Help! Attack on Mary

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ruthie05
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Ruthie05

Guest
My good friend is non denominational and we discuss the topic of Mary a lot. He recently sent me this link and I thought it would be great if some people on here could read it and give me some insight from a morally Catholic perspective please.

carm.org/mary-full-grace-and-luke-128

So much thanks!
Ruthie
 
I wouldn’t characterize is as an “attack”. I would say that Protestants worry about Mary, or anyone else, being placed in a position that even approximates that of Jesus Christ. That is their chief issue, that what they see as inordinate adoration places her almost alongside Jesus Christ, whom we alone are to worship, with the Father.
Could anyone tell me if I am correct in this next thing I’m going to say?
I think I read once where in the Middle Ages, man was so skeptical of Jesus and the Father hearing them, because of man’s sinful nature, that they felt they had to go through Mary in order to have HER speak with the Son and the Father about us, in other words, intercede on our behalf, because they were too angry with us to respond, whereas if Mary went to them for us, they might respond.
Is there any truth to this historically, or am I confusing what I read with something else entirely? Sorry to interject this, but if what I read is true, it would explain the origin of the adoration of Mary at the level that Protestants are uncomfortable with.
 
My good friend is non denominational and we discuss the topic of Mary a lot. He recently sent me this link and I thought it would be great if some people on here could read it and give me some insight from a morally Catholic perspective please.

carm.org/mary-full-grace-and-luke-128

So much thanks!
Ruthie
I’ve done this in detail, and, actually, I’ve done it on CARM, which made me wonder (perhaps arrogantly) if that’s where that particular CARM appologia came from!

I think you only have to look at what the Fathers taught to see what was originally known about Our Lady. This is a good place to start: scripturecatholic.com/blessed_virgin_mary.html

The kecharitomone discussion is a complex linguistic one which the CARM site attempts to dissect with its typically blunt instrument. Suffice to say they’re heading off in completely the wrong direction with their “Latin Vulgate” nonsense; as if no Catholic scholar ever studied the texts in anything other than Latin! One might say an Augustinian understanding might be guilty of this, as Augustine didn’t have Greek and relied heavily on the Latin. This led to his heavy stance reading Romans. St. Thomas Aquinas however, certainly had a fine command of Greek, and he was certain of Mary’s special place in the economy of salvation: campus.udayton.edu/mary/meditations/thomasaquinas.html

I used to read a lot of this Protestant nonsense about Mary and worry, as you are. I would highly recommend reading some good Catholic stuff instead, and discovering the beauty and power of our faith as expressed in Marian devotion.

I would suggest:

amazon.com/Hail-Holy-Queen-ebook/dp/B000FCKGLG/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&m=A7B2F8DUJ88VZ&s=digital-text&qid=1291731412&sr=8-2

shop.catholic.com/product.php?productid=16774&cat=18&page=1

I think that Protestants are scared of Mary, because she reveals the greatest error in their logic. For them, we are always dirty, sinful human beings. Mary illustrates what we should all be reaching for; someone perfectly obedient to the will of God. “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it,” Luke 11:28. Who heard that WORD more clearly? Who was closer to it? Who kept it better?

Pray for us oh Holy Mother of God
That we may be made worthy of the promises of Christ.
 
I wouldn’t characterize is as an “attack”. I would say that Protestants worry about Mary, or anyone else, being placed in a position that even approximates that of Jesus Christ. That is their chief issue, that what they see as inordinate adoration places her almost alongside Jesus Christ, whom we alone are to worship, with the Father.
I understand and respect where you’re coming from, but we Catholics really do think of Mary as our Mother, and so while I have no doubt his friend is well-intentioned, and acting out of good faith, it still hurts. It would like if someone (for your own sake) suggested that your father wasn’t really the man who sired you. It’s hard to take that as anything less than an assault on your mom. So if we sometimes seem “weird” about Mary, it’s because it’s personal.
Could anyone tell me if I am correct in this next thing I’m going to say?
I think I read once where in the Middle Ages, man was so skeptical of Jesus and the Father hearing them, because of man’s sinful nature, that they felt they had to go through Mary in order to have HER speak with the Son and the Father about us, in other words, intercede on our behalf, because they were too angry with us to respond, whereas if Mary went to them for us, they might respond.
Is there any truth to this historically, or am I confusing what I read with something else entirely? Sorry to interject this, but if what I read is true, it would explain the origin of the adoration of Mary at the level that Protestants are uncomfortable with.
I wouldn’t doubt that you could find some Catholics over the last two thousand years who speak that way, that Christ being tasked with the Last Judgment makes Him a fearful person to approach. The model of John 2, where Mary is able to intercede on behalf of the crowd despite Jesus’ apparent initial reluctance to start His public ministry, is instructive. That I said, I also recognize what the NT says about approaching the Throne with confidence.

In any case, at every Mass throughout history, we pray directly to God through the Our Father (and numerous other prayers), so even though I’m sure there were eras in which an aversion to go directly to God cropped up, they never prevailed. Called to Communion has a book review on Protestant-turned-Orthodox theologian Jaroslav Pelikan’s book on Mary Throughout the Ages. That’d be a good place to look, perhaps.
 
I want to be clear that what I said was my view of how Protestants see Mary, not my own personal views.
 
Over the summer, on a local Christian radio station, I heard Catholicism explained this way.

“Catholics have a Big Mary and a little Jesus.”
 
The original poster posted a link from an apologetics website. I did not see that as an attack on Mary, but I saw it as an opinion about Mary and her place in the scheme of things. Protestants wonder why Mary is venerated, and they worry that Catholics place her almost on the same level as Jesus.
For them to say that is only an opinion, it does not seem, to me, to constitute an “attack” on Mary. A difference of opinion is not automatically an attack.
My own views on it are not important. The only thing I answered was the contention that what the link said was an attack. I don’t think it was, but mine is only one opinion among thousands, millions.
 
I want to be clear that what I said was my view of how Protestants see Mary, not my own personal views.
Don’t worry, I understand. I didn’t take you as saying everything CARM or the OP’s friend said was right, just that it wasn’t meant to be an “attack.” I actually thought that CARM was at it most irenic in that article.

That said, it’s not a particularly strong argument, is it? I mean, it has a long list of Protestant Bibles that don’t translate Luke 1 the same way, but that’s hardly unexpected. Are we to assume that the Protestant Bibles are right because they’ve a broader variety of translations, or because they’re Protestant? Far more notable would be a Protestant Bible readily acknowledging that Mary was called “full of grace” by early Church Fathers like Jerome because of this passage from Luke (and perhaps even that Jerome’s mastery of Greek, Hebrew, and Latin far exceeded most of his critics). In any case, it isn’t as though Catholic views on Mary all turn on the translation of a single Greek phrase.
 
My good friend is non denominational and we discuss the topic of Mary a lot. He recently sent me this link and I thought it would be great if some people on here could read it and give me some insight from a morally Catholic perspective please.

carm.org/mary-full-grace-and-luke-128

So much thanks!
Ruthie
As I understand Mary’s position in heaven, she is the mother of the king of heaven and earth. Petitions were normally sent through the Jewish queen mother to be given to the king, so of course we would send our petitions through Mary. But consider this – if Jesus couldn’t say no to His mother here on earth, as demonstrated at the wedding at Cana, how much more unlikely it would be that He would deny her anything she asked of Him in heaven? And always remember, she is His MOTHER. What good son denies his mother what she is asking, if at all possible? Also, as to devotions, Jesus is devoted to His mother. We need to follow His example. Also, don’t say anything bad about my mother and expect me to admire and agree with you. How would Jesus react to adverse comments about His mother? We are not talking about adoring Mary. It’s pretty common knowledge that she isn’t a goddess.
 
My good friend is non denominational and we discuss the topic of Mary a lot. He recently sent me this link and I thought it would be great if some people on here could read it and give me some insight from a morally Catholic perspective please.

carm.org/mary-full-grace-and-luke-128

So much thanks!
Ruthie
kepha 1, a member here, posted this link on another thread… I found it fantastic
 
For your insight:

“favored one”: Greek: Verb: kecharitoomene: literally means: “having been graced,” from the verb charitooo = “to grace, favor.” Ephesians 1:6 uses the Greek echaritoosen (indicative, active, aorist = “he graced”). The LXX uses Luke’s morphology in Esther 18:17, in which kecharitoomenoo is used as an adjectival participle. Other derivatives appear in 2Mc 3:33; 4 Mc 5:8. In Lk 1:28, kecharitoomene is titular, since it follows the greeting chaire. Whereas the Greek could have used a simple noun to address Mary, Luke uses a complex verb. The NT uses pleerees charitos (“full of grace”) to describe Jesus (Jn 1:14) and Stephen (Ac 6:8), but these phrases are not as specific to time, agent and continuity as kecharitoomene. Unfortunately, the RSV, along with the Protestant translations, and the more liberal Catholic translations dilute kecharitoomene to being merely a “favoring” of Mary rather than an intrinsic quality of Mary.

The unique features of kecharitoomene are the use of the Greek perfect tense, which:

(a) denotes that the state of grace began in past time;
(b) denotes a completed and accomplished action;
(c) whose results continue in the present;
(d) uses the Greek passive voice, denoting that Mary received the title of “fully graced” from an outside entity, ie, God. In short, the perfect participle means

“God has filled you with grace, and as a result, you are still in this blessed condition.” We might better translate the verse as:

“And entering he said to her: ‘Hail, FullyGraced One, the Lord is with you. Blessed are you among women.’ 29 But she was greatly troubled at the statement, and wondered what kind of greeting this might be. 30 And the angel said to her: ‘“Fear not, Mary, For you did find grace with God.”

Beginning with the Reformation, various translators of kecharitoomene have avoided inferences to the Immaculate Conception, many attempting to portray the state of grace as extrinsic or forensic not intrinsic or infused. The Latin Vulgate and DouayRheims translate kecharitoomene as gratia plena (“full of grace”) denoting an intrinsic quality of grace in Mary. The NT uses pleerees (“full of grace”) to describe Jesus (Jn 1:14) and Stephen (Ac 6:8), but these phrases are not as specific to time, agent and continuity as kecharitoomene.

The statement, “The Lord is with you” is literally “The Lord with you,” such that the Greek copula “is” is not included. Greek can leave out the copula when the present tense is implied, but not if a past, future or perfect tense exists. Thus, the literal present tense of “The Lord with you” means that it is a truth of great import and perpetuity, as if it were an eternal circumstance that will never cease.

The Greek aorist tense of “have found” in the clause “Mary, for you have found favor with God,” means that Mary possessed this grace from long ago. Even if she only learns of it now, nevertheless, she possessed this blessed state in the indefinite past.

The verb eulogemene (“Blessed”) in the clause “Blessed are you among women” is a Greek perfect, passive, participle (just as the verb kecharitoomene in Luke 1:28). This means that the “blessed” state is one that occurred in the past and has continuing effects in the present and future. In addition, it is a state which was given to her by an outside agent.

As one can tell from the Protestant translations of Luke 1:28, none of them are disposed to translate it as the DouayRheims and Latin Vulgate. Even modern Catholic translations (which are predisposed to Protestant theology in many areas) do the same. As a result, these translations ignore the more serious implications offered by the Greek verb kekcharitoomene, reducing it merely to a favored status of Mary rather than a description of a state of being that Mary possesses in her own person. Part of the reason for this state of affairs is that Protestants have a different conception of grace. Protestants do not conceive of grace as a quality of the soul (what the Catholic Church has traditionally called “infusion of grace.” At the moment of Baptism, the individual is free from all sin). Rather, Protestants conceive of grace as a legal status, or only how God views the individual, not as something intrinsic to the individual. Thus, to them, Mary cannot possess grace that changes her intrinsically or gives her soul a state of sinlessness, rather, she merely has an exalted status above other human beings, that is, she is “highly favored.”

Unlike Protestant denominations who rail against veneration of Mary, Catholics have a pure, undefiled, Mother of the Church and Mother of God to emulate and follow. Although Scripture only gives us implicit information about Mary’s Immaculate Conception (information which Protestants conclude must result in a denial of the doctrine), this shows us that not everything we believe in Catholicism is written explicitly between the pages of Scripture, but is often only implicit. That is because Scripture, although a great source of information, is not exhaustive in its information concerning the Christian faith. It is a witness to the truth, not a complete revelation of the truth, and therefore we would expect it to treat some subjects rather sparsely, and others more indepth. There are many such beliefs in Catholicism that are only touched upon in Scripture and not treated exhaustively (e.g., Purgatory, Indulgences, Communion of Saints, Sacrament of the Sick, Apostolic Succession, Prayers for the Dead, the Assumption of Mary, Confession to a Priest, etc). But Scripture is clear that, in the area of dogma, the Church and Tradition are our guide, and are on an equal par with Scripture (Mt 16:18-19; 1Tm 3:15; 2Th 2:15), and as such we must obey each and every dogma that she proclaims, for she speaks with the mouth of Christ: “He who listens to you, listens to Me” (Lk 10:16).
 
So here I sit, hoping people won’t jump down my throat. Yes, Im attracted to a 16 year old girl. I’m 31. I can’t help it, she’s beautiful.
Renadex
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top