Prayer of Pope to Mary: To Whom Would the Apostles have pointed him ..Mary or Jesus?

[Non_Serviam]

I’ll address that analogy --the point of course is that nowhere do we consider that in prayer to Mary we are praying to ‘her alone’.

The whole problem with the OP and the scenario is this ‘disconnect’ in which an unnatural separation and a presumptive ‘unnatural focus’ is presented as ‘truth’.

Prayer to Mary is never ‘instead of’ prayer to Jesus, but rather to be considered an addition.

Therefore in the analogy, it would be considered that in speaking to the husband, we are automatically including the wife–that they are hearing us ‘together’ and that even if we say, “hubby” they hear ‘hubby and wife’; likewise, if we address the wife as ‘wife’, she AND he are automatically hearing, "wife and hubby’.

Because of course any analogy using purely ‘human’ examples is bound to come up short of being able to accurately represent a ‘divine’ example. Christ and his saints in heaven are not bounded by the limitations of ‘earthbound’ humanity.

Interesting that our experiences have been different-I have several complaints from individuals who felt ignored and left out by someone who spoke only to their spouse during a conversation.

I had a similar experience this week with people who came to do presentations at work-a subject matter expert and a technical person. I made sure to speak with both, address both by name and make sure they were both consulted on things. before leaving yesterday, both of them commented positively on my including the technician and how both of them find it awkward and uncomfortable when another SME ignores the technical person to “talk shop”.

Analogies are imperfect, but to bring this one around to a conclusion-to spend the day praying “Hail Marys” and say that the time was spent speaking to Jesus still doesn’t ring true.

I find it interesting how quotes are placed around terms in your replies that aren’t actually quoting something in the post to which a response is being given. Perhaps this accounts for some of the disconnect in these discussions.

Which leaves us yet again with the multiple Apostolic examples of people being pointed to the Father via Jesus.

 

[Peter_J]

This all began with popular devotion. **It has nothing to do with sacred scripture. **That’s the conflict.

That’s your opinion. My opinion is that “Queen of Heaven” does have something to do with Scripture. (Rev 12 is the easiest passage to cite, but I can provide more if you’d like.)

 

[Non_Serviam]

Non Seviam… Beyond the point that Leeann has beaten that dead horse innumerable times, and there is literally nothing left of the carcass…the analogy is borderline to useless.

Where the real problem lies…is in the inability of some people to understand, or even try to understand Catholicism, and the fact that everything about Catholicism is “biblical”. The problem is further exacerbated by the recalcitrance of the affected parties to look outside of their narrow scope of “belief”, in that they (non-Catholics) have embraced the wholly MAN-MADE TRADITION of sola scriptura… which has absolutely no biblical foundation anywhere. And those same people completely ignore all of the research and writings of the Early Christian Fathers that do not agree with their particular “agenda”.

Further, the notion that each and every one of those people is apparently embraces the notion that absolutely anyone can interpret the bible. This is a falsehood, as is thoroughly proven by the innumerable number of different Protestant sects, religions and denominations.

The problem extends further when people who are not properly or fully trained in theology take it upon themselves to decide who is right or wrong about another person’s beliefs. I am especially referring to those who set themselves up as pharisees and decide that Catholics are wrong about this or that.

I have a question for you and all other “Protestants”… If you are of the “belief” that anyone can interpret the bible scriptures, …and being fully in the understanding that the word ANYONE is an inclusive word, not leaving anyone out, do you also believe that mentally retarded people, brain damaged, and illiterate persons are capable of interpreting scriptures?

**Its a simple question, requiring only a *YES or NO ***answer.

I’m sorry you chose not to interact with the OP or my discussion points related to it-that seems to be a common response from some Catholics when people don’t readily accept any answer they give.

You make the statement 'everything about Catholicism is “biblical” ’ which would make a great individual thread topic as it is an assertion, not proof of anything. I’m well aware that you believe it to be true, but that doesn’t make it true in and of itself. Were I to engage you on this topic, I’m certain we’d see the scope quickly shift from “everything about ‘Catholicism’” (whatever that is) to something a good deal more focused that you felt you could defend.

If you take the trouble to read back through my replies on this thread, you’ll see that I asked many. many times for proof, whether in Scripture or outside of it, that clearly showed that the Apostles taught or practiced this-no one has provided any. As I’ve also pointed out, neither the Catholic Encyclopedia, nor the Catechism explicitly state that the Apostles prayed thus or taught others to. You are enforcing a belief upon the historical record in an attempt to make your theology neat and tidy.

Beyond that, you’ve presented a false definition of Sola Scriptura (try this one for something more accurate) even though I clearly stated I was willing to look at other historical evidence that demonstrated Apostolic participation. The accusation simply doesn’t fit in this case.

As to your final question, I answer it with a no, even though it is a tangent from the thread. Perhaps, having gotten an answer, you’ll now go back and read my previous posts, and interact with the content you find there, rather than improvising as you go.

 

[Peter_J]

NS,

Is the analogy that you and Tantum Ergo are discussing (e.g. #400) coming out of your Miravalle-reading?

(I just ask out of curiosity. I am by no suggesting that “If Miravalle said Y, then Y must be the official Catholic position” or anything like that. But it’s helpful to attach ideas to people I’ve heard of.)

 

[Ite_ad_Ioseph]

Hi Ite ad loseph

Who do you think the Apostles would point the Pope too…Mary or Jesus ?

(with regards to the Pope’s prayer - see the Opening post for this thread).

Well, I would say they would say Jesus.

Having said that, I believe they would have nothing wrong with with asking for the intercession of saints, and I believe they would have taught this to the churches they established, as it is biblically supported, and the Apostles’ Creed says: “I believe in the communion of saints.”

 

[ron77nyc]

etc.

If by “it” you mean the idea that Mary is Queen, then you are correct: it is official teaching. (I don’t claim to speak for guanophore, but I don’t believe that’s what his “it” meant in the above quotation.)

1st sentence Bartolo’s prayer:

O August Queen of Victories, O Sovereign of Heaven and Earth, at whose name the heavens rejoice and the abyss trembles,

Guanaphore said:

It is love poetry, and private devotion. It is not part of the official teaching of the Church. It is a pious private practice.

Church teaching:

what St John Damascene was later to say, attributing to Mary the title of “Sovereign”: “When she became Mother of the Creator, she truly became queen of all creatures” (De fide orthodoxa, 4, 14, PG94, 1157)."

By “it” I was referring to the church teaching that Mary is sovereign (supreme, above all). We all know and accept the fact there is no one above God so why call Mary sovereign? That was the heart of my response. It has been explained by Tantum Ergo and CentralJames that it is a cultural thing. Is it confusing? I think so.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I use the 'single quote mark’when I wish to, for example, express that a ‘disconnect’ appears to exist but it only does so because of a misunderstanding on the part of the person who proposes it. I use double quote marks " " when I wish to show an actual quote. I hope that makes it clearer.

Again, I wish to emphasize that since we are speaking of a divine analogy and a non-earthly situation in regard to the unity of Christ and the saints, the limitation of your analogy is that you are as it were ‘stuck’ in the purely earthly and temporal position in which a human husband and human wife are physically independent while spiritually one, whereas Christ and the saints are spiritually one and the ‘physical’ aspect in which wife and husband have separate bodies no longer separates beings in heaven whether they still lack their old bodies or whether, as in the case of Christ and of Mary, they now possess in heaven both soul and glorified bodies.

The united souls in heaven, then, are no longer separated from each other by physical bodies bound to time and space, which are separate. Thus, again, in heaven the saints do not hear a prayer to them as “You, St. X alone” but always as “You, St. X, through, with and in Christ Jesus”.

And I’ll repeat that the Hail Mary is not only Biblical in origin, but the entire core and focus of the prayer is “blessed is the fruit of thy womb, JESUS”. How much more focused on Jesus can we be in this prayer from Scripture which brings the good news of Christ’s birth to us and bids us rejoice?

 

[Non_Serviam]

NS,

Is the analogy that you and Tantum Ergo are discussing (e.g. #400) coming out of your Miravalle-reading?

(I just ask out of curiosity. I am by no suggesting that “If Miravalle said Y, then Y must be the official Catholic position” or anything like that. But it’s helpful to attach ideas to people I’ve heard of.)

It isn’t, actually, but I’m only halfway through the book. Miravalle does go to great pains to draw distinctions between Mary and Jesus and to try and provide his view of where lines should be drawn in interacting with each of them. I’d personally draw the lines a bit differently, but it has been nice to see that he considers it important to do so and has taken the trouble to do it.

Well, I would say they would say Jesus.

Having said that, I believe they would have nothing wrong with with asking for the intercession of saints, and I believe they would have taught this to the churches they established, as it is biblically supported, and the Apostles’ Creed says: “I believe in the communion of saints.”

You and I are actually fairly close in belief then.

I’ve said in this thread that I believe the Apostles would point to Jesus, as this is what we have examples of them doing.

I also said that Catholics could still claim praying to deceased saints as the fruit of development of doctrine with regard to the nature of the church and intercessory prayer. If Catholics are ok with the idea that the Apostles didn’t know what the Canon contained, then why is this so problematic? For some reason, that answer rankles a number of people.

 

[Leeann]

Well, I would say they would say Jesus.

Having said that, I believe they would have nothing wrong with with asking for the intercession of saints, and I believe they would have taught this to the churches they established, as it is biblically supported, and the Apostles’ Creed says: “I believe in the communion of saints.”

Thank you Ite ad loseph for that clear answer.

 

[Ite_ad_Ioseph]

Well, I would say they would say Jesus.

Having said that, I believe they would have nothing wrong with with asking for the intercession of saints, and I believe they would have taught this to the churches they established, as it is biblically supported, and the Apostles’ Creed says: “I believe in the communion of saints.”

The reason I asked what I did was just because I don’t see how it matters.

 

[Non_Serviam]

I use the 'single quote mark’when I wish to, for example, express that a ‘disconnect’ appears to exist but it only does so because of a misunderstanding on the part of the person who proposes it. I use double quote marks " " when I wish to show an actual quote. I hope that makes it clearer.

Again, I wish to emphasize that since we are speaking of a divine analogy and a non-earthly situation in regard to the unity of Christ and the saints, the limitation of your analogy is that you are as it were ‘stuck’ in the purely earthly and temporal position in which a human husband and human wife are physically independent while spiritually one, whereas Christ and the saints are spiritually one and the ‘physical’ aspect in which wife and husband have separate bodies no longer separates beings in heaven whether they still lack their old bodies or whether, as in the case of Christ and of Mary, they now possess in heaven both soul and glorified bodies.

The united souls in heaven, then, are no longer separated from each other by physical bodies bound to time and space, which are separate. Thus, again, in heaven the saints do not hear a prayer to them as “You, St. X alone” but always as “You, St. X, through, with and in Christ Jesus”.

And I’ll repeat that the Hail Mary is not only Biblical in origin, but the entire core and focus of the prayer is “blessed is the fruit of thy womb, JESUS”. How much more focused on Jesus can we be in this prayer from Scripture which brings the good news of Christ’s birth to us and bids us rejoice?

Thanks for the clarification.

I still maintain that there is a difference between talking with Jesus and talking with His Mother about Him as in the Hail Mary. He may be the focus of the conversation, but it isn’t a conversation with Him.

The image I get when reading these descriptions of prayers to Mary going through her to Jesus is that she ends up functioning like some sort of voice mail for Jesus. I know this isn’t what you intend and certainly isn’t what you believe, but to emphasize things going through her gives me the impression that her personhood is somehow compromised and she’s no longer an individual to interact with.

I fully believe that some day I will be able to talk and share with Mary, the Apostles and a number of other individuals face to face in the presence of God. The descriptions I’m hearing create the impression for me that there’s no longer ‘someone’ there to interact with, to talk to and with whom to worship God.

Yet to admit the distinctions between creature and Creator that I keep returning to means that one can focus on the creature to the exclusion of the Creator. One can’t have a person to interact with unless that person is distinct from other persons-whether human or divine.

Our differences of belief are tied up in that unity-distinction challenge-if we could find mutually agreeable terminology, we could possibly get beyond it.

 

[Peter_J]

Is the analogy that you and Tantum Ergo are discussing (e.g. #400) coming out of your Miravalle-reading?

Hmm … Must just be osmosis.

 

[Peter_J]

By “it” I was referring to the church teaching that Mary is sovereign (supreme, above all). We all know and accept the fact there is no one above God so why call Mary sovereign? That was the heart of my question.

I admit that I prefer the term “Queen” rather than “sovereign”; but I wouldn’t necessarily say that JPII was wrong to say “sovereign”. I think the key issue is that you’re thinking of a very specific definition of “sovereign”. You need to dig deeper to see what he meant by “sovereign”.

In fact, since the article is from “L’Osservatore Romano”, I’m sure that the Pope wasn’t speaking English, i.e. the English word “sovereign” was actually chosen by whoever did the translation.

It has been explained by Tantum Ergo and CentralJames that it is a cultural thing.

I’ll take your word for that. I don’t claim to speak for Tantum Ergo and CentralJames. When you really come down to it, I don’t actually know who they are (and vice versa), just their screen names.

 

[Leeann]

I’ve gone back and re-read a lot of the responses and posts and want to thank those that have taken the time and made the effort to participate.

I’ve learned a great deal, not only from the content of the various veiws expressed, but by the way they have been expressed.
(…including all the “side topics” that arose…)

Having said that, I bid you adieu…may pop in occasionally…if the thread is still going…

 

[sandusky]

Question:

**In view of the Pope saying - “*we will not ****know to whom to turn”… *my question is, if the Apostles were standing next to the Pope, to whom do you think they would be advising him to “turn” too …to Mary…or Jesus?

Your question assumes that the apostles would know what a “pope” is.

I don’t think they would know.

 

[Good_Fella]

Sovereign means supreme, highest, greatest. Is that statement OK with you?

In the ancient Davidic kingdom the queen mother (Gebirah) had sovereign prerogatives by virtue of her royal maternity. The king bowed to her and placed her throne next to his where she acted as advocate to his people. The king granted her requests in his interest and that of the kingdom.

The angel Gabriel’s greeting is an indication of the sovereign prerogatives of our Queen Mother. He hails Mary in recognition of her royal status as the mother of the Son who will be given the throne of his father David to rule over the house of Jacob forever.

And coming to her he said, “Hail, full of grace. The Lord is with you.”
Luke 1, 28

“Behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name him Jesus. He will be great and will be called Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, and he will rule over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end.”
Luke 1, 31-33

In ancient time the angel’s form of salutation was reserved for members of royalty. At the time of Christ it was used by the Romans each time they addressed Caesar Augustus, who was considered a divine personage. And unfortunately it was used sarcastically by the Roman soldiers who had scourged and mocked Jesus.

Weaving a crown out of thorns, they placed it on his head, and a reed in his right hand. And kneeling before him, they mocked him saying, “Hail, King of the Jews.”
Matthew 27, 29

Our Blessed Mother is our sovereign Queen, for her divine Son, Jesus Christ, is our sovereign King of kings. In the order of grace Mary does stand supreme, the highest, and the greatest among all of our Lord’s faithful subjects. Indeed, Elizabeth declares she is “most blessed among women” because of her royal privilege. In the Davidic kingdom it is the king’s mother who sits enthroned next to him. In light of Mary’s empty tomb in the valley of Josaphat, the Jewish Christians in Palestine, filled with the Holy Spirit, must have believed that our Lord had placed a heavenly throne next to his for his mother and crowned her Queen and advocate to the people of God.

Luke wrote his gospel at least seven years after our Blessed Mother’s dormition. In his introduction to the most excellent Theophilus, the evangelist states that he is writing his narrative in acknowledgement of “the events that have been fulfilled among them” [Sacred Tradition] as handed down by “eyewitnesses from the beginning and ministers of the word” [Oral Tradition]. The Assumption and Coronation of Mary are implicitly revealed in the Gospel of Luke. These are divine truths that belong to the Deposit of faith: Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

“Therefore, we pray thee, the most excellent among women, who glories in the confidence of your maternal honors, that you would unceasingly keep us in remembrance. O holy Mother of God, remember us, I say, who make our boast in thee, and who in hymns august celebrate the memory, which will ever live, and never fade away.”
Methodius ‘Oration on Simeon and Anna’ (A.D. 305)

PAX :harp:

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Well, sandusky, a Pope is a father (that is the origin of the word). I think the apostles knew what a father is.
The Pope is the spiritual leader who ‘feeds the sheep’ as St. Peter was told to do and given specific authority to loose and bind. Since we know the apostles not only had the authority to choose another apostle to ‘replace’ Judas (Acts), and to ‘lay on hands’ for bishops and other helpers, and since we know through Sacred Tradition that the apostles gave ‘succession’ to others for them, that Peter was the ‘leader’ and passed that succession to others, and that the Church still remains ‘apostolic’ as is still shown today through its creed. . .

I think the apostles would know what a Pope is. .and in fact would ‘point to’ Peter as the first one.

 

[ron77nyc]

In the ancient Davidic kingdom the queen mother (Gebirah) had sovereign prerogatives by virtue of her royal maternity… These are divine truths that belong to the Deposit of faith: Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

“Therefore, we pray thee, the most excellent among women, who glories in the confidence of your maternal honors, that you would unceasingly keep us in remembrance. O holy Mother of God, remember us, I say, who make our boast in thee, and who in hymns august celebrate the memory, which will ever live, and never fade away.”
Methodius ‘Oration on Simeon and Anna’ (A.D. 305)

PAX :harp:

Thanks Good Fella

 

[Ite_ad_Ioseph]

Your question assumes that the apostles would know what a “pope” is.

I don’t think they would know.

They would know who the leader of the Church was, they just wouldn’t call him “pope”.

 

[elijio]

This thread was closed as it had gone over the 1,000 posting limit…near the end it got “de-railed” quite a bit and went off topic…so starting it up again to see if there are any more replies.

**Prayer of Pope to Mary: To Whom Would the Apostles have pointed him …Mary or Jesus? **

---

zenit.org/article-23987?l=english

Excerpt from this article:

The Pope’s leading of the Supplication of the Blessed Virgin of the Rosary, a prayer written by Blessed Bartolo Longo (1841-1926) was one of the high points of this 12th pastoral trip in Italy.

“We implore you to have pity today on the nations that have gone astray, on all Europe, on the whole world, that they might repent and return to your heart,” the text of the prayer reads.

With the words of Bartolo, the Pontiff turned to Mary, saying: “If you will not help us because we are ungrateful and unworthy children of your protection, we will not know to whom to turn.”

>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Question:

**In view of the Pope saying - “*we will not ****know to whom to turn”… *my question is, if the Apostles were standing next to the Pope, to whom do you think they would be advising him to “turn” too …to Mary…or Jesus?

---

Peace and God Bless!

I would like to share something with you about this and maybe you can help. I have read the article you posted from zenit.org/article-23987?l=english

The problem with the article is that it conflicts with your question and the actual speeches that I found in the Vatican’s website.

First, the article also says, ''With the words of Bartolo, the Pontiff turned to Mary, saying: “If you will not help us because we are ungrateful and unworthy children of your protection, we will not know to whom to turn.”

Note: '‘With the words of Bartolo’'

It doesn’t say that the pope said that or believes that. It says he said it ‘‘With the words of Bartolo’’. It’s a quote. The article explains that the prayer the pope read was **’‘a prayer written by Blessed Bartolo Longo (1841-1926) **’’ which is the Supplication of the Blessed Virgin of the Rosary. They are not the words of Pope Benedict XVI or are they in any of the speeches I have found.

The speech Pope Benedict XVI gives on October 19, 2008 here: vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2008/october/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20081019_pompei_en.html

and also here : vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/homilies/2008/documents/hf_ben-xvi_hom_20081019_pompei_en.html

Can you get me the actual speech that the article mentions? I can’t find it anywhere.

Peace.