Hey, who's this "John Clavin" guy?
Posted on 05/19/2008 6:44:32 PM PDT by Manfred the Wonder Dawg
What is Mariology? Essentially, it's the theology that affords devotion to Mary. Does this mean the Catholics worship Mary? Well, yes and no. Publicly, the Roman Catholic Church does not afford Mary the same status as Jesus. However, their reverence for her goes beyond their admiration for even the saints. The Catholic Encyclopedia details a view of Mary that it admits is not Biblical. Their view of her life and her role originate in Catholic tradition - that is, the writings of the popes and theologians, rather than in the Bible.
Biblically, Mary was betrothed to Joseph. Because of her faith, she was chosen to give birth to the Messiah, Jesus Christ. She was overshadowed by the Holy Spirit, and conceived Jesus. There was no physical union, and therefore Jesus was born of a virgin. While no doubt a faithful and godly woman, Mary was nonetheless just a woman. In fact, apart from Acts 1:14, Mary is not mentioned anywhere outside the Gospels (the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John). Even in the Gospels, her spiritual power and authority are almost non-existent. Neither Jesus, nor Paul, nor any other biblical writer ever gave Mary the place or devotion that the Catholic Church has given her. The New Testament epistles (letters) were written for the spiritual guidance of the Church, and have a great deal to say about doctrine and worship. Her absence from the epistles must then call into doubt the role that Catholics ascribe to her.
In Roman Catholicism, Mary (or as she's also called: Our Blessed Lady, Our Blessed Virgin, etc.) is more than human. Catholic Tradition includes the following teachings:
1 Mary's immaculate conception: This doctrine teaches that she was born without original sin, and was therefore sinless throughout her life.
2 During her tutelage in the temple as a child, Mary received almost nightly visits by angels.
3 Mary's perpetual virginity: This doctrine asserts that she had no children before Jesus (a Biblical teaching) or after Him (unbiblical).
4 Mary's physical ascension into heaven: This teaches that because of her sinlessness, Mary never experienced a physical death - the result of sin. Instead, she was raised bodily into the presence of Christ.
5 Mary's role as Co-redemptrix and Mediatrix of all graces: This doctrine holds that the obedience and sufferings of Mary were essential to secure the full redemption bought by Christ.
6 Mary's right to veneration and/or worship: This teaching holds that because of her unparalleled role in salvation, Mary is worthy of special adoration.
There are three specific terms of worship in Catholicism: latria - adoration that is due God alone, dulia - veneration afforded to the saints, and hyperdulia - special veneration given to Mary. In practice, these become practically indistinguishable. As a matter of point, Catholics pray to Mary and expect that she hears and answers all such prayers. This elevates her to a position of deity.
I have already mentioned that the role that is ascribed to Mary by Catholics is unbiblical. Let me give you more evidence of that. Below, I have included an excerpt from the Catholic Encyclopedia, where the writer acknowledges that their interpretation of a passage in the book of Genesis must be more accurate than the original Hebrew text, as their interpretation ascribes more power to Mary:
(1) The first prophecy referring to Mary is found in the very opening chapters of the Book of Genesis (3:15): "I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed; she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel." This rendering appears to differ in two respects from the original Hebrew text:
(2) The second point of difference between the Hebrew text and our version concerns the agent who is to inflict the mortal wound on the servant: our version agrees with the present Vulgate text in reading "she" (ipsa) which refers to the woman, while the Hebrew text reads hu (autos, ipse) which refers to the seed of the woman. According to our version, and the Vulgate reading, the woman herself will win the victory; according to the Hebrew text, she will be victorious through her seed. In this sense does the Bull "Ineffabilis" ascribe the victory to Our Blessed Lady. The reading "she" (ipsa) is neither an intentional corruption of the original text, nor is it an accidental error; it is rather an explanatory version expressing explicitly the fact of Our Lady's part in the victory over the serpent, which is contained implicitly in the Hebrew original. The strength of the Christian tradition as to Mary's share in this victory may be inferred from the retention of "she" in St. Jerome's version in spite of his acquaintance with the original text and with the reading "he" (ipse) in the old Latin version. [Highlighting added by Contender Ministries]
For the record, the text of Genesis 3:15 mentioned above is found that way only in the Catholic version of the Bible. Other versions agree with the original Hebrew text in that the seed of the woman (Jesus) will do the crushing. The Catholic Church has changed scripture to fit with their doctrines. This tactic is the only way the Catholic Church can justify many of its teachings that are unbiblical.
In his book, Revelation Unveiled, author Tim LaHaye says this"
"One of the dangerous trends during the twentieth century in the Church of Rome is the elevation of Mary to a status just short of deity. News media reports indicate that millions have petitioned the Pope to declare her a member of the Trinity, though the official line is that it is not going to happen - yet. Already she is referred to as 'the mother of God' or 'the queen of Heaven' and in some instances appears to be the dispenser of salvation, which contradicts many Scriptures...To even suggest that anyone, even Mary the human mother of Jesus, participates in dispensing the gift of eternal life is not only heresy, it is blasphemous."
As for the Catholic view of Mary as Mediatrix, let me refer you to:
1 Timothy 2:5, "For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus"
Note: RM has declared Contender Ministries to NOT be a hate site.
Yet, she seemed kind of doubtful when told her role, and later seemed surprised when Jesus was hanging out at the temple.
She also acknowledged she was a sinner ....
The New American Bible recommened by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops DOES NOT have the translation error that is common to the older versions translated from the Latin Vulgate. I am not sure if the error was in the Vulgate, or was in the translations from it, but it was an error, not a deliberate attempt to re-write Genesis.
Anyhow, about 30 years ago when I was attending a University in Boston, I had some dialogue exchanges with some Jesuits who were certainly not interested in defending the elevation of Mary in the Catholic Church.
Au Contraire, they were adamant in their opposition to the dogma of Mary worship. Who woulda thunk it?
I figured back then that the Vatican was leaning away from certain traditions. I can't say if that has happened to any great degree but I sense there have been some adjustments.
Wrong. Worship (latria) belongs to God alone, while due reverence (dulia, hyperdulia) is accorded to Saints. And yes, we believe Mary is in Heaven. Since Heaven is not bound by our rules of time or physics, she can hear all our prayers, as the Angels in Heaven heard the Psalmist when he addressed them. She "answers" our prayers only in that she prays to God on our behalf - through no power of her own are they "answered" as we think of it.
Being Catholic, don’t know how many times I been ask about worshiping Mary. I’ve always said “She’s the most important woman in the New Testament and a saint. You may venerate her but that does not means she is deity. Catholics are not required to venerate her and she has nothing to do with personal salvation. Worship her? No, but we show her quite a bit respect.” I think it is proper.
News media reports, eh?
Where is this petition?
True.
This elevates her to a position of deity.
Absolutely false.
Contender Ministries is not a hate site. It is, however, a website filled with hate.
What “translation errors” are you referring to? Are they in the Book of Genesis? I have both the Douay-Rheims and New Oxford Annotated Bibles ... could you direct me to these issues? Thanks.
Unless one prays only to one of the divine persons of the Holy Trinity, one is worshiping an idol, in my view. The fact that the person doing the praying "doesn't consider it worship" is irrelevant. God considers it worship, that's all that matters. If it's not directed toward the Father, Son or Holy Spirit then it is worshiping the "creature" and the "created" and that's idolatry.
Also, because the Pope is God on earth, he does have the power to change the Trinity. /sarc
That would be your personal interpretation of Scripture.
I can certainly understand why the creator of this garbage would refuse to sign their name to it.
LOL
Hail Mary,
Full of Grace,
The Lord is with thee.
Blessed art thou among women,
and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.
Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now,
and at the hour of death.
Amen.
“author Tim LaHaye says this”
If I see this in any article it goes into the trash can!
Yet another expose of ‘Catholic beliefs’ by a Protestant who relies on lies and distortions. Shocking.
Why would his mother think he was out of his mind if she were without sin and knew from the beginning who he was? Why would she have shown doubt?
Further, once she shows up, Jesus doesn't show her any preference or overt favor - he doesn't run right out to greet her. No, in fact, he stays inside and says, "Who are my mother and my brothers? These are my mother and my brothers. Everyone who obeys the word of God is my mother and my brother and my sister." (I'm paraphrasing from Matthew).
Jesus does not show any preference to Mary. When she asks him about the wine at Cana he doesn't jump right up and do what she asks. In fact, it's almost a rebuke. He says, "Woman, what does this have to with us?". He ultimately agrees to help out, and performs a miracle, but he almost acts annoyed by her request. His time had not yet come.
Mary is mentioned all of six or seven times in the New Testament. Apart from the beginning of Luke, the Magnificat, there isn't a whole lot more about her. We know she was with him at various points, and among the "women" who followed him, and was in Jerusalem during the Crucifixion. But none of the New Testament writers show that she had any special role or position apart from agreeing to cooperate with God in giving birth to the Messiah. This makes her a wonderful and blessed girl, and mother, but apart from that special respect and memory, every other thing about her that the Catholic Church developed as doctrine is simply baseless.
It doesn't take any deep searching of history to quickly determine that the pagans coming into Christianity in Ephesus in the 2nd century latched on to Mary and that the cult of Mary developed out of those Christians who came out of goddess worshiping cults and were looking for a substitute.
It wasn't any kind of conspiracy or anything deliberately malevolent. In my view, and from everything I've read, it simply was an organic process that set in, and the more focus placed on Mary, the more important she became, leading to even more focus on Mary, etc. All of this set up a cycle of increasing attention paid to Mary, eventually justifying "prayers" to Mary and all the additional doctrines that came along after.
This does not remove the fact that it isn't a true part of Christianity, it's unbiblical, it takes away from the Son, it focuses worship (prayer, in my view, and the view of many others, is a form of worship) on the creature not the creator, and it's a big, unnecessary distraction in general. There is no historical basis for it. There's definitely no scriptural basis for it.
Douay-Rheims Gen. 3:15
they talk about it above.
Acknowledging she has a Savior is NOT the same as acknowledging she was a sinner.
No, if you read the book of Acts you will read where she said she was a sinner in needing of saving .....which is different than saying she needs a savior ...
Indeed, that’s why I said, “in my view”, but it is also the view of many more than just myself.
The Scriptural basis of the unity of God, the eternity of the Word and the Incarnation is actually sufficient in itself to arrive at the conclusion that Mary is the Mother of God. God gave us reason and guided by the Holy Spirit the Church comes to an ever deeper penetration of the profound depths of Divine Revelation (Jn 16:13), which being the Word of God cannot be exhausted by a bare-bones literal reading - “if it isn’t explicitly in Scripture then it is revealed.” By this logic most prophetic matters referring to Christ in the Old Testament could be dismissed because they were hidden in types and presented as shadows. Thus the simple logic of the Church is that if Scripture reveals that Mary is the Mother of the Word-made-Flesh, and the Word-made-flesh is God, then Mary is the Mother of God (the Word), not from eternity of course, but beginning in time and for eternity. To say only that Mary is the Mother of Jesus or only the Mother of Christ, is to subscribe unwittingly to the doctrines of heretics who denied the unity of the Christ’s Divine and Human Natures.
But is it in Scripture? Yes, in addition to the above way we find that God reveals to the heart of Elizabeth the truth about the Incarnation, God-made-flesh. When Mary arrives to assist her in her pregnancy with St. John the Baptist, on seeing the Blessed Mother St. Elizabeth declares,
“blessed art thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, how is it that the Mother of the Lord (mater tou kyrios) comes to me” (Lk 1:42-43).
In both the first half and the second half of this inspired address mother and child are inseparably united. In the first, Mary and the fruit of her womb, Jesus, are praised. In the second the unity of their relationship is revealed, as well as the unity of Christ. Mary is not merely the mother of Jesus the Messiah, somehow conceived, but the mother of the Lord. The text preserves the Greek, kyrios, although the language that would have been spoken was Aramaic. Among the Jews the name of God was not spoken, but a substitution was made to preserve respect. By convention when translating Hebrew and its sister language Aramaic into Greek, such as in the Greek Old Testament (Septuagint) used to evangelize Greek-speaking Jews and gentiles, the word substituted for God’s name was Kyrios, which we translate as Lord. This was in lieu of I AM, Christ’s use of which for Himself would later scandalized the Jews. Elizabeth would never have been so bold, however, instead calling the fruit of Mary’s womb, the Lord, with all the meaning which the Jews attributed to it and which the Catholic Church continues to understand of the Word-made-flesh in Mary’s womb.
MARIAN INTREP
Well that about says it doesn’t it.
The flaw is with NAB, not the Vulgate.
Comprehensiveness is its own reward. ;O)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_LaHaye
Anti-Catholicism
LaHaye has been a harsh critic of Roman Catholicism, which he has called “a false religion.”[9] In his 1973 book Revelation Illustrated and Made Plain, he stated that the Catholic Church “is more dangerous than no religion because she substitutes religion for truth” and “is also dangerous because some of her doctrines are pseudo-Christian.”[3] Elsewhere the same book compared Catholic ceremonies to pagan rituals.[9] It was these statements that were largely responsible for LaHaye’s dismissal from Jack Kemp’s presidential campaign. It was later revealed that the San Diego church that LaHaye had pastored throughout the 1970s had sponsored an anti-Catholic group called Mission to Catholics; one of their pamphlets asserted that Pope Paul VI was the “archpriest of Satan, a deceiver, and an antichrist, who has, like Judas, gone to his own place.”[9]
The issue of anti-Catholicism also comes up in regard to the Left Behind series. The books say that many “who called themselves Catholics” but did not truly believe in Jesus were not raptured, but it does not mention the proportion who were. While the fictional Pope John XXIV was raptured, he is described as having “stirred up controversy in the church with a new doctrine that seemed to coincide more with the ‘heresy’ of Martin Luther than with the historic orthodoxy they were used to,” and this is implied as the reason he was raptured. His successor, Pope Peter II, who espouses what LaHaye and Jenkins regard as traditional Catholic doctrine, becomes Pontifex Maximus of Enigma Babylon One World Faith, an amalgamation of all remaining world faiths and religions.[23] Other Catholic writers have said that while the books aren’t “anti-Catholic per se” they reflect LaHaye’s other writings on the subject.[24]
[edit] Other
He has also been criticized for “pseudo-psychological” temperament theory and mixing in theology.[6] The basic ideas in this theory — that people have temperaments that can be described as sanguine, choleric, melancholic, and phlegmatic — are very old and actually go all the way back to Hippocrates.[25] A common temperament theory is the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI).
LaHaye has also been accused of promoting Theocracy by the organisation TheocracyWatch.[26]
According to Jimmy Akin, LaHaye, though had made clear that he does not endorse Sun Myung Moon’s theological ideas, he was affiliated to the Unification Church. He was the chair of Moon’s Coalition for Religious Freedom, and he and his wife have attended and spoken at Moon-sponsored events[23]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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.
Martin Luther: “In this work whereby she was made the Mother of God, so many and such good things were given her that no one can grasp them…Not only was Mary the mother of Him who is born in Bethlemem but of Him who, before, the world, was eternally born of the Father, from a Mother in time and at the same time man and God” (Weimer, The Works of Luther, English translation by Pelikan, Concordia, St. Souis, V7, P572)
Christ . . . was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him . . . “brothers” really means “cousins” here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers. (Sermons on John, chapters 1-4, 1537-39)
He, Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary’s virginal womb . . . This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that. (Ibid.)
God says . . . : “Mary’s Son is My only Son.” Thus Mary is the Mother of God.(Ibid.)
God did not derive his divinity from Mary; but it does not follow that it is therefore wrong to say that God was born of Mary, that God is Mary’s Son, and that Mary is God’s mother . . . She is the true mother of God and bearer of God . . . Mary suckled God, rocked God to sleep, prepared broth and soup for God, etc. For God and man are one person, one Christ, one Son, one Jesus, not two Christs . . . just as your son is not two sons . . . even though he has two natures, body and soul, the body from you, the soul from God alone.(On the Councils and the Church, 1539)
John Clavin: “I cannot be denied that God in Choosing and destining Mary to be the Mother of His Son, granted her the highest
honor…Elizabeth calls mary Mother of the Lord, because the unity of the person in the two natures of Christ was such that she could have said that the mortal man engendered in the womb of Mary was at the same time the eternal God.” (Calvin Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Braunschweig-Berlin, 1863-1900, V. 45 p 348, 35)Ulrich Zwingli: “It was given to her what belongs to no creature, that in the flesh she sould bring forth the Son of God.” (Zwingli Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Berlin, 1905, in Evang. Luc., Op. comp., V6,1 P. 639
Isn't that special.
Chapter, verse please.
Qwerty ego typo.
Good grief.
On the whole, a fairly accurate report, surprisingly. I’d take issue with several points.
Most urgently, there are no sane, orthodox Catholics pushing for Mary to be granted status within the trinity. The earliest mention of this I’d ever seen was from Carl Jung, who, ironically, was from the Swiss Reformed Church.
Also, the wierd bit about the Genesis passage: Catholics do acknowledge it is through the seed of the woman that the serpent is defeated.
Lastly, the blessed virgin has not been called co-redemptrix by the Catholic Church. Some elements have pushed for this appellation, which the Vatican has resisted for exactly the reason one would expect if one weren’t anti-Catholic: since all witnesses participate in redemption, and Mary is the embodiment of the Church herself, the appellation is accurate, however, it is potentially misleading in that it seems to elevate her to equal partner with Christ, which she is not.
I know this is taken from a place that has been ruled by the mods “Not a hate” site.
Is it ruled a “Loon site”?
>>I am not a research librarian ... read the Book of Acts for yourself ... <<
There is lots of fun Bible software that can be used to post actual references. Usually, when someone quotes the Bible, they know chapter and verse.
Otherwise I could say something like, SkyDancer was in Genesis. And when called on it, say “I am not a research librarian ... read Genesis for yourself ... “
Now doesn’t that look silly?
(I think it was Ironman anyway)
You made the assertion. Back up your statements with chapter and verse. You being a good 'Bible Christian' should be able to do so rather easily.
The word “Mary” appears twice in Acts: 1:14 & 12:12
Neither verse seems to confirm the claim.
Instead of setting up a straw-man to knock down, why don’t you try refuting the actual beleif of catholics, not what you say is their beleif?
Or is it that you can not refute what they say they beleive beleive?
What is your minor premise - that hyperdulia and dulia is impossible or that hyperdulia and dulia are acceptable, proper and “biblical” (which is ACTUAL the Catholic position) but that Catholic’s in practice tend not to limit themselves to dulia and hyperdulia (your major premise)?
“Protestants do not need intervention by Mary or any of the Saints to Jesus ... we can go directly to Him ... I guess you can’t ..”
LOL, you really do not understand the Holy WErit, do you?
>>The word “Mary” appears twice in Acts: 1:14 & 12:12
Neither verse seems to confirm the claim.<<
Oooops!!!
Protestants tend to be very good with the Bible. Especially the parts that talk about Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide...... :-D
Other than the first 2 chapters of Acts, if my memory serves, Mary isn’t mentioned at all in Acts, and there’s no mention of her being a sinner.
Ummm, there’s nothing in your post #30 that contradicts scripture, or the article posted. At the same time nothing in those quotations elevates Mary to the special status given to her officially, as described in the article, in the modern Roman Church.
Yes she was a great and godly woman. But no where in the Epistles to the infant Church, nor the description of the first generation of Christians in Acts, spanning some 30 years, is their any veneration or the very special honor Roman Catholicism gives to Mary today, seen then.
If hyperdulia for Mary is something vitally important—and not a later innovation—why doesn’t Luke in Acts, Paul, Peter, John, James, Jude, and the author of Hebrews make one mention of it?
If there’s a reason why historically, over the long term Roman Catholicism has discouraged Bible reading by laymen, this may be a big part of it.
Do your research ... you’ll find it ... in any event, I don’t need Mary or the ‘saints’ to intervene for me ... I have direct access to God through His Son Jesus .... it is interesting though how many catholic churches there are dedicated to Mary and the Apostles than there are to Jesus ...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.