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.

[G Larry]

If you took the time to study, rather than issue a reflexive bias, you would know that it is not "idolatry".

[Full Court]

My debate is with cold hearted people who come onto a religion thread and feel that they can insult the beliefs of others.

But wasn't that you calling someone stupid?

[xzins]

There is no way that the protestant interpretation of Mary's role can be accused of being created out of thin air with no biblical basis.

So often those who oppose the protestant interpretation provide their own by saying "It 'could be' X, Y, or Z...."

What they ignore is that their own argument lacks conviction. If they can state it absolutely, let them do so. Let them say, "Scripture undeniably and unequivocally affirms X.....and here is the CERTAIN proof of it."

[Full Court]

For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven,
the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.

[Full Court]

amen

[Pyro7480]

Jesus disregarded His mother and brothers in Luke 11: 27-28, and Matthew 12: 46-50. This proves we shouldn't honor Mary.

In these two passages, Jesus is not addressing te question of what honor we should give Mary. Instead, He is correcting the popular mentality that bloodline makes us pleasing to God. "Do not presume to say to yourselves, "We have Abraham as our father.' For I tell you, God can raise up children to Abraham from these stones" (Matthew 3:9). Jesus is teaching that faith is more important than biological relationship, to which Mary would gave agreed wholeheartedly. Elsewhere, the Bible shows the tremendous honor due Mary because of her faithful role in salvation history.
(Above written by Rev. Frank Chacon and Jim Burnham)
(If you want further attributions from Scripture, feel free to respond, and I'll provide them.)

[xzins]

Obviously, Jesus was not disowning his own mother.

At another point he said, Lu 14:26 - "If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple.

Elsewhere he says we should love our enemies, so he certainly isn't preaching an emotional detesting of those dear to us. (If we can't love our brother who we have seen, how can we love God whom we have not seen.)

In short, the passage in question is another affirmation of his point that one's relationship with God is more important even than one's familial relationships.

None of which proves the immaculate conception or the assumption of Mary.

[vimto]

I find it strange that when people don't agree with me they often accuse me of not studying..in effect of ignorance - rather than saying simply 'I disagree with you because'.

If our ideas do not agree - is that not life? - will it be helped by accusing me of bias etc... enjoy the debate!

so warm regards, in Christ.

[annalex]

So?

The Church never had anything but condemnation for child abuse. It deserves criticism for not moving faster and with greater trasnparency, but it is not a doctrinal issue.

The Limbo has always been a theological hypothesis. People were always free to teach for or against it, and they still do.

The teaching on salvation has not changed and is not going to change. Because the teaching is complex (unlike the simplistic once-believer-always-saved heresies often taught in Protestant circles), clarification of the teaching is needed, particularly in view of continuing Protestant distortions. But the doctrine of salvation has not, will not, and cannot change, just like the Holy Scripture cannot and will not change.

[Jaded]

It's amazing that the current Protestant position is vastly different from the original Protestant position on Mary.

Luther, Calvin & Zwingli

love to stay and debate but....

[netmilsmom]

>> But wasn't that you calling someone stupid<<

Nope, that was me stating that a statement made someone LOOK stupid.
We all say stupid things. That doesn't mean that we are stupid.

[Full Court]

Hi Jaded, I am not a protestant.

I follow only what the Bible says. :-)

[Full Court]

Because the teaching is complex (unlike the simplistic once-believer-always-saved heresies often taught in Protestant circles),

Do you have any scriptural evidence that anyone was ever aborted from the new Birth or Scriptural evidence of someone having to be born again, again?

[Full Court]

No one is claiming that Jesus disregarded Mary.

But Scripture makes it clear that there isn't any kind of Mary as intercessor to be practiced.

She is not given a place of great honor, rather a place among those who are Christians.

[annalex]

Of course.

Christ said that not all who call on His name will be saved. When asked what one is to do in order to be saved, His response was to follow His commandments and then give away all posessions and follow Him. Another time Christ commanded to participate in the Eucharist which is His flesh and blood. Many disciples left Him at that point. In one parable Christ compares the Kingdom of Heaven to seeds scattered in good and bad soil; some seeds don't make it. In another He compares a Christian life to the unending work of a servant who is not entitled to rest even after he had served a full day in the field. In short, as St. Paul said, we are to "work out our salvation with fear and trembling"; neither baptism, or, even less so, one-time conversion experience is not a guarantee of salvation.

I alluded to several scriptures that you are probably familiar with and will supply verse references if it becomes necessary.

[Full Court]

One thing you have neglected, or perhaps did not know. When Jesus spoke, salvation by grace had not happened yet.

After the death of Jesus, can you take me to any situation where someone is born again, again?

[annalex]

By that logic we should disregard the entire Gospel prior to Calvary.

However, I recall a story about some Christians believing enough to donate some of their belongings to the church, but not all. They were struck dead. That was after the Resurrection.

If you want to study the beliefs of the Church exclusively after the Resurrection, you will have to study the early Church fathers. Guess whose interpretation will win by that method.

[G Larry]

Because "idolatry" involves "worship" and Catholics don't teach the "worship" of Mary.

That is a factual difference, not a simple disagreement.

[vimto]

I know very well what Catholics teach. I also know what many practice - There was for instance a petition some years ago by priests asking the Pope to make Mary the 3rd person in the Trinity. He wisely said 'no' - but you get the drift.

shades of gray... shades of gray...
Anyway - this will role on and we are not likely to agree,

Warm regards to you in Christ.

[vimto]

Well I've got to say here we are on the 3rd of Jan 2006 AD and the thread is still rolling - we've all got our money's worth! Thanks for the posting - some interesting points have been raised. Even from one who disagrees with you ... thanks

Warmest regards in Christ.