Mary, Destroyer of Heresies

[grandfather]

1: no, I guess not. Good point.
2: I know nothing about a joint statement on justification. I’ve never heard of it.

I can’t stop anyone from discussing Hesychios’ comments about Catholics equating The Mother Of God with the Easter Bunny, but it really doesn’t address my original question re. her title of Destroyer of Heresies. I respectfully request that we stay on topic. Some of the posts have been excellent and have given me much to think about.

-Tim-

Jesus is Truth. Truth is an infinite perfection of God. Mary is the Mother of Truth. God reveals Himself to us. God reveals Truth to us, because He loves us and wants to lead us to Himself and protect us from harm. He reveals to us the deposit of faith, what we need to know to find Him, to find salvation. God is our salvation.

If we depart from His revealed truth we will perish. Heresy is such a departure. Truth remains available to us, but western civilization has departed from truth with the emergence of multiple heresies, contradicting doctrines known as denominationalism which logic says can not all be true.

In the Old Testament, in typology we see many persons and events that prefigure and point to the completion or fulfillment of public revelation which is the Incarnation, God coming among us. One of those is the Kindom of Israel and the historical events that take place in it. We see the story of David, Bathsheba and Solomon as part of this typological history. David determines that his son Solomon should succeed him as king. A usurper comes along and tries to steal the throne from Solomon. Bathsheba intercedes with David to have the kingdom restored to Solomon. She protects the kingdom of her Son.

Jesus the Savior King rules in truth and love. God is love. God is Truth. Truth is love. His kingdom is of truth and love. There are many attempts to destroy Him and His Kingdom, His people the Church. The Queen Mother defends His Kingdom as prefigured in the story of Bathseba and Solomon.

She does not simply sit on a throne in heaven next to her Son and bask in God’s glory. She is not a figurehead or symbol who fills a seat for ceremonial purposes like the Queen of England who has no role in government.

Mary is given an active role in her Son’s Kingdom. She defends her people against their enemies, the enemies of truth, heresies, and she will defeat them all. In the end her Immaculate Heart will triumph.

This is why all heretics refuse to honor her or recognize her greatness in salvation history. They reject truth.

 

[Hesychios]

Could you elaborate a bit, I’m not sure I follow you…

It seems to me that for many people there is no limit to what can be claimed for the Mother of God. Young Catholics coming up very often look at these as exaggerations, and start to think of her as a mythic figure, not a real person. A mythic figure is easy to dismiss.

Perhaps an example will help…

Santa Claus is a mythic figure. We (well, most people) teach children to believe in him and he becomes a part of their world. He visits houses at night and leaves lots of presents. He lives at the north pole and reads our letters, he has helpers.

But Santa Claus was a real man, he was the bishop of Myra. He doesn’t bring us presents, he doesn’t live at the north pole, he doesn’t have helpers.

He is in heaven with God, presumably interceding for us.

First we teach children to believe in exaggerations about him, then they learn he is not real at all. Neither is correct. He is real, but the exaggerations are not. At about the same age the children stop believing in the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy.

Now the situation with Saint Mary the Mother of God is not that bad, it is not a good comparison I’ll grant, but the problem is similar. There is almost no limit to what people will say about the Mother of God, they want to praise her and they mean well, but some of it is unnecessary exaggeration.

This “Mary: Destroyer of Heresies” is a good example. I can’t think of any one example where she actually did anything like that in life or since. It sounds great …

Little things like that pile up into a lot of stuff that will not stand up under scrutiny. We should stick to the facts about her, they are quite wonderful all on their own.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

…

1- Did Saint Mary ‘destroy the heresy’ of Lutheranism? Is it gone?
…

From what I read it is not flourishing.

 

[aluminumthuribl]

Thank you for starting this thread! It is something that I am still meditating on and threshing out…sorry if my response doesn’t make sense.

A quick google search will bring to our understanding that the word heresy comes from the Greek word meaning a “choice of belief”. With that said, most of the major heresies have delt specifically with the person of Christ. Arianism, Modalism, etc etc are just a few that come to mind. I would venture to say that most heresy comes from the fact that the heretic really doesn’t understand the person of Jesus (i.e. who and what He was and is) and therefore that gives rise to other problems.

I believe the Mother of God can live up to this title, because when one understands who She is (the Mother of God, the Immaculate Conception, etc etc) one can clearly see who and what her Son is. Nothing less than the “Very God of Very God”!.

I think we would all agree that Satan is the Father and inventor of ALL heresies, and in the Protoevangelium we hear the prophesy that SHE would crush his (satan’s head). With that understanding (and I hope it’s not a stretch) she is absolutely the Destroyer of Heresies!

http://www.rc.net/oakland/cpps/madonnapb2.jpg

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[DadDave]

As I understand it its not the woman , but the woman’s seed that will crush Satan. This is the historic understanding by the church and its fathers.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

As I understand it its not the woman , but the woman’s seed that will crush Satan. This is the historic understanding by the church and its fathers.

I think that the understanding at the time that it was the man’s seed which grew in the woman. This I think is the only reference to a woman’s seed. It seems to imply the virgin birth.

 

[Hesychios]

I think we would all agree that Satan is the Father and inventor of ALL heresies, and in the Protoevangelium we hear the prophesy that SHE would crush his (satan’s head).

What you are probably referring to is a verse in the older Clementine [Jerome] vulgate of Genesis 3:15.
Inimicitias ponam inter te et mulierem, et semen tuum et semen illius: ipsa conteret caput tuum, et tu insidiaberis calcaneo eius

In the Douay-Rheims Bible it comes out like this:
I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.

The Bible of Ronald Knox, faithful to the vulgate he knew, perpetuates this:
And I will establish a feud between thee and the woman, between thy offspring and hers; she is to crush thy head while thou dost lie in ambush at her heels.

It is this line which is behind all of the imagery you will see of Saint Mary of Nazareth standing on the snake.

However it is wrong.

The Nova Vulgata of 1979, following the oldest Greek manuscripts corrects this:
Inimicitias ponam inter te et mulierem et semen tuum et semen illius; ipsum conteret caput tuum, et tu conteres calcaneum eius

The New American Bible follows this correction:
I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; He will strike at your head, while you strike at his heel.

But the imagery in the old statues and paintings remain to influence popular thinking.

 

[aluminumthuribl]

As I understand it its not the woman , but the woman’s seed that will crush Satan. This is the historic understanding by the church and its fathers.

You’re correct sort of…Mary plays a VERY Important role in Salvation! God has used the NEW EVE to crush the head of that old serpent the devil. Jesus essentially does everything, however, He used His Mother in a special, profound, and salvific way. I believe scripture, and the Church agree.

the Vulgate is pretty clear:

“I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.”

here is the Latin if you prefer:

“inimicitias ponam inter te et mulierem et semen tuum et semen illius ipsa conteret caput tuum et tu insidiaberis calcaneo eius.”

(Gen 3:15).

"Hence, it is the clear and unanimous opinion of the Fathers that the most glorious Virgin, for whom “he who is mighty has done great things,” was resplendent with such an abundance of heavenly gifts, with such a fullness of grace and with such innocence, that she is an unspeakable miracle of God – indeed, the crown of all miracles and truly the Mother of God; that she approaches as near to God himself as is possible for a created being; and that she is above all men and angels in glory. Hence, to demonstrate the original innocence and sanctity of the Mother of God, not only did they frequently compare her to Eve while yet a virgin, while yet innocence, while yet incorrupt, while not yet deceived by the deadly snares of the most treacherous serpent; but they have also exalted her above Eve with a wonderful variety of expressions. Eve listened to the serpent with lamentable consequences; she fell from original innocence and became his slave. The most Blessed Virgin, on the contrary, ever increased her original gift, and not only never lent an ear to the serpent, but by divinely given power she utterly destroyed the force and dominion of the evil one."

(Ineffabilis Deus Apostolic Constitution of Pope Pius IX on the Immaculate Conception (December 8, 1854))

New Advent has a great article concerning the passage in Genesis here

 

[aluminumthuribl]

What you are probably referring to is a verse in the older Clementine [Jerome] vulgate of Genesis 3:15.
Inimicitias ponam inter te et mulierem, et semen tuum et semen illius: ipsa conteret caput tuum, et tu insidiaberis calcaneo eius

In the Douay-Rheims Bible it comes out like this:
I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.

The Bible of Ronald Knox, faithful to the vulgate he knew, perpetuates this:
And I will establish a feud between thee and the woman, between thy offspring and hers; she is to crush thy head while thou dost lie in ambush at her heels.

It is this line which is behind all of the imagery you will see of Saint Mary of Nazareth standing on the snake.

However it is wrong.

The Nova Vulgata of 1979, following the oldest Greek manuscripts corrects this:
Inimicitias ponam inter te et mulierem et semen tuum et semen illius; ipsum conteret caput tuum, et tu conteres calcaneum eius

The New American Bible follows this correction:
I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; He will strike at your head, while you strike at his heel.

But the imagery in the old statues and paintings remain to influence popular thinking.

Quoting from the New Advent Article found here:

“The reading “she” (ipsa) is neither an intentional corruption of the original text, nor is it an accidental error; it is rather an explanatory version expressing explicitly the fact of Our Lady’s part in the victory over the serpent, which is contained implicitly in the Hebrew original. The strength of the Christian tradition as to Mary’s share in this victory may be inferred from the retention of “she” in St. Jerome’s version in spite of his acquaintance with the original text and with the reading “he” (ipse) in the old Latin version. As it is quite commonly admitted that the Divine judgment is directed not so much against the serpent as against the originator of sin, the seed of the serpent denotes the followers of the serpent, the “brood of vipers”, the “generation of vipers”, those whose father is the Devil, the children of evil, imitando, non nascendo (Augustine). [2] One may be tempted to understand the seed of the woman in a similar collective sense, embracing all who are born of God. But seed not only may denote a particular person, but has such a meaning usually, if the context allows it. St. Paul (Galatians 3:16) gives this explanation of the word “seed” as it occurs in the patriarchal promises: “To Abraham were the promises made and to his seed. He saith not, and to his seeds, as of many; but as of one, and to his seed, which is Christ”. Finally the expression “the woman” in the clause “I will put enmities between thee and the woman” is a literal version of the Hebrew text. The Hebrew Grammar of Gesenius-Kautzsch [3] establishes the rule: Peculiar to the Hebrew is the use of the article in order to indicate a person or thing, not yet known and not yet to be more clearly described, either as present or as to be taken into account under the contextual conditions. Since our indefinite article serves this purpose, we may translate: “I will put enmities between you and a woman”. Hence the prophecy promises a woman, Our Blessed Lady, who will be the enemy of the serpent to a marked degree; besides, the same woman will be victorious over the Devil, at least through her offspring. The completeness of the victory is emphasized by the contextual phrase “earth shall thou eat”, which is according to Winckler [4] a common old-oriental expression denoting the deepest humiliation [5].”

 

[couponfit]

I noticed with interest that one of Mary’s titles is “Destroyer of Heresies.”

I immediately thought of how difficult it is for many Christians to give the assent of faith to many Marian dogmas and doctrines. As it is often said, there are three reasons why a Baptist will not convert to Catholicism; 1) Mary, 2) Mary, 3) Mary. Mary seems to be a stumbling block even to some Catholics. Marian belief is often the last thing to be embraced.

So, my question is, how is Mary destroyer of heresies?

Mary gave birth to Jesus Christ who is Truth Himself, that much is clear to me.

Since Marian beliefs are often the last to be embraced, is it that when one believes in Marian dogma, they have left all other disbelief behind?

Are there heresies who’s falsehood has been proven through a Marian apparition?

Any thoughts?

Mary

I am not a Marian. But I accept each catholic is called and feels the holy spirit through many ways. Mary simply is! Take her out of the church, crush her statues, burn her prayers, and erase her Wittenberg memory outside the bible yet she will manifest herself. Even if you punish those who see her, rob them of dignity and worth they will believe in her. Even if you get theologians together to dispute her, she will be where her son is. She is never fa and longs for our salvation more than any in heaven outside the godhead consubstantial itself.

The holy see never sets manifestations in canon or predicts them, it simply discerns the manifestation and tries to make the meaning or message more explicit.

 

[Hesychios]

Quoting from the New Advent Article found here:

You seem fixated on this, which is really turning into a diversion from the original theme of the thread. I myself (and probably others here) had read that article long ago.

I already pointed out that the Roman Catholic church formally decided to correct the Latin of this verse in the 1979 vulgate, I might add this was after considerable study (and with probably much more reluctance). It was long overdue.

Why? Because this verse did not agree with the Greek of the Septuagint, which the Catholic and Orthodox church has used from the beginning. It does not agree any of the early Septuagints, even from the copies written before Christ. It was simply not accurate.

It is unwise, and possibly dangerous, to practice exegesis (an inexact discipline itself) on inacurate biblical texts. It should not be done if it can be avoided.

The various authors of the articles in the Old Catholic Encyclopedia (in this case, a Mr. Anthony Maas,100 years ago) understandably felt obliged to support the doctrine and the incidentals around the Roman Catholic church of their day with commentary (and spin, when necessary). However in this case the OCE article is caught in a time warp, defending and promoting an error in the Vulgate that has since been corrected by the brave and sensible Pope John Paul II.

 

[Hesychios]

Quoting from the New Advent Article found here:

You seem fixated on this, which is really turning into a diversion from the original theme of the thread. I myself (and probably others here) had read that article long ago.

I already pointed out that the Roman Catholic church formally decided to correct the Latin of this verse in the 1979 vulgate, I might add this was after considerable study (and with probably much more reluctance). It was long overdue.

Why? Because this verse did not agree with the Greek of the Septuagint, which the Catholic and Orthodox church has used from the beginning. It does not agree any of the early Septuagints, even from the copies written before Christ. It was simply not accurate.

It is unwise, and possibly dangerous, to practice exegesis (an inexact discipline itself) on inacurate biblical texts. It should not be done if it can be avoided.

The various authors of the articles in the Old Catholic Encyclopedia (in this case, a Mr. Anthony Maas,100 years ago) understandably felt obliged to support the doctrine and the incidentals around the Roman Catholic church of their day with commentary. However in this case the OCE article is caught in a time warp, defending and promoting an error in the Vulgate that has since been corrected by the brave and sensible Pope John Paul II.

 

[aluminumthuribl]

You seem fixated on this, which is really turning into a diversion from the original theme of the thread. I myself (and probably others here) had read that article long ago.

I already pointed out that the Roman Catholic church formally decided to correct the Latin of this verse in the 1979 vulgate, I might add this was after considerable study (and with probably much more reluctance). It was long overdue.

Why? Because this verse did not agree with the Greek of the Septuagint, which the Catholic and Orthodox church has used from the beginning. It does not agree any of the early Septuagints, even from the copies written before Christ. It was simply not accurate.

It is unwise, and possibly dangerous, to practice exegesis (an inexact discipline itself) on inacurate biblical texts. It should not be done if it can be avoided.

The various authors of the articles in the Old Catholic Encyclopedia (in this case, a Mr. Anthony Maas,100 years ago) understandably felt obliged to support the doctrine and the incidentals around the Roman Catholic church of their day with commentary. However in this case the OCE article is caught in a time warp, defending and promoting an error in the Vulgate that has since been corrected by the brave and sensible Pope John Paul II.

Your assumption of fixation is inacurate and (though I may be reading it wrong) somewhat uncharitable towards me. The original post was regarding Mary under the title “Destroyer of Heresies”. I believe in light of Catholic Dogma and Tradition, “faulty translation” of the Vulgate aside. In light of the Dogma promulgated by Pope Pius IX in his Apostolic Constitution on the Immaculate Conception I don’t believe I have misspoken concerning the Mother of God. Furthermore, one would be hard pressed to divorce the Mother of God from her rightful place in Soteriology. Catholic Tradition (both big and little ‘t’) have given the Mother of God and exhaulted position, and I believe my comments have been along that line. Now, concerning the new translation I will do a bit more study, however, I do not see anything in light of the old translation that would endanger mine or anyone elses soul. Yes, it may be faulty, however, I do not see a call from the Holy See that the traditional Vulgate has been recalled because it containes errors that are against Catholic Doctrine or Dogma.

I appreciate you bringing this faulty translation to light, and truly desire to study it more. However, it will not change my understanding of who the Mother of God is.

I was simply pointing out the OP that I was thankful for this thread topic, because it had given me much to meditate upon.

In the future I’ll try not to allow my “fixations” to annoy you.

Mary, Destroyer of Heresies Pray For Us!

-Cody

 

[Hesychios]

I appreciate you bringing this faulty translation to light, and truly desire to study it more. However, it will not change my understanding of who the Mother of God is.

I wouldn’t expect it to. We both know who she is.

 

[JonNC]

1: no, I guess not. Good point.
2: I know nothing about a joint statement on justification. I’ve never heard of it.

I can’t stop anyone from discussing Hesychios’ comments about Catholics equating The Mother Of God with the Easter Bunny, but it really doesn’t address my original question re. her title of Destroyer of Heresies. I respectfully request that we stay on topic. Some of the posts have been excellent and have given me much to think about.

-Tim-

Hi Tim,

Link to the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_31101999_cath-luth-joint-declaration_en.html

Jon

 

[Nate13]

The New American Bible follows this correction:
I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; He will strike at your head, while you strike at his heel.

But the imagery in the old statues and paintings remain to influence popular thinking.

Except this translation does not make a lot of sense.

Before the semi-colon we are talking about four different entities in two pairs:

1. Devil vs. woman
2. Devil’s seed vs. woman’s seed

After the semi-colon you seem to be saying that it should read “woman’s seed vs. devil”. It seems illogical to say the devil’s offspring and the woman’s offspring will have enmity between them, but the go on to talk about how the woman’s seed is going to take on the devil, not his offspring.

However to prevent further derailing of the thread I will leave it at that. I’d hope that you would visit the Sacred Scripture part of this forum though and bring up this point there where I’m sure its been addressed many times by people who are familiar with Greek and Hebrew.

 

[Ian_Ward]

It sounds like it is a title given to a specific event or a specific thing that she said, or did, ect. She was given this title that describes something specific.

I don’t know what that is.

To me, regardless of what its original meaning is, Mary is so zealous for God that her being and life is a refutation of anything heretical that might have or might still arise, ie she lived God’s will so she holds a unique title of trumping anything false that might be taught concerning the one true faith.

Aside from the true destroyer of Heresy God–Jesus, Mary is also the destroyer of Heresy because who knows the truth better than her? ? ?

 

[losh14]

It seems to me that for many people there is no limit to what can be claimed for the Mother of God. Young Catholics coming up very often look at these as exaggerations, and start to think of her as a mythic figure, not a real person. A mythic figure is easy to dismiss.

I wouldn’t take it that far, but I wonder how well-placed our trust is in Mary as compared with Jesus. If through Christ we can do all things, then why do we impute so much to Mary?

That said, the Lutheran example is interesting because Luther himself was a Marian devotee, and many Lutherans still pray the Rosary - especially former Catholics who have become Lutherans. You won’t find such a practice being tolerated among Catholics who join an evangelical church, but there’s probably an intrinsic bias.

There is almost no limit to what people will say about the Mother of God, they want to praise her and they mean well, but some of it is unnecessary exaggeration.

I carefully agree. Mary has a role and that role is better-defined by the Magisterium in official teachings than by embracing the myriad titles that Mary has received, many of them from folklore. They connote love and devotion but not necessarily historical truth. For example, that there is no concurrent record of it having snowed in July due to Mary’s intercession does not hamper the popularity of the title Our Lady of the Snows (the Shrine to her puts on an excellent Christmas light display every year, snow or not). Likewise, “defeater of heresies” is intriguing and may very well reflect Lepanto or have something to do with the Dominican order, who are strongly Marian in devotion and were commissioned primarily to confront heretics.

I’ve been told that all that is imputed to Mary is a work of the Lord - either for her Son or with her Son. So why does the language not reflect this? “Mary, hand-maiden to Truth Himself.” etc.

 

[losh14]

Aside from the true destroyer of Heresy God–Jesus, Mary is also the destroyer of Heresy because who knows the truth better than her? ? ?

Conversely, do any who dwell in Heaven belong less to Christ? Is Mary more “saved” than any of the other Elect?

 

[beehumble]

Blessed Mary had a large role, the defining role, in the end of Russian atheistic communism in the late 1980s.

That is a prefigurement of the triumph of her Immaculate Heart, which will ‘destroy’ many heresies and convert vast multitudes of humanity.

It is reserved unto Blessed Mary to ‘crush’ the head of the serpent, as shown in the image of the Miraculous Medal.

God bless you.