An examination of such attempts as yours to defend what is only a tradition of men serves to further expose it as such, and the wresting of Scripture they will engage in seeking to support their unwarranted extreme exaltation of Mary, above that which is written (cf. 1Cor. 4:6) See here , and my exchange in a recent FR thread.
Hail Mary, full of grace
There is nothing her that makes Mary sinless nor the object of prayer in Heaven any more than all believers, as "charitoo" - which is never used for "full" elsewhere, and is wrongly rendered "full of grace" in the DRB rather than highly favored (but Rome's current official New American Bible has the latter), is also used of all believers in Eph. 1:6. In contrast, the only one said to be full of grace is the Lord Jesus, "full of grace and truth," using "plērēs," which denotes full 17 other places in the NT.
Blessed art thou amongst women
Which according to egregious Catholic extrapolation, also makes Jael an object of prayer to Heaven, as of her also is said, "Blessed above women shall Jael the wife of Heber the Kenite be, blessed shall she be above women in the tent." (Judges 5:24)
Holy Mary (Not explicitly, but Luke 1:46-48)
She was holy, but making her sinless and the object of prayer to Heaven is beyond what Scripture teaches or supports.
Name one example out of the multitudinous prayers in Scripture, in which anyone prayed to anyone else in Heaven besides God. And any insufficiency in Christ as mediator that requires another object of mental prayer to Heaven. And one example in Scripture in which personal communication took place btwn created beings in which they were not in the same place, or a believer being cognizantly present in Heaven to converse there face to face, versus praying to created beings in heaven from earth.
Mother of God (Luke 1:43)
That is not what the texts says either, but "the mother of my Lord," kurios, and kurios does not specify God, theos, but can mean Master, etc. That Jesus is Divine, as one member of the Godhead, is true, and that God hath made that same Jesus "both Lord and Christ," (Acts 2:36) is true, but that Elizabeth understood the Messiah was God is not clear, as she did not say "mother of God" which Catholicism places in her mouth.
Moreover, the Holy Spirit is careful on what words He uses, and never uses the term "mother of God," and while the term may be understood in the sense that Mary was indeed a chosen instrument to incarnate the Divine Son of God, through whom the body the Father prepared for Christ (Heb. 10:5) came, and mothered Christ as He grew, yet, what the abundant and uncritical use of the term "mother of God" most naturally conveys that Mary is ontologically the mother of God, as if Mary was the author of the Divinity of Christ.
The Catholic use of mother of God makes Christ indebted to Mary, rather than the emphasis on being on Mary's debt to Christ, for she owes all that she is to God, and is blessed because of that, not because she is described as being the most righteous soul on earth.
Pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death (Protestants ask people to pray for them.
But in Scripture only pagans prayed to someone else in Heaven except directly to God. God is a God of separation, and who establishes distinctions and boundaries, and who possess unique attributes. Thus those on earth do not actually converse with created being in Heaven, unless they come to earth or the believer is enabled to converse with them there, and only God is shown to be able to hear and respond to prayers from earth to Heaven.
And Heaven is God's throne, into which believers in Christ and thru Christ have immediate access to God. (Heb. 10:19)
In addition to zero examples of praying to anyone else in Heaven but God, nowhere in any instructions on spiritually praying to Heaven is any other person but God the direct object of request, including the Lord's model of prayer:
"After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name" (Matthew 6:9) - not '"our mother..."
Another foundation of the Rosary is that Mary is Queen of Heaven and Earth. (Rev 12)
That the women clothed with the sun is Mary is simply a fallible Catholic interpretation, and which the approved notes of the official Roman Catholic Bible (NAB) for America do not support, [12:1] The woman adorned with the sun, the moon, and the stars (images taken from Gn 37:9–10) symbolizes God’s people in the Old and the New Testament. The Israel of old gave birth to the Messiah (Rev 12:5) and then became the new Israel, the church, which suffers persecution by the dragon (Rev 12:6, 13–17); cf. Is 50:1; 66:7; Jer 50:12... * [12:2] Because of Eve’s sin, the woman gives birth in distress and pain (Gn 3:16; cf. Is 66:7–14)...[12:6] God protects the persecuted church in the desert, the traditional Old Testament place of refuge for the afflicted, according to the typology of the Exodus; see note on Rev 11:2... [12:17] Although the church is protected by God’s special providence (Rev 12:16), the individual Christian is to expect persecution and suffering.” - http://www.usccb.org/bible/revelation/12
The conservative Catholic Haydock commentary also has the women as being the church as its primary interpretation, (http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id298.html) while,
“The modern Mariologists like to turn to [Revelation 12], seeing in it an allegory of the Virgin Mary. But whatever can be thought of their interpretation, it is a fact that none of the early interpreters before the end of the fourth century see the Virgin Mary in the woman of the Revelation. They all understand her to be the Church and so they continue to make most of their interpretations in the following centuries. Ticonius is the first to suggest the Marian interpretation” [Giovanni Miegge, The Virgin Mary (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1955, pp.101-102)]. - http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/02/revelation-12.html cf. http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=3213
Roman Catholic theologian Father Hubert J. Richards agrees that the Revelation 12 woman refers to Israel. In his book, “What The Spirit Says to the Churches: A Key to the Apocalypse of John,” (Nihil obstat and Imprimatur), Richards writes:
The vision proper, then, begins with the figure of a Woman clothed with the sun and the stars. We think naturally enough of our Lady, to whom this description has traditionally been applied. After all, we say, of whom else could John be thinking when he speaks of the mother of the Messiah? However it is clear from the rest of the chapter that this interpretation will stand only if the verse is isolated: what follows has very little relevance to our Lady. Nor is it any honor to Mary to apply any and every text to her without thought.
And as for Mary’s ability to intercede for us? John 2....Jesus proceeds to do the exact thing Mary asks; even though by his own profession it is not yet time.
Scripture does not support extrapolating being the object of prayer to Heaven out of being an intercessor on earth. And as it is, the term "What have I to do with thee?" is rather common in Scripture, (2Sam. 16:9; 1Kg. 17:18; 2Kg. 3:13; 2Chr. 35:21; Lk. 4:34; 8:28) and can mean, "what concord have I with you regarding this issue," or "what reason have you for coming to me (or us)." And which is not necessarily a statement of refusal, but one that affirms the one being petitioned is under no compulsion to grant the request (or protests against an action as having no real need), and thus calls one to recognize this and perhaps make a case.
Thus, rather than Mary's prayers being granted because she is the mother of God, and queen of Heaven, as Catholics argue, the Lord's response, "what have I to do with thee," reminds her of her place, that before a request may be made, she must recognize the Lord's sovereignty, and not presume special warrant..
And rather than Mary presuming special favor, she rightly left the matter in the Lord's hands, and the Lord responded to the need. Yet this was not the only time that a request was granted after initially reminding the supplicant of their place, as Elisha did so in 2 Kgs. 3 (after first saying, "What have I to do with thee? get thee to the prophets of thy father, and to the prophets of thy mother).
We also have the question of whether Mary suffered at the Cross.
Irrelevant, as Mary's suffering or that of anyone else, did not atone for the sins of mankind. If Mary had been tempted in all points as we are, and had not sinned, as RCs claim, then it could be postulated that Mary could have been the Savior of the world. However, we see in Scripture that God records notable exceptions to the norm, from extreme ages, to height, to talking donkeys, to long term virginity, to sinlessness, yet without actual Scriptural support, Mariology has a sinless Mary in a marriage with leaving but no sexual cleaving and becoming one flesh thereby, besides ascribing many attributes which parallel those of the Divine Christ.
Finally when Jesus was on the Cross, he declared that Mary was now mother of John, the only Apostle to never abandon Jesus.
This does not make Mary that mother of the church, and if she is, then it seems more fitting that she would have been given to Peter. In addition, if the latter is true, that John is the only Apostle to never abandon Jesus, then it is contrary to both the OT and NT:
"Then saith Jesus unto them, All ye shall be offended because of me this night: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad. " (Matthew 26:31)
But all this was done, that the scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled. Then all the disciples forsook him, and fled. " (Matthew 26:56; cf. Mk 14:50-52; Joh 16:32;)
Mary did participate in the Redemption. .. She also saved the couple at Cana by requesting that Jesus help them, even though his hour had not yet come.
Likewise those who birted and raised May, or those who instrumentally brought forth the word of God Christ quoted in establishing His claims, or Rufus who carried the cross, may be considered participates in the Redemption. Also, if Mary participated in the Redemption by being an instrument of God then so did Israel, " of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen" (Romans 9:5) - and note the distinction by the Holy Spirit, usually missing in Rome's used of mother of God, that of "as concerning the flesh."
And not the least of these is Paul, who is relatively marginalized by RCs in relation to what the Holy Spirit writes about him and thru him, and who labored in love for the church more than the others, and with much literal longsuffering. Meanwhile Mary is exalted by Catholics almost to be as a 4th person of the Trinity, though she is relatively marginal in the gospels.
Meanwhile, even your last active pope stated,
“the response of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, is, broadly, that what is signified by this is already better expressed in other titles of Mary, while the formula “Co-redemptrix” departs to too great an extent from the language of Scripture and of the Fathers and therefore gives rise to misunderstandings” (53) .
He went on to say that,
Everything comes from Him [Christ], as their Latter to the Ephesians and the Letter to the Colossians, in particular, tell us; Mary, too, is everything she is through Him. The word “Co-redemptrix” would obscure this origin. A correct intention being expressed in the wrong way. For matters of faith, continuity of terminology with the language of Scripture and that of the Fathers is itself an essential element; it is improper simply to manipulate language. Source
The unrestrained praise is due to Mary.
The unrestrained RC praise is not due to the Mary of Scripture, but a RC distortion of her, which is not seen in Scripture but is more akin to what is seen in paganism, which Rome is somewhat an amalgamation of .
The Catholic Encyclopedia admits that a further reinforcement of Marian devotion, “was derived from the cult of the angels, which, while pre-Christian in its origin, was heartily embraced by the faithful of the sub-Apostolic age. It seems to have been only as a sequel of some such development that men turned to implore the intercession of the Blessed Virgin. This at least is the common opinion among scholars, though it would perhaps be dangerous to speak too positively. Evidence regarding the popular practice of the early centuries is almost entirely lacking...,” (Catholic Encyclopedia > Devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary) .
“It then becomes clear that at the time of Judas Maccabeus-around 170 B.C., a surprisingly innovative period — prayer for the dead was not practiced, but that a century later it was practiced by certain Jews.” (Jacques Le Goff, The Birth of Purgatory, trans. Arthur Goldhammer (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1984), p.45; http://www.lightshinesindarkness.com/purgatory_history_1.htm
In a society where promiscuous women were not tolerated, Mary agreed to have a child without the guarantee that she would have a husband. No promise was made to her, but she put her faith in God.
That is true, and the issue is not whether Mary was a holy women of virtue, but that this does not translate into her being the most holy saint, who is ascended to Heaven, and is an object of prayer, and already crowned (which happens after the resurrection) and enthroned as Queen of Heaven with almost unlimited power, including having the ability to process virtually unlimited prayer requests, etc. Again, in contrast to Catholicism, the Spirit of God says little about Mary, while He abundantly writes of the holy passion, purity and power of Paul (see "Pope Paul "), but even we do not pray to him.
The Rosary is not a secret technique; it is not an unseen cosmic force; it is not a hidden strategy. The Rosary is routinely prayed publicly by Catholics.
But it, and any prayer to anyone else in Heaven but God is never prayed except by pagans.
You quote a passage that says when you stand firm against the Devil he flees from you. When I pray three Hail Marys, lustful thoughts depart from me. If that is not the Devil fleeing, I am uncertain what would be.
The devil can both addicts souls and then offer a cultic way of deliverance. Witch doctors like Simon were not just hype. Devotees of cult leader Roy Masters have similar testimonies. Thus it is written, "To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. " (Isaiah 8:20) Read "New Age Medicine " by two Christian doctors of cases in S. America and you will realize how the devil can imitate God to a degree, as the 1st 3 miracles of Moses were duplicated by the magicians. But We must overcome evil with good, and Scripture defines what good is, and which rote PTDS is not.
The passage you cite with the Bereans is interesting. They did not have a New Testament (or any books of it). The scriptures cited must therefor be the Old Testament. They had to trust that what Paul was saying was true and had happened.
Wrong. They did not have to trust that what Paul was saying was true as RCs must do with Rome, but contrary to what RCs are to do with her teaching, instead they examined what Paul said by the Scriptures to see if it was true. And Paul's manner among such was to reason from the Scriptures. (Acts 17:2)
"And when they had appointed him a day, there came many to him into his lodging; to whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets, from morning till evening. " (Acts 28:23)
Likewise, Apollos "he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ. " (Acts 18:28)
For the Lord Himself did not establish His claims by oral tradition, but "beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself. " (Luke 24:27) While appeal to revelation of nature and miracles were first used among the illiterate. (Rm. 15:19)
The word *grace* in Luke 1:28 that is used by the angel, is the same word *grace* that appears in Ephesians 1:6
Ephesians 1:3-10 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved. In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth.
Mary is still dead.
Hail Mary:
http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/nas/charitoo.html
charitoo- to make graceful. Catholicism teaches that Mary’s grace is from God, not from something external to God.
http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/nas/pleres.html
pleres- lacking nothing, perfect. Of course this applies to Jesus.
Blessed art though: Jael played no role in our Salvation. She played a small role in one of the wars the Jews had with their neighbors.
Holy Mary: Since Mary is unique amongst all non-Jesus humans, I don’t think you will find an example in the OT. In the NT, nothing gives an explicit contradiction of asking for Mary’s intercessions.
Mother of God: Do you deny that Mary was the Mother of God? Also Elizabeth would have spoken Hebrew. One of the Jewish names for God is Adonai. Which translates into english as Lord (amongst other translations all related). Also the Holy Spirit came upon Mary and conceived Jesus, see the Apostolic Creed, which is recited at the beginning of the Rosary.
Pray for us: The people the pagans were praying to were not in heaven (the pagans thought they were). In addition these people were by the very nature in opposition to God. Mary does not stand in opposition to God, in fact her soul magnifies/exalts the Lord. However, the Lord is still the creator of her soul.
Queen of Heaven: You assume that each passage of the Bible has only one interpretation? The Father Richards you cite appears to have been laicized, so I am unsure how he is an authority within the Church. How does that passage relate to Mary? Well after the Child (Jesus) is born, the Devil (Herod) tries to kill the child. This child is destined to rule all nations. The woman flees into the wilderness (Egypt). The devil becomes angry with the woman and then runs off to kill her other children. There are verses here which are not congruent with Matthew 2:13-18; however, Matthew revealed things that happened on Earth. Revelation revealed things that happened in Heaven.
John 2: Mary asks Jesus to do something; Jesus says “Why should I care, My hour hasn’t arrived”; Mary tells the servants to do whatever Jesus tells them; Jesus does exactly what Mary asks.
Mary’s Suffering: It is not claimed that Mary’s suffering atones for anyone’s sins. But we do have that Mary suffered at the Cross (Luke 2:33-35)
On the Cross: My apologies, John was present at the cross, the only apostle to be there. John of all the Apostles was the most faithful; he was the only apostle to return to Jesus before Jesus’s Resurrection. The most faithful took Mary as his Mother.
Title of of Co-Redemptrix: Pope BXVI in that quote of yours says the title should be abandoned because it leads to misunderstanding.
Mary in the Redemption: Mary suffered in her soul. Also this obsession that Protestantism has for Paul appears to be a pity party and a list of mewling babies whining that the Catholic Church did not award him her highest honor.
In your rejection of Sacred Tradition, you do realize the Judaism holds a belief in Tradition, right? The problems of Judaism are that the Tradition can reverse scripture and that the sacrifices were imperfect.
Catholicism does not hold that Mary has power; we hold that she has influence.
Concerning “Pope” Paul: Most of the verses are distorted out of context. Also, one would not expect a Pope to travel much at all; one would expect a Pope to sit in his seat in Rome; one would expect a missionary to move around a lot.
Devotees: Are you really citing a source outside Scripture as having power to shed light on Scripture?
Bereans: Since the Bereans are mentioned in Acts, Acts had definitely not been written at that point. Do we know what books of the NT had been written by this point?