Catholic Analysis: Mariology is Biblical

Vivificat! - A Catholic Blog of Commentary and Opinion ^ | 27 December 2005 | Teófilo

[Teófilo]

Folks, my blogger colleague, Oswald Sobrino of Catholic Analysis, has written a good essay regarding "Mariology," that is, the theological study and liturgical recognition of the place of Mary, the Mother of the Lord, the Theotokos, in the economy of salvation. It is entitled Mariology is Biblical. Here's an extract:

One of the great stumbling blocks for our Protestant brethren who are on the verge of crossing the Tiber, i.e., entering into full communion with the Catholic Church, is the great attention paid to the Mother of Jesus by Catholics. This hesitation is understandable: Protestantism is a reaction against Catholicism, and one of the reactions has been, historically, to exile the Mother of Jesus from salvation history. In recent times, some Protestants have sought to correct this strange exile of the Mother of God by looking back to the writings of the Church Fathers and to the early ecumenical councils, especially the fifth century Council of Ephesus. Yet, even Catholics can have a hard time responding to the insistent Protestant plea that to venerate Mary is to somehow detract from the one Mediator between God and man, Jesus Christ (1 Timothy 2:5).

...

The crux of the matter is that Mary's extraordinary mediation as Mother of Jesus derives from and is included in the unique mediatorship of Christ himself. What we ask our Protestant brethren to consider prayerfully, and, yes, quite biblically, is that the mediatorship of Christ is inclusive and admits of and even insists upon our participation. If we participate, as Paul did, then certainly the one whom the ecumenical Council of Ephesus termed the "Mother of God" or "God-bearer" in 431 A.D. does also. Interestingly, today, even some conservative evangelical Protestant scholars openly refer to Mary as "Mother of God" based on the significance they ascribe to the Council of Ephesus. They are discovering the riches of the faith preserved for them through the centuries preceding the Reformation by none other than the Catholic Church.

- I urge all of you to read the entire piece at Catholic Analysis.

[vimto]

My, My you are a paranoid lot - Helps keep religious cohesion and stops any one breaking ranks I guess. I've been on post designed to 'get the Prots'. Free speech means you get upset sometimes. get used to it and give thanks for democracy!

[netmilsmom]

>>My, My you are a paranoid lot <<

Same defense used when we state the MSM is liberal.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean that no one is out to get you.

[vimto]

Nice one! I' cannot agree with you but hey - robust debate is what it is about!

But this post is about Maryology being biblical.

You must have expected solid reaction from those like me who are Biblical Christians. as I said the Authority of your Church alone is good enough for you - you don't need Biblical proofs!

Warmest regards and respect!

[netmilsmom]

hehehe!
And your first post being this...
"You do Mary no favors by this idolatry." really is Biblical, right?

The statements here are, you Catholics are into idolotry.
We state, it is not that way, not in our hearts.

The return statement is "Well it looks like it. So it is."

Really?
All Conservatives are evil and want to starve children and seniors. Well it looks like it.

The original post was to anyone who was searching into the Catholic view of Mary. Protestants can do that. If you don't want to, why are you offended by it?

[Invincibly Ignorant]

As I stated before, they get the same degree of polite from me that they pass out.<

Way to turn the other cheek. All together now: "and they'll know we are christians by our love, by our love, yes they'll know we are Christians by our love. lol.

[Invincibly Ignorant]

Trinitarianism remains intact in all but the most foolish minds.

Screw you troll.

[Dionysiusdecordealcis]

My friend, the Trinity is all over the Bible, if you know where to look.

My friend, veneration of Mary is all over the Bible, if you know where to look, namely at the various references that have been posted on this thread. You just gave away the store.

[jude24]

That was not intended to be "trollish," but rather an admission that in the mind of foolish minds (i.e., popular piety), Trinitarian lines might be blurred.

You could have asked for clarification, rather than flying off the handle. Apparently your screen name is 100% accurate.

[Invincibly Ignorant]

That was not intended to be "trollish

Intended or not, it was trollish. Doesn't your savior caution you against calling others fools?

[netmilsmom]

Well perhaps you look at it differently than I.
From what I learned in Bible Study Foundation classes, the Matthew 5.38-41 passage is to have a person "stand in another's shoes" and see things from their point of view.
This is the reason why Christ put a limit on it, Seventy times seven to turn the other cheek.

[Invincibly Ignorant]

From what I learned in Bible Study Foundation classes, the Matthew 5.38-41 passage is to have a person "stand in another's shoes" and see things from their point of view. This is the reason why Christ put a limit on it, Seventy times seven to turn the other cheek.

Uh oh. I detected some sola scriptura in that repsonse.

[Teófilo]

I took his post #6 as an apology to Teofilo (and it appears Teofilo accepted it as such).

Indeed I did. Come on people, don't take yourselves so seriously.

-Theo

[Teófilo]

I have a favorite way of framing this issue that might be useful in keeping this discussion from degenerating to epithets. Let me know what you think.

Sounds like a good starting point to me, with the proviso that honoring Mary will always be mandatory in the Church, but being devoted to her in whatever degree, is optional, but highly recommended.

-Theo

[netmilsmom]

>>Uh oh. I detected some sola scriptura in that repsonse.<<

Yup, I got over it.

Truly, it doesn't matter to me what way you want to have a relationship with God. I don't understand why it matter so much the way that Catholics do to some people.

[Teófilo]

Okay then, before I deal with the specifics of the article, let's have a little quiz: What is wrong with the following picture?

Nothing.

-Theo

[Campion]

By calling Mary the "Mother of God" we put God under her authority.

But, Buggman, that's precisely what God himself did by by becoming incarnate as her Son. Scripture itself says that Christ returned to Nazareth and "was subject to them [that is, to Joseph and Mary]".

God was under Mary's authority, though probably not in the sense that you were thinking when you wrote your comment.

[jude24]

That was not intended to be "trollish," but rather an admission that in the mind of foolish minds (i.e., popular piety), Trinitarian lines might be blurred.

You could have asked for clarification, rather than flying off the handle. Apparently your screen name is 100% accurate.

[netmilsmom]

>>Indeed I did. Come on people, don't take yourselves so seriously.<<

You haven't been around long enough to see how many times posters come onto a "Pope", "Mary" or "Rosary" thread to slam our beliefs.

Your response is exactly what we get from them. They attack, we are expected to forgive and forget. We are to always take the high road.

Talk to them as well as chastising us. That poster apologized for the tone but not for the statement that we practice idolotry. Is that correct in your eyes?

[jude24]

Doesn't your savior caution you against calling others fools?

Not in this context.

[annalex]

Calling Mary the "mother of God" is a wholly different thing than calling her the MOTHER of God

I don't think the Ephesian Canons used any capitalization, because that grammatical device was not known at the time, so your views are still anathema. Mary is the Mother of God. We have no other God but God. If you believe otherwise, your views are of interest to antropologists but not to Christians. It is not a complicated canon.

suggest that if Mary had not been faithful, if it were not for Mary's part in the redemption, that Jesus would have been powerless to save the world.

The scripture tells us that Mary consented to the will of God, after asking further questions to make up her mind. Likewise, Eve consented to the will of Satan, after asking further questions to make up her mind. So, both women acted on their free will. This is the extent of Catholic teaching on the subject. We can speculate what would have happened if Eve did not take the fruit, or Mary did not consort with the Holy Ghost till Kingdom come; since there is no scripture to tell us anything, any non-contradictory view, including the views you cited, are valid. If you want to engage is extrascriptural speculation further, do so with whoever you cited "on this thread".