This is a very profound point. If Mary were qualified for special or particular grace, for a veneration above the apostles, and bordering on equality with Jesus Himself, Then why wasn't deference shown to her by those apostles?
Why is it that Christ's role is declared so perfectly as to leave no doubt of the intent of the Author, yet the claims for Mary's expanded role (that being more than the human mother of Christ) must be strenuously milked from hidden bits and pieces in a gnostic fashion?
I do not mean this to be an attack, but a reasonable observation that I would like an RC answer for.
This is a very profound point. If Mary were qualified for special or particular grace, for a veneration above the apostles, and bordering on equality with Jesus Himself, Then why wasn’t deference shown to her by those apostles?
= = =
They never really answer that question. And, if rarely and odd one attempts to answer it—the result is always embarrassing illogic and chaff.
It is not true that St. John never mentions Mary again, — she has a chapter dedicated to her in Apocalypse — chapter 12.
St. Paul’s remark that women are sanctified in their childbearing is hard to understand other than if it is a reference to Mary.
It is also not true that the veneration of Mary makes her “more than the human mother of Christ” — this is precisely why she is venerated.
There is no direct sanction to venerate statues of saints specifically, but there is a passage in St. Paul how contemplation of icons brings us to holiness. Adoration of the Crucifix is mentioned twice that I can think of by St. Paul. There is, of course, a direct scriptural sanction to venerate relics of saints.