Why didn't Paul tell Christians to consult Mary?

[rarndt01]

Our Catholic faith honors St. Peter as the chief of all the apostles and the first Pope. Also, it honors Mary as our Co-redemptrix and Co-mediator. But the Catholic faith pays little tribute to Paul the apostle who was the leading missionary to the gentiles. And the one who wrote the majority of epistles found in the New Testament.
My question is, if Paul KNEW the spiritual importance Of Mary, then why didn't he personally consult her? When he wrote his epistles, why didn't he tell the Christians to honor and consult Mary in the same way we do today? It seems to me that Paul only held up Jesus as the one to trust and confide in for EVERYTHING? How do you explain the missing mention of Mary in the epistles of Paul?

 

[puzzleannie]

Where do you get the impression that Catholic teaching pays no credit to the writings of Paul the apostle? Check out the citations and footnotes to the Catechism of the Catholic Church and see how many are from his epistles (as well as the rest of the New Testament).

Paul may have left the largest volume of writings, but he was not the only apostle, and he did not write and teach in a vacuum, but as part of the Church, and constantly judged and compared his teaching with that of the rest of the Church.

Mary the Mother of God was not an apostle, nor were any of the other women who followed and served Jesus, including those who were first witnesses and bearers of the news of the Resurrection. Jesus chose only men as apostles to found, lead and perpetuate his church through his ordaining them to preach, teach and sanctify. Paul didn’t tell us to appeal to her because she was not the one designated to lead the Church, he did, however, appeal to Peter and the leaders of the Church to reconcile differences.

We don’t know where Mary was, presumably living with John, or what was her role in the early church. We do know that she was present at key moments in the life and mission of Christ, and of the early church, such as the ascension and pentecost. Paul, as did the other evangelists, exhorted us to pray together on many occasions and to intercede with God on behalf of the Church and of each other, an exhortation that includes Mary among all other Christians.

Where in the long history of Catholic teaching do you detect conflict between the writings of Paul and those of the other apostles and evangelists and fathers of the Church?

 

[Fitz]

I have often wondered why more is not written about Mary. However, women in those days were treated very differently so that might be the key here.

 

[rarndt01]

That is my whole point. Today Catholic believers show as much devotion to Mary as to Jesus almost. But yet when one reads the epistles of Paul to the Christians, we find no mention of the importance of Mary at all? Why is this, if the early church looked toward Mary in the same regard as the Catholic church of today?

 

[puzzleannie]

our knowledge of the early church is not contained entirely in the epistles of Paul, as important as they are, nor in the rest of the new testament. We also have a huge body of knowledge about practices and beliefs of the early church handed on in tradition - the very tradition Paul urges us to adhere to–and that tradition is the source for a lot of our knowledge of Mary and the source of honor paid to her as the mother of the Redeemer. You cannot argue Christian faith by the bible alone, still less on one segment of the bible alone, without reference to the rest of divine revelation contained in scripture and tradition.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

According to Tradition, Mary was a chief source for the Gospel of Luke, as well as early Acts. She also, again according to Tradition, lived anywhere from 5-15 years after the resurrection of Jesus, with John the beloved disciple.

So, here we are with Paul. Now we know that Paul wasn’t a disciple from day 1–it is indeed POSSIBLE that Mary had “died” and was assumed into heaven before Paul even BECAME a disciple (in the earliest death timeline) and certainly it is possible that Mary had been assumed before Paul wrote many of his letters.

Paul was not the SOLE witness–writer–speaker for Christianity. Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles, in a specific time period. Christianity was not some hide-bound “treatise” --Paul had no NEW TESTAMENT with which to work. Paul did not deal with EVERY aspect of Christianity directly, nor would one expect him to. Peter was the first Pope and thus Peter was dealing with the early Church as its first shepherd; James and the other disciples were witnesses throughout the world to their Jewish brethren, Luke was attempting to chronicle the events of Jesus’s life, as were Matthew, Mark and John. Each person had HIS OWN GIFT and HIS OWN PERSPECTIVE from which THE HOLY SPIRIT GUIDED HIM to produce what God wanted WRITTEN (what became the Bible) and what God wanted transmitted (HOLY TRADITION AS MENTIONED IN TIMOTHY ET. AL.).

Not only that, but the Bible is for ALL TIME. Passages which seemed to have one meaning (for the people in 1st century A.D.) can be shown to have deeper (but not contradictory) meanings for those who were “later born”, and will continue to have deeper and deeper meanings for those who are born well AFTER our current times. Again, that is what one would expect of God-given teaching–that it would be both unchanging (as God is unchanging) yet vibrant and able to resonate with people no matter what their EXTERNAL changes would be. Most people in A.D. 100 were poor, illiterate, rural and agrarian from a patristic, monarchal, primitive culture. . .yet the Gospels speak just as much to THEM as they do to rich, literate, urban, materialists in a democratic, egalitarian, “Civilized” culture.

Why didn’t Paul tell Christians–gentiles living hundreds of miles away, practicing a religion which was persecuted–to consult a woman who may have already been “assumed” into heaven, but, if not, may have been quite busy as it was with the other disciples?

How do you KNOW that, if Mary were alive, Paul DIDN’T tell people to meet her, anyway? What we have of Paul’s writings is probably only a FRACTION of what he actually wrote. Remember, John said that a recounting of ALL the words and deeds of JESUS would necessitate “so many volumes that one couldn’t even imagine there being enough room for them”. . . Surely, Paul, Peter, and the others said and did and wrote much more than what we have in the New Testament. But what we have in the N.T. is what GOD wished us to have. Just because other things (sacred tradition) might NOT be in the Bible, or because some things simply aren’t KNOWN, doesn’t mean that they didn’t happen, or weren’t “worthy” or “approved” by God.

 

[Fidelis]

rarndt01:

That is my whole point. Today Catholic believers show as much devotion to Mary as to Jesus almost. But yet when one reads the epistles of Paul to the Christians, we find no mention of the importance of Mary at all? Why is this, if the early church looked toward Mary in the same regard as the Catholic church of today?

First of all, it isn’t true that Catholics show as much devotion to Mary as to Jesus (Compared to Protestantism, of course, where NO devotion to Mary is given, ANYTHING is too much. Anything more than nothing is a lot). In the Mass which is our highest form of worship, Mary is typically mentioned just twice, almost in passing: in the “I confess” and in the Eucharistic prayer. Some people are more “Marian” than others and may manifest this in a greater devotion to, say, the Rosary. But even the Rosary is a mediation on the Gospel. The meditations on the life of Jesus in the Rosary are arguably more important than the prayers themselves. But when we say the prayers, we are asking Mary to pray for us and with us.

As for St. Paul’s seeming neglect of Mary in his letters, think about this. Look over Paul’s letters and you will see that the primary purpose of writing his letters to address problems that have come up in the churches that he is writing to, for example when he writes to the Corinthians about their abuses during the Eucarhrist (1 Cor 10-11). If there wasn’t a problem with something, why write about it? Apparently in the the early Church there was no problem with people not giving honor to Mary or any other saints, so why would he bother to bring it up?

 

[MountainMan]

rarndt -

Being of simple mind, I will keep my response simple. I believe the explanation of Paul’s ‘failure’ to include devotion to Mary in his letters is at least twofold, and is evidenced in the responses of TantumErgo and Fidelis:

1. Paul only became an ‘apostle’ after Jesus’s death and resurrection, so he did not know Mary as the other apostles did. He may never have met her, for all we know. He knew only what was revealed to him by the Holy Spirit and the apostles.
2. Paul’s letters are focused on instruction and correction of persons and churches to whom he provided witness. His concern was that they practiced what he taught in accord with the “gospel” of the Lord.

and

keep in mind that none of the epistles make reference to Mary, no matter who wrote them (including the letters of John, to whom Mary was given at the Cross).

 

[Robert_in_SD]

rarndt01:

That is my whole point. Today Catholic believers show as much devotion to Mary as to Jesus almost…?

Warning - "Pet Peeve Alert!"

It’s not an either/or situation. Devotions to Mary do not exclude Jesus. Devotions to Mary are prayers to Jesus through Mary. Anyone who prays to Mary is praying through Mary to her Son in a very special way. Christ is the center of every Catholic prayer, even if some prayers also give honor to His mother. From the Catholic perspective, nothing is withheld or taken away from Christ by praying to Mary. We believe that to honor His mother is to further His honor. There is no dichotomy, as so many dissenters claim. Devotion to Mary cannot exclude devotion to her Son.

Now, to respond to your question;

An interesting question…

Perhaps Paul did not write about Mary because there was no dissention on this point that had to be addressed in an epistle. Most of Paul’s writings address specific issues arising in specific churches. If there was no dissention or disagreement as to whether or not Mary should be consulted, then there would have been no need of Paul to write to any of the churches to teach about Mary.

Remeber also that the Bible is not a catechism and should not be viewed as lacking simply because it does not *expressly * teach all doctrine. Even protestants who rely solely on the Bible as their rule of faith admit that may doctrines are only *implicitly * taught.

As Catholics, we know that Christ gave us his teachings in Scripture, and He also gave us the Church as teacher. My opinion is that one must look to both sources when trying to discern the truth about Marian doctrine. Where one source is lacking, the other may suffice.

 

[Strider]

rarndt01:

But the Catholic faith pays little tribute to Paul the apostle who was the leading missionary to the gentiles. And the one who wrote the majority of epistles found in the New Testament.
QUOTE]

This statement is untrue. The Catholic Church honors St. Paul as much as any of the original apostles, even though his conversion occurred after the death of Christ.
As for the reason he doesn’t mention Mary, her teaching role in the Church is completed long before Jesus’ death and resurrection and is recorded by John:
John 2:5 His mother said to the servants, “Do whatever he tells you.”
Those are Mary’s last words in the Bible, and the words she tells the servants are the words she says to us whenever we pray for her intersession with Jesus. Nothing else about her need be said, since we know of her sinlessness and her perpetual virginity already.
God bless

 

[Pax]

This question has a built in bias. The presumption is that if Paul didn’t write about something then it doesn’t matter. We could ask similar questions about Paul’s writings that do not apply to Mary.

Please explain why, for example, Paul doesn’t spend time talking about all of the twelve apostles by name? Why doesn’t Paul mention by name all of the martyrs that he surely knew? Why doesn’t Paul write apocalyptic literature like John did? Why didn’t Paul write a gospel?

Paul wrote letters to specific church communities. If Mary wasn’t located in those communities at the time, there may have been no reason to mention her. In fact, the content of Paul’s letters would lead me to think that he had other more pressing issues and topics to discuss with the back sliding Christians of the era. There is also the possibility that mentioning her and where she was could have put her life in danger. We know this could be true because the apostle, Peter, uses the code word “Babylon” for Rome when he writes to his fellow Christians. Most scholars agree that this was done to prevent the Romans from knowing where he was.

The bottom line is that we simply don’t know why one apostle would write about one thing or person but never mentions another. The fact that a particular apostle did not write something
proves nothing. My guess is that there was no necessity to do so.

If you look at the section of the bible that holds the epistles of Paul you will notice that it really isn’t very big. Although he wrote more than the other apostles, he did not include anywhere near the number of quotes from Jesus in the gospels. So, what are we to conclude? The words of Jesus, and there were many, that Paul does not quote aren’t important? The fact is that every word uttered by Jesus that is quoted in the gospels is of greater importance than anything that Paul wrote. To properly appreciate and understand Paul, you must first know what Jesus said.

It could be more easily argued that Protestants over emphasize Paul’s writings to the detriment of knowing and understanding the message of Jesus, as opposed to Catholics not paying much attention to Paul. Catholic teaching on Paul’s true message is perfectly congruent with the words of Jesus and the other apostles. Protestant teaching tends to lift Paul’s writings out of this all important context.