Catholic faith. It is easily available online. 

I would readily admit that if you look hard enough, you may come across some Catholics who actually put Mary at the same level as God. If you do find them, by all means, you have the churches blessing in correcting them and asking them to relearn the Catholic faith. In fact, this was actually done in the early history of the Catholic Church in a heresy called Collyridianism. The Church then stamped it out and it died off as a heresy.

As for your examples - "saying your Hail Mary a thousand times" - most Catholics would gladly admit to this for it is one of our favorite prayers.
If we understand Mary to be our mother in heaven, the first among us who has gone ahead, she who so willingly said "yes" to God and exhorted us to "Do whatever Jesus tells us to"; then the prayer makes perfect sense. It goes like this
"Hail Mary, full of grace.
Our Lord is with thee.
Blessed art thou among women,
and blessed is the fruit of thy womb,
Jesus.
Holy Mary, Mother of God,
pray for us sinners,
now and at the hour of our death.
Amen. "

"Kneeling down towards Mary" - if by doing this, a Catholic is putting Mary on the same pedestal with God, then by all means, let them be corrected. However it might be difficult to know whether one is worshiping another by kneeling down. Unfortunately I did exactly that when I proposed marriage to my wife. Much as I love her, I am very sure I did not put her on the same level as God.

"giving her special names like Queen of Heaven" - as you would have seen in the Liturgy to the blessed virgin, we call her much more than just  "Queen of Heaven". She is after all the true Queen Mother of the true King. Yes, the term "Queen of Heaven" in the Old Testament refers to the Goddesses of the pagans of old. Surely it could not have been referring to worship of Mary at a time before she was born. Just as Christmas used to be a pagan festival, it was replaced as a festival to commemorate the birth of Our Savior.

"Mary as a Good Luck Charm" - no Catholic is taught to use anything as a good luck charm. It is idolatry. Again, feel free to correct any Catholic, or Christian for that matter, who uses any good luck charms.

We thank you for your concern for the souls of Catholics. Please pray for us, and we will do the same for you.

You are right, Sylar111. All of God's servants humble themselves, including Mary "He looks upon his handmaid in her nothingness......". The Catholic view is that acknowledging, being inspired by and venerating those whom God has honored takes nothing away from God Himself. Much like a wise Professor who does not sulk when his students receive accolades for their own achievements, knowing that whatever recognition they receive, enhances his standing even more.   



In term of volume of references to Mary in the bible, i would readily admit that she pales in comparison to Paul and in fact many other biblical characters like Abraham, Moses, King David or even the apostles. You may be surprised however to find that Catholics see references to Mary right from the book of Genesis to Revelation and those references to her, speak of her unique role in the history of Salvation and how God chose and worked through this lowly human maiden to bring his great plan of Salvation to fruition. 

>>The problem is, based on the scripture which I provided, even Paul advises that we should not be giving accolades towards him. In the new testament, only the 4 Gospels speaks of Mary. And it's very scant. There's hardly any accolades being given to her after that. In the old testament, the only verse that talks about Mary is Genesis 3:15. The other verses probably come from the apocrypha which are not recognize by the Jews by the way. I know that the Catholic Church has a low view of Jews but dun forget this
Romans 3
3 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? 2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.


And unfortunately as you know, Catholics are not bound purely by Biblical references but also by centuries of inflection and study of theology (right from the earliest days of the church) to fully understand Christ role in our Salvation and the role played by Mary in it.
I do not expect a non catholic to call Mary "Queen of Heaven". This only comes after a fuller understanding and appreciation of how Catholics see Mary. In fact, we don't just call her Queen of Heaven. She is much more often and affectionately termed as "Mother of God", which I am sure you would agree, supersedes her title of Queen of Heaven.
>>Maybe you do not realize the implication of calling Mary the Mother of God. It puts Mary on par or even above Jesus. Of course right now, you deny that you are worshiping Mary but then it's not surprising that many others are worshiping her because by putting Mary on par with Jesus and therefore God, there should be no problem worshiping her. Calling Mary the Mother of God also means that Mary should be compared with God the Father. You are probably going to deny this again but then think about it. That's the implication. Maybe openly, the catholic church denies Mary worship, but then in actual fact, attributing Mother of God to Mary actually elevates her position to God. Words do mean something especially when it comes to religion.

As has been discussed at length before, Catholics do not view sacred tradition as conflicting with sacred scripture. In fact it is seen as being very complementary. It has to be since it was the church that compiled the bible. Catholics would go as far to say as reading the Bible as one would read an ordinary book without learning more about the history, context, language and culture in which it originated from can give rise to many false teachings and beliefs. This can surely be seen in that there are so many different interpretations even of singular verses of the Bible.
>>There are actually quite a few traditions that you practiced that contradict the scripture. But let's just discuss the examples above.

An example would be the verses from Luke 8:19-21 which you alluded to. One way some people have looked at it has been that Jesus is rebuking /  belittling his mother and brethren in front of a crowd. This might of course seem out of keeping with Jesus. Another view is that Jesus was trying to teach us that even though we might not be his blood relative, we do not have to dismay for he considers all who do the will of His Father as His own. A third interpretation of these verses (which might not come across at first glance) actually sees Jesus as praising Mary. For who is it who has done the will of God to perfection? Luke 1:38 - Mary "May it be done to me according to Thy will". So Jesus is telling the crowd that Mary is not just my mother by virtue of being my biological mother but also spiritually because "She does the will of my Father".
>> I would not say that Jesus is belittling his mother. He is just stating facts thats all. I would say it's a combination of 1 and 2. He was not being disrespectful. He is just recognizing his actual position as compared to Mary that's all. Physically, she brought Jesus to the world. Spiritually, Mary was just another virtuous woman that's all.  Mary still has to submit to Jesus even though she bore him. The same cannot be the same for our mothers right?

There is also another verse from Luke that at first glance might appear that Jesus is belittling Mary. Luke 11:27-28: While He was speaking, a woman from the crowd called out and said to Him, “Blessed is the womb that carried you and the breasts at which you nursed.” He replied, “Rather, blessed are those who hear the word of God and observe it.”  Again it can be viewed in different ways. Negative or positive.
>>It's pretty clear what this means. The focus should not be on Mary.

You might also want to compare these verses with Luke 1:41-45 - When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the infant leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth, filled with the Holy Spirit, cried out in a loud voice and said, “Most blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb. How does this happen to me, that the Mother of my Lord should come to me? For at the moment the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the infant in my womb leaped for joy. Blessed are you who believed that what was spoken to you by the Lord would be fulfilled.”
Similar exhortations by different women, but notice who is called the Blessed.
>>Look at the following verses
28 And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. 29 And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be. 30 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. 31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.
Note the statement " Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God" and also "And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be." It's pretty clear that the concept of immaculate conception cannot be true because if that was true, Mary would not have been troubled as she would have known her sinless state. Also the statement, you have found favour with God shows clearly that she was just a normal person before the Angel visited her. 

Regarding the Miracle at Cana - somehow I don't agree that Jesus was under any obligation to perform His first public miracle. There were many other instances in the Gospels where His disciples had asked him to do something but He disagreed and did not do so. eg: Matt 14:15 "send them away to the villages to eat"; Luke 9:49-50 - "Master, we saw someone casting out demons in Your name; and we tried to prevent him because he does not follow along with us." But Jesus said to him, "Do not hinder him; for he who is not against you is for you."; Luke 9:54-56 "Lord, do You want us to command fire to come down from heaven and consume them?" But He turned and rebuked them, and said, "You do not know what kind of spirit you are of; for the Son of Man did not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them." I don't think the scale of the miracle matters - it was still a Divine intervention and sign. 
>> Those examples you gave are not very great. The thing is, are they asking in accordance to God's will.  I am not trying to imply that every prayer will be answered. But God do listen to all of our prayers.
7 Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: 8 for every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened. 9 Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone? 10 Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent? 11 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?

God do listen to our prayers and will answer them if it is in accordance to his will. As for Mary, it's clear that when Jesus performed the miracle, He was glorified in the end as well.
"Jesus did this, the first of his signs, in Cana of Galilee and it revealed his glory and his disciples believed in him". Similarly, I could also say that Jesus was not obligated to bless the Canaanite woman as well. So are we to now venerate the Canaanite woman?

We certainly will be able to debate the length and breath of the bible and Catholic beliefs in these pages. And as you can see, often, there is more than one side of the coin. However hopefully this discussion has shown you that Catholic practices definitely have biblical roots (and, sorry to repeat again, roots in Sacred Tradition) and that we are definitely not some "whore of Babylon" or "the anti-Christ" as some might gleefully claim.
>>That's still a subject for debate.

Lastly, I can't promise to reply to all further inquiries after this as it is time consuming. Unless it is a very short and precise concern and can be answered quickly.

QUOTE(DRBS @ Apr 21 2016, 02:00 AM)
You are right, Sylar111. All of God's servants humble themselves, including Mary "He looks upon his handmaid in her nothingness......". The Catholic view is that acknowledging, being inspired by and venerating those whom God has honored takes nothing away from God Himself. Much like a wise Professor who does not sulk when his students receive accolades for their own achievements, knowing that whatever recognition they receive, enhances his standing even more.  
In term of volume of references to Mary in the bible, i would readily admit that she pales in comparison to Paul and in fact many other biblical characters like Abraham, Moses, King David or even the apostles. You may be surprised however to find that Catholics see references to Mary right from the book of Genesis to Revelation and those references to her, speak of her unique role in the history of Salvation and how God chose and worked through this lowly human maiden to bring his great plan of Salvation to fruition.

>>The problem is, based on the scripture which I provided, even Paul advises that we should not be giving accolades towards him. In the new testament, only the 4 Gospels speaks of Mary. And it's very scant. There's hardly any accolades being given to her after that. In the old testament, the only verse that talks about Mary is Genesis 3:15. The other verses probably come from the apocrypha which are not recognize by the Jews by the way. I know that the Catholic Church has a low view of Jews but dun forget this
Romans 3
3 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? 2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.

>>> I believe the scripture passage that you referred to was actually Paul correcting the people about jealousy and in-fighting among the themselves and how they should not be taking the camps of the leaders to elevate their status. The verse before this passage would confirm that.
I strongly agree with you that Paul exhorts us to humble ourselves before God. However, I am sure Paul does not means we should not give praise others, but only God. God has created many heroes who have gone before us and I believe it is only fitting that we give them praise and that this takes nothing away from God. That's what Catholics do with Mary and the Saints - we praise them. we imitate their faith and we ask them to pray for us.  
>>>Catholics see Mary being referred to in the book of Isaiah, the most important book of the Scriptures to Jews. Also in the Psalms and The Book of Revelation. However I agree with you, this proves nothing. 

>>>>At the same time, Paul is also highlighting that all of the glory should go to God. Of course we should admire Paul but I do not think Paul wants to receive the praise officially which you guys are doing.

And unfortunately as you know, Catholics are not bound purely by Biblical references but also by centuries of inflection and study of theology (right from the earliest days of the church) to fully understand Christ role in our Salvation and the role played by Mary in it.
I do not expect a non catholic to call Mary "Queen of Heaven". This only comes after a fuller understanding and appreciation of how Catholics see Mary. In fact, we don't just call her Queen of Heaven. She is much more often and affectionately termed as "Mother of God", which I am sure you would agree, supersedes her title of Queen of Heaven.
>>Maybe you do not realize the implication of calling Mary the Mother of God. It puts Mary on par or even above Jesus. Of course right now, you deny that you are worshiping Mary but then it's not surprising that many others are worshiping her because by putting Mary on par with Jesus and therefore God, there should be no problem worshiping her. Calling Mary the Mother of God also means that Mary should be compared with God the Father. You are probably going to deny this again but then think about it. That's the implication. Maybe openly, the catholic church denies Mary worship, but then in actual fact, attributing Mother of God to Mary actually elevates her position to God. Words do mean something especially when it comes to religion.

>>>If Jesus is truly God and Mary is his mother, then she is the Mother of God, no? God chose for it to be like that. God our Father chose for Jesus to have a human mother, the Mother of God.

>>>>Well, so now you admit that the Catholic Church actually worships Mary. Notice that Jesus never referred to Mary as Mother. Should have given you a clue. In other words, position wise, Mary should not really be considered Jesus Mother even though physically she is.  So all this while, what you said about just venerating Mary is not true. You are actually worshiping Mary. As I have demonstrated earlier. The Catholic church has not been upfront in it's declaration. It talks about salvation through God's grace alone. But in actual fact. Individual works are still required. And now, it makes the claim that it only venerates Mary, but now you admit that Mary is at the position of God. So therefore in Catholic theology, there is nothing wrong in worshiping Mary. If there's nothing to hide, why do this?

As has been discussed at length before, Catholics do not view sacred tradition as conflicting with sacred scripture. In fact it is seen as being very complementary. It has to be since it was the church that compiled the bible. Catholics would go as far to say as reading the Bible as one would read an ordinary book without learning more about the history, context, language and culture in which it originated from can give rise to many false teachings and beliefs. This can surely be seen in that there are so many different interpretations even of singular verses of the Bible.
>>There are actually quite a few traditions that you practiced that contradict the scripture. But let's just discuss the examples above.

>>>Sure.

An example would be the verses from Luke 8:19-21 which you alluded to. One way some people have looked at it has been that Jesus is rebuking /  belittling his mother and brethren in front of a crowd. This might of course seem out of keeping with Jesus. Another view is that Jesus was trying to teach us that even though we might not be his blood relative, we do not have to dismay for he considers all who do the will of His Father as His own. A third interpretation of these verses (which might not come across at first glance) actually sees Jesus as praising Mary. For who is it who has done the will of God to perfection? Luke 1:38 - Mary "May it be done to me according to Thy will". So Jesus is telling the crowd that Mary is not just my mother by virtue of being my biological mother but also spiritually because "She does the will of my Father".
>> I would not say that Jesus is belittling his mother. He is just stating facts thats all. I would say it's a combination of 1 and 2. He was not being disrespectful. He is just recognizing his actual position as compared to Mary that's all. Physically, she brought Jesus to the world. Spiritually, Mary was just another virtuous woman that's all.  Mary still has to submit to Jesus even though she bore him. The same cannot be the same for our mothers right?

>>>You are right. Mary is a mere human being, nothing compared to God. But she was raised to be above all women, not just another virtuous woman. Mary submits to Jesus but as Her will and the will of the Father are so in sync with each other, there is no contradiction.

There is also another verse from Luke that at first glance might appear that Jesus is belittling Mary. Luke 11:27-28: While He was speaking, a woman from the crowd called out and said to Him, “Blessed is the womb that carried you and the breasts at which you nursed.” He replied, “Rather, blessed are those who hear the word of God and observe it.”  Again it can be viewed in different ways. Negative or positive.
>>It's pretty clear what this means. The focus should not be on Mary.

>>>Sorry. Actually I wanted this verse to be contrasted with the greeting from Elizabeth below. Similar, is it not? Yet, again Mary is called the Blessed among all women.
>>>Do you think Elizabeth's greeting to Mary is over the top? An exaggerated sycophantic cry of an over-excited cousin?

>>>>Question. Did Eliezabeth only greeted Mary this way after Mary was pregnant or before? Mary wasn't always so "blessed" until she gave birth to Jesus. I think we ourselves should not get too excited over this. When say one of our kids got accepted to a prestigious university, I am pretty sure that praises like "Kid is very smart". "Kid has a great future". "God really blessed you. Kid is very blessed to have a dad to support you. Etc. Of course after graduation, those kids could be considered more bless then those who did not receive a proper university education. This kid is mostly blessed afterwards as well. Just giving an example here. Giving birth to Jesus is obviously an incident of the magnitude of the highest order. She will be remembered for this incident forever. Its just the same as say Albert Einstein being remembered for a very long time for his theory of relativity. Albert Einstein could also be considered one of the greatest scientist for his theory of relativity.  But let's not get carried away with this. She carried Jesus. Jesus has already existed since the beginning of time. Jesus did not owe his existence to Mary. She should be blessed because she brought Jesus to the world that's all.  Notice that you even used " Her will and the will of the Father". In other words, even though you are denying this, you are putting Mary to the position of God subconsciously. No wonder so many catholics are worshiping her. By saying that it's wrong to worship Mary, you are actually acting hypocritically since Jesus never denied worship due to his position as being Equal to God.

You might also want to compare these verses with Luke 1:41-45 - When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the infant leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth, filled with the Holy Spirit, cried out in a loud voice and said, “Most blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb. How does this happen to me, that the Mother of my Lord should come to me? For at the moment the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the infant in my womb leaped for joy. Blessed are you who believed that what was spoken to you by the Lord would be fulfilled.”
Similar exhortations by different women, but notice who is called the Blessed.
>>Look at the following verses
28 And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. 29 And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be. 30 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. 31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.
Note the statement " Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God" and also "And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be." It's pretty clear that the concept of immaculate conception cannot be true because if that was true, Mary would not have been troubled as she would have known her sinless state. Also the statement, you have found favour with God shows clearly that she was just a normal person before the Angel visited her.

>>> It should be noted that throughout the bible, the Angel of God appears several times. However, it is only to Mary, that the greeting of "Hail, full of Grace! The Lord is with Thee. Blessed are thou among women" is bestowed.
>>>If this was the first time a mere human was ever addressed by God this way (not even Abraham, Moses or Elijah was addressed this way by the angels of God), wouldn't any one, whether sinless or not, be stunned or troubled? I would say, maybe only those who were very arrogant wouldn't be troubled. Humility should not be mistaken for sinfulness. Jesus was humble yet, even to accepting his cross. I am sure it is agreed that he was sinless. So while this does not prove the Immaculate Conception (which requires a much deeper reading and appreciation of bible and sacred tradition), it certainly does not disprove it, no?   
>>> As mentioned above, none of the heroes of the Old testament was ever greeted as being full of Grace and blessed among all women. I would suggest that that certainly does not make Mary "Normal". If she was just happened to be the lucky girl who picked up the lucky ticket, why was Joseph and Elizabeth not greeted in the same was by the angel?
Regarding the Miracle at Cana - somehow I don't agree that Jesus was under any obligation to perform His first public miracle. There were many other instances in the Gospels where His disciples had asked him to do something but He disagreed and did not do so. eg: Matt 14:15 "send them away to the villages to eat"; Luke 9:49-50 - "Master, we saw someone casting out demons in Your name; and we tried to prevent him because he does not follow along with us." But Jesus said to him, "Do not hinder him; for he who is not against you is for you."; Luke 9:54-56 "Lord, do You want us to command fire to come down from heaven and consume them?" But He turned and rebuked them, and said, "You do not know what kind of spirit you are of; for the Son of Man did not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them." I don't think the scale of the miracle matters - it was still a Divine intervention and sign.
>>>>How about Stephen then. Are we to venerate him?
8 And Stephen, full of faith and power, did great wonders and miracles among the people. In other versions "full of grace and power" are being used by the way
The point of the matter is, by carrying Jesus, Mary has done the most incredible thing ever as a human. So as stated, you are just trying to exaggerate something more then it should be.
Jesus was addressed in a similar way many times. Even though he was God, he was man as well. Did he get shocked? If say I knew of my piano skills. I know for sure that my piano skills are better then others. No one praised me of my piano skills for some person. A person come along praising my piano skills. Would I be shocked? No. Because I know that my piano skills are of a certain standard. But I could be humble and not get too occupied by the praises. If Mary was sinless, she would have an inkling of the state that she is in and it would not have shocked her.
First of all, those heroes are mostly man. Secondly, I would admit that Mary did the most incredible thing ever. Dun mean to be rude. How can you compare Jesus with John the Baptist. Also you do realize that it was not Mary virtue alone that determines whether she carried Jesus. Jesus has to come from a genealogy which ends with Joseph and mary and started of with David. So it was not really her virtousness that is the determining factor but also her lineage and that of Joseph. So it's not really a lottery ticket as per say but the timing and also her heritage as well. Her virtuousness probably play a role but then I would argue that if say there's another woman who was just as virtous or even more virtous then Mary, she would not also get to carry Jesus because of her lineage. No matter how you slice it, you really cannot use that passage as an example of Mary ability to intercede for us. In fact, it's pretty clear that Jesus even told Mary politely that her request was not going to give him any glory and he fulfilled the request in a way that gave him the glory. You have to be extremely biased to justify your claims. That's not rightly dividing scriptures right?

>> Those examples you gave are not very great. The thing is, are they asking in accordance to God's will.  I am not trying to imply that every prayer will be answered. But God do listen to all of our prayers.

>>> Agreed. Those were not good examples but it was to point out that we should not underestimate the significance of Jesus responding to Mary even though He felt that His time had not come yet.


7 Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: 8 for every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened. 9 Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone? 10 Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent? 11 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?

God do listen to our prayers and will answer them if it is in accordance to his will. As for Mary, it's clear that when Jesus performed the miracle, He was glorified in the end as well.
"Jesus did this, the first of his signs, in Cana of Galilee and it revealed his glory and his disciples believed in him". Similarly, I could also say that Jesus was not obligated to bless the Canaanite woman as well. So are we to now venerate the Canaanite woman?

>>>Regarding Canaanite woman, yes, we should praise her for Jesus praised her. She might not have a name or position but her faith is a model for us all.

>>>>She did not become as venerated as Mary did she? And what do you mean by praised. Keep in mind that she is still a sinner like the rest of us. Now, I dun think praising someone is an issue but venerating someone is going too overboard dun you think? After all, she is still a sinner.


We certainly will be able to debate the length and breath of the bible and Catholic beliefs in these pages. And as you can see, often, there is more than one side of the coin. However hopefully this discussion has shown you that Catholic practices definitely have biblical roots (and, sorry to repeat again, roots in Sacred Tradition) and that we are definitely not some "whore of Babylon" or "the anti-Christ" as some might gleefully claim.
>>That's still a subject for debate.

Lastly, I can't promise to reply to all further inquiries after this as it is time consuming. Unless it is a very short and precise concern and can be answered quickly.

QUOTE(DRBS @ Apr 21 2016, 02:00 AM)
You are right, Sylar111. All of God's servants humble themselves, including Mary "He looks upon his handmaid in her nothingness......". The Catholic view is that acknowledging, being inspired by and venerating those whom God has honored takes nothing away from God Himself. Much like a wise Professor who does not sulk when his students receive accolades for their own achievements, knowing that whatever recognition they receive, enhances his standing even more. 
In term of volume of references to Mary in the bible, i would readily admit that she pales in comparison to Paul and in fact many other biblical characters like Abraham, Moses, King David or even the apostles. You may be surprised however to find that Catholics see references to Mary right from the book of Genesis to Revelation and those references to her, speak of her unique role in the history of Salvation and how God chose and worked through this lowly human maiden to bring his great plan of Salvation to fruition.

>>The problem is, based on the scripture which I provided, even Paul advises that we should not be giving accolades towards him. In the new testament, only the 4 Gospels speaks of Mary. And it's very scant. There's hardly any accolades being given to her after that. In the old testament, the only verse that talks about Mary is Genesis 3:15. The other verses probably come from the apocrypha which are not recognize by the Jews by the way. I know that the Catholic Church has a low view of Jews but dun forget this
Romans 3
3 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? 2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.

>>> I believe the scripture passage that you referred to was actually Paul correcting the people about jealousy and in-fighting among the themselves and how they should not be taking the camps of the leaders to elevate their status. The verse before this passage would confirm that.
I strongly agree with you that Paul exhorts us to humble ourselves before God. However, I am sure Paul does not means we should not give praise others, but only God. God has created many heroes who have gone before us and I believe it is only fitting that we give them praise and that this takes nothing away from God. That's what Catholics do with Mary and the Saints - we praise them. we imitate their faith and we ask them to pray for us. 
>>>Catholics see Mary being referred to in the book of Isaiah, the most important book of the Scriptures to Jews. Also in the Psalms and The Book of Revelation. However I agree with you, this proves nothing.

>>>>At the same time, Paul is also highlighting that all of the glory should go to God. Of course we should admire Paul but I do not think Paul wants to receive the praise officially which you guys are doing.
>>>>>Not sure what is meant by praising officially. Do you mean praising in writing? In prayer? When complimenting someone other than God? By calling them saints?
>>>>>>I am pretty sure you know what I mean. It's not good to just "pretend" to not know what I mean. If you got nothing to hide, you dun have to do this. Anyway when you venerate say Paul, it's not just mentioning him in passing or having a strong opinion about him or a study about him. You have special ceremonies, special holidays and maybe even special prayers for him. I think you know what I mean but then it seems that you are evading like the other person has been doing.



And unfortunately as you know, Catholics are not bound purely by Biblical references but also by centuries of inflection and study of theology (right from the earliest days of the church) to fully understand Christ role in our Salvation and the role played by Mary in it.
I do not expect a non catholic to call Mary "Queen of Heaven". This only comes after a fuller understanding and appreciation of how Catholics see Mary. In fact, we don't just call her Queen of Heaven. She is much more often and affectionately termed as "Mother of God", which I am sure you would agree, supersedes her title of Queen of Heaven.
>>Maybe you do not realize the implication of calling Mary the Mother of God. It puts Mary on par or even above Jesus. Of course right now, you deny that you are worshiping Mary but then it's not surprising that many others are worshiping her because by putting Mary on par with Jesus and therefore God, there should be no problem worshiping her. Calling Mary the Mother of God also means that Mary should be compared with God the Father. You are probably going to deny this again but then think about it. That's the implication. Maybe openly, the catholic church denies Mary worship, but then in actual fact, attributing Mother of God to Mary actually elevates her position to God. Words do mean something especially when it comes to religion.

>>>If Jesus is truly God and Mary is his mother, then she is the Mother of God, no? God chose for it to be like that. God our Father chose for Jesus to have a human mother, the Mother of God.

>>>>Well, so now you admit that the Catholic Church actually worships Mary. Notice that Jesus never referred to Mary as Mother. Should have given you a clue. In other words, position wise, Mary should not really be considered Jesus Mother even though physically she is.  So all this while, what you said about just venerating Mary is not true. You are actually worshiping Mary. As I have demonstrated earlier. The Catholic church has not been upfront in it's declaration. It talks about salvation through God's grace alone. But in actual fact. Individual works are still required. And now, it makes the claim that it only venerates Mary, but now you admit that Mary is at the position of God. So therefore in Catholic theology, there is nothing wrong in worshiping Mary. If there's nothing to hide, why do this?
>>>>>Sorry to keep harping on about this point, Sylar111. I am not sure what you mean by "Mary should not really be considered Jesus Mother even though physically she is". Is she Jesus's Mother?
>>>>>Not sure how it is concluded that calling Mary the Mother of God means we worship her, or that she is in the position of God. Do you mean to say that Mother of God is the same as God? I doubt any of us will say our mothers are the same as us. 
>>>>>Is it OK to call Mary "the mother of our Lord"? Is it OK to call Mary "the mother of Jesus"? Is Jesus truly God? If so, I am not sure how we can be wrong to say Mary "is the mother of God".
>>>>>Sorry, but for the sake of clarity, I will not go into the theology of Salvation here as it is another lengthy topic and that has also been discussed at length previously.
>>>>>Not sure what the Church is being accused of hiding. As mentioned earlier, the Catholic church consistently and persistently condemns any person that claims Mary is God. Those that followed the heresy of Collyridians were ex-communicated.
>>>>>As mentioned earlier,  if you come across any Catholics who worship Mary, by all means correct them.
>>>>>>Well.. Not really. A surrogate mother of a child is not really the real mother of a child. I think it's pretty clear that the holy spirit was directly involved in the virgin birth of Mary. It means that the DNA does not really come from Mary. Of course, as I mentioned physically wise, Mary could be considered a mother because physically she brought Jesus to the world physically. But then being a mother also means Mary should precede Jesus. Jesus has existed since the beginning of time. Let's say your uncle happens to be younger then you or about the same age as you. You will not treat him with the same kind of respect that that you would have to an uncle older then you right?most people would have understood where I am coming from but then if you are insistent that calling mary the Mother of God does not elevate her to a position comparable to God, then I guess very little things will get into your head. I know you are not that naive but the catholic church seems to have casted a spell on you.



As has been discussed at length before, Catholics do not view sacred tradition as conflicting with sacred scripture. In fact it is seen as being very complementary. It has to be since it was the church that compiled the bible. Catholics would go as far to say as reading the Bible as one would read an ordinary book without learning more about the history, context, language and culture in which it originated from can give rise to many false teachings and beliefs. This can surely be seen in that there are so many different interpretations even of singular verses of the Bible.
>>There are actually quite a few traditions that you practiced that contradict the scripture. But let's just discuss the examples above.

>>>Sure.

An example would be the verses from Luke 8:19-21 which you alluded to. One way some people have looked at it has been that Jesus is rebuking /  belittling his mother and brethren in front of a crowd. This might of course seem out of keeping with Jesus. Another view is that Jesus was trying to teach us that even though we might not be his blood relative, we do not have to dismay for he considers all who do the will of His Father as His own. A third interpretation of these verses (which might not come across at first glance) actually sees Jesus as praising Mary. For who is it who has done the will of God to perfection? Luke 1:38 - Mary "May it be done to me according to Thy will". So Jesus is telling the crowd that Mary is not just my mother by virtue of being my biological mother but also spiritually because "She does the will of my Father".
>> I would not say that Jesus is belittling his mother. He is just stating facts thats all. I would say it's a combination of 1 and 2. He was not being disrespectful. He is just recognizing his actual position as compared to Mary that's all. Physically, she brought Jesus to the world. Spiritually, Mary was just another virtuous woman that's all.  Mary still has to submit to Jesus even though she bore him. The same cannot be the same for our mothers right?

>>>You are right. Mary is a mere human being, nothing compared to God. But she was raised to be above all women, not just another virtuous woman. Mary submits to Jesus but as Her will and the will of the Father are so in sync with each other, there is no contradiction.

There is also another verse from Luke that at first glance might appear that Jesus is belittling Mary. Luke 11:27-28: While He was speaking, a woman from the crowd called out and said to Him, “Blessed is the womb that carried you and the breasts at which you nursed.” He replied, “Rather, blessed are those who hear the word of God and observe it.”  Again it can be viewed in different ways. Negative or positive.
>>It's pretty clear what this means. The focus should not be on Mary.

>>>Sorry. Actually I wanted this verse to be contrasted with the greeting from Elizabeth below. Similar, is it not? Yet, again Mary is called the Blessed among all women.
>>>Do you think Elizabeth's greeting to Mary is over the top? An exaggerated sycophantic cry of an over-excited cousin?

>>>>Question. Did Eliezabeth only greeted Mary this way after Mary was pregnant or before? Mary wasn't always so "blessed" until she gave birth to Jesus. I think we ourselves should not get too excited over this. When say one of our kids got accepted to a prestigious university, I am pretty sure that praises like "Kid is very smart". "Kid has a great future". "God really blessed you. Kid is very blessed to have a dad to support you. Etc. Of course after graduation, those kids could be considered more bless then those who did not receive a proper university education. This kid is mostly blessed afterwards as well. Just giving an example here. Giving birth to Jesus is obviously an incident of the magnitude of the highest order. She will be remembered for this incident forever. Its just the same as say Albert Einstein being remembered for a very long time for his theory of relativity. Albert Einstein could also be considered one of the greatest scientist for his theory of relativity.  But let's not get carried away with this. She carried Jesus. Jesus has already existed since the beginning of time. Jesus did not owe his existence to Mary. She should be blessed because she brought Jesus to the world that's all.  Notice that you even used " Her will and the will of the Father". In other words, even though you are denying this, you are putting Mary to the position of God subconsciously. No wonder so many catholics are worshiping her. By saying that it's wrong to worship Mary, you are actually acting hypocritically since Jesus never denied worship due to his position as being Equal to God.
>>>>>You are absolutely right. Mary is only blessed among all women because of her having the privilege of bearing, nursing and raising Jesus up. Without Him, she is nothing and might not even make it into the bible. But because of this great privilege, she is blessed among all women and occupy a very special place in the legion of saints. Mary's contribution to this is that she acceded to the Will of God so whole heartedly. God or Jesus does not owe her anything. She is but their lowly creature. However the plan of God required the free will of a Holy Receptacle. And God found that in Mary. That is why we copy her and call her our mother.
So you agree that she is to be called Blessed then? More than all other women? Full of Grace?
>>>>>Whether Mary was blessed by God before or after conceiving Jesus is another point. I am sure you noticed that she was called by Full of Grace and Blessed among all women before she even conceived. 
>>>>> Let's not read too much into typos, ya? I am sure you we would like to keep this as civil as possible and not resort to accusations of idolatry and hypocrisy. If i am hypocritical in my heart or misled on this point, I sincerely seek God's forgiveness. If I am not though, it might be regarded as bringing false witness against another.   :thumbsup:   
>>>>>>And I have already indicated Stephen who was called in a similar way. Trust me. I am already controlling myself because I notice that you are starting to display the same kind of spirit as Yeeck whereby you are just conveniently ignoring things that I have said and pretending to not know where I am coming from. I am not reading much into typo but from what you type I already know that you put the position of mary as the same as God. in Christian circles we only reserve capitalized characters for someone in the position of God. I know you are trying to refrain yourself from doing so. I have already explained why. Unfortunately jesus who was the actual "son" of mary did not refer her to his mother. So whose example should we follow? Also, if mary was sinless, Elizabeth would have no problems calling mary blessed one even before she had jesus. You seem to miss the point.


You might also want to compare these verses with Luke 1:41-45 - When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the infant leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth, filled with the Holy Spirit, cried out in a loud voice and said, “Most blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb. How does this happen to me, that the Mother of my Lord should come to me? For at the moment the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the infant in my womb leaped for joy. Blessed are you who believed that what was spoken to you by the Lord would be fulfilled.”
Similar exhortations by different women, but notice who is called the Blessed.
>>Look at the following verses
28 And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. 29 And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be. 30 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. 31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.
Note the statement " Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God" and also "And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be." It's pretty clear that the concept of immaculate conception cannot be true because if that was true, Mary would not have been troubled as she would have known her sinless state. Also the statement, you have found favour with God shows clearly that she was just a normal person before the Angel visited her.

>>> It should be noted that throughout the bible, the Angel of God appears several times. However, it is only to Mary, that the greeting of "Hail, full of Grace! The Lord is with Thee. Blessed are thou among women" is bestowed.
>>>If this was the first time a mere human was ever addressed by God this way (not even Abraham, Moses or Elijah was addressed this way by the angels of God), wouldn't any one, whether sinless or not, be stunned or troubled? I would say, maybe only those who were very arrogant wouldn't be troubled. Humility should not be mistaken for sinfulness. Jesus was humble yet, even to accepting his cross. I am sure it is agreed that he was sinless. So while this does not prove the Immaculate Conception (which requires a much deeper reading and appreciation of bible and sacred tradition), it certainly does not disprove it, no?  
>>> As mentioned above, none of the heroes of the Old testament was ever greeted as being full of Grace and blessed among all women. I would suggest that that certainly does not make Mary "Normal". If she was just happened to be the lucky girl who picked up the lucky ticket, why was Joseph and Elizabeth not greeted in the same was by the angel?
Regarding the Miracle at Cana - somehow I don't agree that Jesus was under any obligation to perform His first public miracle. There were many other instances in the Gospels where His disciples had asked him to do something but He disagreed and did not do so. eg: Matt 14:15 "send them away to the villages to eat"; Luke 9:49-50 - "Master, we saw someone casting out demons in Your name; and we tried to prevent him because he does not follow along with us." But Jesus said to him, "Do not hinder him; for he who is not against you is for you."; Luke 9:54-56 "Lord, do You want us to command fire to come down from heaven and consume them?" But He turned and rebuked them, and said, "You do not know what kind of spirit you are of; for the Son of Man did not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them." I don't think the scale of the miracle matters - it was still a Divine intervention and sign.
>>>>How about Stephen then. Are we to venerate him?
8 And Stephen, full of faith and power, did great wonders and miracles among the people. In other versions "full of grace and power" are being used by the way
>>>>>Yup. He is known as St Stephen. We celebrate His feast day 27th December. Considered as the first martyr.
>>>>>>At least this is consistent. But then Stephen isn't regarded as highly as Mary I guess.

The point of the matter is, by carrying Jesus, Mary has done the most incredible thing ever as a human. So as stated, you are just trying to exaggerate something more then it should be.
Jesus was addressed in a similar way many times. Even though he was God, he was man as well. Did he get shocked? If say I knew of my piano skills. I know for sure that my piano skills are better then others. No one praised me of my piano skills for some person. A person come along praising my piano skills. Would I be shocked? No. Because I know that my piano skills are of a certain standard. But I could be humble and not get too occupied by the praises. If Mary was sinless, she would have an inkling of the state that she is in and it would not have shocked her.
>>>>>Mary was deeply troubled. Does that prove she was not sinless?
Jesus was troubled now and again - does that mean He was anything less than God? Does that mean He doubted His Father in Heaven? Wouldn't He have known that troubles were coming his way?
>>>>>>Did I ever implied that Mary sinned because she was troubled? You are falsely accusing me like the other guy. I think you should think more before you reply because if you reread what I wrote, I never said that Mary sinned because she was deeply troubled. You are just repeating the standard answer your church gives you that's all. And that''s why you are answering my concerns wrongly.

First of all, those heroes are mostly man. Secondly, I would admit that Mary did the most incredible thing ever. Dun mean to be rude. How can you compare Jesus with John the Baptist. Also you do realize that it was not Mary virtue alone that determines whether she carried Jesus. Jesus has to come from a genealogy which ends with Joseph and mary and started of with David. So it was not really her virtousness that is the determining factor but also her lineage and that of Joseph. So it's not really a lottery ticket as per say but the timing and also her heritage as well. Her virtuousness probably play a role but then I would argue that if say there's another woman who was just as virtous or even more virtous then Mary, she would not also get to carry Jesus because of her lineage. No matter how you slice it, you really cannot use that passage as an example of Mary ability to intercede for us. In fact, it's pretty clear that Jesus even told Mary politely that her request was not going to give him any glory and he fulfilled the request in a way that gave him the glory. To use this passage to justify your claims makes you and by proxy the catholic church looks very uncredible. Tell any non christians out there that Mary should be interceeding for us based on that passage and they will probably mock you even more. I admit that immaculation conception is catholic tradition and the catholic church will do anything to defend this even though it's clearly wrong.
>>>>>As mentioned above, Mary is venerated by virtue of God. No more, no less. All the praises given to her are meant to glorify God. All the dogmas attached to her are to demonstrate the power, glory and love of God, who raised a lowly vessel to work such marvels for her.
Mary's only doing in this whole picture of Salvation is her whole hearted, unconditional and eternal "yes" to the will of God.
>>>>>Thanks for being so concerned about us. Don't worry. We are being mocked all the time. God never promised us an easy ride, even though He did promise that the Gates of Hell would never hold out against His church. And if what you say is true, then we deserve that mocking.
>>>>>>You still do not get the point. What I was trying to say is that this passage is a very weak case to use to support the case of Mary interceeding for us. Just like in Science, when you want to assert something, you better make sure you have a stronger case before you do so. Otherwise, you lose all credibility. Being mocked because of preaching the truth is different from being mocked because of lack of credibility. I am pretty sure you know that.
>> Those examples you gave are not very great. The thing is, are they asking in accordance to God's will.  I am not trying to imply that every prayer will be answered. But God do listen to all of our prayers.

>>> Agreed. Those were not good examples but it was to point out that we should not underestimate the significance of Jesus responding to Mary even though He felt that His time had not come yet.
7 Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: 8 for every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened. 9 Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone? 10 Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent? 11 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?

God do listen to our prayers and will answer them if it is in accordance to his will. As for Mary, it's clear that when Jesus performed the miracle, He was glorified in the end as well.
"Jesus did this, the first of his signs, in Cana of Galilee and it revealed his glory and his disciples believed in him". Similarly, I could also say that Jesus was not obligated to bless the Canaanite woman as well. So are we to now venerate the Canaanite woman?

>>>Regarding Canaanite woman, yes, we should praise her for Jesus praised her. She might not have a name or position but her faith is a model for us all.

>>>>She did not become as venerated as Mary did she? And what do you mean by praised. Keep in mind that she is still a sinner like the rest of us. Now, I dun think praising someone is an issue but venerating someone is going too overboard dun you think? After all, she is still a sinner.
>>>>>Veneration are for those heroes of faith, those who suffered for the sake of Christ, those who did God's will despite having a sword pierce their hearts, those who kept through till the end. Yes, we praise them. We imitate them. We venerate them. We ask them to pray for us. 
>>>>>>The fact is that they are still sinners. But then by doing that, you are elevating them to something more then they are. I really do not know how you are not able to see that.

We certainly will be able to debate the length and breath of the bible and Catholic beliefs in these pages. And as you can see, often, there is more than one side of the coin. However hopefully this discussion has shown you that Catholic practices definitely have biblical roots (and, sorry to repeat again, roots in Sacred Tradition) and that we are definitely not some "whore of Babylon" or "the anti-Christ" as some might gleefully claim.
>>That's still a subject for debate.

Lastly, I can't promise to reply to all further inquiries after this as it is time consuming. Unless it is a very short and precise concern and can be answered quickly.

QUOTE(DRBS @ Apr 21 2016, 02:00 AM)
You are right, Sylar111. All of God's servants humble themselves, including Mary "He looks upon his handmaid in her nothingness......". The Catholic view is that acknowledging, being inspired by and venerating those whom God has honored takes nothing away from God Himself. Much like a wise Professor who does not sulk when his students receive accolades for their own achievements, knowing that whatever recognition they receive, enhances his standing even more.
In term of volume of references to Mary in the bible, i would readily admit that she pales in comparison to Paul and in fact many other biblical characters like Abraham, Moses, King David or even the apostles. You may be surprised however to find that Catholics see references to Mary right from the book of Genesis to Revelation and those references to her, speak of her unique role in the history of Salvation and how God chose and worked through this lowly human maiden to bring his great plan of Salvation to fruition.

>>The problem is, based on the scripture which I provided, even Paul advises that we should not be giving accolades towards him. In the new testament, only the 4 Gospels speaks of Mary. And it's very scant. There's hardly any accolades being given to her after that. In the old testament, the only verse that talks about Mary is Genesis 3:15. The other verses probably come from the apocrypha which are not recognize by the Jews by the way. I know that the Catholic Church has a low view of Jews but dun forget this
Romans 3
3 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? 2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.

>>> I believe the scripture passage that you referred to was actually Paul correcting the people about jealousy and in-fighting among the themselves and how they should not be taking the camps of the leaders to elevate their status. The verse before this passage would confirm that.
I strongly agree with you that Paul exhorts us to humble ourselves before God. However, I am sure Paul does not means we should not give praise others, but only God. God has created many heroes who have gone before us and I believe it is only fitting that we give them praise and that this takes nothing away from God. That's what Catholics do with Mary and the Saints - we praise them. we imitate their faith and we ask them to pray for us.
>>>Catholics see Mary being referred to in the book of Isaiah, the most important book of the Scriptures to Jews. Also in the Psalms and The Book of Revelation. However I agree with you, this proves nothing.

>>>>At the same time, Paul is also highlighting that all of the glory should go to God. Of course we should admire Paul but I do not think Paul wants to receive the praise officially which you guys are doing.
>>>>>Not sure what is meant by praising officially. Do you mean praising in writing? In prayer? When complimenting someone other than God? By calling them saints?
>>>>>>I am pretty sure you know what I mean. It's not good to just "pretend" to not know what I mean. If you got nothing to hide, you dun have to do this. Anyway when you venerate say Paul, it's not just mentioning him in passing or having a strong opinion about him or a study about him. You have special ceremonies, special holidays and maybe even special prayers for him. I think you know what I mean but then it seems that you are evading like the other person has been doing.

>>>>>>>Haha! Looks like we are heading nowhere with this. Much as the Catholic Church consistently insists that we do not worship Saints, we are constantly being told that we are. I am sure I will not be able to convince those who have decided otherwise that we differentiate veneration from worship. Looks like God will have to judge us, don't you think? Impasse!
Just for knowledge purposes, we do celebrate Feast Days for those who are in full communion with God, Saints. St Paul's feast day is celebrated with St Peter.
Nope we don't have prayers for Paul. He is already in heaven in full communion with God. He prays for us.
>>>>>>>>Unfortunately this is not what Paul wants us to do. He does not want to receive the kind of praises that you are giving him through special Feast days. 1 Corinthians 3 is pretty clear that Paul does not want us to regard him more then what we ought to.

And unfortunately as you know, Catholics are not bound purely by Biblical references but also by centuries of inflection and study of theology (right from the earliest days of the church) to fully understand Christ role in our Salvation and the role played by Mary in it.
I do not expect a non catholic to call Mary "Queen of Heaven". This only comes after a fuller understanding and appreciation of how Catholics see Mary. In fact, we don't just call her Queen of Heaven. She is much more often and affectionately termed as "Mother of God", which I am sure you would agree, supersedes her title of Queen of Heaven.
>>Maybe you do not realize the implication of calling Mary the Mother of God. It puts Mary on par or even above Jesus. Of course right now, you deny that you are worshiping Mary but then it's not surprising that many others are worshiping her because by putting Mary on par with Jesus and therefore God, there should be no problem worshiping her. Calling Mary the Mother of God also means that Mary should be compared with God the Father. You are probably going to deny this again but then think about it. That's the implication. Maybe openly, the catholic church denies Mary worship, but then in actual fact, attributing Mother of God to Mary actually elevates her position to God. Words do mean something especially when it comes to religion.

>>>If Jesus is truly God and Mary is his mother, then she is the Mother of God, no? God chose for it to be like that. God our Father chose for Jesus to have a human mother, the Mother of God.

>>>>Well, so now you admit that the Catholic Church actually worships Mary. Notice that Jesus never referred to Mary as Mother. Should have given you a clue. In other words, position wise, Mary should not really be considered Jesus Mother even though physically she is.  So all this while, what you said about just venerating Mary is not true. You are actually worshiping Mary. As I have demonstrated earlier. The Catholic church has not been upfront in it's declaration. It talks about salvation through God's grace alone. But in actual fact. Individual works are still required. And now, it makes the claim that it only venerates Mary, but now you admit that Mary is at the position of God. So therefore in Catholic theology, there is nothing wrong in worshiping Mary. If there's nothing to hide, why do this?
>>>>>Sorry to keep harping on about this point, Sylar111. I am not sure what you mean by "Mary should not really be considered Jesus Mother even though physically she is". Is she Jesus's Mother?
>>>>>Not sure how it is concluded that calling Mary the Mother of God means we worship her, or that she is in the position of God. Do you mean to say that Mother of God is the same as God? I doubt any of us will say our mothers are the same as us.
>>>>>Is it OK to call Mary "the mother of our Lord"? Is it OK to call Mary "the mother of Jesus"? Is Jesus truly God? If so, I am not sure how we can be wrong to say Mary "is the mother of God".
>>>>>Sorry, but for the sake of clarity, I will not go into the theology of Salvation here as it is another lengthy topic and that has also been discussed at length previously.
>>>>>Not sure what the Church is being accused of hiding. As mentioned earlier, the Catholic church consistently and persistently condemns any person that claims Mary is God. Those that followed the heresy of Collyridians were ex-communicated.
>>>>>As mentioned earlier,  if you come across any Catholics who worship Mary, by all means correct them.
>>>>>>Well.. Not really. A surrogate mother of a child is not really the real mother of a child. I think it's pretty clear that the holy spirit was directly involved in the virgin birth of Mary. It means that the DNA does not really come from Mary. Of course, as I mentioned physically wise, Mary could be considered a mother because physically she brought Jesus to the world physically. But then being a mother also means Mary should precede Jesus. Jesus has existed since the beginning of time. Let's say your uncle happens to be younger then you or about the same age as you. You will not treat him with the same kind of respect that that you would have to an uncle older then you right?most people would have understood where I am coming from but then if you are insistent that calling mary the Mother of God does not elevate her to a position comparable to God, then I guess very little things will get into your head. I know you are not that naive but the catholic church seems to have casted a spell on you.
>>>>>>>Major, major disagreement. Mary is a surrogate mother of Jesus? That would suggest that Jesus is not human, for He did not take flesh from His mother. Surely not biblical. Strongly disagree.
If Mary was just a surrogate mother, Genesis  3 would not be accurate.
>>>>>>>I am sure everyone agrees that God is not bound with time. Jesus being there since the beginning is in no way contrary to the belief that He became man in our time, taking on human flesh.
>>>>>>>So is it offensive to call Mary "the mother of our Lord"? Is it offensive to call Mary "the mother of Jesus"? Is Jesus truly God?
>>>>>>>Sorry but maybe we Catholics are just so thick skinned that we are so confident that God our Father, who close for Jesus to be born of a  woman, would in no way be offended that we call Mary, as the mother of God, to recognize that her son was truly God.
As has been discussed at length before, Catholics do not view sacred tradition as conflicting with sacred scripture. In fact it is seen as being very complementary. It has to be since it was the church that compiled the bible. Catholics would go as far to say as reading the Bible as one would read an ordinary book without learning more about the history, context, language and culture in which it originated from can give rise to many false teachings and beliefs. This can surely be seen in that there are so many different interpretations even of singular verses of the Bible.
>>There are actually quite a few traditions that you practiced that contradict the scripture. But let's just discuss the examples above.

>>>Sure.

An example would be the verses from Luke 8:19-21 which you alluded to. One way some people have looked at it has been that Jesus is rebuking /  belittling his mother and brethren in front of a crowd. This might of course seem out of keeping with Jesus. Another view is that Jesus was trying to teach us that even though we might not be his blood relative, we do not have to dismay for he considers all who do the will of His Father as His own. A third interpretation of these verses (which might not come across at first glance) actually sees Jesus as praising Mary. For who is it who has done the will of God to perfection? Luke 1:38 - Mary "May it be done to me according to Thy will". So Jesus is telling the crowd that Mary is not just my mother by virtue of being my biological mother but also spiritually because "She does the will of my Father".
>> I would not say that Jesus is belittling his mother. He is just stating facts thats all. I would say it's a combination of 1 and 2. He was not being disrespectful. He is just recognizing his actual position as compared to Mary that's all. Physically, she brought Jesus to the world. Spiritually, Mary was just another virtuous woman that's all.  Mary still has to submit to Jesus even though she bore him. The same cannot be the same for our mothers right?

>>>You are right. Mary is a mere human being, nothing compared to God. But she was raised to be above all women, not just another virtuous woman. Mary submits to Jesus but as Her will and the will of the Father are so in sync with each other, there is no contradiction.

There is also another verse from Luke that at first glance might appear that Jesus is belittling Mary. Luke 11:27-28: While He was speaking, a woman from the crowd called out and said to Him, “Blessed is the womb that carried you and the breasts at which you nursed.” He replied, “Rather, blessed are those who hear the word of God and observe it.”  Again it can be viewed in different ways. Negative or positive.
>>It's pretty clear what this means. The focus should not be on Mary.

>>>Sorry. Actually I wanted this verse to be contrasted with the greeting from Elizabeth below. Similar, is it not? Yet, again Mary is called the Blessed among all women.
>>>Do you think Elizabeth's greeting to Mary is over the top? An exaggerated sycophantic cry of an over-excited cousin?

>>>>Question. Did Eliezabeth only greeted Mary this way after Mary was pregnant or before? Mary wasn't always so "blessed" until she gave birth to Jesus. I think we ourselves should not get too excited over this. When say one of our kids got accepted to a prestigious university, I am pretty sure that praises like "Kid is very smart". "Kid has a great future". "God really blessed you. Kid is very blessed to have a dad to support you. Etc. Of course after graduation, those kids could be considered more bless then those who did not receive a proper university education. This kid is mostly blessed afterwards as well. Just giving an example here. Giving birth to Jesus is obviously an incident of the magnitude of the highest order. She will be remembered for this incident forever. Its just the same as say Albert Einstein being remembered for a very long time for his theory of relativity. Albert Einstein could also be considered one of the greatest scientist for his theory of relativity.  But let's not get carried away with this. She carried Jesus. Jesus has already existed since the beginning of time. Jesus did not owe his existence to Mary. She should be blessed because she brought Jesus to the world that's all.  Notice that you even used " Her will and the will of the Father". In other words, even though you are denying this, you are putting Mary to the position of God subconsciously. No wonder so many catholics are worshiping her. By saying that it's wrong to worship Mary, you are actually acting hypocritically since Jesus never denied worship due to his position as being Equal to God.
>>>>>You are absolutely right. Mary is only blessed among all women because of her having the privilege of bearing, nursing and raising Jesus up. Without Him, she is nothing and might not even make it into the bible. But because of this great privilege, she is blessed among all women and occupy a very special place in the legion of saints. Mary's contribution to this is that she acceded to the Will of God so whole heartedly. God or Jesus does not owe her anything. She is but their lowly creature. However the plan of God required the free will of a Holy Receptacle. And God found that in Mary. That is why we copy her and call her our mother.
So you agree that she is to be called Blessed then? More than all other women? Full of Grace?
>>>>>Whether Mary was blessed by God before or after conceiving Jesus is another point. I am sure you noticed that she was called by Full of Grace and Blessed among all women before she even conceived.
>>>>> biggrin.gif Let's not read too much into typos, ya? I am sure you we would like to keep this as civil as possible and not resort to accusations of idolatry and hypocrisy. If i am hypocritical in my heart or misled on this point, I sincerely seek God's forgiveness. If I am not though, it might be regarded as bringing false witness against another.   
>>>>>>And I have already indicated Stephen who was called in a similar way. Trust me. I am already controlling myself because I notice that you are starting to display the same kind of spirit as Yeeck whereby you are just conveniently ignoring things that I have said and pretending to not know where I am coming from. I am not reading much into typo but from what you type I already know that you put the position of mary as the same as God. in Christian circles we only reserve capitalized characters for someone in the position of God. I know you are trying to refrain yourself from doing so. I have already explained why. Unfortunately jesus who was the actual "son" of mary did not refer her to his mother. So whose example should we follow? Also, if mary was sinless, Elizabeth would have no problems calling mary blessed one even before she had jesus. You seem to miss the point.

>>>>>>>Stephen was described by Luke as being full of grace. Mary was called by the Angel of the Lord, Gabriel "Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee; blessed art thou among women". "Full of Grace" was her title. And just for the record (if it really matters) , she was not pregnant then.
>>>>>>>After your recent entry, I will refrain from talking about when to use capital letters. Hope it is mutual.
You might also want to compare these verses with Luke 1:41-45 - When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the infant leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth, filled with the Holy Spirit, cried out in a loud voice and said, “Most blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb. How does this happen to me, that the Mother of my Lord should come to me? For at the moment the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the infant in my womb leaped for joy. Blessed are you who believed that what was spoken to you by the Lord would be fulfilled.”
Similar exhortations by different women, but notice who is called the Blessed.
>>Look at the following verses
28 And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. 29 And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be. 30 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. 31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.
Note the statement " Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God" and also "And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be." It's pretty clear that the concept of immaculate conception cannot be true because if that was true, Mary would not have been troubled as she would have known her sinless state. Also the statement, you have found favour with God shows clearly that she was just a normal person before the Angel visited her.

>>> It should be noted that throughout the bible, the Angel of God appears several times. However, it is only to Mary, that the greeting of "Hail, full of Grace! The Lord is with Thee. Blessed are thou among women" is bestowed.
>>>If this was the first time a mere human was ever addressed by God this way (not even Abraham, Moses or Elijah was addressed this way by the angels of God), wouldn't any one, whether sinless or not, be stunned or troubled? I would say, maybe only those who were very arrogant wouldn't be troubled. Humility should not be mistaken for sinfulness. Jesus was humble yet, even to accepting his cross. I am sure it is agreed that he was sinless. So while this does not prove the Immaculate Conception (which requires a much deeper reading and appreciation of bible and sacred tradition), it certainly does not disprove it, no? 
>>> As mentioned above, none of the heroes of the Old testament was ever greeted as being full of Grace and blessed among all women. I would suggest that that certainly does not make Mary "Normal". If she was just happened to be the lucky girl who picked up the lucky ticket, why was Joseph and Elizabeth not greeted in the same was by the angel?
Regarding the Miracle at Cana - somehow I don't agree that Jesus was under any obligation to perform His first public miracle. There were many other instances in the Gospels where His disciples had asked him to do something but He disagreed and did not do so. eg: Matt 14:15 "send them away to the villages to eat"; Luke 9:49-50 - "Master, we saw someone casting out demons in Your name; and we tried to prevent him because he does not follow along with us." But Jesus said to him, "Do not hinder him; for he who is not against you is for you."; Luke 9:54-56 "Lord, do You want us to command fire to come down from heaven and consume them?" But He turned and rebuked them, and said, "You do not know what kind of spirit you are of; for the Son of Man did not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them." I don't think the scale of the miracle matters - it was still a Divine intervention and sign.
>>>>How about Stephen then. Are we to venerate him?
8 And Stephen, full of faith and power, did great wonders and miracles among the people. In other versions "full of grace and power" are being used by the way
>>>>>Yup. He is known as St Stephen. We celebrate His feast day 27th December. Considered as the first martyr.
>>>>>>At least this is consistent. But then Stephen isn't regarded as highly as Mary I guess.

>>>>>>>Nope. None of the saints are.
The point of the matter is, by carrying Jesus, Mary has done the most incredible thing ever as a human. So as stated, you are just trying to exaggerate something more then it should be.
Jesus was addressed in a similar way many times. Even though he was God, he was man as well. Did he get shocked? If say I knew of my piano skills. I know for sure that my piano skills are better then others. No one praised me of my piano skills for some person. A person come along praising my piano skills. Would I be shocked? No. Because I know that my piano skills are of a certain standard. But I could be humble and not get too occupied by the praises. If Mary was sinless, she would have an inkling of the state that she is in and it would not have shocked her.
>>>>>Mary was deeply troubled. Does that prove she was not sinless?
Jesus was troubled now and again - does that mean He was anything less than God? Does that mean He doubted His Father in Heaven? Wouldn't He have known that troubles were coming his way?
>>>>>>Did I ever implied that Mary sinned because she was troubled? You are falsely accusing me like the other guy. I think you should think more before you reply because if you reread what I wrote, I never said that Mary sinned because she was deeply troubled. You are just repeating the standard answer your church gives you that's all. And that''s why you are answering my concerns wrongly.

>>>>>>>My apologies. From your comment "If Mary was sinless, she would have an inkling of the state that she is in and it would not have shocked her.", I assumed you were.
I guess also better for us not to assume as to why Mary was shocked/troubled. Too many interpretations with no proof. 
First of all, those heroes are mostly man. Secondly, I would admit that Mary did the most incredible thing ever. Dun mean to be rude. How can you compare Jesus with John the Baptist. Also you do realize that it was not Mary virtue alone that determines whether she carried Jesus. Jesus has to come from a genealogy which ends with Joseph and mary and started of with David. So it was not really her virtousness that is the determining factor but also her lineage and that of Joseph. So it's not really a lottery ticket as per say but the timing and also her heritage as well. Her virtuousness probably play a role but then I would argue that if say there's another woman who was just as virtous or even more virtous then Mary, she would not also get to carry Jesus because of her lineage. No matter how you slice it, you really cannot use that passage as an example of Mary ability to intercede for us. In fact, it's pretty clear that Jesus even told Mary politely that her request was not going to give him any glory and he fulfilled the request in a way that gave him the glory. To use this passage to justify your claims makes you and by proxy the catholic church looks very uncredible. Tell any non christians out there that Mary should be interceeding for us based on that passage and they will probably mock you even more. I admit that immaculation conception is catholic tradition and the catholic church will do anything to defend this even though it's clearly wrong.
>>>>>As mentioned above, Mary is venerated by virtue of God. No more, no less. All the praises given to her are meant to glorify God. All the dogmas attached to her are to demonstrate the power, glory and love of God, who raised a lowly vessel to work such marvels for her.
Mary's only doing in this whole picture of Salvation is her whole hearted, unconditional and eternal "yes" to the will of God.
>>>>>Thanks for being so concerned about us. Don't worry. We are being mocked all the time. God never promised us an easy ride, even though He did promise that the Gates of Hell would never hold out against His church. And if what you say is true, then we deserve that mocking.
>>>>>>You still do not get the point. What I was trying to say is that this passage is a very weak case to use to support the case of Mary interceeding for us. Just like in Science, when you want to assert something, you better make sure you have a stronger case before you do so. Otherwise, you lose all credibility. Being mocked because of preaching the truth is different from being mocked because of lack of credibility. I am pretty sure you know that.
>> Those examples you gave are not very great. The thing is, are they asking in accordance to God's will.  I am not trying to imply that every prayer will be answered. But God do listen to all of our prayers.

>>> Agreed. Those were not good examples but it was to point out that we should not underestimate the significance of Jesus responding to Mary even though He felt that His time had not come yet.
7 Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: 8 for every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened. 9 Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone? 10 Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent? 11 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?

God do listen to our prayers and will answer them if it is in accordance to his will. As for Mary, it's clear that when Jesus performed the miracle, He was glorified in the end as well.
"Jesus did this, the first of his signs, in Cana of Galilee and it revealed his glory and his disciples believed in him". Similarly, I could also say that Jesus was not obligated to bless the Canaanite woman as well. So are we to now venerate the Canaanite woman?

>>>Regarding Canaanite woman, yes, we should praise her for Jesus praised her. She might not have a name or position but her faith is a model for us all.

>>>>She did not become as venerated as Mary did she? And what do you mean by praised. Keep in mind that she is still a sinner like the rest of us. Now, I dun think praising someone is an issue but venerating someone is going too overboard dun you think? After all, she is still a sinner.
>>>>>Veneration are for those heroes of faith, those who suffered for the sake of Christ, those who did God's will despite having a sword pierce their hearts, those who kept through till the end. Yes, we praise them. We imitate them. We venerate them. We ask them to pray for us.
>>>>>>The fact is that they are still sinners. But then by doing that, you are elevating them to something more then they are. I really do not know how you are not able to see that.

>>>>>>>Again, something we will never agree on. Going nowhere, yeah?

By the way, since you are very interested in what Catholics belief in, I must ask you, have you read the Catechism of the Catholic Faith? Have you ever been to a Mass, the Eucharistic celebration?
I hope so because every now and again, Catholics come across people who mean well but who have a very confused idea about what the Catholic church teaches and what Catholics do. I would be the first to admit, there are even Catholics who are confused. Unfortunately sometimes people start questioning Catholics based on what they hear, on what they read on the internet forums or worst still, from avowed anti-Catholic literature (eg Chick's tracts and the like) or even ex-catholics who have a bone to pick.
Want to know the truth about the Catholic faith? Read the Catechism and come for a Holy Eucharist celebration and find out the meaning of the mass.
Otherwise if just concerned, pray for Catholics. And we will pray for you.
 
We certainly will be able to debate the length and breath of the bible and Catholic beliefs in these pages. And as you can see, often, there is more than one side of the coin. However hopefully this discussion has shown you that Catholic practices definitely have biblical roots (and, sorry to repeat again, roots in Sacred Tradition) and that we are definitely not some "whore of Babylon" or "the anti-Christ" as some might gleefully claim.
>>That's still a subject for debate.

Lastly, I can't promise to reply to all further inquiries after this as it is time consuming. Unless it is a very short and precise concern and can be answered quickly.

If our ancestors were Catholic, we definitely asked them to pray for us, and at the same time pray for them. When it comes to a canonized saint, then it is the infallible teaching of the Church which tells us that so and so is a model of faith worthy of imitation and is definitely in Heaven, as per the keys of binding and loosing given by Christ Himself.

Jesus does refer to Mary as Mother. On the cross, He said, "Woman, behold, your son!." And then He told John, "Behold, your mother!."

Nope it is your misunderstanding regarding the term Mother of God. The Church taught this very clearly that Mary is a creature but is truly the mother of the second Person of the Blessed Trinity (true God and true Man). There are other examples from Scripture.

" The Lord said to my Lord: Sit thou at my right hand: Until I make thy enemies thy footstool." - Ps 110:1.

Does that verse means we have more than one Lord God, as accused by the Muslims? Did you ever wonder also why did Jesus called Himself "Son of Man". If He is God as you claimed to believe, does it mean Man preceded Him?

You said that is your natural understanding of Mother. Ah, but Christians must not only look at the natural perspective but also the supernatural perspective of the mysteries of Christianity.

As for Tradition/Scripture, instead of going in circles over and over, just show us where is Bible alone taught. Simple as that.