Understanding Mariology

[AugustineFanNYC]

As I grow in my Catholic faith, I seem to have found more consistent grounded and fuller truth. Much more complete truth than when I was protestant.

But of course, now I must face what most new converts to Catholics face; Marian doctrines. As I start to research this does anyone recommend a video or article dispelling the myths around Catholic beliefs in Mary. I know Catholics do not worship Mary, but where does the idea that she is sinless come from?

How is she the “queen of heaven”? Also, in one compelled to believe in apparitions such as the Lady of Fatima? If these apparitions are true, and Mary is telling something to people, shouldn’t revelation, supernatural event, be added to the Bible? Should it not become scripture?

Typical Protestant responses to Mariology is that the doctrines came about at a time when people were transitioning from paganism to Christianity, and female deity worship was common.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

You should pick up Tim Staples book “Behold your Mother”. It addresses pretty much every question you could have about Mary.

I can address the Queen of Heaven one though. We get that from Revelation, when John beheld the woman crowned with twelves stars who gave birth to the child and stepped on the head of the serpent.

We do not add anything to the Bible because the canon of the Bible is closed. Catholics are not required to believe private revelation such as Fatima, but there is substantial evidence to suggest that the apparition is true. (Same with Lourdes and many other Marian apparitions)

Pick up the book, it will answer all of your questions, and it does so Biblically.

 

[AugustineFanNYC]

Thank you, will do!

We do not add anything to the Bible because the canon of the Bible is closed. Catholics are not required to believe private revelation such as Fatima, but there is substantial evidence to suggest that the apparition is true. (Same with Lourdes and many other Marian apparitions)

This confuses me. If there is substantial evidence for the apparitions being true, then it’s a supernatural event. It’s a message from heaven and thus should be included in scripture. If it’s revealed knowledge then should we not include it in the canon? This pretty much amounts to a new book of the Bible.

 

[Joe_5859]

This confuses me. If there is substantial evidence for the apparitions being true, then it’s a supernatural event. It’s a message from heaven and thus should be included in scripture. If it’s revealed knowledge then should we not include it in the canon? This pretty much amounts to a new book of the Bible.

To say that more can be added to public revelation implies that the revelation of Jesus was somehow lacking something. Jesus came and revealed himself. Nothing can be added to that as He is the definitive revelation of God.

I second the recommendation of Tim Staples book. If you want to know more about Mary’s role as “Queen Mother”, Edward Sri has a book of that title which goes into the scriptural basis of that. In the Old Testament, it was the mother of the king who was the queen. As Jesus is the King of Kings and Mary is the mother of Jesus, biblical typology leads us to conclude that Mary is the Queen Mother.

If you go to Youtube and search for “Tim Staples Mary” or “Edward Sri Mary”, you’ll get a lot of videos that those two have done.

Mark Miravalle is another theologian who talks and writes about Mary a lot. He has some introductory books and videos as well. He does talk about some concepts (such as Mary as “Co-Redemptrix”) which aren’t formally defined dogmas, so just be aware of that.

I just talked about Mary at RCIA last week, so it’s all fresh in my mind.

 

[AugustineFanNYC]

To say that more can be added to public revelation implies that the revelation of Jesus was somehow lacking something. Jesus came and revealed himself. Nothing can be added to that as He is the definitive revelation of God.

I am not trying to argue this point, just that whenever God intervened in this world, whenever He wanted us to know some revelation it was always written down. If God is telling someone something that must be known to all, then isn’t that prophetic in nature? I am just trying to figure out the logic as to why these Marian apparitions aren’t included in Canon if they’re a message from heaven?

 

[Joe_5859]

They are considered “private revelation” rather than “public revelation.”

It’s not that they are not true or are not a “message from heaven.” It’s not that they aren’t helpful to many people beyond simply those who received the private revelation. It’s that the private revelations do not add anything to the deposit of faith. For example, Mary would not appear and say, “By the way, there are actually four persons in God, not just three.”

Fundamentally, all authentic private revelation simply points people back to the public revelation.

 

[AugustineFanNYC]

They are considered “private revelation” rather than “public revelation.”

It’s not that they are not true or are not a “message from heaven.” It’s not that they aren’t helpful to many people beyond simply those who received the private revelation. It’s that the private revelations do not add anything to the deposit of faith. For example, Mary would not appear and say, “By the way, there are actually four persons in God, not just three.”

Fundamentally, all authentic private revelation simply points people back to the public revelation.

Ok, this makes sense. Although, did not several revelations, like angels the Lord sent to people in the Bible, “private” too?

 

[Joe_5859]

That is true, but they were written down and became part of Scripture.

 

[AugustineFanNYC]

That is true, but they were written down and became part of Scripture.

But what is the difference here? God is sending someone to intervene in our world, in a supernatural event, to give us a message. Should this not be added to scripture as a continuation of revealed truth God wants us to know?

 

[halogirl]

I don’t like much of what even the approved apparitions say and I steer clear of them. I will ask for Mary’s intecessory prayers but I am not convinced about the apparitions.

 

[Gabika50]

I always tell folks, “provided you love(d) your mother, you did not like people bad mouthing her at school, imagine when Jesus hear’s people badmouth his mother!!!”

 

[AugustineFanNYC]

I don’t like much of what even the approved apparitions say and I steer clear of them. I will ask for Mary’s intecessory prayers but I am not convinced about the apparitions.

Are you required as a Catholic to believe in the apparitions?

 

[Ann_Stanton]

No, only public revelations are to be believed in. Apparitions are optional.

 

[Joe_5859]

Simply put, the difference is Jesus. Prior to the Incarnation, God revealed Himself gradually and in stages. With Jesus, He reveals Himself all at once. Once He has done that, there is no need to add to it. He spoke His definitive Word. There is nothing else that needs to be said after that.

Of course, we have spent centuries unpacking and drawing deeper meaning from that revelation. That’s why concepts such as the Trinity or the Immaculate Conception have grown over time. They aren’t new revelation, though.

Good questions.

 

[AugustineFanNYC]

Simply put, the difference is Jesus. Prior to the Incarnation, God revealed Himself gradually and in stages. With Jesus, He reveals Himself all at once. Once He has done that, there is no need to add to it. He spoke His definitive Word. There is nothing else that needs to be said after that.

The story didn’t end with Jesus’s time on Earth, but continued with the miraculous lives of the Apostles.

I am talking about any supernatural event where God intends to tell us something new or something important He wants men to know, has in the past been, and should continue to be, put into the Bible as revealed Word. If it claims to be revelation, should it not be included in the Bible? It’s a continuation of what was written in the Scriptures, no?

If someone were to wake up today having visions that they believe were from God, then were proven right in front of witnesses by miracles, and people testified that they saw this miraculous supernatural event that shed light on an important issue God wanted us to know about either Himself or things to come, would that not need to be jotted down, then placed in Canon? It’s a continuation of revelation.

Were not the apparitions a continuation of revelation? Of things to come? Of things of upmost importance God wanted people to know? I guess I am confused as to what was the significance of the message sent by God through Mary for people to know.

 

[halogirl]

If it doesn’t feel right to you, steer clear of it. You are not required to believe apparitions and as someone said a while ago Mary is like the moon, she is there to reflect the sun and acts as the best role model of a person who is is perfectly obedient to God’s will, And is happy to pray alongside and for us , with love.

 

[GLam1761]

When I joined the Catholic Church as an adult(57 y.o.)
I was asked if I believed in the Apostles Creed, which
I do AND in everything that the Catholic Church teaches.
But Now I have problems w/ ALL that the Roman Catholic
Church teaches, b/c I am human and in some ways, still
carnal in my desires. It’s like Peter trying to walk on water,
we CANNOT do it on our own. That said, the teachings of
the Church about the perpetual virginity of Mary and her
assumption into heaven are what I consider “the meat” of
the Doctrines of the Church and are not meant to be debated
by the uninitiated. That is why the Rosary is so powerful, it
HELPS us to understand the power and sway Mary has w/
regards to our redemption, her closeness to Jesus from the
cradle to the cross to the grave, and it’s all Scriptural!!

 

[AugustineFanNYC]

When I joined the Catholic Church as an adult(57 y.o.)
I was asked if I believed in the Apostles Creed, which
I do AND in everything that the Catholic Church teaches.
But Now I have problems w/ ALL that the Roman Catholic
Church teaches, b/c I am human and in some ways, still
carnal in my desires. It’s like Peter trying to walk on water,
we CANNOT do it on our own. That said, the teachings of
the Church about the perpetual virginity of Mary and her
assumption into heaven are what I consider “the meat” of
the Doctrines of the Church and are not meant to be debated
by the uninitiated. That is why the Rosary is so powerful, it
HELPS us to understand the power and sway Mary has w/
regards to our redemption, her closeness to Jesus from the
cradle to the cross to the grave, and it’s all Scriptural!!

As I study I am not really having as much of an issue with Mariology as I did when I wrote the OP. The videos I am watching are helpful. The only issue I am having now is with the apparitions.

 

[rom]

I know Catholics do not worship Mary, but where does the idea that she is sinless come from?

It came from Tradition. It was the belief of the Church since the early days of Christianity. And this can be learned from the writings of the Fathers.

That Mary was also free from original sin was hinted in Holy Scripture, but the teaching is not very explicit. This is why Mary’s Immaculate Conception had to be pronounced explicitly by Pope Pius IX.

Personally, I find it easy to believe, since Mary is the Mother of God. I don’t think God would want to have a mother contaminated by sin.

How is she the “queen of heaven”?

The custom of the Jews is not the same as the custom in other countries, such as in Great Britain. Among the Jews the queen is usually not the wife of the king, but his mother. This avoided the difficulty of having too many queens in the kingdom when the king had many wives. In the kingdom of King Solomon, who had 700 wives, the queen was his mother, Bathsabee (or Bathsheba).

Also, in one compelled to believe in apparitions such as the Lady of Fatima?

No, because it was a private revelation intended for specific individuals, not for the entire Church. You are free to believe it or not. I personally believe it because the revelation was confirmed by a public miracle (the “Miracle of the Sun”) that was witnessed by many.

If these apparitions are true, and Mary is telling something to people, shouldn’t revelation, supernatural event, be added to the Bible? Should it not become scripture?

That is a decision that the Church should make. The same Church, which decided what books belong to the Bible, should decide whether any more revelations should be added. However, in a Vatican II document, Dei Verbum , the Church said that public revelation was finished and completed with the death of the last Apostle (St. John). Therefore, we do not expect any new public revelation to be added.

 

[AugustineFanNYC]

Excellent post! Thank you!