[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 238 KB, 474x809, Mary_Mediatrix_of_All_Graces.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR] No.19217296 [Reply] [Original]

Is there any evidence AGAINST Mary being the mediatrix of all graces? Any at all?

>> No.19217463

>>19217296
Literally, like, read the bible dude. Jesus is the mediator, Mary worship is idolatry. You don't praise the glass the wine came in, you praise the wine.

>> No.19217468

>>19217463
>Literally, like, read the bible dude.
I read it and Gabrial said Mary was filled with grace.

>> No.19217474

>>19217296
>mediatrix of all graces
this doesn't mean anything. this is as meaningless, as pompous, as disconnected from reality as freudian psychoanalysis. I am so tired of you all, all of your beliefs are built on foundations of air

>> No.19217483

>>19217474
It means she distributes the graces put out by God.

>> No.19217497

brainlet take on a brainlet take (exoteric religion)

>> No.19217503

>>19217463
Jesus is the only mediator between humanity and God, but other humans can mediate His human nature. That's why Paul asks other Christians to pray for him in his letters. My question is whether there's any evidence that any grace is given without Mary praying for it

>> No.19217505

>>19217468
Nice bait, you got my (you)

>> No.19217522

>>19217505
I'm serious.

>> No.19217535

>>19217483
that doesn't mean anything. you are assuming some kind of bizarre metaphysical structure of grace, some insane form of radical idealism where mere ideas are not only real but have physical properties of manifoldness, emanation, the ability to be "distributed" by a "mediator." Don't you see that this is all just fantasy? Even if it is all true, you are still assuming it with almost zero actual thought as to the truth of it all, you've assumed countless propositions to be true every one of which is a point of massive contention. It just seems like nobody at all cares about truth you just want to believe whatever. In the end I guess nobody has learned Socrates's lesson from the apology even though it's the most basic thing. It drives me crazy. You believe things that deep down you can't even begin to know the truth value of. You just ignored quid est veritas and jumped straight to est vir qui adest. You are too old to still be doing this.

>> No.19217568
File: 5 KB, 225x224, reneguenon.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>refutes religion
heh nothin personal

>> No.19217621

>>19217535
Grace isn't an idea, it's a quality.

>> No.19217624

>>19217505
Does it not?

>> No.19217630

>>19217568
>>refutes religion
Quote? Passage? Book?

>> No.19217635

>>19217535
>you are assuming some kind of bizarre metaphysical structure of grace, some insane form of radical idealism where mere ideas are not only real but have physical properties of manifoldness, emanation, the ability to be "distributed" by a "mediator."

God and Christ mediate grace through human persons all the time. Now that in itself does not prove the OP, but it does tend to refute your above-quoted remark.

>> No.19217713

>>19217630
Religions are just relative expressions of higher spiritual truth for the commoners. In antiquity there was the esoteric behind the exoteric (religion), for the elite, which consists in directly experiencing the divine, such that man experiences an ontological shift "upwards" (to "heaven"). Read Guenon.

>> No.19217722

What would Mary say if she saw that people were wirshipping her instead of her son whom she saw die on a cross?

>> No.19217777

>>19217722
>Oy vey!

>> No.19217814

>>19217474
>all of your beliefs are built on foundations of air

My beliefs are built on my ancestors beliefs going back 1600 years

>> No.19217816

>>19217522
I'll put it to you like this
> this pizza is really good
> but the pizza box is good because the pizza came in it
> eat the box too
Or
> my Amazon package arrived!
> treating the box as though it's as valuable as the package
She was the vessel that delivered Jesus, but she's just a vessel and really the only reason she's mentioned is because a virgin birth fulfills some prophecies in Isaiah

>> No.19217832

>>19217814
which are already dangerous semitic deviations from true spirituality, meant for the plebs

>> No.19217872

>>19217296
1 Timothy 2:5 KJV
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

Jesus is the only mediator between God and men. Mary is not the mediator.

this is also a reminder that you can't work your way to heaven by repenting of your sins or doing the sacraments. eternal life is the free gift of God that can only be received by faith alone in Christ alone. watch this gospel video if you are not 100% sure of going to heaven. it's easy to be saved /lit/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEawcSFuCTw

>> No.19217957

>>19217722
As St. Thomas Aquinas explains, adoration, which is known as latria in classical theology, is the worship and homage that is rightly offered to God alone. It is the manifestation of submission, and acknowledgement of dependence, appropriately shown towards the excellence of an uncreated divine person and to his absolute Lordship. It is the worship of the Creator that God alone deserves. Although we see in English a broader usage of the word "adoration" which may not refer to a form of worship exclusive to God—for example, when a husband says that he "adores his wife"—in general it can be maintained that adoration is the best English denotation for the worship of latria.

Veneration, known as dulia in classical theology, is the honor and reverence appropriately due to the excellence of a created person. Excellence exhibited by created beings likewise deserves recognition and honor. We see a general example of veneration in events like the awarding of academic awards for excellence in school, or the awarding of olympic medals for excellence in sports. There is nothing contrary to the proper adoration of God when we offer the appropriate honor and recognition that created persons deserve based on achievement in excellence.

We must make a further clarification regarding the use of the term "worship" in relation to the categories of adoration and veneration. Historically, schools of theology have used the term "worship" as a general term which included both adoration and veneration. They would distinguish between "worship of adoration" and "worship of veneration." The word "worship" (in a similar way to how the liturgical term "cult" is traditionally used) was not synonymous with adoration, but could be used to introduce either adoration or veneration. Hence Catholic sources will sometimes use the term "worship" not to indicate adoration, but only the worship of veneration given to Mary and the saints.

>> No.19217966

>>19217872
If other people can't pray to Jesus on your behalf why does Paul ask them to in almost every letter?

>> No.19218004

>>19217296
Is there any evidence for it tho

>> No.19218064

>>19217777
kekked and checked but seriously

>> No.19218106

>>19217957
I understand this clarification and I never implied that the saint worship is idolatry as it is meant canonically, but what this translates into in practice is that the average Christian will in fact worship (latria) the patron Saint of whatever, as most elderly Catholics do in their daily lives. They carry an image of Mary or the local Saint instead of Jesus, will kiss and pray to that image. Nobody's really going to tell them that they are perhaps a little too affectionate.

>> No.19218156

>>19218106
You can never be "too affectionate" to Mary, since you can never love her more than Jesus does. It would only be latria if you (a) offered a sacrifice to her or (b) asked her to bestow a favor through her own power rather than by petitioning her Son.

>> No.19218166

>>19218156
>offered a sacrifice to her
are money offerings considered sacrifices?

>> No.19218188

>>19217966
It's the difference between
> dear Jesus, help my friend
And
> dear Stuart, tell Jesus to help my friend
Where Stuart is just your friend you're praying to that lives in the next city.
Mary is essentially "just some lady." You don't venerate George Washington's mom just because she's his mom. She's not important just because her son is important.

>> No.19218209

>>19218188
so
>dear Jesus, tell God to help me
is not praying to Jesus?

>> No.19218308

Prayer is a form of magic.

>> No.19218317

>>19218209
> doesn't understand the trinity
Anon I...

>> No.19218322

>>19218188
>Be instant in prayer; watching in it with thanksgiving: Praying withal for us also, that God may open unto us a door of speech to speak the mystery of Christ (for which also I am bound;)
Sounds a lot like "dead Colossians, ask God to help us". How much more efficacious are the prayers of Mary, full of grace, than those of a few Christians in Colossae. If Paul didn't hesitate to ask for the former, why should I hesitate to ask for the latter?

>> No.19218326

>>19218322
*dear, not dead

>> No.19218383

>>19218317
>believes in a compromise made up hundreds of years after Christ's death and clearly contradicts the fact that the son is portrayed as subserviant to the father many times in the gospels

>> No.19218385

>>19218166
Nobody offers money to Mary

>> No.19218444

>>19217296
Why on earth would she be? I don't understand this idea

>> No.19218456

>>19218383
>doesn’t realize that the Trinity appears as early as Genesis

>> No.19218461

>>19217872
>Believe in God
Now I'm saved
>Commit mortal sin

What happens now? Am I still saved?

If so then morality is irrelevant
If not then works are necessary

>> No.19218466

>>19218456
Sauce

I have seen this argument from Ortholarpers that Jews don't worship the same God but Abraham worshipped the Trinity, it makes no sense

>> No.19218500

>>19217832
>muh secret knowledge is the true religion, everyone else is deluded

There's no way this is prelest, you're right

>> No.19218517

>>19217468
How is that different to a normal believer in a state of grace?

Unless it refers to Jesus in her womb, in which case she was only 'filled' while pregnant and afterwards was a human saint like any other

>> No.19218520

>>19218444
https://sspx.com.au/en/throne-grace-marys-universal-mediation

>> No.19218524
File: 168 KB, 1188x798, 1593200372014.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

She's a mother goddess. They're everywhere. Childbirth sucks.

>> No.19218590
File: 175 KB, 808x1191, 2A6789C8-D8F8-4D34-8AEA-C4DCDDE2D308.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>19218466
One good place to start is Genesis 16. The Angel of the Lord appears to Hagar and tells her that she will have a son and he will be named Ishmael. You should read the chapter yourself to see what I am saying in context and to see that it indeed is in reference to the Angel of the Lord, but Hagar addresses the Angel of the Lord in the following terms:
>She gave this name to the Lord who spoke to her: “You are the God who sees me,” for she said, “I have now seen the One who sees me.” That is why the well was called Beer Lahai Roi; it is still there, between Kadesh and Bered.
She refers to this ‘Angel’ as God and the Lord. Angel means nothing more than ‘messenger’ it’s important to remember as well.

Also one can look at Genesis 19:24, which I think Justin Martyr pointed to to show multiple persons in the Godhead:
>Then the Lord rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah—from the Lord out of the heavens.
The Lord raining down sulfur from the Lord in the heavens is the key point here. Referring to the Son and the Father.

Jacob also wrestles with an ‘angel’ in Genesis 32:22-32. After he wrestles, he names the place ‘Peniel’ or “Face of God”, because “I have seen God face to face, and yet my life was spared.” This clearly puts into context statements about no-one having seen God the Father, and Jesus saying that one who has seen him has seen the Father. Jacob wrestled with the Son.

Exodus 3:2-4
>There the angel of the Lord appeared to him in flames of fire from within a bush. Moses saw that though the bush was on fire it did not burn up. So Moses thought, “I will go over and see this strange sight—why the bush does not burn up.”
>When the Lord saw that he had gone over to look, God called to him from within the bush, “Moses! Moses!”
First it says the Angel of the Lord was in the bush, and then immediately after it says God talks to Moses from the bush. This is similar to Genesis 16.

Almost anytime God appears before someone, it is referring to the pre-incarnate Logos, i.e. the Son. Even pre-Christian Jews like Philo identified the Logos with the Angel of the Lord. So yes, it’s true that Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, etc. worshiped a triune God. If you’re wondering about the Holy Spirit, it’s right in Genesis 1. The Son is who walks through the garden after Adam and Eve sin. This stuff is all over the place, really.

>> No.19218708

>>19218590
>Then the Lord rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah—from the Lord out of the heavens.

This seems to refer to YHVH in both cases, I'm not sure how he's reading two different persons in this context unless the Hebrew uses different words

>Jacob also wrestles with an ‘angel’ in Genesis 32:22-32. After he wrestles, he names the place ‘Peniel’ or “Face of God”, because “I have seen God face to face, and yet my life was spared.” This clearly puts into context statements about no-one having seen God the Father, and Jesus saying that one who has seen him has seen the Father. Jacob wrestled with the Son.

So 'angel' here is referring to 'God but incarnated on our plane of existence'? Why couldn't this just be an angel in the context of a messenger of God?

>First it says the Angel of the Lord was in the bush, and then immediately after it says God talks to Moses from the bush. This is similar to Genesis 16.

Couldn't this just be God talking through an angel? Or that they both appeared?

>Even pre-Christian Jews like Philo identified the Logos with the Angel of the Lord.

This was another thing that confused me. Lets say all the above quotes are correct to say that OT figures recognised a trintity and that one is depicted there. If that's the case why did trinitarian theology not exist until the early Christian era?

Because either for some reason the Jews didn't know about it or didn't accept it despite it being in scripture, or they did know about it and accept it, in which case they worship the same God as us

>> No.19218740

>>19218461
Read the epistles of John

>> No.19218747

>>19217296
>>19217463
>>19217483
>>19217503
schizophasia, word salad, take meds

>> No.19218754

>>19218520
>Grace is mediated through Mary from God

Why does God need a mediator for grace exactly

>> No.19218758

>>19218740
I did but my question still stands

>> No.19218831

>>19218708
>Why couldn't this just be an angel in the context of a messenger of God?
Then why would Jacob said that he had seen the face of God and survived? People in the Bible don’t make such statements with every angel that visits them.

>Couldn't this just be God talking through an angel? Or that they both appeared?
The text does not indicate anything like that. It says that the Angel of the Lord appeared, and then it mentions God talking after that. We see similar interchangeable instances of this appearing in the Pentateuch, such as how in Exodus 14:19 it says that the Angel of God went before the Israelites in a pillar of cloud, while in following instances it refers to glory of the Lord God (Numbers 16:42, Exodus 16:9-10, Exodus 40:34).

> If that's the case why did trinitarian theology not exist until the early Christian era?
The earlier prophets didn’t know everything at once. For example, I think it would be uncontroversial to say that Abraham knew a bit more about the nature of God than say, Isaiah or Jeremiah. Not that he was less pious or righteous, obviously, but because God had revealed more of himself by those points in history. This is demonstrated when Jesus opens the eyes of the disciples to the Scriptures after he comes back following the resurrection. He shows them that they were all writing about him, Moses and all the prophets. Luke 24:25-27. Only then did the disciples come to this realization, thus attaining a more perfect realization of what people may have only partially grasped before.

>Because either for some reason the Jews didn't know about it or didn't accept it despite it being in scripture, or they did know about it and accept it, in which case they worship the same God as us
Many Jews did understand it, and that is why they became the first Christians. The Talmudic Jews that exist today are the result of 2,000+ years of error, self-worship and spite.