Veneration of Mary in Luke 11:27-28

Once a woman in the crowd surrounding Christ and His disciples cries out to Him:

Blessed is the womb that bore thee, and the paps that gave thee suck. (Luke 11:27)

What is it? We have, clearly, an act of venerating Mary. Note that the Blessed Virgin is venerated properly: not on her own but as the mother of Christ. Yet the reason for venerating is indeed concerning: it is her physiological and physiologically unique relationship with Jesus that is emphasized. That is not yet paganism with its crude theories of gods giving birth to other gods, but it is lacking proper focus and Jesus corrects it:

Yea rather, blessed are they who hear the word of God, and keep it. (Luke 11:28)

Having gotten past this linguistic hurdle, we can understand clearly what this passage, Luke 11:27-28, does: it establishes veneration of saints based not on their blood relation to Christ but on their obedience to God. It is in that sense that we venerate Our Lady: given that Christ is the Word of God personified, she heard and kept both Him in person as her Child and His teaching, figuratively. In Mary the essence of sainthood is seen in the flesh as well as in the mind. We could say that by the late second century at the latest, when we find evidence of the veneration of both the prophets and the Mother of God in the catacombs, the two reasons to venerate a saint: his martyrdom as in the case of Polycarp, or his obedience to the Word, as in Mary, -- unite into a single practice.

Sola fide "deader than a nail" you say. The wikipedia article (hence the description brought from there) does not do justice to sola fide, what it is, and how it functions as part of a theological framework.

None of the five sola's stand alone, but must be taken conceptually all together, for none of the principles are (curiously enough) intended to be "solo".

If that is not done, if the togetherness of the five "solas" (which are all inter-related) are instead broken apart from one another, either by an aspiring but clumsy adherent & advocate, or else otherwise by critics (particularly those who seek to supplant any or all of them with sola ecclesia to greater and lesser extent respectively, but to all extents rhetorically possible for any of the five) then the operating function of the principle being segregated becomes misunderstood, rendering criticisms of the principles convincing only to the negligent, abusive, and/or obtuse. Or in other words, "faith alone" being dead only to those whom themselves, do not only not themselves fully enter in, but who even stand in the door blocking off access to God for all others, if possible.

"Faith alone" (as one of five) is still very much alive, even in an intelligible reading of the very scripture passages you brought to declare it "dead".

In the passages (James 2:17-26) faith itself remains the central subject, even as it is faith put into action, with as the writer much begins "...I will show you my faith by my works."

In other NT passages, we are told much as "be not hearers only of the word, but doers also [of the word]".

That theme, has historically been stressed also, in addition to the "milk" of the Word, with that milk being Christ's own sacrifice by which all penalty for our sins has been paid IN FULL. We cannot add "works", even works in actuality done in proper faith, as towards our own justification towards God.

from Romans 5, Where sin is, grace abounds. Continuing, the Apostle says, "...Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid."

Previously in the same Epistle (in what is now known as Chapter 4

What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, has found? 2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.” 4 Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due. 5 But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness, 6 just as David also speaks of the blessing on the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works:
7 “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds have been forgiven, And whose sins have been covered. 8 “Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will not take into account.”

Now please recall again that the 5 solas hang all together, inseparably. One of those, is "scripture alone" (in stark contrast to the sola ecclesia much promoted by the RCC).

The very passages which you bring in attempt to refute "sola fide" are themselves directed to be taken fully into consideration under sola scriptura (and also in light of those passages I have quoted directly from scripture, above) rendering your argument here against sola fide ineffective. Those who do successfully enough retain the 5 solas all together, putting the principles all simultaneously, together into effect, do not set aside the very scriptures which you seem to think some simple refutation of sola fide, for those passages themselves are part of the "faith" itself, even as they are also included in "scripture only" considerations which are to be applied in determination of proper doctrine, with all of our own acts and being (both outwardly visible, and inwardly existent) judged by the word --- including any and all "tradition" which may arise.

Similarly, sola scriptura cannot be successfully herded away from all the rest as if it were some sort of dumb oxen. It too does not stand alone. Those who constantly harass it -- do seem to have one thing in mind. Kill it off, so the RCC can again have an insidious psychological hold over the minds of men, like the good 'ol days, before the Reformation. The Western world has been there --and done that. Personally --- I have no desire whatsoever to "go back" to Roman Catholic dominated Monarchical feudalism. That sort of thing has been given ample opportunity in times past. The results were quite mixed, producing at times, even hell upon earth, spreading that hellishness liberally wherever papists went breathing out threatenings towards any and all whom would not submit to them, and allow (those who were being threatened) themselves, their lands, and their very lives be plundered and handed over to those whom some distant "pope" gave charter to, and "approval" of (given over much for reason those persons themselves agreed to not argue with that church's overweening claims of "authority", even "to the ends of the earth".)

In my own personal experience, although I cannot say I am strictly Calvinist, I have found taught and spoken of pretty much everywhere which I have been (various other-than "Roman Catholic" churches) that we are are not saved by our works, or indeed can be, yet indeed are all the same called to do good works, even as the urging and encouraging towards doing so can be seen throughout scripture. Yet even there, it is not the "doing" of good works, which is itself the sought for greater sanctification unto which Christians are called...

What we are to not do, is to put ourselves back under the law (which none can keep perfectly well enough) or to look to our own good works as any sort of our own justification before God. Even as we are called to do go works, we are saved for the doing of good, not primarily saved by "doing good" (though avoiding sin can avoid the fruit of it, that's for sure) for the latter consideration -- a measuring of ourselves as to how much or how well we are "doing good", compared to falling short of that, would bring us yet back again fully under law itself, with our own salvation once again fully dependent upon our own works rather than by faith alone in Christ alone. The Apostle Paul warned against reverting back to looking upon our works as justification, with other example found in the NT such as the hypocrite which looks to all of his own "good works" under the law, thinking himself justified before God by them, prays to God thanking Him that he (the 'perfect doer') was "not made as other men", with in contrast it being the sinner who acknowledged his own sin before God (even the one whom the hypocrite looked down upon?) who went down to his own house "justified".

Now to "justification" which is by Christ alone (nothing but the blood of Jesus -- which even under RCC theology one is commanded to drink of) there is also indeed much call to greater sanctification, an abiding in the graces of God, resisting evil not by way of our own self-righteousness, or needing fight temptation all on our lonesome like a white-knuckled dry drunk[ard] (trying to resist temptation to again drink alcohol) but resisting sin by a very simple formula found in James 4 --- Submit to God, resist the devil, and he [the devil] shall flee. Under this formula, by which we can better set aside the sins which so easily beset us, we can better make room for the Spirit to abide within us, for that to bubble up from where it was placed within, it's scope increased to fill us even as we enter into his gates with thanksgiving, and into His courts with praise where we find that increased sanctification itself be not "us" there with Him, but His Spirit within us having the increase.

Is that enough basic "works" to make you happy? Or does one need go to some church approved museum and look at dead stuff, and listen to just the right sermons and teachings, learning granting those thing mental assent in order to "build up treasury of merit" through "good works"? Though I cannot find the exact comment...those sort of things have been included in "acts of corporeal mercy and love" on this forum, and I thought by yourself on this thread, but being as it has run past a thousand now, I cannot find it. Yet we know of indulgences being granted from official RCC sources for among other things --- to the faithful participating in celebrations for 28th World Youth Day, including those who

The faithful who on account of a legitimate impediment cannot attend the aforementioned celebrations may obtain Plenary Indulgence under the usual spiritual, sacramental and prayer conditions, in a spirit of filial submission to the Roman Pontiff, by participation in the sacred functions on the days indicated, following the same rites and spiritual exercises as they occur via television or radio or, with due devotion, via the new means of social communication.

opening up indulgences granted to twitter followers, somewhat taking us from "Scotty, beam me up" to a "Francis, tweet me out of Purgatory" kind of thingy...

You've otherwise said here that "we are saved by our works".

Let us examine again what "sola fide" actually is, rather than the cartoon version of it you do seem to be bashing, declaring "faith" of all Protestants dead.

From http://www.monergism.com/directory/link_category/Five-Solas/

Unwarranted confidence in human ability is a product of fallen human nature ... God's grace in Christ is not merely necessary but is the sole efficient cause of salvation. We confess that human beings are born spiritually dead and are incapable even of cooperating with regenerating grace. We reaffirm that in salvation we are rescued from God's wrath by his grace alone. It is the supernatural work of the Holy Spirit that brings us to Christ by releasing us from our bondage to sin and raising us from spiritual death to spiritual life. We deny that salvation is in any sense a human work. Human methods, techniques or strategies by themselves cannot accomplish this transformation. Faith is not produced by our unregenerated human nature. - Cambridge Declaration

And;

39. What are the “five solas,” and what do they mean?

The “five solas” is a term used to designate five great foundational rallying cries of the Protestant reformers. They are as follows: “Sola Scriptura” (Scripture Alone); “Sola Gratia” (Grace Alone); “Sola Fide” (Faith Alone); “Solus Christus” (Christ Alone); and “Soli Deo Gloria” (To God Alone Be Glory).
These “five solas” were developed in response to specific perversions of the truth that were taught by the corrupt Roman Catholic Church. The Roman Church taught that the foundation for faith and practice was a combination of the scriptures, sacred tradition, and the teachings of the magisterium and the pope; but the Reformers said, “No, our foundation is sola scriptura”. The Catholic Church taught that we are saved through a combination of God's grace, the merits that we accumulate through penance and good works, and the superfluity of merits that the saints before us accumulated; the reformers responded, “sola gratia”. The Catholic Church taught that we are justified by faith and the works that we produce, which the righteousness that God infuses in us through faith brings about. The reformers responded, “No, we are justified by faith alone, which lays hold of the alien righteousness of Christ that God freely credits to the account of those who believe”. The Catholic Church taught that we are saved by the merits of Christ and the saints, and that we approach God through Christ, the saints, and Mary, who all pray and intercede for us. The Reformers responded, “No, we are saved by the merits of Christ Alone, and we come to God through Christ Alone”. The Catholic Church adhered to what Martin Luther called the “theology of glory” (in opposition to the “theology of the cross”), in which the glory for a sinner's salvation could be attributed partly to Christ, partly to Mary and the saints, and partly to the sinner himself. The reformers responded, “No, the only true gospel is that which gives all glory to God alone, as is taught in the scriptures.”

Romans 3:28 (from the Apostle Paul)

"For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law."

Romans 4:4-5 (again, for re-emphasis) says,

"Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due. But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness."

Again and again in the Epistle to the church at Rome, in chapter after chapter, we see Paul asserting justification by faith (alone).

Try an experiment. Put all theological discussion aside if you will, and re-read the entire Epistle (or book) written to those of the church at Rome. After doing so, say every four months or so over the course of a years time, THEN you may be better able to understand the central core of "Protestant", Baptist, Congregationalist, & Pentecostal theological considerations concerning the relationship of "faith" to "works".

I am Catholic, I stand by my statement that Jesus did not receive His divinity from Mary, and I will stand corrected if any fellow Catholic proves me wrong form the Catechism, patristic consensus, or the Holy Scripture.

Hey, great. Fine. Wonderful. I fully agree with what you said, "Jesus did not receive His divinity from Mary."

But did you understand what I was trying to say? When I have pointed that very thing out, then the lectures and even personal attacks aimed towards myself, along with all "Protestants" in general would come, particularly those who voice objections to the "hyper" portion of the "dulia" that those who are part of the RCC are instructed must be directed towards Mary as her own singular due...

As to the rhetoric we would at times be bashed with such as; "There are not two Christs. The homeostasis concept proves she was Mother of the divine. To speak of her as not being mother of his divinity [note the wording] is to divide Christ(!)" with various correspondents using that line of argumentation also referencing past theological controversies, while simultaneously comparing other-than RC Christians to past "heretics" or calling them "Nestorian" for daring express the very thought which you here have just fully agreed to.

Many other FRomans would chime in with the heretic hunters, agreeing that all objections were just the same old "heresies" all over again.

Things of this nature still divide us, for the not only are aspects of dulia still quite questionable on their own, the "hyper" portion of it directed singularly towards Mary is beyond the pale.

Not seeking here or requiring from you personally any particular answer, but rhetorically asking instead;
What "hyper" obedience or "hearing of God's word and keeping it" did Mary herself accomplish, over and above every other person, both all those who went before her, and those whom came along after who may be looked upon as "saintly"?

Well, let's see...oh, I know! Pick me teacher, pick me! I know the answer! It's because she is Mother of God! ding-ding-ding we have winner(?) since even though Jesus Himself did NOt establish that Mary should "be venerated" for reason of being his earthly mother, but rather (there's that "rather" word again) He clearly enough and firmly enough disestablished that she should "highly regarded" for that reason, (as developed in RCC terminolgy) venerated ... she still IS afforded all this extra super-duper "dulia" chiefly because she is mother to the man we know of as Jesus.

She has been promoted to being Queen of Heaven also, very much on the strength that she was his earthly mother (along with also being identified as the "woman" seen travailing in childbirth, "crowned" with twelve stars --although those passages in the book of Revelation do not there pronounce her "Queen") with various Roman Catholics here too, reaching back towards OT passages concerning one of king David's wives (the wife that was first the wife of another man even(!) which David, in sin first coveted, then arranged for that "husband" to die in battle, so that he could then have her) as "queen mother" for additional justification of promoting or speaking of Mary as now being Queen of Heaven.

You'll have to excuse myself and more than a few others for having serious problems with the sort of exegesis we see being used in apparent post el-facto manner to justify that which should never be (the semi-deification of Mary) nor even ever was "passed down from Christ and the Apostles", but is much more invention of those whom claimed themselves "successors". In this building up of a cult of Mary, it really only took off after the FRAUD which was the Protoevangelium of James made it's first splash some time near the middle of the 2nd century (just long enough after Christ for the Apostles and the first generation of successors to have "expired", hence unavailable for personal refutation of the pseudograph) to have Mary in sense, in the minds of the heathens struggling to "understand" even the things of God, taking place of previous goddesses such as Diana, appealing to those much unschooled and ignorant of Jewish religious understandings of long standing -- such as "Hear Oh Israel, our God is One". Not a multiple, not a pantheon, not humans beings now ascended (save for Christ who Himself first came down from Heaven, as it is written) etc.

All the talk in the world now at this late date, concerning Mary's alleged obedience (instead of simply her being the one young woman of her own specific place and time, chosen by God to have given birth to the Hebrew Messiah) is just so much rhetorical smokescreen to cover for the fundamental error of having afforded her the "hyper" regard based very much (more than anything else) on the very grounds which He explicitly denied in eyes of even God Himself was proper, true, just...for when He speaks (and Christ does indeed speak for His Father, to all) the words are Holy, thus in all ways true, just and proper in and of their every occurrence.

The passages you began all this mess with (this thread) do not exactly "establish veneration" as recommended practice. There was a woman visibly corrected by Christ Himself for "venerating" Mary, due to her being his earthly mother.

In the passages cited Christ did not necessarily establish as you say, that "venerating" of human beings be in of itself good or recommended to do.

The act of "venerating" as you put it, differs from blessedness itself -- for one can be indeed blessed by God whether or not anyone else recognizes it. More precisely, Jesus speaking not from the same human perspective as the person he offered correction towards, spoke and gave reply from perspective of God Himself (Christ spoke on earth for his father) as to who it was that was in reality "blessed". He did not directly endorse the act of one human being "venerating" another, in of itself. While upon the earth, walking as a man (in the form of a man) He never once encouraged open worship of Himself either, but instead pointed everyone towards the One Creator, instructing us (we who would be Christians) not to pray to even himself (the Son of God) but instead to pray to the Father, in His (the Son's) name...

But I've got to hand it to you. The slipperyness of the rhetoric used to justify all this praying to saints, which is also much visibly bound up with the "hyper" quasi-worship of Mary, due to the compounding of error (erroneous *thinking*) is a thing (bundle?) difficult to unravel. I can see how one could get themselves fully lost when themselves retracing all the steps it takes to get to the summary of your initial overall presentation.

Just having to point out the mistake at the root of the 'Catholic" hyper-ventilating and imaginative waxing poetical concerning Mary, has taken here...many words, which themselves would be totally unnecessary if one was to have simply listened to God in the first place (instead of listening to "church" saying "what He really meant to say is..." all this other, such as you go to such lengths to justify, promote & protect) in regards to Luke 11:27-28.

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.