An Example of Hyper Hyper Hyper Dulia?

[notsmart]

People are allowed to believe it. Not forced. He’s making an argument that we should focus more on Mary, and the Church says “that’s an ok argument to make.” That’s my understanding.

I think I understand. I am just wondering if this is a case of “focusing” or loosing all focus.

 

[Scottgun]

I have a dumb question. Does anyone have to believe what Ligouri says or thinks? IOW, is this just his own personal spirituality and his own theological speculation?
But, even if so, is it approved or not approved?


I dont have a real problem with the first thing on the list, but some of the others are just

Short answer: no. It’s a devotional, not a doctrinal treatise. Alot more leeway is permitted in devotionals. And I should also point out that Ligouri clarifies at the beginning that these are only to be taken in sense of being in line with Church teaching:

Lest anyone think that any propositions expounded in this book are too advanced, I declare that I mean them in the sense in which they are conformable to the teachings of Holy Church and of sound theology. For example, in calling Mary our mediatress, I mean that she is a mediatrix of *grace, *and that her office differs from that of Jesus Christ, who is our principle and sole mediator of justice. In calling Mary *omnipotent, *(as Saint John Damascene, Saint Peter Damian, Saint Bonaventure, Saint Cosmas of Jerusalem, and others have done), I intend to signify that, as Mother of God, she obtains from him by her prayers all that she asks for the benefit of others. Taken absolutely, neither mediation nor omnipotence is attributable to Mary, since she is only a creature. In calling her our hope, I mean that all graces (as Saint Bernard teaches) pass through her hands.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Here is a dialog by Dave Armstrong on the Glories of Mary: Does St. Alphonsus de Liguori, in “The Glories of Mary”, Teach That Mary is “Above God” and Can “Manipulate God”? (vs. Len Lisenbee)

Should help settle whether context is needed or not.

St. Alphonsus Liguori’s intro is a lot like St. Louis de Montfort’s intro from True Devotion to Mary:*With the whole Church I acknowledge that Mary, being a mere creature fashioned by the hands of God is, compared to his infinite majesty, less than an atom, or rather is simply nothing, since he alone can say, “I am he who is”. Consequently, this great Lord, who is ever independent and self-sufficient, never had and does not now have any absolute need of the Blessed Virgin for the accomplishment of his will and the manifestation of his glory. To do all things he has only to will them.*St. Louis has paragraphs, which, when taken apart from this intro. could be as misunderstood as St. Alphonsus.

St. Alphonsus Liguori had a similar intro, and those who extract his high-flown language on Mary apart from such an intro do him a disservice, when He most clearly understands God to be supreme. If you believe his words in the rest of the book, you should believe him in his intro. From there, if one is truly interested in the theology of St. Alphonsus Liguori, one should attempt to see Mary as he sees her, and not have some reflex that he speaks “utter blasphemy”.

Like Armstrong mentioned in his rebuttal, most Protestants know very little about Mary. Catholics, of course, understand Mary’s “fiat” quite differently, that God in His sovereignty delivered Himself to the world through her, to which she freely complied. Or how she interceded for the people at Cana even though Jesus initially seemed to resist. Or how God ordained her to be preserved from the devil in Genesis. Etc…

Is St Alphonsus Liguori’s language often difficult to digest? For most Protestants, certainly, for many Catholics, even so as well. However, it does not change the underlying glory to God in Marian devotion that St. Alphonsus believed as well as all Christians with an authentic, Christ-centric Marian devotion.

Too many Protestants turn a blind eye to Catholics who state Christ is the one mediator and who yet understand Mary as the deliverer of grace, Christ Himself. Instead the mud flies and Catholic remain misunderstood—only the second half of the Catholic position is put forth as blasphemous exhibit A. The challenge for Catholics is to educate the marvelous truths about Mary to the world without compromise and with charity and clarity. Because these kind of threads are most disappointing to me.

 

[PerryJ]

Worship of Mary is wrong. Veneration is not only acceptable it is Biblical.

As Pope John Paul has put it: “in venerating the most blessed virgin Mary, we must keep in mind the infinite distance between the creature and the Creator.”

Do some take it over board? Perhaps, as in anythig there are failures.

 

[notsmart]

I just don’t see Mary as someone who claimed to have the kind of authority we see described here. Jesus made bold claims of authority, and if he knew his mother would need to be understood this way, I just wonder why he never mentioned these things to the apostles? I mean, I have no problem with perpetual virginity
and I can even accept the sinless at conception, but some of the things here are a bit hard right now to see, but I will try.

 

[HolyNameOfJesus]

The following is a good reason of why Protestants find the Roman Catholic dogma of the intercession of Mary to be inherently dangerous and, in the example here, utterly blasphemous … From St. Alphonsus Liguori’s The Glories of Mary …

St. Alphonsus Ligouri is a Saint and Doctor of the Catholic Church, and his being named “Doctor of the Church” in 1871 by Pope Pius IX gives a weight to his writings beyond that of even other great Catholic thinkers. But his works, like those of any other Saint, or any other person for that matter, are best read in the context in which they were written, meaning that the reader ought to have some, at least implicit, grounding in the doctrinal, moral, cultural, and philosophical atmosphere in which the author’s own thoughts were shaped or to which they were reacting. Which in practical terms means that it will be hard for someone grounded in an American Protestant tradition to appreciate or fully understand St. Alphonsus when he is writing from and to the great European and Roman Catholic tradition.

For a first step in becoming familiar with Catholic devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary, you might start with the following, and then revisit the Glories of Mary:
scripturecatholic.com/blessed_virgin_mary.html
scripturecatholic.com/mary_qa.html
vatican.va/edocs/ENG0224/_INDEX.HTM

 

[ralphinal]

I just don’t see Mary as someone who claimed to have the kind of authority we see described here. Jesus made bold claims of authority, and if he knew his mother would need to be understood this way, I just wonder why he never mentioned these things to the apostles? I mean, I have no problem with perpetual virginity
and I can even accept the sinless at conception, but some of the things here are a bit hard right now to see, but I will try.

He may have told them. John’s Gosple says that not everything Jesus said or did is recorded.

Anyway, there is no reason that you must have a devotion to the Blessed Virgin. You can be a happy, faithful Catholic without it. If it bothers you to think that way, it is fine. What you cannot do is deny the Marian Dogmas (Immaculate Conception, Perpetual Virginity, Assumption into Heaven).

 

[notsmart]

He may have told them. John’s Gosple says that not everything Jesus said or did is recorded.

Anyway, there is no reason that you must have a devotion to the Blessed Virgin. You can be a happy, faithful Catholic without it. If it bothers you to think that way, it is fine. What you cannot do is deny the Marian Dogmas (Immaculate Conception, Perpetual Virginity, Assumption into Heaven).

Do people really care about the assumption? I should re-phrase to say- why do people reject that? Its not like it never happened in the bible before.

 

[ralphinal]

Do people really care about the assumption? I should re-phrase to say- why do people reject that? Its not like it never happened in the bible before.

Honestly, i do not know why that one is an issue. First, as you pointed out, it has happened to other people. Second, as Jesus told Peter, what is it to you what happens to John? If Jesus wants to let his momma in heaven in her glorified body early, so what? Now, I think that part of it is that it is not in the Bible. Part of it is because it is Catholic thought (and EO). Part of it is a lack of understanding about why it makes sense.

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

St. Alphonsus Liguori also wrote in a rather florid style, quite common in its day, that in our era seems hopelessley “purple prose”. But you have to take that into consideration on any period literature.

The other context often forgotten, Liguori was writing when the heresy of Jasenism was raging through Catholic seminaries (essentially re-warmed Calvinism; almost everything was considered sinful and damning, therefore most people, including Catholics, were damned) so St. Alphonsus was using devotion to Mary to get people to stop being so scared of God .

 

[TriuneUnity]

Honestly, i do not know why that one is an issue. First, as you pointed out, it has happened to other people. Second, as Jesus told Peter, what is it to you what happens to John? If Jesus wants to let his momma in heaven in her glorified body early, so what? Now, I think that part of it is that it is not in the Bible. Part of it is because it is Catholic thought (and EO). Part of it is a lack of understanding about why it makes sense.

Mainly because there is no clear evidence of the assumption and the Church requires it as de fide dogma in order to be in union with the Church. Otherwise, I don’t dispute much with people who hold to it.

 

[ralphinal]

Mainly because there is no clear evidence of the assumption and the Church requires it as de fide dogma in order to be in union with the Church. Otherwise, I don’t dispute much with people who hold to it.

I should have put that in. You are correct about that.

I hold that it is not in the Bible because she had not died before the Acts was written. That is just my opinion.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Your original post had a lot of references, and you sort of grouped them as blasphemies. Could you be more clear about where and what the precise blasphemy is? (As in, “here’s what Liguori or x saint says, and here’s why it’s blasphemy”).

Oh just about the whole thing. Specifically the exaltation of Mary far beyond what appears in Scripture. That God listens to her as if by command, that going to her is better than going to Christ, etc. It takes it far beyond anything resembling “honor” and is rank idolatry. I don’t have a problem with saying that many Catholics would find this offensive, too, but, unfortunately, the Church has given rise to this kind of inane attempt to be anything remotely like Christian teaching.

And could we agree on the following things, to form some common Christian basis?
(1) That 1 Timothy 2:5’s reference to “one Mediator” is a reference to Christ’s atonement (that there is no other way to salvation), and not to intercessory prayer (as the rest of the sentence, and the surrounding context, demonstrate), and that likewise, John 14:6 doesn’t mean we can’t have others intercede for us before the Father (and we can even pray to Him ourselves!)?

We can pray to Him through Christ’s mediation, yes.

(2) That Mary occupies a special role as “God-bearer,” that she was proclaimed in prophesy by Isaiah, that God the Son voluntarily subjected Himself to her and St. Joseph (Luke 2:51), and so forth?

No problem here, except that OT typology is fulfilled in Christ, not Mary.

(3) That Mary was an Ark of the New Covenant, as the one called to bear Christ?

I don’t agree with this language, but yes, she was called to bear Christ.

(4) That all generations are to call Mary “Blessed” (Luke 1:48)?

Agreed.

(5) That as Christ was called to be the “last Adam” (1 Corinthians 15:45), Mary was called to be a “last Eve,” which is why Christ refers to her by the name Adam refers to Eve by (John 2:4; cf. Genesis 2:23)?

Only if everytime you see the word “woman” in Scripture in automatically refers to Genesis-John Marian typology. Which, of course, would be absurd. Therefore, there is no reason to see the Johannine passages to be saying anything like Catholic.com apologists use it.

(6) That Mary was “Kecharitomene,” or Grace-filled (Luke 1:28)?

I don’t interpret a simple greeting by an angel to be filled with all sorts of Marian doctrines that apologists have to go through tortured explanations in order to even make remotely sensible. Considering the other uses of the same exact word, I cannot read into this example the Immaculate Conception, et al.

(7) That intercessory prayer is thoroughly Biblical?

Yes.

(8) That prayers can make an impact on the plan of God [not against the Will of God, but supported BY that Will] (Genesis 18:16-33; cf. Isaiah ch. 36-39)?

As a means to an end, yes.

(9) That Jesus has specifically granted requests of Mary, even those He seemed He would not otherwise grant (John 2:1-11)?

And there’s no indication that Mary knew that Jesus was going to turn water into wine. I am not sure how much can be read into this.

I’m just trying to figure where the precise points of agreement and disagreement are between our views of the role of Mary and intercessory prayer, because I feel that a lot of misunderstanding plagues these sorts of dialogues.

That is right…and part of the misunderstanding on the Protestant side is the attempt to downplay the significance of Marian teaching in the face of absurd comments like those made by Liguori.

 

[PerryJ]

Triune,

You are fired up today! Nothing like a good conversation about Mary to get the energy flowing.

I can get Bible verses to support the Catholic point of view; but, in a nutshell no person (other than Christ) is the equal to Mary. This is required as God interacted with Mary with the Birth of Christ. You know all of the verses about God interacting with man. As such if other men would be assumed wouldn’t Mary logically be assumed? If in revelation man has to be cleansed to enter heaven wouldn’t it follow that Mary would have to be sinless to interact with God/Christ at the level she did?

 

[TriuneUnity]

Triune,

You are fired up today! Nothing like a good conversation about Mary to get the energy flowing.

LOL…Yeah, I admit, reading that idiotic book did get me more “fired” up than the subject usually does.

I can get Bible verses to support the Catholic point of view; but, in a nutshell no person (other than Christ) is the equal to Mary. This is required as God interacted with Mary with the Birth of Christ. You know all of the verses about God interacting with man. As such if other men would be assumed wouldn’t Mary logically be assumed? If in revelation man has to be cleansed to enter heaven wouldn’t it follow that Mary would have to be sinless to interact with God/Christ at the level she did?

Scripture says a lot more in exaltation of John the Baptist and Abraham than it does of Mary.

 

[PerryJ]

I don’t interpret a simple greeting by an angel to be filled with all sorts of Marian doctrines that apologists have to go through tortured explanations in order to even make remotely sensible. Considering the other uses of the same exact word, I cannot read into this example the Immaculate Conception, et al.

Is it a simple greeting? An angel giving a message concerning coming of the Lord certainly does not denote a simple greeting to me. In addition the verb used in this passage refers to a grace given perpetually. This is different than how it is used in other Bible verses. The root word is the same; however, it is not the same use of the word in the Bible. It has a different tense than all the other examples I have seen.

A case can even be made that Mary is being called “Full of Grace” as a proper noun. Just as others in the Bible where given new names. A new name in the Bible equates to a grace often being given to the recipient in question.

 

[PerryJ]

LOL…Yeah, I admit, reading that idiotic book did get me more “fired” up than the subject usually does.

Scripture says a lot more in exaltation of John the Baptist and Abraham than it does of Mary.

Agreed; however, this does not prove the negative that Mary can’t be. I agree that much of Mary is not explicitly stated. I do agree with the logic that one can get from the Bible. I do see how Mary would have to be sinless when one takes into account all the other times God interacted with man and what occurred. God does not directly interact with the uncleansed. With Jesus this changes; however, Mary is interacting with God. (For simplicity I am leaving out the Trinity for now). She has to be cleansed, sinless. Some of the stories that support this is the Ark of the Covenant, God visiting Mount Sinai, Temple priest interaction with God at the temple etc

 

[Mystic_Warrior]

It’s funny, but Martin Luther seemed to retain the Catholic beliefs about Mary. See HERE

While I am sure he would oppose the language used in the work before us, he certainly had no problem with the IC, perpetual virginity, assumption, etc.

Peace…

MW

 

[TriuneUnity]

Is it a simple greeting? An angel giving a message concerning coming of the Lord certainly does not denote a simple greeting to me. In addition the verb used in this passage refers to a grace given perpetually. This is different than how it is used in other Bible verses. The root word is the same; however, it is not the same use of the word in the Bible. It has a different tense than all the other examples I have seen.

A case can even be made that Mary is being called “Full of Grace” as a proper noun. Just as others in the Bible where given new names. A new name in the Bible equates to a grace often being given to the recipient in question.

Well, I am no expert on the Greek here, but I will try to use what sources I have to address it. Bauer’s A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature defines the usage of “caritoo” at Luke 1:28, “favored one (in the sight of God).” No lexical source that I have found gives the meaning of caritoo as “sinlessness.” The term refers to favor - in the case of Luke 1:28, divine favor, that is, God’s grace. The only other occurrence of caritoo is in Ephesians 1:6, “…to the praise of His glorious grace, which he freely bestowed (caritoo) on us in the Beloved.” If the bare term caritoo means “sinlessness,” then it follows that the elect of God throughout their lives have been sinless as well.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Agreed; however, this does not prove the negative that Mary can’t be. I agree that much of Mary is not explicitly stated. I do agree with the logic that one can get from the Bible. I do see how Mary would have to be sinless when one takes into account all the other times God interacted with man and what occurred. God does not directly interact with the uncleansed. With Jesus this changes; however, Mary is interacting with God. (For simplicity I am leaving out the Trinity for now). She has to be cleansed, sinless. Some of the stories that support this is the Ark of the Covenant, God visiting Mount Sinai, Temple priest interaction with God at the temple etc

And the problem with a lack of explicit evidence in the case of the Marian dogmas is that all of it is reasoning and examples of ridiculous argumentation by churchmen down through the centuries. Some of it is downright laughable. One can certainly make many valid arguments for some of the Marian doctrines, but to force them as binding on the consciences of the faithful is beyond crazy.