Skip to comments.Scriptural View of Mary
Posted on 10/08/2007 6:08:42 AM PDT by NYer
The following is the transcript of Scott Hahn's audio and video tape presentation, "Mary: Holy Mother" as it appears in the "Catholic Adult Education on Video Program" with Scott and Kimberly Hahn.
As you probably know, this is our third installment in a series of five sessions that we are spending together discussing how to answer common objections, questions regarding key tenets that are distinctive to the Catholic Church. We have focused upon the Pope and yesterday we looked at purgatory. This morning we want to focus on Mary and the Marian doctrines and devotions of the Catholic Church to see where in scripture do we see, not necessarily logical demonstrations that are brought forth from proof texts that kind of force the mind against the will to give in and to acquiesce in these beliefs, but where do we find in scripture the reflections and the illustrations and the assumptions and the conclusions that the Catholic Church affirms with regard to the Blessed Virgin Mary?
We are also going to be able to touch lightly and briefly upon some historical data, but our focus this morning will be primarily scriptural. Now non-Catholics also are concerned with historical evidences for Marian doctrines and devotions. But I would say the vast majority of non-Catholic questions and objections stem from scripture and the seeming silence from the holy writ. So that's what we are going to be focusing our attention, our energy and our time upon this morning.
Before I go on, I want to make the same admission that I do at every point and that is, we don't have time to cover everything. We don't have time to cover even half of what we need to cover. I'll do my best and you know how fast I can get going and you know how long I can go. I have to candidly concede the fact that you need to be reading scripture. You need to be asking our Lord for extra time to study, to ponder and to pray. Let me recommend some books to you, some secondary sources.
One of my favorites is by one of the top biblical scholars in France, Andre Foulier. It's entitled Jesus and His Mother, the Role of the Virgin Mary in Salvation History and the Place of Women in the Church. This, I believe, is a masterpiece, and it's published by St. Bede, and it's only about two or three years old. The other book I want to recommend, and I am not sure is in print. In fact, I suspect it might be out of print, but you can find it in libraries, and I have found it in used book stores because that's my favorite haunting place, to travel to used book stores. But this is by Max Thurien who is a reformed brother in the Taize community over in Europe. It's entitled, Mary, Mother of All Christians.
What makes this distinctive is that when he wrote this, he was a Reformed Calvinist Christians. You don't find Christians much more non-Catholic than that! I know. I was one! Now, rumor has it, and I have only heard it from two or three persons, and I've not confirmed this, that Brother Max Thurien has converted. He is considered to be one of the wisest Reformed Protestant theological sages of this century, not only for his theological depth and his scriptural understanding, but especially for his spirituality in guiding the Taize community in worship and community and in ecumenical environment.
Another classic, Joseph Duer, a Jesuit by the name of Joseph Duer. I believe it was originally written in German. It's entitled, The Glorious Assumption of the Mother of God. This goes through the biblical and the historical, the patristic and the magisterial data and evidences for the doctrine, or the dogma, I guess we could say, of the bodily assumption of our Lady. Now this is an old copy, but I was just recently informed that the book is back in print. I'm not sure who publishes it, but my suspicion is Christian Classics.
Here's another book, and I'll tell you the story behind this a little later. Remind me; I might forget. It's entitled The Assumption of Mary by Father Killiam Healey, a Carmelite theologian up in New England, in Massachusetts. This is published by Michael Glazier. I'm not sure if you can get it from them, but if you want to try, you have to contact Liturgical Press, because Glazier and Liturgical Press just merged up in Collegeville, Minnesota, which is their new address. But this is superb. This is for popular consumption. This could be like a primer, a first reader in Marian Doctrine and Devotion. He is very fair and even handed. And I might add, he's a marvelous priest. I heard him preach, right after I joined the Church, but I'll tell that story later on. It was a delight in my own life.
The real magnum opus on the subject was written by one of Great Britain's top Biblical scholars, Father John McHugh entitled, The Mother of Jesus in the New Testament, published by Doubleday, and it's in many public libraries that I have seen as well as college or high school or seminary libraries. I don't believe it's in print, but it is all around, so you could find it if you looked hard enough. This is just a copious study of all of the relevant passages in the New Testament, and McHugh looks at these from the perspective of the writers of scripture themselves, how the Fathers of the Church interpreted it, how Jewish and Rabbinic interpreters and commentators understood certain passages from the Old that were fulfilled by the New, all the way up until the present day. It's very thorough but readable, very readable. I think anybody named McHugh has something good to say. I'm buttering up my host and hostess here.
Well, here we go. What I would like to do now is to begin to change our focus to scripture itself. Of course, the place we have to begin in order to see what the scripture says about the Blessed Virgin Mary is found all the way in the beginning of the Bible. Let's turn to Genesis, chapter 3. There we see the first Eve having been seduced and, I believe, brutally intimidated into a kind of disobedient submission. You can go back and listen to this tape that I think we made two or two-and-a-half days ago about how often we distort what really happened in the temptation narrative, because we don't know how to read Hebrew narrative. There is a literary artistry there at work that's very hard for the Western mind to grasp, understand and appreciate. But I believe, just to sum it up, that Adam was called to be a faithful covenant head in a marital covenant, and he was called to show forth, as the representative of the covenant, the love, the hessed, the loyalty of the covenant to the fullest degree. And, as our Lord says, "Greater love hath no man than to lay down his life for his beloved."
So, if he is truly going to love his covenant partner in marriage, he has to be willing to lay his life down. Now, how does God, the Father, test his son's loyalty and love? Well, that's what the serpent is there for. The serpent, nahash in Hebrew is, I believe, misunderstood to be a snake. Medieval art work, and this has been carried on into the modern tradition where you have Eve depicted as some dumb, perhaps blonde, but some dumb air-head who just basically is tricked by some little snake, hanging from a branch in a tree, to eat the apple. All right, and so all men just kind of sit back and say, "Yeah, it's still the same way." And they congratulate themselves on being so worldly wise that they wouldn't be so dumb as this air head.
Total misreading, I believe. This is my own hypothesis. This is my own interpretation. You don't have to abide by it, but my view is that the nahash, the serpent is deliberately depicted as a kind of, I'd say mythical figure but I don't want to deny the historicity of this text. It's just that Hebrew historical narrative can often use mythical imagery to communicate historical truth. In Daniel 7, I mentioned four gentile kingdoms are described as being "four beasts." So, I believe, here we have the serpent as a kind of dragon. The word is used and used and used in Hebrew to connote or denotes a dragon figure like Leviathan or Banmuth or Rehab, the monster later than Isaiah and elsewhere in the Old Testament. In Revelation 12:9 in the New Testament confirms this translation of nahash, not as serpent/snake, but as serpent/dragon, because there Satan is described as the "ancient serpent" and then it goes on to describe a seven-headed dragon.
So she is being confronted and brutally intimidated by a dragon who is intent upon producing disobedience, come hell or high water. So in the cross-examination, in the interrogation that goes back and forth, Satan uses the truth in a clever, deceptive, but intimidating way to kind of force this woman to see, in effect, that if she doesn't eat that fruit, she will die, at least in the biological, physical sense because Satan will see to it.
The question, then, as you read through this narrative is not based upon anything that is explicitly stated, but rather that which is so conspicuously unstated, and that is, where the heck is Adam in all this? By the end of the narrative you discover that he's right by the woman because she just turns and gives him the fruit to eat; but the question is, where was he all along? This loving covenant head, this loving covenant partner who is to show the great love that he's willing to lay down his life for his beloved? Well, he was probably rationalizing his silence by saying, "Well, if I oppose such a serpentile monster as this, I stand no chance."
So in Hebrews 2:14-16, the New Testament tells us that Christ had to take on our flesh and blood to free us from the devil, from Satan, who held us in life-long bondage because of the fear of death and suffering we all have. So it seems as though Adam's response, or lack of response, is due to his fear of suffering and death, which in turn subjects all of A-dam, humanity, to life-long bondage to he who holds the power of death, Satan, in this sense.
So the first Eve, then, is abandoned by her covenant partner and husband who was presumably to tell that dragon where to go, and then, in a sense, stand up for his convictions and possibly even suffer martyrdom and to lay down his life for his beloved and trust that God, his Creator, to whom he is loyal in love would raise him and vindicate him in proper covenant judgment. Which is exactly what the second Adam does on behalf of the second Eve, the Church, which is the whole dramatic encounter we read about in Revelations 12. I'm going to have to talk about that later on this day, so I'm not going to get into it too much this morning. You're all invited to that. It's at 1:30. We're going to be talking about Mary, Ark of the Covenant, focusing upon the woman of the Apocalypse who is clothed with the sun, a crown of 12 stars, and the world under her feet. I think it's the deliberate symbol of the second Eve for whom the second Adam lay down his life. Mary, the Church, Israel, and all New Testament believers in a sense.
But having sinned, Adam and Eve were now confronted by God. You can go all the way back, I believe, to verse 8, Genesis 3:8, "They heard the sound of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day and the man and his wife hid themselves." Now, this is, I think, perhaps somewhat of a mistranslation. We often have this kind of romantic, bucolic picture here of God kind of walking through the woods. You can hear the crushing of the leaves and the snapping of the twigs as he says, you know, "Adam, Eve, where are you?" Poor God, just doesn't really know what's going on!
But when you actually look at the Hebrew, what the people hear, verse 8, it says, "Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the Lord God." We're tempted to hear that as the crushing leaves and snapping twigs, this poor unwitting God is saying, "where... weren't we supposed to meet, you know. Isn't this the time? Isn't this the place?" But no. The word in Hebrew for sound is qol. Now, what kind of noise does the qol of the Lord make? Well you can find out by reading Psalm 29. Keep your finger on Genesis 3 and take a look at Psalm 29 because there we discover an entire psalm devoted to describing what Adam and Eve must have heard when they heard the qol of the Lord, the sound of the Lord.
Verse 1 of Psalm 29, "Ascribe to the Lord, O heavenly beings or sons of God. Ascribe to the Lord glory and strength. Ascribe to the Lord the glory of his name and worship the Lord in holy array. The qol of the Lord is upon the waters. The God of glory thunders. The Lord upon many waters. The qol of the Lord is powerful. The qol of the Lord is full of majesty." Verse 5, "The qol of the Lord breaks the cedars. The Lord breaks the cedars of Lebanon. He makes Lebanon to skip like a calf in Sirion, like a young wild ox. The qol of the Lord flashes forth flames of fire. The qol of the Lord shakes the wilderness. The Lord shakes the wilderness of Kadesh. The qol of the Lord makes the oak trees to whirl and strips the forest bare and all in his temple cry, 'glory'!"
What do you think they heard? It wasn't the snapping of little twigs and the crunching, you know, of leaves. They heard a thunder and shattering roar, and they hid themselves. Quite understandably. Goes on, "They heard the qol of the Lord God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day." That word in Hebrew, cool, is ruah, normally translated spirit or wind, and that phrase could easily be translated as scholars have argued, "They heard the thundering, shattering roar of Yahweh Eloheim as he was coming into the garden as the spirit of the day!" What day? The day of judgment. We've got a primo parousia on our hands. The second coming in advance in a sense.
So they flee from the sound that they hear. They hide from the Lord God among the trees in the garden. "But the Lord God called to the man, 'Where are you?'" Now he doesn't talk about geographical location. The deity here, in order to meet the job description of the divinity is omniscient. He knows where they are. He's asking, "Where are you in terms of your covenant standing before me. Where are you? "He answered, ' I heard you in the garden, but I was afraid because I was naked and so I hid. Who told you that you were naked?" What does the man say? "The woman! Have you eaten of the fruit that I told you not to eat?" And what does he say? He immediately starts passing the buck. Verse 12, "The man said, 'The woman.'" But it gets worse, "The woman you gave me."
Not so subtle, huh? He's not just faulting her. Who's he really faulting? Some help, some assistant you gave me! He's not just blaming her. He's implicitly blaming God. And the Lord God said to the woman, "What is this that you've done?" The woman said, "The nahash deceived me and I ate." Now, if you go back, the serpent never actually told a lie, but what the serpent did was to use a kind of blunt, brutal intimidation to get her to submit to the evil. "So the Lord said to the serpent, 'Because you have done this cursed you above all the livestock, etc." But here we look at verse 15, "And I will put enmity between you and the woman and between your seed and her seed. He will crush your head and you will strike his heel."
Now some other translations render, "She will crush your head." And so we have statues of our Lady crushing the head of the serpent. That's an interesting but kind of tangential issue for us right now. At any rate, we see here the woman. "I will put enmity between you and the woman and between your seed and her seed." Now you don't have to be a scientist to wonder what they're talking about here. The serpent's seed, okay. But her seed? The Greek Old Testament translates this spermatos, that's the term for seed. Now so far, so good, but wait a second. What is it doing in connection with the woman? The woman's seed? Nowhere else in the Old Testament do you ever come across an expression like that. It's always the man's seed, the husband's seed, the father's seed. This is weird. The woman's seed? Yeah, God's going to elevate that woman and give to her in some unique sense perhaps a seed through which the serpent's head will be crushed. Keep that in the back of your mind because that is going to be crucial.
We're going to move on now to, of course, what is probably the second most famous Old Testament passage for understanding our Lady, Isaiah 7, verse 14. Isaiah 7, verse 14: here we have an interesting episode between Isaiah and King Ahas who is king of Judah, and he's worrying about the national stability of his people in his country of Judah, his kingdom, because he is surrounded by stronger neighbors and so he's toying with the idea of entering into all kinds of wrong- headed alliances. So, through Isaiah the Lord says to King Ahas who's always beginning to kind of stumble with doubts, he's beginning to wonder with fear who he should rely upon, Verse 3, "Then the Lord said to Isaiah, 'go out'" and it goes on in verses 3 through 10, where the Lord speaks to Ahas through Isaiah and says, "Ask of me and I will give you a sign."
In other words, let's admit it. Your faith is weak. You need to have it shored up and strengthened. That's what signs are for. Go ahead and ask me for a sign. Verse 12, with false modesty Ahas says, "Oh, I won't ask. I will not put the Lord to the test." Give me a break! Isaiah said, "Hear now, you House of David, is it not enough to try the patience of men. Will you try the patience of my God also?" He sees your need. He's got the gift that you need. Now don't play strong. You're weak, admit it and receive the gift that he's got in this sign." "Therefore, the Lord himself will give you a sign. The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son and will call him Emmanuel."
That word, almah in Hebrew translated by the Greek Septuagint parthenos has been the subject of incredible debate. Is it young woman or is it virgin? You could stack up scholars who advocate either position, but I am persuaded, not only by the targums, that is the ancient Jewish interpretation of this was decidedly in favor of "virgin." They saw it as some kind of Messianic prophecy in the targums, these ancient Aramaic paraphrases of the Old Testament.
Now there are a lot of scholars who debate, "Well, are the targums before Christ or after Christ or whatever?" But I think there's a lot of evidence for them being before Christ, but even if they were a little bit after Christ, the fact remains that Jews from earliest times saw a Messianic reference with regard to parthenos, a virgin. A recent scholar whose article I just read by the name of Professor Wyatt argues that the Alexandrian Jews who rendered almah by parthenos were being entirely faithful to the Herogamic tradition. He goes on to talk about how Isaiah borrows all his pagan mythical imagery, only then historicizes it with reference to the coming Messiah, as the ritual technical term for an embodiment of a divine mother, who is both a fecund mother, a fruitful mother, as well as a perpetual virgin.
In other words, Isaiah in using this language is tapping into a well-known ancient outlook on what humanity needs for deliverance, that is, God is going to have to send an incredible figure, the likes of which humans have never seen, a creature, a human but in a sense possessed by God in an absolutely unique way. And this, by the way, is not unique to the Hebrew tradition. It's shared throughout. Now maybe it's because Genesis 3:15 was channeled out throughout the world as the human race spread, whatever you want to believe.
There are other ways to explain it, but the fact remains that this translation, this rendering of almah as virgin is strong and sure and is very reliable. At any rate, we know one thing for sure, the New Testament applies it to Mary and the virginal birth of Jesus. So in terms of the inspired narrative, what do we have? In Matthew, we have in a sense, the answer in the back of the book really, or at least we can treat it that way for this morning's time together.
What is going on here? The Davidic line is almost at an end and the only way out for King Ahas in his own mind is to begin to move away from Yahweh and to begin to trust in all of these pagan neighbors who want to form alliances with him. Only, in order to form those alliances he's going to have to submit as a kind of vassal. So Isaiah says, "Don't do it. If you are weakening in your faith, ask him for a sign. He has one ready." The problem is the Davidic line could be crushed. Well, the faithful were saying, "But God has sworn an oath: there will always be an heir on the Davidic throne."
But now what happens if the king is deposed and if the royal family is murdered? Well, God will take a virgin and produce a son of David. In other words, we're not dependent exclusively upon human resources, political power, economic wealth and all of the rest. So Isaiah 7:14 stands in line with Genesis 3:15 as in a sense the second key text with regards to the Blessed Virgin Mary.
Bunk...There is no credible evidence that the Septuagint was written before 350 A.D...
And what were Jews doing in Egypt in 250 B.C...They were told to get out of Egypt long before that and get back to Israel...
Being in Egypt, they were out of the will of God...
The manuscripts which came out of Antioch, (The Majority Texts) where the Apostles were based, and where follower of Jesus were first called Christians, are the accurate texts...
I’m sure Kosta50 can shed light on this?
Time for mass
I wish you a blessed day!
There are many of us protestants who don’t view Catholics as “worshipping” Mary. It is merely reverence; just more than protestants pay.
It is an interesting question as to whether there would be more Episcopalians worshipping Pomp, Circumstance, Situation Ethics and Gay Marriage than RC's worshipping Mary in say a lareg congregation of 1,000 or more.
But RC's ARE human, too. And I absolutely assure you that a certain percentage worship Mary quite brazenly contrary to Scripture and God's priorities. Some may be misguided and ill-taught. Some may be carried away on all the Mary hoopla beyond reason. Some may be attachment-disorder-addicted to the more familiar and pseudo-tangible. For whatever reason(s), a certain percentage of RC's worship Mary whether it is 5% or 55% or 75%. ANY PERCENT IS TOO MUCH such whether it be Prottys or RC's or Jews worshipping a scroll of ink and paper.
And articles like this confirm the worship of Mary as quite kosher, reasonable, 'saint-ly' when it's the opposite, horribly, abjectly, overwhelmingly the OPPOSITE of anything good.
And what craziness pretending Mary is the new ARK! The long line of rationalizations and jury-rigged postulations, comparisons, pairings of Scriptural stuff pretending similarity when there is none is also horribly confused, illogical, mangling of Scripture, straining at gnats and swallowing camels . . . wholesale, lock, stock and barrel heretical dogma from beginning to end.
With Mary as the new ARK, where are the NEW TESTAMENT DOCUMENTED MIRACLES--SHOW ME ONE.
Where's the documented miracle of this new ARK:
1. Raising a dead mouse to new life out of her motherly compassion?
2. Halting a legion of Roman soldiers in their tracks from abusing Jews?
3. Calling fire down from Heaven to consume a cat that dared to gobble her pet bluebird of happiness?
4. Curing Joseph of halitosis or gas?
5. Walking on water to retrieve a hanky a satanic wind blew out of her hand?
6. Resurrecting a dead moth that dared to crash into her halo?
WHERE, OH WHERE ARE THE MARY MIRACLES IN SCRIPTURE?
THERE ARE NONE beyond the miracle of her pregnancy. NONE as in zero-zip. Nada. Meiyou dongxi.
The whole of the RC edifice would have us believe that God thoughtlessly neglected to include such miracles in Scripture. Balderdash.
EITHER Mary's follow-on role included NO miracles--even after Pentecost . . .
God felt it IMPORTANT THAT THEY NOT be mentioned AT ALL.
So, which is it, RC's? Mary did NO miracles or God saw fit that they NOT be mentioned in Scripture AT ALL BECAUSE HE WANTED NO SUCH ATTENTION PAID TO MARY? There aren't a lot of plausible options. Which is it?
PRETENDING, as ya'll seem to do, that God didn't quite know what He was doing when He directed the writing of the New Testament is NOT REALLY a PLAUSIBLE option. Nor is it a very kosher, safe one when it comes to escaping His discipline, wrath on the matter, either.
No they don't.
Catholics venerate Mary. And other humans who led holy lives. So what?
I venerate George Washington, John Adams and Ronald Reagan. I venerate the veterans of the great wars. They have monuments (sacrilege!) to them.
That doesn’t mean I worship these people.
Thats equals someone who is not tarnished with sin. One of the biggest indicators in the Bible of the Immaculate Conception.
So, you're saying that Mary was FULL OF GRACE IN CONTRAST TO St Paul after the Damascus road?
Or, IN CONTRAST TO John on the Isle of Patmos?
What brazen illogic. There is NO "EQUALS" logically, Scripturally, linguistically, theologically, historically, prophetically--JUST AIN'T THERE.
Fantasizing it there isn't remotely sound theology nor even a very sound construction on historical reality.
SCRIPTURE TEACHES ALL US MORTALS that the one who thinks he has no sin is greatly DECEIVED and the truth is not in him. I JOHN 1:8
According to the theological hogwash postulated by this and similar threads, Mary would have certainly "KNOWN" she was immaculately contrived. Therefore she'd have thought she had no sin. Therefore she'd have not had the truth in her.
THAT line of reasoning is MUCH MORE SOUND than the MARY = ARK nonsense above and CERTAINLY MORE REASONABLE than that FULL OF GRACE EQUALS immaculately contrived/conceived.
Observing someone overflowing in a BAPTIZED IN HOLY SPIRIT EXPERIENCE is awesome in many cases. THEY are, in those moments FULL OF GRACE. But still very human. And, as Billy Graham has wisely said--WE LEAK. We need daily refillings.
Pretending that Mary never leaked is utter UnScriptural balderdash.
Now we know why Catholics believe that Mary remained a "perpetual virgin". You do remember what happened when people touched the first ark (2 Samuel 6:5-7, I Chron 13:9-10), don't you?
"All I have to ask you is one question - did you hurt my Mama?"
Or inspired teachings.
Jesus gave care and custody of Mary to John, who just happens to be the longest living Apostle. If Mary was blessed with all the supernatural powers she is claimed to possess, I think it is safe to say John would have mentioned them.
Historically it's interesting that the forgery "The Protoevangelium of James" emerged after the forgery "Acts of Paul and Thecla". In the latter Thecla was given great status because of her virginity, being a devoted disciple and GOD's intervention to save her from men who attempt to burn her alive, or throw her to wild beasts. In the eastern church she was called "Apostle and protomartyr among women". Tertullian complained some Christians were using the example of Thecla to legitimate women's roles of teaching and baptizing in the church.
It was very convenient for the western church that a more submissive role for women was found in the forgery "The Protoevangelium of James".
AMEN on all counts.
Have long had great admiration and love for SALVATION. I consider him a Dear Bro in Christ. My strong impression is that he mostly has his spiritual ducks & priorities in a row.
I have a certain amount of fun popping 'sacred' balloons; slaying sacred cows. Ostentacious, phoney, arrogant etc. authority has always begged for such responses, imho. And, perhaps some have noted, I'm not too bashful but to offer such up.
HOWEVER, there's an eternal priority that is absolutely paramount
I'm utterly CONVINCED IN EVERY WAY AT EVERY LEVEL that for a certain unknown percentage of precious RC folks . . . the Marion hogwash will prove to be eternally deadly. ETERNALLY DEADLY.
The FIRST COMMANDMENT WAS TO HAVE NO AS IN NO OTHER GODS BEFORE GOD. That includes the Mother of Jesus.
The rationalization is pontifacted that Prottys know little of veneration, adoration etc. HOGWASH. Rationalized special worship terms do not hide the attitude of the heart.
Given that God has decreed that mercy triumphs over justice, it MAY BE [NO guarantee] that God will excuse some folks' over-weening adoration of Mary because He knows in their hearts they REALLY DO SEEK & LOVE HIM FIRST, FOREMOST ETC.
But for a certain percentage of others . . . the DECEPTIVE, . . . . MARION JUNK has siphoned off heart-level love and worship of Jesus ONTO MARY. NO DOUBT. And, at some point, it becomes a kind of willful hiding in the Mary stuff and the fantasized Mary stuff to a wholesale minimizing and exclusion of JESUS from the bulk of that person's spiritual life. At some point, I think God will have no tolerance for such and will decree that the person has decided their destiny thereby.
That is an utterly awesomely frightful prospect.
IF my satire, humor, whatever jostles, jars, knocks some mental cobwebs loose enough for some folks to reconsider things more rationally, sanely--then--I'm humbled and PRAISE GOD. But I dare not sit silently by and do ought else but what I can toward such an even POSSIBILITY. Particularly on behalf of the thousands of lurkers.
A hanky folding contest?
You may be right.
Then again, some may be avoiding the thread to avoid bursting a bloodvessel over opposition comments.
Which, to me . . . is another sign of the overweening priority Mary has in their lives.
Yeah. There’s something about the “QUEEN OF HEAVEN” title that causes a chill in my bones and the hair to raise on my neck, so to speak.
Your points and posts are excellent as usual. Thanks tons for commenting.
If the idol is made by it’s worshippers to
walk like an idol,
lay eggs like an idol,
fly like an idol,
waddle like an idol,
quack like an idol,
wear gold leaf like an idol,
generate bowing and scraping like an idol,
generate overconcuming attention, focus and thought life like an idol,
. . .
then, it must be a Petunia???
Please observe more carefully. You’re missing something vital.
Would you be so kind as to post black letters, they are a lot easier to read. Let your words be weighty not your font and color.
Thanks for the rich belly laugh, BTW.
I appreciate your request.
I’m sorry for the distraction, discomfort or whatever it is to you.
Perhaps you can highlight or whatever other manipulation will suit you.
It is a matter I’ve prayerfully pondered a great deal. It is not a matter I feel allowed to compromise on. Sorry.
I don’t know how to explain it further. There are aspects of it which . . . I feel constrained to abide by while saying nothing more about.
What you’re missing is that the pagans BELIEVED the works of their hands were their gods. Catholics BELIEVE that there is only one God, and that Second Person of that God, Jesus Christ, true God and true Man, has a physical body. Catholics do not believe their icons and statues are gods.
I do finally have that very good research material. And will get to posting it by and by. It has fallen lower on the priority list than one might wish.
Thanks for the reminder.
I suspect that most . . . maybe even 99.99999999% of RC folks would affirm your statement.
But mental surface assertions and rationalizations do NOT hide the attitude of the heart from God.
So, you make the hypothesis that the attitude of the heart is to WORSHIP these images as they were gods? How are you so sure? Isn’t that arrogance?
No they don't.
Amen! The elevation of Mary is just pure idolatry. They say it's not and try to wiggle and squirm, fitting this misguided doctrine into a pretended context; but at the end of the day it is nothing more than bowing down to something made of stone. And they know it. This "veneration" is nothing more that a fancy word for worship. They try to fit it in between respect and worship but it doesn't quite work. Yet they don't discourage people from venerating mold on a NJ tunnel.
btw-I found this a hoot...
I don't know if they're is an official Catholic teaching on what he is refering to, so as long as it doesn't conflict with anything the Church teaches, he can interpret it that way.
The guy’s writing was just terrible. I hoped to find some scripture and all I learned was a lot about the writer and why the writings criticizing him exist.
Well, I would say the same for the Westminster Confession. :O)
Both his writing and his analysis. Lots of supposition and innuendos. Little analysis of the passage.
Also lots of piety and name dropping.
Mary's sinlessness is referred to as her Immaculate Conception (conceived without sin). From Sacred Scripture we have at least two passages of the Bible that present the implicit seed of the revealed truth of Mary's Immaculate Conception.
In Genesis 3:15, after Adam and Eve committed Original Sin, God addresses Satan, who is represented by the serpent: "I will put enmity between you and the woman and between your seed and her seed; he (2) shall crush your head, and you shall lie in wait for his heel." Since the "seed" of the woman is Jesus Christ, who is to crush Satan victoriously in the Redemption, then the woman must in fact refer to Mary, Mother of the Redeemer.
The word "enmity," which is rich in meaning in this passage, signifies "in opposition to." The enmity established between the "seed" of the woman, which is Jesus, and the "seed" of the serpent, which is sin, and all evil angels and humans, is in absolute and complete opposition, because there is absolute and complete opposition between Jesus and all evil. In other words, the seed of the woman and the seed of Satan have to be in complete and total opposition to each other as depicted in the term "enmity."
Further in the passage we see the identical God-given opposition or enmity given and proclaimed by God between the woman, Mary, and the serpent, Satan. Mary is given the same absolute and perpetual opposition to Satan as Jesus possesses in relation to sin. It is for this reason that Mary could not have received a fallen nature as a result of Original Sin. Any participation in the effects of Original Sin would place the Mother of Jesus in at least partial participation with Satan and sin, thereby destroying the complete God-given opposition as revealed in Genesis 3:15.
The opposition between Jesus and sin is paralleled by the opposition between the woman, Mary, and the serpent, Satan. Again, this tells us that the Mother of Jesus could not participate in the fallen nature of man because that would mean participating, at least partially, in the domain of sin, a reality to which God gave Mary complete opposition.
From the New Testament the principal scriptural seed for the Immaculate Conception is revealed in the inspired words of the Angel Gabriel, "Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you" (Lk 1:28). In the angelic greeting, Mary's name is nowhere used. Rather, the title "full of grace" is used as a substitute for Mary's name by the angelic messenger of God. These angelic words refer to a fullness of grace, a plentitude of grace that is part of Mary's very nature. So much is Mary's very being full of grace that this title serves to identify Mary in place of her own name. It is also true that no person with a fallen nature could possess a fullness of grace, a plentitude of grace, appropriate only for the woman who was to give God the Son an identical, immaculate human nature. Mary was conceived in providence to be the woman who would give her same immaculate nature to God when God became man. Certainly we can see the fittingness in God receiving a human nature from a human mother, and receiving an immaculate nature from a truly immaculate mother.
In the Greek text of Luke 1:28, we have an additional implicit reference to Mary's Immaculate Conception taking place before the announcement of the Angel. The Greek word "kecharitomene," is a perfect participle, which, in Greek, denotes an action completed in the past but still holding a relevance to the present. Therefore we translate Luke 1:28 most accurately in this way, "Hail, you who have been graced" or "Hail, you who have been perfected in grace." The Greek translation of the angel's greeting refers to an event of profound grace experienced by Mary that was already completed in the past. (3)
These implicitly revealed seeds of the Immaculate Conception blossomed gradually but steadily in the Tradition of the Church. The early Church Fathers refer to Mary under such titles as "all holy," "all pure," "most innocent," "a miracle of grace," "purer than the angels," "altogether without sin," and these within the first three centuries of the Church. Since the word "immaculate" means "without sin," then the titles used for Mary by the early Fathers, such as "altogether without sin," certainly contain the understanding of her immaculate nature.
The early Church Fathers also compared the Mother of God's sinless state as being identical to Eve's state before the participation of Eve in Original Sin. Mary as the "New Eve" was seen to be in the same state of original grace and justice that Eve was in when she was created by God. Since Eve was obviously conceived in grace, without the fallen nature that we receive due to Original Sin, the parallel made by the Church Fathers between Mary and Eve before the fall illustrates their understanding of Mary's likewise immaculate nature.
In the words of St. Ephraem (d.373): "Those two innocent...women, Mary and Eve, had been (created) utterly equal, but afterwards one became the cause of our death, the other the cause of our life." We can see the complete parallel between the sinless Eve before the fall and the sinless Mary. St. Ephraem also refers to Mary's sinless nature in this address to Our Lord: "You and your Mother are the only ones who are immune from all stain; for there is no spot in Thee, O Lord, nor any taint in Your Mother."
No one's missing this, least of all God in heaven. He has told us not to bow down to anything other than Him, regardless of what it is we're bowing to.
So we are not to venerate, worship, adore, sacrifice to, pray to or expect absolution for our sins from anyone other than the Triune God.
This always seemed to me to be one of the easy rules to understand in Christianity, and thus it is so amazing the RCC gets it so very wrong.
Please read the following from Acts 17 and recognize the similar error propagated by the RCC... And they took him, and brought him unto Areopagus, saying, May we know what this new doctrine, whereof thou speakest, is? For thou bringest certain strange things to our ears: we would know therefore what these things mean. (For all the Athenians and strangers which were there spent their time in nothing else, but either to tell, or to hear some new thing.) [I love that line] Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars' hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious. For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you. God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us: For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring. Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device. And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead." -- Acts 17:18-31
"Then certain philosophers of the Epicureans, and of the Stoicks, encountered him (Paul). And some said, What will this babbler say? other some, He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods: because he preached unto them Jesus, and the resurrection.
And they took him, and brought him unto Areopagus, saying, May we know what this new doctrine, whereof thou speakest, is?
For thou bringest certain strange things to our ears: we would know therefore what these things mean.
(For all the Athenians and strangers which were there spent their time in nothing else, but either to tell, or to hear some new thing.) [I love that line]
Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars' hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious.
For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.
God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;
Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;
And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;
That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:
For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.
Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.
And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:
Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead." -- Acts 17:18-31
The Athenians thought their god was worthy of worship, but as Paul instructed them, unless they NAMED the object of their devotion as JESUS CHRIST, their worship was worthless.
Actually, less than worthless, since their prayers was truly offensive to God who no longer winks at this error, but demands repentance from it.
This is why Protestants cringe at statues of silver and gold, and Mary as co-redeemer, and men who kneel to the stock of a tree, regardless of protests that its made of the finest-quality maple or oak.
Thanks, but have already been thru that stuff...
Thanks for taking the time to present your thoughts.
You note two verses of Scripture as the foundation for your belief that Mary is outside human condemnation following the fall, ie., immaculately conceived, Gen.3:15 and Luke 1:28. Are there any other verses that are more definitive? Also, how can you reconcile this sinless state with her death. Aren't the wages of sin death?
The early Church Fathers refer to Mary under such titles as "all holy," "all pure," "most innocent," "a miracle of grace," "purer than the angels," "altogether without sin," and these within the first three centuries of the Church.
How do you know they got it right?
Do you drop to your knees and pray to Abe in front of the Lincoln monument???
Not surprising, you're continuing to bring this up, when it is a misrepresentation, and, more importantly, the title of "Co-Redemptrix" ISN'T EVEN CATHOLIC DOGMA!
Do you honestly think God is fooled by the syntax or grammar or spelling of however you care to wrap up this foul error?
The words "dear Coredemptrix" express most exactly soteriological value of the Blessed Virgin Marys maternal mission in the tones of a pure theologia cordis. She coredeemed humanity by offering the divine Victim, her Son Jesus, in the bloody immolation of the Cross, and co-immolating herself with Him in order to "restore supernatural life to souls" (LG 61), became in this way our "Mother in the order of grace" (LG 1.c.) (18). She "gave birth to us in sorrows," affirms St. Pio. She is, therefore, the Mother Coredemptrix. She desires to raise her children and, what is more, to make them grow even unto the stature of Christ. She is, therefore, the Mother Mediatrix and Dispensatrix of all graces (19), always "associated with Jesus in applying the fruits of the Redemption to souls," as Fr. Melchior da Pobladura writes (20). The Coredemptrix reacquired the grace lost. The Mediatrix distributes the grace reacquired. There is an operative continuity between the Coredemption and Distribution of saving grace. And, according to the teaching of St. Pio of Pietrelcina, we should be eternally grateful to "our dear Coredemptrix" and to our "Mediatrix and Dispensatrix of all graces."
"Dispensatrix of all graces."
Let that sink in -- Mary dispenses all Grace.
Blasphemy and lies. Repent of it.
That being said, the concept of Mediatrix of all graces is not a denial that God dispenses graces through other means. To do so would be an error. Rather, it is an affirmation that through her intercession, her prayer at the throne of her Son, Jesus Christ, she can obtain all things. God is the one who does the "heavy lifting." Then again, since your heretical theology denies the intercession of the saints, you will not be convinced by this.
Obviously many of them didn't. They were dealing with heresies coming from all sides, and so some of them incorporated the female pagan rituals into these inflated descriptions of Mary.
Isis and Cybele became Mary.
Where is the Scriptural evidence that Mary intercedes for anyone?
Heresy is defined as something contradicted by Scripture and expressly forbidden by God.
Labeling Mary as "co-redemtrix" and "co-dispenser of grace" are heresies men will be called upon to defend before Jesus Christ.
And they will fail.
Amen. Mary was blessed (one syllable, not two.)
That's your Protestant/"Reformist" definition, and I do not accept it.
It will interesting to see the Jesuits trying to argue with God Himself!
What about the Sabbatine Privilege?? That's that Catholic Dogma, isn't it??? How is that any different from being a co-Redemptrix???
That was a very good book to read. I highly recommend it, FWIW.
Now, I'm still having trouble figuring out "unanimous consent", so be patient. What is Sabbatine Privilege?
PYRO: That's your Protestant/"Reformist" definition, and I do not accept it.
Then that must explain why you don't seem to worry about God's admonition against falling down to the stock of a tree.