Rejecting Mariology

Two-Edged Sword ^ | February 05, 2007 | Lee

[RnMomof7]

It is often claimed the Mary was heralded by the Patristics as a woman full of grace, perhaps sinless, and deserving our veneration above other departed saints as the Mother of the Church. This is not the case. While I do freely admit that the word Patristic can be used to cover a variety of ages, I prefer to use it to the pre-nicaean leaders of the church. Let us start with them, and we can move on from there.

In the Apostolic Fathers, as the first century leaders are often called, one sees little to no mention of Mary at all. Clement of Rome leaves her out of his epistle completely. This is a glaring omission for ‘Mary full of grace’ since Clement’s entire letter is about submission, faith, and peace. Clement uses as examples of Christian living Paul, Peter, Moses, Abraham, David, and several martyrs in addition to Jesus Christ. Beyond that he even uses a few women as examples. Rahab gets the most ink as a wonderful example of faith, two women killed by Nero are mentioned, Esther get a paragraph, as does Judith from the Apocrypha. But no Mary. First century writers seem to view Mary as a good believer, but nothing more, much like Protestants today.

Second century writers turn up the first exaltation references to Mary, but even these are over stated. Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Tertullian all try to draw Mary as the anti-type of Eve as Jesus was of Adam. This leads to some grandiose statements about Mary, but the ancient mind often thought more typologically and allegorically then we do today. These men did not have any allusions about Mary being above sin (original or actual). In fact Irenaeus condemns Mary as a sinner for her role in the Wedding of Cana arguing that Jesus rebukes her for her presumptuous pride. Tertullian along with other second century leaders like Origen and later writers like Basil the Great and Chrysostom (4th century) all ascribe to Mary the sins of maternal vanity, anxiety, and doubt and state that the ‘sword’ that pierces Mary’s soul in Luke 2:35 are these sins. Hardly a high view of Mary despite their typological attempts.

The rise of Mary really follows the rise of Monasticism and the encroachment of Neo-platonism into Christianity. The third and fourth centuries see apocryphal texts like the Gospel of the birth of Mary, which were all condemned by the church as a whole, but eventually the teachings of these books would be folded into the Mariology of the Roman church. The asceticism of the monastic orders arising from their neo-platonic view of the flesh exalted Mary as the ultimate example and claimed for her perpetual virginity. This helped give their life-style a bigger backing as well as giving them a patron saint.

The controversies of the 5th century about Christ led to Mary being the Mother of God as a test of orthodoxy. Mother of God was not meant to convey anything at all about Mary, but rather something about the natures of Jesus. However, it would come to be twisted to elevate Mary into something higher than merely human. The first person to actually advocate Mary did not have any actual or original sin was Pelegius, the free-will opponent of Augustine. During this time also one must remember that Rome was destroyed by the uneducated and pagan barbarians. As the centers of learning were destroyed the educated clergy could no longer restrain phrases like ‘Mother of God’ and Mariology became Marialotry took on a life of its own as the masses carried Mary to extremes she was never meant to reach. By the time of Gregory the Great, Bishop of Rome, Mary was installed in her current position for the Roman church. Gregory freely instructed his missionaries to the barbarians not to destroy pagan temples, but rename them and the statues in them. Many pagan temples were to women, and Mary worship was well on its way.

Thus, I do not think Protestantism needs a Mariology at all. Mary is a wonderful example of saintly piety and faith as are many people in the Bible. She should not be avoided for she is the mother of our Lord. But we must remember, as I believe the Reformed tradition does, she is simply one of his disciples no better than any other believer in Christ. This is, after all, exactly what our Lord teaches in Matthew 12:47-50.

‘Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee. But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?
And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.’

[Mrs. Don-o]

"Whatever we will be when we are glorified (the Bible doesn’t really go into many specifics about that, except for on a few issues), we certainly won’t usurp the attributes that belong to God alone."

Amen to that!

[daniel1212]

you'll have to explain how that's "deification" (apart from a reader's mere emotional reaction to the title).

In Catholic ascriptions which almost deify Mary, thinking of mortals above that which is written, (1Co. 4:6) it is taught by Catholics*,

• as Christ was sinless, so Mary was;

• as the Lord remained a virgin, so Mary;

• as Christ was called the Son of God, indicating ontological oneness, so Mary is called the Mother of God (which easily infers the same, and is not the language of Scripture);

• as the emphasis is upon Christ as the Creator through whom God (the Father) made all things, including Mary, so it is emphasized that uniquely “to her, Jesus owes His Precious Blood,” shed for the salvation of mankind, (the logic behind which can lead back to Eve);

• as Catholics (adding error to error) believe Christ gave His actual flesh and blood to be eaten, so it is emphasized that Mary gave Him this, being fashioned out of Mary's pure blood and even being “kneaded with the admixture of her virginal milk,” so that she can say, "Come and eat my bread, drink the wine I have prepared" (Prov. 9:5);

• as Scripture declares that Christ suffered for our sins, so Mary is said to have done so also;

• as Christ saves us from the condemnation and death resulting from the fault of Adam, so it is taught that man was condemned through the fault of Eve, the root of death, but that we are saved through the merits of Mary; who was the source of life for everyone.

• as the Lord was bodily ascended into Heaven, so Mary also was;

• as Christ is given all power in heaven and in earth, so Mary is “surpassing in power all the angels and saints in Heaven.”

• as Christ is the King of the saints and over all kings, (Rv. 15:3; 17:14; 19:16) so Mary is made Queen of Heaven and the greatest saint, and that “Next to God, she deserves the highest praise;”

• as the Father made Christ Lord over all things, so Mary is enthroned (all other believers have to wait for their crowns) and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things;

• as Christ is the express image of God, and highly exalted above all under the Father, having the primary position among all creation, so Mary is declared to be the greatest saint of all, and the first of all creatures, and as having a certain affinity with the Father, with a pre-eminent resemblance which she bears to the Father;

• as Christ ever liveth to make intercession for the saints, so is Mary said to do so;

• as all things come from the Father through the Son, so Mary is made to be the dispenser of all grace;

• as Christ is given all power on Heaven and on earth, Mary is said to have (showing some restraint) “almost unlimited power;”

• as no man comes to the Father but through the Son, so it is taught that no one can come to the Son except through Mary in Heaven;

• and as the Lord called souls to come to Him to be given life and salvation, so (in misappropriation of the words of Scripture) it is said of Mary, “He that shall find me shall find life, and shall have salvation from the Lord;” “that through her are obtained every hope, every grace, and all salvation. For this is His will, that we obtain everything through Mary.”

• And as Christ is given many titles of honor, so Mary also is, except that she is honored by Catholics with more titles than they give to the Lord Himself!

  Mary is the Queen-Mother (Hebrew: gebirah) of the King of Kings... and she doesn't need to be "deified" in order to have the authority which God bestowed upon her.

  The only Queen of Heaven in Scripture was that of pagans, and who fact were the only people who ever made supplication to any one else in Heaven but God , in contrast to over 200 prayers in Scripture that the Holy Spirit inspired.

  The practice of praying to departed saints and Mary was one that developed, helped by pagan influences, for Scripture provides no example of any believer praying to anyone in Heaven by the Lord, and reveals that doing otherwise was a practice of pagans, including to the “Queen of Heaven.” (Jer. 44:17,18,19,25).

  The Catholic Encyclopedia speculates 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)

  Yet, as expected, it imagines this practice came from the apostles and NT church, but which never exampled or instructed it, and instead showed that the believer has immediate access to God in the Divine Christ, (Heb. 10:19), who is the all sufficient and immediate intercessor between God (the Father) and man. (Heb. 2:17,18; 4:15,16) To the glory of God

  and she doesn't need to be "deified" in order to have the authority which God bestowed upon her.

  More adding to Scripture: And just where does Scripture teach that she was given this authority, and was crowned already Scripture only teaches believers will be crowned after the Lord returns?

  (Compare how the Davidic King Solomon treated his mother: he had a throne placed at his right hand for her, he bowed down to her, and he would not refuse her what she asked [1 Kings 2:19-20]).

  Contorting Scripture, as this only a negative analogy, for the request resulted in the death of the supplicant, (v. 23-25) thus reliance upon such is something to be avoided based upon that outcome.

  And as for the idea of Jesus "rebuking" His mother... don't be silly! First of all, that would have been a violation of the commandment to "honor His mother";

  Ignorance of Scripture, as such would not be.

  And also Maachah his mother, even her he removed from being queen, because she had made an idol in a grove; and Asa destroyed her idol, and burnt it by the brook Kidron. (1 Kings 15:13)

  second, the title of "woman" is one of great respect, and it indicates her unique role as the New Eve (compare to Genesis 3:15...

  Mistranslating and misconstruing Scripture, as this interpretation of Gn. 3:15 relies upon a Vulgate translation [and thus the Douay Rheims] of Gn. 3:15 which changed the “he” to “she shall crush thy head,” and thus that “the most holy Virgin” “was, with him and through him, eternally at enmity with the evil serpent, and most completely triumphed over him, and thus crushed his head with her immaculate foot.” (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9ineff.htm)

  However, as the Catholic Encyclopedia (Immaculate Conception) states, The translation “she” of the Vulgate is interpretative; it originated after the fourth century, and cannot be defended critically. The conqueror from the seed of the woman, who should crush the serpent’s head, is Christ; the woman at enmity with the serpent is Mary. (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm)

  As with others, the official Roman Catholic Bible for America translates this,

  “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; They will strike at your head, while you strike at their heel.”

  The approved notes (1970 ver.), while also noting the Traditional Messianic exegesis, explains this saying, “They will strike…at their heel: the antecedent for “they” and “their” is the collective noun “offspring,” i.e., all the descendants of the woman.” (http://old.usccb.org/nab/bible/genesis/genesis3.htm)

  RC apologist Jimmy Akin also states,
  Q: Please explain to me how come the Douay-Rheims Gen 3:15 and the New American Bible Gen 3:15 differ. I’m sure you know what I am talking about.

  ...The reason for the difference in the renderings is a manuscript difference. Modern translations follow what the original Hebrew of the passage says. The Douay-Rheims, however, is following a manuscript variant found in many early Fathers and some editions of the Vulgate (but not the original; Jerome followed the Hebrew text in his edition of the Vulgate). The variant probably originated as a copyist error when a scribe failed to take note that the subject of the verse had shifted from the woman to the seed of the woman... just as the first half of the verse, speaking of the enmity between the serpent and the woman, has been applied to Mary, the second half, speaking of the head crushing and heel striking, has also been applied to Mary due to the manuscript variant, though it properly applies to Jesus, given the original Hebrew. (www.jimmyakin.com/mary-and-genesis-315)

  The Anglican/Roman Catholic International Commission explains the controversy:

  “The Hebrew text of Genesis 3:15 speaks about enmity between the serpent and the woman, and between the offspring of both. The personal pronoun (hu’) in the words addressed to the serpent, “He will strike at your head”, is masculine. In the Greek translation used by the early Church (LXX), however, the personal pronoun autos (he) cannot refer to the offspring … but must refer to a masculine individual who could then be the Messiah, born of a woman. The Vulgate (mis)translates the clause as ipsa … This feminine pronoun supports a reading of this passage as referring to Mary which has become traditional in the Latin Church. (Source.)

  The Neo-Vulgate (Nova Vulgata), the revised Latin version authorized by the Vatican, corrected the error and changed it from ipsa to ipsum in the Latin.

  As a reformed source states, “He” .. in the original Hebrew is masculine. It is pronounced “hoo” and can also mean “it.” Many think it means “it” in reference to collective offspring of the woman crushing the head of the serpent. In the LXX, however, it is rendered autos “he,” indicating that the passage should be understood as a Messianic prophecy about Jesus Christ alone crushing the head. “He [Jesus] will crush the serpent’s head.” (http://reformedapologeticsministries.blogspot.com/2012/02/catholic-misuse-of-genesis-315.html)

  More here.

  The Hebrew Masoretic text reads that one who will crush the serpents head is in the masculine, speaking about Christ, and the NT does not mention Mary of doing this, but that “Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he [Christ] also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.” (Hebrews 2:14,15) Glory be to God.

  the seed of the Woman is now speaking to the Woman; John 19:26, Mary as the mother of the beloved disciple, who represents us all; Revelation 11:19-12:17, the woman clothed with the sun, the mother of Jesus and the mother of all Christians)

  Misconstruing Scripture as this is classic Catholic compulsion of Scripture in seeking to make it conform to their doctrine, but it speaks of Israel, for in Joseph’s dream, (Gn 37:9-11) “the sun and the moon and the eleven stars made obeisance to me.” The sun represented Jacob (Israel) and the moon Rachel, of which Jacob said, “Shall I and thy mother and thy brethren indeed come to bow down ourselves to thee to the earth?” The 12 stars on the woman’s head represents the 12 patriarchs, “and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.” (Rm. 9:5) And which was and will be persecuted, but God keeps her through it. This view is more fully articulated here: http://www.eternal-productions.org/PDFS/Revelation12Woman.pdfand

  Moreover, Rome does not even provide an official interpretation for this that i know of, and the sanctioned notes of the RC NAB not back up this, but right from the Vatican web site it states,

  The woman adorned with the sun, the moon, and the stars (images taken from ⇒ Genesis 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 ⇒ Isaiah 50:1; ⇒ 66:7; ⇒ Jeremiah 50:12.

  Nor can the Cath claim the weight of early “fathers” on this. “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

  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.

  Enough said for now. Repent from adding to Scripture and thinking of mortals above that which is written.

[daniel1212]

Mary, for example, doesn't need to handle "millions of prayers per second" (those are scare quotes, not direct quotes, BTW); she has all eternity in which to respond to them.

Regardless, where do you ever see anyone but God being addressed in prayer to Heaven, or having the power/ability to hear and respond to multitudinous prayers addressed to them ?

Or even created beings from both realms communicating with each other without both having to somehow be in one of the these realms, unlike God.

[ealgeone]

You are not telling the entire story of Cana.

Then she said to the servants: “Do whatever he says.”

Those are her last words in the Bible. Do you do whatever her Son says?

And from this verse, catholics have built a whole notion that Jesus is in Heaven doing whatever His mom tells him to do.

There are even some catholic writings that indicate if you pray to Jesus and ask for something and don't get it, then just ask Mary and she'll do it for you! That's nothing but a lie in this whole mary worship business of catholicism.

This kind of Biblical interpretation is the worst of all. I call it one verse theology. It is taken completely out of context and used to build a false theology.

[ealgeone]

“Mary, for example, doesn’t need to handle “millions of prayers per second” (those are scare quotes, not direct quotes, BTW); she has all eternity in which to respond to them.”

Man, I sure hope none of those prayers are not urgent! Your whole argument just shot down any reason why we should believe you should pray to Mary.

Imagine a soldier on a battlefield, or someone in Hospice care, with little time to live.....and they're praying to Mary for their salvation.....

Opps....sorry, she didn't have time to get to you before you died. Now what happens to that person if Mary couldn't intervene on their behalf??

See how ridiculous this business about praying to mary is?

The original poster's point is well made, but you just took it to another level.

[Elsie]

HUH?

Mary is a good and PERFECT gift?

What a stretch.

[knarf]

I commend you your labor ... thank you

[knarf]

How did you DO that ?

[Elsie]

I ask, because Protestants have a tendency to ignore Church history when it isn't in the 66-book fragment which Protestants call "the Bible".

As a poor history student; just WHY did Rome come up with the COUNTER Reformation?

[ealgeone]

Maybe you should ... get this ... actually ask Catholics and allow for the possibility that they could answer you accurately, and in good faith?

We could start, for example, with a discussion of Luke 1:48.

Yes...let's do this. The only requirement is that keep everything in context. No pulling out just one verse to claim something.

If we do this we will see that Mary was a sinner by her own admission and we will see Mary had other children by proof in the text. We will see we are not to pray to Mary or rely upon Mary for anything.

Yes...let's have this discussion.

[Elsie]

Christ her Son is King of Kings; that makes her Queen Mother by relationship alone.

And what does it make Joe?

[Elsie]

...for the verse’s impact hinges on the word ‘blessed’ .... right ?

Now you've open a whole new can of worms!

;^)

Is it time to post verses with 'blessed' in them?

[Gamecock]

**Is it time to post verses with ‘blessed’ in them?**

Wait! There’s more than one?!?

[ealgeone]

This is another question I'd like our catholic friends to answer on any of these topics. Seems they like to pick and choose which ECF they like.

And where does this interpretation enjoy the unanimous consent of the fathers?

Seeing how we all know there is no universal agreement on any of these topics, how do catholics square this away from the pope?

In the other passages, the analogy of faith should be followed, and Catholic doctrine, as authoritatively proposed by the Church, should be held as the supreme law; for, seeing that the same God is the author both of the Sacred Books and of the doctrine committed to the Church, it is clearly impossible that any teaching can by legitimate means be extracted from the former, which shall in any respect be at variance with the latter. Hence it follows that all interpretation is foolish and false which either makes the sacred writers disagree one with another, or is opposed to the doctrine of the Church. PROVIDENTISSIMUS DEUS, ENCYCLICAL OF POPE LEO XIII ON THE STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE, 1893

[Elsie]

Calling Mary “Mother of God” is deification and blasphemy.

Give our poor Catholics a break.

They've been brainwashed by the around-the-clock, ceaseless, constant, continuous, endless, frequent, habitual, oft-repeated, perpetual, recurrent, redundant, reiterative, repetitious, unceasing, unending voicing of the phrase...

Hail Mary; MOTHER of GOD...

Exactly WHY they do this is beyond me; as the phrase is NOT found in Scripture.

[Elsie]

You illustrate why I don't write to you hardened anti-Catholics (HAC), but only to fellow Catholics, perhaps weak in their faith or going through tough times.

Oh?

You can't justify what Rome teaches?

[Elsie]

No, you of the HAC mindset cannot even leave open the possibility that Jesus shares His own mother with us in a special way.

If it were not for 'possibilities'; much of Rome's power and influence would evaporate.

[Elsie]

...Mary is called the Mother of God (which easily infers the same, and is not the language of Scripture);

[Elsie]

And from this verse, catholics have built a whole notion that Jesus is in Heaven doing whatever His mom tells him to do.

Oh?

She told the SERVANTS to do what HE said.

She did NOT say, "Son; do what I tell you or you are SO grounded!"

[Elsie]

If we do this we will see that Mary was a sinner by her own admission ...

And the Bible's; too.

---

Sinless Mary??

 

 

Luke 2:22-24

 

When the time came for the purification rites required by the Law of Moses, Joseph and Mary took him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord  (as it is written in the Law of the Lord, “Every firstborn male is to be consecrated to the Lord”),  and to offer a sacrifice in keeping with what is said in the Law of the Lord: “a pair of doves or two young pigeons.”

 

Leviticus 12:7-8

 

Then he shall offer it before the LORD and make atonement for her, and she shall be cleansed from the flow of her blood. This is the law for her who bears a child, whether a male or a female.
'But if she cannot afford a lamb, then she shall take two turtledoves or two young pigeons, the one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering; and the priest shall make atonement for her, and she will be clean.'"