The Importance of Mary in Catholicism

[Usagi]

Irenaeus’ statement in “Against Heresies:” “And thus, as the human race fell into bondage to death by means of a virgin, so is it rescued by a virgin:” is itself heretical and anti-Scriptural. Remember Paul’s statement in Galatians: “A little leaven leavens the whole lump.” And so as a result you end up with an extrabiblical, highly exalted woman introduced into Christianity by men. This is the Mary I’d like to know if there can be a Catholicism without.

Catholics agree absolutely that the fall came through Adam alone and the redemption through Jesus alone. Though Eve sinned first and led Adam into sin, she was not the ancestral prototype of all humans in the same way Adam was, and could not bring upon humanity the doom that Adam’s sin did.

Likewise, only Jesus is the God-Man who could have (and did) give his life to redeem the human race and give us the possibility of an even greater relationship with God than Adam enjoyed. Neither Mary nor any other human was qualified to perform that task.

On the other hand, the Bible makes it clear that Eve did sin first and was an influence on Adam’s fatal sin. Since at least the time of Irenaeus, Christians have viewed Mary as sort of a “bookend” to Eve, with her obedience (prior to, though infinitely less important than, that of her Son the Last Adam) serving as a counter to Eve’s disobedience. Mary of course did not redeem anyone in the literal sense, but her actions can be seen as symbolically “redeeming” women from the dishonor of Eve’s actions.

If you take Irenaeus’ statement about the two virgins all by itself as a claim about the heart of Christian soteriology, it would indeed be heretical and alien to the Scriptures. However, if you take it in the context of the rest of Christian belief (which clearly assigns the primary roles to Adam and Jesus, and it’s not as though Irenaeus didn’t know that), Irenaeus is merely drawing out an additional parallel. Eve and Mary did not do the damning and saving of humanity of themselves, but they were each involved as the initial human actor (prompted in each case by Satan or God) in one of the two incidents. It’s true that Scripture does not make the Eve/Mary parallel explicitly; what Irenaeus is doing is noticing and commenting on the implicit parallel from Scripture, just as Christians have always done. (Consider the array of Old Testament characters and incidents that we commonly look upon as types of Christ or foreshadowings of His life. Irenaeus is drawing a similar parallel with Eve as a type of Mary.)

Usagi

 

[StTommyMore]

So, if you have a son and you give him a command and he obeys, that means he gives you consent to command?

If he does not consent to the command, the result is disobedience. Or at the very least there would be obedience under protest. Willful obedience implies consent, which is EXACTLY what happened with the Blessed Mother.

 

[moondweller]

Catholics agree absolutely that the fall came through Adam alone and the redemption through Jesus alone. Though Eve sinned first and led Adam into sin, she was not the ancestral prototype of all humans in the same way Adam was, and could not bring upon humanity the doom that Adam’s sin did.

Likewise, only Jesus is the God-Man who could have (and did) give his life to redeem the human race and give us the possibility of an even greater relationship with God than Adam enjoyed. Neither Mary nor any other human was qualified to perform that task.

Thank you. Now you would be wise to leave it there.

On the other hand, the Bible makes it clear that Eve did sin first and was an influence on Adam’s fatal sin.

But God’s Word does not build its harmartiology (doctrine of sin) nor its soteriology (doctrine of salvation) on the act of those two woman.

Since at least the time of Irenaeus, Christians have viewed Mary as sort of a “bookend” to Eve, with her obedience (prior to, though infinitely less important than, that of her Son the Last Adam) serving as a counter to Eve’s disobedience. Mary of course did not redeem anyone in the literal sense, but her actions can be seen as symbolically “redeeming” women from the dishonor of Eve’s actions.

Hence, the introduction of leaven.

If you take Irenaeus’ statement about the two virgins all by itself as a claim about the heart of Christian soteriology, it would indeed be heretical and alien to the Scriptures. However, if you take it in the context of the rest of Christian belief (which clearly assigns the primary roles to Adam and Jesus, and it’s not as though Irenaeus didn’t know that), Irenaeus is merely drawing out an additional parallel.

This is called the introduction of “leaven.” Leaven permeates the whole lump of dough and you end up with something you did not begin with. Enlarged beyond the truth which was first revealed. IOW, it’s inflated.

Eve and Mary did not do the damning and saving of humanity of themselves, but they were each involved as the initial human actor (prompted in each case by Satan or God) in one of the two incidents. It’s true that Scripture does not make the Eve/Mary parallel explicitly; what Irenaeus is doing is noticing and commenting on the implicit parallel from Scripture, just as Christians have always done. (Consider the array of Old Testament characters and incidents that we commonly look upon as types of Christ or foreshadowings of His life. Irenaeus is drawing a similar parallel with Eve as a type of Mary.)

But Scripture does not. NONE of the Apostles taught it in the Epistles. Christ Himself never even hinted to it. We’re not to make up our own “types.” With Mary what you have now is an immaculately conceived, sinless, highly exalted, extrabiblical woman assumed into heaven and reigning there as Queen, hearing the prayers of men and dispensing so-called sacramental “graces” needed for the meritorious works that attribute to the Catholic’s future salvation, which the Scriptures know nothing about.

So, you see, it’s not as innocent as you’re trying to portray it. That’s why it’s called “leaven.” It enlarges. It’s this enlarged Mary that men have introduced to us, like Irenaeus, that I’m asking if Catholicism can do without? Can Catholicism exist with only the Mary that’s revealed to us in the Scriptures?

 

[moondweller]

If he does not consent to the command, the result is disobedience. Or at the very least there would be obedience under protest. Willful obedience implies consent, which is EXACTLY what happened with the Blessed Mother.

So then you do agree with the postulate that the parent’s authority to command is based on the consent of their children. No wonder you see Mary as giving “consent.”

 

[davidv]

So then you do agree with the postulate that the parent’s authority to command is based on the consent of their children. No wonder you see Mary as giving “consent.”

Why do you insist on putting words in others mouths? Please stop the bait and switch.

 

[Shannon9791]

So then you do agree with the postulate that the parent’s authority to command is based on the consent of their children. No wonder you see Mary as giving “consent.”

Did you follow everything your parents ever told you? If you disobeyed your parents only once, you usurped their authority and did not consent to the activity they requested of you.

 

[StTommyMore]

So then you do agree with the postulate that the parent’s authority to command is based on the consent of their children. No wonder you see Mary as giving “consent.”

This is why I generally don’t respond to you. You draw conclusions that defy all logic

 

[Randy_Carson]

And you know this intimate knowledge of her how?And you know this how? She certainly doesn’t state it. Nor does anyone else in Scripture.

How do I know that Mary knew she had been saved by God???

Because she said, “My spirit rejoices in God my savior.”

So, tell me, when people are baptized as a Catholic are they suddenly given intimate knowledge about Mary that no one else possesses except Catholics? Was that your personal experience?

Nope. We learn it from those who learned it before us…all the way back to the Apostles.

All this personal, but extrabiblical, knowledge about Mary only you Catholics claim to possess is another reason I ask if there can be a Catholicism without Mary.

Nope. There would be no Christianity without Mary, the Mother of Jesus.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Now here’s a strange case indeed. A woman you claim is Queen of Heaven is, in that vision, never seen in heaven. The male child she bears, who is to rule the nations, is caught up to God and His throne, but the woman herself remains on earth.

What’s strange indeed, as well, is that you use this as your proof-text. When the text itself actually proves she is NOT as you claim. The woman in that vision is given no heavenly throne - only a place prepared for her in the wilderness ON EARTH. Hummm. very strange, very strange, indeed.

Revelation 12:1
1 A great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head.

Mary is seen in Heaven.

 

[Randy_Carson]

No, my friend. The woman didn’t give birth to the male child in heaven but on earth. It goes on to say that the male child which she gave birth to was caught up to God and His throne. Hence, the birth does not take place in heaven. Your argument is silly.“And I saw another sign in heaven…”

You grow desperate and begin to swing wildly…

Revelation 12:1-9
1 A great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head. 2 She was pregnant and cried out in pain as she was about to give birth. 3 Then another sign appeared in heaven: an enormous red dragon with seven heads and ten horns and seven crowns on its heads. 4 Its tail swept a third of the stars out of the sky and flung them to the earth. The dragon stood in front of the woman who was about to give birth, so that it might devour her child the moment he was born. 5 She gave birth to a son, a male child, who “will rule all the nations with an iron scepter.”a] And her child was snatched up to God and to his throne. 6 The woman fled into the wilderness to a place prepared for her by God, where she might be taken care of for 1,260 days.
7 Then war broke out in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back. 8 But he was not strong enough, and they lost their place in heaven. 9 The great dragon was hurled down—that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him.

The dragon was hurled down TO the earth FROM heaven. The dragon was in heaven just as Mary was. Both of these “signs” appeared in heaven.

When the referree walks out to center court with a basketball in hand, that is a “sign” that the game is about to begin. A literal person can be a “sign” of coming events, etc.

 

[Randy_Carson]

According to the content of the “portent,” the woman never goes to heaven. Got it? Only the child she bore is caught up to God and His throne. It’s quite simple and straightforward. There’s nothing complicated about it. It’s a prophetic scenario and it’s all about national Israel.

Why do you assume that the child is caught up to God and His throne from earth.

Aren’t there multiple levels of heaven according to Paul?

Consequently, the child may be taken to God and His throne which John describes as “up”…but he does not say “up” from earth.

I think you’re getting too “caught up” in defending a losing argument.

 

[panevino]

Posted by moondweller…
But this is the theology of men, not the Scriptures. God’s Word doesn’t present the fall of man and the redemption of man at all through two women, but through two men…

Gen 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree [was] good for food, and that it [was] pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make [one] wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat…

…13 And the LORD God said unto the woman, What [is] this [that] thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.
…
17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee…

Luke 1:38 And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.

They both played thier part.

 

[paul_c]

So, if you have a son and you give him a command and he obeys, that means he gives you consent to command?

Why are you arguing this? Is it just to argue? There’s certainly no greater truth to be discovered here…

 

[GaryTaylor]

Why are you arguing this? Is it just to argue? There’s certainly no greater truth to be discovered here…

LOL…Moondweller is going to be converted. No doubt about it. You can’t continue to show up and not be.

I believe he is already a closet Catholic.

 

[Randy_Carson]

So, if you have a son and you give him a command and he obeys, that means he gives you consent to command?

Did God respect Mary’s free will? Or did He simply force her to bear His son against her will?

 

[Pax]

MD in Christ,

Please read and respond to my post #494.

Thanks.

 

[paul_c]

LOL…Moondweller is going to be converted. No doubt about it. You can’t continue to show up and not be.

I believe he is already a closet Catholic.

well, ordinarily, I would agree with you. It rare to see anyone stay on here more than 6 months without behing converted. But Moondweller, I have to hand it to you, you are definitely a special case… I thought many times over the years that you had been presented an unassailable argument and that it would make you see the truth about Catholicism, yet here we are…

 

[GreggAlvarez]

Paul c (in respone to your previous post to me),
I know. I am just an idiot… As proven from the multitude of posts I have given. Fyodor Doestoyevsky’s book “The Idiot” was a prefigurement of me. I will do a better job of representing the Catholic position. Well… At least as far as my brain will let me which is clearly not very far. Thanks for keeping me in line though. (Note: I am NOT being sarcastic.)

Anyway, I will ask Moondweller repeatedly until I get an answer.

MOONDWELLER,

“HAIL MARY, FULL OF GRACE, THE LORD IS WITH THEE. BLESSED ART THOU AMONG WOMEN AND BLESSED IS THE FRUIT OF THY WOMB, JESUS.”

What is wrong with this prayer?

 

[paul_c]

Paul c (in respone to your previous post to me),
I know. I am just an idiot… As proven from the multitude of posts I have given. Fyodor Doestoyevsky’s book “The Idiot” was a prefigurement of me. I will do a better job of representing the Catholic position. Well… At least as far as my brain will let me which is clearly not very far. Thanks for keeping me in line though. (Note: I am NOT being sarcastic.)

Anyway, I will ask Moondweller repeatedly until I get an answer.

MOONDWELLER,

“HAIL MARY, FULL OF GRACE, THE LORD IS WITH THEE. BLESSED ART THOU AMONG WOMEN AND BLESSED IS THE FRUIT OF THY WOMB, JESUS.”

What is wrong with this prayer?

I have no objection to how you represent the Catholic postion. It comes from the heart. I’m just trying to help you with your frustration. If you don’t want to get frustrated, don’t ask Moondweller questions. He doesn’t do questions. He makes statements. I humbly suggest that you do the same. The Hail Mary is directly from scripture, the first part from Gabriel, the second part from Elizabeth. Moondweller knows this so he’s not going to bite on it. So don’t phrase it as a trap. Just tell him why you think this prayer from scripture is part of our justification to pray to Mary and let him refute it.

 

[panevino]

moondweller…First of all “obedience” is not “consent.” Slaves are obedient, they don’t give consent to their masters…

There is something about the slave analogy that is off. I think it’s love?
Obedience in love is full agreement.

A person has a choice to be obedient / respond or not per Gen 3:6
Rev2:21
Rev3:20

Just a thought. I assume you’ll have a response to knock the rev verses.