Litany of the Blessed Virgin Mary - over the top?!

[kquinn]

I believe the issue in question here revolves around what exactly “your glory proclaim” entails. We are not asserting in anyway that Mary’s glory stems from herself. Rather, it is God who glorified her. As Elizabeth, inspired by the Holy Spirit, stated, blessed is she among women. Mary responded that from that day all generations would call her blessed. Neither she nor Elizabeth are in any way saying that all generations would call her blessed or that she is blessed because of anything inherent in her, but rather because of God’s grace and use of her. Catholics agree–> Mary is revered because of God’s use of her in our salvation.

How about this hymn to Mary…

In heaven, the blessed your glory proclaim;

…

Yes. The truth. What is the truth about Mary? Do the Scriptures present her the same as the catholic church?

Again, it seems that a large sticking point here actually lies in the authority of the Catholic Church and the question of apostolic succession and the teachings passed down through oral tradition. I think you might enjoy reading the early Church fathers (Ignatius of Antioch for example). God bless!

 

[DebCWil]

Mother of divine grace,
pray for us.

The original question was from VociMike asking for a “heretical statement.”
This title is an example of how Mary leads us to a deeper devotion of her Son. Jesus is our divine grace. Mary is His mother. There is nothing heretical in this title.
Jesus does not deny anything his mother asks of Him (see the Wedding at Cana). She intercedes (pray for us) on our behalf. Divine grace flows from God; it is not Mary who bestows the grace.
As mentioned also in early posts, Mary is at times called the Ark of the New Covenant. The New Covenant is Jesus. The Ark is her womb. This is not only a Roman Catholic teaching. Many Eastern Orthodox Churches are named for the Theokotos–Christ Bearer.

There was also an earlier question about how often this Litany is recited. It is recited less often than before Vatican II. As I also posted earlier, I recite this litany as part of my Saturday devotions. Historically Saturday has been dedicated to Mary as her day of mourning following the death of her son.
I often pray the Litany of the Sacred Heart on Sundays while others pray this litany on the First Friday of the month.
Litanies whether of the saints, Mary, or Jesus are less common than they were before Vatican II. The same is true of novenas and other popular devotions.

Are there Marian prayers with which I have difficulty? The answer to that question is yes. I do have concerns about the Memorare (mentioned earlier). There are individuals who do place a greater emphasis on Mary than on Jesus. This, however, is not the teaching of the Catholic Church.
I also have difficulty with the Hail, Holy, Queen because of the words “mourning and weeping in this valley of tears.” The joy of the Lord is my strength.

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

Mother of divine grace,
pray for us.

And what’s heretical on it?

Not in the sense that God has a mother. Rather she is the mother of the human part of Jesus.

Was Mary mother of Jesus? You know that man who walked around the earth about 2000 years ago? The one who performed miracles such as healing the sick or walking on water? The one who was crucified and on the third day rose from the dead? Was not Mary his mother and he her son?

Yes she was! And the man I’m talking about wasn’t some kind of “human part of Jesus Christ”. No that man was God - fully God and fully man. He WAS GOD…and Virgin Mary was his mother.

Hence saying that she in not Mother of God you either say mean that that Jesus was only some kind of “human part of him” or that he was not God at all. Not of it is true and both are condemned heresies.

How does the average catholic know the difference between dulia and hyerdulia in practice? What tells them the difference between the 2 and if they have improperly done hyperdulia?

As was already said, the difference is in the persons heart. For example I may genuflect in front of the queen or in front of the Holy Sacrament. In the first case it’s simply a sign of honor but in the second case it’s worship of God.

If you the study the scriptures on Mary you will not see the kinds of things the catholic church says about her.

Nor I will see the things you say about the Bible!

You are right in saying that this is dangerous territory. This is what happens when a church puts its “traditions” and dogmas on the same level as scripture. It is inevitable that this will result in going beyond what the inspired-inerrant Scriptures teach.

Allow me to tell you a story.

Once upon time…there was One God, who in all his love to us, sent his only Son to die for us on the cross and destroy the great chasm that separated the two of us. The redeemer was named Jesus. He founded the Church, who would continue to carry his mission until the end of times, for he knew this would be needed after he was no longer walking among us. This Church would be there to preserve the Truth, to teach it to all men (either by word of mouth or later on also written word) as well as to administer the sacraments that He established to help us in our salvation - all in order to bring men to Him. After He ascended to heaven the Church faithfully lead many souls to him and soon started spreading. Much of the Truth which was up to that point was taught and preserved by the Church orally, was then put on paper. This written part, of what we now call Sacred Tradition, was later on (by the authority of the Church) assembled into one book which we call THE BIBLE*. The Church carefully preserved the Scripture and used it as it was intended - to teach all men. Devil saw all this and his furry grew each day. He used all his strengths and power to attack the Church from both inside and outside and to lead man away from the Truth preserved by the Church for centuries. He succeeded on many occasions and trumped in many battles. One such victory happened about 500 years ago - soon after the invention of the printing press technology. This was when one of the greatest lies was born: the idea “the Book of the Church” should be cut of it’s author, keeper and sole authoritative interpretor. Bible was claimed to be self-sufficient and that all truths are written in that book. Satan marched victorious from this battle as thousands believed such a ridiculous claim. Great disunity was created and many cut themselves from the Mother Church, the Eucharist and in some cases even salvation.

THE END

*The Catholic version.

 

[justasking4]

First off, I recommend you find a good apologestics book, or read encyclicals that explain the Churchs stance on Mary: perhaps “Hail Holy Queen” Scott Hahn.

Secondly, justas…you are stating this based on the assumption that the Scripture is the full composite of the faith. As Catholics, we believe that written tradition AND oral tradition are of necessity. I recommend “Born Fundamentalist, Born again Catholic” by David Currie, which will state the Catholic stance more clearly than can I in a short post…let me assure you, I am only trying to shed light on/explain the basis/argument behind the Catholic teaching of authority, and thereby Mary.

God bless!

Couple of things to consider. One is that the Scriptures don’t support many of the doctrines on Mary. Not only are they not mentioned but in some cases goes against the clear teaching of scripture. Mary being without sin is one example. The other issue is where do we see these doctrines developing in history. Take her assumption. In an article in the New Advent it says this: " Regarding the day, year, and manner of Our Lady’s death, nothing certain is known. The earliest known literary reference to the Assumption is found in the Greek work De Obitu S. Dominae. Catholic faith, however, has always derived our knowledge of the mystery from Apostolic Tradition. Epiphanius (d. 403) acknowledged that he knew nothing definite about it (Haer., lxxix, 11). The dates assigned for it vary between three and fifteen years after Christ’s Ascension. Two cities claim to be the place of her departure: Jerusalem and Ephesus. Common consent favours Jerusalem, where her tomb is shown; but some argue in favour of Ephesus. The first six centuries did not know of the tomb of Mary at Jerusalem.

Now let me ask you; if a person made a claim about something that happed 300 years ago but had no evidence to support it, would you believe it?

 

[justasking4]

GandalfTheWhite;2511228]And what’s heretical on it?

Where does it say in scritpure (where all our knowledge of Mary is to be found) does it claim she is the “source of grace”?

Was Mary mother of Jesus? You know that man who walked around the earth about 2000 years ago? The one who performed miracles such as healing the sick or walking on water? The one who was crucified and on the third day rose from the dead? Was not Mary his mother and he her son?

Yes she was! And the man I’m talking about wasn’t some kind of “human part of Jesus Christ”. No that man was God - fully God and fully man. He WAS GOD…and Virgin Mary was his mother.

Was Mary the source of the divine or human part of Jesus?

Hence saying that she in not Mother of God you either say mean that that Jesus was only some kind of “human part of him” or that he was not God at all. Not of it is true and both are condemned heresies.

If you look at history of this term its not what a lot of people think. Would you not agree that God, Who is eternal, does not have a mother?

As was already said, the difference is in the persons heart. For example I may genuflect in front of the queen or in front of the Holy Sacrament. In the first case it’s simply a sign of honor but in the second case it’s worship of God.

Nor I will see the things you say about the Bible!

Allow me to tell you a story.

Once upon time…there was One God, who in all his love to us, sent his only Son to die for us on the cross and destroy the great chasm that separated the two of us. The redeemer was named Jesus. He founded the Church, who would continue to carry his mission until the end of times, for he knew this would be needed after he was no longer walking among us. This Church would be there to preserve the Truth, to teach it to all men (either by word of mouth or later on also written word) as well as to administer the sacraments that He established to help us in our salvation - all in order to bring men to Him. After He ascended to heaven the Church faithfully lead many souls to him and soon started spreading. Much of the Truth which was up to that point was taught and preserved by the Church orally, was then put on paper. This written part, of what we now call Sacred Tradition, was later on (by the authority of the Church) assembled into one book which we call THE BIBLE*. The Church carefully preserved the Scripture and used it as it was intended - to teach all men. Devil saw all this and his furry grew each day. He used all his strengths and power to attack the Church from both inside and outside and to lead man away from the Truth preserved by the Church for centuries. He succeeded on many occasions and trumped in many battles. One such victory happened about 500 years ago - soon after the invention of the printing press technology. This was when one of the greatest lies was born: the idea “the Book of the Church” should be cut of it’s author, keeper and sole authoritative interpretor. Bible was claimed to be self-sufficient and that all truths are written in that book. Satan marched victorious from this battle as thousands believed such a ridiculous claim. Great disunity was created and many cut themselves from the Mother Church, the Eucharist and in some cases even salvation.

THE END

*The Catholic version.

Do you believe the Bible is inspired-inerrant? If so, then what is the source of this inspiration?
Is it the church or God?

 

[justasking4]

DebCWil;2510255]The original question was from VociMike asking for a “heretical statement.”
This title is an example of how Mary leads us to a deeper devotion of her Son. Jesus is our divine grace. Mary is His mother. There is nothing heretical in this title.
Jesus does not deny anything his mother asks of Him (see the Wedding at Cana). She intercedes (pray for us) on our behalf. Divine grace flows from God; it is not Mary who bestows the grace.

How do you know Mary intercedes for you if the scriptures never taught such a thing?
Since the scriptures don’t, on what grounds do your leaders know?

As mentioned also in early posts, Mary is at times called the Ark of the New Covenant. The New Covenant is Jesus. The Ark is her womb. This is not only a Roman Catholic teaching.

The scriptures (which is all tells us that we know of her) never make such claims about her. In fact the terms you use here have been unknown for centuries.

Many Eastern Orthodox Churches are named for the Theokotos–Christ Bearer.

This is actually a better term to use than “mother of God”.

There was also an earlier question about how often this Litany is recited. It is recited less often than before Vatican II. As I also posted earlier, I recite this litany as part of my Saturday devotions. Historically Saturday has been dedicated to Mary as her day of mourning following the death of her son.
I often pray the Litany of the Sacred Heart on Sundays while others pray this litany on the First Friday of the month.
Litanies whether of the saints, Mary, or Jesus are less common than they were before Vatican II. The same is true of novenas and other popular devotions.

Are there Marian prayers with which I have difficulty? The answer to that question is yes. I do have concerns about the Memorare (mentioned earlier). There are individuals who do place a greater emphasis on Mary than on Jesus. This, however, is not the teaching of the Catholic Church.
I also have difficulty with the Hail, Holy, Queen because of the words “mourning and weeping in this valley of tears.” The joy of the Lord is my strength.

What is it about these things that trouble you? Is not this last part of your comments endorsed by the catholic church?

 

[justasking4]

kquinn;2510223]I believe the issue in question here revolves around what exactly “your glory proclaim” entails. We are not asserting in anyway that Mary’s glory stems from herself. Rather, it is God who glorified her. As Elizabeth, inspired by the Holy Spirit, stated, blessed is she among women. Mary responded that from that day all generations would call her blessed. Neither she nor Elizabeth are in any way saying that all generations would call her blessed or that she is blessed because of anything inherent in her, but rather because of God’s grace and use of her. Catholics agree–> Mary is revered because of God’s use of her in our salvation.

Again, it seems that a large sticking point here actually lies in the authority of the Catholic Church and the question of apostolic succession and the teachings passed down through oral tradition. I think you might enjoy reading the early Church fathers (Ignatius of Antioch for example). God bless!

I agree in part what you say here. I think it actually goes farther though. The catholic church has put itself above the inspired Word of God with many of its traditions and doctrines.

 

[ricmat]

I’m new to this thread, but I’ll jump in…

How do you know Mary intercedes for you if the scriptures never taught such a thing?
Since the scriptures don’t, on what grounds do your leaders know?

**Mary interceded with Jesus for the benefit of the Cana wedding guests. It’s in your bible. At least, I hope it is.
**
The scriptures (which is all tells us that we know of her) never make such claims about her. In fact the terms you use here have been unknown for centuries.

**Revelation 11-12 - remember that there were no chapter headings or breaks in the original text. The ark of the covenant at the end of 11, and Mary in 12:1. There are many books about this if you’re really interested - “Catholic for a Reason volume 2, Scripture and the Mystery of the Mother of God” is one good one.
**

 

[justasking4]

MDomashinski;2496900]I wish I had a copy of my pastor’s homily on this issue. The man is a HUGE theologan and BIG into showing the Biblical Scriptural Basis for Marian Devotion, and many other misunderstood Catholic teachings and beliefs. (Am I so totally blessed or what?!) Anyway, the horribly ignorant, I really need to work on my bible goes something like this. First, one has to believe that Jesus is God incarnate.

Secondly, God cannont be borne out of a woman who has sin.

Couple of errors here. One,there is no basis for this claim in Scripture that God in Christ could not be born through a sinner. This would mean that sin is greater in power than God. Secondly, how was it possible for Jesus to literally touch sinful humans and not be contaminated?
Third, the scriptures clearly teach that all men are sinners. One such place can be found in Romans 3:9 which says–" 9 What then? Are we better than they? Not at all; for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin;
This would include Mary.

Third, there is no place in scripture that says that Mary had other children,

Not so. A topic for another time.

Fourth. If her husband, Joseph, was as good of a practicing Jew as scripture implies, HE NEVER would have deflied the vessel that carried God by having marital relations in such a manner as to cause pregnancy.

Not so. Sex in its proper context (marriage) is a gift from God. Children also are a gift.

Fifth, Mary most likely took a vow of perpetual virginity, not uncommon in those days.

As married woman this would not have been right. One of the purposes of marriage is to have children. To take such a vow would have been out of biblical grounds.

Believing in and protecting the tradition of Mary’s perpetual virginity, and assumption into heaven are part of what St. Paul discusses in the analogy of the parts of the body. It isn’t just an analogy about stewardship, but also about the truth as revealed by Christ. Mary is part of that truth.

Yeah! Mary!

Let me encourage you to read Paul’s discussions in context. Paul never makes any mention of Mary being a “perpetual virginity, and assumption into heaven”. These are all later developments in the catholic church that have no basis in Scripture.

 

[justasking4]

ricmat;2512236]I’m new to this thread, but I’ll jump in…
I’m new to this thread, but I’ll jump in…

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
How do you know Mary intercedes for you if the scriptures never taught such a thing?
Since the scriptures don’t, on what grounds do your leaders know?

Mary interceded with Jesus for the benefit of the Cana wedding guests. It’s in your bible. At least, I hope it is.

This did happen in the gospel. However, this does not mean that she intercedes in prayer for you.

The scriptures (which is all tells us that we know of her) never make such claims about her. In fact the terms you use here have been unknown for centuries.

Revelation 11-12 - remember that there were no chapter headings or breaks in the original text. The ark of the covenant at the end of 11, and Mary in 12:1. There are many books about this if you’re really interested - “Catholic for a Reason volume 2, Scripture and the Mystery of the Mother of God” is one good one.

I’m familar with how catholics use this passage to support their claims for Mary. However, when you study the text it does not at all say what catholics claim it does for Mary.

---

When we deny God, we are capable of anything. - St. Athanasius

Those who are never satisfied with passing things must be satisfied with eternal hunger. - Mechthild

My site - www.nochimera.com

 

[ricmat]

I’m familar with how catholics use this passage to support their claims for Mary. However, when you study the text it does not at all say what catholics claim it does for Mary.

So who is the woman of Rev 12:1?

Also, in a more general sense, Mary as ark of the new covenant is confirmed by Luke’s crafting of chapter 1. Compare the annunciation and the visitation with 2 Samuel 6 verses 2, 9, 10, 11, 12,15, and 16. Those verses parallel Luke 1 39, 43, 40, 56, 42 and 41.

If this doesn’t convince you then remember what the original ark of the covenant had in it:

1. Bread from Heaven (manna).
2. The staff of Aaron - representing the high priest.
3. The Law (tablets of the 10 commandments).

Jesus of course is the new bread from heaven (hope you agree),
the new high priest (also hope you agree), and the Law incarnate (hope you agree).

Mary’s womb contained Jesus for 9 months.

And then of course, there’s the word “overshadowed” - in Mary’s case, by the Holy Spirit. Just like the original ark. The same word is used for both.

And the original ark was a mighty weapon against enemies. Just like the woman of Genesis 3:15 and the woman of Rev 12:1 - Mary in both cases.

Fascinating really.

 

[Roger_Wissinger]

If you the study the scriptures on Mary you will not see the kinds of things the catholic church says about her. You are right in saying that this is dangerous territory. This is what happens when a church puts its “traditions” and dogmas on the same level as scripture. It is inevitable that this will result in going beyond what the inspired-inerrant Scriptures teach.

If Mary was good enough for Jesus, she’s good enough for you. She’s my prayer partner. I think Jesus smiles with great joy when we ask for Mary’s prayers. I ask her and the saints to pray for me and my family, give thanks, and pray the rosary. She’s more alive then we are, standing next to our Lord. I would write more but “Life on the Rock” is on. Seeya

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

Where does it say in scritpure (where all our knowledge of Mary is to be found) does it claim she is the “source of grace”?

No, this is again the Sola Scriptura logic. The scripture doesn’t have all knowledge about Mary that can be found. There is also Oral Tradition (as opposed to the written tradition - the Bible) which also as much to say about Mary. The believes about Mary weren’t just conjured out of thin air - no, they were part of the deposit of faith and believed from the beginning of the early Church.

Was Mary the source of the divine or human part of Jesus?

This certainly doesn’t mean that she is the ultimate source of divine grace since God is ultimately the source. I don’t know how to explain this particular title so I shall leave it to someone more knowledgeable in this field.

If you look at history of this term its not what a lot of people think. Would you not agree that God, Who is eternal, does not have a mother?

I would.
Would you agree that Jesus, who is fully God, has a mother? Of course he does. And this is when you need to understand that you can’t take these titles and apply them according to your needs but according to their meaning. When you speak about God as the Godhead then of course he doesn’t have mother and I said that many times. If you speak about God the Son, Jesus, then he has a mother (and it’s not only some human part of him as you said before since he not partially God and partially man).

It’s all about context.

Do you believe the Bible is inspired-inerrant? If so, then what is the source of this inspiration?
Is it the church or God?

1. Yes
2. God

That’s what the Church believes and it is of course is not an argument for Sola Scriptura. The writers of the Scripture were inspired, sure, but how do we know? God certainly didn’t reveal that on a paper. It is by the authority of the Church that we know which of the early writings (how do we know that Didache isn’t?) were inspired and which are not. In other words, God revealed it through his Church.

Second of all, the Scriptures may be inspired, inerrant but also beautiful, perfect, great and whatever else but they are still only words on a peace of paper and what their author was trying to say is actually a totally different matter. Scriptures are like any other book in the sense that they can be read in various different ways and support various interpretations (the issue becomes especially significant when the book is translated from a dead ancient language, based on ancient understanding of the world and written in various literally forms by different people). The disunity of the Protestantism is hopefully obvious. The Scriptures may be used to support many ridiculous things such denying the Trinity or divinity of Christ or arguing that drinking alcohol is sinful. Once again the Scriptures need an interpretor, who is the Church.

 

[JW10631]

Ah…some more *sola scriptura *silliness, not unlike the Catholic-bashing the hotheaded Orthodox engage in within the Eastern Christianity forum…

We ask Mary to pray for us. Those who can’t grasp this concept out to drop their Jimmy Swaggart VHS tapes in the VCR and leave the rest of us alone.

There is no “title” that we could give to Mary - the Mother of God in Jesus - that could ever surpass the Holy Trinity.

Have there been Catholics who overdo or have overdone Marian devotion? Sure. For me, it’s easier to approach Mary for intercession. It isn’t worship, and I know the difference between the Litany of Loretto and the Mass.

 

[jabelltulsa]

Would you happen to know in Scripture where Mary is given hyperdulia?

Sure …
Matthew 1:16 (**Mother **of the Messiah)
Matthew 1:18 (with Child through the Holy Spirit)
Matthew 1:20 (as above the Angel speaking to Joseph)
Matthew 2:11 (the Child is Jesus, and Mary is His Mother)
Luke 1:27-28 (the Lord is with Her, Favored One)
Luke 1:30 (has found favor with God)
Luke 1:42 (Blessed among women)

Now, you add the prophecies of the OT foreshadowing Jesus and Mary. Those were all fulfilled. Her role was key as detailed in both OT and NT.

The Church also has its Sacred Tradition that teaches honor and veneration of Mary. Even the 10 Commandments speak of honoring Father and Mother.

Jesus has no other Mother. Before his apostles, friends, and followers, we owe our veneration to Mary. This is Hyperdulia.

 

[jabelltulsa]

Abria- (This is Jason’s Fiancee writting)

I am think I may be able to understand your conflict with the specific litany mentioned and to the concept of praying to Mary or through Mary for intercession.

I was raised Lutheran and attended Lutheran or Methodist churches most of my life, and have always had a very strict sense of what it means to worship “GOD” and have always believed that Jesus is my intercessor and that Prayer belongs TO “GOD”

and never would have questioned this line of thinking except, I met a very nice boy who is very devotely Catholic and since he is very Devote and I believe in being “Equally Yoked” I must decide to keep the boy or keep my faith.

(I have decided to keep the boy)

however, My Spirit has not yet been convicted.

I am one of those “Lukewarm” people. I can Conceive the Ideal of Venerating Mary one minute and feel completely torn by it the next.

Those thing ingrained in us as children are extremely difficult to turn away from. Personally, I feel as though i am abandoning my Faith and Worry deeply about what will happen if I am Wrong.

You may try to think about way’s you stand in your own way of having peace with this issue. I know whenever I come to a place were I feel convicted on this issue in particular or other Catholic issues in general. I try to find reasons why the Church is Wrong I naturally play the devils advocate and create conflict within myself.

I do not know what your religious background is or the reason you have broached this issue however, it feels like you are trying to believe in Prayer to Mary and honor and venerating of her as the mother of Christ. Ultimately there are no clear cut answers in religion, we will not know on this earth for sure that a Particular course is the right one we must fill the gap logic leaves with Faith. Ultimately we must take a leap of Faith.

 

[kquinn]

Where does it say in scritpure (where all our knowledge of Mary is to be found) does it claim she is the “source of grace”?

Was Mary the source of the divine or human part of Jesus?

If you look at history of this term its not what a lot of people think. Would you not agree that God, Who is eternal, does not have a mother?

Mary is not the source of grace. God is the source of grace. However, being the mother of God, she is the mother of divine grace. Mary was the mother of both the divine and human part of Jesus. Even from a strictly scriptural perspective this is supported. Gabriel addressed her: “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you.” Elizabeth questioned who she was that the mother of her Lord should come to her. We know that Jesus is fully God and fully man - there can be no division. He is God made flesh. God is eternal, yet Jesus(God the Son) was born of woman, concieved in her womb. God could easily have incarnated Jesus without the involvement of woman.

Do you believe the Bible is inspired-inerrant? If so, then what is the source of this inspiration?
Is it the church or God?

The Bible is undoubtably divinely inspired and God is the source of this inspiration. He is also the source of the dogmas of the faith which the Church preserves. I do not believe that I have ever heard anyone assert (and they would be wrong to do so) that the Catholic Church inspired the bible. However, both written word and oral tradition make up the full composite of the faith. If you would, think on these: The written texts of the bible (even the Gospel) were not immediately recorded. The canon of the New Testement was compiled and preserved by the Church.

God bless!

 

[justasking4]

GandalfTheWhite;2512482]No, this is again the Sola Scriptura logic. The scripture doesn’t have all knowledge about Mary that can be found. There is also Oral Tradition (as opposed to the written tradition - the Bible) which also as much to say about Mary. The believes about Mary weren’t just conjured out of thin air - no, they were part of the deposit of faith and believed from the beginning of the early Church.

What is the source of this “Oral Tradition”? Just because someone makes a statement about her centuries later doesn’t make it true. So much that is said about her outside of the scriptures is men’s specualtions.

 

[justasking4]

jabelltulsa;2512691]Sure …
Matthew 1:16 (**Mother **of the Messiah)
Matthew 1:18 (with Child through the Holy Spirit)
Matthew 1:20 (as above the Angel speaking to Joseph)
Matthew 2:11 (the Child is Jesus, and Mary is His Mother)
Luke 1:27-28 (the Lord is with Her, Favored One)
Luke 1:30 (has found favor with God)
Luke 1:42 (Blessed among women)

Now, you add the prophecies of the OT foreshadowing Jesus and Mary. Those were all fulfilled. Her role was key as detailed in both OT and NT.

No doubt Mary favored by God. However, why do we not see Jesus or His disciples giving her any special veneration or mention in the NT?

The Church also has its Sacred Tradition that teaches honor and veneration of Mary.

Have you looked at the source of this “Sacred Tradition”? From what i have read it goes far beyond what the scriptures tell us about Mary. Many of these pronouncements about her have no basis in scripture (which is the source of all that we know about her) but are the speculations of men who add things to her that they should not do.

Even the 10 Commandments speak of honoring Father and Mother.

It true we should do this to our parents. However, the scriptures refer to Mary as our mother or the mother of Christians.

Jesus has no other Mother. Before his apostles, friends, and followers, we owe our veneration to Mary. This is Hyperdulia.

The scriptures never exhort us to venerate Mary as the catholic church does.

 

[kquinn]

The OP does not seem to hold issue with the authority of the Church or with oral tradition as essential to the full composite of the faith. This being the case OP (and if not, please correct me), have you read works from the early church? Perhaps you can update us on your mindset currently and specific questions you now have.

No doubt Mary favored by God. However, why do we not see Jesus or His disciples giving her any special veneration or mention in the NT?
Have you looked at the source of this “Sacred Tradition”? From what i have read it goes far beyond what the scriptures tell us about Mary. Many of these pronouncements about her have no basis in scripture (which is the source of all that we know about her) but are the speculations of men who add things to her that they should not do.

I am wondering what sources you have read on sacred tradition, and ask you to consider the biases that the author may have brought into it.

It true we should do this to our parents. However, the scriptures refer to Mary as our mother or the mother of Christians.

I am thinking that perhaps you meant to say that scriptures does not refer to her as mother of Christians…am I right?

The scriptures never exhort us to venerate Mary as the catholic church does.

The issue here is again the question of authority and oral tradition. I am sure you agree that prior to the actual writting down of the gospels and other NT books, the teachings were passed on orally (not all of those spreading these teachings would have had access to Pauls letters, etc). This does not in anyway invalidate them as Truth…I will stop here as I think this may be straying from the OP’s topic specifically.

God bless!