What Lynette Ordaz espouses is not real Christianity or the real Mary, in any sense.
When Lynette Ordaz began bombarding a friend's Facebook Page with all manner of anti-catholic rhetoric , I asked her if she would like to engage in some civil, moderated debates on our Blog Talk Radio Show. What has followed has led us here.
After enduring some heated exchanges and histrionic (and obviously false) accusations of bullying and threats, I had the opportunity to read and digest her book "The Real Mary " [sic]
It is anything but a depiction of the real mother of Jesus. It is actually quite a compelling juxtaposition of two false Mary's against each other.
Ordaz erects a straw Mary that she falsely alleges to be the Mary of Catholicism. This Mary is a goddess who is worshipped and robs glory from God. The truth is that this Mary is a figment of Lynette's imagination. There isn't a Catholic on the planet that worships Mary, considers Her Divine or-in any way- sees Her as a goddess or treats Her as such.
By Creating this absolutely false "Divine Mary", Ordaz attempts to present a less favorable alternative to the Mary of her own false ideology. It's a clever scheme, I guess, but she doesn't pull it off very well.
Ordaz's Mary is truly ordinary in pretty much every way except that...oh....the Divine God, 2nd Person was somehow incubated inside her in a way that made her His mother....but not really.
In obvious violence to the entire concept of Syllogistic logic, Jesus is God and Mary is His Mother but Mary isn't the Mother of God, She is only Mother to the human part. This, like so much else of her theology, is a concept completely alien to Scripture. Of course, to deny Mary as Mother of God is only plausible if you can prove A) Jesus isn't God or B) Mary isn't His Mother. In either case, the entire Christian faith evaporates.
The egregious factual errors, translation errors, historical errors, contextual butchering, self contradictions, wholly unsupported assertions and fallacious arguments have created a book so error-ridden that it is difficult to know where to begin to deconstruct it. Sadly, these errors are not limited to the book, but spread out to the false premises the book's arguments rest on, and those beliefs that flow from the assertions made within the book.
In short, what she argues as what she "knows to be true" is a veritable trainwreck of bad theology, history and logic. There just isn't a nice way to say it. Lynette Ordaz gets it wrong...demonstrably, hugely and consistently, start to finish.
The ideas of debates have been on again, off again, on again
Our job is to prove just how wrong- and shockingly unbiblical- her views really are. We intend to do this in a systematic way, one doctrine at a time, one piece at a time. This article and program is intended to do just that. We welcome Lynette or any of her supporters to take issue with any of these descriptions if they choose. Email me at firstname.lastname@example.org
So, let's take a quick walk through the 12 debates that are proposed and make sure we are on the same page about what is actually being debated.
It's the Sola part that's at issue. Nobody is arguing that the Scriptures are not God's Word in written form. Nobody is arguing that the Scriptures are not inspired. Nobody is arguing that the Scriptures are not inerrant (free from doctrinal error)
Of course..... all of those things are only true if the Scriptures are:
Properly identified and canonized
If God says "A" in the original Scriptures, the KJV translates it to "B" and Lynette interprets it as "C", I am under no obligation to accept Lynette's position as being anything but the Word of Lynette...not of God.
To win this debate, she must show that a Christian is properly and completely informed and equipped for the entire requirements of Salvation through- and only through- Scriptures that were somehow properly written, canonized, translated, interpreted and followed, by the authority of those very Scriptures alone..... in the form that She holds. Good luck with that.
This one is just as silly. Lynette must prove that faith in Jesus- believed in the heart, and professed with the mouth, alone, is sufficient to secure eternal salvation. They must prove that, beyond a sincerely felt and professed belief, it is not necessary for us to cooperate in any way with our own salvation.
The Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist
Lynette and her friend cannot win this debate by simply insisting that Jesus (and Paul) didn't really mean it. The burden of proof is on us to show this doctrine is clearly stated- and we will- but they cannot simply refuse to address our arguments.
The Historical Church
A very important debate. We will demonstrate historically that none of the "Christian" principles Lynette asserts as in opposition to Catholicism, were accepted prior to the 16th century. In fact, most sprang up in the 19th and 20th. Meanwhile, we can prove the Catholic faith- as it exists now- to be present in every century.
We will prove that there is absolutely no Biblical or historical support for there ever being a Christianity without a ministerial Priesthood and a perpetual offering.
Purgatory and prayer to "dead" Saints.
We will prove this via Scripture.
Mary's Perpetual Virginity, "Other children"
Mary had no other (physical) children, remained a virgin Her whole life. We will prove this via Scripture.
Mary is the Mother of God.
We will prove it from the Bible.
Mary is the Queen of Heaven.
We will prove it from the Bible....and from multiple Scriptures.
Mary was Immaculately conceived and assumed into heaven, body and soul.
We will prove it from the Bible.
Do Catholics worship Mary?
In a word, no.
We will obliterate this ridiculous slander.
First, we have nothing to say about unapproved and suspect apparitions such as Conyers, Georgia or Bayside, New York. For the sake of time, we will most likely stick to 4 or 5 of the big ones.... maybe as many as 10.
Fatima? Yes. Lourdes? Certainly. Guadalupe, Mount Carmel.... a few others, maybe
Second, to win the debate, I don't need to convince anyone that Mary, in fact, appeared at any of those places. Frankly, as a Catholic I'm not required to believe that she did (though I certainly do). All I must prove is that there is nothing objectional to believing it.
What I will prove is that there is nothing in these apparitions that isn't 100% consistent with the gospel message and Mary's own words at Cana: "Do whatever He tells you"
Please advise if you disagree with any of these terms.