Why wouldn't any of the authors of the New Testement mention anything about praying to ot venerating Mary?

[MT1926]

Since the Virgin Mary so so important to our Catholic faith, why didn’t the Apostles or St. Paul write about devotion to Mary, or praying to and highly venerating her? Why doesn’t Mary have a much more prominent place in the New Testament? I’ve read the entire Bible and I didn’t come across anything that referred to her as Co-Redemptress, Immaculate Conception, Queen of Heaven or any of the highly exalted tiles given to her by the Catholic Church.

Great question Joe. Our Blessed Mother does seem to be the biggest hang up that most people have with the Catholic church. Check out this short 12 minute video that should be of great help answering your questions.

youtube.com/watch?v=xg2OQ_iPTv8

It helps you see the connections between the old and new testament that speak of our Blessed Mother. Keep searching there is no question you can ask that the Catholic church hasn’t already addressed in the last 2000 years.

God Bless

 

[MT1926]

Co-redeemer goes a little too far for me. Without Mary’s fiat we would not have a Saviour, but we were saved only by the death and Resurrection of our Christ. Not by any other agent. Without Pilate Jesus would not have died, but we give him no such title.
Allow Mary to be the Mother, handmaiden, and our greatest saint, but she is only human. (No disrespect, my Mary.)

I just wanted to point out that you are absolutely correct when you say “but we were saved only by the death and Resurrection of our Christ”. I myself have never really used the term but I do not think it is going to far when it is used correctly. On the surface the word Co-redeemer does sound like it is going a little to far, but that is because in our culture we tend to think of “Co” meaning equal to, like Co-Captains. But in actuality the word Co is more along the lines of participating in or being a part of. If you really think it through at some point in our lives we can all be Co-redeemers. For example, let us say over the course of a few years you answer questions about God to a coworker of yours, who is an agnostic. If he eventual comes to Christ you have just become a Co-redeemer. We can both agree that he was saved only by the death and Resurrection of our Christ, however if you did not participate in bringing him the word he would have never found redemption. So basically. Mary is our Co-redeemer because with her help we can come closer to her son to receive the free gift of our salvation.

I hope that helps some

 

[Autumn_Smoke]

I also have another perhaps-relevant thought:

It was very early days yet, and still very oriented to Old Testament personalities such as Moses, the prophets, etc. Those people were the examples to which the early New Testament believers still tried to emulate–especially since most of the very early believers were Jewish. Thus we have Peter, in his letter in chapter 3 verse 6 of 1st Peter, telling women that they are children of Sarah (Abraham’s wife) when they do what is good.

I don’t think Mary had fully entered the picture yet. This evolved over time.

 

[1neophyte]

You gave a poor rebuke to a good critique. While I agree that the answer given may not have been a good way to answer the question, the concept of prayer to Mary is certainly in the New Testament. The wedding at Cana comes to mind.

Again, a very bad correlation. The centurion who we quote at every mass comes to mind. Do we pray to him or to Jesus? If we prayed to every person in the gospels who had their request for a miracle granted, the list would be so long that Mary might be rarely remembered. Especially since the miracle at the wedding at Cana was the one that Jesus was least eager to perform.

I’m all for praying to Mary to intercede for us, but if we’re asked why we do it, we really should have answers that make some semblance of sense.

 

[MT1926]

I also have another perhaps-relevant thought:

It was very early days yet, and still very oriented to Old Testament personalities such as Moses, the prophets, etc. Those people were the examples to which the early New Testament believers still tried to emulate–especially since most of the very early believers were Jewish. Thus we have Peter, in his letter in chapter 3 verse 6 of 1st Peter, telling women that they are children of Sarah (Abraham’s wife) when they do what is good.

I don’t think Mary had fully entered the picture yet. This evolved over time.

That’s a good point you got me thinking as well. It makes sense, what was the Apostles priority at the time? They had followed Jesus for 3 years and had daily teachings given to them. It would be impossible for them to give someone the fullness of the faith in just a couple of encounters or teachings or even 3 years. Their priority was to bring people to Jesus first, the understand would come at a later date. So it would make sense that it would take years for teachings to evolve. I can even see now how the understanding of teachings could evolve over time. Does a newly graduating school teacher’s teaching stay the same from the day they first start teaching til the day they retire or do they change things based on how their students are able to grasp the concepts? I can see the same things changing in the church throughout time with cultural changes and changes in the understandings of language.

 

[AveOTheotokos]

I didn’t see it mentioned yet, so I will put forth the example in the Prophesy of Simeon that is in Luke 2:34-35

34 and Simeon blessed them and said to Mary his mother, “Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising of many in Israel,and for a sign that is spoken against
35 (and a sword will pierce through your own soul also),that thoughts out of many hearts may be revealed.”

Meditating on the Immaculate Heart of Mary and the Seven Sorrows are enough motivation for me to pray to her for help and guidance on how to best follow her Son.

 

[1neophyte]

That’s a good point you got me thinking as well. It makes sense, what was the Apostles priority at the time? They had followed Jesus for 3 years and had daily teachings given to them. It would be impossible for them to give someone the fullness of the faith in just a couple of encounters or teachings or even 3 years. Their priority was to bring people to Jesus first, the understand would come at a later date. So it would make sense that it would take years for teachings to evolve. I can even see now how the understanding of teachings could evolve over time. Does a newly graduating school teacher’s teaching stay the same from the day they first start teaching til the day they retire or do they change things based on how their students are able to grasp the concepts? I can see the same things changing in the church throughout time with cultural changes and changes in the understandings of language.

So they brought them to Jesus first, and later on the Church evolved to bring people to Mary first in order to get to Jesus? You’re playing right into Protestant hands with this line of thinking. That’s their very argument, that we should go directly to Jesus just like the first followers, and that the idea of going through Mary to get to Him is a bad evolution and invention of Catholics.

 

[1neophyte]

I didn’t see it mentioned yet, so I will put forth the example in the Prophesy of Simeon that is in Luke 2:34-35

34 and Simeon blessed them and said to Mary his mother, “Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising of many in Israel,and for a sign that is spoken against
35 (and a sword will pierce through your own soul also),that thoughts out of many hearts may be revealed.”

Meditating on the Immaculate Heart of Mary and the Seven Sorrows are enough motivation for me to pray to her for help and guidance on how to best follow her Son.

Woah woah woah! You can’t just move sentences around and put them in parentheses to fit your own agenda! The sword going through Mary’s soul is the same sword that goes through any mother’s soul if she has to witness what Mary witnessed Jesus go through. That line comes at the end, not before the line about the thoughts of many hearts being revealed. Let’s not be deceptive. Though I must admit, this stretch isn’t nearly as silly as the previous poster who quoted “Salute Mary” from Romans. If we honored everyone in that list the way the Church wants us to honor Mary, we’d definitely have no time left for Jesus. Not to mention the fact that it’s not even Mary the mother of Jesus. We really need to be wiser and more prudent than this.

 

[AveOTheotokos]

Woah woah woah! You can’t just move sentences around and put them in parentheses to fit your own agenda! The sword going through Mary’s soul is the same sword that goes through any mother’s soul if she has to witness what Mary witnessed Jesus go through. That line comes at the end, not before the line about the thoughts of many hearts being revealed. Let’s not be deceptive. Though I must admit, this stretch isn’t nearly as silly as the previous poster who quoted “Salute Mary” from Romans. If we honored everyone in that list the way the Church wants us to honor Mary, we’d definitely have no time left for Jesus. Not to mention the fact that it’s not even Mary the mother of Jesus. We really need to be wiser and more prudent than this.

I didn’t move anything around, nor did I add parenthesis. I copied and pasted from the Truth and Life bible app on my phone which uses the RSV-CE translation. They also have a web bible here :truthandlifeapp.com/WebBibleTAL/WebPlayer.aspx

 

[1neophyte]

I didn’t move anything around, nor did I add parenthesis. I copied and pasted from the Truth and Life bible app on my phone which uses the RSV-CE translation. They also have a web bible here :truthandlifeapp.com/WebBibleTAL/WebPlayer.aspx

I apologize. The issue is with the app, not you. I’m shocked that someone would produce an app that would move sentences around like that. Very disturbing. I’d suggest just reading the RSV-CE directly, rather than that muddled mess. Who knows what other problematic changes have been made in there?

 

[AveOTheotokos]

1neophyte, the app translation is the same as other RSV-CE translations. You can find many online. You can also read the NABRE version on the USCCB website which also has the sword part coming first and in parentheses.

As for physical bibles, I use the Didache bible from Ignatious Press, which also appears the same as what I posted. The Truth and Life app is a wonderful resource to have an accurate translation on hand at all times.

Your general tone is quite accusatory and aggressive. Perhaps taking your own advice and reading the RSV-CE directly might help bring some peace and calm to your demeanor.

 

[AveOTheotokos]

Here is a shot from my Didache Bible:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[1neophyte]

1neophyte, the app translation is the same as other RSV-CE translations. You can find many online. You can also read the NABRE version on the USCCB website which also has the sword part coming first and in parentheses.

As for physical bibles, I use the Didache bible from Ignatious Press, which also appears the same as what I posted. The Truth and Life app is a wonderful resource to have an accurate translation on hand at all times.

Your general tone is quite accusatory and aggressive. Perhaps taking your own advice and reading the RSV-CE directly might help bring some peace and calm to your demeanor.

Interesting. Those parentheses are very curious.

 

[RPRPsych]

Interesting. Those parentheses are very curious.

The Douay-Rheims doesn’t have the parentheses:

“[34] And Simeon blessed them, and said to Mary his mother: Behold this child is set for the fall, and for the resurrection of many in Israel, and for a sign which shall be contradicted; [35] And thy own soul a sword shall pierce, that, out of many hearts, thoughts may be revealed.”

 

[AveOTheotokos]

Interesting. Those parentheses are very curious.

This site has many different translations all on one page, several including the parentheses:

biblehub.com/luke/2-35.htm

The Haydock commentary has the following to say:

"Ver. 34. Is set for the ruin. Christ came for the redemption and salvation of all men: but Simeon prophesies what would happen in consequence of the wilful blindness and obstinacy of many. (Witham) — Not that God sent his Son for the fall of any man; but that many, by their own perverseness, in wilfully refusing to receive and obey him, would take occasion of falling. (Challoner) — And for a sign which shall be contradicted, to signify that Christ, and his doctrine, should be as it were a mark, or butt, against whom the Jews should discharge the arrows and darts of their malice. (Witham) — Hence St. Paul, (2 Corinthians ii. 16.) We are to one the odour of death unto death, but to the other the odour of life unto life.

Ver. 35. And thy own soul a sword shall pierce. These words, which figuratively express the grief of the blessed Virgin mother, when present at the death of her Son, are to be taken by way of a parenthesis. — That out of many hearts thoughts may be revealed, and these are to be joined with what went before; to wit, that child shall be a sign of contradiction, set unto the fall and resurrection of many, that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed and disclosed; when’s some shall believe, and others remain in their obstinacy. (Witham) — Ven. Bede, and many others, understand this of the sharp sorrow, which wounded the soul of the blessed Virgin Mary, at the time of Christ’s passion. (Barradius) — Carthusianus [Denis the Carthusian?] and Jansenius explain this passage as follows: Behold, this child is placed for a sign that shall be contradicted, which as a sword of most poignant grief will pierce thy soul, O Virgin! But Christ shall be contradicted, that the thoughts of the Jews may be revealed from many hearts, and it may appear who among them are good, and who are wicked and hypocrites. (Barradius)"

 

[AveOTheotokos]

Also, a clarification/correction to my previous post. The app and the Didache bible are RSV-2CE translations, not RSV-CE.

 

[HelenRose]

Since the Virgin Mary so so important to our Catholic faith, why didn’t the Apostles or St. Paul write about devotion to Mary, or praying to and highly venerating her? Why doesn’t Mary have a much more prominent place in the New Testament? I’ve read the entire Bible and I didn’t come across anything that referred to her as Co-Redemptress, Immaculate Conception, Queen of Heaven or any of the highly exalted tiles given to her by the Catholic Church.

The Angel Gabriel called her “full of grace”
Elizabeth said, “How is it that the Mother of my Lord should come to me?”
The young couple in Cana came to Mary for help.
She was at the foot of the cross.
Jesus gave her to us as our Mother when He was on the cross.
Revelations tell us she is the Queen of Heaven.

She was the first person to hold Him.
She was the first person to look into His eyes and love Him.
She loved Him more than anyone else in the world.

SHE WAS HIS MOTHER!

Of course many people relate to Mary in the same manner that they relate to their own mothers. In a civilization where women are encouraged to abort their babies, I can understand how many people have a warped view of what mothers and motherhood are meant to be.

 

[MT1926]

So they brought them to Jesus first, and later on the Church evolved to bring people to Mary first in order to get to Jesus? You’re playing right into Protestant hands with this line of thinking. That’s their very argument, that we should go directly to Jesus just like the first followers, and that the idea of going through Mary to get to Him is a bad evolution and invention of Catholics.

Not sure if you are just trying to play devil’s advocate here or if you just enjoy twisting other people’s words. Are you saying, I said we need to bring people to Mary in order to get to Jesus or are you saying this is what the Catholic church teaches? Because you would be wrong on both points.

If you reread my post I never even mentioned Mary. All I was trying to point out was the Apostles main goal would most likely be to get people to believe in our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, and to be Baptized.

Acts 2:38-39
38*And Peter said to them, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.39For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him.”

1 Peter 3:20-21
20* when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water.21Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

After they opened up the believers minds, they would begin to fill them with the details of the fullness of the faith. I’m sure the Apostles hadn’t even figured out how they were going to do this at this time. Just look in the book of Acts, there was opposition, they had to call a council, they made mistakes, they corrected mistakes, they changed things.

Through my years of dealing with Anti Catholics the most commonality among them that I have found is they believe in always staying on offense. They love to jump on you when you forget an if, and or but, or they love to add something to your comment like you just did to me. I think the reason they tend to do this is because deep down they know they have no defense, only their opinions. The only way you are going to “play right into the protestants hands” is if you let them change the subject before giving you a chance to define what you mean. If this happens you are just wasting your time on an unreasonable person anyway. Believe me, I know first hand. My son is like this, the moment he realize I can explain something he changes the subject to another attack of just quits the conversation.

 

[1neophyte]

Not sure if you are just trying to play devil’s advocate here or if you just enjoy twisting other people’s words. Are you saying, I said we need to bring people to Mary in order to get to Jesus or are you saying this is what the Catholic church teaches? Because you would be wrong on both points.

If you reread my post I never even mentioned Mary. All I was trying to point out was the Apostles main goal would most likely be to get people to believe in our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, and to be Baptized.

The original question was a simple one. Why wouldn’t the New Testament authors mention anything about veneration or devotion to Mary, if it is so important? Mary is referred to as the mediatrix of all graces. That means there are no graces that Jesus gives that are not first mediated through her. If this is correct, the Apostles’ main goal, as you say, of baptizing new believers and bringing them to Jesus, would necessarily have to be mediated through Mary. The question of why there is no mention of this mediation in Acts or in Paul’s letters is a good question, and can’t be answered by pointing to the scriptures mentioned so far in this thread, and can’t be sidestepped by accusing me of twisting words or (like a previous poster did) complaining about my aggressive demeanor. It wasn’t even my question, but I think it’s a good question and deserves a good answer. Your answer that the Apostles were most concerned about the most important point of bringing new believers to Jesus makes sense, but all of does is reinforce the question. If that was/is the most important and fundamental thing, and it really can’t be done without another mediatrix, you have to admit it’s curious why Paul or the other writers didn’t even mention it once.

I’m just interested in an answer that addresses the actual question and not me personally, or my demeanor, or your son, or a generalization about Protestants. The question itself is interesting enough without those distractions.

 

[AveOTheotokos]

Jesus didn’t write us a book, but instead gave us a church. The Church has given us our teachings, traditions, and writings. The New Testament is one of these writings, but so are many other writings and teachings.

As Catholics, we cannot focus solely on the bible, but must take in the Chuch’s teachings as a whole in all the various formats that the Holy Spirit has chosen to utilize over the past 2000 years.

We have the writings of the Church Fathers, the many councils, Saints, and volumes of encyclicals that all have pearls of wisdom for our faith.

To worry about the “why” 2000 years later will turn up only speculation and guesses as we cannot ask the writers themselves. What we can focus on though is the teachings that the Church has handed down to us from the chair of St. Peter from its beginning until now.