What do you see in this picture?

[B®ent]

Greetings, my friends. Long time no see! Now that I have resumed participation on this site, I will be getting straight to the point. This photo was snapped outside of the St. Mary Major Catholic church, located in Rome, Italy. Examine the photo carefully - tell me what you see!

Regards,
Brent

http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/in-thefootsteps-bibletrans/Graphics%204/Mary-Jesus-Cross.jpg

[arunma]

Well, I can see the crucified Christ on the opposite side of the cross. There is another figure on the closer side, but I can't identify it.

That's all I've got. So what was I supposed to see?

[thereselittleflower]

May I contribute as a fellowship post? I have never seen this statue before, and I find it fascinating . . .

Rev 12:1 And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars:

[B®ent]

Mary being on the Cross with Christ is a clear emphasis on the notion of coredemptrix.

"To such extent did Mary suffer, and almost die with her suffering and dying Son; to such extent did she surrender her maternal rights over her Son for man’s salvation, and immolated Him—insofar as she could—in order to appease the justice of God, that we may rightly say she redeemed the human race together with Christ." (Pope Benedict XV, Inter Sodalicia, 1918.)

Or, as Pope Pius XII emphasized in a 1946 radio broadcast, "Mary, for having been associated with the King of Martyrs in the ineffable work of human Redemption as Mother and cooperatrix, she remains forever associated with him, with an almost unlimited power, in the distribution of graces which flow from the Redemption."

Totus Tuus

Are you speaking to Jesus Christ, or to Mary?

May I contribute as a fellowship post?

Any time. :)

Respectfully,
Brent

[No Swansong]

Amazing, Any other comment would be inappropriate from me.

[Adammi]

I think that it is a beautiful statue.
I see the crucified Christ on the front and the Mother of Christ holding the Christ-child on the obverse.
Which to me speaks of Christ's suffering from birth through his death and also speaks of Christ's suffering piercing Mary's heart.

[thereselittleflower]

Mary being on the Cross with Christ is a clear emphasis on the notion of coredemptrix.

"To such extent did Mary suffer, and almost die with her suffering and dying Son; to such extent did she surrender her maternal rights over her Son for man’s salvation, and immolated Him—insofar as she could—in order to appease the justice of God, that we may rightly say she redeemed the human race together with Christ." (Pope Benedict XV, Inter Sodalicia, 1918.)

Or, as Pope Pius XII emphasized in a 1946 radio broadcast, "Mary, for having been associated with the King of Martyrs in the ineffable work of human Redemption as Mother and cooperatrix, she remains forever associated with him, with an almost unlimited power, in the distribution of graces which flow from the Redemption."


May I ask, what do you think it meant when Simeon prophesied about Mary saying that "yea a sword shall pierce your own heart also that the thoughts of many may be revealed.



Are you speaking to Jesus Christ, or to Mary?

Pleaes feel free to ask me that in the OBOB forum. :


Any time. :)

Respectfully,
Brent



Thank you! :)

.

[No Swansong]

I see the possiblity of this thread deteriorating. I would like to remind our Catholic friends that fellowship and questions are always welcome however debate is not. Questions can be considered debate if they imply an argument.

Thank you for your consideration.

[No Swansong]

May I ask, what do you think it meant when Simeon prophesied about Mary saying that "yea a sword shall pierce your own heart also that the thoughts of many may be revealed.

A prophecy of Christ's death. What mother wouldn't be heartbroken over the executiion of her son?

[TwinCrier]

A prophecy of Christ's death. What mother wouldn't be heartbroken over the executiion of her son?
[/font][/size][/color][/font]True. When was Mary ever literally pierced with a sword? Mary's suffering had no benefit for mankind, but Christ's sacrifice was sufficient.

[B®ent]

jtbdad summed it up quite well: "A prophecy of Christ's death. What mother wouldn't be heartbroken over the executiion of her son?" Mary was heartbroken, indeed, as any mother would be; but she did not suffer for my sins with Christ. Christ's death on the Cross (and His Resurrection) is sufficient for our salvation.

Pleaes feel free to ask me that in the OBOB forum.It was a rhetorical question. I already know the answer. ;) John Paul II would often conclude his writings with the phrase, "Totus Tuus," which is translation, "Totally Yours." It was no mystery that he was speaking toward Mary.

Thank you!You're very welcome. :) And thank you for your response.

.I think that it is a beautiful statue.
I see the crucified Christ on the front and the Mother of Christ holding the Christ-child on the obverse.
Which to me speaks of Christ's suffering from birth through his death and also speaks of Christ's suffering piercing Mary's heart.

Okay. Why aren't you a Catholic?

Regards,
Brent

[Adammi]

Okay. Why aren't you a Catholic?

Even though I think that Roman Catholicism is one of the most beautiful expressions of the Christian faith I do differ from her on a few points, but even on those points I respect and try to understand our differences.

[thereselittleflower]

[FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3]jtbdad summed it up quite well: "A prophecy of Christ's death. What mother wouldn't be heartbroken over the executiion of her son?" Mary was heartbroken, indeed, as any mother would be; but she did not suffer for my sins with Christ. Christ's death on the Cross (and His Resurrection) is sufficient for our salvation.

I agree it is at the very minimum this. If you would like to know more about what is here in this verse, please feel free to come to OBOB and ask. :)


It was a rhetorical question. I already know the answer. ;) John Paul II would often conclude his writings with the phrase, "Totus Tuus," which is translation, "Totally Yours." It was no mystery that he was speaking toward Mary.

Again, I invite you to OBOB to find out what this really means. :)

You're very welcome. :) And thank you for your response.

You're very welcome in return. :)


.

[arunma]

Even though I think that Roman Catholicism is one of the most beautiful expressions of the Christian faith I do differ from her on a few points, but even on those points I respect and try to understand our differences.

That is more or less my feeling on the issue as well. Except that I differ with Roman Catholicism on more than just a few points.

[Rhamiel]

Originally Posted by Upon_This_Rock http://www3.christianforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=30784377#post30784377)
I think that it is a beautiful statue.
I see the crucified Christ on the front and the Mother of Christ holding the Christ-child on the obverse.
Which to me speaks of Christ's suffering from birth through his death and also speaks of Christ's suffering piercing Mary's heart.

Right guided mind

[LittleladyinChrist]

Even though I think that Roman Catholicism is one of the most beautiful expressions of the Christian faith I do differ from her on a few points, but even on those points I respect and try to understand our differences.
I hear people say that there are only a few minor differences between Catholisism and Evangelical Christianity. But I do not understand this rational.

Rome denies justification by grace alone and the sole Mediatorship of Christ BY ITS DOCTRINE OF MARY: "In a wholly singular way she cooperated by her obedience, faith, hope and burning charity in the Saviour's work of restoring supernatural life to souls. For this reason she is a mother to us in the order of grace" (New Catholic Catechism, 968). "... Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us gifts of eternal salvation. ... Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix" (New Catholic Catechism, 969).

From the Apostle Paul's lips, not mine. Let the Bible judge you, not I.


Galatians 1:7-9 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

[LittleladyinChrist]

Rome denies justification by grace alone BY ITS DOCTRINE OF THE MASS, by claiming that in the mass "the sacrifice of the cross is perpetuated" and "the work of our redemption is carried out" (Vatican II, Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy).

Rome denies justification by grace alone BY ITS DOCTRINE OF THE SACRAMENTS: "The Church affirms that for believers the sacraments of the New Covenant are necessary for salvation. ... The fruit of the sacramental life is that the Spirit of adoption makes the faithful partakers in the divine nature by uniting them in a living union with the only Son, the Saviour" (New Catholic Catechism, 1129).

Rome denies justification by grace alone BY ITS DOCTRINE OF PURGATORY, claiming that "the doctrine of purgatory clearly demonstrates that even when the guilt of sin has been taken away, punishment for it or the consequences of it may remain to be expiated or cleansed" (Vatican II, Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy).

Rome denies justification by grace alone and the sole Mediatorship of Christ BY ITS DOCTRINE OF CONFESSION. "One who desires to obtain reconciliation with God and with the Church, must confess to a priest all the unconfessed grave sins he remembers after having carefully examined his conscience" (New Catholic Catechism, 1493). "Individual and integral confession of grave sins followed by absolution remains the only ordinary means of reconciliation with God and with the Church" (New Catholic Catechism, 1497). "The sacrament of Penance restores and strengthens in members of the Church who have sinned the fundamental gift of ... conversion to the kingdom of Christ, which is first received in Baptism" (Vatican II, Decree on Confession for Religious).

Rome denies justification by grace alone and the sole Mediatorship of Christ BY ITS DOCTRINE OF FORGIVENESS THROUGH THE CHURCH: "There is no offense, however serious, that the Church cannot forgive. ... Christ who died for all men desires that in his Church the gates of forgiveness should always be open to anyone who turns away from sin" (New Catholic Catechism, 982).

Parts taken from Article by David Cloud
http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/howrome.htm

[Adammi]

I hear people say that there are only a few minor differences between Catholisism and Evangelical Christianity. But I do not understand this rational.

I don't claim to be an Evangelical.

[LittleladyinChrist]

Sorry for my wrong assumption then. But it is a fact that alot of Evangelical Christians hold the same stance as you have just said. That there are only few differences.

[cubanito]

2 other things besides the obvious implication of co-redemptrix strike me.

It is Mary who wears a true crown, not Jesus.

The cross is terminated by the "fleur de lil" (sp.?) which is the symbol of French Royalty

Jr

[Rhamiel]

"It is Mary who wears a true crown, not Jesus."


First off we have plenty of religious artwork with Christ as king, This piece showed Jesus as the suffering servant and as an infant. This one shows Christ as King. http://www.crownofdavid.com/files/heartandking.jpg

[Rhamiel]

Oh and if that statue was outside of france the Fleur-de-lis was most likely a sign of the Trinity... wait even in france it was most likely a sign of the Trinity

[No Swansong]

"It is Mary who wears a true crown, not Jesus."


First off we have plenty of religious artwork with Christ as king, This piece showed Jesus as the suffering servant and as an infant. This one shows Christ as King


For me the problem is primarily the idea of the Co-Redemptrix. But additionally I have issue with Mary being depicted with a crown at all.

[B®ent]

Look closely at her hands...

http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/blasphem.jpg

[jlujan69]

Brent, all that you've stated is true about the unscripturalness of Mary as co-redemptrix. What you should realize, however, is that to the faithful Roman Catholic, no teaching of his church is in contradiction to the Bible because those who are highly regarded in that church (popes, magisterium, church councils) said so, and in many cases, they declared so infallibly. Of course, we know that truth stands on its own merit, not on what created human being spoke it, per Galatians 1:8-9 and Acts 17:11.

[Rhamiel]

Jtbdad, why do you have a problem with Mary wearing a crown. Are we not all heirs to the Kingdom? Does not the Revelation of St. John talk about the saints having golden crowns? And does not the old testament has set a precedent for the Queen being the Mother of the King, case in point the kingship of Solomon here is a site that explains it better then I can. http://home.inreach.com/bstanley/queen.htm (http://home.inreach.com/bstanley/queen.htm)

[No Swansong]

Jtbdad, why do you have a problem with Mary wearing a crown. Are we not all heirs to the Kingdom? Does not the Revelation of St. John talk about the saints having golden crowns? And does not the old testament has set a precedent for the Queen being the Mother of the King, case in point the kingship of Solomon here is a site that explains it better then I can. http://home.inreach.com/bstanley/queen.htm (http://home.inreach.com/bstanley/queen.htm)
While much of what you post is true, the problem I have with Mary wearing a crown is the implication that she is the queen of heaven. This is obviously a doctrine contrary to protestant thought, I do not however wish to open that as a discussion here. I appreciate your sharing with us Rhamiel and I would hate for this to become a debate in which you could not participate.

[cubanito]

It is also a doctrine contrary to ecumenical councils. When the visible Christian Church was still one body, before the Bishop of Rome anathemized the other 4 "Patriarchs" in 1054, an ecumenical council took up the issue of Mary. All present, INCLUDING ROME, denied she was the "Mother of God" or the "Queen of Heaven." Rather she was given the very accurate title "Theotokos" which means "bearer of God." The vote was not even close, there was only one major champion of Marylotry (Chrysonthom???).

JR

[Rhamiel]

Jtbdad, thank you for your concern, I sometimes forget where I am, I have no wish to open a debate here

[drifter5]

I see a demon/ devil on one wall, and a cross on the other wall.

[Azzurra]

I see a demon/ devil on one wall, and a cross on the other wall.

I find such hatred in Christians to be terribly sad. Read your Bible. There is nothing demonic about Mary and I find it rather pathetic that many evangelicals take their anti-Romanism so far as to call the woman who raised our Saviour in His earthly life to be a demon. Point to me where in the Bible Mary is portayed as evil - just because you do not agree with the extreme nature of Roman Catholic devotion to her (and I do not really agree with it myself) doesn't mean you should speak poorly about some one who lived a holy life. You would not speak that way about Peter or Paul or any other of the Apostles, would you?
Sometimes the complete hatred and ignorance on this board just astounds me :sigh:.
I will pray for you that you may have more Christian charity in your heart.

- a non-Catholic, non-evangelical, proud Christian :tutu:

[No Swansong]

I find such hatred in Christians to be terribly sad. Read your Bible. There is nothing demonic about Mary and I find it rather pathetic that many evangelicals take their anti-Romanism so far as to call the woman who raised our Saviour in His earthly life to be a demon. Point to me where in the Bible Mary is portayed as evil - just because you do not agree with the extreme nature of Roman Catholic devotion to her (and I do not really agree with it myself) doesn't mean you should speak poorly about some one who lived a holy life. You would not speak that way about Peter or Paul or any other of the Apostles, would you?
Sometimes the complete hatred and ignorance on this board just astounds me :sigh:.
I will pray for you that you may have more Christian charity in your heart.

- a non-Catholic, non-evangelical, proud Christian :tutu:
I'm not sure that, what you think he meant is actually what he meant. he said he saw this on a wall, not on the piece.

[Azzurra]

I'm not sure that, what you think he meant is actually what he meant. he said he saw this on a wall, not on the piece.

You might be right, jtbdad. It's just that I don't see anything on the wall besides bricks and they don't look to be of a particularly demonic sort.

[No Swansong]

You might be right, jtbdad. It's just that I don't see anything on the wall besides bricks and they don't look to be of a particularly demonic sort.
Yeah I know I spent a lot of time looking but one of my children saw something in a shadow. But to be fair I am not that observant.

[drifter5]

I find such hatred in Christians to be terribly sad. Read your Bible. There is nothing demonic about Mary and I find it rather pathetic that many evangelicals take their anti-Romanism so far as to call the woman who raised our Saviour in His earthly life to be a demon. Point to me where in the Bible Mary is portayed as evil - just because you do not agree with the extreme nature of Roman Catholic devotion to her (and I do not really agree with it myself) doesn't mean you should speak poorly about some one who lived a holy life. You would not speak that way about Peter or Paul or any other of the Apostles, would you?
Sometimes the complete hatred and ignorance on this board just astounds me :sigh:.
I will pray for you that you may have more Christian charity in your heart.

- a non-Catholic, non-evangelical, proud Christian :tutu:
i am so sorry that you thought i was saying this . I was not . It is a misunderstanding. It is just that the first things my eyes saw when looking at this photo, were a demon shadow on one wall , and a cross on another wall. It was just an observation, and i could be wrong. I am so sorry for upsetting you dear. Sending a hug to you:hug: :sorry:

[twistedsketch]

Mary's suffering had no benefit for mankind, but Christ's sacrifice was sufficient.

This is key here. This was told to Mary because CHRIST is the Redeemer. The focus was to be on Christ. These Marian traditions of the Roman Catholic Church give to Mary what rightfully belongs to Christ.

[twistedsketch]

Jtbdad, why do you have a problem with Mary wearing a crown. Are we not all heirs to the Kingdom? Does not the Revelation of St. John talk about the saints having golden crowns? And does not the old testament has set a precedent for the Queen being the Mother of the King, case in point the kingship of Solomon here is a site that explains it better then I can. http://home.inreach.com/bstanley/queen.htm (http://home.inreach.com/bstanley/queen.htm)

If she is indeed Queen, this contradicts your first point which implies that her crown is just an ordinary crown for all saints. The first point is the one I would agree with of the two.

Nothing in either testament refers to Mary being co-redemptrix or medatrix. Christ is the only Redeemer and Mediator (1 Tim 2:5). His example on Earth to the drunkards, tax collectors, and prostitutes shows that we don't need an "in" to get on His good side, whether it would be Mary or anyone else.

[Azzurra]

i am so sorry that you thought i was saying this . I was not . It is a misunderstanding. It is just that the first things my eyes saw when looking at this photo, were a demon shadow on one wall , and a cross on another wall. It was just an observation, and i could be wrong. I am so sorry for upsetting you dear. Sending a hug to you:hug: :sorry:

I'm sorry for jumping to conlusions! :hug: Forgive me! I've been kind of touchy in general today and it's apparently finding it's way through to the internet! :sigh:

[drifter5]

I'm sorry for jumping to conlusions! :hug: Forgive me! I've been kind of touchy in general today and it's apparently finding it's way through to the internet! :sigh: God bless you dear sister. :) :wave:

[No Swansong]

I'm sorry for jumping to conlusions! :hug: Forgive me! I've been kind of touchy in general today and it's apparently finding it's way through to the internet! :sigh:
You are in my prayers.

[Tyndale]

As this thread is loosely based upon man's sinful nature to invent, create and visualise new ideas about God and his son Jesus, what's everyones opinion on those who see Jesus, St. Paul, or even Mary as a vision or on a slice of bread, for example............how do these people know what the Holy ones look like?, how do they know it's not an evil spirit, of which there are many, appearing to them?, how is this possible?

[No Swansong]

As this thread is loosely based upon man's sinful nature to invent, create and visualise new ideas about God and his son Jesus, what's everyones opinion on those who see Jesus, St. Paul, or even Mary as a vision or on a slice of bread, for example............how do these people know what the Holy ones look like?, how do they know it's not an evil spirit, of which there are many, appearing to them?, how is this possible?
I tend to believe that usually what they see is nothing more than a piece of toast or a paint splotch.
I do however believe that Demons exist and do show up occassionally.

[LittleladyinChrist]

As this thread is loosely based upon man's sinful nature to invent, create and visualise new ideas about God and his son Jesus, what's everyones opinion on those who see Jesus, St. Paul, or even Mary as a vision or on a slice of bread, for example............how do these people know what the Holy ones look like?, how do they know it's not an evil spirit, of which there are many, appearing to them?, how is this possible?
I believe that we are not to follow after signs and wonders. God has never said that saints would come back from the dead and appear all over the world. Usually, those sighting are related to the Roman Catholic Church and bring people back to "her", which is not surprising. I believe that we need to use God's word to disern these things. And God's word says in the end up times there will be false prophets all all kinds of LYING SIGNS and WONDERS. So we know that the devil can make up miracles. We wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against spiritual darkness in high places.

[diamondjoust]

I always find it objectionable that Christ is presented to faith on a cross with or without Mary, because according to scripture he is not now there, but at the right hand of God risen, in the place of power. The cross is defined in scripture as a sign of a curse, for "cursed is everyone that hangeth on a tree"; and when Christ was crucified he was made a curse for us, and scripture says he despised that shame. Anyone who parades a crucifix with Christ on it, let alone with his mother Mary on it, is, to my mind, only magnifying my Saviour's shame, and I believe a cross or crucifix hanging around someone's neck or placed on or in a church building could be construed as curse more than a blessing in not a few cases today.

[No Swansong]

I don't have an issue with Cricifixes per se. I can't even say I have given it much thought. I know that Christ is Risen. I also know that without His sacrifice on the cross there is no hope. If it helps others faith I see no reason to object. Mary on the Cross does bother me but I have already explained why earlier in the thread.

[drifter5]

I always find it objectionable that Christ is presented to faith on a cross with or without Mary, because according to scripture he is not now there, but at the right hand of God risen, in the place of power. The cross is defined in scripture as a sign of a curse, for "cursed is everyone that hangeth on a tree"; and when Christ was crucified he was made a curse for us, and scripture says he despised that shame. Anyone who parades a crucifix with Christ on it, let alone with his mother Mary on it, is, to my mind, only magnifying my Saviour's shame, and I believe a cross or crucifix hanging around someone's neck or placed on or in a church building could be construed as curse more than a blessing in not a few cases today.
I agree with this post. It is interesting that i see in the shadow on the wall an empty cross.

[Tyndale]

I always find it objectionable that Christ is presented to faith on a cross with or without Mary, because according to scripture he is not now there, but at the right hand of God risen, in the place of power. The cross is defined in scripture as a sign of a curse, for "cursed is everyone that hangeth on a tree"; and when Christ was crucified he was made a curse for us, and scripture says he despised that shame. Anyone who parades a crucifix with Christ on it, let alone with his mother Mary on it, is, to my mind, only magnifying my Saviour's shame, and I believe a cross or crucifix hanging around someone's neck or placed on or in a church building could be construed as curse more than a blessing in not a few cases today.

Another very good post diamondjoust. The vast majority of the larger churches focus on Christ's death, rather than his resurrection, by using a cross. Galations 3 v 16, 1 Peter 2 v 24 and Acts 5 v 30 mention that Jesus died on a tree. The cross has many origins all of which originally belonged to a pagan belief, even the Egyptian Ankh is a cross which the high Priests and rulers carried around.

[drifter5]

True. When was Mary ever literally pierced with a sword? Mary's suffering had no benefit for mankind, but Christ's sacrifice was sufficient.:amen:

[cubanito]

I always find it objectionable that Christ is presented to faith on a cross with or without Mary, because according to scripture he is not now there, but at the right hand of God risen, in the place of power. The cross is defined in scripture as a sign of a curse, for "cursed is everyone that hangeth on a tree"; and when Christ was crucified he was made a curse for us, and scripture says he despised that shame. Anyone who parades a crucifix with Christ on it, let alone with his mother Mary on it, is, to my mind, only magnifying my Saviour's shame, and I believe a cross or crucifix hanging around someone's neck or placed on or in a church building could be construed as curse more than a blessing in not a few cases today.
I would agree w u except those verses where Paul (and others?) say they are determined to preach "only Christ, and Him crucified." Thus, while I understand that the resurrection is the moment of victory, and a proper focus of the Christian, there is also Scripture that makes the crucifixion also a proper focus. What is NOT a focus in Scripture is Mary.

The cross reminds us of the suffering we have caused (and still cause) God. The empty tomb of the victory ahead. The fish of our commitment to spread both halves of the Gospel: the sin that makes us all deserve an eternal Cross, and the empty tomb which promises the repentant salvation.

In today's "God is gooey-lovy-dovy" world, I find the offensive Cross more necessary than ever.

JR still on partial leave