The Mother of the Son: The Case for Marian Devotion

Catholic Exchange ^ | May 11, 2005 | Mark Shea

[biblewonk]

Go ahead and be frustrated.

Who is made to stumble and I don't burn with indignation.

[Diva]

And please don't say "Catechism"

Why not?

[biblewonk]

That's because we don't worship her. It would be hard to worship her. You see her grace is such that every time you would try, you would find yourself directed to Jesus and through hime to the Father. She can't be worshipped for she is all about her Son.

That's an interesting bit of spiritual plumbing. Now you can display and feel and even say worship regarding Mary and you get a big pass because of this, non scriptural, worship bypass surgery. No wonder Paul nor none of the other apostles ever mentioned one bit of this, it was way over their heads.

[jo kus]

"I just learned that Mormons believe in a Heavenly Mother. I think comparisons need to be made."

OK. Well, I didn't know that. Thanks for the info.

Regards

[biblewonk]

I sincerely hope that you will give it a lot of thought.

Regards right back to you.

[Diva]

Mary is actually mentioned hardly at all from what I can see!

Oh I get it, the "Bible thumpers" are doing what they do best, ripping quotations out of context. : )

[jo kus]

Tradition or no, can you give one example of anyone in the Bible appealing in prayer to anyone other than God.

The fervent prayer of a righteous person is very powerful (James 5:16)

I shall continue to rejoice, for I know that this will result in DELIVERANCE FOR ME THROUGH YOUR PRAYERS and support from the Spirit of Jesus Christ (Phil 1:19)

First of all, then, I ask that supplications , prayers, petitions, and thanksgiving be offered for everyone...this is GOOD AND PLEASING to God our savior..." (1 Tim 2: 1-4)

These and more verses show that it is acceptable to ask others to pray for us. These people are secondary intercessors. Since the Church is the Body of Christ, we are, indirectly, asking Christ to help us when we ask others to pray for us. And given that the Body of Christ consists of the saints in heaven (and Mary), we can logically ask the saints to pray for us, with the assumption that they are righteous. (James 5:16)

At your place of worship, do you have altar calls? Do they preach the Word of God? Well, those also are secondary mediators. In each case, a second person is mediating between the person in the pew and Christ. Prayers to the saints asking for help from God is along the same lines. All is done through the virtue of the fact that we are the Body of Christ.

Regards

[jo kus]

"I cannot find any Church/apostolic tradition outside the idea popping up around the 4th century at the earliest…doesn't that seem a bit odd? If it were a true tradition of the apostles wouldn’t it have been a tradition from the earliest of church times?"

There is evidence that this goes back earlier than the 4th Century. First, let's remember the Christological controversies going on during the 300's. Arianism was rife throughout the Church. Much ado was made over "one dipthong", the letter "i" add to homoousious (I hope I spelled that correctly!). Was Jesus the essence of God, or was He like the essence of God. Seems like a minor issue on the face of it, one letter. Yet, people were KILLING each other over it. Bishops were being lynched. People took their faith seriously. Don't you find it strange that NO ONE says a WORD, NO ONE says "wait, that's not in the Scripture", when the Church places the Feast of the Dormition of the Mother of Christ into the Liturgical Calendar in the 300's. NO ONE. The sense of the Faithful just KNEW that it was the correct thing to do. WHY do you think that was the case? Because it was a commonly held belief that Jesus would protect His mother from corruption. As He did before she was born, so He did after she died. IT IS FITTING - those are the words the Church Fathers use over and over again when discussing Mary. And the Church has said that the sense of the faithful over the course of time is infallible. The Holy Spirit dwells within the Church.

Another thing to consider is the Catholic love of relics of the saints. During this time (into the Medieval period), Catholics would note the places of famous saints, have particular clothing and such available for veneration, etc. WHERE WAS MARY'S RELICS? WHERE WAS MARY'S TOMB? Don't you think that would be known, if she had died? Don't you think the various local churches would have made the claim? Nowhere do we find this claim. Does that raise some questions?

And finally, Revelation 12:1 "A woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars" "She gave birth to a son, a male child, destined to rule all nations with an iron rod." Rev 12:5. And the battle with the dragon. We know that Scripture has several meanings. The literal is one, allegory is another. Certainly, these passages refer to the Church. HOWEVER, who gave birth to THE male son? Literally, the passage refers to Mary. Mary is seen as "the woman" of Genesis 3:15 and "the woman" of Rev 12:17. Mary is seen over and over by the Church as a symbol of the Church. That's why Mary is seen as the New Eve, as the Mother of the Church (Christ is her son, and the Body is the Church).

From this and much more, we can see that Scripture implies that Mary was assumed into heaven, and so forth. It is fitting, says the Church, and is believed by the faithful, even in times when the definitions of the faith were so critical, such as during Nicene.

Regards

[jo kus]

"You don't have to believe me. I'll give you even more reason "not" to believe me, but I'll mail you. :)"

Thank you for your kindness. I hope I didn't come across as being sarcastic or anything like that. Sometimes this medium (internet chat forums) can cause communication problems in expressing what one really means.

Regards

[samiam1972]

If you went to Mass several times a week then the "good news" was right there for you. Maybe you just failed to listen.

[wagglebee]

First, it's almost like you are trying to make it sound bad to discredit Mormons. Second, the similarities between false doctrines about highpowered heavenly females are pretty striking and it's no big secret that I have a problem with Marianism. My ultimate, and not too secret, goal is to point out something that might actually make people stop and say, enough is enough, where's my bible.

I have no problem at all with you discrediting Mormonism. Nor do I have a problem with the fact that you disagree with Catholicism's views on Mary.

[SoothingDave]

If Mary needed to be sinless to bear Jesus then did Mary's mother need to be sinless to bear Mary? And what of Mary's mother's mother - would she not also need to be sinless to bear Mary's mother.

I honestly wish I could get an answer to this!

Two points, and I hope you find my answer sufficient.

First of all, it was not "necessary" for Mary to be sinless. It was rather a fitting gift given to Mary by virtue of her role. There are two reasons for this, first, that she is the New Ark of the Covenant. If noble and holy materials were used to carry God in the Old Testament, why should the Incarnation of God in the New Testament be any less?

Secondly, if Jesus followed the Law perfectly this would include honoring His mother. And since, as God, He was able to preserve her from sin, to save her, how could He not? Do you think Mary went to hell? Of course not. Jesus would save her, and save her first.

Do you forget Jesus was truly human? His love for His mother is as real as our own. How could He love His mother and not make her perfect?

***********

Second is the idea that Mary's IC requires some type of unbroken chain of IC's going back infintely. This is a gross misunderstanding of, and confusion of, the differences between Jesus and Mary.

Protestants seem to equate sinfulness with humanity, and sinlessness with divinity. Or more specifically, to assert that humans can not be without sin. So when Mary is called sinless, this equates to the assumption that we are ascribing divinity to her.

This also explain the Protestant notion of imputed righteousness versus the Catholic idea of infused righteousness. Put simply, we believe God has the power to grant us graces to make us actually without sin. And without simultaneously making us divinities.

Protestants seems to have difficulty with this notion.

Let's look at your objection. If we say Mary must have been made sinless in order to be a worthy vessel to conain Jesus, you say "well, then St. Ann must have been sinless to carry Mary, and her mother, and her mother..."

Mary was a sinless human. Jesus was God Incarnate.

These are two different things. Very different.

Since Mary contained God Himself in the flesh, her sinlessness was a fitting tribute to God. St. Ann had no need to be sinless to carry a human in her womb. Mary is NOT DIVINE. Jesus is.

SD

[wagglebee]

Actually some do, though RC's are definitely all over the map on all doctrines, contrary to their claim. They believe her to be the wife of the Holy Spirit, therefore the Wife of God, therefore equal to anything anyone might think of as a Heavenly Mother.

There is absolutely no Catholic doctrine that says that Mary is the wife of God, the Holy Spirit. Mary was the wife of Joseph and he is the only husband she ever had, if you can find Biblical evidence of something else let me know. I will be the first to acknowledge that many Catholics (as well as members of all other Christian denominations) have misconceptions about what Christianity is and isn't. You yourself have said that you were converted to Christianity in an instant (which I fully believe to be true, as I have known many people who underwent such experiences); however, you said that you did not read the Bible for over a year after this conversion -- what if some of the things you were told about Christianity in that period had been incorrect? It is the same thing with Catholicism, people are sometimes misinformed about things and they have not been told the truth.

Mary is called "blessed" three times in the first chapter of Luke (by the angel Gabriel, by Elizabeth and by herself), in fact she is referred to as "blessed" AMONG women and we are told that henceforth ALL generations shall call her "blessed". Assuming you agree that the Bible does say this, I have a few questions:
1. Were Adam and Eve created free from Original Sin?
2. If Mary is "blessed among women" does that mean that she is superior to Eve in all ways?
3. Do you believe and so proclaim that Mary is blessed?

[SoothingDave]

This is effectively saying that Mary either didn't have free will or that God knew that she would not exercise it. Free will is the essence of original sin.

You're way off base here. Free will is essential to our being made in the image of God. Being free means sin is possible, but it also means that, with God's graces, we can choose to freely love Him.

SD

[SoothingDave]

And this is, sadly, the experience of many Catholics who are devoted to Mary. Believe it or not, when I was Catholic, I was VERY CATHOLIC. Weekday mass several times a week. Rosarys. Prayer meetings centered around rosaries. Even pilgrimages. All centered on Mary. When I got together with other "like minded" Catholics, talk centered on the Church, the problems in the church, and Mary. Of course, Jesus was mentioned, but he took a very distant backseat. Where was the "good news?"

It's a pity you never paid attention during all those weekday Masses.

SD

[SoothingDave]

lastchance:***Just as I do not think God needed to become man in order to save us. ***

Petronius:That, my friend, is very, very wrong. Jesus cried out in the garden...

"O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt."

Jesus was asking if there was any other way. There was not.

Lastchance was speaking on a larger level. God could have created the universe any way He wanted. God is a Free Agent. Had Gos not wanted to do this, He would have created some other reality.

You are correct that, having chosen this path, Jesus had no other way to proceed.

lastchance:***It would not be right to have the Word of God carried in a defiled container. If God willed the old covenant to be carried in a holy object why not the new?.***

Petronius:Mary, after Jesus birth, went to the temple to offer the prescribed sacrifice for the ritualistic defilement associated with giving birth. (There was no offering for Jesus because according to the Torah a child is not defiled by birth).

You said it yourself. This is Mary obeying the Law. This is a "ritual defilement." Not an actual indication of sin.

(OTOH, had Mary not done the prescribed sacrifice, you could accuse her of sinning by not obeying the Law.)

SD

[biblewonk]

13. (7) The Holy Spirit espoused Mary and produced his greatest work, the incarnate Word, in her, by her and through her. He has never disowned her and so he continues to produce every day, in a mysterious but very real manner, the souls of the elect in her and through her.

This is why De Montfort is my hero. He really knows his Marianism.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/Montfort/SECRET.HTM

[SoothingDave]

Of course, I paid attention, but my priest rushed through the mass so we could say the rosary afterward. He was a Medjugorie nut!

If you paid attention, then you would have noticed all of the "good news" that Jesus sacrificed Himself for our salvation. It is impossible to "pay attention" at a Mass and not hear this.

SD