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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Freeway_Joe
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
Through study and contemplation of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition and under the constant guidance of the Holy Spirit through the Church’s Magisterium, the Church’s understanding of the revealed truths of the Christian faith becomes greater and greater, fuller and fuller, including its understanding of the revealed truths about the Virgin Mary. This organic process is sometimes referred to as the development of Christian doctrine. Blessed John Henry Newman, in 1845, wrote about this in his An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine. The Second Vatican Council, in 1965, wrote about this in its , 8Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation (Dei Verbum).

Just as infants bear little resemblance to their adult selves, it should not come as a surprise that the adult Church of today bears little resemblance to its infant self, the Church of New Testament times.
 
You must have missed my earlier post on how the term “Co-Redeemer” is defined in the Catholic faith.

I will re-post it here for you.

So based on the CATHOLIC definition of Co-redeemer, sure Joseph was most likely a Co-redeemer in the same way we are all Co-Redeemers.
Not so much.
 
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.
Mary as Queen of Heaven is in the Bible. You can find it right here:

And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars; she was with child and she cried out in her pangs of birth, in anguish for delivery. And another portent appeared in heaven; behold, a great red dragon, with seven heads and ten horns, and seven diadems upon his heads. His tail swept down a third of the stars of heaven, and cast them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman who was about to bear a child, that he might devour her child when she brought it forth; she brought forth a male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron, but her child was caught up to God and to his throne, and the woman fled into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared by God, in which to be nourished for one thousand two hundred and sixty days. Now war arose in heaven, Michael and his angels fighting against the dragon; and the dragon and his angels fought, but they were defeated and there was no longer any place for them in heaven. And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the Devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world–he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him. And I heard a loud voice in heaven, saying, “Now the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God and the authority of his Christ have come, for the accuser of our brethren has been thrown down, who accuses them day and night before our God. And they have conquered him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony, for they loved not their lives even unto death. Rejoice then, O heaven and you that dwell therein! But woe to you, O earth and sea, for the devil has come down to you in great wrath, because he knows that his time is short!” And when the dragon saw that he had been thrown down to the earth, he pursued the woman who had borne the male child. But the woman was given the two wings of the great eagle that she might fly from the serpent into the wilderness, to the place where she is to be nourished for a time, and times, and half a time. The serpent poured water like a river out of his mouth after the woman, to sweep her away with the flood. But the earth came to the help of the woman, and the earth opened its mouth and swallowed the river which the dragon had poured from his mouth. Then the dragon was angry with the woman, and went off to make war on the rest of her offspring, on those who keep the commandments of God and bear testimony to Jesus.
(Revelation 12:1-17 RSV-CE)
 
I don’t understand your response. What does Not so much mean? If the response doesn’t help what part of it are you having difficulties with?
Really. If you want to say Mary participated in salvation, that’s fine. But I have a problem with the term co-redeemer. Jesus is the Redeemer.
 
Really. If you want to say Mary participated in salvation, that’s fine. But I have a problem with the term co-redeemer. Jesus is the Redeemer.
Yes, Jesus is the redeemer. Mary cooperated in that redemption though.

If someone plans a robbery, prepares everything, and executes the plan and robs a bank, they are the ones who committed the crime. They were the conspirator. But say there is another person who doesn’t rob the bank themselves but drives the getaway car. That person is an accessory to the crime, a co-conspirator.

I hate to use a criminal analogy, but it was the best example currently jumping around my mind. 🤷
 
Really. If you want to say Mary participated in salvation, that’s fine. But I have a problem with the term co-redeemer. Jesus is the Redeemer.
As for me personally I prefer to say she is our Blessed Mother. Personally I think that has a much greater meaning and is holder her in higher regard than the term Co-redeemer does, when defined correctly. I was just trying to help clear up any misconceptions you might have had with the correct definition of the term. Because I was surprised to see a Catholic so upset over terminology the Catholic church doesn’t force us to use.

Well take care.

God Bless
 
Yes, Jesus is the redeemer. Mary cooperated in that redemption though.

If someone plans a robbery, prepares everything, and executes the plan and robs a bank, they are the ones who committed the crime. They were the conspirator. But say there is another person who doesn’t rob the bank themselves but drives the getaway car. That person is an accessory to the crime, a co-conspirator.

I hate to use a criminal analogy, but it was the best example currently jumping around my mind. 🤷
Yep. Say she cooperated with Jesus. Don’t confuse people by saying Co-Redeemer.
 
A more plausible explanation would be that Jesus was testing His mother’s faith. He did the same with the Canaanite woman.
Only one problem with that premise; Jesus had not began His Ministry–yet, His Mom was conscious of His Omnipotence:
21 She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus,[f] because he will save his people from their sins.” 22 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 23 “The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel”[g] (which means “God with us”). (St. Matthew 1:21-22)
34 And Mary said to the angel: How shall this be done, because I know not man? 35 And the angel answering, said to her: The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the most High shall overshadow thee. And therefore also the Holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
41 And it came to pass, that when Elizabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the infant leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost: 42 And she cried out with a loud voice, and said: Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. 43 And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? (St. Luke 1:34-35, 41-43)
Why would Jesus test the Faith of His mother? She, besides Joseph and John the Baptist, is one of the three people in the world that know, from God’s Personal Revelation, about His Divine Origins.

Maran atha!

Angel
 
OP:
The New Testament writers had no idea they themselves would be venerated as saints either.
 
Bear with me, as I am new to the Catholic faith, and Mary has been difficult for me to understand, since, growing up Protestant, she was not on my radar…also forgive me, if this has all been mentioned, I didn’t have time to read the entire thread. :o

I want to address veneration first. Veneration is giving honor to someone, and this concept is actually quite biblical. Paul many times exhorts, (even uses strong language like the words “must imitate”) the church to imitate him personally (1 Thess. 1:6, 2 Thess. 3:6, Phil 3:17-20, 1 Corin 11:1). Imitation is certainly a form of honoring someone. We have an example in the Saints, including Mary, to follow, a sure way to become holy, by imitating their lives. And being holy, after all is what we were made to do (1 Peter talks about the importance of holiness, for example). Paul says we should give honor to others-Romans 2:10 says, “there will be glory, honor, and peace for everyone who does good”. 1 Corinthians 12, in the section on the unity of the body of Christ says that God constructed “the body as to give greater honor to a part that is without it…if one part is honored, all parts share its joy”. In Galations 6:10 Paul tells us: “let us do good to all, but especially to those who belong to the family of faith”. Certainly Mary belongs to the family of faith! 1 Thess. 1:6 even goes on to point out that the purpose of imitating the mature in faith is to then become models for others, so they may imitate us!

I think one of the keys to the Mary issue and veneration, praying to saints, etc, is understanding the idea of there being one body of Christ, that is the Church. We are not a body here on earth and a separate body in heaven, with nothing to do with one another. God designed it so that, "the eye cannot say to the hand, I do not need you, nor again the head to the feet, I do not need you. (1 Corin 12:12 and following). There are many other passages on this reality of unity among the body–Romans 12:4-5, Eph 4:1-6, Colossians 3:15 to name a few.

If we are all one body, then it follows that we all need each other. The saints are not dead-they are alive (Mark 12:26-27) and in the presence of God. Hebrews 12:1 indicates that we are surrounded by a great cloud of witnesses. Who are they? Well, if you read chapter eleven, we see that these witnesses who are watching our lives unfold are none other than the saints-Abraham, Moses, Gideon, David and others-a great cloud of them!

We also know that the body is exhorted to pray for one another. Romans 15:30, Colosians 4:3, 2 Thess 3:1, Eph 6:18-19 all exhort us to pray for one another. So it makes sense that the saints, as members of the body of Christ, may pray for us, who are also members of his body. Also, we do see a picture of this in Revelation 5:8.

The key to the Queen of Heaven bit is understanding the ancient Jewish concept of the queen being the mother of the King, rather than the wife. I have to be honest and say, I haven’t read a lot on this, but I know the example used is that of Bathsheeba and her son Solomon. Try giving the story a look in 1 Kings 2. Also, we see Mary crowned as a queen in Rev12:1.

Immaculate conception: for this, it’s critical to understand the concept of Mary as the New Ark of the Covenant. Look at the parralels in the stories-the ark carried in it bread (Jesus is the Bread of Life, a shepherd’s staff (Jesus is the good shepherd), and the Law (Jesus is the Word made flesh). The real presence of God was thought to be inside the ark, just as the real presence of God, that is, Jesus, dwelt in Mary. There are even more parralels if you read the two stories side by side: David leaps before the Ark, John the Baptist leaps in Elizabeth’s womb. David asks how it is that the Ark would come to him, Elizabeth asks how the Mother of her Lord would come to her. The Ark remained in the house for three months, Mary remained with Elizabeth three months. The Ark set out for Judah, Mary set out for Judea (aka Judah). We also see the Ark in heaven in Rev 11. You can check these passages out in 2 Samuel 6 and Luke 1. 🙂 and when you do, notice what happens to Uzzah when he reaches out to touch the Ark. (He dies). The Ark was so holy, no one could even touch it. So if Mary is the New Ark, it would follow that she be holy. And she is: the angel tells her that she is full of grace and highly favored in God’s sight. Mary herself says the Lord has done great things for her.

Co-redemptress: I’m certain someone will correct me if i am wrong, but I do not think she has been called co-redemptress officially in the catechism (or as dogma). Nevertheless we must realize that if she is at some point officially given the title, it only applies in as much as we are all mediators and “redeemers” due to Christ who lives in us. Mary has a special role in that through her “yes” Christ came in the world, but the truth is, we are all mediators in the sense that we can pray and involve ourselves in helping people come to Christ, who is the only mediator between the Father and man. 1 Corin 9:22, Jude 1:22-23, James 5:19-20.

Yes, there have been some who have not understood Mary’s role properly-both by ignoring her or by making her a god. Both should be corrected. But I hope I have given you some things to chew on and ponder regarding Mary. I am still pondering many of these mysteries myself. God bless you, OP, I will say a prayer for you today!
Hi, Jennifer!
WOW!
…for someone new to the Faith you sure pack a wallop!

Your post is was truly enjoyable–I don’t think you’ve missed a beat! :extrahappy::extrahappy::extrahappy:

Maran atha!

Angel
 
I trust St. John the Beloved who gives NO insinuation of the sort. Did we ever give Joseph, His foster father, that kind of attention?

Personally I think we would be giving more honor to Mary by following her command to do whatever her Son tells us to do than confusing our seperated brethren.
I think that that’s part of the problem. The Virgin Mary and the Communion of the Saints have been a target of the persecution of the Church (many clerics and laity have been put to death because of Church Doctrine–can you imagine killing a pre-teen because he/she would carry an icon or held the Eucharist as Sacred, or called the Virgin mother?); the Church may have reacted with too an extreme Love for Mary–but, would you have the Church discard the mother of God as most non-Catholic Christians have done?

Maran atha!

Angel
 
I think that that’s part of the problem. The Virgin Mary and the Communion of the Saints have been a target of the persecution of the Church (many clerics and laity have been put to death because of Church Doctrine–can you imagine killing a pre-teen because he/she would carry an icon or held the Eucharist as Sacred, or called the Virgin mother?); the Church may have reacted with too an extreme Love for Mary–but, would you have the Church discard the mother of God as most non-Catholic Christians have done?

Maran atha!

Angel
Still.
 
Only one problem with that premise; Jesus had not began His Ministry–yet, His Mom was conscious of His Omnipotence:

Why would Jesus test the Faith of His mother? She, besides Joseph and John the Baptist, is one of the three people in the world that know, from God’s Personal Revelation, about His Divine Origins.

Maran atha!

Angel
Abraham believed and his faith was tested, so why not Jesus’ mother?
 
Yep. Say she cooperated with Jesus. Don’t confuse people by saying Co-Redeemer.
The risk of confusion can be very high with the title Co-Redemptrix, which is likely why no Pope has ever declared it dogmatically. I agree that the title should not be used lightly or loosely because the risk of confusing someone is high. However, as this is a thread on an apologetics, the discussion of this topic does not seem inappropriate. Although not a Dogma, the concept is doctrine.

I think a lot of the confusion comes from equating the title of Co-Redemptrix with the term Co-Savior. Jesus alone is our Savior, and Mary is not. Mary was herself saved only through her Son. If she had the ability to save herself, then she would have had to been divine. I am going to take a stab at explaining this the best I can…

Adam had a covenant with the Lord and had dominion over all the Earth and it’s creatures. God gave Adam only one restriction, and that was to not eat fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. He was responsible as protector of this covenant. When the serpent tempted Eve to eat the fruit, Adam as protector should have upheld his covenant with God, but instead chose to also eat the fruit. This action caused the fall of man.

Eve did not have a personal covenant with God like Adam did, so she herself could not cause the the fall. She did however contribute to the rebellion of a relationship with God. For lack of a better term, she was a co-rebeler with Adam the Rebeler, but not a co-covenant breaker because Adam alone could break the covenant. Adam was Rebeler and Covenant Breaker.

As a new Eve, Mary’s fiat acts in a way which redeems the relationship that Eve helped to rebel from. Instead of saying yes to Satan and setting off a chain reaction that led to the ultimate fall of humanity like Eve, Mary’s yes to God set of a chain reaction that led to the ultimate salvation of humanity through Jesus, the new Adam.

Eve failed to be submissive to the will of God, whereas Mary was completely submissive to the will of God. Both of their actions had effects on all humanity, one rebelling, one redeeming, but Eve’s was not damning for humanity, and Mary’s was not saving for humanity. And both of their actions were inferior to those of Adam and Jesus.

Jesus saved us from Adam’s fall from grace and redeemed the relationship between humanity and God. He is Savior and Redeemer. Mary is a co-Redemptrix, but not a co-Savior.

Adam was the effective means of the Fall from Grace (The only one to have an effect on breaking the covenant)
Jesus is the effective means of Salvation (The only one to have an effect on saving us from Adam’s fall)

Eve was only the instrumental means of the Fall from Grace (The fall of Adam was brought about through an action on her part)
Mary is only the instrumental means of Salvation (The Saving by Jesus was brought about through an action on her part)
 
Adam was the effective means of the Fall from Grace (The only one to have an effect on breaking the covenant)
Jesus is the effective means of Salvation (The only one to have an effect on saving us from Adam’s fall)

Eve was only the instrumental means of the Fall from Grace (The fall of Adam was brought about through an action on her part)
Mary is only the instrumental means of Salvation (The Saving by Jesus was brought about through an action on her part)
Very insightful, thanks for the enlightenment. 👍
 
Very insightful, thanks for the enlightenment. 👍
Thank you 🙂

I tried to word it so that it was easy to understand. It can be quite a confusing thing to try to explain, but I did my best.

In book 5, chapter 19 of Against Heresies by St. Irenaeus, he puts it this way:
“1. That the Lord then was manifestly coming to His own things, and was sustaining them by means of that creation which is supported by Himself, and was making a recapitulation of that disobedience which had occurred in connection with a tree, through the obedience which was [exhibited by Himself when He hung] upon a tree, [the effects] also of that deception being done away with, by which that virgin Eve, who was already espoused to a man, was unhappily misled—was happily announced, through means of the truth [spoken] by the angel to the Virgin Mary, who was [also espoused] to a man. For just as the former was led astray by the word of an angel, so that she fled from God when she had transgressed His word; so did the latter, by an angelic communication, receive the glad tidings that she should sustain (portaret) God, being obedient to His word. And if the former did disobey God, yet the latter was persuaded to be obedient to God, in order that the Virgin Mary might become the patroness (advocata) of the virgin Eve. And thus, as the human race fell into bondage to death by means of a virgin, so is it rescued by a virgin; virginal disobedience having been balanced in the opposite scale by virginal obedience. For in the same way the sin of the first created man (protoplasti) receives amendment by the correction of the First-begotten, and the coming of the serpent is conquered by the harmlessness of the dove, those bonds being unloosed by which we had been fast bound to death.”
Mary helped with the rescue, but not the amendment.

In the encyclical Redemptoris Mater Pope St. John Paul II has this to say:
  1. After the events of the Resurrection and Ascension, Mary entered the Upper Room together with the Apostles to await Pentecost, and was present there as the Mother of the glorified Lord. She was not only the one who “advanced in her pilgrimage of faith” and loyally persevered in her union with her Son “unto the Cross,” but she was also the “handmaid of the Lord,” left by her Son as Mother in the midst of the infant Church: “Behold your mother.” Thus there began to develop a special bond between this Mother and the Church. For the infant Church was the fruit of the Cross and Resurrection of her Son. Mary, who from the beginning had given herself without reserve to the person and work of her Son, could not but pour out upon the Church, from the very beginning, her maternal self-giving. After her Son’s departure, her motherhood remains in the Church as maternal mediation: interceding for all her children, the Mother cooperates in the saving work of her Son, the Redeemer of the world. In fact the Council teaches that the “motherhood of Mary in the order of grace…will last without interruption until the eternal fulfilment of all the elect.”[103] With the redeeming death of her Son, the maternal mediation of the handmaid of the Lord took on a universal dimension, for the work of redemption embraces the whole of humanity. Thus there is manifested in a singular way the efficacy of the one and universal mediation of Christ “between God and men.” Mary’s cooperation shares, in its subordinate character, in the universality of the mediation of the Redeemer, the one Mediator. This is clearly indicated by the Council in the words quoted above.
 
Catholic Answer’s Father Dwight Longnecker has a beautiful tie in with Our Lady of Sorrows in his article about Mary, Mother of Salvation that I posted earlier. He says:
Mother of Sorrows
An Evangelical may accept this in theory, but still may find it difficult to understand how Mary can be called a “co-redemptrix.” It is worthwhile going back to the mysterious words of St. Paul. In an astounding phrase, St. Paul says that his sharing in Christ’s sufferings is actually effective. It completes “what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions” on behalf of the Church (Col. 1:24). If he has to complete Christ’s sufferings is St. Paul implying that Christ’s death on the cross was inadequate? Not at all. Instead, he is teaching that the all-sufficient sacrifice has to be completed by being preached, accepted, and embraced by our cooperation and that our suffering plays a mysterious part in this action. In that way the Redemption of Christ is applied and brought alive in the present moment by our own cooperation in that one, full, final sacrifice. No one says we are equal to Christ; instead, by grace, our cooperation becomes a part of Christ’s all sufficient sacrifice.
If Paul shared in a mysterious way in Christ’s sufferings, and if by doing so he shared in the redemptive work of the cross, then it is not too difficult to see how we are all called to do the same thing. In fact, in Romans 12, Paul exhorts us to do just that when he says, “Present your bodies as a living sacrifice”(Rom. 12:1). Jesus also tells us that we must “take up our cross and follow him if we would be his disciples” (Matt. 16:24).
If Mary was the person who was closest to Jesus, and if she was his first disciple, doesn’t it follow that these truths would also apply to her? This is just what the New Testament prophesies. When Jesus was presented in the temple, the prophet Simeon, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, told Mary that “a sword will pierce your own heart also” (Luke 2:35). This verse is the basis for the Catholic understanding that Mary shared in the sufferings of Jesus in a mysterious way, and that her sufferings were a part of the suffering he went through.
I remember when a member of our church lost her teenage son in a car accident. The mother’s grief was a terrible thing to see, and it was like a part of her had died that day. These natural examples can help others to understand why we believe Mary had an intimate relationship with the suffering of Jesus.
In Westminster Cathedral in London, a beautiful painted crucifix hangs over the central altar. On the front is a portrayal of the crucified Lord, and on the back is a portrait of Mary with a pained expression, her arms in the orans position of prayer. This crucifix illustrates the idea of Mary as Co-Redemptrix. Through her suffering she identified totally with her son, and by bringing him into the world, enabled the accomplishment of Redemption.
 
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.
I haven’t read the entire thread, so please excuse me if this has already been discussed.

I see here an underlying assumption that, in order for a practice to be licit, it must be written about in the Bible. I’ve read the entire Bible 5 times (okay, I skipped the begats and other repetition, but you get the idea), and I didn’t come across anything that referred to the idea that in order for a practice to be licit, it must be written about in the Bible.

This sounds quite a bit like an argument from silence. “An argument from silence is an informal fallacy that occurs when someone interprets someone’s or something’s silence as anything other than silence, typically claiming that the silence was in fact communicating agreement or disagreement.” Source: rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_silence
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top