CATHOLIC PING
Merry Christmas, Teofilo, and a Happy New Year.
I am hitting the road shortly, but I wanted simply to say that this is another thread that connects to the proselytization of Protestants. In light of that, it necessary again to state that the biblical basis of Mariology is extremely weak in terms of the Assumption of Mary and non-existent in terms of the Immaculate Conception of Mary.
There was another thread on this about a week or two ago that I'd ping folks to, but I'm sure others will make the same points as were on that thread.
In any case, I do pray that the Lord will bless all His children -- those who have called upon His name -- this Christmas Season.
Thanks for the article.
I have a favorite way of framing this issue that might be useful in keeping this discussion from degenerating to epithets. Let me know what you think.
There are three things Kerygma, Dogma, and Devotion
Mary is almost zero in the kerygma, she is small but significant in the dogma, and she is large in devotion.
I think if Roman Catholics would adopt a scheme like this and stick to it and purge prayers and statements that confused it, they would win over many Protestants. The problem is that for the Protestant, they themselves have failed to keep all this straight. Thus Protestants are always uttering conflicting platitudes like "Unity in the essentials freedom in the non-essentials." And then splitting over nothing.
For the Roman Catholic part, it should not be a requirement to believe much about Mary except those things which are necessary to preserve a proper understanding of the incarnation (Ever Virgin, Theotokos). It should be a matter of pious opinion/devotion. You could win over a lot if you could adopt that.
The subtlety with which Mary has bee quietly inserted through the scriptures by name in the NT and by foreshadowing in the old is wonderful and not forced at all, seems almost as if God puts it there for those with ears to hear and doesn't want her forced on anyone.
Mariology, maybe, but not mariolatry!
I'm a student of Church history, and the veneration of Mary as an additional mediator...along with the title "Mother of God" is an interesting topic.
It's true such practices came very early...and "Theotokis" (God bearer) was a phrase used to battle the Gnostics who claimed Jesus was not human, with a real body. The emphasis was not that God eternal had a mother....but that God the Son in his full humanity had a real, flesh and blood mother, proving He was fully man.
Honestly, as a Protestant, I have never heard a convincing argument distinguishing between veneration and worship. If a Hindu who didn't know the language visited a Roman Catholic church he would think they were doing the same thing to the images of Mary (or various saints) as he did with his gods... It's the old, "walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, eats like a duck...then IT'S A DUCK!" argument to me. I've heard it said its not the image being prayed to...fair enough, I'm sure that's true. I'm also sure that the Hindu (or the old Pagan Roman) didn't actually pray to the statue either...but the person/thing/deity behind it.
That's why the 1st Commandment is very specific...'don't make an image and bow down and worship it'...and I've never seen veneration of an image that was distinguishable from simple worship.
Also I see no evidence at all of any saint of God communicating with another saint who was dead and gone to heaven....Not once does Paul, Peter, Mary or any of these folk communicate in prayer to anyone but God Himself, Father, Son or Holy Ghost. It took later Catholics to give us a better example? I don't think so....
rl