History has amply demonstrated what fanatical Catholicism can do. But that the fanatical Catholic also does unintentional good is less known. There is at least one fanatical Catholic who has formulated massive objections on this website. Under the aliases Peter, Klaus, Paul and Siegfried Catholics appeared here who wanted to defend the Eucharist and the Blessed Mother. All discussions went out in favor of the Bible and against Catholicism. The Eucharist has been refuted and the latest sensation is the proof that the Mother of God of the Catholic Church must be satanic!
The strong words of Siegfried, the defender of the Blessed Mother, culminated among other things in the testimony:
For us HE took Mary as his mother, so that we too might take her as our mother.
The eloquence of this Marian adorer suggests either a child prodigy or a person who has studied Catholic theology. People educated in Catholic theology either become dazzlers who play the lying game of power-consciousness, or they become real fanatics who, of course, have to be as soft as butter so that their fanaticism is not easily discovered. In any case, our Siegfried has worked hard.Unfortunately he could not foresee that he would pave the way for me Mini Christian to make a blatant discovery.
I have no training, only faith in Jesus Christ and the trust that he will make his word true and lead us into all truth.
The only obstacle is the saturation of people with information. Today, 90 theses nailed to the church door would have no effect. Today the truth must leap from person to person, without princes or sovereigns dictating the faith to whole nations. But for this we (still) have the Internet and I invite you very much to pass on the almost banal insight that follows here, both personally and via the Internet.
Let us turn to Siegfried's daring thesis that Jesus took Mary as his mother for us, so that we too might take Mary as our mother. Such a statement captivates by its free-flying logic, which seems to be able to cross all borders completely detached from the Bible and at the same time emphasizes the goodness of Jesus, the soft and loving, planned action of our Lord. Nothing would please me more than to respond to such a thesis, if I could find even the slightest hint of confirmation in the Bible. But Jesus himself is the standard for me. No one else can be trusted. He decides how, when and where human thinking is allowed and where not. So the noblest thought is invalid and to be classified as a lie if Jesus neither confirms it by his word nor by himself.
At the very moment when I was working on Siegfried's commentary in question, it was clear to me that Jesus had not accepted Mary as his mother, but that Jesus had given Mary as his mother. Hanging on the cross, a few seconds before his death, he expressed his will that he was no longer the son of Mary. He ended the kinship between himself and Mary with a clear instruction which Mary and the disciple in question accepted without contradiction.
John 19,26-27 When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, "Woman, behold, your son!" Then he said to the disciple, "Behold, your mother!" And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home.
From this second on, no one in this world can speak of Mary as the mother of Jesus – only the great liar. From this second on, no one can any more advocate the doctrine that there is a Mother of God named Mary – only the Catholic Church, which has the most murders and atrocities in the world on its conscience. From this second on it is clear to the whole world that God has no mother. But why didn't the reformers see until today that with all clarity God himself gave the total knock-out to the cult of Mary?