Catholic Analysis: Mariology is Biblical

Vivificat! - A Catholic Blog of Commentary and Opinion ^ | 27 December 2005 | Teófilo

[Teófilo]

Folks, my blogger colleague, Oswald Sobrino of Catholic Analysis, has written a good essay regarding "Mariology," that is, the theological study and liturgical recognition of the place of Mary, the Mother of the Lord, the Theotokos, in the economy of salvation. It is entitled Mariology is Biblical. Here's an extract:

One of the great stumbling blocks for our Protestant brethren who are on the verge of crossing the Tiber, i.e., entering into full communion with the Catholic Church, is the great attention paid to the Mother of Jesus by Catholics. This hesitation is understandable: Protestantism is a reaction against Catholicism, and one of the reactions has been, historically, to exile the Mother of Jesus from salvation history. In recent times, some Protestants have sought to correct this strange exile of the Mother of God by looking back to the writings of the Church Fathers and to the early ecumenical councils, especially the fifth century Council of Ephesus. Yet, even Catholics can have a hard time responding to the insistent Protestant plea that to venerate Mary is to somehow detract from the one Mediator between God and man, Jesus Christ (1 Timothy 2:5).

...

The crux of the matter is that Mary's extraordinary mediation as Mother of Jesus derives from and is included in the unique mediatorship of Christ himself. What we ask our Protestant brethren to consider prayerfully, and, yes, quite biblically, is that the mediatorship of Christ is inclusive and admits of and even insists upon our participation. If we participate, as Paul did, then certainly the one whom the ecumenical Council of Ephesus termed the "Mother of God" or "God-bearer" in 431 A.D. does also. Interestingly, today, even some conservative evangelical Protestant scholars openly refer to Mary as "Mother of God" based on the significance they ascribe to the Council of Ephesus. They are discovering the riches of the faith preserved for them through the centuries preceding the Reformation by none other than the Catholic Church.

- I urge all of you to read the entire piece at Catholic Analysis.

[Uri’el-2012]

XS>

Mt. 5:44 But I tell you: Love your enemies
[Some late manuscripts enemies, bless those who curse you,
do good to those hate you] and pray for those who persecute you,

CtId>You've got to be the biggest phony on this forum.

71 posted on 12/27/2005 9:57:36 PM MST by Conservative til I die

How is the "log" in your eye?

b'shem Y'shua

[RightWhale]

They seem to worship the created not the creator of the universe.

They know the difference. Much as we like the idea of the BVM for bringing it down to our level where we can comprehend things, we know where the real power is.

[Salvation]

Thanks for the link.

[Invincibly Ignorant]

Truly, it doesn't matter to me what way you want to have a relationship with God.

I actually agree with you about this.

I don't understand why it matter so much the way that Catholics do to some people.

Come on, Catholics come across as arrogant because they claim to have the "orthodox" belief, (the "right" belief) and most of those who do not share their positions are "Heretical" and in danger eternally. They (you) may or may not intend to come off like this but, in a nutshell, thats how its perceived by many.

[Salvation]

**without Mary there would be no Christ. **

Indeed, she was the "Ark of the New Covenant".

[Invincibly Ignorant]

Not in this context.

That's convenient.

[netmilsmom]

>>Come on, Catholics come across as arrogant because they claim to have the "orthodox" belief, (the "right" belief) and most of those who do not share their positions are "Heretical" and in danger eternally. They (you) may or may not intend to come off like this but, in a nutshell, thats how its perceived by many.<<

And Protestants don't claim that they have the "right belief"? Then what is this about?
Not all Catholics are arrogant just as not all Protestants are militant haters of Catholic beliefs. If you paint all of us with a broad brush, how can you expect us not to do the same? And see how you put it "Perceived by many" Maybe they just don't love a Catholic. Maybe they don't know us, they only know what is said about us.
Ratzinger himself has a clue to the official stand on Protestants. You are our brothers in Christ. I'll see if I can find it.

[jude24]

Jas. 2:20 uses it in a similar context.

[Buggman]

Hey Campion, I already addressed that point back in posts #49 and 51. As a human child, He was put under her authority. As the Resurrected Lord, she is back under His.

[Buggman]

The Roman Catholic Church.

[Buggman]

Do I really need to post the picture again?

[Invincibly Ignorant]

Jas. 2:20 uses it in a similar context.

You and James have something in common. Ya didn't listen to Jesus. shame, shame.

[Uri’el-2012]

...without Mary there would be no Christ. In a way, yes. For Mary became a mother freely. Without Mary there would have been no Jesus Christ as known to us from Scripture. But the closer analogy is that without the Jewish people there would have been no Jesus Christ. Stressing the uniquenesss of Israel --and Mary--stressed the uniqueness of Jesus. He could not have been born into any other nation to any other woman. I say this knowing that God could have chosen another way, but he chose this one, with the participation of Mary.

97 posted on 12/27/2005 11:48:29 PM MST by RobbyS

What a perverse misunderstanding of G-d, King and creator of the universe.

YHvH did not need the person, named Miriam, in order to provide salvation to His creation.

If you acquaint yourself with the Tanach you will see that YHvH is our salvation Psalm 118-14.

YHvH only needed a virgin( any virgin) of the house of David engaged to a man( any man) also of the house of David.

This would be enough to fulfill prophecy and provide the Messiah with the title deed to the throne of King David.

b'shem Y'shua

[P-Marlowe]

Mary is the Mother of God. We have no other God but God.

I had asked not to be pinged back to this thread but I cannot help but respond to this statement. The logical conclusion to be drawn from that statement is that Mary is not merely the physical mother of the incarnate Christ, but is literally the Mother of the Trinity. IOW from that statement I must assume that your doctrine is that Mary is eternal and pre-existent and that God (YHVH) did not exist until Mary gave birth to God in some eternal pre-existent state.

I am really hoping that is not what you meant, but that is the idea that your use of the term "Mother of God" conveys. Quite frankly I came out of a "sect" which believes that God the Father and Jesus both had an Eternal Mother in heaven who had an eternal Father who had an eternal mother who had an eternal father, ad infinitum.... As a result I may be a little over sensitive to this idea that Mary is the "Mother of God". By clarifying it and stating that there is only one God and she is the Mother of him, then you are conveying the idea that she is the Mother of the Father, the Mother of the Son, and the Mother of the Holy Spirit.

...so your views are still anathema.

I am pinging netmilsmom so that she can see that this "Anti-Fill-in-the-blank Troll" stuff is a two way street. Although annalex feels free to call my views "anathema" if I return the favor, then I am going to be called an Anti-Catholic Troll and your do-gooder Troll squad will no doubt push the abuse button and ping the moderator and do all within your power to have me banned.

I would not dare to call annalex an "Anti-Protestant Troll" as I believe his views are sincere and that his motives in attempting to correct any perceieved error in my theology is sincere. He often comes on the protestant threads and does all that he can to correct our anthemetical errors and although I believe he is misguided, I would not dare to question his motives or his sincerity. I appreciate his willingness to go toe to toe on these important spiritual issues. It is through these discussions that hopefully we can all come to a knowledge of the truth.

BTW, Please do not ping me back to this thread. I've had enough of this one.

Thank you.

[Uri’el-2012]

Sorry

Miriam also had to have no brothers.

b'shem Y'shua

[Titanites]

Do I really need to post the picture again?

It is up to you. If it helps you get past your assumptions, go ahead. The Catholic Church explicitly teaches not to pray to statues, and you have no proof that the people in this picture are praying to the statue. It is all an assumption on your part, unless you can see into their hearts.

Maybe you'd feel better if these folks were spitting on it instead?

[Uri’el-2012]

...without Mary there would be no Christ. In a way, yes. For Mary became a mother freely. Without Mary there would have been no Jesus Christ as known to us from Scripture. But the closer analogy is that without the Jewish people there would have been no Jesus Christ. Stressing the uniquenesss of Israel --and Mary--stressed the uniqueness of Jesus. He could not have been born into any other nation to any other woman. I say this knowing that God could have chosen another way, but he chose this one, with the participation of Mary.

97 posted on 12/27/2005 11:48:29 PM MST by RobbyS

What a perverse misunderstanding of G-d, King and creator of the universe.

YHvH did not need the person, named Mirium, in order to provide salvation to His creation.

If you acquaint yourself with the Tanach you will see that YHvH is our salvation Psalm 118-14.

YHvH only needed a virgin( any virgin who had no brothers) of the house of David engaged to a man( any man) also of the house of David.

This would be enough to fulfill phrosephy and provide the Messiah with the title deed to the throne of King David.

b'shem Y'shua

[Buggman]

Again, this was already addressed and not answered in post #31. Mary is attributed with more power "than all hell together" and the power to command God and with an "all-powerful name" by many devout Catholics.

Furthermore, the Hindu believes that the power of any god eminates from the fact that it is one with/connected to the Brahman. If one merely posits that "Brahman" is just the Hindu name for God (as many, including JPII, have), suddenly they're exempt from the charge of idolatry as well.

Still further, and as I've already pointed out, God was plainly visible as fire on top of Mt. Sinai when Israel tried to make an idol to Him. It stretches all credulity to suggest that they thought that the God in the fire was encapsulated in the golden calf, nor were they giving God's credit to another god, since plainly they invoke the name of YHVH.

He still wasn't pleased. How much less is He pleased when you bow to the statue of a saint?

By His coming and sacrifice in the person of Yeshua HaMashiach, Jesus the Christ, God tore open the veil that separated us from Him and opened the way to approach Him directly. It is by His all-powerful Name that the legions of Hell are turned back, not by Mary's, for it is Yeshua who

became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Therefore God has highly exalted Him, and has given Him a name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow (including Miryam's), of heavenly ones, and of earthly ones, and of ones under the earth; and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (Php. 2:8-11)

It is through trusting Yeshua that all graces and forgiveness are obtained, not through Mary. It is God who commands, whether in the person of the Father, the Son, or the Holy Spirit, and Miryam who obeys, not Mary who has authority over Him. It is the Holy Spirit who "also helps our infirmities. For we do not know what we should pray for as we ought, but the Spirit Himself makes intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered" (Rom. 8:26). God loves you infinitely more than Mary ever could, and if you are already in the Messiah, your sins covered by His blood, needs no further appeasement.

By attributing all these things that belong to God to Mary, you not only take away His glory to give to another. you dishonor her by making her a kind of pagan goddess. The humblest and among the most righteous of God's servants (which she truly was) would never want that, but like the angel to whom Yochanan twice tried to bow to and worship in the Apocalypse, would say to you, "Behold! Stop! For I am your fellow-servant, and of your brothers the prophets, and of those who keep the sayings of this Book. Do worship to God!" (Rev. 22:9)

Now, if you too are appalled at what some Catholics have attributed to Mary--good, you should be, especially when some of the worst of it is coming from materials with the Catholic Imprimatur and nihil obstat on them. Instead of being mystified or angered that Protestants keep charging the RCC with Mariolotry and refuse to have fellowship with her, go deal with the Catholics who make the charge so valid. Or to put it another way, "First cast the beam out of your own eye, and then you shall see clearly to cast the splinter out of your brother's eye." (Mat. 7:5)

If, on the other hand, you think all these worshipful appelations given to Mary and bowing down to statues of her (need I post the pic again?) are apprpriate, then truly you have left behind all semblence of a Biblical faith in the God who split Israel in twain and sent both halves into exile for the very same sin.

[Buggman]

Probably, but it looks like both of us are being stubborn about it anyway. And I don't even get to blame xzins this time. ;)

[Buggman]

As already posted, see Phillipians 2:8-11. Whether she is on the earth or in Heaven, Mary's knee bows, and she calls Yeshua the Messiah Lord, to the everlasting glory of the Father.