Devotion to Mary

[EvangelCatholic]

No.

Then, what is your point?

 

[benhur]

But how can an image of the Madonna holding the Christ Child be “pagan”? Are you opposed to statues of Jesus?

It is in the eye of the beholder. If it is strictly an "image’’ of portraying the gospel account of the nativity etc that seems ok .If it is veneration of the Queen of Heaven , the Mediatrix , the immaculately conceived and sinless Mother of God, then that has pagan similarities and one must discern the matter. Certainly the early church was formed in a world that had “madonnas/with diety child”,particularily in Roman and Egyptian and Greek culture…I think I am opposed to statues of Jesus, but works of art , like Michelangelo’s, again depicting a biblical scene, are cool to say the least.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

Then, what is your point?

What is my point about what?

 

[EvangelCatholic]

It is in the eye of the beholder. If it is strictly an "image’’ of portraying the gospel account of the nativity etc that seems ok .If it is veneration of the Queen of Heaven , the Mediatrix , the immaculately conceived and sinless Mother of God, then that has pagan similarities and one must discern the matter. Certainly the early church was formed in a world that had “madonnas/with diety child”,particularily in Roman and Egyptian and Greek culture…I think I am opposed to statues of Jesus, but works of art , like Michelangelo’s, again depicting a biblical scene, are cool to say the least.

That is fine with us. Obviously there are Lutherans who have similar opinions. I see everything as post/ on-going Lutheran-Catholic Dialogue where the emphasize is on what we believe rather than iconoclasm

 

[benhur]

The crucufux is what Paul preached, and it is what apostles and apostolic churches preached.

Well, he preached Christ crucified and the resurrection, not the “crucifix”,and

Removing Christ from thencross is a protestant innovation, so is the removal of religious images.

It may be ,just as the Cricifix was a development and don’t think it was “apostolic”. Not sure of history of icons etc and views even friction between east and west.

One other passage to keep in mind is Galatians 3:1, “O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified?” Did you catch that? Jesus was publicly portrayed, before their “eyes”, as being crucified. Sounds kind of like they may have been looking at a Crucifix, doesn’t it?

Wishful thinking. Paul preached publicly Christ crucified almost as posting it in the public square, as was the custom(public notice on placards) ( to make things perfectly clear lest someone twist, even bewitch). I believe he painted quite a picture, with words, as Jesus so often did, and with much power and effect.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Well, he preached Christ crucified and the resurrection, not the “crucifix”,and
It may be ,just as the Cricifix was a development and don’t think it was “apostolic”. Not sure of history of icons etc and views even friction between east and west.

Wishful thinking. Paul preached publicly Christ crucified almost as posting it in the public square, as was the custom(public notice on placards) ( to make things perfectly clear lest someone twist, even bewitch). I believe he painted quite a picture, with words, as Jesus so often did, and with much power and effect.

Yes, the holy Cross was portrayed in the earliest centuries of the Church.

 

[Richca]

I raised this question on another thread: Are Catholics required to invoke the saints?

It is certainly a good practice to invoke the saints as the Church teaches and the Church in the celebration of its liturgy invokes the intercession of a particular saint on almost every day of the year except Sundays. For just about every Saturday of the year, the celebration of the Church’s liturgy, the Mass and the Liturgy of the Hours, provides for an optional memorial of the Blessed Virgin Mary. The Assumption, Immaculate Conception, and the Solemnity of Mary the Mother of God are holy days of obligation. There are quite a number of other feast days of Mary that are celebrated throughout the year by the Church but which are not holy days of obligation. So, if one followed the actual practice of the Church in its liturgy, it is constantly invoking the intercession of our Blessed Lady and the saints.

The CCC#971 says “The Church’s devotion to the Blessed Virgin is intrinsic to Christian worship.” And it honors her “with very special devotion.” And rightfully so since Mary is the Mother of God, our mother, and the Queen of Heaven and Earth. For catholics, Mary is our mother in the order of divine grace (CCC#969). It is she who cooperates with God in giving us birth into the supernatural life of grace and its development throughout our lives here on earth until its fulfillment in heaven. Just as in the natural order, a father and mother are necessary for our existence in this world; so in the supernnatural order of divine grace and by God’s ordination, Mary is our mother and God is our Father. To not have devotion to Mary is like having no devotion to your own mother which is not going to go over to well with God. To have the spirit of Christ naturally leads to the honor and love of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Christ’s own mother. Many christians do not realize that all the graces they receive from God pass through our Lady’s hands. She is constantly watching over them and guiding them to the eternal life of heaven. And so as the saints teach us, the more one is devoted to our Blessed Lady the more graces they will receive from her and the more Christ-like they will become as it is her office to form the members of the mystical body of Christ in likeness to the head.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

It is certainly a good practice to invoke the saints as the Church teaches and the Church in the celebration of its liturgy invokes the intercession of a particular saint on almost every day of the year except Sundays. For just about every Saturday of the year, the celebration of the Church’s liturgy, the Mass and the Liturgy of the Hours, provides for an optional memorial of the Blessed Virgin Mary. The Assumption, Immaculate Conception, and the Solemnity of Mary the Mother of God are holy days of obligation. There are quite a number of other feast days of Mary that are celebrated throughout the year by the Church but which are not holy days of obligation. So, if one followed the actual practice of the Church in its liturgy, it is constantly invoking the intercession of our Blessed Lady and the saints.

The CCC#971 says “The Church’s devotion to the Blessed Virgin is intrinsic to Christian worship.” And it honors her “with very special devotion.” And rightfully so since Mary is the Mother of God, our mother, and the Queen of Heaven and Earth. For catholics, Mary is our mother in the order of divine grace (CCC#969). It is she who cooperates with God in giving us birth into the supernatural life of grace and its development throughout our lives here on earth until its fulfillment in heaven. Just as in the natural order, a father and mother are necessary for our existence in this world; so in the supernnatural order of divine grace and by God’s ordination, Mary is our mother and God is our Father. To not have devotion to Mary is like having no devotion to your own mother which is not going to go over to well with God. To have the spirit of Christ naturally leads to the honor and love of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Christ’s own mother. Many christians do not realize that all the graces they receive from God pass through our Lady’s hands. She is constantly watching over them and guiding them to the eternal life of heaven.

That is a Marian expression Lutherans would not state. Yes to the Nativity of the blessed Virgin Mary, Annunciation, Assumption Virgin of Guadalupe. I suppose if one truly believes the Incarnation there is acceptance of Mary’s Role. Luther prayed the rosary but also reminded Christians that devotion to Mary is secondary to devotion to Christ.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

That is a Marian expression Lutherans would not state. Yes to the Nativity of the blessed Virgin Mary, Annunciation, Assumption Virgin of Guadalupe. I suppose if one truly believes the Incarnation there is acceptance of Mary’s Role. Luther prayed the rosary but also reminded Christians that devotion to Mary is secondary to devotion to Christ.

That is a Marian expression Lutherans would not state. Yes to the Nativity of the blessed Virgin Mary, Annunciation, Assumption Virgin of Guadalupe.

Some Lutherans. I don’t hold to the Assumption or Guadalupe.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Some Lutherans. I don’t hold to the Assumption or Guadalupe.

Accepted. Do you agree with the Lutheran-Catholic Dialogue on Mary and the saints?

We believe that Christ has ONE Body; not one on earth and one in Heaven.
The saints in Heaven are not dead, and not devoid of love and concern for us here on earth.
We CAN ask them to pray with us, and since they are cleansed of sin and all propensity to sin (which we are not, fully), their prayers are efficacious.
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a9p5.htm

 

[House_Harkonnen]

Accepted. Do you agree with the Lutheran-Catholic Dialogue on Mary and the saints?

No.

 

[steido01]

Accepted. Do you agree with the Lutheran-Catholic Dialogue on Mary and the saints?

Did you paraphrase? I don’t see those exact words anywhere in that document, and the wording is very important here. In any case, agreeing that the prayers of the saints are efficacious does not mean that prayers to the saints are necessarily heard by them. It leaves an open question, which Lutherans are fine with. So Lutherans neither condemn nor condone petitioning the dead (since Scripture makes no command or model of it), though we do pray for them.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Did you paraphrase? I don’t see those exact words anywhere in that document, and the wording is very important here. In any case, agreeing that the prayers of the saints are efficacious does not mean that prayers to the saints are necessarily heard by them. It leaves an open question, which Lutherans are fine with. So Lutherans neither condemn nor condone petitioning the dead (since Scripture makes no command or model of it), though we do pray for them.

I believe it is a citation to the Dialogue discussion on Article XXI: Of the Worship of the Saints. Augsburg Confession. It is a Lutheran affirmation on the Catholic Catechism statement:

• Paragraph 5. The Communion of Saints

947 "Since all the faithful form one body, the good of each is communicated to the others. . . . We must therefore believe that there exists a communion of goods in the Church. But the most important member is Christ, since he is the head. . . . Therefore, the riches of Christ are communicated to all the members, through the sacraments."480 "As this Church is governed by one and the same Spirit, all the goods she has received necessarily become a common fund."481

948 The term “communion of saints” therefore has two closely linked meanings: communion in holy things (sancta)" and “among holy persons (sancti).”

I. COMMUNION IN SPIRITUAL GOODS

950 Communion of the sacraments. "The fruit of all the sacraments belongs to all the faithful. All the sacraments are sacred links uniting the faithful with one another and binding them to Jesus Christ, and above all Baptism, the gate by which we enter into the Church. The communion of saints must be understood as the communion of the sacraments. . . . The name ‘communion’ can be applied to all of them, for they unite us to God. . . . But this name is better suited to the Eucharist than to any other, because it is primarily the Eucharist that brings this communion about."483

953 Communion in charity. In the sanctorum communio, "None of us lives to himself, and none of us dies to himself."489 "If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together. Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it."490 "Charity does not insist on its own way."491 In this solidarity with all men, living or dead, which is founded on the communion of saints, the least of our acts done in charity redounds to the profit of all. Every sin harms this communion.

II. THE COMMUNION OF THE CHURCH OF HEAVEN AND EARTH

956 The intercession of the saints. "Being more closely united to Christ, those who dwell in heaven fix the whole Church more firmly in holiness. . . . They do not cease to intercede with the Father for us, as they proffer the merits which they acquired on earth through the one mediator between God and men, Christ Jesus . . . . So by their fraternal concern is our weakness greatly helped."495

957 Communion with the saints. "It is not merely by the title of example that we cherish the memory of those in heaven; we seek, rather, that by this devotion to the exercise of fraternal charity the union of the whole Church in the Spirit may be strengthened. Exactly as Christian communion among our fellow pilgrims brings us closer to Christ, so our communion with the saints joins us to Christ, from whom as from its fountain and head issues all grace, and the life of the People of God itself"498:

We worship Christ as God’s Son; we love the martyrs as the Lord’s disciples and imitators, and rightly so because of their matchless devotion towards their king and master. May we also be their companions and fellow disciples!499

958 Communion with the dead. "In full consciousness of this communion of the whole Mystical Body of Jesus Christ, the Church in its pilgrim members, from the very earliest days of the Christian religion, has honored with great respect the memory of the dead; and ‘because it is a holy and a wholesome thought to pray for the dead that they may be loosed from their sins’ she offers her suffrages for them."500 Our prayer for them is capable not only of helping them, but also of making their intercession for us effective.

A footnote to the Dialogue consensus

THE HOPE OF ETERNAL LIFE (2010)
238. If Lutheran and Catholic liturgy and piety moved apart in their attitude to the dead during the sixteenth century, they have significantly converged over the last 100 years. Since the question in relation to prayer for the dead is precisely how the church prays, this liturgical convergence is of great significance.
239. Both Catholic and Lutheran funerals emphasize the continuing communion of the living and the dead. While Lutheran funeral rites in the past were generally modeled on the pre-Reformation Office for the Dead, recent rites have called for the celebration of the Eucharist.

Catholics and Lutherans agree that:

1. there is communion among the living and the dead across the divide of death;
2. Christians pray for one another and believe that such prayer is heard by God and
   aids those for whom we pray;
3. at the very least Scripture does not prohibit prayer for the dead;
4. prayerful commendation of the dead to God is salutary within a funeral liturgy;
5. insofar as the resurrection of the dead and the general final judgment are future
   events, it is appropriate to pray for God’s mercy for each person, entrusting
   that one to God’s mercy because such mercy is and remains God’s gift;
6. even as a good work, prayer is an appeal to the divine mercy and not a purchase of
   spiritual goods.
7. Thus, we agree that prayer for the dead, considered within the framework of the
   communion of saints, need not be a church-dividing or communion-hindering issue for
   Lutherans and Catholics.
   usccb.org/beliefs-and-tea…rnal-Life1.pdf

 

[JRKH]

Well, he preached Christ crucified and the resurrection, not the “crucifix”,and
It may be ,just as the Crucifix was a development and don’t think it was “apostolic”. Not sure of history of icons etc and views even friction between east and west

A wonderful point Ben…
It’s hard to know just how these things developed in the early Church. I know little about it, but have heard that during the days of persecutions things like the cross or the fish symbol were covert ways for Christians to communicate. The crucifix would not lend itself as easily to this.
Also - since crucifixion was a common form of public punishment in those times and many people would have seen it, there would be less of a need to create the symbol of the crucifix in order to convey just what it was that Christ did for us.
So I tend to agree that the crucifix as a symbol was probably a somewhat later development.

Wishful thinking. Paul preached publicly Christ crucified almost as posting it in the public square, as was the custom(public notice on placards) ( to make things perfectly clear lest someone twist, even bewitch). I believe he painted quite a picture, with words, as Jesus so often did, and with much power and effect.

Agreed - Paul’s forte was with words, not pictures (so far as we know). He used the talents he was given by God. Equally I am sure the opposite exists. The one who’s forte is to communicate visually through paint or sculpture.
This is the great thing about not being under the law. We do have greater latitude on this, though I do agree with what you said elsewhere…that we must be careful and discern these things properly.
Yet another reason I am grateful for The Church.

Peace
James

 

[ptisme]

That is a Marian expression Lutherans would not state. Yes to the Nativity of the blessed Virgin Mary, Annunciation, Assumption Virgin of Guadalupe. I suppose if one truly believes the Incarnation there is acceptance of Mary’s Role. Luther prayed the rosary but also reminded Christians that devotion to Mary is secondary to devotion to Christ.

Just curious, are you familiar with what we are to be focusing on with each decade of the rosary, depending on the day of the week?

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

Did you paraphrase? I don’t see those exact words anywhere in that document, and the wording is very important here. In any case, agreeing that the prayers of the saints are efficacious does not mean that prayers to the saints are necessarily heard by them. It leaves an open question, which Lutherans are fine with. So Lutherans neither condemn nor condone petitioning the dead (since Scripture makes no command or model of it), though we do pray for them.

I could not fault anyone for believing that Lutherans condemn “petitioning the dead.” Their confessions certainly seem to say so. For example, here is what Luther writes in the Smalcald Articles.

25] The invocation of saints is also one of the abuses of Antichrist conflicting with the chief article, and destroys the knowledge of Christ. Neither is it commanded nor counseled, nor has it any example [or testimony] in Scripture, and even though it were a precious thing, as it is not [while, on the contrary, it is a most harmful thing], in Christ we have everything a thousandfold better [and surer, so that we are not in need of calling upon the saints].

26] And although the angels in heaven pray for us (as Christ Himself also does), as also do the saints on earth, and perhaps also in heaven, yet it does not follow thence that we should invoke and adore the angels and saints, and fast, hold festivals, celebrate Mass in their honor, make offerings, and establish churches, altars, divine worship, and in still other ways serve them, and regard them as helpers in need [as patrons and intercessors], and divide among them all kinds of help, and ascribe to each one a particular form of assistance, as the Papists teach and do. For this is idolatry, and such honor belongs alone to God. 27] For as a Christian and saint upon earth you can pray for me, not only in one, but in many necessities. But for this reason I am not obliged to adore and invoke you, and celebrate festivals, fast, make oblations, hold masses for your honor [and worship], and put my faith in you for my salvation. I can in other ways indeed honor, love, and thank you in Christ. 28] If now such idolatrous honor were withdrawn from angels and departed saints, the remaining honor would be without harm and would quickly be forgotten. For when advantage and assistance, both bodily and spiritual, are no more to be expected, the saints will not be troubled [the worship of the saints will soon vanish], neither in their graves nor in heaven. For without a reward or out of pure love no one will much remember, or esteem, or honor them [bestow on them divine honor].

29] In short, the Mass itself and anything that proceeds from it, and anything that is attached to it, we cannot tolerate, but must condemn, in order that we may retain the holy Sacrament pure and certain, according to the institution of Christ, employed and received through faith.
II.2)Smalcald Articles

If I recall correctly, JonNC had an explanation for this passage as to why it does not actually condemn the invocation of the saints, but it certainly seems to. Hopefully he can elaborate because I do not remember. I will let the reader judge for himself.

Then the Apology of the Augsburg Confession also says that by praying to the saints, Catholics deny that Christ is the sole mediator between God and man, making the saints to be mediators and propitiators alongside Christ. Then it says that in this criticism, the authors have in mind merely the relatively mild doctrine of the scholastic writers. Popular Catholic devotions, on the other hand, are actually idolatrous!

 

[benhur]

A wonderful point Ben…
It’s hard to know just how these things developed in the early Church. I know little about it, but have heard that during the days of persecutions things like the cross or the fish symbol were covert ways for Christians to communicate. The crucifix would not lend itself as easily to this.
Also - since crucifixion was a common form of public punishment in those times and many people would have seen it, there would be less of a need to create the symbol of the crucifix in order to convey just what it was that Christ did for us.
So I tend to agree that the crucifix as a symbol was probably a somewhat later development.

Agreed - Paul’s forte was with words, not pictures (so far as we know). He used the talents he was given by God. Equally I am sure the opposite exists. The one who’s forte is to communicate visually through paint or sculpture.
This is the great thing about not being under the law. We do have greater latitude on this, though I do agree with what you said elsewhere…that we must be careful and discern these things properly.
Yet another reason I am grateful for The Church.

Peace
James

Thanks,good info.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

Regarding the use of images as a means of a secret code to avoid persecution, Patrick made a thread recently that sort of debunks that idea. The early Church used all manner of visual symbols, but not for that reason. The early Church was not the underground society that it is sometimes made out to be in popular media.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=900101

 

[JRKH]

Regarding the use of images as a means of a secret code to avoid persecution, Patrick made a thread recently that sort of debunks that idea. The early Church used all manner of visual symbols, but not for that reason. The early Church was not the underground society that it is sometimes made out to be in popular media.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=900101

Thanks for the link. Interesting article and discussion - but I think that there was one post in the other thread that really nailed it…

This is a good book on the subject: amazon.com/We-Look-Kingdom-Everyday-Christians/dp/1586170791

It seems that things oscillated between acceptance and persecution depending on the politics of the emperor. So you can’t say that it was secretive, or open (as the blog suggests) all the time. In reality it went back and forth. The points the blog makes are from open periods. But as soon as that emperor died, the next one was a different story.

Even the NT shows something of this oscillation. We see the Apostles entering the synagogues to preach and then we see the first martyrdom in Steven. Jews such as Saul (Paul) of Tarsus sought out believers to arrest them and bring them before the Sanhedrin for judgement.
But then later we see Paul openly enter and preach in synagogues and town squares as well.

So - to me it seems obvious that there was an ebb and flow to the matter that is highly complex and is not addressed by the blog article.

Of course none of this addresses the matter of the symbols of the cross and/or the fish…so I guess it remains open and one can believe as they wish about it.

I wonder if Eusebius addresses this at all???..

Peace
James

 

[Denise1957]

I could not fault anyone for believing that Lutherans condemn “petitioning the dead.” Their confessions certainly seem to say so. For example, here is what Luther writes in the Smalcald Articles.

25] The invocation of saints is also one of the abuses of Antichrist conflicting with the chief article, and destroys the knowledge of Christ. Neither is it commanded nor counseled, nor has it any example [or testimony] in Scripture, and even though it were a precious thing, as it is not [while, on the contrary, it is a most harmful thing], in Christ we have everything a thousandfold better [and surer, so that we are not in need of calling upon the saints].

26] And although the angels in heaven pray for us (as Christ Himself also does), as also do the saints on earth, and perhaps also in heaven, yet it does not follow thence that we should invoke and adore the angels and saints, and fast, hold festivals, celebrate Mass in their honor, make offerings, and establish churches, altars, divine worship, and in still other ways serve them, and regard them as helpers in need [as patrons and intercessors], and divide among them all kinds of help, and ascribe to each one a particular form of assistance, as the Papists teach and do. For this is idolatry, and such honor belongs alone to God. 27] For as a Christian and saint upon earth you can pray for me, not only in one, but in many necessities. But for this reason I am not obliged to adore and invoke you, and celebrate festivals, fast, make oblations, hold masses for your honor [and worship], and put my faith in you for my salvation. I can in other ways indeed honor, love, and thank you in Christ. 28] If now such idolatrous honor were withdrawn from angels and departed saints, the remaining honor would be without harm and would quickly be forgotten. For when advantage and assistance, both bodily and spiritual, are no more to be expected, the saints will not be troubled [the worship of the saints will soon vanish], neither in their graves nor in heaven. For without a reward or out of pure love no one will much remember, or esteem, or honor them [bestow on them divine honor].

29] In short, the Mass itself and anything that proceeds from it, and anything that is attached to it, we cannot tolerate, but must condemn, in order that we may retain the holy Sacrament pure and certain, according to the institution of Christ, employed and received through faith.
(Smalcald Articles II.2)

If I recall correctly, JonNC had an explanation for this passage as to why it does not actually condemn the invocation of the saints, but it certainly seems to. Hopefully he can elaborate because I do not remember. I will let the reader judge for himself.

Then the Apology of the Augsburg Confession also says that by praying to the saints, Catholics deny that Christ is the sole mediator between God and man, making the saints to be mediators and propitiators alongside Christ. Then it says that in this criticism, the authors have in mind merely the relatively mild doctrine of the scholastic writers. Popular Catholic devotions, on the other hand, are actually idolatrous!

Number 26 of the Smalcald Articles does, IMO, seem to condemn the intercession of the saints, and it get s a few things wrong, too. It says that we should not invoke or adore the angels and saints, or fast, hold festivals, celebrate Mass in their honor, make offerings, establish churches, altars, divine worship, and in still other ways serve them, regard them as helpers in need, divide among them all kinds of help, and these things are seen as a form of idolatry.

There are two things above which I don’t understand, from a Catholic point of view. It mentions making offerings (to the saints), as well as divine worship. I don’t think that the Church ascribes making offerings to the saints, unless I’m just not understanding the context. And we don’t regard, as far as I know, that the saints are divine. Only God (the Holy Trinity) is divine. What was Luther thinking? We do not worship saints. Even though there are some Catholics who may do this.

And what’s wrong with adoring those who are an example of holiness to which we should all aspire? There have been some saints who have had a great following even when they were alive, such as St. Padre Pio, and St John Vianney. We want to be around those who are holy, because they offer us a good example and remind us of Our Lord, who said that we are to be perfect, even as our Father in Heaven is perfect. Saints are not God, and they are not divine. It is not idolatry to ask for their intercession. Martin Luther sure held some nutty ideas (if the author of the Smalcald Articles is Luther, that is). He doesn’t seem to have understood the Catholic faith very well.