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

[1neophyte]

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.

Yeah, that’s what I thought.

 

[Muzhik]

Let’s start off with the easiest one first. Immaculate conception. “Hail, FULL OF GRACE, the LORD is with thee”.

Let’s expand on that a little. When you look through the Old Testament, you’ll find several examples of angels addressing ordinary humans. They may be respectful (as one creature of G_D to another) but they most certainly aren’t deferential.

Yet here Gabriel uses a term, “full of grace” that is not only highly deferential and respectful but of such deep and beautiful theological meaning that its precise meaning has been debated over the centuries. When you consider that G_D created humans to be higher than the angels (since we are both material and spiritual), the respect in earlier angelic interactions makes more sense; but since Mary is the first full human (one without original sin) since Adam and Eve, Gabriel is addressing his superior. If, then, the angels address Mary as such, we should not be denied our addressing her as such also, especially since she is gebirah, the Queen Mother, which by law and tradition nothing can be denied her if it is in the power of her son to grant it.

 

[Dmitri77]

Any time I get involved in this type of discussion regarding Mary I like to point out the existence of the prayer Beneath Thy Protection, which is the oldest extant prayer to Mary. It is dated to around 250 AD maybe even earlier. At the very least if it was written down in 250 it has to have been in circulation for some time before that. And not just that prayer. Surely there were other prayers that were never written down. So now we have prayers to Mary in existence at least 200 years before Scripture was canonized! That’s amazing to think about to say the least.

 

[MT1926]

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?

Where in the Bible does it say everything must be found in the Bible?  So once again I will repeat that it was not the priority of the time.  I think a better question would be is, why is there no writings of St. Paul's condemning the current teachings we have on Mary.  Just think it through St. Paul writes over and over again about the Judaizers who insisted you had to be circumcised before you could become a Christian.

Although it is not in the bible it is safe to assume people of that day would have approached Mary and asked her to ask her son for their healing.
In Acts 10:25-26 Peter tells Cornelius not to bow down to him. How come no writings of this happening to Mary and being condemned? The bible does give us a look into how the people thought and acted. Look at Luke 11:27 - As he said this, a woman in the crowd raised her voice and said to him, “Blessed is the womb that bore you, and the breasts that you sucked!” This shows us the mentality of the people of that day that they would have revered Mary after Jesus ascension. Sure there is no explicit evidence in scripture but there is a lot of implicit evidence.

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.

Well you are not going to like my answer because it is impossible to answer without taking a huge side step and once again “accusing you of twisting words”. I am not sure where you got your definition of mediatrix (“That means there are no graces that Jesus gives that are not first mediated through her.”) but it is not how the Catholic church defines that word. Here is a quick link that will explain the meaning of the term mediatrix.

catholic.com/quickquestions/isnt-calling-mary-the-mediatrix-of-all-graces-contrary-to-the-doctrine-that-jesus-is-

Here’s the cliff notes version if you don’t want to go to the link.

God permitted the Redemption of mankind to depend on the free-will decision of a human being. Whether or not we would have a mediator was dependent on Mary’s “yes.” Had there been no “yes” from Mary, there would have been no mediator. Thus the graces that come through Jesus may be said to come to us, in a secondary way, via Mary—not as the origin of the graces, but as a conduit. The Catholic Church always has taught that Jesus Christ alone redeemed mankind (neither Mary nor any other creature had the power to do so), and ultimately only through him are salvation and grace obtained.

Sure if she would have said no I’m sure God could have gotten someone else to say yes. But as the Bible shows us, so many woman back then were named Mary. So even if he got someone else, chances are good we would still be saying the Mediatrix name is Mary.

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.

Yes you are correct. By the Catholic church’s definition our salvation is impossible without a Mediatrix, because that is the way God wanted it done. Think about it, why did Jesus even need a mother? Why didn’t he just come down at the age of 30 when he was ready to start his ministry? We know he could have, Adam and Eve didn’t start as babies. If he did I’m sure his death on the cross still would have redeemed us. I think God wanted it this way because the family is important to him.

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.

That’s great, that is why I already answered the OP’s original question earlier in the thread @ #21 with a link to this video.

youtube.com/watch?v=xg2OQ_iPTv8

Give it a look. It is very informative. Feel free to bring up any questions you have about the video.

Now we got off topic here because you responded to my response to another response, that was elaborating on what he responded with a response that was technically not on the OP. Which is how we got on this tangent. Wow that was a mouthful, say that sentence 10 times real fast.

 

[jcrichton]

Is this really a reference to Our Blessed Mother? I never knew that.

Catholic Encyclopedia seems to think it’s a different person: newadvent.org/cathen/09749b.htm

The Haydock commentary has no notes on this.

Hi!
…though I have not check the link, I tend to think it* is *a different Mary (as we know Mary was a very common name–three or four additional Marys were always following Jesus, along with His Mom) since St. Paul is addressing the church community in Rome not Israel.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

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.)

Hi!
It bothers me how the Church lavishes so much on the Virgin Mary… but I also understand that there are things that we may not see in Scriptures; for instance, we are coheirs with Christ… and the Call is to promote the Gospel… setting out to preach/teach the Good News about Salvation we, all Believers, are in effect coparticipants in the Salvific Plan:

3 As all things of his divine power which appertain to life and godliness, are given us, through the knowledge of him who hath called us by his own proper glory and virtue. 4 By whom he hath given us most great and precious promises: that by these you may be made partakers of the divine nature: flying the corruption of that concupiscence which is in the world. (2 St. Peter 1:3-4)

Would the Virgin Mary have received a lesser call?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

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.

Hi!
Excellent point!

This is part of what is missing in understand Church Doctrine. The Jews continued to mention the Patriarchs as their foundation of Faith; Jesus when confronted with the devotion did not correct them and put them on the “strait and narrow;” in fact, Jesus Himself used the correct Doctrinal points (Abraham, Moses, Elijah, Daniel, Jonah…) to demonstrate that His Ministry was founded in the Old Testament Scriptures and that He was the continuation of God’s Covenant with Israel and the world.

As the Church emerges not all of the symbols and Sacramentals of the Old Covenant will be present in the New Covenant–the Church will rediscover (the types) some of the old and unfold new ones; yet, in perfect continuity (as the Succession of the Apostles), she will enact the same devotion as the people of God did from antiquity.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

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.

Hi!
…I think your mixing two issues here… the Virgin Mary did not make a personal request for her wedding; she interceded on behalf of the wedding party.

…you may have gotten it all wrong; Jesus did not want to start His Ministry with such a miracle (not the hour); yet, because of His Love for His Mom He acquiesced to Her pleading. Jesus Moved the Hour to Please His Mom… did that make the Virgin Mother God-like or Greater than God? No! This miracle only demonstrates that Jesus, a Loving Son, Heard His Mom’s plea and acted to please her.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

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.

Hi!
…except that Jesus Himself asks His disciples to pray for more workers… He was there; He witnessed the need; instead of taking care of it, Jesus actually, stops, ponders, and requests that His disciples pray (intercede) for more workers:

36 And seeing the multitudes, he had compassion on them: because they were distressed, and lying like sheep that have no shepherd. 37 Then he saith to his disciples, The harvest indeed is great, but the labourers are few. 38 Pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, that he send forth labourers into his harvest. (St. Matthew 9:36-38)

Would Jesus not have the power to enlist more followers? When tested by the Pharisees Jesus proclaimed that if His disciples were to be silenced the stones (St. Luke 19:28-44) would cry out… can you imagine that Power being unable to get more followers; yet, God’s Design Moves man to an intercessory office–not because God lacks anything but because He wants us to partake in His Plan (ie: the Communion of the Saints).

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Interesting. Those parentheses are very curious.

…I think that it is not the parenthesis but the application of the text… I think that the Fathers somehow attributed the passage to mean that by piercing Mary’s heart thoughts would be revealed; I believe that it is spoken of Jesus not Mary…

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

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.

…still, there are many things that we know not of in Scriptures (the various references of what they Teach/Taught, the changes that took place as the Church emerged; Doctrine; Practice; etc.).

When we read St. Justin Martyr’s First Apology we learn of the practices and beliefs of the early Church–yet, even then not everything is spelled out; the Church is organic, growing and expanding and battling heresies as they surface and resurface (some of this can be found right in the midst of Scriptures); yet, few doctrinal/title other than “the Way” and “Christian” are found.

The devotion to the Virgin Mary not found in Scriptures can be understood with the Devotion to Jesus’ Divinity not found in Scriptures explicitly but through veiled mentions and a few direct declarations… as the Jehovah Witnesses argue, why not?

It is confounding to me that we spend so much time looking to find holes in Church Doctrine rather than embracing the Faith and seeking to understand God’s Revelations.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Any time I get involved in this type of discussion regarding Mary I like to point out the existence of the prayer Beneath Thy Protection, which is the oldest extant prayer to Mary. It is dated to around 250 AD maybe even earlier. At the very least if it was written down in 250 it has to have been in circulation for some time before that. And not just that prayer. Surely there were other prayers that were never written down. So now we have prayers to Mary in existence at least 200 years before Scripture was canonized! That’s amazing to think about to say the least.

Excellent point! :clapping::clapping::clapping:

Sadly, this, as other historical facts, go right over the heads of those who simply want to present arguments intending to deny Church Authority/Authenticity.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[John_Paul_Jones]

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.

Queen of Heaven:

A great 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. Revelation 12:1

 

[AveOTheotokos]

Any time I get involved in this type of discussion regarding Mary I like to point out the existence of the prayer Beneath Thy Protection, which is the oldest extant prayer to Mary. It is dated to around 250 AD maybe even earlier. At the very least if it was written down in 250 it has to have been in circulation for some time before that. And not just that prayer. Surely there were other prayers that were never written down. So now we have prayers to Mary in existence at least 200 years before Scripture was canonized! That’s amazing to think about to say the least.

YES! The Sub Tuum Praesidium is a great reference, totally should have come to mind since I pray it daily!

 

[AveOTheotokos]

Excellent point! :clapping::clapping::clapping:

Sadly, this, as other historical facts, go right over the heads of those who simply want to present arguments intending to deny Church Authority/Authenticity.

Maran atha!

Angel

Yep. This has been debated many times before on the forums, but if the concept of Church Authority is rejected, then everything we say falls on deaf ears.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

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.”

I hate the NAB.

 

[Dmitri77]

YES! The Sub Tuum Praesidium is a great reference, totally should have come to mind since I pray it daily!

It’s such a simple and easy to remember prayer to Mary.

"Under thy compassion we take refuge, Theotokos; do not disregard our prayers in the midst of tribulation, but deliver us from danger, O Only Pure, Only Blessed One.”

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

Hi!
…I think your mixing two issues here… the Virgin Mary did not make a personal request for her wedding; she interceded on behalf of the wedding party.

…you may have gotten it all wrong; Jesus did not want to start His Ministry with such a miracle (not the hour); yet, because of His Love for His Mom He acquiesced to Her pleading. Jesus Moved the Hour to Please His Mom… did that make the Virgin Mother God-like or Greater than God? No! This miracle only demonstrates that Jesus, a Loving Son, Heard His Mom’s plea and acted to please her.

Maran atha!

Angel

A more plausible explanation would be that Jesus was testing His mother’s faith. He did the same with the Canaanite woman.

 

[JM3]

Since the Virgin Mary so so important to our Catholic faith

Faulty premise. What we believe about the Blessed Virgin comes from what we believe about Jesus.

 

[phil19034]

The term Co-Redemptrix may be confusing because it insinuates she is a co-redeemer with Christ.

Of course, that’s not with it means though