Skip to comments.Radio Replies First Volume - Devotion to Mary
Posted on 11/20/2009 9:29:10 PM PST by GonzoII
Encoding copyright 2009 by Frederick Manligas Nacino. Some rights reserved.
Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0
If one recalls the time frame from which Radio Replies emerged, it can explain some of the frankness and lack of tact in the nature of the responses provided.
It was during this timeframe that a considerable amount of anti-Catholic rhetoric came to the forefront, particularly in this country. Much of this developed during the Presidential campaign of Al Smith in 1928, but had its roots in the publication of Alexander Hislop's The Two Babylons, originally published in book form in 1919 and also published in pamphlet form in 1853.
While in Britain (and consequently Australia), the other fellow would surely have experienced the effects of the Popery Act, the Act of Settlement, the Disenfranchising Act, the Ecclesiastical Titles Act, and many others since the reformation (that basically boiled down to saying, "We won't kill you if you just be good, quiet little Catholics"). Even the so-called Catholic Relief Acts (1778, 1791, 1829, 1851, 1871) still had huge barriers placed in the way.
And of course, they'd both remember the American Protective Association, "Guy Fawkes Days" (which included burning the Pontiff in effigy), the positions of the Whigs and Ultra-Torries, and so on.
A strong degree of "in your face" from people in the position of authoritativeness was required back in the 1930s, as there was a large contingent of the populations of both the US and the British Empire who were not at all shy about being "in your face" toward Catholics in the first place (in other words, a particularly contentious day on Free Republic would be considered a mild day in some circles back then). Sure, in polite, educated circles, contention was avoided (thus the little ditty about it not being polite to discuss religion in public, along with sex and politics), but it would be naive to assume that we all got along, or anything resembling that, back in the day.
Having said all of the above, reading the articles from the modern mindset and without the historical context that I tried to briefly summarize above, they make challenging reading, due to their bluntness.
The reader should also keep in mind that the official teaching of the Church takes a completely different tone, best summed up in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
817 In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame."269 The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ's Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism270 - do not occur without human sin:Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.271
818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers .... All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272
819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."276
838 "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."323 With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist."324
269 UR 3 § 1.
270 Cf. CIC, can. 751.
271 Origen, Hom. in Ezech. 9,1:PG 13,732.
272 UR 3 § 1.
273 LG 8 § 2.
274 UR 3 § 2; cf. LG 15.
275 Cf. UR 3.
276 Cf. LG 8.
322 LG 15.
323 UR 3.
324 Paul VI, Discourse, December 14, 1975; cf. UR 13-18.
Rev. Dr. Leslie Rumble, M.S.C.
"I was brought up as a Protestant, probably with more inherited prejudices than most non-Catholics of these days. My parents were Anglican and taught me the Angelican faith. My 'broad-minded' protestant teachers taught me to dislike the Catholic Church intensely. I later tried Protestantism in various other forms, and it is some thirty years since, in God's providence, I became a Catholic. As for the 'open, free, sincere worship' of a Protestant Church, I tasted it, but for me it proved in the end to be not only open, but empty; it was altogether too free from God's prescriptions."
Eventually, Leslie became a priest of the Missionaries of the Sacred Heart.
In 1928, Fr. Rumble began a one-hour 'Question Box' program on 2SM Sydney, N.S.W. radio on Sunday evenings that was heard all over Australia and New Zealand. For five years he answered questions on every subject imaginable that had been written to him from all over that part of the globe. His first show began with a classic introduction:
"Good evening, listeners all. For some time I have been promising to give a session dealing with questions of religion and morality, in which the listeners themselves should decide what is of interest to them. Such a session will commence next Sunday evening, and I invite you to send in any questions you wish on these subjects . . . So now I invite you, non-Catholics above all, to send in any questions you wish on religion, or morality, or the Catholic Church, and I shall explain exactly the Catholic position, and give the reasons for it. In fact I almost demand those questions. Many hard things have been said, and are still being said, about the Catholic Church, though no criminal, has been so abused, that she has a right to be heard. I do not ask that you give your name and address. A nom de plume will do. Call yourself Voltaire, Confucius, X.Y.Z., what you like, so long as you give indication enough to recognize your answer."
"By the summer of 1937, the first edition of Radio Replies was already in print in Australia, financed by Rt. Rev. Monsignor James Meany, P.P. - the director of Station 2SM of whom I am greatly indebted."
"I have often been mistaken, as most men at times. And it is precisely to make sure that I will not be mistaken in the supremely important matter of religion that I cling to a Church which cannot be mistaken, but must be right where I might be wrong. God knew that so many sincere men would make mistakes that He deliberately established an infallible Church to preserve them from error where it was most important that they should not go wrong."
Rev. Charles Mortimer Carty
I broadcast my radio program, the Catholic Radio Hour, from St. Paul, Minnesota.
I was also carrying on as a Catholic Campaigner for Christ, the Apostolate to the man in the street through the medium of my trailer and loud-speaking system. In the distribution of pamphlets and books on the Catholic Faith, Radio Replies proved the most talked of book carried in my trailer display of Catholic literature. As many of us street preachers have learned, it is not so much what you say over the microphone in answer to questions from open air listeners, but what you get into their hands to read. The questions Fr. Rumble had to answer on the other side of the planet are same the questions I had to answer before friendly and hostile audiences throughout my summer campaign."
I realized that this priest in Australia was doing exactly the same work I was doing here in St. Paul. Because of the success of his book, plus the delay in getting copies from Sydney and the prohibitive cost of the book on this side of the universe, I got in contact with him to publish a cheap American edition.
It doesn't take long for the imagination to start thinking about how much we could actually do. We began the Radio Replies Press Society Publishing Company, finished the American edition of what was to be the first volume of Radio Replies, recieved the necessary imprimatur, and Msgr. Fulton J. Sheen agreed to write a preface. About a year after the publication of the first edition in Australia, we had the American edition out and in people's hands.
The book turned into a phenomena. Letters began pouring into my office from every corner of the United States; Protestant Publishing Houses are requesting copies for distribution to Protestant Seminaries; a few Catholic Seminaries have adopted it as an official textbook - and I had still never met Dr. Rumble in person.
To keep a long story short, we finally got a chance to meet, published volumes two and three of Radio Replies, printed a set of ten booklets on subjects people most often asked about, and a few other pamphlets on subjects of interest to us.
Fr. Carty died on May 22, 1964 in Connecticut.
"Firstly, since God is the Author of all truth, nothing that is definitely true can every really contradict anything else that is definitely true. Secondly, the Catholic Church is definitely true. It therefore follows that no objection or difficulty, whether drawn from history, Scripture, science, or philosophy, can provide a valid argument against the truth of the Catholic religion."
Biographies compiled from the introductions to Radio Replies, volumes 1, 2 and 3.
Radio Replies Volume One: Natural Religion & Revealed Religion
Radio Replies Volume One: Mysteries of Religion
Radio Replies Volume One: Miracles
Radio Replies Volume One: Value of the Gospels
Radio Replies Volume One: Inspiration of the Gospels
Radio Replies Volume One: Old Testament Difficulties [Part 1]
Radio Replies Volume One: Old Testament Difficulties [Part 2]
Radio Replies Volume One: Old Testament Difficulties [Part 3]
Radio Replies Volume One: New Testament Difficulties
Radio Replies Volume One: Conflicting Churches
Radio Replies Volume One: Are All One Church?
Radio Replies Volume One: Is One Religion As Good As Another?
Radio Replies Volume One: The Fallacy of Indifference
Radio Replies Volume One: Protestantism Erroneous
Radio Replies Volume One: Luther
Radio Replies Volume One: Anglicanism
Radio Replies Volume One: Greek Orthodox Church
Radio Replies Volume One: Wesley
Radio Replies Volume One: Baptists
Radio Replies Volume One: Adventists
Radio Replies Volume One: Salvation Army
Radio Replies Volume One: Witnesses of Jehovah
Radio Replies Volume One: Christian Science
Radio Replies Volume One: Nature of the Church
Radio Replies Volume One: The true Church
Radio Replies Volume One: Hierarchy of the Church
Radio Replies Volume One: The Pope
Radio Replies Volume One: Temporal Power
Radio Replies Volume One: Not opposed to the Bible
Radio Replies Volume One: The reading of the Bible
Radio Replies Volume One: Protestants and the Bible
Radio Replies Volume One: "Bible Only" a false principle
Radio Replies Volume One: The necessity of Tradition
Radio Replies Volume One: The authority of the Catholic Church
Radio Replies Volume One: Dogmatic Truth
Radio Replies Volume One: Development of Dogma
Radio Replies Volume One: Dogma and Reason
Radio Replies Volume One: Rationalism
Radio Replies Volume One: The Holy Trinity
Radio Replies Volume One: Confirmation
Radio Replies Volume One: Confession
Radio Replies Volume One: Holy Eucharist
Radio Replies Volume One: The Sacrifice of the Mass
Radio Replies Volume One: Holy Communion
Radio Replies Volume One: Veracity/Mental Restriction
Radio Replies Volume One: Charity
Radio Replies Volume One: Ecclesiastical Censures/Liberty
Radio Replies Volume One: Index of Prohibited Books
Radio Replies Volume One: Persecution
Radio Replies Volume One: The Inquisition
Radio Replies Volume One: Jesuits/Catholic Intolerance
Radio Replies Volume One: Protestant services
Radio Replies Volume One: Freemasonry
Radio Replies Volume One: Cremation
Radio Replies Volume One: Holy Water
Radio Replies Volume One: Genuflection/Sign of the Cross
Radio Replies Volume One: Images
Radio Replies Volume One: Liturgical Ceremonial
Radio Replies Volume One: Spiritual Healing
as he spoke these things, a certain woman from the crowd, lifting up her voice, said to him: Blessed is the womb that bore thee, and the paps that gave thee suck (Luke 11:27)
This devotion to Mary is natural. It comes as a response to one among the clearest proclamations of the divinity if Christ found in the gospels:
if I by the finger of God cast out devils; doubtless the kingdom of God is come upon you (Luke 11:20)
The woman in the crowd blesses Mary because that woman comes to the understanding of the mystery of the Incarnation: the Word became flesh and Satan is defeated.
Did Christ disapprove of this outburst, He would have had His opportuinity here. And He did disaprove. Let us listen to His voice:
But he said: Yea rather, blessed are they who hear the word of God, and keep it. (Luke 11:28)
This succint reaction is remarkable for what it does NOT say. It does not prohibit the veneration of His Mother. It says, in effect, to look also for others who are like Mary: not physiologically as birthgivers of Christ, but spiritually as the followers of the Word. Rather than stopping the veneration of saints in its nascent tracks, it expands it, to its Catholic understanding.
Blessed is the Church that reads and follows the Gospel.
Good insight, annalex. I think we could say it's an invitation to holiness.
First, “But through Mary we have access to the omnipotence of God.” That in itself gives lie to the whole claim that Mary isn’t mediating between us and God. There is no scriptural support anywhere for going through Mary to get to Jesus. It also gives lie to the claim that prayers ‘to Mary’ are just asking for her to pray on someone’s behalf. Sorry, but no one goes to a human and says, “Joe, pray for me, for it is through you that I can access the omnipotence of God”.
Second, “But he said, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!” is NOT an endorsement of devotion to Mary.
Look at the first word: “BUT”. That means what follows is a contradiction. And notice he does NOT say, “you should also...” Instead, BUT is followed by “rather”. Rather means it is better to, or this is what you should do instead. Since rather is preceded by ‘but’, we are presented with Jesus saying ‘You’re missing the point. My mother and my brothers are those who hear the word of God and do it.’ (from Luke 8)
Both Luke 8 & 11 make it clear that Jesus is saying the PHYSICAL relationship isn’t important, the SPIRITUAL one is!
Even the NAB footnote has “Rather, it emphasizes (like Luke 2:35) that attentiveness to God’s word is more important than biological relationship to Jesus.” or, from Luke 8, “The family of Jesus is not constituted by physical relationship with him but by obedience to the word of God.”
You wrote “The woman in the crowd blesses Mary because that woman comes to the understanding of the mystery of the Incarnation: the Word became flesh and Satan is defeated.”
Ummm...no. Blessing the mother that bore someone important was common. We still do it today.
The passage very clearly teaches that we should NOT focus on Mary, but focus instead on Christ. What is important is not the womb that bore Him, but the Cross that bore Him, and His resurrection. What is important is not that Mary gave Him birth, but that the Holy Spirit gives US a new birth.
“Christ is the principal mediator in His own right. Mary is a secondary mediatrix, through, with, and in Christ. Without Him she would have no power, and therefore He is the source of all mediation with God on behalf of men.”
What power does Mary have that any believer does not also have?
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
Obama Says A Baby Is A Punishment
St. Mark 3,
31- There came then his brethren and and his mother, and, standing without,sent unto him, calling him”.
32- And the multitude sat about him, and they said unto him, behold, thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee.
33- And he answered them, saying, “Who is my mother, or my brethren?”
34- And he looked round about on them which sat about him, and said, “Behold my mother and my brethren”!
35- “For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother.”
That phrase explains where Mary stands in relation to divine omnipotence. Radio Replies goes to great length to explain Mary's mediation in other paragraphs, but not in his one.
Rather means it is better to, or this is what you should do instead
Two words indicate correction (I highlighted them): "αυτος δε ειπεν μενουνγε". "But" is not Jesus speaking, it is St. Luke marking the beginning of a phrase indicating that a correction followed. Jesus's word is rendered as "μενουνγε", translated in most reputable English versions as "Yea rather". Correction of focus it is, negation it is not (*). I agree (and the Church agrees) that Jesus directed the woman to the spiritual reason to venerate Mary. I also agree that all the saints should be venerated as Jesus's mother and brother, because of their particular to their circumstance obedience to Him and whether they have a familial tie to Him or not.
What is important is not that Mary gave Him birth
No one denies that the fous is on Jesus, and that the Incarnation is meaningful because the Passion and the Resurrection are meaningful. Orthodox icons of the Nativity show the cradle at Mary's feet that is in the shape of a coffin, to remind us that Jesus was born to die. But nowhere does the scripture say that Jesus's miraculous birth is inimportant. St. Luke and St. Matthew devote much space to it in their gospels; St. John as well as the synoptic gospels and the Acts place Mary at every significant part of Jesus's ministry including the birth of the Church. If Mary seems inimportant to you, you should read the scripture and disabuse yourself of that unscriptural notion.
(*) See this explanation:
I believe that the error lies in the slip in the translation of the very first word of this sentence, which is a composite word: the particle ΜΕΝΟΥΝΓΕ (men-oon-ye). What is its significance? According to the dictionaries, this particle is comprised of three different words: the oppositional particle ΜΕΝ (men = rather), the conclusive particle ΟΥΝ (oon = therefore) and the certifying particle ΓΕ (ye = certainly). In composite form, these words do not maintain their initial significance. The fragment ΜΕΝΟΥΝΓΕ (men-oon-ye) is usually used at the beginning of a reply; at times, it can be used as a weighty verification and it can also be used as a certification that somehow corrects and supplements the significance of those words that precede it. The particle ΓΕ (ye = certainly) intensifies the meaning of the word to which it is annexed. Thus, the specific tract of the New Testament, could be seen as equivalent to the modern Greek expressions of indeed, yes, of course, most certainly!. It is remarkable how, this same composite word ΜΕΝΟΥΝΓΕ (men-oon-ye) is mentioned in three other tracts of the New Testament, with the same connotation: Romans 9/IX 19 and 10/X 18, Philippians 3/III 8. In each of these instances, this word confirms the significance of the preceding sentence and intensifies its meaning.
Jesus does not say that it is evil to call Mary ‘blessed’, nor is there any reason why he would. However, he makes it abundantly clear that paying attention to Mary and to a physical relationship is to miss the point - that HE is the focus, not Mary.
He isn’t saying to never use the word blessed in connection to Mary, but he IS making very clear that the woman should be focusing instead on who Jesus is, and obeying God. It is the same point He makes when He says, “Here are my mother and my brothers! For whoever does the will of God, he is my brother and sister and mother.”
It isn’t that Mary is bad, but that focusing on her misses the point - and JESUS is the point!
That is true of all of Mariology. We are NOT to raise her up and exalt her and pay attention to the creature. Pay attention instead to the Creator!
That these passages teach this isn’t just my opinion, but the opinion of the Catholic Church, in the footnotes given:
“The beatitude in Luke 11:28 should not be interpreted as a rebuke of the mother of Jesus [a silly comment, actually, since NO ONE claims it is a rebuke of her]; see the note on Luke 8:21. Rather, it emphasizes (like Luke 2:35) that attentiveness to God’s word is more important than biological relationship to Jesus.” The note on Luke 8:21 says, “The family of Jesus is not constituted by physical relationship with him but by obedience to the word of God. In this, Luke agrees with the Marcan parallel (Mark 3:31-35), although by omitting Mark 3:33 and especially Mark 3:20-21 Luke has softened the Marcan picture of Jesus’ natural family. Probably he did this because Mary has already been presented in Luke 1:38 as the obedient handmaid of the Lord who fulfills the requirement for belonging to the eschatological family of Jesus; cf also Luke 11:27-28.”
Mary’s position before God is the same as all believers - a member of the family based on belief and obedience, not being the vessel that bore Him.
He never says "focus on Me" in that passage. He says that indeed the saints are to be venerated for their faith in Him, and not his mother alone. He never says, like you rightly note, "do not venerate any saints", he simply points out why we should do so.
It is clear from that passage (and its counterpart in Luke 8) that veneration of a saint is focusing on Christ. That is Who makes them saints.
Marys position before God is the same as all believers - a member of the family based on belief and obedience, not being the vessel that bore Him
Where does it say so in the Bible? The idea of equality of all saints is nowhere taught. In fact, the opposite is taught: that there is a hierarchy in the Kingdom of Heaven, and the hierarchy is based on service (Matthew 5:19). So, what's Mary's service? Rather unique, wouldn't you say? The Gospel agrees with me (Luke 1:28,30,35,43-55, John 19:26-27, Acts 1:14, Apocalypse 12:1-17).
Where does it say so in the Bible?
“46 While He was still talking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers stood outside, seeking to speak with Him. 47 Then one said to Him, Look, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, seeking to speak with You. 48 But He answered and said to the one who told Him, Who is My mother and who are My brothers? 49 And He stretched out His hand toward His disciples and said, Here are My mother and My brothers! 50 For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother. - Matt 12
31 Then His brothers and His mother came, and standing outside they sent to Him, calling Him. 32 And a multitude was sitting around Him; and they said to Him, Look, Your mother and Your brothers are outside seeking You. 33 But He answered them, saying, Who is My mother, or My brothers? 34 And He looked around in a circle at those who sat about Him, and said, Here are My mother and My brothers! 35 For whoever does the will of God is My brother and My sister and mother. - Mark 3
19 Then His mother and brothers came to Him, and could not approach Him because of the crowd. 20 And it was told Him by some, who said, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, desiring to see You. 21 But He answered and said to them, My mother and My brothers are these who hear the word of God and do it. - Luke 8
In THREE passages, he makes clear that what is important is NOT a physical relationship, but the SPIRITUAL one. Anyone who focuses on Mary because she is ‘Mother of God’ needs to realize that they too can be the ‘mother / brother / sister’ of Jesus.
I don’t know how Jesus could have made it any clearer - the extent Mary is blessed or honored is directly proportional to her obedience to God - which was not always faultless.
Mark 3: “Then he went home, and the crowd gathered again, so that they could not even eat. 21 And when his family heard it, they went out to seize him, for they were saying, “He is out of his mind.”...And his mother and his brothers came, and standing outside they sent to him and called him.”
The context of these 3 passages is when Mary (his mother) and his brothers came to take him away because “He is out of his mind.”
Nor was her service all that spectacular. When told by the Angel she would give birth to a son via the Holy Spirit, she said...yes. She wasn’t in much of a position to say no, was she? How many folks look an Angel in the eye and say, “Nope!” The handful that have that experience and doubt soon regret their doubts.
While her service was unique, it wasn’t particularly great, either.
You write, “He says that indeed the saints are to be venerated for their faith in Him, and not his mother alone.”
Where? Where does he say that? Where does He ever instruct us to venerate a man or woman?
Mary's service is that she gave us the Incarnate Lord and willingly so, and she stood with Him in the end. None of the episodes you cite have anything to do with Mary's supposed disobedience or lack of faith.
Where does He ever instruct us to venerate a man or woman?
Why, that very passage. "Yea rather, blessed are they who hear the word of God, and keep it.", Luke 11:28. The woman venerated Mary, He says, venerate all the saints as well.
I didn’t say God treats us all equally. He does as far as salvation is concerned, but 1 Cor 3 makes is clear, as do many other passages, that there is reward in heaven for those who obey on earth.
However, Mary was called blessed by the woman because she gave birth to Jesus and nursed him at her breasts. This has nothing to do with heavenly rewards. In essence, she said Mary ‘won life’s lottery’ - that countless women would have loved to be chosen to bear Jesus, and she was the ‘lucky’ one. She was blessed by God in that He gave her something she hadn’t earned.
I sometimes look at my family, my wife, my 3 kids, my 3 dogs, my 3 horses (except for the wife, notice a trend?) and think, “Wow! God has blessed me, and I’ve done nothing to deserve it!” It isn’t that I’m wealthy, but that God has been wonderful to me, and I haven’t earned it.
THAT is the sense the woman was using.
And Jesus makes it clear she has missed the point - that being TRULY blessed is obeying God. He doesn’t deny that Mary was blessed by God, the REAL point is “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!”
“Yes, Mary has been blessed by God - but YOU can have true blessing, if you just keep the word of God.” It is the word used in the Beatitudes. You are blessed, not by wealth, not by who you are related to, but by hearing and obeying God.
That is not in any way a call to ‘venerate’ Mary, or any human. God blesses those who hear his word and keep it. That means we should do likewise, rather than venerating (revering, treating someone with respect tinged with awe) someone who once did so.
Consider Peter: “And when Peter saw it he addressed the people: “Men of Israel, why do you wonder at this, or why do you stare at us, as though by our own power or piety we have made him walk?” - Acts 3 If your ‘saints’ are real saints, they would tell you the same thing: “Why do you stare at us, as though by our own power or piety we have done great things?” The focus is on what God has done, not man!
You write: “None of the episodes you cite have anything to do with Mary’s supposed disobedience or lack of faith.”
She went with the brothers of Jesus and stood by them when “they went out to seize him...saying, “He is out of his mind.” That wasn’t a shining moment of faith on her part...
See, you continue spinning this verse as if it denies the validity of the woman's act of veneration. Note that Mary, too, kept the word both in the sense of obedience but also in the sense of being pregnant with Him the Word. The woman didn't miss the point, she did not go far enough. Christ told her not to restrict her veneration to Mary alone.
If your saints are real saints, they would tell you the same thing: Why do you stare at us, as though by our own power or piety we have done great things? The focus is on what God has done, not man!
And they do say that, starting with Mary herself: "My soul doth magnify the Lord" (Lk 1:46-55). To venerate a saint is to worship God Who made them.
She went with the brothers of Jesus and stood by them
Nothing in that episode indicates she agreed with Christ's accusers. Let's not slander, of all people, Our Lady.
“See, you continue spinning this verse as if it denies the validity of the woman’s act of veneration.”
No, I read what the text says. But...rather. And she did NOT venerate Mary! “Blessed is...” is not veneration. When I say God has blessed me, I’m not venerating myself.
“To venerate a saint is to worship God Who made them.”
No, it is to venerate “Profound respect or reverence”. I respect William Tyndale, and thank God for how God used him - but I do NOT venerate Tyndale. You do not worship God by focusing on the created.
THAT is your own (silly, pathetic) personal interpretation of Scripture.
I wish I could come some day to understand this drive among protestants to deprecate the Mother of God.
Actually, THAT is your own silly, personal, parochial deprecation of a praise of the Mother of God.