Glaring Hiatus

[Berean2]

Maybe you guys can fill me in. I’m at a loss: if Mary is so crucial to our faith/salvation, why do the Epistles not mention her that way? I mean, we’re not talking about some sort of tertiary doctrine; it seems to me that if she held the sort of crucial co-salvation position that the RC teaches, there’d have been at least*** one*** clear indication of that in the epistles. (Even in the Gospels, when that one woman in the crowd says to Jesus, “Blessed is the womb that bore you and the paps that suckled you!” Jesus retorts with “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and do it.”) The silence is deafening. (If this question has been answered in an earlier thread, please post the link(s) here. Also, please note: I am not asking for the types of pontifications that TriuneUnity has posted recently; I am solely seeking a focused answer to the very simple question I wrote above.) Whatever insights you can give me will be most appreciated.

 

[Answersplease]

Answersplease:

Is redemption the same as salvation?

Is the death of Christ the same as His ressurection?

The Holy Bible says that Chrsitians die WITH Christ.

But the Christians are saved by His ressurection. Because if Christ has not risen, then Christians are to pittied above all men.

Co redeemer does NOT mean EQUAL redeemer.

The Catholics Church says that all Christians are to some extent co-redeemers WITH Christ, because Christians must actively repent and accept Christ.
If Christians have NO ACTIVE role in their own salvation, then Calvinists win the day.

Another question you might want to consider is, did Saint Mary Mother of God have the free will to refuse the duty of being the mother of Jesus Christ? Did she have the ability to choose, and did her choice have an impact on all Christians?

The final question that makes your “glaring hiatus” a moot point is, does The Holy Bible contain everything? If so, then where is the ORIGINAL table of contents and the SIGNATURES for the four Gospels on the ORIGINAL manuscripts? It is tradition handed down from the original followers of Christ that tell you who wrote what.

 

[Contarini]

Maybe you guys can fill me in. I’m at a loss: if Mary is so crucial to our faith/salvation, why do the Epistles not mention her that way?

Indeed. It’s a real puzzle. Why don’t the Epistles mention the idea that Mary conceived Jesus without sexual intercourse? For that matter, the Gospel of Mark doesn’t mention it either, and one can argue over whether John mentions it indirectly. It almost seems as if Matthew’s and Luke’s birth narratives represent a later development unknown to the first believers, doesn’t it?

Oh wait–you were making an exception for *that *part of Marian doctrine.

But why? Obviously you have a theological reason for doing so–you (like me) accept Matthew and Luke as Holy Scripture. But of course those of us with a broadly Catholic approach to the faith (among whom I would include myself) also accept tradition as authoritative. To a skeptic who accepts none of this as divinely inspired and looks at the question from a purely historical point of view, it does indeed look as if Marian piety is a later development unknown to the first believers, and as if the virginal conception is the first step in that direction. To Catholics, it looks as if Marian piety is a legitimate and necessary outgrowth of what we believe about Jesus, and develops as a result of and in parallel with the development of Christology–beginning with an interest in stories about Jesus’ birth on the part of Matthew and Luke (writing early enough that they could collect reliable stories–Luke may have spoken to Mary directly) not shown by Mark or Paul. Both these positions are internally coherent.

But your position appears to be that anything essential to the Faith is mentioned in the Epistles. Maybe you deny the virginal conception, but I’d be highly surprised if that’s the case. And if you don’t, then your position makes no sense.

Edwin

 

[Third_Day]

=Berean2;6639603]Maybe you guys can fill me in. I’m at a loss: if Mary is so crucial to our faith/salvation,

Mary is not “crucial” to our faith and salvation. As a member of the body of Christ she can help guide us to Christ and thus salvation.

why do the Epistles not mention her that way? I mean, we’re not talking about some sort of tertiary doctrine; it seems to me that if she held the sort of crucial co-salvation position that the RC teaches

,
Genesis 3:15 tell us that enmity was put between Satan and Mary. Her seed, Jesus, brought us salvation. From the very beginning God had chosen Mary and she cooperated with God’s grace and said yes to becoming a part of God’s plan to redeem us.

(Even in the Gospels, when that one woman in the crowd says to Jesus, “Blessed is the womb that bore you and the paps that suckled you!” Jesus retorts with “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and do it.”) The silence is deafening

.
How does that take away the honor of Mary? Didn’t the Holy Spirit have her say, “All generations shall call me blessed?”

(

 

[kepha1]

Maybe you guys can fill me in. I’m at a loss: if Mary is so crucial to our faith/salvation, why do the Epistles not mention her that way? I mean, we’re not talking about some sort of tertiary doctrine; it seems to me that if she held the sort of crucial co-salvation position that the RC teaches, there’d have been at least*** one*** clear indication of that in the epistles.

Two reasons. First, Paul was not writing devotional works for his audience. He was writing theological and pastoral documents to patch crises that were going on in the different local churches. The amount of devotional material in his letters is small compared to the amount of doctrinal and moral material, and none of his epistles is a devotional meditation on anything, much less on Mary.

Jesus did not retort, He said “rather…” It does not mean “contrary”.

Luke 11:28 (KJV)
But he said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it.

Jesus is making a unity, not a distinction. If Jesus was making a distinction, then he would be excluding Mary as one who did not hear the word of God and keep it. If that is true, then Jesus would never have been born. Therefore it is only logical that Jesus was including Mary as one who hears the word of God and keeps it. Jesus is using Mary as a model of faith.

Furthermore, if Jesus is excluding Mary, he would be violating the 4rth Commandment (to honor ones parents) by insulting her, and worse, publically. This of course, is absurd.

In the Davidic Kingdom, all the kings had mothers who had an important role to play.
1 Kings 2:17, 20, 1 Kings 2:18, 1 Kings 2:19, 1 Kings 15:13, 2 Chron. 22:10, Neh. 2:6

Jesus is a King too, and he had a mother, just like the kings before. This was nothing new to the Jews at the time of Jesus. What Luke 11:27-28 are a clear indication of is the fact that those very Jews greatly honored Mary just as they honored the mother of the previous kings. Jesus is not giving this woman correction, but clarifying something. If we are going to hear the word of God and keep it, then we are being like Mary whether you believe it or not. It is the responsibility of all Christians seek the will of God, but I can’t think of anybody who did it more perfectly than Mary. Can you?

[/QUOTE]

 

[JustaServant]

Never ceases to amaze me the fundamentalist knee-jerk reactions to Mary. They, not Catholics, seem to be the ones obsessed with bringing her up all the time.

 

[WatchingMedia]

This is all in the Bible. Read your Bible, and you will have fewer questions.

Hail Mary full of grace
The Lord is with Thee.
Blessed art thou among women
and Blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.
Holy Mary, Mother of God

Next: the Fourth Commandment (not a recommendation) is:
Honor your father and your mother.
It only stands to reason that we should honor God’s Mother.
And we should thank her for saying “yes” for obeying God and giving us Jesus.

Catholics on worship one God. Trinity of Father, Son, Holy Spirit.

 

[Contarini]

Mary is not “crucial” to our faith and salvation. (

The devotional practices to which Protestants object are not crucial.

Mary as the Theotokos–the one who gave birth to God–is absolutely crucial. And that’s where the devotional practices come from.

I understand the point you are making and agree with it. But I think it’s important to point Protestants back to the root from which Marian devotion springs, which is the doctrine of the Incarnation, rather than presenting it as an optional add-on. (Obviously as an Anglican I have a somewhat different perspective, since practices like the Rosary are not that important in my own spiritual life.)

Edwin

 

[benidict]

Maybe you guys can fill me in. I’m at a loss: if Mary is so crucial to our faith/salvation, why do the Epistles not mention her that way? I mean, we’re not talking about some sort of tertiary doctrine; it seems to me that if she held the sort of crucial co-salvation position that the RC teaches, there’d have been at least*** one*** clear indication of that in the epistles. (Even in the Gospels, when that one woman in the crowd says to Jesus, “Blessed is the womb that bore you and the paps that suckled you!” Jesus retorts with “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and do it.”) The silence is deafening. (If this question has been answered in an earlier thread, please post the link(s) here. Also, please note: I am not asking for the types of pontifications that TriuneUnity has posted recently; I am solely seeking a focused answer to the very simple question I wrote above.) Whatever insights you can give me will be most appreciated.

if the trinity were true, then i would expect ONE clear indication of that in the epistles. just because the teachings of the Church about Mary are not specifically laid out in scripture does not make them untrue. not to mention all the old testament data alluding to the Blessed Mother. I.E. the ark of the covenant, bathsheeba the queen mother who sat on a throne at solomons side. the hight places that were Not torn down under rightous kings, which seemed to look forward to a female figure who would be the Mother of Messiah. etc.

 

[Berean2]

Clarification: OK, granted, my question was posed in something of a vacuum (I was trying not to be longwinded): rest assured that I’m not in any way doubting or assailing the crucial position historically/biologically of Mary in terms of being the bearer of the Savior of mankind, and of course, her willingness to “say yes” to God was amazing and pivotal to the whole course of redemption. Nor do I deny that she is “blessed amongst women” (plainly stated in the Word, after all). So please don’t misunderstand where I’m coming from. But if I assume for a moment that Mary does “guide” us to Christ: then if that wasn’t the case before she arrived in heaven, wouldn’t that have constituted some sort of deficiency (up to the time she arrived in heaven) in Christians’ “ability” to reach/approach Christ? Yet, there is not even a hint of this in the Epistles, nothing that implies that at some pt. in the future, accessibility to the Throne of Grace will be improved/increased thru the arrival of Mary in the heavenly realm.

Contarini: Thank you for your informative (name removed by moderator)ut. (And no, heaven forbid that I should deny the virginal conception! It is clearly taught in the Bible.) “The devotional practices to which Protestants object are not crucial.” I’m not sure what you’re saying here: “not crucial” objectively (Biblically) speaking? Or “not crucial” to RC practice either? Because if you mean the latter, that is not the impression I’ve gotten, either from my extensive contact with Catholics, or from my reading of RC writings. Which is why I’m trying to tighten my understanding on the subject.

if the trinity were true, then i would expect ONE clear indication of that in the epistles. just because the teachings of the Church about Mary are not specifically laid out in scripture does not make them untrue. not to mention all the old testament data alluding to the Blessed Mother. I.E. the ark of the covenant, bathsheeba the queen mother who sat on a throne at solomons side. the hight places that were Not torn down under rightous kings, which seemed to look forward to a female figure who would be the Mother of Messiah. etc.

Ben, from my perspective there’s plenty of material all over the Bible (OT/NT) that at the very least points to the Trinity (even if, no, the whole contents of the Athanasian Creed is not spelled out), but I do not “see” the allusions to the Blessed Mother that you mention (iow, I think you “see” them bec. you’re wearing RC lenses—not meant in any way derisively, just a statement of fact).

JAS wrote: “Never ceases to amaze me the fundamentalist knee-jerk reactions to Mary. They, not Catholics, seem to be the ones obsessed with bringing her up all the time.” JAS, for starters, I take the First Commandment very seriously, you know, the one that says, “Love the LORD your God with all your understanding”? (IOW, God doesn’t call us to knee-jerk faith.) So, if I’m studying the history of the Church & of Christian thought, and to boot I want to make sure I’m grasping correctly what one of the most influential organisations of Christianity teaches/believes, might it not then behoove me to query them directly (or would you recommend instead trafficking in straw men)? Secondly, if Mary is incontrovertibly essential to proper access to the heavenly Mercy Seat, would you not agree that I might I need to change my thinking (and practices). Furthermore, you might want to consider refraining from branding others: unless I’m sorely mistaken, no mortal possesses omniscience; you have zero idea what theological background (if any) I’m coming from. (Also, in case you weren’t aware, there is a huge difference between a Fundamentalist vs. someone who believes the fundamentals—the latter applies even to faithful Catholics). Lastly, this is the first time I’ve posted a thread about her. So, please, focus solely on addressing the OP, providing me with profitable info that will enlighten me in my research & deliberations. Thank you.

Watching Media wrote: “Read your Bible, and you will have fewer questions.” Deeply indebted to you, WM, for that priceless & novel suggestion. In fact, I’ve been mining The Book for decades, and precisely the more I’ve read and studied, the more questions I’ve had. It’s not my nature, nor consistent with the First Commandment, to simply shelve my brain because I have faith. Besides which, neither of your references answers my question. (See clarification in my first paragraph in this post.)

 

[Dokimas]

Indeed. It’s a real puzzle. Why don’t the Epistles mention the idea that Mary conceived Jesus without sexual intercourse? For that matter, the Gospel of Mark doesn’t mention it either, and one can argue over whether John mentions it indirectly. It almost seems as if Matthew’s and Luke’s birth narratives represent a later development unknown to the first believers, doesn’t it?

Oh wait–you were making an exception for *that *part of Marian doctrine.

But why? Obviously you have a theological reason for doing so–you (like me) accept Matthew and Luke as Holy Scripture. But of course those of us with a broadly Catholic approach to the faith (among whom I would include myself) also accept tradition as authoritative. To a skeptic who accepts none of this as divinely inspired and looks at the question from a purely historical point of view, it does indeed look as if Marian piety is a later development unknown to the first believers, and as if the virginal conception is the first step in that direction. To Catholics, it looks as if Marian piety is a legitimate and necessary outgrowth of what we believe about Jesus, and develops as a result of and in parallel with the development of Christology–beginning with an interest in stories about Jesus’ birth on the part of Matthew and Luke (writing early enough that they could collect reliable stories–Luke may have spoken to Mary directly) not shown by Mark or Paul. Both these positions are internally coherent.

But your position appears to be that anything essential to the Faith is mentioned in the Epistles. Maybe you deny the virginal conception, but I’d be highly surprised if that’s the case. And if you don’t, then your position makes no sense.

Edwin

Is there a need to mention in the Epistles all of what is taught in the Gospels? Mary being a virgin at the conception of Jesus throught til the birth of Jesus is taught in the Gospels but much of the other CC understandings are not, IMO. I’ve read much of the understandings of the doctrines about Mary on this forum and I understand why you have to rely on sacred traditions for you present understandings.

 

[Dokimas]

if the trinity were true, then i would expect ONE clear indication of that in the epistles. just because the teachings of the Church about Mary are not specifically laid out in scripture does not make them untrue. not to mention all the old testament data alluding to the Blessed Mother. I.E. the ark of the covenant, bathsheeba the queen mother who sat on a throne at solomons side. the hight places that were Not torn down under rightous kings, which seemed to look forward to a female figure who would be the Mother of Messiah. etc.

Bathsheeba commited adultry with David. Her son, Solomon, had 300 wives and many more concubines. Solomon stuggled with his faith (read Ecclesiastes).​

The OT Tabernacle seems to be TOTALLY symbolic of Jesus and NO ONE else. Hebrew 8-10 seems to bring out this point.

 

[Berean2]

-Is there a need to mention in the Epistles all of what is taught in the Gospels?

My hesitation stems from the fact that in the Epistles, there is not even the most microscopic allusion to Mary as one who will end up (after her demise) as a “guide”/“path” to Christ. Putting it another way, if she wasn’t necessary as a conduit to Christ before she passed on, why would she be afterwards? Or are we saying that access to Christ was incomplete at the time the Apostles were writing (which again does not find any justification in the Scriptures). Bottom line for me so far: the idea that Mary somehow enhances our access to the Mercy Seat does not find any support in the Scripture.

 

[Dokimas]

My hesitation stems from the fact that in the Epistles, there is not even the most microscopic allusion to Mary as one who will end up (after her demise) as a “guide”/“path” to Christ. Putting it another way, if she wasn’t necessary as a conduit to Christ before she passed on, why would she be afterwards? Or are we saying that access to Christ was incomplete at the time the Apostles were writing (which again does not find any justification in the Scriptures). Bottom line for me so far: the idea that Mary somehow enhances our access to the Mercy Seat does not find any support in the Scripture.

I agree with you, for what ever that’s worth.

 

[Dokimas]

My hesitation stems from the fact that in the Epistles, there is not even the most microscopic allusion to Mary as one who will end up (after her demise) as a “guide”/“path” to Christ. Putting it another way, if she wasn’t necessary as a conduit to Christ before she passed on, why would she be afterwards? Or are we saying that access to Christ was incomplete at the time the Apostles were writing (which again does not find any justification in the Scriptures). Bottom line for me so far: the idea that Mary somehow enhances our access to the Mercy Seat does not find any support in the Scripture.

I find the following quote from Jesus very interesting and inclusive of all who follow Him, not just for Mary.

Lu 8:20, 20 And it was told Him by some, who said, “Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, desiring to see You.”
But He answered and said to them, “My mother and My brothers are these who hear the word of God and do it.”

Oh to be found faithful!!!

 

[Contarini]

Clarification: OK, granted, my question was posed in something of a vacuum (I was trying not to be longwinded): rest assured that I’m not in any way doubting or assailing the crucial position historically/biologically of Mary in terms of being the bearer of the Savior of mankind, and of course, her willingness to “say yes” to God was amazing and pivotal to the whole course of redemption.

Yes, but my point is that that isn’t in the Epistles either.

Contarini: Thank you for your informative (name removed by moderator)ut. (And no, heaven forbid that I should deny the virginal conception! It is clearly taught in the Bible.)

But not in the Epistles. Isn’t that a “glaring hiatus” by your own argument? With all due respect, you don’t seem to have understood the point I was trying to make.

Why don’t Mark or Paul say anything about the virginal conception?

“The devotional practices to which Protestants object are not crucial.” I’m not sure what you’re saying here: “not crucial” objectively (Biblically) speaking? Or “not crucial” to RC practice either? Because if you mean the latter, that is not the impression I’ve gotten, either from my extensive contact with Catholics, or from my reading of RC writings.

Well, it *is *the impression I’ve gotten. But we’re on a forum full of very conservative Catholics, so we can let them decide the matter.

Certainly a lot of traditional Catholic devotional writing speaks as if devotion to Mary were essential. But nearly all the Catholics I’ve known personally deny that this is the case, and insist that you can be a perfectly good Catholic without ever praying the Rosary or engaging in any similar practice. They would understand the traditional claims about Mary’s essential role as referring *primarily *to her role in the Incarnation. Which is, again, why I pointed to the stories about Jesus’ birth as the core from which later Marian piety developed.

Ben, from my perspective there’s plenty of material all over the Bible (OT/NT) that at the very least points to the Trinity (even if, no, the whole contents of the Athanasian Creed is not spelled out), but I do not “see” the allusions to the Blessed Mother that you mention (iow, I think you “see” them bec. you’re wearing RC lenses—not meant in any way derisively, just a statement of fact).

Indeed. But isn’t it also possible that we see references to the Trinity everywhere because we are wearing Catholic (in the broad sense) lenses ourselves? There are many who do not see these references. Perhaps this is because they lack faith or Satan has blinded them or whatever–but isn’t that really just another way of saying that they aren’t reading Scripture through the same lenses we are?

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Is there a need to mention in the Epistles all of what is taught in the Gospels? Mary being a virgin at the conception of Jesus throught til the birth of Jesus is taught in the Gospels but much of the other CC understandings are not, IMO.

Indeed. But my point is that even the virginal conception isn’t found in Paul’s Epistles, or in the Gospel of Mark, which was probably the first to be written (I know that that’s disputed). And that’s significant for the OP’s argument. Furthermore, the OP chose to bring up the Epistles–I didn’t choose that criterion, although since most scholars think Paul’s letters (well, at least the seven that everyone admits are by Paul) are the earliest parts of the New Testament, I don’t think it was a bad one if you want to take this reductionistic approach and argue for “glaring hiatuses.”

Edwin

 

[benidict]

hi berean. i can see your point about seeing these allusions where you might not. and looking thru RCC glasses would hold alot of weight. but, i was able to see this before i even entered into Catholocism. the Church simply confirmed what i already had come to the conclusion on. that and many other things. i had the fortunate/or unfortunate revelelation of the Holy Spirit i believe on this. i used to be a Baptist. to get to where i am now from where i was, took a real crises of faith, and a period where i completely fell away from Christianity all together. too long a story.
Dokimas, my friend. how have you been? i will get back to you on bathsheeba later. Peace to both of you

 

[FantomScholar]

Mary as the Theotokos–the one who gave birth to God–is absolutely crucial. And that’s where the devotional practices come from.

Just as a matter of historical survey, would it be correct to say that the proclamation at the Council of Ephesus was where the devotional practices come from?

It seems that veneration of her played no lesser role where the Theotokos was rejected. Nestorius did not differ from Cyril on the veneration of Mary, and the Nestorian Church, which condemned the Council of Ephesus, is in her liturgy and her hymns, if not the classical church, then at any rate, a prominent advocate of the Marian cultus.

The later ever-recurring interpretations of Old Testament passages as types of Mary (e.g. the earth from which Adam was formed, the burning bush, Gideon’s fleece, the closed gate in Ezekiel) are found in the great Syrian church father Ephraem, who was born circa 306. He already taught the complete sinlessness of Mary (Jesus and Mary alone of all men are sinless: “For in you, Lord, there is no blemish, nor any stain in your mother,” Carm. Nis. 27, written circa 370).

It’s an interesting phenomena in church history, to be sure.

 

[Contarini]

Just as a matter of historical survey, would it be correct to say that the proclamation at the Council of Ephesus was where the devotional practices come from?

It seems that veneration of her played no lesser role where the Theotokos was rejected. Nestorius did not differ from Cyril on the veneration of Mary, and the Nestorian Church, which condemned the Council of Ephesus, is in her liturgy and her hymns, if not the classical church, then at any rate, a prominent advocate of the Marian cultus.

This is an interesting point. I was under the impression that there was some difference there, though I knew that it wasn’t that great.

However, if you’re right (as I assume you are, since I admit that I don’t know that much about the Church of the East) I think this would be an argument in favor of the proposition that the “Church of the East” is far more orthodox than used to be supposed, expressing the same faith in different words. I was not thinking primarily of the definition at Ephesus itself but of Mary’s role in the Incarnation, although of course I was expressing that role in the language defined at Ephesus since I accept the authority of that Council.

Edwin