Posted on 11/05/2005 3:36:14 PM PST by bremenboy
Bible references to Mary are few in the New Testament. To demonstrate how far removed traditions are from the Bible, we want to contrast the Bible teaching and the present-day traditional Catholic view of Mary. In so doing, we can better appreciate why Jesus rejected the very concept of traditionalism
By Gene Frost
The "fullness of Christianity" comes not through the revelation of inspired Scriptures alone, but "through a living tradition which presents God’s word across the centuries until the Lord comes again." So affirms the National Conference of Catholic Bishops in a "Pastoral Statement for Catholics on Biblical Fundamentalism."1 Where the Scriptures are silent tradition begins, as ideas are born, modified, added to; thereby concepts are formed over the years. The evolution of doctrine and practice is never finished, but continues "across the centuries until the Lord comes again." So what is believed and practiced within Catholicism today is different, with additions and modifications, from what was believed and practiced in an earlier age. And in future times the Catholic religion will be yet different from what it is today. Regardless of the source of these additions—whether from paganism, lies or forgeries—and modifications—whether promoted by personal ambition or party spirit—the Catholic hierarchy assumes that they are none-the-less Spirit-guided.
Traditions are to be accepted as divinely given, equally so as with Scripture. The more recent the tradition the further the Spirit has guided its evolution, and the fuller is God’s will understood. Therefore, traditions are more authoritative and purer in definition of faith than are the Scriptures. This is why the "fullness of Christianity" can only come through the acceptance of traditions, according to Catholic theology. An example of this "fullness," which can never be understood by reading the Bible, is the veneration Catholics are to give unto Mary, the mother of Jesus.
Bible References
Bible references to Mary are few in the New Testament. To demonstrate how far removed traditions are from the Bible, we want to contrast the Bible teaching and the present-day traditional Catholic view of Mary. In so doing, we can better appreciate why Jesus rejected the very concept of traditionalism.
Most references to Mary are related to the birth of Jesus. In no other way is she significant, neither in His ministry nor in the redemption of man. She is mentioned by name only once after His resurrection, and by reference (not by name) only once in the epistles. In just a few minutes, one can read all that the Bible has to say about her.
From Jesus’ Birth to His Coronation
We find only thirteen events relating to Mary from the conception of Jesus unto His coronation as King on Pentecost (Acts 2:29-36).
1. The first mention of Mary is when the angel Gabriel is sent from God to announce that as a virgin she would give birth to the Messiah. Thus she is "highly favored," "blessed among women," to have the honor of giving birth to the Messiah.
Joseph is assured that his espoused is with child by miraculous conception. As commanded by God he takes Mary as his wife. However, they did not have marital relations "till she had brought forth her firstborn."
(Read the account in Luke 1:26-38 and Matt. 1:18-25.)
2. The angel had told Mary that Elizabeth was expecting a child, a son, in her old age, when she was considered to be "barren," thus demonstrating that "with God nothing is impossible." The next reference to Mary in the Scriptures relates to her visit with Elizabeth, who upon her arrival and greeting felt the babe in her womb leap with joy. Mary is said to be "blessed among women."
(Read the account in Luke 1:39-49, 56.)
3. The birth of Jesus is the third occasion of reference to Mary. With Mary, Joseph travels to Bethlehem to be registered. With nowhere else to stay, Mary gives birth to Jesus in a stable. Shepherds are led from the fields to see the "Savior, who is Christ the Lord."
(Read the account in Luke 2:4-7, 15-19.)
4. The next scene in which we find Mary is at the temple in Jerusalem when Jesus is presented to God. It was there that Simeon blessed them, and prophesied of Jesus.
(Read the account in Luke 2:33-34.)
5. Sometime following the birth of Jesus, wise men from the East, after making inquiry, find Him in Bethlehem. "And entering the house, they found the child with Mary his mother, and falling down they worshipped him."
(Read the account in Matt. 2:11.)
6. Being warned by God, Joseph flees with Mary and Jesus to Egypt.
(Read the account in Matt. 2:14.)
7. After the death of Herod, we read of Joseph’s return, with his family, to Nazareth.
(Read the account in Matt. 2:14.)
8. At the age of twelve, Jesus went with his parents to Jerusalem to observe the Passover. On the return he was left behind. After three day’s search they found him reasoning with the teachers in the temple. He returned home with them and was submissive.
(Read the account in Luke 2:43-51.)
9. At the beginning of His ministry, Mary, Jesus, and His disciples are invited to a wedding in Cana of Galilee. When the host ran short of wine, Mary informed Jesus. Jesus responded, "What wouldest thou have me to do, woman? My hour has not yet come." Nevertheless, He turned water into the finest wine.
(Read the account in John 4:1-5.)
10. During Jesus’ ministry, while at Capernaum, Mary and the brothers of Jesus visited Him. He was told that His mother and brothers were without. His response was, "Who is my mother and my brethren? For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven, he is my brother and sister and mother."
(Read the account in Matt. 12:46-50; Mark 3:31-35; Luke 8:20-21.)
11. The next reference to Mary is made by the people of Nazareth. They "were astonished, and said, ‘Where did he get this wisdom and these miracles? Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary, and his brethren James and Joseph and Simon and Jude? And his sisters, are they not all with us?’"
(Read the account in Matt. 13:53-56; Mark 6:3.)
12. Finally, the death of Jesus on the cross was witnessed by his mother, Mary. Seeing her there and the disciple whom He loved, most likely John, Jesus said, "Woman, behold thy son." And to the disciple, He said, "Behold, thy mother." From then on the disciple took her into his house.
(Read the account in John 19:25-27.)
13. Following His resurrection, the disciples awaited the promise of the Holy Spirit (signifying the establishment of His kingdom, Mark 9:1, Luke 24:49, Acts 1:48, Col. 1:13). "All these with one mind continued steadfastly in prayer with the women and Mary, the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren." This is the last reference in the Bible where Mary is identified by name.
(Read the account in Acts 1:14.)
In all of the references to Mary, her special and single honor is her role of bearing the physical body of Jesus. She was mother to the Son of man. She is given no personal role in the redemptive process. It is Jesus who is Savior of the world.
If there is any spiritual role for the mother of Jesus in man’s salvation, there surely would be some mention of it in the New Covenant. But there is no mention of it. In fact, in the gospel of Christ there is but one reference to her, and that not by name:
"But when the fullness of time came, God sent His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, that he might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption of sons."(Gal. 4:4.)
In all of the references to Mary, she is nowhere referred to as "the mother of God," or "Queen of heaven," or "Mediator between man and God," or "Intercessor," or any of the numerous claims now made for her in Catholic tradition. But, then, tradition is the handing down of doctrines "not contained, or not clearly contained, in Scripture."2 Consider now the traditions that have grown around devotion to Mary, concerning which the Bible is silent. (We will not address the traditions of a supposed "perpetual virginity," "immaculate conception," "sinless perfection," or "bodily assumption.")
The Veneration of Mary
Admittedly, "devotion to the Blessed Virgin was far less prominent in ancient than in modern times..."3 In fact, some "church fathers" reasoned against many things now held to be true. We are told that:
"when individual Fathers argued in such a way, the Church was justified in disregarding their opinions, great saints and doctors though they were. Common sense, as well as the sense of the faithful, was against them, and they had neither right nor power to arrest the stream of devotion to Mary. The stream grew, no doubt, in its course through the ages, but its source was in the Eternal Hills."4
We will not attempt to trace the development, but will simply outline the tradition today. Here is how Mary is viewed:
1. World Created For Mary
Why did not Mary reveal in the Scriptures the wonderful things God did for her? "She did not explain them, because they were unexplainable" – St. Thomas of Villanova.5 What could not be told in a record inspired of God can now be told by uninspired man after centuries of modifications and additions supplied by uninspired men:
"For this reason St. Bernard was right in declaring that God created the whole world for the Blessed Virgin who was destined to be His Mother. And St. Bonaventure was right in saying that its existence depends on her will: ‘The world, O most holy Virgin, which you with God formed from the beginning, continues to exist at your will."6
Contrast this claim with what the Bible says. The inspired record says that by Jesus "were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: and he is before all things and by him all things consist." (Col. 1:16-17, KJV; emphasis added.) Catholic tradition replaces Jesus with Mary, and has the creation for her.
2. Preserver
Modern tradition claims that Mary is responsible for the preservation of the human race after the sin of Adam.
"St. Bernardine of Siena adds that it was because of love for Mary that God did not destroy man after Adam’s sin: ‘He preserved man on account of His unique love for the Blessed Virgin’"7
"It was also proper for the Eternal Father to create her in grace because He destined her to be the repairer of the lost world and the mediator of peace between men and God."8
Not only is this the source of grace for man, but for angels as well:
"Therefore, O Mother of God and Mother of us all, you do not lack the power to help us. ‘Neither the power nor the will is lacking to her,’ says St. Bernard. And I will say, using the words of the Abbot of Celles, that ‘you are well aware God did not create you for Himself alone, but that He gave you to the angels as their restorer, to men as their repairer, and to the devils as their vanquisher. It is through you that we recover divine grace, and by you that the enemy is conquered and crushed.’"9
In contrast, the Bible claims that "grace and truth came by Jesus Christ," not Mary. (John 1:17) "For if through the offense of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many." (Rom. 5:15).
3. Holy Spirit Her Spouse
The Holy Spirit, it is now claimed, made Mary to be His spouse, and therefore she was created sinless and immediately "enriched and filled with divine grace":
"Suppose an accomplished painter were capable of making his bride look as beautiful as he could portray her, would he not bend every effort to make her as lovely as possible? Then how can we say that the Holy Spirit would not have done the same thing for Mary? Would He not have made her who was to be His Spouse as beautiful and unblemished as it was fitting that she should be? Ofcourse."10
"We know her Divine Spouse loved Mary more than He loved all the saints and angels put together, as Father Suarez, St. Lawrence Giustiniani, and others assert."11
"This is the reason why St. Peter Damian says: ‘The Holy Spirit snatched entirely for Himself this privileged one who was chosen by God and chosen before all others.’ The saint uses the term ‘snatch’ to indicate the speed with which the Holy Spirit acted in making this Spouse His own, before Lucifer could take possession of her."12
This beauty is described as being manifest in both her physical appearance and in character.
"Our Lord revealed to St. Bridget that the beauty of Mary is more beautiful than that of all men and angels. Permitting the saint to hear Him addressing Mary, He said: ‘Your beauty is greater than that of all the angels and all created things.’ In other words, she was superlatively beautiful. But her beauty was not a harmful beauty. It did not arouse impure thoughts, but on the contrary inspired pure ones, as St. Ambrose asserts: ‘Her grace was so great that it not only preserved her virginity but conferred the admirable gift of purity on those who saw her.’ St. Thomas confirms this when he says :’Sanctifying grace not only repressed every unlawful suggestion in the Blessed Virgin herself, but also was efficacious in doing the same for others; so that in spite of the greatness of her beauty she was never carnally desired by others.’"13
Compare this claim with what the Bible reveals. Who can believe that Joseph betrothed Mary because he only wanted to preserve her virginity? Or that Mary never had any physical desire in becoming Joseph’s wife? If her beauty conferred only purity on those who saw her, why would Joseph think that she had conceived out of wedlock, and was ready to divorce her? If she remained perpetually a virgin, why does the inspired record say of Joseph, "And he knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son"? (According to Catholic tradition, Joseph "knew her not at all," and not only till she gave birth to Jesus.) And how do we account for the fact that Jesus had brothers and sisters? (The latter is translated from the Greek adelphe, which is used of "natural relationship, e.g., Matt. 19:29; of the sisters of Christ, the children of Joseph and Mary after the Virgin Birth of Christ, e.g. Matt. 13:56.")14
Catholic tradition contradicts the Bible account. It also depreciates marriage, suggesting that virginity only reflects grace and purity. Yet the Bible says that "marriage is honorable" (Heb. 13:4).
4. Mary Offered Jesus
When Joseph and Mary presented Jesus in the temple (Luke 2:22), Catholic tradition claims that Mary was thereby offering His life. God had "willed that Jesus should not sacrifice His life for the salvation of mankind without the consent of Mary. The heart of the Mother was to be sacrificed along with the life of the Son."15 And so, "Mary was not merely the passive instrument of the Incarnation. By the free use of her own will she co-operated in our salvation, and was associated with her divine Son. It depended on her will whether or not the divine economy by which the Incarnation and our redemption were accomplished was to be frustrated..."16
"And therefore St. Peter Damian says, that God would not become man without the consent of Mary, that, in the first place, we might remain greatly indebted to her; and secondly, that we might understand the salvation of all men to be made dependent upon her good pleasure."17
In giving her consent, Jesus could be offered, and at the same time she would offer her own life, so that with Jesus she has brought about the salvation of the world.
"Mary, however, really offered her Son to death. She knew for certain that the sacrifice of the life of Jesus which she was then making would actually be consummated on the altar of the cross. Because she loved Him so much, in offering the life of her Son, Mary actually sacrificed her entire self to God."18
"Because of the immense merit she acquired for the salvation of the world by this great sacrifice to God, St. Augustine was quite right in calling the Blessed Mother the ‘repairer of the human race.’"19
"Arnold of Chatres says: ‘The will of Mary and the will of Christ were then united so intimately that both offered up the same sacrifice. Because of that union of wills, Mary brought about with Christ that one effect, namely, the salvation of the world.’ Jesus accomplished it by making satisfaction for our sins; Mary by obtaining the application of this satisfaction to us."20
"‘Anyone who had been present then on Mount Calvary,’ says St. John Chrysostom, ‘would have seen two altars on which two great sacrifices were being offered: the one in the body of Jesus, the other in the heart of Mary.’ In fact we may even say with St. Bonaventure: ‘there was only one altar.— the cross of the Son on which together with the divine Lamb, the Victim, His Mother was also being sacrificed.’ And therefore the saint asks Mary: ‘O Lady, where are you? Near the cross? No, you are actually on the cross, being crucified, sacrificing yourself along with your Son.’"21
Catholic tradition declares that without the consent of Mary, mankind could not have been saved. She shares in the sacrifice for sin, and the resultant salvation is dispensed by her: Jesus provided the satisfaction, she applies it. We are indebted to both Mary and Jesus, two grand sacrifices, for our deliverance. Thus what Jesus did is shared by Mary, and to that extent Jesus is displaced. The Bible states, however, that Jesus "offered one sacrifice for sins for ever," that "by one sacrifice he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified." (Heb. 10:12, 14. ) The Bible is silent about "two sacrifices," about any "sacrifice by Mary."
5. Queen of Heaven
When Jesus died on the cross, modern Catholic tradition has Mary in spirit accompanying the soul of Jesus into heaven:
"A devout author says that when our Divine Redeemer died, the first care of His Blessed Mother was to accompany in spirit the soul of her Son and to present it to the Eternal Father. ‘I present to You, O my God,’ he pictures Mary as saying, ‘the immaculate soul of Your and my Son ....’"22
Her place and prominence in heaven is great, according to this modern tradition:
"‘Queen of Heaven.’ What a glorious title for Mary! What a tremendous honor for a creature of earth! Above all the ranks of Confessors and Martyrs, above all the mighty angelic hosts, at the right hand of Jesus, the King of Glory, Mary reigns on her queenly throne."23
"But has Mary power to help? How can I doubt it? Is she not the Queen of heaven? Is she not the mother of the All-powerful God?"24
In this Catholic concept, her power is so great with God that He cannot deny her requests. Therefore if one will call upon Mary he cannot be denied.
"Father Suarez says: ‘As Mother of God, she has a certain peculiar right to the gifts of her Son,’ and can procure them for those whom she prays. St. Germanus goes further and says that God cannot help granting the petitions of this Mother, because He cannot help acknowledging her as His true and immaculate Mother. This is the way the saint addresses the Blessed Virgin: ‘By virtue of your maternal authority you have great power with God and you can obtain the grace of reconciliation even for those who have sinned very much. It is impossible for you not to be heard graciously; for God acts toward you and recognizes you in all things as His true and immaculate Mother.’"25
"No, indeed, Jesus is too loving a Son to refuse the wishes of His Mother; Mary is too loving a Mother to fail to plead for my needs. Nothing, then, have I to fear if only I learn to call upon Mary."26
"We need not be at loss to imagine the way in which Mary exercises her great power inheaven."27
Of course, the Bible is "silent" about any great power of Mary in heaven. Nowhere does it intimate that she is "Queen" in heaven or is regarded as the "Mother of God." (Jesus was in no way dependent upon Mary for His deity, which is His nature from all eternity, John 1:1-3.)
Nowhere in the Bible is there the slightest intimation that Mary possesses some peculiar power with God. Nowhere is she given any role in the redemptive process.
6. Reconciler, Mediator.
In Catholic tradition Jesus is replaced by Mary as the means of reconciliation and as the mediator between man and God.
"It was also proper for the Eternal Father to create her in grace because He destined her to be the repairer of the lost world and the mediator of peace between men and God ... St. Basil calls her the peacemaker between God and Men: ‘Hail, arbiter between God and men.’ and St. Ephrem calls her the peacemaker of the whole world: ‘Hail, reconciler of the whole world!’"28
"If the assertion is true and incontrovertible, as I believe it to be, and as I shall prove, in the fifth chapter of this book, then all graces are dispensed by the hand of Mary alone, and that all those who are saved, are saved solely by means of this divine mother; it may be said, as a necessary consequence, that the salvation of all depends upon preaching Mary, and confidence in her intercession."29
Is Jesus the mediator or is Mary, or are both? By whom are we reconciled to God, Jesus or Mary? As with so many traditions or Rome, the Bible is not silent. It leaves no doubt:
"For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" (1 Tim. 2:4).
"And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ" (2 Cor. 5:18).
"Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ" (Rom. 5:1).
Conclusion
One cannot believe both the Bible and the traditions of men. That is why Jesus so strenuously opposed traditions: "Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men..." (Mark 7:7-8).Jesus demonstrated wherein their tradition contradicted God’s word. We have done the same with respect to modern traditions of men, and for the same reason reject these traditions. The Scriptures are inspired of God, and are sufficient. (2 Tim. 3:16-17). In fact, the curse of heaven is upon any man who teaches more than was taught in the apostolic age. (Gal. 1:6-8)
Faith that is approved of God comes from God’s word. (Rom. 10:17) Such faith is built upon certainty, since God cannot lie. (Heb. 6:18) Faith that rests upon human traditions is neither certain nor approved of God. Traditions are established from "probabilities" and "opinions" that are repeated often enough until some begin to believe they are so. But no matter how long an opinion is repeated it remains an opinion. And admittedly this is the basis of Catholic tradition.
In the first place, traditions are defined doctrines not stated in the inspired Scriptures. They begin as opinions. Note in this discussion of "Mary’s Immaculate Conception":
"There are many scholars who are of the opinion that Mary was even exempt from contracting the debt of sin... And this opinion seems probable. For if it is true that the will of every man was included in that of Adam as the head of the human race—an opinion which Gonet, Habert, and others hold as probable ....—then it is also probable that Mary did not contract the debt of sin ...
"This opinion is only probable, but I adhere to it..."30 (Emphasis added.)
Note that appeal is made, not to the inspired Scriptures, but to men, "scholars." To uphold the probability of this opinion, the writer quotes "the opinions of the Fathers of the Church," sixteen by count. Now how does this opinion became a tenet of faith in the Catholic tradition? The Catholic apologists states: "Finally there are two arguments that prove conclusively the truth of this pious belief." They are:.
1. The "universal consensus of the faithful." Of course, this argument is myth: there has never been a unanimous consent on any Catholic tradition. In fact, the same paragraph with this "conclusive argument," the write states: "A contemporary author mentions that, while there are ninety-two Dominican authors who deny it, there are at the same time a hundred thirty-six who favorit."31 So much for "unanimous consent"!
2. The Church has ordered feasts celebrating the tradition. And the writer adds: "I regard it as certain that the Church cannot celebrate anything that is not true and holy."32 Proof: "We accept it!" Catholics are told to accept a tradition because it is true, and the proof that it is true is the fact that a particular view has prevailed (for whatever reason: because of political coercion, or by appeal to forgeries, or whatever) and most now believe it. Such circular reasoning is unworthy of those who seek truth. (John 8:32)
No wonder the hierarchy is alarmed by the fact that many of the laity are looking to the Scriptures alone. The Scriptures do not support the system, the traditions, and claims of modern Catholicism. But they do offer a hope of salvation. (Rom. 1:16, 1 Cor. 15:1-2)
_______________
1 - Origins, (November 5, 1987), vol. 17, no. 21, pages 376-377.
2 - John Perry, Instruction For Catechists, page 119. Imprimatur: John Cardinal McCloskey; Michael Augustine, Archbishop.
3 - Addis and Arnold, Catholic Dictionary, page 549.
4 - Addis and Arnold, Catholic Dictionary, page 550.
5 - Alphonsus Maria de Liguori, The Glories of Mary, Part 2, page 52; translated from the Italian, (Imprimatur: Archbishop Lawrence J. Shehan).
6 - Alphonsus Maria de Ligouri, op. cit., Part 2, page 52.
7 - Alphonsus Maria de Ligouri, op. cit., Part 2, page 52.
8 - Alphonsus Maria de Ligouri, op. cit., Part 2, page 2.
9 - Alphonsus Maria de Ligouri, op. cit., Part 2, page 54.
10 - Alphonsus Maria de Ligouri, op. cit., Part 2, page 12.
11 - Alphonsus Maria de Ligouri, op. cit., Part 2, page 12.
12 - Alphonsus Maria de Ligouri, op. cit., Part 2, page 13.
13 - Alphonsus Maria de Ligouri, op. cit., Part 2, page 53.
14 - W.E. Vine, Expository Dictionary of N.T. Words, vol. 4, page 36.
15 - Alphonsus Maria de Ligouri, op. cit., Part 2, page 70.
16 - Addis and Arnold, Catholic Dictionary, page 547.
17 - Alphonsus Maria de Ligouri, op. cit., Part 1, page 181.
18 - Alphonsus Maria de Ligouri, op. cit., Part 2, page 69-70.
19 - Alphonsus Maria de Ligouri, op. cit., Part 2, page 75.
20 - Alphonsus Maria de Ligouri, op. cit., Part 2, page 75.
21 - Alphonsus Maria de Ligouri, op. cit., Part 2, page 135.
22 - Alphonsus Maria de Ligouri, op. cit., Part 2, page 140.
23 - J. E. Moffatt, S.J., Thoughts On God’s Mother And Ours, page 75. (Imprimatur: SamuelA. Stritch.)
24 - J. E. Moffatt, op. cit., page 73.
25 - Alphonsus Maria de Ligouri, op. cit., Part 2, page 54.
26 - J. E. Moffatt, op. cit., page 74.
27 - Addis and Arnold, Catholic Dictionary, page 548.
28 - Alphonsus Maria de Ligouri, op. cit., Part 2, page 2.
29 - Alphonsus Maria de Ligouri, op. cit., Part 1, page 19.
30 - Alphonsus Maria de Ligouri, op. cit., Part 2, page 14.
31 - Alphonsus Maria de Ligouri, op. cit., Part 2, page 15.
32 - Alphonsus Maria de Ligouri, op. cit., Part 2, page 16.
Have we here a case of Nestorianism?
"The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee. And therefore also the Holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God." Lk. 1:35
"And whence is this to me that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" Lk. 1:43
For, as we must often be saying, he is one and the same, truly Son of God, and truly Son of Man. God, inasmuch as “in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Man, inasmuch as “the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us.” God, inasmuch as “all things were made by him, and without him nothing was made.” Man, inasmuch as he was “made of a woman, made under the law.” The nativity of the flesh is a manifestation of human nature; the Virgin’s child-bearing is an indication of Divine power. The infancy of the Babe is exhibited by the humiliation of swaddling clothes: the greatness of the Highest is declared by the voices of angels. He whom Herod impiously designs to slay is like humanity in its beginnings; but he whom the Magi rejoice to adore on their knees is Lord of all. Now when he came to the baptism of John his forerunner, lest the fact that the Godhead was covered with a veil of flesh should be concealed, the voice of the Father spake in thunder from heaven, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” Accordingly, he who, as man, is tempted by the devil’s subtlety, is the same to whom, as God, angels pay duteous service. To hunger, to thirst, to be weary, and to sleep, is evidently human. But to satisfy five thousand men with five loaves, and give to the Samaritan woman that living water, to draw which can secure him that drinks of it from ever thirsting again; to walk on the surface of the sea with feet that sink not, and by rebuking the storm to bring down the “uplifted waves,” is unquestionably Divine. As then—to pass by many points —it does not belong to the same nature to weep with feelings of pity over a dead friend and, after the mass of stone had been removed from the grave where he had lain four days, by a voice of command to raise him up to life again; or to hang on the wood, and to make all the elements tremble after daylight had been turned into night; or to be transfixed with nails, and to open the gates of paradise to the faith of the robber; so it does not belong to the same nature to say, “I and the Father are one,” and to say, “the Father is greater than I.” For although in the Lord Jesus Christ there is one Person of God and man, yet that whereby contumely attaches to both is one thing, and that whereby glory attaches to both is another; for from what belongs to us he has that manhood which is inferior to the Father; while from the Father he has equal Godhead with the Father. Accordingly, on account of this unity of Person which is to be understood as existing in both the natures, we read, on the one hand, that “the Son of Man came down from heaven,” inasmuch as the Son of God took flesh from that Virgin of whom he was born; and on the other hand, the Son of God is said to have been crucified and buried, inasmuch as he underwent this, not in his actual Godhead; wherein the Only-begotten is coeternal and consubstantial with the Father, but in the weakness of human nature. Wherefore we all, in the very Creed, confess that “the only-begotten Son of God was crucified and buried,” according to that saying of the Apostle, “for if they had known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of Majesty.” But when our Lord and Saviour himself was by his questions instructing the faith of the disciples, he said, “Whom do men say that I the Son of Man am?” And when they had mentioned various opinions held by others, he said, “But whom say ye that I am?” that is, “I who am Son of Man, and whom you see in the form of a servant, and in reality of flesh, whom say ye that I am?” Whereupon the blessed Peter, as inspired by God, and about to benefit all nations by his confession, said, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Not undeservedly, therefore, was he pronounced blessed by the Lord, and derived from the original Rock that solidity which belonged both to his virtue and to his name, who through revelation from the Father confessed the selfsame to be both the Son of God and the Christ; because one of these truths, accepted without the other, would not profit unto salvation, and it was equally dangerous to believe the Lord Jesus Christ to be merely God and not man, or merely man and not God. (From the Dogmatic Letter of St. Leo to Flavian)
If Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Wesley and so many others were so wrong about Mary, what else were they wrong about?
http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ460.HTM
That, my friend, is precisely what we have here. The old heresies, the Evil One's own slanders just keep popping up time and again through the centuries.
Getting into the comments of the Fathers, East and West, Popes and Patriarchs about the execrable Nestorius is a waste of bandwidth. But these, from from the earliest years of The Church, might be of some edification:
"Her friend Ignatius to ... Mary.
Thou oughtest to have comforted and consoled me who am a neophyte, and a disciple of thy [beloved] John. For I have heard things wonderful to tell respecting thy [son] Jesus, and I am astonished by such a report. But I desire with my whole heart to obtain information concerning the things which I have heard from thee, who wast always intimate and allied with Him, and who wast acquainted with [all] His secrets. I have also written to thee at another time, and have asked thee concerning the same things. Fare thou well; and let the neophytes who are with me be comforted of thee, and by thee, and in thee. Amen.
Reply of the Blessed Virgin to This Letter.
The lowly handmaid of Christ Jesus to Ignatius, her beloved fellow-disciple.
The things which thou hast heard and learned from John concerning Jesus are true. Believe them, cling to them, and hold fast the profession of that Christianity which thou hast embraced, and conform thy habits and life to thy profession. Now I will come in company with John to visit thee, and those that are with thee. Stand fast in the faith, and show thyself a man; nor let the fierceness of persecution move thee, but let thy spirit be strong and rejoice in God thy Saviour. Amen." And this from +Irenaeus "Against Heresies, Book V Chap. XIX:
"1. That the Lord then was manifestly coming to His own things, and was sustaining them by means of that creation which is supported by Himself, and was making a recapitulation of that disobedience which had occurred in connection with a tree, through the obedience which was [exhibited by Himself when He hung] upon a tree, [the effects] also of that deception being done away with, by which that virgin Eve, who was already espoused to a man, was unhappily misled,—was happily announced, through means of the truth [spoken] by the angel to the Virgin Mary, who was [also espoused] to a man. For just as the former was led astray by the word of an angel, so that she fled from God when she had transgressed His word; so did the latter, by an angelic communication, receive the glad tidings that she should sustain (portaret) God, being obedient to His word. And if the former did disobey God, yet the latter was persuaded to be obedient to God, in order that the Virgin Mary might become the patroness (advocata) of the virgin Eve. And thus, as the human race fell into bondage to death by means of a virgin, so is it rescued by a virgin; virginal disobedience having been balanced in the opposite scale by virginal obedience. For in the same way the sin of the first created man (protoplasti) receives amendment by the correction of the First-begotten, and the coming of the serpent is conquered by the harmlessness of the dove, those bonds being unloosed by which we had been fast bound to death.
2. The heretics being all unlearned and ignorant of God’s arrangements, and not acquainted with that dispensation by which He took upon Him human nature (inscii ejus quae est secundum hominem dispensationis), inasmuch as they blind themselves with regard to the truth, do in fact speak against their own salvation. Some of them introduce another Father besides the Creator; some, again, say that the world and its substance was made by certain angels; certain others [maintain] that it was widely separated by Horos from him whom they represent as being the Father—that it sprang forth (floruisse) of itself, and from itself was born. Then, again, others [of them assert] that it obtained substance in those things which are contained by the Father, from defect and ignorance; others still, despise the advent of the Lord manifest [to the senses], for they do not admit His incarnation; while others, ignoring the arrangement [that He should be born] of a virgin, maintain that He was begotten by Joseph. And still further, some affirm that neither their soul nor their body can receive eternal life, but merely the inner man. Moreover, they will have it that this [inner man] is that which is the understanding (sensum) in them, and which they decree as being the only thing to ascend to “the perfect.” Others [maintain], as I have said in the first book, that while the soul is saved, their body does not participate in the salvation which comes from God; in which [book] I have also set forward the hypotheses of all these men, and in the second have pointed out their weakness and inconsistency."
Pretty early stuff, about what, gbcdoj, 1400-1500 years before Luther and Calvin came along to straighten The Church out? Of course these two saints didn't have the benefit of the NT the bishops of The Church put together by measuring its various books against the writings of men such as these.
The anti-Marian rhetoric (from what I can tell) began in the mid 19th century when some Protestants began to notice a decline in anti-Catholic bigotry.
Just who created who?
Eph 3:9 And to make all men see , what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:
Col 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
Col 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him for him:
{Was Mary Created for Jesus or Jesus for Mary}?
Col 1:17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
Joh 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily,I say unto you,Before Abraham was, I am.
If I do The Fathers will, will I be the mother of God?
Matt.12:50
"Who is my mother and my brethren? For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven, he is my brother and sister and mother."
Ah! And here all along I thought they'd picked it up from the Turks!
"With the whole Church I acknowledge that Mary, being a mere creature fashioned by the hands of God is, compared to his infinite majesty, less than an atom, or rather is simply nothing, since he alone can say, 'I am he who is'." St. Louis de Montfort, True Devotion to Mary.
Now that we have that settled, why don't you retract your error? Mary is the Mother of God, according to the evangelical witness, as I showed above. Read St. Leo's dogmatic letter to Flavian, and also the Acts of the Council of Ephesus.
Excellent article. Good compare and contrast between tradition and Scripture.
Sincerely
we can better appreciate why Jesus rejected the very concept of traditionalism
What EXACTLY is Jesus AGAINST when He belittles "Traditionalism"? HERE is the confusion for many Protestants. They think that if it is not in the Scriptures, it is Tradition - hence, a bad thing. This is incorrect thinking, as Christ HIMSELF practiced things that were not in the Scriptures, and commanded His apostles to do things that were not in Scripture.
The confusion can be partially solved by looking at Mark's Gospel, when Christ gives us an example (as HE defines it) of a "tradition of men".
But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, [It is] Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; [he shall be free]. And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother; Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye. (Mark 7:11-13)
THIS is the Protestant confusion. A tradition of man is something that NULLIFIES the Word of God. It has NOTHING to do with whether something is in the Scriptures or not! Thus, the idea of "Traditionalism" needs to be re-thought here, especially concerning Mary. Mary certainly does not take ANYTHING away from Christ. Consider the Marian dogmas of the Church. They were defined EXPRESSLY to tell us more about Christ! Mary is a virgin or Mary was Immaculately Conceived merely tells us about the purity required for the New Ark of the Covenant, the live being who would carry the Presence of God. Mary is the Mother of God - NOT the Mother of Christ only - expresses that Jesus IS God!
For many Catholics (and Orthodox), following Mary to Christ is an excellent way towards divinization. We become more like Christ by being humble and submissive to God's will. Mary is an excellent example of this. Certainly, the Church recognized her role within God's Plan of salvation very early - the Church doesn't invent doctrine on the fly, but only what the Church ALREADY PRACTICES! We see Mary in liturgical events way before the Marian dogmas were promulgated. Lex orendi, Lex credendi.
Before posting such an inflammatory article, one should seriously consider that there are several articles of Protestantism that ARE traditions of men in the way that JESUS taught - they keep men from God. Namely, FAITH ALONE and SCRIPTURE ALONE are traditions of men. The first one belittles love. The second one ignores part of the apostolic teachings and orders of Paul, such as 2 Thes 2:15. NOWHERE does the Scripture end the teachings of oral traditions. THESE are the traditions of men, not Marian doctrines.
Regards
Hey Brother,
What is the Catholic position on Jesus not calling Mary, "Mother", but instead he says, "Woman." ?
I had read somewhere that this would have been insultive in the traditional Jewish family, and yet Mary, and all those around who witness and record it don't seem to be offended.
Sincerely
Luke 11:26-27
27 While Jesus was saying these things, one of the women in the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, "Blessed is the womb that bore You and the breasts at which You nursed."
28 But He said, "On the contrary, blessed are those who hear the word of God and observe it."
Jesus' response is not a rejection of the woman's veneration of his mother but an endorsement, despite the word "rather" ("contrary" is misleading). He says, in effect, what makes someone blessed is keeping the word of God. "Rather" has a range of meanings (like "until" in the passage that says Mary knew not a man until she brought forth her firstborn son"). It can mean direct opposition but can also me, "yes, but also more than that . . ." If one reads Scripture as a whole, interprets one scripture with another and if one assumes that the author of the gospel was not stupid and did not put things in haphazardly, then, given what the same author put into Lk 2 about Mary "keeping these words and pondering them" and in Lk 1-2 about being overshadowed by the Holy Spirit and carrying the Word in her womb and giving birth, Lk 11 constitutes an endorsement of veneration of Mary and was so understood in the Church.
I know what the word "rather" means and I know what the word "is" means.
I had read somewhere that this would have been insultive in the traditional Jewish family, and yet Mary, and all those around who witness and record it don't seem to be offended.
I don't know where you read that, but it is incorrect. I have read quite the opposite, first of all. In Jewish culture, the relationship between the mother and an only son is very close. Mary follows Jesus throughout His ministry. Note that Jesus DOES follow her lead at the Wedding of Cana. It makes no sense for Him to abide by her while calling her a derogatory word.
The term "woman" is one of respect - judging by the reaction of others (as you note), this definition is more in line with what we read in the Scriptures. We certainly do not believe that Jesus was disresptful towards His mother, as this is a sin against the Fourth Commandment. In reality, the Scripture allows an insolent child to be stoned by the community. Thus, it is highly unlikely that Christ was being disrespectful towards Mary, for social and religous reasons.
I think the term "woman", besides being one of respect, is meant to draw us to Genesis 3:15 and the "woman" there. John in Revelation also uses the same term "woman" in Rev 12 - which again can be applied to Mary (not exclusively, but she fits).
Regards
Wow! That's quite a way to turn the obvious into the contorted. If Jesus wanted Mary to be "venerated" as you say, wouldn't it make more sense for him to say something more direct and less confusing. He has the perfect oportunity to direct people in their worship, and being God and knowing the future and what confusion will wind up in the Church, He could have just said something like, "That is right for you to honor her, and also..." Instead the verse says "rather" and you want it to mean "also." Interesting.
Sincerely
The early Christians understood it the way I have presented it. You, on the contrary, find it odd only because you have never encountered this reading of it before. But that says more about your lack of exposure to the broad history of the Christian exegesis of the passage than it says about the meaning of the passage itself. I too was surprised the first time I encountered the understanding of the passage that I have given here but I didn't therefore say, "it's obviously a false interpretation" or "that's contorted." Since I'm interested in learning from Scripture, I sat back on my heels and thought about it. And the more I thought, the more sense it made. In fact, the tendentious interpretation is the one that reads "yea, rather" as "No, to the contrary"--the Greek has to be stretched to support that.
What you find to be the obvious meaning was not at all obvious to countless generations of Christians. Go figure!
Moreover, even if the interpretation I am giving is not the obvious one (I think it is, but for the sake of argument, let's suppose it is not), how many times in the Scriptures was Jesus maddeningly cryptic to his followers? Why did he tell people again and again not to tell anyone about his miracles? Wouldn't you expect the author of a carefully crafted book to expect you to do some digging and seek out interconnections between passage A and passage B in order to fully unlock the meaning of the text? Why shouldn't the Scriptures have several layers of meaning?
What a joke. This is the guy whose parents took pains to fulfill the Jewish law with regard to their firstborn, who himself attended the Temple Feasts devotedly, who denounced hypocritical manipulation of tradition but himself said he came to fulfill the law, not to abolish it, who gave new meaning to traditions but you can't give new meaning if you don't start with the traditions. . . .
The author of this piece operates out of a specific traditionalism, namely, the tradition that thinks that Jesus was anti-traditional. Such an interpretation of Jesus was unknown in the history of the Church until modern anti-traditional Protestantism emerged. In the ancient, traditional world (which lasted in Europe until the modern era and in parts of the world until recently) no one could conceive of a world without tradition. The debates were always about "which tradition" not about "tradition versus no-tradition." Jesus lived in the world before Modernity took out after tradition. Jesus could not possibly have been on a jihad against tradition. It was not part of the Jewish faith or of the Christian faith until modern times. But it has become traditional for a lot of modern folk.
The author of this hit-piece is so encapsulated in his own tradition that he can't see how silly it is to claim that Jesus was opposed to traditions. For Jesus the issue was the hash that hypocrites and false teachers had made of tradition while cloaking themselves in tradition. He claimed to offer the true and ultimate fulfillment of the tradition.
But then, people see in the Scriptures what their tradition inculcates in them, in this case, a screed against tradition.
Actually, I'm not sure you do know. Please tell me the meaning of the word "rather" as in the KJV's "Yea, rather"???
Oh, and by the way, you might look at # 17. I don't know where you pulled your "on the contrary" translation from but it's tendentious. If you know the meaning of "on the contrary" you might do a careful comparison of the various translations to see if "yes, rather" or "yes, moreover" or "yes, why not also" is not supported by a good range of translations. Someone snookered you with "on the contrary," someone with an agenda, perhaps.
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.