Why Christians must honor Mary

  • Thread starter Thread starter RNRobert
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

RNRobert

Guest
WHY CHRISTIANS MUST HONOR MARY

Years ago, when I was a Southern Baptist, I considered that the Roman Catholic doctrines regarding Mary gave her attributes that I felt belonged to Jesus alone. However, I never took the harsh anti-Mary attitude taken by some fundamentalists who regard her as nothing more than some ‘packing crate’ for the Messiah. Indeed, I was appalled when I read of certain apostate/heretic/infidel scholars or ‘theologians’ who wrote that Mary was simply an ‘unmarried woman’ or even a prostitute! Even when becoming Catholic, it took some time for me to accept dogmas like the Immaculate Conception. However, having been a Catholic for eight years, I’ve come to believe that the Church’s teachings on Mary are not only right and true, but downright necessary for the preservation of Christianity.

First off, let me say that although Catholic devotion to Mary may have gone overboard in the past, we do not worship Mary (neither do the orthodox for that matter). Let me repeat myself: CATHOLICS DO NOT WORSHIP MARY!

This can be made abundantly clear by just attending one Mass. From the crucifix above the altar, to the “praise to you, Lord Jesus Christ,” recited by the congregation after the reading of the Gospel, to the bread and wine that are consecrated to become the body and blood of our Lord, Catholic worship is focused totally on Christ. Indeed, except for the Penitential rite (where we ask Mary and the saints to pray for us) and the Creed (where we acknowledge Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary), Mary is hardly mentioned at all in the Mass. So, it can be plainly seen that charging Catholics with ‘Mariolatry’ (as in the case of one extreme fundamentalist by the name of Brother Stair who claimed that "the Pope was going to become Vicar of Jerusalem and set up animal sacrifices to the Virgin Mary) is ludicrous.

Why then, do Catholics (and Eastern Orthodox) hold her in such high esteem? It is not, as C.S. Lewis writes in his Introduction to Mere Christianity, “the chivalrous sensibility that a man feels when the honor of his mother or beloved is at stake.” No, Catholic devotion goes far deeper than that. There are two claims made about Christ that have not been made by or for any prophet or founder of a religion:
  1. That he was born of a virgin
  2. That he was God incarnate
Now, if Mary was just an ordinary woman, or worse if she was some slut or prostitute as some “scholars” claim (indeed, there is a new book out titled “The Historical Mary”; the author claims that Mary was a pagan priestess!), then the unique claims of Jesus can be called into question. Mary is inextricably tied to the Incarnation; she is in fact the lynchpin of Christianity. St. Maximilian Kolbe said “He who does not have Mary Immaculate as mother cannot have Christ as a brother.” I will put the matter more bluntly: Rejecting Mary is only one step away from rejecting her son. I am not surprised that many Protestant churches (and liberal Catholics) who rejected the Catholic teachings on Mary are now rejecting the claims of Christ.

Continued next post…
 
‘Pagan’ Queen of Heaven?

Many Protestants attack the Catholic Church’s veneration of Mary, saying she resembles the ‘Queen of Heaven’ worshipped by pagans. However, many non-Christians attack Jesus Christ in a similar manner, saying that that the Gospel accounts resemble pagan Gods who died and came back to life (like Adonis, Osiris, etc.). However, both criticisms can be disarmed by the same argument. G. K. Chesterton wrote:
If the Christian God made the human race, would not the human race tend to rumors and perversions of the Christian God? If the center of our life is a certain fact, would not people far from the center have a muddled version of that fact? If we are so made that a Son of God must deliver us, is it odd that Patagonians should dream of the sudden God? When learned skeptics come to me and say ‘are you aware the Kaffirs have a sort of incarnation?’ Speaking as an unlearned person, I don’t know. But speaking as a Christian, I should be very much astonished if they hadn’t.
Click to expand...
So, resemblances between Mary and the pagan ‘Queen of Heaven’ are no more troublesome to Catholics then resemblances of Christ to certain pagan myths. But why do we call her ‘Queen’? The reason is simple. In the Old Testament, the mother of the king held a position known as the ‘queen mother’ (this isn’t unique to Israel; look at the devotion the British people had to their ‘Queen Mum’). Jesus is not only heir to the throne of David but is the King of Kings; therefore we Catholics honor His Mother as the Ultimate Queen Mother.

Praying to Mary

Many Protestants object to praying to Mary and the saints, saying we should just go directly to Jesus. If that’s the case, why do we bother to pray for others or ask them to pray for us? We Christians are members of the body of Christ (1 Corinthians 6:15). We do not become separated from His body at our death; indeed, we become even more radically joined to Christ. If “the continual prayer of a righteous man availeth much” (James 5:16, Douai-Rheims Version), how much more effective are our prayers when we are freed from all distraction and attraction to sin? Mary and the Saints are not dead, neither are they in any ‘soul sleep’, for the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is a God of the living. Neither is praying to Mary or the saints necromancy, as we do not hold séances to contact them or ask them to foretell the future, we simply ask them to pray for us as we ask our brothers and sisters in Christ here on earth to pray for us.

Concluded next post…
 
Part 3…

The Immaculate Conception and the Assumption

These are probably two of the hardest Marian doctrines for Protestants to accept. I know many Protestants at this point will respond “But it’s not in the Bible!” I am not going to go into detail about Sola Scriptura at this point (see my thread here:

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=7774 for why I no longer believe in this doctrine) but I will simply state that not everything our Lord and his Apostles said and did was written down (John 20:30, John 21:25, 2 Thessalonians 2:15), and they aren’t any less important because they weren’t. Also, the New Testament Church existed in a primarily ORAL culture; the books of the New Testament were never written to be used as a comprehensive ‘catechism’ where you could look under ‘B’ for Baptism or ‘M’ for Mary. They were written to address problems or provide clarification to people who had already learned the faith by oral teaching. As for these Catholic dogmas, they may not be spelled out in black and white in Holy Writ (for that matter, neither is ‘Trinity’ or ‘Incarnation’, yet millions of Bible-Only Protestants believe in these two concepts without

question), but neither are they contrary to it. Frank Duff, founder of the Legion of Mary, wrote why I think is the best description for the concept of the Immaculate Conception, where he describes Mary in terms of the New Eve:

Continued…
 
God modeled Redemption on the lines of the Fall. As the Fathers of the Church, and every teacher in the Church, have put it, He made Redemption exactly reverse the Fall. Everything that was in the fall He took and turned it backwards. Though Eve sinned first, still it was not in Eve that mankind fell but in Adam. Adam was the single source and the head of the human race. Eve herself was taken physically out of him (Genesis 2:23). It was his behavior that was going to ruin mankind. If Eve alone had fallen, and Adam had not, mankind would not have been involved in the Fall. Yet it was because Eve enticed Adam into sin that Adam sinned and mankind fell. The part of Eve was crucial. The serpent approached her and won her over. Eve then caused Adam to fall. It was in Adam that men fell. But the Scriptural insistence on the agency of Eve in the transaction can convey no other meaning than that Adam would not have fallen but for her. Eve is exhibited as the mediatrix of the fall and of the fatal consequences that followed it. The parallel between those circumstances and the Redemption is so complete that it is evident that the one was patterned on the other; that God intended Redemption to be a detailed reversal of the Fall; that the Redemption was to be what it has been styled: The Divine Revenge.

In the restoration the New Adam and the New Eve reverse the part that Adam and Eve played in the original tragedy. Mary was drawn spiritually out of Jesus through the Immaculate Conception, that is by the application of her future merits. The Angel comes to her as the serpent came to Eve- on the same day of the week, it is said- and he proposes the remedial plan. She believes the good message as Eve believed the evil one. She accepts what is proposed to her. She draws Christ down upon the earth and commits Him to His mission which is terribly consummated on Calvary. And there she stands, herself almost dead, but unfainting, unfaltering, offering her Seed in the sacrifice which crushed the head of the serpent, as was promised ages before in the Garden of Even.

Mankind arose in Christ and not in Mary. It was Our Lord who redeemed us by His life and death. But it would not have happened except for Mary. We must minutely analyze this tremendous parallel. Its importance cannot be overestimated. For in the operation of Eve in the Fall we have a Biblical blueprint for detailed diagram of the part played by Mary in salvation. The Fall was the first Type on the Old Testament. These types were in the Old Testament what the parables were in the New Testament. It would be incorrect to regard them as being no more than picturesque images. They were sketches of the future Jesus and Mary, each containing some fragment of doctrine, so that when all of them are put together, the result is startling as a picture of what was to come.

Continued…
 
Continued…

As for the Assumption, we know that Enoch and Elijah were two Old Testament saints who were assumed into Heaven by God without having seen death. So it is not unreasonable to believe that Jesus would honor his Mother in this manner. Also, the early Christians often venerated the relics of the martyrs, as can be seen from the catacombs in Rome. These same Christians also had great devotion to Mary, and her tomb would have been a pilgrimage site. Yet, there is no record of this; indeed, unlike many Christian cities who claim to have relics of certain Saints (like for example John the Baptist), no Christian community anywhere makes this claim. I would also point out that the Eastern Orthodox, whose roots are as old as the Catholic Church, also celebrate the Assumption, although in their churches it is known as the Dormition, or ‘falling asleep’ (as far as I know, the only problem Orthodox have with the Dogma as proclaimed by Pope Pius XII is that they believe she died before being assumed into Heaven, and that the Catholic teaching is vague on this point. Interestingly, while Orthodox rejection the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, they do believe she never sinned; I ask any Orthodox readers to correct me if I’m mistaken).
 
Conclusion…

Discussions about these two doctrines really need threads by themselves so I won’t add to this already lengthy post. Instead I will direct interested people to Catholic Answers tract on the subject: catholic.com/library/Immaculate_Conception_and_Assum.asp
Here are some other good sites:

http://home.inreach.com/bstanley/immacon.htm

http://home.inreach.com/bstanley/assum.htm

http://members.aol.com/johnprh/conception.html

http://members.aol.com/johnprh/number.html
Code: 
                                     CONCLUSION
Somebody wrote (I don’t know who) that “without Mary, there is no Christianity.” This is true in two ways. In one sense, the Incarnation depended on Mary’s ‘fiat’, without it, our salvation would not have been possible. However, it is true in another sense, as Frank Duff wrote:

Mary is so much part of God’s idea that without her we do not grasp His idea. She is, as the Church sings, at the beginning of God’s ways with us. And she accompanies every step up of that way. If we find we have diverged from her, it is a sign we have left the Christian road. She is one of the special outward marks of grace and orthodoxy. We cannot receive the kisses of the Babe without touching his Mother. We cannot hope to have His blood drip transformingly upon us unless we stand beside her at the Cross.

Marian devotion was part and parcel of Christianity (for both Catholic and Orthodox) for fifteen centuries until the Reformation. It should be noted that even the ringleaders of the Protestant revolt (Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli) had devotion to Mary, and even believed in her perpetual virginity. Yet, their ancestors deny even this, do everything they can to distance themselves from her. Is it any wonder then that more and more Protestant denominations are beginning to deny the claims of her Son? The Wedding at Cana is the pattern for the Christian attitude towards Mary: On the one hand, like a good Mother, she intercedes for us; on the other hand, however, she points to her Son and tells us “Do what he tells you.”
 
I thoroughly enjoyed reading that. Thank you. 🙂 This may be a little off topic but there are a couple of sentences I would like to use when talking to mySola Scriptura friends :"…not everything our Lord and his Apostles did was written down" and “…the books of the NT were written to address problems or provide clarification for people who had already learned by oral teaching” . These really help make the point. May I?
 
Little Mary:
I thoroughly enjoyed reading that. Thank you. 🙂 This may be a little off topic but there are a couple of sentences I would like to use when talking to mySola Scriptura friends :"…not everything our Lord and his Apostles did was written down" and “…the books of the NT were written to address problems or provide clarification for people who had already learned by oral teaching” . These really help make the point. May I?
Click to expand...
Please do! Better yet, look at this thread I started:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=7774

It’s entitled “Why I rejected Sola Scriptura.” The first three posts of mine on that thread explain why I could no longer accept Sola Scriptura. Hope it helps!
 
Here’s something I left out in my original post. I have a Catholic coworker who is married to a Pentecostal. I 've been helping him explain the Catholic faith to his wife. The other day we were discussing Mary, and he said some Protestant acquaintances had stated she was “just a vessel.” I replied that was like saying the Ark of the Covenant was “just a box.” There are some interesting parallels between the two:

In Luke 1:35, the angel Gabriel tells Mary “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you.” “Overshadow” here comes from the Greek word “episkiasei”, which denotes a bright cloud of glory. It is used in reference to the cloud at the transfiguration of Jesus (Matthew 17:5, Mark 9:7. Luke 9:34). This cloud is none other than the Shekinah Glory, the visible Presence of God in the Hebrew Scriptures, which dwelt in the Holy of Holies above the ark of the covenant (Exodus 24:15-16, 40:34-38, 1 Kings 8:10). The Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures made two centuries before Christ, uses “episkiasei” in Exodus 40:34-35, to describe the Shekhinah’s overshadowing of the Temple. Saint Luke, who was quite familiar with the Septuagint, uses the very same word for the Spirit’s overshadowing of Mary! The angel Gabriel clearly drew a parallel between God’s presence in the Sanctuary and in Mary. She is the new, living Ark chosen to bear the God-Messiah.

Another example is how Mary’s journey to Elizabeth parallels the return of the Ark of the Covenant in 2 Samuel 6. David ‘danced’ before the Ark, the unborn John the Baptist ‘leapt’ in the womb in the presence of Mary and the unborn Messiah. Elizabeth said "Why is this granted to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me, which echoes David;s question "How can the Ark of the Lord come to me?
 
RNRobert said:
In Luke 1:35, the angel Gabriel tells Mary “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you.”
Click to expand...
When you mentioned that verse in Luke, that reminded me of an interesting fact that Luke’s Gospel was written entirely from tradition, that oral teaching that you spoke of earlier. And the fact that Luke goes into detail about Mary goes to show that Mary most certainly was more than “just a vessel” or at least, in the opinion of the Apostles… Which, you know, them crazy apostles were just blaspheming, pagans anyways right? (Extreme sarcasm preceded this sentence.)

Great job defending Mary in this thread, by the way. I just converted in 2008, but devotion to Mary is one of the best parts about Catholics I think. All these protestants are missing out on some great help from her.
 
RNRobert said:
Here’s something I left out in my original post. I have a Catholic coworker who is married to a Pentecostal. I 've been helping him explain the Catholic faith to his wife. The other day we were discussing Mary, and he said some Protestant acquaintances had stated she was “just a vessel.” I replied that was like saying the Ark of the Covenant was “just a box.” There are some interesting parallels between the two:

In Luke 1:35, the angel Gabriel tells Mary “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you.” “Overshadow” here comes from the Greek word “episkiasei”, which denotes a bright cloud of glory. It is used in reference to the cloud at the transfiguration of Jesus (Matthew 17:5, Mark 9:7. Luke 9:34). This cloud is none other than the Shekinah Glory, the visible Presence of God in the Hebrew Scriptures, which dwelt in the Holy of Holies above the ark of the covenant (Exodus 24:15-16, 40:34-38, 1 Kings 8:10). The Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures made two centuries before Christ, uses “episkiasei” in Exodus 40:34-35, to describe the Shekhinah’s overshadowing of the Temple. Saint Luke, who was quite familiar with the Septuagint, uses the very same word for the Spirit’s overshadowing of Mary! The angel Gabriel clearly drew a parallel between God’s presence in the Sanctuary and in Mary. She is the new, living Ark chosen to bear the God-Messiah.

Another example is how Mary’s journey to Elizabeth parallels the return of the Ark of the Covenant in 2 Samuel 6. David ‘danced’ before the Ark, the unborn John the Baptist ‘leapt’ in the womb in the presence of Mary and the unborn Messiah. Elizabeth said "Why is this granted to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me, which echoes David;s question "How can the Ark of the Lord come to me?
Click to expand...
👍 also, take a look at Revelation 11… and then Revelation 12, which talks about Mary (she’s the Ark of the New Covenant) :

Then God’s temple in heaven was opened, and within his temple was seen the ark of his covenant. And there came flashes of lightning, rumblings, peals of thunder, an earthquake and a great hailstorm.

A great and wondrous 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. 2She was pregnant and cried out in pain as she was about to give birth. 3Then another sign appeared in heaven: an enormous red dragon with seven heads and ten horns and seven crowns on his heads. 4His 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 he might devour her child the moment it was born. 5She gave birth to a son, a male child, who will rule all the nations with an iron scepter. And her child was snatched up to God and to his throne.
 
great thread! 👍

I also find that among many people, even some Catholics, there is a fear of veneration of Mary. It’s like they’re afraid of displeasing God by honouring her. Of course nothing could be further from the truth… we honour Jesus when we honour His Mother. I think if Mary was more known in the world, Jesus would be more known too.
 
Wonderful thread and thanks for those posts, PNRobert. Last week, I saw more than ever how the sins I committed while Protestant against Mary and the Church were black as Hell. I thank God for converting me, if for no other reason than to silence my mouth.
 
Lief_Erikson said:
Wonderful thread and thanks for those posts, PNRobert. Last week, I saw more than ever how the sins I committed while Protestant against Mary and the Church were black as Hell. I thank God for converting me, if for no other reason than to silence my mouth.
Click to expand...
I’d say the same about myself! I used to be feel a strange type of hatred towards Our Lady that I’m pretty sure had demonic origin. I had no cause to hate her at all, yet I did. 😦 and yet it was she who helped bring me into the Church, later on.
 
Monica and Lief,

Thanks for the compliments! :tiphat:

This is an OLD thread, One I started 5 years ago. Didn’t even think anyone would even notice it…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top