Posted on 12/08/2012 2:24:39 PM PST by NYer
Do Catholics worship Mary? This question is as old as the Protestant Reformation itself, and it rests, like other disputed doctrinal points, on a false premise that has been turned into a wedge: the veneration of Mary detracts from the worship of Christ.
This seeming opposition between Mary and Christ is symptomatic of the Protestant tendency, begun by Luther, to view the entirety of Christian life through a dialectical lens – a lens of conflict and division. With the Reformation the integrity of Christianity is broken and its formerly coherent elements are now set in opposition. The Gospel versus the Law. Faith versus Works. Scripture versus Tradition. Authority versus Individuality. Faith versus Reason. Christ versus Mary.
The Catholic tradition rightly sees the mutual complementarity of these elements of the faith, as they all contribute to our ultimate end – living with God now and in eternity. To choose any one of these is to choose them all.
By contrast, to assert that Catholics worship Mary along with or in place of Christ, or that praying to Mary somehow impedes Christ’s role as “the one mediator between God and men” (1 Tim 2:5) is to create a false dichotomy between the Word made flesh and the woman who gave the Word his flesh. No such opposition exists. The one Mediator entrusted his mediation to the will and womb of Mary. She does not impede his mediation – she helps to make it possible.
Within this context we see the ancillary role that the ancilla Domini plays in her divine Son’s mission. Mary’s is not a surrogate womb rented and then forgotten in God’s plan. She is physically connected to Christ and his life, and because of this she is even more deeply connected to him in the order of grace. She is, in fact, “full of grace,” as only one who is redeemed by Christ could be.
The feast of Mary’s Immaculate Conception celebrates the very first act of salvation by Christ in the world. Redemption is made possible for all by his precious blood shed on the cross. Yet Mary’s role in the Savior’s life and mission is so critical and so unique that God saw it necessary to wash her in the blood of the Lamb in advance, at the first moment of her conception.
This reality could not be more Biblical: the angel greets Mary as “full of grace” (Luke 1:28), which is literally rendered as “already graced” (kecharitōmenē). Following Mary, the Church has “pondered what sort of greeting this might be” for centuries. The dogma of the Immaculate Conception, ultimately defined in 1854, is nothing other than a rational expression of the angel’s greeting contained in Scripture: Mary is “already graced” with Christ’s redemption at the very moment of her creation.
Because God called Mary to the unique vocation of serving as the Mother of God, it is not just her soul that is graced, as is the case for us when we receive the sacraments. Mary’s entire being, body and soul, is full of grace so that she may be a worthy ark for the New Covenant. And just as the ark of the old covenant was adorned with gold to be a worthy house for God’s word, Mary is conceived without original sin to be the living and holy house for God’s Word.
Thus Mary is not only conceived immaculately, that is, without stain of sin. She also is the Immaculate Conception. Her entire being was specifically created by God with unique privilege so that she could fulfill her role in God’s plan of salvation. “Free from sin,” both original and personal, is the necessary consequence of being “full of grace.”
Protestants claim that veneration of Mary as it is practiced by Catholics is not biblical. St. Paul encouraged the Corinthians to “be imitators of me, as I am of Christ” (1 Cor 11:1). Paul is not holding himself up as the end goal, but as a means to Christ, the true end. And if a person is imitated, he is simultaneously venerated.
If we should imitate Paul, how much more should we imitate Mary, who fulfilled God’s will to the greatest degree a human being could. Throughout her life she humbled herself so that God could be exalted, and because of this, Christ has fulfilled his promise by exalting his lowly mother to the seat closest to him in God’s kingdom.
Mary is the model of humility, charity, and openness to the will of God. She allows a sword to pierce her heart for the sake of the world’s salvation. She shows us the greatness to which we are called: a life free from sin and filled with God’s grace that leads to union with God in Heaven. She is the model disciple, and therefore worthy of imitation and veneration, not as an end in herself, but as the means to the very purpose of her – and our – existence: Christ himself.
God’s lowly handmaiden would not want it any other way.
I’ve become willing to ask Catholics as to their personal views as their personal views but not as what is dogma and doctrine of the Catholic church.
Sounds like a wise move. Less likelihood of being called a liar for relating what another Catholic told you about church doctrine that they disagree with.
There's lots of room for personal opinion (interpretation) within the Catholic belief system.
So point out the contradiction (I responded to some alleged contraditions on the Protoevangelium thread already).
Listen to this statement of what you termed “poetic liberty” in the Evangelium:
“But Mary had forgotten the mysteries of which the archangel Gabriel had spoken, and gazed up into heaven, and said: Who am I, O Lord, that all the generations of the earth should bless me? And she remained three months with Elizabeth; and day by day she grew bigger. And Mary being afraid, went away to her own house, and hid herself from the sons of Israel. And she was sixteen years old when these mysteries happened.”
An angel from God visits and announces one of most momentous events in human history to Mary and....oops! she forgot! AND SHE FORGOT! FORGOT AN ANGEL'S VISIT AND HIS MESSAGE!
Shall I go dismantling this fraud? It's like a one legged table, stand back from it and it will fall over on its own.
Romans 3:21-26 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— 22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. 26 It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
Hey, you!!
What are you doing on this forum making sense?
I hope that by the time we reach # 5,000 the conflict will be resolved!
No one’s perfect.
Well, we all slip once in a while.
It’s understandable.
Carry on.
Romans 3 speaks in very general terms of the state of man before the coming of Christ. According to Romans 3:11-16 "There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God", "there is none that doth good", "The venom of asps is under their lips", "Their feet swift to shed blood", etc.
Whom did Mary murder?
Besides, the entire passage is a quote from Psalms 13 (in your numbering 14), but the scripture also contains the next psalm that speaks of righteous people.
Read the scripture with attention and you will begin to understand it and you will become Catholic, and learn to love it.
It agrees with the scripture though. It disagrees with the false ideas about the scripture prevalent among the Protestants. See, for example, the common misunderstanding that Romans 3 (or the Psalm from which that passage is a citation) teaches of sinfulness of Mary.
And your statement is false logic. All historical literature reflects some bias, but it is evidence of facts nevertheless. It should be read critically, but it cannot be dismissed altogether either because it has inaccuracies, or because it is not inspired scripture.
I prefer you not jump threads but post your specific questions about the Protoevangelium on the thread dedicated to it. Also calling it "fraud" does not make it so.
The conjecture that Mary "had forgotten" the "mysteries" of the Annunciation is indeed a psychological elaboration that rings false. It is an artistic attempt to give a background to Mary's Magnificat (Luke 1:46-55), which it proceeds to quote in part. It does not discredit the factual content of the book.
Let us also remember that Mary is not free from human weakness; she did, for example, forget her child in the Temple. According to the Protoevangelium, she did not forget about the Annunciation altogether, but "of the mysteries". Her subsequent speech explains that her perplexion is not of her mission, but of the fact that it is she who was chosen for it. It is a reasonable and humble attitude, same as when she is rebuked by St. Joseph and answers obliquely.
Does it? Mary had a son named Jesus, she and Joseph married.
Is that the degree to which it agrees with Scripture? I've already pointed out how the Evangelium contradicts Scripture but if I error you have not said in what way, saying, “it agrees with scripture though” doesn't present any real argument.
If Protestants or I misunderstand Romans 3 and Paul's statements about all persons sinning, what is the misunderstanding and what is the error?
“All historical literature reflects some bias, but it is evidence of facts nevertheless”
So the Evangelium is evidence of what facts? What is the support for the things is asserts?
Are there better, more reliable sources available that agree or contradict?
“It should be read critically, but it cannot be dismissed altogether either because it has inaccuracies, or because it is not inspired scripture.”
Fair enough...You posted the Evangelium in whole, what parts would you dismiss as inaccurate, false, etc.? If any?
So take your editorial blue pencil and give me just those parts you see as accurate or on the other hand those parts you would pencil out as inaccurate and bias.
I don't dismiss the Evangelium because it is not Scripture any more than I would Josephus but rather because it contradicts Scripture which I regard as inspired by God. I regard it much like you might regard that movie with Tom Hanks in it about Templar Knights and stories of Jesus having children.
“I prefer you not jump threads but post your specific questions about the Protoevangelium on the thread dedicated to it...” agreed. Meet you there.
It agrees with the scripture in providing a narrative where behavior of Mary and Joseph begins to make sense. I gave you one example: the phrase “I know not man” is not understandable unless you realize that the nature of her betrothal to Joseph was that of a temple virgin not intending to have children. That is a single most important fact not directly contained in the Bible.
Nowhere in YHvH commandments nor Temple virgins ONLY occur in PAGAN Very interesting statement.
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
followers are there "temple virgins".
religions such as the Roman "church"
What temple virgins? Mary’s comment at Luke 1:34 was a statement that she had not had intercourse, had carnal knowledge, with a man so how was this pregnancy to occur. Her question has nothing to with imaginary temple virgins despite Marshall’s blog and misinformation (to be gentle).
Both Mary and Joseph’s conduct is quite understndable without resorting to these tales like the Evangelium. Mary as some sort of temple virgin is a fable pulled from the air. Not one word in the inspired account suggests such a thing. But temple virgins did exist for the pagans.
What temple virgins? Mary’s comment at Luke 1:34 was a statement that she had not had intercourse, had carnal knowledge, with a man so how was this pregnancy to occur. Her question has nothing to with imaginary temple virgins despite Marshall’s blog and misinformation (to be gentle).
Both Mary and Joseph’s conduct is quite understndable without resorting to these tales like the Evangelium. Mary as some sort of temple virgin is a fable pulled from the air. Not one word in the inspired account suggests such a thing. But temple virgins did exist for the pagans.
5,000
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.