Why Do Protestants Shun Mary?

[Good_Fella]

Really? Since nascent times? Can you produce a quote from nascent times that shows that Christians actually venerated Mary?

Luke allegorically identifies Mary with the Ark of the Covenant, as is evident in the parallel he draws between his gospel narrative and the Second Book of Samuel. The first Christians were Palestinian Jewish converts. As devout Jews who saw the fulfillment of Judaism in the Christian faith, they naturally would have venerated Mary as they had the ark.

Your quote from Justin Martyr doesn’t show that the early church venerated her. It just talks about what Mary did.

What exactly did Mary do besides consenting to be the mother of our Lord? Here’s what Justin Martyr and Irenaeus have to say in keeping with the Apostolic Tradition of the Church:

*“He[Jesus] became man by the Virgin so that the course that was taken by disobedience in the beginning through the agency of the serpent might be also the very course by which it would be put down” [Apologia, 100]

"Eve . . . who was then still a virgin . . . having become disobedient [sin], was made the cause of death for herself and for the whole human race; so also Mary, betrothed to a man but nevertheless still a virgin, being obedient [no sin], was made the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race. . . . Thus, the knot of Eve’s disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. What the virgin Eve had bound in unbelief, the Virgin Mary loosed through faith " [Against Heresies 3:22:24 (A.D. 189)].*

When we speak of Catholics venerating Mary, we mean that we hold her in high esteem and honour her for her qualities of holiness and virtue, especially since she played a very important role in the economy of salvation with the gifts she had received through the Holy Spirit. Mary was not called to be the mother of our Lord merely to provide the flesh and blood he needed to become man. More importantly she was chosen to undo by her faith what Eve had wrought in her unfaithfulness. These ECFs certainly held Mary in very high regard for how she cooperated with the Holy Spirit for the sake of our redemption. They surely didn’t perceive Mary as just another righteous woman to be equally counted among many others. This is obvious by how they have described Mary as the “obedient virgin”, “the cause of salvation”, “the advocate of Eve”, the one who “loosed through faith”, and, by whom “the human race was rescued”, having fallen “into bondage to death”. The ones who shun and disregard Mary are those who perceive her as nothing more than a biological instrument used by God.

I don’t think reverence is the issue.

Reverence is synonymous with veneration.

Now to this day, or only when she gave birth to Christ?

Mary is still the mother of Christ, so she hasn’t laid her saving office aside, seeing that Jesus hasn’t either. In the words of Ephraim: “With the Mediator you are the Mediatrix of the entire world” [A.D. 373].

I really wish I could agree with you on that.

Don’t let your impressions fool you.

PAX
:heaven:

 

[pablope]

Really

Quote:
Catholics who hold and participate in processions with images of the Blessed Virgin Mary are no less worshipping and praising God than the Israelites were.
I really wish I could agree with you on that.

---

I really wish I could agree with you on that.

Yes…you do not because your views are affected by the anti-catholicism of the reformation…

 

[rstrats]

Rightly or wrongly, the greater preponderance of protestants and other non-catholics are ‘scripture only’ with regard to theological/doctrinal matters. And as such, the mother of the Messiah is not lifted to the lofty, almost devine, heights to which Catholics raise her.

In scripture, the Messiah only speaks to His mother four times. The first three times the Messiah is generally thought/seen by non-catholics to be at best slightly irritated. The fouth simply has Him telling her to look at her son. That’s it - nowhere else is there any mention of contact between them. Even after His resurrection, the first person to whom He reveals Himself is Mary Magdalene and not His mother, which seems a bit odd to non-catholics if she is to be so important to the continuing plan of salvation.

 

[Jeanne_S]

Rightly or wrongly, the greater preponderance of protestants and other non-catholics are ‘scripture only’ with regard to theological/doctrinal matters. And as such, the mother of the Messiah is not lifted to the lofty, almost devine, heights to which Catholics raise her.

In scripture, the Messiah only speaks to His mother four times. The first three times the Messiah is generally thought/seen by non-catholics to be at best slightly irritated. The fouth simply has Him telling her to look at her son. That’s it - nowhere else is there any mention of contact between them. Even after His resurrection, the first person to whom He reveals Himself is Mary Magdalene and not His mother, which seems a bit odd to non-catholics if she is to be so important to the continuing plan of salvation.

Firstly,Christ would never be irritated with his mother.Secondly,Christ chose to show himself to Mary Magdelene,because IMO ,she needed to see him.She was a converted sinner,seeing Christ in his resurrected form gave her hope and trust in his promise of mercy and forgiveness. Mary was full of faith,and already trusted in God’s plan completely,even when she didn’t fully understand.That is the epitome of faith,Believing without always having concrete proof or understanding.Again the Catholic faith has Sacred Scripture,Sacred Tradition and the Deposit of Faith.Also,the NT was written by the Catholic Church,Protestant faiths have amended their versions of the NT to fit their beliefs.Not the other way around.

 

[rstrats]

Jeanne S,

I was merely addressing the question posed by the OP by offering a couple of reasons for why non-catholics don’t venerate the Messiah’s mother with the same amount of passion as catholics. You of course are entitled to your biased opinions with regard to those reasons.

 

[Jeanne_S]

Jeanne S,

I was merely addressing the question posed by the OP by offering a couple of reasons for why non-catholics don’t venerate the Messiah’s mother with the same amount of passion as catholics. You of course are entitled to your biased opinions with regard to those reasons.

Just as you are entitled to your biased reasons for believing otherwise.

 

[rstrats]

Jeanne S,
re: “Just as you are entitled to your biased reasons for believing otherwise.”

Indeed.

 

[Good_Fella]

Rightly or wrongly, the greater preponderance of protestants and other non-catholics are ‘scripture only’ with regard to theological/doctrinal matters.

And so there is this shallowness of understanding. There’s more than the printed word that meets the eye.

And as such, the mother of the Messiah is not lifted to the lofty, almost divine, heights to which Catholics raise her.

That’s because the greater preponderance of Protestants over-emphasize Christ’s divinity. For them human merit holds no value in our reconciliation with God. What they believe is true, but only outside the system of divine grace which allows us to have a share in the divine life.

In scripture, the Messiah only speaks to His mother four times.

The Gospels cover no more than seventeen hours in three years of Jesus’ public life. I’m sure our Lord spoke to his mother more than four times in its entire span. Still it is at pivotal moments in salvation history that Jesus speaks to his mother. That could be because of her close association with him in the divine plan of redemption. Ironically Protestants and non-Catholics dismiss the fact that Peter is mentioned at least 77 times in the NT which could support Catholic belief in his primacy among the Twelve.

The first three times the Messiah is generally thought/seen by non-catholics to be at best slightly irritated. The fouth simply has Him telling her to look at her son. That’s it - nowhere else is there any mention of contact between them.

Again, the printed word taken by itself can create that impression. At Cana, for instance, we have Jesus using an Hebraic expression in Aramaic ( mah-liy walak isah: literally “what is there to me and you,”) which is a sign of respect.

These folks fail to see the significance in our Lord’s choice of words. When Jesus addresses his mother before addressing his disciple, he doesn’t use the customary affectionate appellation ‘Em’ (Mother), but rather calls her “Woman”, just as he did at Cana at the start of his public life. It could be that our Lord was alluding to her relation to us as the new Eve - the spiritual mother of all who live in Christ (cf. Rev. 12:17). By being the mother of Jesus, Mary may also be our mother (cf. Rom. 8:29).

Even after His resurrection, the first person to whom He reveals Himself is Mary Magdalene and not His mother, which seems a bit odd to non-catholics if she is to be so important to the continuing plan of salvation.

I’m sure Mary already knew that Jesus would rise from the dead. In the thirty years they had spent together under the same roof, he must have told her many things that aren’t recorded in the gospels and shouldn’t be made known at the time. She didn’t have to be convinced by any empirical evidence. Mary Magdalen and the apostles still hadn’t grasped what Jesus had alluded to about his death and resurrection while he was still with them (cf. Lk 9:22). So he had to appear to them in order to give his instructions.

PAX
:heaven:

 

[Good_Fella]

Just as you are entitled to your biased reasons for believing otherwise.

Rstrats, Jeanne’s reasons for her Marian beliefs aren’t based on any personal bias, but belong to traditions that had existed when there was still but one Apostolic Catholic Church. The disregard and even scorn for Mary in Christendom is a modern phenomenon that has occurred outside the Church in wayward sects…

PAX
:heaven:

 

[Koineman]

Luke allegorically identifies Mary with the Ark of the Covenant, as is evident in the parallel he draws between his gospel narrative and the Second Book of Samuel.

That’s an interpretation that I have doubts about. And yes, I’m familiar with the Catholic arguments for it.

What exactly did Mary do besides consenting to be the mother of our Lord? Here’s what Justin Martyr and Irenaeus have to say in keeping with the Apostolic Tradition of the Church:
“He[Jesus] became man by the Virgin so that the course that was taken by disobedience in the beginning through the agency of the serpent might be also the very course by which it would be put down” [Apologia, 100]

 

[Good_Fella]

That’s an interpretation that I have doubts about. And yes, I’m familiar with the Catholic arguments for it.

The typology is clear. For someone who might take the Scriptures more literally or explicitly, I’d think you shouldn’t have any real doubts.

Nothing there that says the church of his time venerated Mary.

] Again, nothing there that says the church of his time venerated Mary.

It is certainly implied by how they perceive and designate Mary as our advocate. At that time the early Christians gathered the bones of the deceased saints and martyrs in veneration of them, believing that God would work miracles through them. You will recall in the NT that many people were cured when Peter’s shadow passed over them resulting in many people trying to catch it. Also, Paul’s personal keepsakes were snatched by the faithful for obtaining divine favours. There is no record of the apostles ever having rebuked them for being superstitious. These actions are signs of the early veneration of the saints who had found favour with God.

I know what you mean by veneration.

Then how is it that you don’t think Justin Martyr and Irenaeus appear to have venerated her? Must it take a photograph of them participating in a Marian procession?

But since the OP asked why Protestants “shun” Mary, I’m trying to convey the reason why they are so hesitant to follow the Catholics in this area. When they see things like the pic I posted (and that one is not as striking as others I’ve seen), I can’t blame them for being cautious. You can’t just write that kind of treatment of Mary as mere honor.

But who are they to judge that these Catholics who practice a private devotion to Mary with the use of religious relics are actually worshipping her as a divine entity? At best all they can do is make a dubious assumption. Anyway, many of these same Christians find any form of relic or sacramental revolting because of their disdain towards physical matter as opposed to spirit. Their attitude is neo-Gnostic to say the least.

I hold her in high regard, too, but I don’t do what the people in the pic do. That’s going too far.

Aren’t you a sentient being? Or has modern rationalism dulled your emotions and aesthetic sense.?

I’m with you as long as you talk about Mary being the honorable vehicle through whom Christ was brought into the world. In that sense, she is sort of a conduit of grace to the world. But after that? I don’t think so.

Mary continues to be a conduit of grace as our heavenly Mother. Although grace originates from God, our heavenly Father desires that we who are faithful should mediate and share the abundance of graces which we have received, proportionate to the measure of our charity and gifts of grace (cf. Eph. 3:2; 1; Pet. 4:10). As members of a royal priesthood (the kingdom of heaven includes both the living and departed saints) we are called to mediate divine grace through our prayers and sacrifices (cf. 1 Pet. 2:9; Rev. 1:6; 5:8; 8:4). Mary served as a physical channel of divine grace by consenting to be the mother of our Lord. By right of friendship with God, she did in fact merit for herself and us the coming of our Savior into the world by her faith working through love. How vulgar to suggest that God had merely used Mary’s body with no regard for the dignity of her person. And Mary made ultimate satisfaction to God for the sins of the world by the agony she had experienced when standing at the foot of the cross on account of her love for Jesus (cf. Lk 2:35). It was there that Jesus proclaimed Mary to be our spiritual mother, Mother of the Church (cf. Jn 19:26-27).

Don’t let yours fool you, either.

That’s just it. I don’t presume to judge the hearts and minds of those who engage in private devotions. We should leave that to God.

PAX
:heaven:

 

[Koineman]

The typology is clear. For someone who might take the Scriptures more literally or explicitly, I’d think you shouldn’t have any real doubts.

Sorry, I don’t think it’s that clear. For one thing, the text itself does not actually say that the Ark was a type of Mary.

Nothing there that says the church of his time venerated Mary.

It is certainly implied by how they perceive and designate Mary as our advocate.

I didn’t read anything in those texts that describe Mary as our advocate. Even if they did, that still says nothing about veneration. They describe Mary’s role. They give us no insights whatsoever about whether the contemporary church of their times venerated Mary.

To show that the early church venerated Mary, you need to produce a text that describes them doing this–that is, if you want to use the ECF’s writings, which apparently you want to do. Consider Justin Martyr’s description of Sunday worship as an example:

And we afterwards continually remind each other of these things. And the wealthy among us help the needy; and we always keep together; and for all things wherewith we are supplied, we bless the Maker of all through His Son Jesus Christ, and through the Holy Ghost. And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons. And they who are well to do, and willing, give what each thinks fit; and what is collected is deposited with the president, who succours the orphans and widows and those who, through sickness or any other cause, are in want, and those who are in bonds and the strangers sojourning among us, and in a word takes care of all who are in need. But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead. For He was crucified on the day before that of Saturn (Saturday); and on the day after that of Saturn, which is the day of the Sun, having appeared to His apostles and disciples, He taught them these things, which we have submitted to you also for your consideration.

Notice how their spiritual activity is described in detail. Show me a text like this that describes the early church venerating Mary, and then I’ll believe you.

Then how is it that you don’t think Justin Martyr and Irenaeus appear to have venerated her? Must it take a photograph of them participating in a Marian procession?

A “photograph” made of text, yes, to be sure. Otherwise, you’re just speculating. You’re taking descriptions of Mary’s role in redemption and assuming from them that the writers venerated her. It’s quite a leap.

Mary continues to be a conduit of grace as our heavenly Mother. Although grace originates from God, our heavenly Father desires that we who are faithful should mediate and share the abundance of graces which we have received, proportionate to the measure of our charity and gifts of grace (cf. Eph. 3:2; 1; Pet. 4:10). As members of a royal priesthood (the kingdom of heaven includes both the living and departed saints) we are called to mediate divine grace through our prayers and sacrifices (cf. 1 Pet. 2:9; Rev. 1:6; 5:8; 8:4). Mary served as a physical channel of divine grace by consenting to be the mother of our Lord. By right of friendship with God, she did in fact merit for herself and us the coming of our Savior into the world by her faith working through love.

Wow! So you’re saying that unless Mary had merited Christ’s coming into the world, Jesus would never have come into this world as Savior? That certainly sounds like what you’re saying, since you’re talking about merit. Does the CCC teach the boldfaced part you wrote?

How vulgar to suggest that God had merely used Mary’s body with no regard for the dignity of her person.

Did I ever say that God had no regard for the dignity of her person? What are you talking about?

And Mary made ultimate satisfaction to God for the sins of the world by the agony she had experienced when standing at the foot of the cross on account of her love for Jesus (cf. Lk 2:35). It was there that Jesus proclaimed Mary to be our spiritual mother, Mother of the Church (cf. Jn 19:26-27).

First, does the CCC actually teach this? Second, when you say things like this, you shouldn’t wonder why Protestants are so leery and cautious about Catholic teaching on Mary. Look at the text I boldfaced above. It is shocking on two counts: because it speaks of Mary in language that describes atoning work and 2) you say it boldly as if you are not even aware of the severe error. I’d be very worried, if I were you.

 

[rcwitness]

Wow! So you’re saying that unless Mary had merited Christ’s coming into the world, Jesus would never have come into this world as Savior? That certainly sounds like what you’re saying, since you’re talking about merit. Does the CCC teach the boldfaced part you wrote?

This depth of looking at and venerating Mary becomes very complicated to the fundamentals of the Gospel. It is why I do not appreciate some devotions offered to Mary. There can be a true aspect of looking at that kind of a statement or belief. But for me, it takes alot of spiritual gymnastics. I think some who are private and genuine about their relationship with Christ and Mary can believe such things while knowing Christ is the only Son of God, savior and redeemer of mankind, yet are able to search the depths of His intimate plan which has established a Mother of all who keep the commandments of Jesus.

First, does the CCC actually teach this? Second, when you say things like this, you shouldn’t wonder why Protestants are so leery and cautious about Catholic teaching on Mary. Look at the text I boldfaced above. It is shocking on two counts: because it speaks of Mary in language that describes atoning work and 2) you say it boldly as if you are not even aware of the severe error. I’d be very worried, if I were you.

I lean towards your sentiments about comments such as this. And I agree its very important to know if it is orthodox Catholicism. My fundamental purpose in avoiding this kind of talk is so I have not established a stumbling block of sorts to Christians and non Christian wishing to enter into the fullness of the Faith.

However, ther is a plethra of Church writings on Mary from the Church with various degrees of authority and levels of truth (if you can understand that). So its hard to sum up what is officially acceptable language, belief and devotional practice regarding Mary.

I do know one thing for certain there is a warning from the Church regarding “gross exagerations” of her. I dont know where it is from. But I am encouraged that the Church does recognize this and so acknowledges the fact that we can abuse devotion towards her. I do not appreciate the comments made by some Catholics that we can never give Mary too much honor. It is not recognizing a very real danger in making an idol of her. Yes, I believe with all my heart, that we can make an idol of her and anyone or thing for that matter.

Does that mean that I think the devotion shown in the picture you posted is idolatry? No. Is it possible one or more of those individuals has an unhealthy devotion to Mary? Yes.

Just my :twocents:

 

[Good_Fella]

Sorry, I don’t think it’s that clear. For one thing, the text itself does not actually say that the Ark was a type of Mary.

The Gospel of Luke is a literary work, and allegory is a literary device. It was enough for the evangelist to equate Mary with the Ark of the Covenant by focussing on a similarity of events between the two without actually writing ‘Mary is a type of ark’.

I didn’t read anything in those texts that describe Mary as our advocate. Even if they did, that still says nothing about veneration. They describe Mary’s role. They give us no insights whatsoever about whether the contemporary church of their times venerated Mary.

"Just as the former—that is, Eve—was seduced by the words of an angel so that she turned away from God by disobeying his word, so the latter—Mary—received the good news from an angel’s announcement in such a way as to give birth to God by obeying his word; and as the former was seduced so that she disobeyed God, the latter let herself be convinced to obey God, and so the Virgin Mary became the advocate of the virgin Eve. And as the human race was subjected to death by a virgin, it was liberated by a Virgin; a virgin’s disobedience was thus counterbalanced by a Virgin’s obedience…"
Irenaeus, Against Heresies., 5, 19, 1

Considering how Irenaeus describes Mary’s role in the Divine plan of redemption, he must have regarded her with deep reverential respect in recognition of her holiness, which he believed vitally contributed to our “liberation” from sin and death. Certainly writing this about Mary is an act of honour to her. Irenaeus doesn’t appear to have believed that Mary’s role in God’s plan was simply to give birth to Christ. Rather she was chosen to vindicate Eve for her transgression which led to the fall of Adam. And unless Mary counterbalanced Eve’s disobedience by her own obedience, the Incarnation would not have happened. This is what the Church Father means by saying “she became the cause of salvation both for herself and for the human race”. I’m sure many Protestants who read this tract would take offense and object that we have only one advocate, namely Christ, who is the only cause of our salvation. They might even go so far as to charge Irenaeus with idolatry. The veneration of Mary doesn’t necessarily only involve the use of statues and icons which, by the way, are just other forms of expression.

To show that the early church venerated Mary, you need to produce a text that describes them doing this–that is, if you want to use the ECF’s writings, which apparently you want to do. Consider Justin Martyr’s description of Sunday worship as an example… Notice how their spiritual activity is described in detail. Show me a text like this that describes the early church venerating Mary, and then I’ll believe you.

First of all, Sunday worship is not an act of private devotion, but rather a public celebration. So you’re presenting a faulty analogy. Second, arguing from silence is a logical fallacy as well. We don’t need anything more explicitly put down in writing by a Church Father to see that the early Church venerated Mary. Their theological articulation of Mary’s primary role in God’s plan of salvation is sufficient to show that the early Christians did in fact venerate Mary in their beliefs. They must have, since they venerated all the saints.

The Martyrdom of Polycarp

CHAPTER 18
The Christians take the ashes

1 When therefore the centurion saw the contentiousness caused by the Jews, he put the body in the midst, as was their custom, and burnt it. 2 Thus we, at last, took up his bones, more precious than precious stones, and finer than gold, and put them where it was meet. 3 There the Lord will permit us to come together according to our power in gladness and joy, and celebrate the birthday of his martyrdom, both in memory of those who have already contested, and for the practice and training of those whose fate it shall be.

Bishop Polycarp was martyred c.155 A.D. In the Roman catacombs there are paintings or frescos of Mary holding the child Jesus dating back to the early 2nd century. I have seen them myself. It does appear that there had already existed by then a veneration of Mary, the Mother of God (Theotokos). To her was accorded a veneration (hyperdulia) that superseded the honour shown to any other saint (dulia) because of her maternal dignity. Justin Martyr and Irenaeus don’t write anything about any other saint in such pre-eminent terms as they do with regard to Mary, whom they designate as the new Eve. Moreover, in the Roman catacombs of St. Agnes, we have a fresco that dates back to the early 3rd century in which Mary is depicted above the apostles Peter and Paul with her arms outstretched towards them. The pairing of these two apostles in early works of art is symbolic of the Catholic Church. Mary’s inclusion symbolizes her role as Mother of the Church. In the catacombs of St. Priscilla we have a fresco of Mary engaged in an act of prayer. This image is found in several vaults and tombs of early Christians. it seems from these representations that the early Christians implored Mary’s maternal intercession which does fit with her designations as the new Eve and Mother of the Church. If this isn’t veneration, then I don’t know what is.

PAX
:heaven:

 

[Good_Fella]

Wow! So you’re saying that unless Mary had merited Christ’s coming into the world, Jesus would never have come into this world as Savior? That certainly sounds like what you’re saying, since you’re talking about merit. Does the CCC teach the boldfaced part you wrote?

The Virgin Mary “co-operated through free faith and obedience in human salvation” (LG 56). She uttered her yes “in the name of all human nature” (St. Thomas Aquinas, S Th III, 30, 1). By her obedience she became the new Eve, mother of the living.
**Catechism of the Catholic Church [512] **

In his wisdom and mercy (not to be confused with the Divine justice), God chose Mary to associate her with His dispensation of grace for the salvation of souls through the incarnation of Christ. Our heavenly Father acted purely on his own initiative which was then followed by Mary’s free act of faith working through love in collaboration with the Holy Spirit. In the Christian life the merit of our good works done in grace is first attributed to the grace of God and only then to the faithful “whose good works proceed in Christ” by cooperation with divine grace (c.f. CCC 2008). And since we are created in the image of God and have free will, we can either accept or reject His grace (cf. Acts 7:51).

Elizabeth praised her cousin Mary as blessed for having believed in the word of God and consenting to become the mother of her Lord (cf. Lk 1:45). Our Lady’s participation was both passive and active. Thus she was no mere physiological instrument of God, but an autonomous human being who was totally free to respond to His grace and call. The Magisterium of the Church teaches that “since the initiative belongs to God in the order of grace, no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification at the beginning of conversion.” Mary was justified at the first instant she was immaculately conceived and preserved free from the stain of original sin in view of the merits of of her divine Son. Our Lady had to be redeemed herself by a preventive divine measure before she could be called to become the Mother of God. However, “moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life.” (c.f. CCC 2010). The Catholic Church infallibly teaches that sanctification is the formal cause of justification. Individually we are reckoned as just in the sight of God upon being sanctified by His grace whose dispensation Christ has originally gained for us. Being so reckoned because of her sanctity, Mary was able to merit for us the coming of the Source of all grace into the world.

Mary finally merited for herself the gift of the divine motherhood by freely consenting to conceive and bear Jesus in faith and love. But she had already proven herself worthy before the angel Gabriel appeared to her: “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favour with God” (Lk 1:30). The Mother of our Lord had certainly increased in grace and charity in her life of faith before the Annunciation, or else the angel would not have appeared to her with these reassuring words. Hence, one cannot honestly deny that Mary’s collaboration with the Holy Spirit helped make “the attainment of eternal life” possible for those who will persevere in faith. Mary’s good work in charity and grace took the form of her fiat out of love for God and humankind. Meanwhile she understood that she was chosen to be the mother of her Lord by no natural merit of her own: “He has looked upon the lowliness of his handmaid” (Lk 1:48). Grace preceded her, but by her free consent to be the Mother of our Lord in cooperation with divine grace, the world has been “given what is due” to everyone who cooperates as well with God’s grace: eternal salvation (c.f. CCC 2009). This is because divine grace gives our human merits a supernatural quality as we “participate in the divine life” (cf. 2 Peter 1:3-4). Having found favour with God, Mary was able to merit for us the grace of salvation gained for us by Christ for the glory of God the Father.

“Hail, Mary Theotokos (Mother of God), venerable treasure of the whole world…it is through you that the Holy Trinity is glorified and adored, through you, the precious cross is venerated and adored throughout the whole world, through you that demons are put to flight,…through you that the fallen creature is raised up to heaven, through you that all creation, once imprisoned in idolatry, has reached knowledge of the truth, that the faithful obtain baptism and the oil of joy, churches have been founded in the whole world, that peoples are led to conversion.”
St. Cyril of Alexandria, Homily 4 at the Council of Ephesus (A.D. 431)

“Let us entrust ourselves with all our soul’s affection to the intercession of the Blessed Virgin: let us all, with all our strength, beg her patronage, that…she herself may deign in heaven to commend us with fervent prayer. For without any doubt she who merited bringing ransom for those who needed deliverance, can more than all the saints benefit by her favour those who have received deliverance.”
**Ambrose Autpert, Assumption of the Virgin (ante A.D. 778) **

“You scatter your favours with still greater abundance since you possess more fully him.”
John the Geometer, Life of Mary (A.D 989)

PAX
:heaven:

 

[Good_Fella]

Does the CCC actually teach this? When you say things like this, you shouldn’t wonder why Protestants are so leery and cautious about Catholic teaching on Mary. Look at the text I boldfaced above. It is shocking on two counts: because it speaks of Mary in language that describes atoning work and 2) you say it boldly as if you are not even aware of the severe error.

Mary’s role in the Church is inseparable from her union with Christ and flows directly from it. “This union of the mother with the Son in the work of salvation is made manifest from the time of Christ’s virginal conception up to his death”;504 it is made manifest above all at the hour of his Passion:

Thus the Blessed Virgin advanced in her pilgrimage of faith, and faithfully persevered in her union with her Son unto the cross. There she stood, in keeping with the divine plan, enduring with her only begotten Son the intensity of his suffering, joining herself with his sacrifice in her mother’s heart, and lovingly consenting to the immolation of this victim, born of her: to be given, by the same Christ Jesus dying on the cross, as a mother to his disciple, with these words: "Woman, behold your son."505
Catechism of the Catholic Church [964]

As you may have already heard, the “co” in the term “co-Redemptrix” comes from the Latin word cum which means “with”. So this designation means “Mother with the Redeemer”. God willed that His Only-begotten Son be “born of a woman” (Gal 4:4) rather than be formed out of the clay of the ground, as the first Adam had been at the time of creation, so that a woman could make satisfaction to Him for all the living in light of Eve’s transgression. Together with the infinite satisfaction that the Son alone could make in strict justice, since its value and dignity was derived from his divine person and merits, Mary offered for us a satisfaction of becomingness and friendship with God whose value rested on her obedient act of faith and charity in God’s grace in view of Christ’s merits. In Catholic theology, Mary made a satisfaction de convenientia, whose value was derived from the dignity of her divine maternity and the plenitudes of grace she was endowed with. Thus her interior suffering made satisfaction to God on our behalf, since she suffered in proportion to her love for her crucified Son who was also God. As the Mother of the Redeemer, Mary was intimately united with him in his work of redemption by being not unlike her Son in her perfect command of the will in conformity with the Divine will, her poverty of spirit, and suffering for the sake of God’s infinite love and goodness.

The satisfaction which Jesus made in strict justice to restore humankind in the Father’s favour is eternal. By his obedience, our Lord opened the gates of heaven. Mary, on the other hand, made a temporal satisfaction on our behalf through her obedience to God’s will. The aim of making satisfaction to God is to repair an offence against God and make him favourable to us again. This can only be achieved by suffering pain or loss and being in the state of grace. Mary’s consent to be the mother of our Lord was a meritorious deed, since it was made in charity and grace. But what made it a means of satisfaction and temporal expiation was the suffering that would be involved. Her satisfaction was perfect, since it proceeded from a love and oblation which was more pleasing to God than the sin of Eve was displeasing to Him. And it was made by a woman who was “full of grace” and with God. (cf. Lk 1:28).

Mary cooperated in some way in the principal act of Christ’s priesthood when she consented to the sacrifice of the cross as our Lord accomplished it. She offered up her Son to God spiritually in her wounded love for Him as his mother. True, the priestly power effectively rested with Jesus, but the oblation and immolation of her Son which she acceptably offered by her sorrow as our Lord’s mother bestowed on her the character or spirit of the priesthood. Mary offered up her Son to God in conformity with his suffering by suffering interiorly on account of a mother’s love. And her sorrow for the God-Man temporally appeased God’s justice. It was under the shadow of the cross that Mary consecrated her firstborn and only Son to God when she presented the infant Jesus in the temple in commemoration of Abraham’s consent to offer up Isaac as an oblation and immolation. And it was on that occasion Simeon prophesied that a sword would pierce her soul (cf. Lk 2:35). The prophecy was fulfilled at the instant the soldier pierced Jesus’ side with his lance, drawing out blood and water.

Mary’s interior suffering had the character of satisfaction in that like her divine Son and in union with him she suffered because of sin and the offence it offers to God. As Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange tells us, “Her suffering was measured by her love of God whom sin offended, by her love of her Son who was crucified for our sins, and her love towards those who do sin.” God honoured her suffering in measure of her state of grace which originated from Him through the merits of Christ. It is through Jesus that the inner thoughts of many might be revealed, but only if it will have involved the wounded love of his sorrowful mother because of sin. So that the inner thoughts of many might be revealed, a sword should pierce her heart. Mary’s participation in her Son’s suffering and mediation was ordained by God. For this reason Jesus was “made of a woman”.

I pray therefore that you may not lose heart over my sufferings for you; they are your glory.
Ephesians 3, 13

PAX
:heaven:

 

[SjMelnychuk]

I think sometimes we make this far too complicated.

When I was a Protestant I viewed prayer as being reserved to God and God alone so prayer was viewed as a form of worship not necessarily as a means to ask Saints and Mary to interced and then the belief that Mary and the Saints were dead but the Apostles Creed speaks to the Communion of the Saints and even the Prophetic words of Mary when she visited the mother of John the Baptist. She said, “all people will call me blessed” It’s a major block for any Protestant to understand. If Mary was a mere woman born in sin like the rest of us why is she so special other than the fact she was chosen by God to give birth to Jesus.

They don’t understand what FULL OF GRACE means and don’t see Mary as 2nd Eve let alone the ark of the new covenant. They readily see Jesus as King but can’t see the role of the Kings Mother in a Monarchy ie Queen Mother … The Mother of any King is always always Queen Mother.

Plus Protestants fail to ask the question, how can the Church be wrong for 1500 years to all of a sudden get things right? Or we could ask the question, so how did the Early Church view Mary? Since the Apostles died before Mary we then have the eye witness accounts of those the Apostles discipled which was passed down in Church Tradition and confirmed in the writings of the Early Church Fathers.

So… Either the Church got it wrong for 1500 years or perhaps if we really want to understand what the Early Church taught regarding Mary we aught to look at the writings of the Early Church Fathers which span from the end of the 1st century Church throughout a few hundred years following. You’ll see the Early Church view Mary as Mother, understood she was given to the Church as Mother by Jesus when he was on the Cross and they understood she was pure and full of grace in that at conception she received the fullness of all grace to be saved from original sin at conception to be a pure and holy vessel to carry the new covenant Jesus truly becoming Mother of God because Jesus is FULLY God this made Mary the Ark. If there’s a new covenant there’s a new Ark. And with that in mind Mary played an integral role in our redemption. First Mary had to be obedient and receive and then to suffer … Finally, the whole meaning of virgin for Mary is a very pregnant meaning. Plus most Protestants believe that she and Joseph had more children but we know in Jewish culture brother was used loosely… Even today we use brother and sister loosely. I have a coworker who always calls me sister … That in no way implies that we are siblings and actually in the biblical language there was no word for cousin so to point out a familial connection brother or sister becomes the closest thing to the word cousin. I know in Indigenous culture cousins are viewed as brothers and sisters… this is the same in Jewish and Middle Eastern culture.

So… Did the Church just get things wrong for 1500 years or is Mary our Mother and Queen of Heaven? Is Mary who the Early Church claimed Mary to be or did the Church get this wrong for 1500 years?

So it’s not that Protestants shun Mary it’s just that Protestants believe the Church just got things wrong for 1500 years. I mean, what else could it be then?

 

[Goya]

Good Fella;12871952]

…

It is certainly implied by how they perceive and designate Mary as our advocate. At that time the early Christians gathered the bones of the deceased saints and martyrs in veneration of them, believing that God would work miracles through them. You will recall in the NT that many people were cured when Peter’s shadow passed over them resulting in many people trying to catch it. Also, Paul’s personal keepsakes were snatched by the faithful for obtaining divine favours. There is no record of the apostles ever having rebuked them for being superstitious. These actions are signs of the early veneration of the saints who had found favour with God.

Good point. and just to add to it…this is also one of the grounds supporting the Assumption of Mary, as even if you go with the benign, blaze’, protestant view of Mary, as just being essentially, a discard-able, dispensable, disposable hunk of flesh that God simply used as a ‘vehicle’ or ‘vessel’–like an egg shell, or whatever–one would think that that ‘egg shell’, would still be considered at least as venerable as relics of His Apostles…

…and yet…not the slightest evidence of whatever became of this ‘egg shell’–i.e.–Mary’s remains–though we hear about where she was at the time of Christ’s death, the Pentecost, and His express bequest to St. John (“Woman, behold your son!” 27 Then He said to the disciple, “Behold your mother!”), at the foot of the cross.

…oh, and lest the point get lost by me getting sidetracked…

EXCELLENT WORK HERE, GOOD FELLA.

Good throughout the thread (especially the last several posts).

Koineman;12871686]

That’s an interpretation that I have doubts about. And yes, I’m familiar with the Catholic arguments for it.

So what…just coincidence that Mary went to the same mountain as when the Ark was brought to David? For the same amount of time (6 months)? The same reaction (leaped/jumped for joy–noting that BABIES DO NOT ORDINARILY “LEAP” FOR JOY IN SIDE THEIR MOTHER’S WOMBS)? The same speech pattern to describe David/Elizabeth’s response–“how is it that the Ark/my Lord comes to me”? St. John’s express description of Christ as THE WORD of God (Jn. 1:1), and the Ark being used to host the 10 Commandments…etc., etc… All mere coincidence?

…or are you saying that St. Luke plagiarized Samuel?

I know what you mean by veneration. But since the OP asked why Protestants “shun” Mary, I’m trying to convey the reason why they are so hesitant to follow the Catholics in this area. When they see things like the pic I posted (and that one is not as striking as others I’ve seen), I can’t blame them for being cautious. You can’t just write that kind of treatment of Mary as mere honor.

Is that all’s she’s due? Mere honor? The Arch-angel Gabriel showed her honor. An Angel…honoring a human being…the mere fact that an angel–an arch angel, no less–showed her honor, is itself, more than ‘mere honor.’

…and that’s saying nothing of the honor…perhaps what even a non-Mary worshiping Christian might dare deem slightly more than the ‘mere Honor’–the Lord showed her, in entrusting His only begotten Son, to her care, for 30 years…

…heck, even the Prophet Martin Luther declared that we could never honor her too much…

But yeah, hoisting a statue to her…I can see how that’s going waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay overboard.

You’re right…we should save such ‘honor’ for football coaches at our universities, and dictators, and such…

I hold her in high regard, too, but I don’t do what the people in the pic do. That’s going too far.

Would but that the first part were remotely true…because in the very next paragraph you basically insult her (and God) by suggesting that she had all the significance of an egg shell to a bird.

Sorry, this doesn’t add up. I’m with you as long as you talk about Mary being the honorable vehicle through whom Christ was brought into the world. In that sense, she is sort of a conduit of grace to the world. But after that? I don’t think so.

How generous of you.

For your characterization here to be even fractionally, marginally accurate, we’d have to disregard the presentation in the Temple, Mary finding young Yeshua in the Temple discoursing with the elders, the closing verse of that episode which states that after that, Christ was obedient to Mary, the wedding feast at Cana, the thirty years prior thereto (post nativity–as at least you recognize her grand utility as an “honorable egg-shell”), her presence at the passion, Christ somehow finding this mere “honorable egg-shell” important enough to address her, and to even provide for her care after He would no longer be around to care for her by entrusting her to His disciple (narrow reading)–ALL WHILE SUFFERING TREMENDOUSLY, AND DYING ON THE CROSS, her apparently accidental, meaningless, presence at Pentecost…

But these things did happen–and even made your Bible.

So sorry sir, but OUR beloved Mother, is oh so much more than merely an “honorable egg-shell.”

 

[crai7]

Can you point out where in the passage you quoted that says “brothers” refers to blood brothers?

1.) Okay I see where you are coming from then. My reasoning is that if you read all of those verses in sequence it seems to be referring (firstly) to His biological family - otherwise Jesus contrast in the following verses won’t make sense. He uses His biological family to make a point about how the family of God is now extended to all who believe; which was probably a surprising notion to his audience.

In a way, His statement diminishes the role of His biological family, and begs the question -“If any women could in theory be His mother, why is Mary so important within certain segments of Catholicism today?”. Any believing women could in fact be a Mary by Jesus own standard.

2.) There is a lot of evidence pointing to James (the author of the NT book James) as a brother of Christ. I’ll leave it to Randy Ingermanson’s (inventor of the snowflake method) article to explain:

ingermanson.com/mad_science/james_ossuary

You should know that the word adelphoi in the original text can mean brother, half brother, step brother even cousin. And there are more than a few scholarl theories on who was the mother of the other adelphoi of Jesus. St. Jerome puts forth the idea of them being the children of Mary’s sister, Mary of Cleopas and he offers proofs for it. If youd like to read his writings on this they arent hard to find. More modern scholars have also written on the subject. Also for over 300 years no christians questioned Mary’s perpetual virginity.

catholic.com/tracts/mary-ever-virgin

Regardless of what you believe it cant be denied that just because the english translation says brothers doesnt mean its means the same as the modern concept of brothers in english cultures.

I’ll repeat what I said in response to another:

1.) “My reasoning is that if you read all of those verses in sequence it seems to be referring (firstly) to His biological family - otherwise Jesus contrast in the following verses won’t make sense. He uses His biological family to make a point about how the family of God is now extended to all who believe; which was probably a surprising notion to his audience.”.

2.) Even if you accept a ‘loose’ definition of the term brother, it begs the question - “How can you be certain they were not biological?”. If there were four brothers mentioned in Matthew 13:55 (and an unknown number of sisters in 13:57), what is the probability that they would all be non-biological?

That said, I have no idea why the Catholic church requires that Mary be a virgin after Jesus birth.

 

[Goya]

crai7:

I’ll repeat what I said in response to another:

1.) “My reasoning is that if you read all of those verses in sequence it seems to be referring (firstly) to His biological family - otherwise Jesus contrast in the following verses won’t make sense. He uses His biological family to make a point about how the family of God is now extended to all who believe; which was probably a surprising notion to his audience.”.

2.) Even if you accept a ‘loose’ definition of the term brother, it begs the question - “How can you be certain they were not biological?”. If there were four brothers mentioned in Matthew 13:55 (and an unknown number of sisters in 13:57), what is the probability that they would all be non-biological?

That said, I have no idea why the Catholic church requires that Mary be a virgin after Jesus birth.

Please allow me to chime in…

You are correct, we can not “…be certain” that they were not biological. On its face, it leaves room for interpretation either way (NB: the dogma is limited to Immaculate Conception, it does not necessarily include total sinlessness, nor perpetual virginity). The Catholic, out of reverence to the Virgin Mother of God, errs on the side of perpetual virginity, as a matter of reverence, veneration, and Tradition–not as a matter of Dogma. For since it is not expressly provided for, there is no reason to err on the side of her womb, which was used for God to become incarnate, to have been subsequently used by ordinary humans–yielding a greater challenge still:

What became of these supposed biological blood brothers, of the Lord?

How could there be no mention of these folks, and what ever became of them???

That presents a much greater problem, than filling in the blank towards the far more likely scenario–and that’s that the virgin Mother of God–remained ever virgin.

Secondly, consistent with the above–the Catholic Church does not NEED Mary to remain perpetually virginal.

She (the Church) simply found it more fitting–as a matter of Tradition (i.e.–consistent with oral tradition, and consistent with what the early Church believed, if not expressly held), more consistent with the greater salvation narrative, and more consistent with whom Christ is (which became clear with time, and was not instantly, universally understood)–i.e.–the Second person of the Holy Trinity–i.e.–God.