Posted on 05/05/2002 11:30:36 PM PDT by nickcarraway
by Mark Shea
How I Changed My Mind About Mary
5/6/02
It once seemed perfectly obvious to me that Catholics honored Mary too much. All those feasts, rosaries, icons, statues and whatnot were ridiculously excessive. Yes, the gospel of Luke said something about her being "blessed" and yes I thought her a good person. But that was that.
No Mary, No Salvation
People who celebrated her or called her "Mother" or did all the million things which Catholic piety encourages bordered on idolatry. It was all too much. Jesus, after all, is our Savior, not Mary.
However, after looking at the gospel of Luke afresh and thinking more and more about the humanity of Jesus Christ, some things dawned on me. For it turns out that Luke said more than "something" about Mary. He reports that God was conceived in her womb and thereby made a son of Adam! This means more than merely saying that Mary was an incubator unit for the Incarnation. It means that the Logos, the Second Person of the Trinity derives his humanity--all of it--from her! Why does this matter? Because the entire reason we are able to call Jesus "savior" at all is because the God who cannot die became a man who could die. And he chose to do it through Mary's free "yes" to him. No Mary, no human nature for Christ. No human nature for Christ, no death on the cross. No death, no resurrection. No resurrection, no salvation. Without Mary, we are still in our sins.
Too Much vs. Just Enough
This made me see Mary very differently. The Incarnation is vastly more than God zipping on a disposable man-suit. He remains man eternally. Therefore, his joining with the human race through the womb of Mary means (since he is the savior of us all), that she is the mother of us all (John 19:27). Moreover, it means that her remarkable choice to say "Yes" to the Incarnation was not merely a one-time incident, it was an offering of her own heart to God and us. Her heart was pierced by the sword that opened the fountain of blood and water in Christ's human heart, for it was she who, by the grace of God, gave him that heart (Luke 2:35; John 19:34).
Seeing this, I began to wonder again: If Catholics honor Mary "too much", where did we Evangelicals honor her "just enough." Mary herself said "henceforth, all generations will call me blessed." When was the last time I had heard a contemporary Christian tune on the radio sung in honor of Mary? Or a prayer in church to extol her? How about a teensy weensy bit of verse or a little article in some magazine singling out Mary as blessed among women? Aside from "Silent Night" was there anything in Evangelical piety which dared to praise her for even a moment? I was an Evangelical for seven years and I never saw so much as a dram of it.
St. Luke? Is That You?</>
So the question became for me, "How could we talk about something being 'excessive' when we had virtually no experience of it ourselves?" What if it was we Evangelicals who were excessive in our horror of Marian piety and Catholics who are normal? Judging from the witness of the early Fathers and even of Martin Luther (who had a very robust Marian devotion and whose tomb is decorated with an illustration of the Assumption of the Virgin into Heaven) it seemed to me that it was we Evangelicals who were excessive in our fear of her rather than Catholics who were excessive in their devotion.
"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 our death. Amen."
There. That didn't hurt a bit. In fact, I think I heard St. Luke pray it too!
I take it you don't believe in the Trinity.
I do not find any mention of a miraculous event regarding the pregnancy surrounding Mary's birth in the Bible. (as RC theology presumes was the case)
I do find in the Bible a miraculous ocurrance regarding Jesus' birth (as Protestant theology maintains). The miracle of the incarnation guarantees the sinlessnes of Jesus without constructing a doctrine of Mary's prior immaculate conception.
So now let me say that I'm not seeing it with this particular argument. Sure Mary said "yes" to God. So did Abraham. Abraham was asked to sacrifice his son and got right to the point of doing it. Yes, Mary may have risked her reputation and possibly even her life (though it's hard to believe God would ask you to have His Son and then let you be stoned before Jesus could be born). But the Apostles said "yes" and did risk their lives and most did give their lives.
There are likely better arguments to support the Catholic view of Mary. I don't find this particular one to be very compelling. Not that it really matters what I think. Each person has to decide for himself/herself.
Mariology proves how gullible the masses can be. Strong delusion, indeed!
I think you're also being a little free with what you term protestant theology. You consider yourself the arbiter of what is protestant theology? Luther, Calvin and Zwingli are usually considered protestants and they disagree with you. Do you consider them Catholics?
Of course you can.
I am the parent of my child. But God is the creator and owner of my child's soul.
That's pretty basic stuff, GSG.
Where did you dream that one up?
You obviously haven't been following many of the Calvin threads.
Are you aware, for example, that Martin Luther had the Assumption of Mary put on his tomb?
"Full of Grace" proves Mary was free from Original Sin? If that's all you got biblically, you are still on purely conjectural ground.
Why did Luther have the Assumption on his tomb?
====
Conjecture not logic. Your response will need to be more reasoned to have a dialogue.
[2] Make sure the quotes you post affirm the Mary was free from the taint of Original Sin, as was my challenge.
[3] The issue of my post was Mary being born free of Original Sin. What does the Assumption have to do with this?
=====
LUKE 11: 27-28. "As Jesus said this, a woman in the crowd raised her voice and said to him, 'Blessed is the womb that bore you, and the breasts that you sucked!' But Jesus said, 'Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!"
In Calvin's "New Testament Commentaries, Volume 2, he explained the praise of Mary by this woman as "By this homage the woman intended to praise Christ's excellence. It was not Mary she was thinking of -- maybe she had never seen her -- but she magnified Christ's glory by lauding and blessing the womb in which he was carried...Yet Christ does not accord with this woman's saying. Rather, it contains a hint of reproof. 'No,' he says, 'Blessed are they who hear God's word.' We see that Christ thought next to nothing of what the woman praised."
Your feeble assertions can't change the Reformation.
Do you accept that Mary believes in her Son? If so, then she is not dead. She is alive.
Joh 3:36 - He who believes in the Son has eternal life... [present tense]
Joh 5:24 - Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears my word and believes him who sent me, has eternal life [present tense]; he does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.
Joh 6:47 - Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life. [present tense]
1Jo 5:13 - I write this to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life. [present tense]
Each of these passages speak to the undeniable Scriptural truth that those who are true followers of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ have eternal life. Eternal life is life that does not end. Thus, Mary and the other followers who have fallen asleep in the Lord are not dead - they are alive. This is good news! Christ Bless.
When you say ``conjecture'' you're not denying it, you've retreated to the position that you can't prove it. If you believe bible study is important, why haven't you studied this in more depth. Other positions you hold would equally be considered ``conjecture.'' (I assume you don't believe in the Trinity)
Am I wrong in asserting that the Annunciation was an important event? Why would you assume God would be lazy or imprecise in revealing that he was bringing His Son into the world. In saying Gabriel's word's are ``conjecture,'' is tantamount to saying that his telling Mary that she was to bear the Son of God is ``conjecture. Gabriel was not ``shooting the breeze,'' with Mary when he addressed her, ``Hail, full of Grace,'' he was there for a specific purpose. Every word the Angel says is important. The word ``full'' has a meaning and God is not imprecise in talking to us.
I am not trying to change the reformation or say my opponents agree with me. Nor can you change the fact that Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli were not in complete agreement with you. I'm getting you a some citations, but in the meantime, why don't you explain to me why Luther had the Assumption of Mary put on his tomb?
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.