Catholic Marian dogma is puzzling to me based on the fact that the Apostles who knew her, the four Gospel writers, chose to give us scant information about her. The story of Jesus’ birth was written by only Matthew and Luke. She is mentioned when Jesus was twelve and again at the wedding in Cana. Only John specifically mentions her at the scene of the crucifixion and Luke names her as being in the upper room at Pentecost. Beyond that, not much information is provided. No mention of her life after Pentecost.
It is puzzling to you because, unlike the Apostles, “bible alone” Christians limit themselves to the partial written record. As well, you likely do not see Mary as the Theotokos. You likely do not see her as the woman who will crush the serpent’s head in
Genesis 3. You likely see no parallel between the ark of the covenant (
2 Samuel 6) and Mary as the ark of the new and everlasting coverent (
Luke 1&2). You might fail to see the import of her vow to be the “bond slave” of the Lord (
Luke 1:38). Why was she with Jesus for all of those 33 years if her “other children” were just hanging around with nothing to do? Why were none of those “other children” at the wedding feast, or at the foot of the cross, since they seemed so worried about Jesus in
Matthew 12:47 and
Mark 3:31-35? Maybe they weren’t “other children” Maybe, there were no “other children”. Since that phrase does not appear in scripture, is it odd to think that there were none?
The Gospel writers also wrote very sparsely about the life of Jesus (
John 20:30, 21:25). They wrote almost nothing about the miracles and teaching that were done in Korazin and Bethsaida - where “most” of Jesus’ miracles were performed (
Matthew 11:20-21, Luke 10:13). In three years, that must have been hundreds, if not thousands of teachings and miracles, right? How many of that multitude of divine acts are in scripture? 2. Only two. (
Mark 8:22-26, John 5:2-9). Both in Bethsaida. Not a peep about Korazin. Where is the rest? Lost forever? Unimportant?
How much did the Gospel writers include about Joseph, the man whom Jesus chose as His earthly father, the man who would teach him a craft, and about human life? Not a single word that he spoke. They only recorded Mary’s words. Is that puzzling?
But, many say, the bible contains all that is “sufficient” for salvation, right? Yes! If all you want is “sufficient”. But, did Jesus come that we might have life to “sufficency”? No! Life in abundance! (
John 10:10). Since scripture is very sketchy on so much of Christ’s life, could it be viewed as the sacred Cliffs Notes of Christ’s life? I mean, every Cliifs Notes contains “sufficient” content from the original writing, correct? You can get the gist of the story from the notes. Well, there’s more to the story - a much richer tapestry, but you will never have it from the bible alone. And, that eventually leads to filling in the blanks and adding to scripture.
The writers of the Epistles omitted her from their teachings as well. By the time the Gospels were written, any dogma regarding Mary should have been formed and written in their inspired writings. Yet, I fail to see any there. And, anything that was written after the Apostles’ writings cannot be considered to be inspired.
After three years, if Jesus was really consubstantial with the Father and the Holy Spirit, you would also think that the Gospel, or at least the epistle writers would have mentioned that. I mean, it’s extremely important! Nope. Not in there. Oh, there are hints of it, but is is not specific. Do you also puzzle over that? There are hints of many things in the bible. They needed further reflection and revelation to the Church to fully develop.
The Gospel writers were inspired by the Holy Spirit to tell us about Jesus, the Son of God. All else paled in comparison to Him. So, no, I am not in rebellion against Christ’s mother. I am consistent with the Apostles’ treatment of her in the Gospels. No more, no less.
You can be in accord only with the Gospel writer’s
written treatment of Mary, since you cannot know their personal and spoken treatment of her - Luke, in particular. The rest is unwritten and forever lost to the bible Christian. By limiting yourself to only the fragmentary written record of Mary, you cannot be consistent with
God’s treatment of her. Under the Holy Spirit, she is thrice blessed in
Luke 1:41-45. She is the only human to ever give flesh to the Son. Jesus chose her to be His own mother (
John 1:1-3) Yet, you seem to think that she is common, having lots of other children to raise, taking her time away from Jesus - after she vowed to be the Lord’s “bond slave” You see how this insults by implying that she broke her vow?
As well, you completely ignore the litany of Marian apparitions, Fatima in particular, being documented by the secular press. Witnessed by thousands. And there are many more miracles of intercession. In the Christian age alone, there are 2,000 years of ongoing Marian miracles - miracles that will not cease until we see Him coming on the clouds of heaven. The problem with bible Christianity, and I see it as a big one, is that it completely disregards these same 2,000 years of Christian history and, in doing so, is forced to reverse engineer the early Church. A lot of filling in the blanks occurs. None of these rich, history-filled 2,000 years is available to the bible Christian.
I pray that you will reflect on this just a little.
