The Importance of Mary in Catholicism

[paul_c]

I think we can agree that “all” can admit of exceptions, which is why I distinguished between “all without exception” (quantitative all) and “all without distinction” (qualitative all.) But that doesn’t leave the door open for just anyone. We still would have to determine who is/is not a plausible exception. Infants–those incapable of sin due to retarded mental faculties–such as these probably go without saying. But Mary is neither an infant nor of diminished capacity. She is one who can say, “I rejoice in God my savior,” which surely implies that she thought of herself as needing salvation from something. The question, therefore,is whether or not Mary is a plausible “exception” to the “all have sinned” clause in Romans. She almost certainly is not an exception that Paul would have entertained since she is an adult Jew who knows the demands of the law.

I appreciate that you admit that scripture does not explicitly spell out all the Catholic Marian dogmas. But when you say they are not contrary to scripture, you err. To say Mary is without sin is to contradict scripture’s teaching that all have sinned since no explicit exception for Mary is mentioned. I would also say that the idea of her perpetual virginity almost certainly contradicts the plain and most probable sense of scripture that portrays Mary as virginal only “until” she gave birth to Jesus and that clearly envisions Jesus’ siblings as Mary’s own children. The probability that the gospel writers thought of these children as coming from the womb of some other mother or that Mary remained a life long virgin after (and even during!) the birth of Jesus is virtually nil. Far more likely is that these ideas come from the post-apostolic church and have been read back into scripture. When arguments have to be made to the effect that “X is a dogma we can hold because it doesn’t contradict scripture,” we’re in big trouble.

Miguel,
While everything that is in scripture is true, not everything that is true is in scripture. And when Paul said all have sinned, he meant it for normal situations, You’ve already admitted all, doesn’t mean absolutely all, when you conceeded that newborns and the severely mentally retarded aren’t capable of sin. Mary, as the one women in all of history chosen to be the mother of the Lord, is clearly an exception. And remember that the Angel Gabriel called her “full of Grace”, which militates against her having committed sin.

As for the Gospel writers saying that Mary had other children. It most certainly does not. It says Jesus has brothers. and then it names their mother (Mary, wife of Clopas). You see, brothers included relatives. Let me show you.

In Mark 6:3 we establish the names of Jesus brother’s : Is he not the carpenter, the son of Mary, and the brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon?

Now, look at the crucifiction scenes in the gospels, there are three women in attendance. By triangulating between the gospels we learn that they are:

Mary Magdalene
Salome, who is also the sister of the virgin Mary, the Mother of Zebedee and the mother of James the greater and John the Evangelist
Mary, the wife of Clopas, and mother of James and Joses (the brothers of the Lord). Catholic tradition identifies Clopas as the brother of Joseph, husband of Mary

In John 19: 25 Standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary of Magdala.

In Matthew 27: 55
There were many women there, looking on from a distance, who had followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering to him.
56
Among them were Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.

In Mark 15: 40 There were also women looking on from a distance. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of the younger James and of Joses, and Salome.

So, you see, scripture does demonstrate that the “brothers” of the Jesus were cousins, not brothers as we would describe them today…

 

[paul_c]

By the way, Miguel, if it wasn’t true, why would the Church propose that Mary was ever virgin? Afterall, there is no sin for a married woman to have sex with her husband. And what is the benefit of Mary being sinless to the church if it wasn’t actually truly revealed? What would be the motivation of the Catholic Church to say these things?

 

[nuntym]

+JMJ+

If I grow closer to God through Jesus, and closer to Jesus through Mary, is there someone I can go through to get closer to Mary? Some way to grow deeper in our life in Mary?

Yes, by the grace of the Trinity, with the intercession of St. Joseph, the Blessed Virgin’s spouse.
*
All for Jesus, all through Mary, all in imitation of Joseph. This shall be my motto in life and in death. Amen.*

It’s interesting, If you replace the word Jesus with the Father, and Mary with Jesus, you get something that I think Moondweller would agree with.

"With Mary as our model, teacher and guide we become the kind of Christian God wants us to be. With and through Mary we become more and more like Jesus. "

No problem with that, and also no problem with replacing “Jesus” with “God the Father” and “Mary” with “Jesus”. The problem with your reasoning, if I understand it, is getting to know Jesus through Mary is NOT the only way to know and be like Jesus! If that is what you are saying then I am sorry, you are greatly mistaken.

There is only one way to be the Christian God wants us to be: Jesus Christ, the Way, the Truth, and the Life. However, there are many many ways to get to Jesus. One can go directly to Him, or through the intercession of Mary, or through the intercession of other or even all saints. And the proof of that is the legions of Saints the Church has who attained sainthood only through Christ, but got to know Him through many many means.

Also, please stop saying “Without Mary there is no Jesus” because it is a foolish, endless (cyclical) argument. There is no point in speculating because we cannot know God’s mind and we cannot know alternative universes or however you want to look at it. It’s really frustrating to moondweller (as well as most Protestants I would imagine) so, with 1 Cor 8:13 in mind, could you stop?

It’s so frustrating because in many ways it’s true, unfortunately, and you cannot explain it away without denying one big factor about the Incarnation: that Jesus became truly human while remaining fully divine. Yes, even if Mary did refuse to be Jesus’ mother (and BTW, to refuse IS to have a choice about it), the plan of God for our salvation could still go on unhindered and the Son of God could still be Incarnated through another virgin, BUT Jesus will NOT be the same Jesus we know today. This is because Jesus, being fully human, also had to learn many things, and He would still have to grow and to develop into a grown man. He would gain a different personality, He would meet people different from before, He would give the same lessons in different ways, different events would culminate to a different way that He would die.

If there was no Mary, then there would be no Jesus as we know Him today.

As you can see, although the role of the Blessed Virgin was minor in the whole scheme of things (in the sense that she could have been replaced by another one), her effect on the whole was very big. And add to that her perfect job as a mother, and the fact that Jesus lived with her for 30 years… well, that’s no small feat for anyone. That’s one reason why we honor her very highly.

God bless!

 

[nuntym]

+JMJ+

It is Scripture that clearly demonstrates that Mary understood that she was given a choice. As I (and others) have been saying, she said, “Let it be done unto me…”
So my question to you is:

1. Why would on earth would she have said that if unless she thought that she was being given a choice? This is not a rhetorical question so how about answering it.

And while you are at it how about answering all my other questions???
So here they are again:

1. Based on your interpretation of Luke, what would have happened if Mary had said, “Let it NOT be done unto me…”?
2. What is the policy rule that CA said you were in danger of violating that prevents you from addressing my statements on the motherhood of Mary?
3. What is the link to the forum thread in which you said my theory (concerning Mary as our mother) was addressed in the past? And keep in mind, I have not used the Gospel of John, so threads that discuss this gospel are not applicable to my argument.
4. What are the fundamental moral differences between my kidnapping example and your interpretation of Luke? And if you persist in saying that this question is “silly” then explain what makes it silly.
5. What is the name (and quote) of at least one credible Protestant Scripture scholar or theologian who supports your statement that Mary did not give her consent?
6. How does simply “counting Mary blessed” mean that you don’t ignore Mary (based on my feuding brothers example)?
7. What makes Sola Scriptura a valid doctrine? It’s not in the Bible, so how can a extra-biblical doctrine that tells us to reject extra-biblical doctrines possibly be true?

Unless I missed them (and sorry if I did), I am still waiting for answers to these questions, and I am sure others are as well. I will re-post them again and again every day until we get those answers, if Eric would allow me.

Thank you and God bless!

 

[Philthy]

I follow the Word of God, not the footsteps of men.

That’s funny, because we were following the word of God in the “By faith alone or not” thread and you mysteriously disappeared when your “following” the word of God was revealed to be more likely following the “footsteps of me”.
I think a more legitimate question than the OP is, “If it were not for CAF, would you have any audience at all to force yourself upon?”. The OP is nothing more than bait so that you can answer the question that you don’t actually have: you will claim there is no Catholicism without Mary (whatever that means) regardless of what Catholics tell you. I’m starting to think that more than anything else you simply like to argue!
I must admit that its ore fun with you here than without you.

 

[po18guy]

The problem for you is that the Word of God nowhere says that everything that we believe and practice must be found in the its pages. Hence, what you demand is itself an unscriptural position and no Christian need comply with it.

Sacred Tradition, however is very evident in the New Testament.

As we see from various posts, the willful and ego-driven ignoring and exclusion of truth leads to resentment and anger towards Christ’s Church. I sincerely doubt that the OP is on Methodist or Presbyterian sites, haranguing them over their wrong doctrines…

 

[Randy_Carson]

What is Catholicism without Mary?

It is incomplete. Like Protestantism.

IOW, is there a Catholic faith without Mary?

Is there a Christian Church at all without Mary?

 

[Randy_Carson]

I appreciate that you admit that scripture does not explicitly spell out all the Catholic Marian dogmas. But when you say they are not contrary to scripture, you err. To say Mary is without sin is to contradict scripture’s teaching that all have sinned since no explicit exception for Mary is mentioned.

Flatly wrong. Here’s why (and yes, I wrote this):

For All Have Sinned
A Refutation of the Attack on the Immaculate Conception of Mary from Romans 3:23
(Based on a talk by Karlo Broussard on Catholic Answers Live on 2/11/08)

---

**Many people reject the Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception and argue that Mary was not born sinless and that she did not remain sinless all of her life. In support of their position, they often quote a passage from Paul’s Letter to the Romans which declares, “**for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” (Romans 3:23)

However, does this passage really prove that Mary could not have been without sin? And is this really what Paul intended to teach in this passage? Let’s take a closer look.

The primary question to be asked concerning Romans 3:23 is this: When the Bible uses the word “all”, does it necessarily exclude exceptions? The answer is “no” as several scripture passages suggest.

For example, Matthew 3:5 tells us, “People went out to him from Jerusalem and all Judea and the whole region of the Jordan.” Does this mean that there were no places from which people did not go out to see Jesus? This is not likely. The author attempted to convey an idea that a large number of people went out to see Jesus by using hyperbole.

Similarly, 1 Corinthians 15:22 says, “For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.” Does this mean that every single person ever born will die? Well, the Bible tells us that Enoch and Elijah were taken up into heaven without dying, so we know that obviously not all die because these two exceptions exist. From this, we know that the Bible does not necessarily exclude exceptions when it uses the word, “all”.

Returning to Romans 3:23, we should ask further whether Paul intended to exclude exceptions when he used the word, “all”, or is he using it in a non-absolute way? To understand the context of Paul’s thought, we should look at Romans 3:10-12 wherein he quotes Psalm 14:2-3: **“**As it is written: “There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. All have turned away; they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one.”

Does Paul really believe that there no righteous people? Of course not! The Bible tells us that Joseph was a just man (Mt 1:19), John the Baptist’s parents, Zechariah and Elizabeth, were declared righteous (Luke 1:19), and Psalm 14 goes on to speak of “the company of the righteous” in verse 5 while Psalm 15 references those who walk blamelessly and do what is right. So, if Paul is using the word “all” to mean “absolutely no exceptions”, then he is using the word very differently from the verses he quoted from Psalm 14 and from other passages of scripture.

Finally, it is also reasonable for us to assume that Paul would agree that infants and those who are mentally deficient cannot sin personally—two additional exceptions to the concept of “all” having sinned.

Therefore, when Paul uses the word, “all”, it is obvious that he is not attempting to declare that every single individual who ever lives will be guilty of committing personal sin; rather, he is attempting to communicate with clarity the universality of sin and the idea that both Jews and Gentiles alike are sinners before God. He is not attempting to exclude the possibility of exceptions.

Thus, the word “all” in Romans 3:23 cannot be used to disprove the doctrine of sinlessness of Mary.

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

I would also say that the idea of her perpetual virginity almost certainly contradicts the plain and most probable sense of scripture that portrays Mary as virginal only “until” she gave birth to Jesus and that clearly envisions Jesus’ siblings as Mary’s own children. The probability that the gospel writers thought of these children as coming from the womb of some other mother or that Mary remained a life long virgin after (and even during!) the birth of Jesus is virtually nil. Far more likely is that these ideas come from the post-apostolic church and have been read back into scripture. When arguments have to be made to the effect that “X is a dogma we can hold because it doesn’t contradict scripture,” we’re in big trouble.

Wrong again.

Matthew 1:24-25: Until she brought forth a son

Matthew 1:24-25
24When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. 25But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son.

The word *until *here just says what happened up to the time of Christ’s birth. It doesn’t imply anything about what happened after that, although our modern use of the word until seems to imply that. For an example of this, look at 2 Samuel 6:23, which says, “Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death.” We’re obviously not supposed to assume that she had children after she died.

Other Examples of “Until” That Do Not Require Cessation of Action

Genesis 8:7
The raven “did not return TILL the waters were dried up…” Did the raven ever return?

Deuteronomy 34:6 (Knox)
No one knew the location of his grave “until this present day” But we know that no one has known it since that day either.

1 Maccabees 5:54
“…not one of them was slain TILL they had returned in peace.” Were Judas Maccabeus and his troops killed when they returned?

Luke 1:80
“And the child grew and became strong in spirit; and he lived in the desert until he appeared publicly to Israel.” The Greek word translated “until” in this passage is heos, the same word used in Matthew 1:25. The child spoken of is John the Baptist who, after as well as before he appeared in public, resided in the desert (cf. Matt. 3:1, Mark 1:3,4; Luke 3:2).

Romans 8:22
“…the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together UNTIL now.” Is it still groaning?

1 Corinthians 15:25
“For He must reign TILL He has put all enemies under His feet.” After all enemies are put away, will Christ be reigning?

Ephesians 4:12-13
“…for the equipping…for the work of ministry… for the edifying…TILL we all come to the unity of the faith…” Once we become unified, will equipping, ministry, and edification still be necessary?

Hebrews 1:13
To which of the angels did God ever say, ‘Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet’”? After that time, the angels (or Jesus) could get up again?

1 Timothy 4:13
“Until I come, devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture, to preaching and to teaching.” After I arrive you won’t need to do any of those things?

1 Timothy 6:14
“…that you keep this commandment without spot, blameless UNTIL our Lord Jesus Christ’s appearing…” When Jesus comes back, we should disobey these commandments?

Revelation 2:25-26
“But hold fast what you have TILL I come. And he who overcomes and keeps My works UNTIL the end, to him I will give power…” Should we stop holding fast and stop obeying when Jesus returns?

 

[Randy_Carson]

The probability that the gospel writers thought of these children as coming from the womb of some other mother or that Mary remained a life long virgin after (and even during!) the birth of Jesus is virtually nil. Far more likely is that these ideas come from the post-apostolic church and have been read back into scripture. When arguments have to be made to the effect that “X is a dogma we can hold because it doesn’t contradict scripture,” we’re in big trouble.

Nope. Not even close.

Brothers of Jesus, Not Sons of Mary**
**
Many non-Catholics deny the Perpetual Virginity of Mary by referring to passages of scripture that mention the “brothers” of Jesus. A rigorous analysis of scripture, however, proves their position is false. Consider the following:

1. Jesus had a “brother” named James.

---

"Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas?”(Matthew 13:55)
2. James, the Lord’s “brother”, is an apostle.

---

“Then, after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and remained with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord’s brother. (Galatians 1:18-19)

3. There are two apostles named James.

---

“When morning came, he called his disciples to him and chose twelve of them, whom he also designated apostles: Simon (whom he named Peter), his brother Andrew, James, John, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James son of Alphaeus, Simon who was called the Zealot, Judas son of James, and Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor.”(Luke 6:13-16)
4. One James (the brother of John) is not the uterine brother of Jesus; his father is Zebedee.

---

“James son of Zebedee and his brother John (to them he gave the name Boanerges, which means Sons of Thunder)” (Mark 3:17)
5**. The other apostle named James is not the uterine brother of Jesus; his father is Alpheus.**

---

“And when it was day, he called his disciples, and chose from them twelve, whom he called apostles: Simon, whom he named Peter and Andrew his brother, and James and John and Philip and Bartholomew, and Matthew and James the son of Alpheus, and Simon who was called the Zealot, and Judas the son of James and Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor.” (Luke 6:13-16)

6. Therefore, neither apostle named James was a uterine brother of Jesus.

7. The man named Joseph (or Joses) is not the uterine brother of Jesus; his mother is Mary and his brother is James. Therefore, this Mary is the wife of Alphaeus.

---

“Many women were there, watching from a distance. They had followed Jesus from Galilee to care for his needs. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee’s sons.” (Matthew 27:55-56)

8. Judas is not a uterine brother of Jesus because he is the son of James.

---

“When they arrived, they went upstairs to the room where they were staying. Those present were Peter, John, James and Andrew; Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew; James son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James.” (Acts 1:13)

1. While Matthew 15:35 declares James, Joseph and Judas to be the “brothers” of Jesus, it has been demonstrated from scripture that they are NOT uterine brothers of the Lord. From this, it is apparent that scripture must be using the term “brothers” to mean relatives other than sons of Mary.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[kepha1]

I appreciate that you admit that scripture does not explicitly spell out all the Catholic Marian dogmas. But when you say they are not contrary to scripture, you err. To say Mary is without sin is to contradict scripture’s teaching that all have sinned since no explicit exception for Mary is mentioned.

There is no verse anywhere in scripture, implicit or explicit, that states that all doctrines must be explicitly found in scripture. That is an extra-biblical doctrine to the extreme.

I would also say that the idea of her perpetual virginity almost certainly contradicts the plain and most probable sense of scripture that portrays Mary as virginal only “until” she gave birth to Jesus and that clearly envisions Jesus’ siblings as Mary’s own children. The probability that the gospel writers thought of these children as coming from the womb of some other mother or that Mary remained a life long virgin after (and even during!) the birth of Jesus is virtually nil. Far more likely is that these ideas come from the post-apostolic church and have been read back into scripture. When arguments have to be made to the effect that “X is a dogma we can hold because it doesn’t contradict scripture,” we’re in big trouble.

“all doctrines must be explicitly found in scripture to be valid” doesn’t contradict scripture either, but it is a doctrine you rigidly adhere to and its not in scripture.

*“It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a Virgin.” *
Martin Luther, op. cit., Volume 11, 319-320.

“But the other conception, namely the infusion of the soul, it is piously and suitably believed, was without any sin, so that while the soul was being infused, she would at the same time be cleansed from original sin and adorned with the gifts of God to receive the holy soul thus infused. And thus, in the very moment in which she began to live, she was without all sin…”
Martin Luther, Weimar edition of Martin Luther’s Works, English translation edited by J. Pelikan [Concordia: St.Louis], Volume 4, 694.

Although Calvin was not as profuse in his praise of Mary as Martin Luther he did not deny her perpetual virginity. The term he used most commonly in referring to Mary was “Holy Virgin”.

"Elizabeth called Mary Mother of the Lord, because the unity of the person in the two natures of Christ was such that she could have said that the mortal man engendered in the womb of Mary was at the same time the eternal God."
John Calvin, Calvini Opera [Braunshweig-Berlin, 1863-1900], Volume 45, 35.

 

[kepha1]

*“Helvidius has shown himself too ignorant, in saying that Mary had several sons, because mention is made in some passages of the brothers of Christ.” *
Calvin translated “brothers” in this context to mean cousins or relatives.
Bernard Leeming, “Protestants and Our Lady”, Marian Library Studies, January 1967, p.9.

*“It cannot be denied that God in choosing and destining Mary to be the Mother of his Son, granted her the highest honor.” *
John Calvin, Calvini Opera [Braunshweig-Berlin, 1863-1900], Volume 45, 348.

"To this day we cannot enjoy the blessing brought to us in Christ without thinking at the same time of that which God gave as adornment and honour to Mary, in willing her to be the mother of his only-begotten Son."
John Calvin, A Harmony of Matthew, Mark and Luke (St. Andrew’s Press, Edinburgh, 1972), p.32.

*“I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin.” *
Zwingli used *Exodus *4:22 to defend the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity.
Ulrich Zwingli, Zwingli Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Volume 1, 424.

“I esteem immensely the Mother of God, the ever chaste, immaculate Virgin Mary.” Ulrich Zwingli
E. Stakemeier, De Mariologia et Oecumenismo, K. Balic, ed., (Rome, 1962), 456.

*“Christ … was born of a most undefiled Virgin.” *
Ulrich Zwingli Ibid.

*“The more the honor and love of Christ increases among men, so much the esteem and honor given to Mary should grow.” *
Ulrich Zwingli, Zwingli Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Volume 1, 427-428.

Standard evangelical reply: “I don’t follow the reformers, I follow the Bible.” (the purest form of reformist evangelicalism)

Far more likely is that these ideas come from the post-apostolic church and have been read back into scripture.

A couple of questions:
What else did the reformers “read back into scripture”?
If none of the early reformers believed that Mary was a sinner or had other children, when were these concepts first formulated?

 

[EricFilmer]

+JMJ+

Unless I missed them (and sorry if I did), I am still waiting for answers to these questions, and I am sure others are as well. I will re-post them again and again every day until we get those answers, if Eric would allow me.

Thank you and God bless!

Oh, by all means, be my guest! And no, you didn’t miss his answers to these questions; they are still unanswered. For the record, in Post #168 he finally explained why he is not answering them: “You think they’re going to change anything? How about sticking to the TEXT and showing me where Gabriel asked for Mary’s consent? How bout it, Eric?”

Anyway, I have condensed most (but not all) of these questions into the material I presented in Post #186. forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7301714&postcount=186
At this point I would appreciate him simply giving a credible point-by-point refutation of that post. But if you want to see answers to those other questions then you certainly have my blessing in continuing to bring them back up.

 

[EricFilmer]

Isn’t leaving a lot of questions unanswered kinda the definition of not keeping up?

Yes, it certainly can be. But Moondweller has pretty much stated that he does not intend to answer them, regardless of whether or not he’s having difficulty in keeping up.

Could you explain what you mean by being one with Jesus? I think there is another difference between what you are saying and what many evangelicals believe. While we certainly share in physicality with Jesus, we do not share a) a sinful nature or b) sinful actions with him. He is rather exempt from those things, right? Although I think we’re meaning the same thing here.

Correct. As Scripture says, he is like us in all ways but sin. Any sharing he has with our sinful nature would be in the context of him willing to take our sinful nature upon himself, and then paying the wages of those sins, death (once again, on our behalf). So yes, I see this as us meaning the same thing here. I think this describes what could be called “mainstream Christian theology” and not a specifically Catholic one.

A thought I had is, if we share in one relationship with Jesus, why not all of them? Is Joseph our father? Are the original 12 our Apostles? Did Judas betray us? Were we crucified on the tree? (I’d love to talk about Galations 2, it’s my favorite chapter in Galations, so much good stuff in there ) The way Jesus is the Son is so completely different than the way you or I are a son, I just am finding it hard to get the picture I think.

I agree, it is certainly good stuff. Just off the cuff, I would say that I see this as an embrace of what the Bible says about being one in the body of Christ, and the Nicene Creed’s statement of belief in the “communion of saints.” But I just realized that in my past few posts I might be straying off topic (here and elsewhere). Even though I was the one who introduced the biblical references of the body of Christ, I probably should have done so in another thread. At the moment the main focus of the current thread is an examination of whether or not Mary consented to God’s plan of salvation. (DavidFilmer tied this directly into the OP question in his statement in Post #2: “Without a (consenting) mother, there would be no Incarnation, and thus no Catholic Church.”).

Nevertheless, I would like to go ahead and address your other question, which I will do in a moment…

(Continued in my next post)

 

[EricFilmer]

(Continued…)

What things could the average hmmm lets say Reformed and beyond (i.e. not Lutheran or Anglican) do to honor Mary within the context of their denomination, seeing as they, in general, do not believe in prayer to the dead?

I presume that when you say “to the dead” you mean “people who are no longer walking this earth.” From our perspective, Catholics see ourselves as praying to the saints in heaven, who are not actually dead. Naturally, if a Protestant believes that it is a violation of God’s will to pray to the saints in heaven then I don’t expect him to start praying to Mary as a way to honor her. Nevertheless, I think that there are ways to honor Mary that all Christians can agree are acceptable. Maybe that’s the best way to start: to see if there are universally acceptable ways to express this honor.

I guess the first step would be for me to address the question as to whether or not we (as creatures) should be honoring other creatures (which includes Mary and the saints). The 10 Commandments, as we know, tell us to honor our fathers and mothers. Therefore, it is not objectively wrong for creatures to honor other creatures.

Plus, St. Paul indicates that the members of the body of Christ are being honored (at least in some form or fashion). “God has so constructed the body, that there may be no dissension in the body, but that all the members may be concerned for one another. If one member suffers, all the members suffer with it; if one member is honored, all the members share its joy.” (1Corinthians 12:24 ff.)

In light of all this, honoring other creatures is a Christian undertaking, and not in violation of God’s law. I think we all agree that the following stipulation should be added: this honor should not cross the line into “worship”, meaning the honor that is due God alone. Catholics and Protestants, of course, debate over where exactly this line is, but for now I think that it suffices to say that the individual Christian should act within the parameters that he feels are valid.

All Christians believe that we should offer prayers of thanksgiving to God. Likewise, we recognize that when God helps us and others, it is often through the hands of people. I don’t think that any Christian would object to a prayer directed to God such as this: “O Lord, I thank you for the assistance you gave to me through Joe who works at the Community Center, who helped to feed, clothe and shelter me when I was broke.” Of course, God doesn’t need all these details (“Oh, you mean that Joe!”), but I think you see my point.

And it stands to reason that we can be thankful for what God has done through people in past generations. In the case of Mary, we can be thankful for God using her to bring the Messiah into the world, and we can be thankful for Mary consenting to his plan, despite her confusion. Moreover, we can be thankful for the writings of St. Augustine, the charitable organizations, hospitals and schools built by various saintly people, the brave witness of the martyrs, and so forth.

In thanking God specifically for the work he did through others, our prayers are directed to God. So the prayer is to God, and not to a saint. Furthermore, such a prayer does not ignore God’s role while glorifying the actions of a saint, because it recognizes that God is the source of the grace that worked so powerfully in the lives of these “ambassadors” (to use one of St. Paul’s expressions - 2Corinthians 5:20).

By specifically mentioning the person (such as Mary), we likewise honor that person in a special way, and recognize how that person played a part in God’s plan by consenting to it, and following God’s plan with love and zeal (and often at great sacrifice). So this could be one way of honoring Mary and other saintly people in a manner that we all find acceptable.

These kinds of honor can also be expressed in hymns. Many Christmas carols, for example, mention Mary’s role. Singing about people is a way to honor them (well, depending on the nature of the song, of course) and would not necessarily be considered prayers to that person. If we honor the memory of someone in song and poem, it is still a type of honor, even if no prayer is incorporated into it. And it is also worth mentioning that songs describing Mary (which all Christians could deem as acceptable) do not need to be restricted to Christmas carols.

(Continued in my next post)

 

[EricFilmer]

(Continued…)

Preachers can also preach about Mary (about what she did and how we can learn from what the gospels tell us about her). I once read an article about a Protestant lady who travels around giving lectures in churches. (Sorry, but I can’t remember her name nor the exact publication). She usually asks each church to pick from her series of talks about women in the Bible. In terms of the New Testament, she created a lecture about Mary Magdalene, and a lecture about Mary, the mother of Jesus. She said that everybody wants to hear about Mary Magdalene, but no one picks the lecture about Jesus’ mother. When she specifically offered to do her talk on Mary the mother of Jesus, she said that the response is usually, “Uhhhh…no thanks…you know this is not a Catholic church, don’t you?” In this article she pointed out that the gospels tell us more about Jesus’ mother than Mary Magdalene, and yet that fact is not enough to sway people.

I have personally heard many Christian sermons from different denominations on CD, DVD and television (I appreciate good preaching in and of itself). In addition to preaching on Jesus, I have heard many Protestant ministers preach in depth about Noah, Abraham, Job, Moses, Joshua, Elijah, Jeremiah, John the Baptist, Mary Magdalene and so on. But where are the sermons about Mary? I get the impression that there is an unspoken rule to avoid mentioning her (in any real depth) because preaching about Mary is seen as a “Catholic thing.” If this is so, it is an unfortunate mindset.

Anyway, this is stuff off the top of my head. Naturally I do not expect a Protestant to read what I have posted and suddenly start praying the rosary and making pilgrimages to Fatima. But a person can still honor Mary without doing all the various Catholic Marian devotions.

 

[po18guy]

Utterly amazing that of the 10,000 or 20,000 or 30,000+ denominations in this world, it is always the big, bad, old Catholic Church that must be wrong. But, how to prove this? Ah! We will take the bible, then violate it by privately interpreting it, to “prove” that “Me and my bible” are right. That same bible teaches that Pride, Ego, and Arrogance are not a good foundation for a set of beliefs - and this is precisely why we have those 10,000 or 20,000 or 30,000 denominations - all of whom use the same bible to disagree. Inconceivable!

Pray for them! As in the case of Randy, and multitudes of others, the Holy Spirit will lead those who are open to the truth safely home.

 

[Randy_Carson]

What things could the average hmmm lets say Reformed and beyond (i.e. not Lutheran or Anglican) do to honor Mary within the context of their denomination, seeing as they, in general, do not believe in prayer to the dead?

“Prayer to the dead”???

“Have you not read in the book of Moses, in the account of the bush, how God said to him, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. You are badly mistaken!” (Mark 12:26-27)

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

Mary, as Mother of God, Theotokos is a plausible exception.

I take it that your support for this assertion is in the following quote:

She was chosen specifically by God to bear the Incarnate Word, the Divine Logos.

And therefore…

The Immaculate conception (the Saving of the Blessed Mother from Original Sin) was absolutlely necessary.

Filling in some of the blanks here, it sounds like this is your argument:

Because Mary is the God-bearer she is a plausible exception to the “all have sinned” clause because she was chosen by God to be, the God-bearer.

Hmmm… Sounds a little circular to me.

I’m still no closer to understanding why she had to be sinless in order to be the God-bearer and therefore no closer to seeing why she would be an exception to the “all have sinned” clause.

The Ark of the New Covenant had to be absolutely pure to bring Her Savior and Creator into the world.

Why? And where does scripture say Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant? I realize the fathers made this connection. But did any of the inspired authors make this connection?

How can purity be brought forth from impurity.

One way would be for God to simply create for Himself a human nature free from the effects of Adam’s sin. We might call this the “immaculate conception” of Jesus in the womb of Mary.

If only the pure can beget the pure, then why not posit that Anna, Mary’s mother, was also immaculately conceived? After all, “how can purity be brought forth from impurity” (your words)? But then if Anna had to be sinless in order give birth to a sinless Mary, then Anna’s mother had to be sinless too and so on.

You Catholics say that God intervened at the conception of Mary, but there’s nothing in scripture to support that claim and a lot indeed that contradicts it. Why not just posit an intervention at Jesus’ conception?

 

[lil_flower_luv]

**Utterly amazing that of the 10,000 or 20,000 or 30,000+ denominations in this world, it is always the big, bad, old Catholic Church that must be wrong. But, how to prove this? Ah! We will take the bible, then violate it by privately interpreting it, to “prove” that “Me and my bible” are right. That same bible teaches that Pride, Ego, and Arrogance are not a good foundation for a set of beliefs - and this is precisely why we have those 10,000 or 20,000 or 30,000 denominations - all of whom use the same bible to disagree. Inconceivable!

Pray for them! As in the case of Randy, and multitudes of others, the Holy Spirit will lead those who are open to the truth safely home.**

:clapping:

Remembering you as part of my rosary intentions, as well, po18guy. You are a good man!!