The Apostles Never Talked About Mary

[guanophore]

This post was moved from the Sola Scriptura thread as off topic.

WHY must you mention Heaven in a worldly way? In the “world”, if there’s a king, there’s a queen. Up until recently in the United Kingdom there was a “queen mother.”

In a Spiritual sense, we are being TAUGHT about the true nature of God as to how we, on earth, can relate. God is our King and our Father. He’s our Teacher and our Healer. He’s our Friend and our Mentor.

Yet, as worldly beings, living for the flesh and having fleshly thoughts, when Jesus mentions “Father”, the world thinks “mother” and takes its focus directly to what He is trying to teach us about the nature of God.
People of the Old Testament saw God as some one to fear. Jesus taught that God is Love. He loves us like a father! He’s our Friend! Our Hope! Our Joy!

Then, just as the word “father” is mentioned, people look in a different direction than God: a worldly woman to call “mother.”

Jesus described God in a way that we could understand Him. That’s what it’s all about! Jesus NEVER mentioned that we had PARENTS. He mentioned that we had a FATHER.

Don’t veer from that. Don’t look elsewhere. Put your blinders on and look in that direction.

Now that you have “tunnel vision”, there is a Light that shows the Way. God put it there. He’s called Jesus.

STOP! Don’t veer off! Stay.

 

[PinoyCatholic]

All I can say to that would be that Jesus was a right bastard now wasn’t he?

Not only did he not mention His mother, but he was a damned sinner too, not complying with a direct commandment, to “Honor thy father and thy MOTHER”!

When you point an accusing finger, four other fingers in the very same hand point back at you.

 

[mlchance]

“The Apostles Never Talked About Mary”…except for Matthew and John, who talk about her in their Gospels.



– Mark L. Chance.

 

[BlestOne]

“The Apostles Never Talked About Mary”…except for Matthew and John, who talk about her in their Gospels.



– Mark L. Chance.

Not to mention the way Jesus talked to her as he was on the cross… making sure that she would be taken care of…

 

[TimmyCamaro]

Also Jesus always calls Mary “woman”, this harkens back to Genesis 3. God refers to Eve as “woman”. Jesus is drawling connections between Eve and Mary (new Eve). Eve is known as the mother of mankind. In this connection Mary is shown as the new Eve, mother of the church.

But on the other hand I find it hard to reconcile the Roman Catholic emphasis on Mary with Luke 11: 27-28.

(27) As Jesus was saying these things, a woman in the crowd called out, “Blessed is the mother who gave you birth and nursed you.”
(28) He replied, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it.”
Jesus seems to steer away from Mary. Can anyone help me understand the Rome Catholic view of this?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Not to mention the entire gospel of Luke. How did ‘he’ know what was in her heart, or what happened when Jesus was born? The apostles weren’t there so they would not have known such things. The obvious answer is that Mary told Luke. He didn’t have to ‘talk about her’–she is present as an important source of Luke’s knowledge and understanding of Jesus.

The second thing to consider is that at the time the gospels were being written Christianity was a persecuted religion. People were being snapped up right and left for professing the faith; all the apostles save John wound up as martyrs. Wouldn’t snatching the ‘mother of God’ have been a real coup for the other side? Don’t you think that John (who had Mary’s care given to him) would have taken care that she be protected? What would be the safest would be to have her spoken of as little as possible lest attention be drawn to her. By tradition, St. Joseph was already dead and no harm could be done to him. By tradition, Mary had no other children who might have ‘turned her in’. The only relatives mentioned were mostly elderly and presumed, or known to be, dead by the time of Christ’s resurrection (parents, Elizabeth and Zechariah) as well as (St. John the Baptist). John’s gospel is dated later than any of the others, and he obviously was at one time on the island of Patmos (not exactly the popular tourist destination I take it)–one reason could be that he and Mary ‘went underground’ until she was assumed into heaven and thus ‘safe’ from being taken and tortured.

 

[VociMike]

IMO, once you divorce Mary in particular, and the female saints more generally, from the Christian faith, I think that faith becomes unbalanced and presents women as somehow below or inferior to men and maleness. They tend to exclude the feminine reality, a reality which was created by God to incorporate and reveal something much deeper than just reproductive mechanics, from the faith. That’s not a PC statement either, though unfortunately we are all conditioned today to read terms like “feminine reality” through feminist-designed, PC glasses.

But of course Catholicism and Orthodoxy don’t fall in to that trap, just as God didn’t fall into that trap.

 

[NotWorthy]

But on the other hand I find it hard to reconcile the Roman Catholic emphasis on Mary with Luke 11: 27-28.

(27) As Jesus was saying these things, a woman in the crowd called out, “Blessed is the mother who gave you birth and nursed you.”
(28) He replied, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it.”
Jesus seems to steer away from Mary. Can anyone help me understand the Rome Catholic view of this?

God is not going to bless you because of who you are? God is going to bless you for your beliefs and actions on those beliefs. Jesus doesn’t honor Mary simply because she gave birth to Him (a Divine Incubator as some of my Christian Brethren have described it…), but because of the way she lives the Gospel!!!

This would have been a slap in the face of the Pharisees!

 

[LilyM]

It’s hysterically funny to imagine that John took Mary as his own mother and lived with her for the remainder of her natural life, and yet somehow he and the other Apostles never talked about her???

And besides the copious mentions in the Gospels, we have the Protevangelion which is traditionally ascribed to the Apostle James, and several narratives of the Infancy of Christ, in which of course Mary receives a great deal of mention.

 

[Vaclav]

Remember that this was a Patriarchal society as well. The fact that Mary is mentioned at all is important, but to note that she is “full of grace” and “blessed amongst women” is unheard of.

More than that, the turning of water into wine was done at Mary’s request. It was Christ’s first miracle, yet He even stated that it did not involve Him.

John 2:2-4

3 When the wine ran short, the mother of Jesus said to him, “They have no wine.”
4 (And) Jesus said to her, “Woman, how does your concern affect me? My hour has not yet come.”

Yet, Christ performs the miracle anyway. Now that isn’t just “some woman.”

Then you have Luke 1:43 where Elizabeth says:

43 And how does this happen to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?

I was a Protestant who converted to Catholicism and the honoring of Mary worried me greatly. Yet, I was surprised to find that this has been one of my great joys in exploring the Catholic faith. To quote Father Gabrielle Amorth:

When I hear people say, ‘You Catholics honour Mary too much,’ I reply, ‘We are never able to honour her enough.’

There is no worship of Mary, but honestly it is a love of Christ’s mother that produces a greater love and better worship of Christ. Our Lady is a great source of inspiration, teaching, hope, and comfort. We never have to go to her, but personally, I want to.

 

[NotWorthy]

Remember that this was a Patriarchal society as well. The fact that Mary is mentioned at all is important, but to note that she is “full of grace” and “blessed amongst women” is unheard of.

Um, not to argue with you, but weren’t Jael and Judith (two OT types of Mary) also acclaimed to be “Blessed among women”? Both of these women slayed the leader of Israel’s enemies prior to being called “blessed among women”.

 

[John_Hiner]

But on the other hand I find it hard to reconcile the Roman Catholic emphasis on Mary with Luke 11: 27-28.

(27) As Jesus was saying these things, a woman in the crowd called out, “Blessed is the mother who gave you birth and nursed you.”
(28) He replied, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it.”
Jesus seems to steer away from Mary. Can anyone help me understand the Rome Catholic view of this?

The short answer to this is that this passage means something like this: Jesus agrees that Mary is blessed because she is His mother, but then adds the statement that she is even more blessed, because she is one of those who hear and keep the word of God. Hence, this passage, far from being a disavowal of Mary by her Son, is an assertion that Mary should be honored both because she is Jesus’ mother, but even more because she is a model of discipleship and obedience to the will of God.

This understanding of the passage is consistent with the other information that we have about the Blessed Mother in Scripture. It is also, I think, easy to see in both the Greek and the Latin versions of the passage. The English translations, however, seem to have a widespread problem which make them liable to misreading.

On reviewing the translations available on Bible Gateway, the closest to the Greek and Latin that I could find was this:

27As he said this, a woman among the people called out, `Happy is your mother who gave birth to you, and fed you as a baby.’

28But Jesus said, `Happy are those who hear God’s word and obey it!’ Luke 11:27-28 (Worldwide English (New Testament))

This is better because it places the “but” in the narrator’s text rather than in the mouth of the Savior. The word which appears as “menoun” in Greek and “quippini” in Latin is expressed in this translation with the exclamation point at the end of the quotation of the Lord’s words. Strangely enough, it is this narrator’s “but” and the intensifier in the Lord’s words that seem in the other English translations to have been merged into the word “rather.” Sadly, I think this gives a wrong impression in American English, even when one is accustomed to phrases like “it is rather cold today,” or “he was rather cheeky.” The punctuation in the other English translations makes this sense of “rather” unlikely to be understood by the unprepared reader.

If you would like me to give you a detailed account of my arguments for these criticisms of the translations, I would be willing to do so. However, I recommend the tools at www.perseus.tufts.edu, if you want to look at the Greek and Latin grammar for yourself.

If anyone has any more information about the translation of verse 28 from the Greek or Latin, I would enjoy hearing how the words “de” and “menoun” should be treated in the Greek or “at” and “quippini” in the Latin. Is there some idiom that I am missing?

Overall, unless there is something I am missing, this seems to be a passage where Jesus was complimenting Mary and offering her as a model. Sadly, this is lost in the usual English renderings of the passage.

Pax Christi nobiscum.

John Hiner

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Here is a view from the Orthodox East…

**The doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation have been proclaimed as dogmas, for they belong to the public preaching of the Church; but the glorification of Our Lady belongs to the Church’s inner Tradition: **
**‘It is hard to speak and not less hard to think about the mysteries hich the Church keeps in the hidden depths of her inner consciousness … The Mother of God was never a theme of the public preaching of the Apostles; while Christ was preached on the housetops, and proclaimed for all to know in an initiatory teaching addressed to the whole world, the mystery of his Mother was revealed only to those who were within the Church … It is not so much an object of faith as a foundation of our hope, a fruit of faith, ripened in Tradition. Let us therefore keep silence, and let us not try to dogmatize about the supreme glory of the Mother of God’ **

~V. Lossky, ‘Panagia,’ in The Mother of God, edited by E. L. Mascall.

 

[SPH1]

1. Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,
2. Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;
3. It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,
4. That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed. Luke 1:1-4 KJV

Everything in Luke’s Gospel was already well known in the Church by previous oral and written tradition, including the matters pertaining to Mary. (Annunciation, etc.) All as a matter of Faith…“those things which are most surely believed among us”.

Furthermore, Luke indicates that everything originally came from the apostles…“eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word”

So it is a blatant error to state that the apostles never spoke of Mary. Everything in Luke the apostles were aware of…and believed as a matter of Faith.

 

[guanophore]

Also Jesus always calls Mary “woman”, this harkens back to Genesis 3. God refers to Eve as “woman”. Jesus is drawling connections between Eve and Mary (new Eve). Eve is known as the mother of mankind. In this connection Mary is shown as the new Eve, mother of the church.

But on the other hand I find it hard to reconcile the Roman Catholic emphasis on Mary with Luke 11: 27-28.

(27) As Jesus was saying these things, a woman in the crowd called out, “Blessed is the mother who gave you birth and nursed you.”
(28) He replied, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it.”
Jesus seems to steer away from Mary. Can anyone help me understand the Rome Catholic view of this?

Mary was blessed because she bore the saviour in her womb. She was blessed to nuture Him at her breast. But she was even more blessed because of her obedient heart. She recieved 'Christ as savior before He was conceived in her, and she gave her whole life over to Him, and His mission, following Him to the cross, and standing at the foot of it. Jesus wanted everyone to understand that it was faith and obedience that relate us to Him,a nd not blood relation.

 

[John_Hiner]

Mary was blessed because she bore the saviour in her womb. She was blessed to nuture Him at her breast. But she was even more blessed because of her obedient heart. She recieved 'Christ as savior before He was conceived in her, and she gave her whole life over to Him, and His mission, following Him to the cross, and standing at the foot of it. Jesus wanted everyone to understand that it was faith and obedience that relate us to Him,a nd not blood relation.

This is one of those points that it is very easy to make too strongly – as though one statement is true and the other false, rather than as though both are true. Even in your paragraph, the statement seems to begin with “she was blessed to be His mother, to nurture Him, **and **because she was obedient to Him;” it then seems to end with “she was blessed because she was obedient, **not **because of blood relation.”

This is the tension at the heart of some Protestant objections. It leads those theories to abandon Mary in harsh ways; it also leads them to even more profound errors.

In fact, in the Faith of the Church, Jesus has not made this choice between obedience and blood relationship. Rather, in Baptism and the Eucharistic Communion He has provided a means by which the obedient may become flesh of His Flesh and blood of His Blood.

Hence, in the same way that Mary’s faith and obedience, at the Annunciation, led to her blood relationship with Jesus, every disciple’s obedience leads to his being reborn and gaining a blood relationship with Jesus. In the same way that her “Yes” led to her being His Mother, our “Yes” in Baptism and Eucharist Communion make us part of Christ’s body: flesh of His Flesh and bone of His Bone.

This is one of the ways in which Mary is the perfect model of a disciple.

Dominus Iesus nobiscum.

John Hiner

 

[Church_Militant]

One thing that I have always thought very likely is that the apostles (along with the NT writers who were not apostles) all agreed to be silent about the Blessed Virgin for her own protection.

I can only imagine the propaganda coup that may have occurred if the Jews and Romans had captured of the mother of Jesus. The last we read of her is on Pentecost, and the rest is left to early church history, which our Eastern Catholic brethren seem to have kept track of very well.