Veneration of Mary in Luke 11:27-28

August 15, 2013 | Annalex

[annalex]

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)

The Virgin with the Child on her knees and a prophet pointing at the star. Catacomb of Priscilla, late 2nd c. Source

Note that there is no condemnation here, not even asking the woman to stop; the "yea rather" (μενουνγε) is not a negation. It is used other times in the New Testament without a hint of negation. In Philippians 3:8 "αλλα μενουνγε και ηγουμαι παντα ζημιαν ειναι", "Furthermore I count all things to be but loss" (Textus Receptus 1550/1894, Byzantine/Majority Text 2000 has here "αλλα μεν ουν και ηγουμαι…" which is the same word morphology spelled separately and colliding affirmative "γε" with the following "και"). Romans 9:20 "μενουνγε ω ανθρωπε συ τις ει ο ανταποκρινομενος τω θεω" and Romans 10:18 "μενουνγε εις πασαν την γην εξηλθεν ο φθογγος αυτων" use the word reinforcing the subsequent statement. Some translations obscure this linguistic fact: in King James for example, the same word is rendered correctly, "yea rather" in Luke 11:28, wholly incongruously, "nay but" in Romans 9:20, but in Romans 10:18 the translation is again correct, "Yes verily". NRSV has both correct and elegant translations for all three. (See The Holy Mother and the "ΜΕΝΟΥΝΓΕ")

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.

[Elsie]

It is rather obvious why: there is no words of Christ to the effect...

Yeah; one just HAS to love the Words of Christ!

---

 

John 6:28-29

Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?”

Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”

---

For they are fairly OBVIOUS.

[Elsie]

...I say to you unless to go through an eye needle ...

So the cutting off the hand thing is LITERAL as well; eh?

[Elsie]

Nothing in this beautiful prayer to Mary takes away from the epithets of God even when similar or identical epithets are used...

True; it merely lavishes praise upon her that should ONLY be used for GOD.

The RCC has made her EQUAL to GOD; for He, too, is SINLESS.

[Elsie]

Saints are not dead (Christianity 101).

Dead saints are, well, dead! (Logic 101).

[annalex]

the buildings at the Vatican ... I tell ya!

The treasures of the Church are the voluntary donations of the rich faithful who wanted to be saved, and mostly were. Also, why ghetto language, -- tired of the classics?

[Elsie]

When the Church, who canonized the Old Testament and wrote, collectively, the New Testament speaks of the Holy Scripture, the Church explains which is her own product, with authority.

If I 'collect' a bunch of writings from others, and then try to pass them off as my own; certain people would tend to say that is, shall we say, a bit improper.

[Elsie]

He was mocking me, the irony is in context and noted.

You deserve to be mocked.

[Elsie]

It is rude, you know, to get a detailed response form me, ignore it and continue droning on without paying attention to the stuff I write.

It is rude, you know, to get a detailed response form from me, try to understand it and continue posting Scripture that directly contradicts the stuff I write.

[annalex]

Yes, the saints are sometimes called “dead in Christ” and “asleep”, and of course we all, saint and reprobate, shall rise again in the resurrection of the body. However, “life everlasting” is promised by Christ to all the faithful and it starts when you are conceived; it is not interrupted by death (Luke 23:43, Matthew 17:3, 1 Corinthians 15:55, John 3:15-16).

[annalex]

Catholics have given what belongs to Christ alone to others and will suffer greatly for it.

Some did. To Mohammed, Luther, to John Smith. They will suffer greatly unless they repent.

[annalex]

We treat God by offering Holy Mass to God. The Protestant simply do not worship God; to them a prayer is worship already. You showed an example of that error.

[annalex]

your claim of Job somehow being a Catholic is absolutely ludicrous

If he is saved, and as he is a glorified saint of the Church he is, then he is Catholic; there is no other kind in heaven.

[annalex]

for the memory of them is forgotten

You have to die Catholic and in good grace; then the Church will remember you; we surely remember Catholic Sts Moses, Elijah, Jeremiah and all the prophets of Israel. Perhaps you should consult the Holy Church before attempting to understand Ecclesiastes.

[Elsie]

Why, people who preferred to be poor and saved.

Really?

[Elsie]

I showed where you do.

Ain't it aggravating when you go to all the trouble of collecting scripture to prove something, and a catholic dismisses it with a wave of the imperial hand and goes on babbling about some lashed together Calvinasaurusization?

[Elsie]

We don't have an example of baptism but in water in the Holy Scripture:

Having 'examples' in scripture has NEVER slowed down the 'church' when it wanted to push something.

[annalex]

The and in that verse says something

It says that "everyone" who "hath forsaken" his relatives and possessions for Christ will have two things: hundredfold return and "everlasting life". Because they are tow things, there is an "and" joining the two. That is what Matthew 19:29 says.

On my profile, there is a collection of bizarre Protestant interpretations of the Gospels. Kindly explain how "and" does not mean "and" in that verse and I will feature you there prominently.

[annalex]

I was not verbose in that post, — I generally rarely am. Iscool claimed the word “saints” is not used in Rev. 5 and 8, and I showed him that it is. This is the “stuff” he ignored, and it is rude, — primarily to the St. John the Evangelist the Revelator who wrote the text for Iscool’s benefit.

[Elsie]

. My point was, they passed on to life eternal but have not received their glorified bodies that the saints shall receive at the General Judgment.

What?

That's a new one!

[annalex]

nothing in Scripture that says a rich man must give away all his money and end his days in a monastery

The gospel simply says -- I paraphrase. "give what you have to the poor and follow Christ". "Monastery" is not there indeed, but monasteries are places created by the Church for that very purpose.