A Controversial Review of the Immaculate

[Meowzltov]

Queen of Heaven: Revelation 12

 

[Meowzltov]

Mary is more than just a mortal woman. I would not be surprised if She had a pre-existent life.

This is not Christian teaching, not Catholic teaching... I don't know where you are getting this from, but please no one associate this with the Catholic church.

 

[FaeryChild]

It is helpful to understand both context and historical development. It is indeed very possible (from Scripture) to end up with a high Mariology (which in and of itself creates a high Christology). The concern some have is that Mary is elevated over Christ. This is simply not true.
Consider this hymn from St. Cosmas (773):
Ἄξιόν ἐστιν ὡς ἀληθῶς,
μακαρίζειν σε τὴν Θεοτόκον,
τὴν ἀειμακάριστον καὶ παναμώμητον
καὶ μητέρα τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡμῶν.
Τὴν τιμιωτέραν τῶν Χερουβεὶμ
καὶ ἐνδοξοτέραν ἀσυγκρίτως τῶν Σεραφείμ,
τὴν ἀδιαφθόρως Θεὸν Λόγον τεκοῦσαν,
τὴν ὄντως Θεοτόκον,
σὲ μεγαλύνομεν.
In English:
It is truly right to bless thee, O Theotokos,
thou the ever blessed, and most pure, and the Mother of our God.
Thou the more honorable than the cherubim,
and beyond compare more glorious than the seraphim,
who without corruption gavest birth to God the Word,
thou the true Theotokos, we magnify thee.

 

[FaeryChild]

Here we find that "Thou are more honorable than the cherubim and beyond compare more glorious than the seraphim". This is essentially saying what was said in the original post, about Mary being elevated in the Heavens. However, the meaning is simply clearer here: she is elevated above the cherubim and the seraphim, the angelic hosts of Heaven, because has become more pure than even they.

Think about it: The ever-Virgin Mary was pregnant with God. The Scriptures teach this. She had God inside of her, God flowing through her veins, her DNA mixing with the Messiah's. Taking the Incarnation thoroughly literally, one would have to conclude that - (debates about "when it happened" aside) - the experience made her "all-Immaculate". While Scripture does not specifically use this language - if we don't use this kind of language, we contradict both Scripture and the Incarnation. Saying Mary is all-Immaculate does more to glorify the Incarnation and the God she bore than it does to directly glorify her.
Of course, she did say yes.

Belief in a real, material Incarnation, over and above a gnostic remything, requires a high Mariology.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

I'd have to look that up.Where in the bible does it say that?

The Protevangelium of James. But also, his name appears first in the list of Jesus’ brothers, so James was probably the oldest son. However, the fact that Jesus entrusted the care of His mother to John, the beloved disciple (John 19:26-27), suggests that His brothers were not Mary’s own children but the sons of Joseph by a previous marriage.

 

[Vicomte13]

God thought highly enough of Mary to have sent her to earth as his messenger (as opposed to sending an angel), on at least two occasions.

One was her miraculous apparition at Guadelupe. Now, the thing about this is that it was THIS, in particular, and not the Spanish missionary efforts, that very rapidly produced a sweeping conversion of vast numbers of native people throughout Central America.

The Spanish were not loved, because they were not lovable, and their Church was an odd, foreign imposition - not as bad as the Aztec human sacrifices, to be sure, but alien and hostile.

God sent Mary as a messenger, not to the Spanish, but directly to an Indian. He then went and showed the Spanish. That changed things, for now God was speaking to the Indians through his messengers, WITHOUT the priests, and the priests were tagging along as the Indians turned to the truth of God THROUGH the Mother of God.

That is why the Lady of Guadelupe is the patroness of all of the Americas, and it is why the Mexicans are so tenaciously, unyieldingly, irretractably Catholic. They drove the Spanish off soon enough, but the thought of driving away the Church was unthinkable, for God sent his messenger directly to them, not a mere angel, but Mary herself.

Paul was responsible for bringing the message to a few thousands of Greeks and Romans, here and there. But Mary herself brought the millions upon millions of Amerindians to God. They were not on the way to getting there under the Spanish, for the Spanish had been cruel.

Because the Amerindians had Mary as their missionary, in one simple apparition, by the millions they went over. By contrast, mere living men were never able to do that with Africans, or Asians, or Europeans, or the other Indians beyond the scope of the Mesoamerican apparition.

The missionary work of Mary in this regard was the single most effective conversion effort anybody ever did - so fast, so vast.

The second apparition was at Lourdes, where of course we see Gospel-era miracles played out in real time, with a really alarming frequency.

Neither of those things are in the Bible, of course, because they came long, long after. But they are real. And given the intense power to convert and convince that these Marian missions from God demonstrated, and still demonstrate, the singular certitude and devotion to God and his Son, and to his mother as well, the importance of Mary is not a matter of doctrine, it's a matter of demonstrated miracle and power of God.

That's why it's inappropriate to pit the Bible against that. The Jews did that, pitting their words of Moses against the power of God manifest in Jesus, because many of them could not square the circle. The smart ones stopped trying to square the circle and believed on the obvious miracles that nobody but God could do.

The same miracles are displayed at Lourdes, where Mary visited. And of course the hundreds of millions of Latin Christians are today the spiritual descendants of the mass conversion event that Mary's mission to Guadelupe fostered those many years ago.

What God hath wrought with divine power through Mary, quite visibly, is not for us to gainsay. We must accept it for what it is, just as the smart Jews faced with the surprise of Jesus did. The dumb Jews turned inward on their book, did not find him there, and so turned viciously on God by attacking him.

When God manifests his power in the world, you have to go with it, even if it's not what your teachers and your own reasoning had caused you to expect. Mary should not be worshipped, but she must be acknowledged for what she is: the most powerful messenger for conversion and demonstration of divine power that God has sent to earth besides Jesus Christ. Mary's appearance in Mexico converted more people to following her son than any other missionary activity in human history.

It is what it is. We should not become Pharisaic and kick at the goad. God did what he did. We cannot prohibit God from doing so because it's not the way we read a book.

 

[dawn7]

If Joseph had children from another marriage why were they not mentioned when Joseph was commanded by an angel to flee to Egypt with Jesus and Mary? Also, why would the word of God call Joseph a righteous man when it's clearly against divorce and remarriage?

 

[FaeryChild]

Joseph was an older man. His children from another marriage were grown up and on their own. He was widowed, not divorced. Mary was much younger and had been dedicated at the temple as a perpetual virgin. She was a godly woman and she never would have gone back on those vows. Joseph was a godly man who "married" Mary, believing that her conception was from the Holy Ghost, and not from scandal. Joseph, Mary and Jesus fled to Egypt and returned when it was safe and then lived as part of Joseph's extended family. And that is the environment in which Jesus was raised. Joseph and Mary remained godly people. Joseph never violated Mary.

 

[dawn7]

If that's the case why didn't they say that in the bible?

 

[Light of the East]

If that's the case why didn't they say that in the bible?

Show me where it says in the Bible that every single detail of the lives of the saints must be spoken of in the Bible.

 

[dawn7]

If that's the case why didn't they say that in the bible?

 

[topcare]

You can't answer this question:

Show me where it says in the Bible that every single detail of the lives of the saints must be spoken of in the Bible.

 

[dawn7]

Apparently that makes it ok to make up stories and to call it the truth.

 

[Light of the East]

This post will hurt but truth be told, some prayers are just too much!!!

Do you really want an answer from Scripture, because I am about to give you one:

I just need to get something cleared up. I feel someone needs to explain where all the exaltation and use of praises commonly offered to God being offered to someone that no one in the bible ever used on a departed saint...

When God created Adam and Eve, He created the Mother and Father of the whole human race. They were also to become, covenantally speaking, the King and Queen over the covenant people. This is what they could have had, and we know this because Scripture states that we have become made "kings and priests unto our God." (Rev. 5:10). God would not give to us anything that was not planned for Adam and Eve. (To understand how this works, we have to discuss Suzerainty covenant kingships).

Of course, Adam and Eve fell, but we see in Scripture that Adam has been restored (1 Corin. 15:45) Jesus the man is the Last Adam. That position of a human being established as king over Creation is restored in the man, Jesus of Nazareth. The damage from the Fall has been undone.

If God restored Adam as male human being, then in order to fully restore that which He created in the Garden, He must restore Eve as female human being also. To leave Eve out of the equation would be to leave the redemptive work of the Father incomplete. There would be no regeneration. Certainly the Early Church Fathers understood this, for they referred to the Blessed Virgin as the New Eve. Let us see if we can draw the same type/antitype parallels between these two women.

Eve was created by the work of God in splitting open Adam’s side. The Blessed Virgin was created in the same way, by the splitting open of Christ’s side in the redemptive work of God which was, according to Scripture, planned before the foundation of the world. Without the death of Christ for sin, the Blood of Christ could not have been applied to Mary for her original sin at the instant of her conception to make her created in the exact same way that Eve was, innocent and sinless. Without this Immaculate Conception, the whole type/archetype parallelism falls apart and we have no restoration of that which God created in the Garden. The redemptive work of Christ fails. Eve was to be the helpmeet to Adam, bearing his covenant authority and rulership in equality over the creation he was to rule over. Both were to bear that authority not of themselves, but from God. It was not intrinsic to themselves, but came from God.

In like manner, the Blessed Virgin, as the new Eve to the Last Adam, is the helpmeet. She bears rulership with Him, not of herself intrinsically, but of God, in the same way that Adam and Eve would have borne the authority of God had they not fallen. When titles such as Intercessor, Mediator, and others which drive Protestants just wild, are given to her, they are given because she, as helpmeet, equally bears that authority that her human son, the Last Adam, has been given in heaven. Remember, it is JESUS who is in heaven. That is His human name. It is a man who rules in heaven. Yes, a special man who is, in a mystery both human and divine, two natures not comingled, yet existing in one person – a man. A man and a woman – a human king and queen in heaven ruling as the covenant heads of the family. This was exactly what God had planned for Adam and Eve and exactly what He restored in Jesus and the Virgin Mary – Kingship and Queenship over the created world.

This is why Mary is referred to as Queen, because She is the restoration of Eve and therefore has received the position of Queen which Eve could have had, just as Jesus has received Kingship over all Creation. Remember, it is the Kingdom of God, which necessitates a king and queen.

What chapters did we look over, what sins have been made for not recognizing "Virgin"

The problem is not overlooking a chapter, it is that of being a Bible Literalist and demanding that everything in the Bible be spelled out word for word. You should know better than this because even as a Baptist, you use metaphors and analogies from the OT. For instance, you should see that King David is a type of Christ, right? So is Solomon. You can see that many things have to be figured out and are not word for word. The Queenship of Mary is one of those things, and you need the correct interpretive key to figure it out.

That key is the Covenant of God.

When you approach the Bible with a covenant understanding, it looks different to the understanding.

Finally, are we not commanded to honor our Father and Mother? This applies not only to our earthly fathers and mothers, but to those who are in authority over us. The Catholic Catechism states that this commandment teaches us to honor authority. Since Jesus and Mary are King and Queen, we should honor them. And honor is just another way of expressing love and respect. Yes, sometimes it does seem a tad excessive, but I think if we were to see them in the glory which they are clothed in from God, we would not think it excessive at all.

 

[Light of the East]

Apparently that makes it ok to make up stories and to call it the truth.

Read my reply Number 54, which is immediately beneath your post.

 

[topcare]

Apparently that makes it ok to make up stories and to call it the truth.

So you can't answer the question : Show me where it says in the Bible that every single detail of the lives of the saints must be spoken of in the Bible. Fine just say your not able to answer instead of accuse people

 

[FaeryChild]

This is a case where deductions are being made based on
A) What Scripture does say
B) What Scripture does not say
C) What needs to be true in order to not contradict Scripture (think about this one carefully, as it means that Scripture implies much more than what is explicitly stated).
and
D) What do the earliest Church records teach on it? No, I am not trying to say that something like the Protoevangelium is equivalent with the Canon, but why would we not at least accept such writings as historical? One does not have believe that the early Christian writers are free from all error to believe they knew how to write historical fact. I can understand and sympathize with the high view of Scripture that Protestants give it - but what completely baffles me is that anytime anyone tries to argue anything from a different source, including a Christian one from the 1st Century, it is treated as if it is just being completely made up. Why would the early Christian community, while being persecuted and always in threat of death, make up lies about Mary and Joseph's historical life?

As we can read in Luke 3:23, the main crowds thought Joseph was his biological father. And, in Matthew 1:16, Jesus' lineage is traced back through Joseph. Were one to only look at these passages (as well as several others in the NT about Jesus' descent from David) one could easily (but wrongly) conclude that Joseph married Mary and had Jesus the normal way. Of course, the passages about virginal conception factor in and so we understand these passages in that light. Likewise, it does not suffice to simply point to a passage about Jesus' brothers and assume the case is closed.

 

[Job8]

I feel someone needs to explain where all the exaltation and use of praises commonly offered to God being offered to someone that no one in the bible ever used on a departed saint

You won't find that in the Bible. That's the beauty of *Holy Tradition*.

 

[dawn7]

Jesus Christ is the Incarnate Word of God. The Bible is the Written Word of God. The Written Word of God is very clear about not adding to or taking away from it. You seemingly adding false truths to the Bible about Joseph's family that are never mentioned is an outright sin in itself. Whether you got this information from a priest or a book it is incorrect.

 

[FaeryChild]

I'm linking to the Protoevangelium of James for reference in this discussion:

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0847.htm