Posted on 05/19/2008 6:44:32 PM PDT by Manfred the Wonder Dawg
What is Mariology? Essentially, it's the theology that affords devotion to Mary. Does this mean the Catholics worship Mary? Well, yes and no. Publicly, the Roman Catholic Church does not afford Mary the same status as Jesus. However, their reverence for her goes beyond their admiration for even the saints. The Catholic Encyclopedia details a view of Mary that it admits is not Biblical. Their view of her life and her role originate in Catholic tradition - that is, the writings of the popes and theologians, rather than in the Bible.
Biblically, Mary was betrothed to Joseph. Because of her faith, she was chosen to give birth to the Messiah, Jesus Christ. She was overshadowed by the Holy Spirit, and conceived Jesus. There was no physical union, and therefore Jesus was born of a virgin. While no doubt a faithful and godly woman, Mary was nonetheless just a woman. In fact, apart from Acts 1:14, Mary is not mentioned anywhere outside the Gospels (the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John). Even in the Gospels, her spiritual power and authority are almost non-existent. Neither Jesus, nor Paul, nor any other biblical writer ever gave Mary the place or devotion that the Catholic Church has given her. The New Testament epistles (letters) were written for the spiritual guidance of the Church, and have a great deal to say about doctrine and worship. Her absence from the epistles must then call into doubt the role that Catholics ascribe to her.
In Roman Catholicism, Mary (or as she's also called: Our Blessed Lady, Our Blessed Virgin, etc.) is more than human. Catholic Tradition includes the following teachings:
1 Mary's immaculate conception: This doctrine teaches that she was born without original sin, and was therefore sinless throughout her life.
2 During her tutelage in the temple as a child, Mary received almost nightly visits by angels.
3 Mary's perpetual virginity: This doctrine asserts that she had no children before Jesus (a Biblical teaching) or after Him (unbiblical).
4 Mary's physical ascension into heaven: This teaches that because of her sinlessness, Mary never experienced a physical death - the result of sin. Instead, she was raised bodily into the presence of Christ.
5 Mary's role as Co-redemptrix and Mediatrix of all graces: This doctrine holds that the obedience and sufferings of Mary were essential to secure the full redemption bought by Christ.
6 Mary's right to veneration and/or worship: This teaching holds that because of her unparalleled role in salvation, Mary is worthy of special adoration.
There are three specific terms of worship in Catholicism: latria - adoration that is due God alone, dulia - veneration afforded to the saints, and hyperdulia - special veneration given to Mary. In practice, these become practically indistinguishable. As a matter of point, Catholics pray to Mary and expect that she hears and answers all such prayers. This elevates her to a position of deity.
I have already mentioned that the role that is ascribed to Mary by Catholics is unbiblical. Let me give you more evidence of that. Below, I have included an excerpt from the Catholic Encyclopedia, where the writer acknowledges that their interpretation of a passage in the book of Genesis must be more accurate than the original Hebrew text, as their interpretation ascribes more power to Mary:
(1) The first prophecy referring to Mary is found in the very opening chapters of the Book of Genesis (3:15): "I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed; she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel." This rendering appears to differ in two respects from the original Hebrew text:
(2) The second point of difference between the Hebrew text and our version concerns the agent who is to inflict the mortal wound on the servant: our version agrees with the present Vulgate text in reading "she" (ipsa) which refers to the woman, while the Hebrew text reads hu (autos, ipse) which refers to the seed of the woman. According to our version, and the Vulgate reading, the woman herself will win the victory; according to the Hebrew text, she will be victorious through her seed. In this sense does the Bull "Ineffabilis" ascribe the victory to Our Blessed Lady. The reading "she" (ipsa) is neither an intentional corruption of the original text, nor is it an accidental error; it is rather an explanatory version expressing explicitly the fact of Our Lady's part in the victory over the serpent, which is contained implicitly in the Hebrew original. The strength of the Christian tradition as to Mary's share in this victory may be inferred from the retention of "she" in St. Jerome's version in spite of his acquaintance with the original text and with the reading "he" (ipse) in the old Latin version. [Highlighting added by Contender Ministries]
For the record, the text of Genesis 3:15 mentioned above is found that way only in the Catholic version of the Bible. Other versions agree with the original Hebrew text in that the seed of the woman (Jesus) will do the crushing. The Catholic Church has changed scripture to fit with their doctrines. This tactic is the only way the Catholic Church can justify many of its teachings that are unbiblical.
In his book, Revelation Unveiled, author Tim LaHaye says this"
"One of the dangerous trends during the twentieth century in the Church of Rome is the elevation of Mary to a status just short of deity. News media reports indicate that millions have petitioned the Pope to declare her a member of the Trinity, though the official line is that it is not going to happen - yet. Already she is referred to as 'the mother of God' or 'the queen of Heaven' and in some instances appears to be the dispenser of salvation, which contradicts many Scriptures...To even suggest that anyone, even Mary the human mother of Jesus, participates in dispensing the gift of eternal life is not only heresy, it is blasphemous."
As for the Catholic view of Mary as Mediatrix, let me refer you to:
1 Timothy 2:5, "For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus"
>>I am not a research librarian ... read the Book of Acts for yourself ... <<
There is lots of fun Bible software that can be used to post actual references. Usually, when someone quotes the Bible, they know chapter and verse.
Otherwise I could say something like, SkyDancer was in Genesis. And when called on it, say “I am not a research librarian ... read Genesis for yourself ... “
Now doesn’t that look silly?
(I think it was Ironman anyway)
You made the assertion. Back up your statements with chapter and verse. You being a good 'Bible Christian' should be able to do so rather easily.
The word “Mary” appears twice in Acts: 1:14 & 12:12
Neither verse seems to confirm the claim.
Instead of setting up a straw-man to knock down, why don’t you try refuting the actual beleif of catholics, not what you say is their beleif?
Or is it that you can not refute what they say they beleive beleive?
What is your minor premise - that hyperdulia and dulia is impossible or that hyperdulia and dulia are acceptable, proper and “biblical” (which is ACTUAL the Catholic position) but that Catholic’s in practice tend not to limit themselves to dulia and hyperdulia (your major premise)?
“Protestants do not need intervention by Mary or any of the Saints to Jesus ... we can go directly to Him ... I guess you can’t ..”
LOL, you really do not understand the Holy WErit, do you?
>>The word “Mary” appears twice in Acts: 1:14 & 12:12
Neither verse seems to confirm the claim.<<
Oooops!!!
Protestants tend to be very good with the Bible. Especially the parts that talk about Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide...... :-D
Other than the first 2 chapters of Acts, if my memory serves, Mary isn’t mentioned at all in Acts, and there’s no mention of her being a sinner.
Ummm, there’s nothing in your post #30 that contradicts scripture, or the article posted. At the same time nothing in those quotations elevates Mary to the special status given to her officially, as described in the article, in the modern Roman Church.
Yes she was a great and godly woman. But no where in the Epistles to the infant Church, nor the description of the first generation of Christians in Acts, spanning some 30 years, is their any veneration or the very special honor Roman Catholicism gives to Mary today, seen then.
If hyperdulia for Mary is something vitally important—and not a later innovation—why doesn’t Luke in Acts, Paul, Peter, John, James, Jude, and the author of Hebrews make one mention of it?
If there’s a reason why historically, over the long term Roman Catholicism has discouraged Bible reading by laymen, this may be a big part of it.
Do your research ... you’ll find it ... in any event, I don’t need Mary or the ‘saints’ to intervene for me ... I have direct access to God through His Son Jesus .... it is interesting though how many catholic churches there are dedicated to Mary and the Apostles than there are to Jesus ...
All Catholic parishes are dedicated to God first. They're aren't called "houses of God" for nothing. His earthly dwelling place is in the tabernacle. After that, the name of the parish is often the place's primary patron. It can be a saint, or it can be Christ Himself, such as Christ the King, Holy Redeemer, etc.
I would have been burned at the stake by the catholics as a heretic during their early years .... and which Holy Writ are you referring to? I use the New Internal Version ..... show me where I need Mary or the saints to have access to Jesus.....
Catholicism doesn’t deny you can go to Christ directly. In fact, one of the most frequent Catholic prayers is “Lord have mercy” or “Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us.” But your denial of the intercession of the saints is where you go off track. The Church is one, “one earth as it is in heaven.” Death doesn’t separate us from the communion of saints who are with the living God. Just as St. Paul asked others to pray for him, we ask the saints to pray for us and with us.
Big difference ....
Uh, no. You have bought the false history of the black legend.
Again it was the catholic church that came out with the reference first that Mary was born sinless ... that would make two, wouldn’t it? Jesus and Mary which would make Mary the equivalent of Jesus ....
So really what you’re saying is that you were caught stating something that was untrue and now you want to move on to more untrue statements. Okay.
Comedy gold!
“You made the assertion. Back up your statements with chapter and verse. You being a good ‘Bible Christian’ should be able to do so rather easily.”
OK Let’s try:
(Rom 3:23 KJV) For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.
(Rom 3:10-20 KJV) As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one.
(Luke 1:47 KJV) And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.
This is Mary speaking.
(1 Tim 2:5 KJV) For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
Mary knew her own sin and acknowledged her need of a Saviour (Luke 1:47). None of the Lord’s Apostles exalted Mary; none of them applied to her such titles as sinless, immaculate, ever-virgin, Mother of God, Blessed Virgin, Holy Queen, Queen of Heaven, Our Lady, Co-Redemptress, Immaculate Virgin, etc. The Apostles taught us that Jesus Christ ALONE is the Mediator between God and men (1 Timothy 2:5)
How am I doing so far?
And Pyro, are you denying that the catholic church burned people for heresy???
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.