An Example of Hyper Hyper Hyper Dulia?

[Pax]

Paul was admant about believers being focussed on Christ alone. We see him making the strongest statement to this effect in 2 Corinthians 11:3 when he writes these words–But I am afraid that, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds will be led astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ.

Can you think of one writer of the NT that ever exhorts Christians to pray or focus on Mary?

Mary leads us to Jesus and helps us focus on our savior. She is a marvelous example. I pray that I could love Jesus as Mary loves Him.

In 2 Cor 11:3 Paul is warning us about accepting a “different Jesus” and a different gospel.[see verse 4]

Our views on Mary do not bring a different gospel or a different Jesus. In fact, the Catholic doctrines concerning Mary speak volumes about the truth of Jesus.

As far as writers focusing on Mary, I can only say that the gospels and the book of Revelation give us important data on her that we cannot ignore. Moreover, we know by scripture that she will be called “blessed” by all generations. For the most part, it is only Catholics that seem to call her that.

I think that non-Catholics unreasonably diminish Mary. She is part of God’s divine plan and she is the mother of Jesus. She was at the marriage feast of Cana and was an important instrument of God in initiating Jesus actions to turn the water into wine which was his first public miracle. This event kicked off his public ministry and invitation to the kingdom.

Mary stood beneath the tree upon which Jesus saved us in juxtaposition to Eve beneath the tree in the garden of Eden. Eve brought sin into the world, and Mary brought Jesus our redeemer into the world. As she stood beneath the tree of the cross, Jesus entrusts her to the disciple who loves him, and gives the disciple who loves him his mother. Mary is present and praying with the disciples at Pentecost while they waited for the coming of the Holy Spirit. Pentecost is the birth of the Church.

Revelation 12 puts much of this into perspective, and the parallels between Luke chapter 1 and 2 Samuel Chapter six involving the Ark of the Covenant are absolutely stunning. Scripture says plenty about Mary and all of it should be pondered. None of it diminishes Jesus. All of it speaks to and points to Jesus and gives greater glory to God.

Paul exhorts us to imitate him and others in 2 Thess 3:7-9. See also Phil 3:17 and other passages that do the same thing such as Hebrews 13:7. In Romans 4:12 Paul says to imitate Abraham as an example of faith. If Paul gives this kind of advice to us concerning himself, his peers, and Abraham then it is reasonable to also look to Mary in the same fashion. None of it detracts from a pure and simple devotion to Jesus. It is all part of that same simple and pure devotion to Jesus because it helps us appreciate Him more and more.

I hope this helps.

 

[PerryJ]

Sub tuum praesidium: Discovered in 1938 in a third–century Egyptian papyrus, is a short prayer from around 250 that presumes that Mary has attained a place in heaven as the exalted Mother of God.

We fly to your patronage , O holy Mother of God
Despise not our petitions in our necessities
But deliver us from all dangers
O glorious and blessed Virgin.

 

[Pax]

…
…

Just because certain things have happened in the past does not mean it happened with Mary. Their is no eyewitness accounts of it in the first century to support the claim.
…
…

We have the witness of John in Revelation 12.

 

[Pax]

If we were discussing the Trinity we would find a number of passages to support it. This is not so with much of the marian doctrines and passages.

…
…

I disagree with your assessment of how much scripture exists to support the Trinity versus Marian doctrines. I say this because so much depends on interpretation. You and I would agree on the passages supporting the doctrine of the Trinity, but none of it is all that clear cut. We analyze and connect the passages as they pertain to the Trinity. Mormons, JW’s, and others do not make these same connections and they argue passionately against the doctrine of the Trinity. This was not a clear cut doctrine and it required interpretations and declarations by the Catholic Church to bring clarity to our understandings.

Likewise, the church has analyzed, interpreted, and connected all of the passages on Mary in bringing clarity to the truths about Mary. Others may argue against the doctrines, but it will still be by way of interpretation. This ultimately comes back to authority. So far, no one has ever been able to demonstrate to me that they have more authority than the Church. They have not been able to do so by way of scripture, history, or logic.

 

[justasking4]

Originally Posted by justasking4
…
…

Just because certain things have happened in the past does not mean it happened with Mary. Their is no eyewitness accounts of it in the first century to support the claim.

Pax
We have the witness of John in Revelation 12.

Here is what one prominent Catholic scholar says about this:
Raymond Brown and J.A. Fitzmyer, editors of the Jerome Biblical Commentary (2:482):
a woman: Most of the ancient commentators identified her with the Church; in the Middle Ages it was widely held that she represented Mary, the Mother of Jesus. Modern exegetes have generally adopted the older interpretation, with certain modifications.
In recent years several Catholics have championed the Marian interpretation. Numerous contextual details, however, are ill-suited to such an explanation. For example, we are scarcely to think that Mary endured the worst of the pains of childbirth (v. 2), that she was pursued into the desert after the birth of her child (6, 13ff.), or, finally, that she was persecuted through her other children (v. 17). The emphasis on the persecution of the woman is really appropriate only if she represents the Church, which is presented throughout the book as oppressed by the forces of evil, yet protected by God. Furthermore, the image of a woman is common in ancient Oriental secular literature as well as in the Bible (e.g., Is 50:1; Jer 50:12) as a symbol for a people, a nation, or a city. It is fitting, then, to see in this woman the People of God, the true Israel of the OT and NT.

 

[justasking4]

Sub tuum praesidium: Discovered in 1938 in a third–century Egyptian papyrus, is a short prayer from around 250 that presumes that Mary has attained a place in heaven as the exalted Mother of God.

We fly to your patronage , O holy Mother of God
Despise not our petitions in our necessities
But deliver us from all dangers
O glorious and blessed Virgin.

Do you believe this just because someone wrote it on papyrus? Did the entire church believe this or is this the opinion of one individual who we don’t know?

 

[justasking4]

What of this hymn to Mary? Would this qualify as an example of Hyper Dulia?

Daily, Daily, Sing to Mary

Verse 1
Daily, daily sing to Mary,
Sing, my soul, her praises due.
All her feasts, her actions worship
With the heart’s devotion true.
Lost in wond’ring contemplation,
Be her Majesty confess’d.
Call her Mother, call her Virgin,
Happy Mother, Virgin blest.

Verse 2
She is mighty to deliver.
Call her, trust her lovingly.
When the tempest rages round thee,
She will calm the troubled sea.
Gifts of heaven she has given,
Noble Lady, to our race.
She, the Queen, who decks her subjects
With the light of God’s own grace.

Verse 3
Sing, my tongue, the Virgin’s trophies
Who for us her Maker bore.
For the curse of old inflicted,
Peace and blessing to restore.
Sing in songs of peace unending,
Sing the world’s majestic Queen.
Weary not nor faint in telling.
All the gifts she gives to men.

 

[Pax]

Here is what one prominent Catholic scholar says about this:
Raymond Brown and J.A. Fitzmyer, editors of the Jerome Biblical Commentary (2:482):
a woman: Most of the ancient commentators identified her with the Church; in the Middle Ages it was widely held that she represented Mary, the Mother of Jesus. Modern exegetes have generally adopted the older interpretation, with certain modifications.
In recent years several Catholics have championed the Marian interpretation. Numerous contextual details, however, are ill-suited to such an explanation. For example, we are scarcely to think that Mary endured the worst of the pains of childbirth (v. 2), that she was pursued into the desert after the birth of her child (6, 13ff.), or, finally, that she was persecuted through her other children (v. 17). The emphasis on the persecution of the woman is really appropriate only if she represents the Church, which is presented throughout the book as oppressed by the forces of evil, yet protected by God. Furthermore, the image of a woman is common in ancient Oriental secular literature as well as in the Bible (e.g., Is 50:1; Jer 50:12) as a symbol for a people, a nation, or a city. It is fitting, then, to see in this woman the People of God, the true Israel of the OT and NT.

This is one of the interesting aspects of scripture especially apocalyptic literature within scripture. Revelation 12 can be interpreted to mean:

a. Israel
b. The Church
c. Mary
d. any two of the above.
e. all of the above.

Revelation 12 doesn’t fit any of them perfectly yet there are plenty of reasons to support each interpretation. Apocalyptic literature is very deep and rich in meaning. Sermons can be given on a given passage of scripture with a different message and emphasis. Each can have value and merit while some can simply be erroneous.

I believe that John meant all three of the above in Revelation 12. If you would like to read the reasons why it pertains to Mary we can discuss it here at length.

 

[TriuneUnity]

This is one of the interesting aspects of scripture especially apocalyptic literature within scripture. Revelation 12 can be interpreted to mean:

a. Israel
b. The Church
c. Mary
d. any two of the above.
e. all of the above.

Revelation 12 doesn’t fit any of them perfectly yet there are plenty of reasons to support each interpretation. Apocalyptic literature is very deep and rich in meaning. Sermons can be given on a given passage of scripture with a different message and emphasis. Each can have value and merit while some can simply be erroneous.

I believe that John meant all three of the above in Revelation 12. If you would like to read the reasons why it pertains to Mary we can discuss it here at length.

Is there any evidence within the writings of the early church fathers that interpret Revelation 12 as a reference to Mary?

I ask that in honesty, because I am not too familiar with this argument.

 

[Pax]

What of this hymn to Mary? Would this qualify as an example of Hyper Dulia?

Daily, Daily, Sing to Mary

Verse 1
Daily, daily sing to Mary,
Sing, my soul, her praises due.
All her feasts, her actions worship
With the heart’s devotion true.
Lost in wond’ring contemplation,
Be her Majesty confess’d.
Call her Mother, call her Virgin,
Happy Mother, Virgin blest.

Verse 2
She is mighty to deliver.
Call her, trust her lovingly.
When the tempest rages round thee,
She will calm the troubled sea.
Gifts of heaven she has given,
Noble Lady, to our race.
She, the Queen, who decks her subjects
With the light of God’s own grace.

Verse 3
Sing, my tongue, the Virgin’s trophies
Who for us her Maker bore.
For the curse of old inflicted,
Peace and blessing to restore.
Sing in songs of peace unending,
Sing the world’s majestic Queen.
Weary not nor faint in telling.
All the gifts she gives to men.

I haven’t sung this particular hymn but I don’t have a problem with it. One of the things that is clear to me is that most Catholics understand the place Mary has within salvation history and they understand God’s command to honor father and mother. Jesus honors his Father and mother far more than we honor our own parents.

All generations will call her blessed. We honor her, but we do not place her on the same level of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Without the Trinity there is no Mary. Mary is a creature and Catholics are fully aware of that.

My wife is a creature, but I love her deeply. Some expressions have emerged and are applied to spouses such as “he worships the ground she walks on” and “she just adores him.” Statements like this do not diminish one’s love for God, nor do they suggest that a person is placing their spouse in some position that is reserved for God. Likewise, praise for the the mother of Jesus is not something that places her in the realm reserved to God.

If anything, such praise for Mary is praise for God because as she said in Luke 1:46-52

“My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior, for he has regarded the low estate of his handmaiden. For behold, henceforth all generations will call me blessed; for he who is mighty has done great things for me, and holy is his name. And his mercy is on those who fear him from generation to generation. He has shown strength with his arm, he has scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts, he has put down the mighty from their thrones, and exalted those of low degree;”

Why underestimate what God has done for Mary when all that he has done manifests his glory? Mary is a wonderful part of God’s divine plan. Likewise, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Elijah, Isaiah, and the apostles are wonderful parts of God’s plan for salvation. Mary simply has a higher place than they do and this is part of God’s predestination of Mary to glory. We too will be glorified by God in heaven but we will not all share the exact same rewards.

Mary is, as I’ve stated, a wonderful part of God’s plan. She is a part. God’s plan has many parts. The whole of it is a cosmic masterpiece. God is greater than all of his plan and all of creation combined. We recognize Mary within all of this, but she seems to loom much larger in the non-Catholic mind’s eye versus how we actually see her.

Hopefully, this explanation and the examples I gave of spousal affections will bring this all into focus.

 

[adstrinity]

Do you believe this just because someone wrote it on papyrus? Did the entire church believe this or is this the opinion of one individual who we don’t know?

Lets see if this is just my opinion only.
The first church father to teach it was Gregory of Tours in 590 AD. The Transitus Mariae dates from the end of the fith century. Catholic historian Ludwig Ott confirms this as the earliest source of Mary’s assumption:

"The idea of the bodily assumption of Mary is first expressed in certain transitus-narratives of the fifth and sixth centuries. Even though these are apocryphal they bear witness to the faith of the generation in which they were written despite their legendary clothing. The first Church author to speak of the bodily ascension of Mary, in association with an apocryphal transitus B.M.V., is St. Gregory of Tours’ "

Source: Ludwigg Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (Rockford: Tan, 1974), pp. 209-210.

Sub tuum praesidium: Discovered in 1938 in a third–century Egyptian papyrus, is a short prayer from around 250 that presumes that Mary has attained a place in heaven as the exalted Mother of God.

We fly to your patronage , O holy Mother of God
Despise not our petitions in our necessities
But deliver us from all dangers
O glorious and blessed Virgin.

I pray you all forgive me for the nonsequentialness of this post.

We have an assertion saying that around the year 600 is the first time that Catholics have said Mary was in Heaven.

We then have a post showing that this is not true, that people documented a prayer asking for Her help from Heaven around 250.

THEN, we have the poor attempt at a discredit or an even poorer topic change to try to turn this personal asking if it should be believed just because ONE person may have believed it…even though, it was effectively countered to show the original untruth false.

I wanted to make sure this wasn’t lost on anybody else.

 

[PerryJ]

Do you believe this just because someone wrote it on papyrus? Did the entire church believe this or is this the opinion of one individual who we don’t know?

I didn’t state that is was authoritative support. It does show support for Marian beliefs. Very early in the Church we have fragments of evidence showing culture and religious beliefs. You may not accept them because you believe they are just traditions; however, this type of evidence is used in all scientific endeavors to learn about past cultures. Clearly there is a very early belief in Marian doctrines.

You might want to note this document predates any Bibles we have.

 

[ralphinal]

The use of Revelation 12 to mean the Blessed Virigin is a common one but not one that has always been as widely accepted. It had been used to show Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant. See this site (read down)

davidmacd.com/catholic/mary_in_the_bible.htm

According to my research, the most common view of the Woman in the Early Church was that she represented the Church.

It is accepted by Catholics that she can represent the Church, Isreal, Mary, or any combination. The Catholic Church has only defined a handfull of verses as far as what we must accept.

Do read about Mary as the New Ark. It is very interesting.

 

[PerryJ]

It is accepted by Catholics that she can represent the Church, Isreal, Mary, or any combination. The Catholic Church has only defined a handfull of verses as far as what we must accept.

Do read about Mary as the New Ark. It is very interesting.

Revelation use all of these terms. To define which is being addressed in chapter 12 one has to look at the numbering used in conjunction. Such as 24 is 12 tribes plus the 12 apostles if I recall correctly this translate to the Church in this one verse.

 

[JoeyWarren]

The bits and pieces that you refer to that are not in the Scriptures are in reality the teachings of men since they are not really grounded in the Scriptures. Take this topic. There is no mention of it in the Scritprues. We don’t see anyone ever praying to Mary or being taught to do so. This was never what Jesus or His apostle ever taught.

You failed to understand what I wrote. The Bible is the Bits and Pieces of the Whole Universal Truth of God. The Roman Catholic Church contains the Fullness of Truth as given by Jesus and his Apostles…

 

[Scottgun]

This is one of those grand ironies. That is, Catholics are constantly pestered by others that we are forbidden to interpret Scripture, but look what happens when we get to Rev 12. Those same people are like, "It’s Israel, maybe the church! Nothing else! Don’t you dare go around thinking it’s Mary! When your brain naturally asks who the son is in the passage and naturally asks who the mother would be, stick your fingers in your ears and yell, “La, la, la! It’s not Mary! It’s not Mary!”

 

[ralphinal]

Revelation use all of these terms. To define which is being addressed in chapter 12 one has to look at the numbering used in conjunction. Such as 24 is 12 tribes plus the 12 apostles if I recall correctly this translate to the Church in this one verse.

That is possible.

 

[justasking4]

I pray you all forgive me for the nonsequentialness of this post.

We have an assertion saying that around the year 600 is the first time that Catholics have said Mary was in Heaven.

We then have a post showing that this is not true, that people documented a prayer asking for Her help from Heaven around 250.

THEN, we have the poor attempt at a discredit or an even poorer topic change to try to turn this personal asking if it should be believed just because ONE person may have believed it…even though, it was effectively countered to show the original untruth false.

I wanted to make sure this wasn’t lost on anybody else.

View attachment 4098

 

[justasking4]

You failed to understand what I wrote. The Bible is the Bits and Pieces of the Whole Universal Truth of God. The Roman Catholic Church contains the Fullness of Truth as given by Jesus and his Apostles…

Where did Jesus or His apostles ever teach to pray to Mary or that she should have songs sung to her?

 

[justasking4]

I didn’t state that is was authoritative support. It does show support for Marian beliefs. Very early in the Church we have fragments of evidence showing culture and religious beliefs. You may not accept them because you believe they are just traditions; however, this type of evidence is used in all scientific endeavors to learn about past cultures. Clearly there is a very early belief in Marian doctrines.

You might want to note this document predates any Bibles we have.

Just because someone writes something down does not mean the entire church believed it. What’s important is what did the church at this time offically believe and teach. That would be a better indicator of the beliefs of the church.