IS THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY ON YOUR CONSCIENCE?

IS THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY ON YOUR CONSCIENCE?

Well, she should be, if…

1…You have considered that she was just an instrument to be set aside once she delivered the Messiah;

  • God exalted her to the highest of heights for humans. She is Full of Grace. Aside from her Son, no one is as full than she is in all the Scriptures. She cannot be fuller. “Hail Mary full of grace” (Luke 1:28);
  • God exalted her to the highest of heights for humans. Filled with the Holy Spirit, she was prompted by the Holy Spirit to proclaim: “For behold, henceforth all generations will call me blessed” (Luke 1:48). Do you do her honor by referring to her as ‘The Blessed Virgin Mary’ whenever you utter her blessed name?
  • Jesus had great respect for the Blessed Virgin Mary. He was obedient to her when He was young (Luke 2:51), and He acquiesced to her when He was older: “Do whatever he tells you” (John 2:5). She was His first disciple (just ponder on John 2:5). In saying what she said, she knew what He was capable of! It would seem like she was ignoring Him; and,
  • In the Sacred Oral Word (which was before the Written Word), she was more prominent than she was in the Scriptures, but, talk of her was rather subdued in both, because there were many female deities around at the time, and an encounter with Holy Mary would have absolutely charmed people into believing she was a goddess (her being sinless by God’s will; Jesus is the only One who is sinless – by His own will). She and the Apostles did not want that to interfere with her Son’s mission.

2…If you do not believe that she was immaculately conceived in the womb of her mother, St. Ann;

  • Have you pondered on the fact that God, the Father, would not want His Son 9 months in the womb of a woman bearing the stain of Original Sin? “Blessed is the fruit of your womb” (Luke 1:42);
  • The Sacred Oral Word of Christ before, and of the Holy Spirit, at and after, Pentecost (called Tradition with a capital ‘T’) maintains that the Blessed Virgin Mary is the Immaculate Conception. And the Sacred Oral Word was before the Written Word by scores of years.

3…If you do not believe that she was a virgin before, during and after she gave birth to God, the Son;

  • Matthew 1:25 “He had no relations with her until she bore a son, 12 and he named him Jesus.” In the mentality of the time and place of this verse, the word ‘until’ implies no relations before, but, is noncommittal afterwards.
  • Footnote: 12 [25] Until she bore a son: the evangelist is concerned to emphasize that Joseph was not responsible for the conception of Jesus. The Greek word translated “until” does not imply normal marital conduct after Jesus’ birth, nor does it exclude it.
  • If the Blessed Virgin Mary is the Immaculate Conception and was prevented from contracting Original Sin, would you expect God, the Father, to allow her to have relations with someone who has contracted Original Sin? Sinless before, sinful after?

4…If you do not believe that she was, and still is, Mediatrix of all Graces and Advocate:

  • Since the Blessed Virgin Mary is full of grace, she is the dispenser of her Son’s graces.
  • Jesus (Luke 24:51) and Peter (Acts 1:20-22) used Typology from the Old Testament. Here’s another bit of Typology: 1 Kings 2:19: Then Bathsheba went to King Solomon to intercede 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. From that day on, the Queen Mother ruled with her son, and not the wife (Jeremiah 13:18; and, 29:2). The Blessed Virgin Mary is the Mother of the King of kings. So, she is the Queen of queens. This is why we call her Queen of Heaven and Earth, Mediatrix of all Graces and Advocate.
  •  Repent, and venerate her.  We do not worship her; that is reserved for God alone; but, we venerate her. At least venerate her as you are supposed to venerate all the saints in Heaven (the Communion of Saints in the Apostles’ Creed). Should you want to say that the Communion of Saints means only among the living, then, I ask: Who are you to say and explain what was in use 2,000 years ago, when we have the Catholic Church preserving the Gospel and explaining word usage?! The Book of Revelation refers to ‘saints’ as being both in Heaven (Revelation 5:7-8, 6:9, and, 8:3-4), and on Earth (Revelation 13:7, 14:12, and 20:9).  God bless.

Shedding some Light on the Mechanics of the Faith

Considering that the Catholic Church alone has all the Truth,[1] and considering that logic and reason dictate that we are bound to believe all that God has revealed, listen to the words of the expert:

Msgr. George Agius: “It is evident, then, not only that there may be truths contained in the Deposit of Faith which may not always have been explicitly believed, but that there are in reality truths which were once implicitly contained in the Deposit of Faith and which must now be explicitly believed by all, under pain of eternal damnation. This follows from more recent definitions of the Sovereign Pontiffs and of the Councils. Those doctrines did not belong to the Faith because the Church has not yet passed judgment. They only became a part of the Faith after the Church had solemnly proclaimed that they must be explicitly believed by all. Such are the doctrines of the Immaculate Conception and the Infallibility of the Sovereign Pontiff.”[2]

Another such doctrine that surfaced after the book Tradition and the Church was written (1928), is that of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary Body and Soul into Heaven (Pope Pius XII – 1950).[3]

[Do you find it farfetched that Holy Mary could have been assumed into Heaven Body and Soul?  Why?  Is Enoch better than she is? (Genesis 5:24).  Is Elijah better than she is? (2 Kings 2:11)].

More of Msgr. George Agius’ insights from the pages of Tradition and the Church:

Page 288: The Church has from darkness brought to light with her infallible authority some doctrines which, through human negligence or malice or perversity of mind, remained concealed. And mayhap (means perhaps – YT) there are some still hidden in the Church.

– The Church cannot be afraid of the truth. Is not her Divine Bridegroom “the way, the truth and the life?” Ignorance, rather, is one of her greatest enemies.

– It always was the pretense of knowing more than the Church that brought schism and heresy.

Page 289: God permits errors in order that truth may be made manifest.

Therefore, many of the beliefs of old have their doctrines and dogmas carry a much, much later date than they were first believed and that is because they were never ever challenged before.  When challenged, they were fully defined and defended.  We carry on:

Page 294: If any one says that in the dogma once proposed by the Church it is possible through the progress of science to give a different sense from the one which the Church understood and understands, let him be anathema (Vatican I Council C. III).

Page 295: In all this there can be no contradiction, no ambiguity, no place for retraction – even where the Church defines a dogma which is connected with another dogma as a further declaration of the truth.

My Footnote: Let it be known that because of the Divine Power of Revelation exhibited in the above statement on page 295, the Catholic Church has never ever made any retraction.  The Catholic Church has never ever been wrong on any issue touching on Faith and Morals.  We carry on, still on page 295:

The Apostles had nothing to learn from any human philosophy or science. They knew intimately the mysteries of the Faith and all Revelation by that supernatural gift with which the Holy Ghost filled them on the day of Pentecost. They acquired their knowledge directly from God by an infused science, which no human effort can ever reach or even approximate.  Behold:

1 Thessalonians 1: 5 For our gospel did not come to you in word alone, but also in power and in the holy Spirit and (with) much conviction.

Page 296: The Fathers always considered the “sciences to be founded on Faith.” “Faith comes first in order that the science of the things of the Faith may follow.”

Page 297: If, therefore, in the definitions of the Church there may be any progress, it is “the progress of the faithful in the Faith, rather than of the Faith in the faithful,” as St. Albert the Great remarks (3 Dist., 25A. I.).

The definitions of the Church, therefore, contain in themselves, not only a part of the truth, but all the truth, simple and pure.

All those explanations above, on this page, have a bearing on the writings on page 1.

God bless.

2.26.2015; Enhanced 4.21.2015

[1] Msgr. George Agius, Tradition and the Church, TAN Books.com, 1928, 2005, p. 289

[2] Ibid, pp. 286-287

[3] Ibid, Publisher’s footnote (2005) p. 287

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s