Different Views of Mary

[Magdalena09]

I was discussing today with a friend the topics of Mary and the Papacy. My friend had considered Catholicism in the past but decided that he could not “get past” the two aforementioned ideas.

I was doing some research and I can’t seem to find any “ancient” or “early” Church that did NOT venerate Mary; so I am not sure why he thinks that Marian devotion (and the papacy) were later add-ons. He said he believed it wasn’t scriptural (though I would disagree) but at the same time I know that the protestant church he attends teaches in their hermeneutics that you should always look back… as in avoid new ideas/new interpretations of scripture and look to what has been accepted/taught historically by Christians.

So my question is… is there an early church that did NOT teach veneration of Mary? I couldn’t find one… I checked out the Orthodox Churches and even as recently as the Anglican church and even they venerate Mary. Even some Lutherans venerate her. Am I missing something?

 

[Hiskid1973]

I think most followers of Christ honor her and the saints gone on(look at hebrews)…it’s the extremes that scare people off…I can remember one incidence where a salt stain on the underside of a bridge where some claimed it was Mary…some people were going crazy and had like an altar set up and had candles burning, praying at this satin…Blocking traffic…It was just “out there”…Made me think of the warning Jesus said about seeing Him here or there before His return…Not to chase after them…

 

[rcjones]

I am like your friend. I have three hurdles. Mary, the papacy and sola scriptura.

1. I have no problem honoring Mary. I have no problem seeing Noah’s ark and the ark of the covenant both as shadows of Mary, and the two as well as Mary as being shadows of Christ. I have no problem with her being perpetually a virgin since the sensus plenior of the stories of Tamar and Joseph ben Israel support the teaching. I have no problem with the Immaculate conception with the understanding she received the grace of the cross before the cross and had no mortal sin.

What holds me back on this point is the perceived abuses as mentioned and specifically Re 2:4 Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love. It is my perception, admittedly I may be in error, that it is common for people to speak the name of Mary more often and with greater love than that of Christ. And certainly the abuses which go uncorrected do not help in that perception.

Notice that I do not call the church names or condemn it, since the letter in Rev was written to the church.

1. I have no problem seeing Peter, the rock, as a shadow of Christ, the Rock. I have no problem with him being the pre-eminent apostle. He gave Peter the keys to the kingdom, which I see as the ability to read the OT in wisdom and decipher “everywhere the scriptures said Jesus must die”. That ability gave him an instant PhD when applied to the Bible and knowledge of Christ.

But the barrier is the wealth and power of the Papacy in history. Jesus said his kingdom was not of this world and that you could not serve God and mammon. This barrier leads me to believe that the church has a dual nature, and that currently the flesh is winning. The appearance, however flawed it may be, is that the Judaisers took over the physical operation of the church and adopted the practices of the Jewish priesthood and Christianized them rather than letting them be fulfilled in Christ.

In my view current practice of the church goes way beyond the first admonition to the gentiles that they “abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.” This was the only burden placed on the Greeks, yet if I were to join a catholic church, the burden would be greater than this.

1. The great offense that sola scriptura causes is the third hurdle. Much of it is semantic in nature I think. But I came to Christ when there was no Catholic there and only a Bible. I am left with the choice between Eastern and Western churches, each calling the other heretical. How would I decide when I only have the Bible and the Spirit of God to decide between the two. I am sola scriptura because Catholics have left me no choice. If there were no great schism, it would be easy to be Catholic.

The way I currently deal with these issues is to see the Holy Catholic church as that church (people who trust Christ) which is called by God and filled with His Spirit, but that has flesh attached to it. My sins are greater than those of the physical churches, so I am not in a position to judge based on the flesh. Instead I appreciate the writings and lives of faithful people where they are found.

I only post here because the OP seems to be looking for ways to overcome these hurdles. I am happy to discuss them, being Catholic friendly. But I will be pleasantly surprised if I don’t get a dozen condemning posts immediately.

 

[PaddyMcGurk]

I am like your friend. I have three hurdles. Mary, the papacy and sola scriptura.

1. I have no problem honoring Mary. I have no problem seeing Noah’s ark and the ark of the covenant both as shadows of Mary, and the two as well as Mary as being shadows of Christ. I have no problem with her being perpetually a virgin since the sensus plenior of the stories of Tamar and Joseph ben Israel support the teaching. I have no problem with the Immaculate conception with the understanding she received the grace of the cross before the cross and had no mortal sin.

What holds me back on this point is the perceived abuses as mentioned and specifically Re 2:4 Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love. It is my perception, admittedly I may be in error, that it is common for people to speak the name of Mary more often and with greater love than that of Christ. And certainly the abuses which go uncorrected do not help in that perception.

Notice that I do not call the church names or condemn it, since the letter in Rev was written to the church.

1. I have no problem seeing Peter, the rock, as a shadow of Christ, the Rock. I have no problem with him being the pre-eminent apostle. He gave Peter the keys to the kingdom, which I see as the ability to read the OT in wisdom and decipher “everywhere the scriptures said Jesus must die”. That ability gave him an instant PhD when applied to the Bible and knowledge of Christ.

But the barrier is the wealth and power of the Papacy in history. Jesus said his kingdom was not of this world and that you could not serve God and mammon. This barrier leads me to believe that the church has a dual nature, and that currently the flesh is winning. The appearance, however flawed it may be, is that the Judaisers took over the physical operation of the church and adopted the practices of the Jewish priesthood and Christianized them rather than letting them be fulfilled in Christ.

In my view current practice of the church goes way beyond the first admonition to the gentiles that they “abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.” This was the only burden placed on the Greeks, yet if I were to join a catholic church, the burden would be greater than this.

1. The great offense that sola scriptura causes is the third hurdle. Much of it is semantic in nature I think. But I came to Christ when there was no Catholic there and only a Bible. I am left with the choice between Eastern and Western churches, each calling the other heretical. How would I decide when I only have the Bible and the Spirit of God to decide between the two. I am sola scriptura because Catholics have left me no choice. If there were no great schism, it would be easy to be Catholic.

The way I currently deal with these issues is to see the Holy Catholic church as that church (people who trust Christ) which is called by God and filled with His Spirit, but that has flesh attached to it. My sins are greater than those of the physical churches, so I am not in a position to judge based on the flesh. Instead I appreciate the writings and lives of faithful people where they are found.

I only post here because the OP seems to be looking for ways to overcome these hurdles. I am happy to discuss them, being Catholic friendly. But I will be pleasantly surprised if I don’t get a dozen condemning posts immediately.

Well spoken and I understand where you’re coming from. I do, however, have a slightly different take on the issues.

1. I’ll start with the Blessed Virgin. I’ll be honest, I don’t agree with people treating her as God. It’s a Trinity, not a quad… I don’t even know the word. Haha. Anyway, that may be a personal error of some, but I think it’s a misplaced generalization of most Roman Catholics. I can only speak to my own devotion to our Blessed Mother and, to some extent, the devotion of others close to me. I believe that she is our greatest and most important role model for living our lives for God. She said “YES” to God. Bottom line. She is also our greatest intercessor. What earthly being understands our Lord better than HIS ark. She deserves special devotion, but not above Christ, Himself.
2. On to the Papacy. The Church is infallible. Man is not. Therefore, by using simple transitive properties, John Ratzinger is fallible. Don’t get me wrong, it’s hard to grasp. This by no means takes away from the infallibility of the position as head of the Church. The word “catholic” means “universal”. The Holy Catholic Church takes it’s name from the ancient Greek. The pope gives us “universal” teaching and draws us together. I would much rather have monetary indulgences and a unified Church than the infighting between denominations that takes place these days.
3. Now, about sola scriptura. This one, for me, is pretty simple. Before there was a New Testament there was a Church. Therefore, there must have been teachings. Does this take away from the Sacred Scripture - not at all. I believe that Sacred Scripture is wonderful and it alone brings many to Christ. But Sacred Tradition sure does amplify Sacred Scripture and brings it to a whole new level of meaning.

I’m far from perfect and I could be way off base here. Just some food for thought. By the way, thanks for not brow-beating us Catholics! I very much appreciate your post and enjoyed reading it.

God Bless and Semper Fidelis.

 

[rcjones]

I’m far from perfect and I could be way off base here. Just some food for thought. By the way, thanks for not brow-beating us Catholics! I very much appreciate your post and enjoyed reading it.

God Bless and Semper Fidelis.

I don’t think you are off base. Your position is held by many thoughtful Catholics.

1. I’ll start with the Blessed Virgin. I’ll be honest, I don’t agree with people treating her as God. It’s a Trinity, not a quad… I don’t even know the word. Haha. Anyway, that may be a personal error of some, but I think it’s a misplaced generalization of most Roman Catholics. I can only speak to my own devotion to our Blessed Mother and, to some extent, the devotion of others close to me. I believe that she is our greatest and most important role model for living our lives for God. She said “YES” to God. Bottom line. **She is also our greatest intercessor. ** What earthly being understands our Lord better than HIS ark. She deserves special devotion, but not above Christ, Himself.

Being our greatest intercessor is the rub for me. For you there is a difference between a mediator and an intercessor which allows you not to be bothered by the fact that there is only one mediator:

Ga 3:19 Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.
Ga 3:20 Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.
1Ti 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
Heb 8:6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.
Heb 9:15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
Heb 12:24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.

'Intercessor is used only once, and it also speaks of Christ prophetically:

Isa 59:16 And he saw that there was no man, and wondered that there was no intercessor: therefore his arm brought salvation unto him; and his righteousness, it sustained him.

I don’t accept that Jesus is too busy to hear prayers, therefor his Mother hears them and passes them on. I don’t accept that she can hear prayers at all. Yes, we might ask someone next to us to pray for us, but they don’t read our minds to do it. Mary is neither omniscient nor omnipresent as the act of asking her to intercede seems to imply that she is to me.

I see intercession as standing in the gap like when Moses asks God to remove him from his grace rather than destroy the Israelites. Or like when David offers himself to stop the plague upon Israel. This role is that of Christ alone in fulfillment. We can and should intercede on behalf of others, but only because we are being made ‘like Christ’. Our substitution would never be effective but only ‘recollect-ive’, Christ effecting the real substitution.

I can even accept that she may have been a great exegete, since it is likely that the boy Jesus shared many insights into the scriptures with her, and that John was sent to her by Jesus on the cross partly to learn some of it.

I think one of the Reformers said that veneration and worship was a distinction without a difference. It is the difference that is not well verbalized in a way that is well understood by non-Catholics which is the essence of the barrier. I think the OP will find the friend having the same reservation.

… too long

 

[rcjones]

…

1. On to the Papacy. The Church is infallible. Man is not. Therefore, by using simple transitive properties, John Ratzinger is fallible. Don’t get me wrong, it’s hard to grasp. This by no means takes away from the infallibility of the position as head of the Church. The word “catholic” means “universal”. The Holy Catholic Church takes it’s name from the ancient Greek. The pope gives us “universal” teaching and draws us together. I would much rather have monetary indulgences and a unified Church than the infighting between denominations that takes place these days.

Yes. Your position implicitly agrees with mine in a sense, that the church has two natures. While you are able to embrace the possible errors of the physical church simultaneously with the infallible teaching, I am not. I am guided by:

Mt 7:16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
Mt 7:20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

If the Pope lived like a monk rather than a king it would be easier to overlook occasional frailties of the flesh. But the one who would be our earthly model and mentor has no appearance of a servant to me.

I understand the symbolism of him lying prostrate before the throne, but the true servant does more than symbolic service. Symbolic service was the essence of Christ confronting hypocrites.

I don’t believe that the apostles lived in such splendor nor taught others to. Early collections went to help those who were being persecuted and were hungry, not placed in a vault in Rome.

This is a statement of my inability to get over the hurdle rather than a complaint against the man. Only the master can judge his own servants.

1. Now, about sola scriptura. This one, for me, is pretty simple. Before there was a New Testament there was a Church. Therefore, there must have been teachings. Does this take away from the Sacred Scripture - not at all. I believe that Sacred Scripture is wonderful and it alone brings many to Christ. But Sacred Tradition sure does amplify Sacred Scripture and brings it to a whole new level of meaning.

And this is why I couched it saying that there are semantic issues. Of course the church produced the scriptures. But even the church recognizes the difference between canon and other good books. The church canonized them because they are special. And the early church fathers have other good writings. That isn’t the issue of sola scriptura. That is merely a focus on the semantics.

The real issue is that of the great schism. By what basis does someone not raised in the church choose between East and West? The two churches have the same tradition to a point, yet are not different flavors of Catholicism as a Franciscan and a Dominican might claim. The two call each other heretical.

It appears that if one does not already have a tradition, that a tradition cannot be logically chosen, for if the Bible were used to distinguish, then the Bible is superior to tradition.

The Magna Carta introduced the idea that the king was subject to the law. The Reformation was the next step suggesting that the Pope also was subject to the law of God. Both were reactions to abuses by those in power.

I’m not sure there should have been a split at the Reformation. There were people attempting to reform it from within. But there was already the prior example of the schism. Schism wasn’t invented by the Protestants. They were merely given permission by prior Catholic practice. Children learn the sins of their parents.

So I am sola scriptura in practice (though I appreciate and read the fathers) because no one has presented an alternative.

Even with these perceived errors I could be Catholic if there were a reason to be. But because of the schism, any grace offered by the sacraments can only be symbolic, in my mind, since one cannot know if the particular priest is a heretic or not, since it cannot be distinguished if the Pope or the Eastern Council is heretical or not.

I can only turn to Christ.

 

[Magdalena09]

I see no one actually answered my question, although I do appreciate the discussion.

My protestant friend made the claim that veneration of Mary was NOT normative in the early church. I cannot find any evidence supporting this claim and only evidence to the contrary. I was wondering if there IS evidence supporting his claim. The earliest writings (1st and 2nd century and on down the line) of church fathers and the early church support the Roman Catholic teachings on Mary. I am wondering if there is historical evidence that contradicts that.

Now–as far as sola scriptura goes, this is by far the easiest to refute, because both before and after my conversion I read a lot of books by protestants and Catholics and it makes the most sense logically that sola scriptura cannot be possible. The concept of sola scriptura is, in itself, extra-biblical… that is, it is outside of scripture. The one and only verse that protestants seem to be able to come up with to support sola scriptura even somewhat is the verse that reads that “scripture is profitable for every good work”. If you look at that verse alone, WITHOUT any bias from protestant theology, just the words themselves… there is no reason to believe that because it states scripture is profitable, that what they MEANT to say is that scripture is the ONLY profitable thing. Nor, however, can Catholics deduce from verse alone that oral tradition is taught. It takes many, many other verses in the bible to show that–which is good, just the fact that so many verses support oral tradition.(See scripturecatholic.com/scripture_alone.html)

This is often overlooked by protestants because of the trickle-down effect of the reformation. Protestant theology has been developed to interpret scripture so that it does NOT agree with Catholicism. If it did, Protestantism could not be justified. By necessity of survival, Protestant theology must not agree with Catholic theology. THAT is why protestant theology insists that “their” way is the “right” way of interpreting scripture. To me, though, that just further proves the entire Catholic side of the argument. By what authority do Protestants claim to know that their interpretation of scripture is the right one? And for the matter, several different denominations may interpret the same verses very differently–and, in many cases, no one can legitimately claim that their interpretation holds more weight than someone else’s… unless, that is, they appeal to history and tradition.

It is interesting to note that the Bible doesn’t outright forbid abortion, but the Didache does. This would come in extremely handy to pro-life protestants everywhere, but attempting to use the Didache as anything close to authoritative would be inconsistent to the claims of “sola scriptura.”

Just my thoughts.

An amazing book to read about protestant and Catholic “confusion” due to vocabulary differences is Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic. It is written by a man who was Evangelical for 40 years before discovering, somewhat against his will, the truth of Catholicism.

 

[NHInsider]

I would observe wrt all the objections listed, that the fact that a good thing can be corrupted or abused does not mean it is not a good thing. (If it were, both religion and sex would have to be condemned outright.)

to the OP, no, I don’t believe there is any evidence of early churches opposing the honoring of the Theokotos. (Of course people don’t usually write about what they are not doing.) And from Scripture we have the Magnificat (“all generations shall call me blessed”) and the Woman crowned with the stars in Revelation.

As to early evidence of the papacy, again in addition to all the familiar citations from Scripture, we have the letter of Clement to the Church at Corinth as evidence, not of a medieval-style monarchical papacy, obviously, but of authority of “the Church at Rome” having been appealed to by letter and being asserted in terms that anticipate the doctrine of papal infallibility (59:1)