Monday, July 11, 2011

Something About Mary

Jamin Hubner on the AOMIN Blog (linked above) wrote:
Just finished reading through White's Mary - Another Redeemer? for the first time. I admit, despite my own experience with Roman Catholicism and its teachings about Mary, it was an eye-opening book. Two quotes from St. Maximillian Kolbe (canonized by Pope John Paul II) were particularly concise in summarizing Rome's absolutely incredible beliefs:

"The third Person of the Blessed Trinity never took flesh; still, our human word "spouse" is far too weak to express the reality of the relationship between the Immaculata and the Holy Spirit. We can affirm that she is, in a certain sense, the 'incarnation' of the Holy Spirit." (133)

"The union between the Immaculata and the Holy Spirit is so inexpressible, yet so perfect, that the Holy Spirit acts only by the Most Blessed Virgin, his Spouse. This is why she is the mediatrix of all graces given by the Holy Spirit. And since every grace is a gift of God the Father through the Son and by the Holy Spirit, it follows that there is no grace which Mary cannot dispose of as her own, which is not given to her for this purpose."
White asks the obvious and necessary question in response: "Who can hold the Bible to be the authoritative Word of God and still believe this?" (134) The answer, of course, is no one.
The personal revelation of someone, even a saint, is not an Article of Faith for the Catholic.  Just because St. Maximillian Colbe explains things this way does not make it a binding belief upon Catholics.  A faithful Catholic MAY see things this way - but it is not necessary.

The underlying TRUTH here is that the Blessed Virgin Mary was impregnated by the Holy Ghost - that would make her the spouse of the Holy Ghost.  Protestants seem to overreact to such a concept - but it IS quite scriptural!  "And she conceived by the Holy Ghost..." is not a verse they can deny!  Now, speculation that this may be why she dispenses graces - take it or leave it - it is a private revelation.


  1. I don't think it is what St. Maximillian said but the way he said it. He uses Catholic vocabulary--Protestants refuse to acknowledge that what a Catholic says, in Catholic verbiage is not understood by them. Protestants reinterpret what the saints and Fathers say all the time. The are looking at past writings as if the person is writing today, in English, with Protestant meanings.

    It is very similar to the discussion on Catholic Debate Forum with a Protestant about St. Liguori's writings. His writings are perfecly sound in accordance with Church teaching but also with Scripture. The Protestant couldn't see that because he was reinterpreting what St. Alphonsus was saying--to his (the Protestant's) interpretation of what St. Alphonsus was saying. Trying to explain his (the prot's) misinterpretation was like hitting my head against a wall.

    They have already decided that any and everything written about St. Mary is in error and anti-Scripture. They start with that premise--and no matter how a Catholic tries to explain their misinterpretations, they will not listen.

    Now, I have not read Kolbe's writings but I am sure that the context from which those quotes were ripped would explain a lot. I am sure St. Maximillian's writings are in perfect harmony with tradition and Scripture.

  2. It is as simple as this:

    "What the Catholic faith believes about Mary is based on what it believes about Christ, and what it teaches about Mary illumines in turn its faith in Christ." (CCC 487)

    What St. Maximillian is quoted as saying (out of context) speaks much more of Christ and His power as the Son of God than His Mother. What protestants forget is that nothing BV Mary does is without God, without His gifts, without her Son--NOTHING. She dispenses graces only because God allows her to do so. She answers prayers only by asking Her Son on our behalf. She does none of it alone--despite what Protestants want to read into Catholic writings.

  3. James Swan said... Scott-
    I'd like to thank you for your blog entry, particularly the clarity of your blog post.

    For clarity, it must be noted that the blog primarily reflects the out-of-context quotes from

    I hadn't visited your blog in quite a while. I simply reposted what you wrote, and provided a link back to your blog to prove it.

    Well, until the "combox" section, you didn't quote what *I* wrote, but what Hubner took out of context.

    It has been my experience that those on your side of the Tiber run the gamut on Mary.

    I won't disagree with you on that, and would go so far as to say that some take it to an extreme beyond which I participate in or accept. However, as cathmom5 said, I believe most Protestants (you included) overreact to what Catholics say about Mary.

    The only follow up question I would have you for you is, where are the guidelines for the way Romanists "see things" about Mary?

    Who are these "Romanists?" If you wish to ask a follow-up question, the only thing I ask is that you do so respectfully. You use this term "Romanist" as a slur, and it is not appreciated. I am not a "Romanist," I am a "Catholic" who honestly believes I am part of THE Church which Jesus Christ promised to build. The fact that you continue to use such terminology after you've been asked NOT to numerous time only demonstrates your LACK of Christian charity. I am very willing to answer ANY questions asked of me and Catholicism when asked in a spirit of charity.

    Swan continues: The rest of Scott's entry reads:

    "The underlying TRUTH here is that the Blessed Virgin Mary was impregnated by the Holy Ghost - that would make her the spouse of the Holy Ghost. Protestants seem to overreact to such a concept - but it IS quite scriptural! "And she conceived by the Holy Ghost..." is not a verse they can deny! Now, speculation that this may be why she dispenses graces - take it or leave it - it is a private revelation."

    Anything goes.

    It is your perception that "anything goes," but that was not even implied by what I said.

    I look forward to your respectful questions.


  4. Let me reiterate, I am not expecting that Swan AGREES with me (but do hope one day he will), but I do ask him to demonstrate some RESPECT and Christian charity. I am not expecting him to respect Catholicism, I know he does not, but to respect the PERSONS to whom he is addressing.

    For example, I don't think I agree with President Obama on just about anything, especially his views on the economy - HOWEVER - if I were to be given the opportunity to address him - I would exhibit respect and charity in such an address.

    I am a Christian expressing my faith in Jesus Christ and defending the Church which I believe Jesus Christ Himself founded. I do understand the Protestant mindset, I was one for over 29 years - and I respect that most Protestants are honestly pursuing Jesus Christ the best way they know - I know that while *I* was a Protestant, I was not dishonestly following something which I knew was false or fraudulent - I honestly thought I was following Christ. I believe I continue to follow Christ now - just with the fullness of the Truth which Protestantism only has a portion of. Protestantism DOES have SOME measure of the Truth, just not the FULLNESS of the Truth.



Keep in mind while posting:
1) Please respond ON TOPIC to the article at hand.
2) Posts more than 4 weeks old are set to automatically save new comments for moderation - so your comment may not show up immediately if you're responding to an older post.
3) The "Spam Filter" is on - and randomly messages get caught in that filter. I have no control over which messages get caught in the spam filter and those that do must wait for me to mark them as "not spam." A message caught by the spam filter may show up for a moment, making you think it posted, and then disappear. Do not assume I have deleted your comment, it's probably just the spam filter and it will show up.