Queen of Heaven?

[trophy33]

Hm, maybe not specifically these words, but we do find in the near context this statement
"lo, all generations shall call me blessed"

So, blessing Mary, or blessing her name, or how you want to see it, we do have in the text a very poignant statement about veneration for Mary

So the texts that were chosen in the composition of a Marian veneration
"hail Mary full of Grace, the Lord is with thee" - this is in the text
"blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb" - this is also in the text

Those who composed the marian veneration, the rosary, sought to be very biblical, so much is clear

Can you demonstrate the logical connection between "all generations will call me blessed" and praying to Mary?

In simple steps.

 

[PeterDona]

Also, praying to departed people to pray for us is nowhere in the New Testament.

There is not a lot of it, but we do find enough, that "conversation with saints", to say it like that, should be considered an option
The rich man in hades asked father Abraham, a departed man, to send Lazarus, and also to send someone to his brothers (Luke 16:24+27).
The great cloud of witnesses in hebrews 11, is this not a reference to saints of the old testament? And how is it that we are "compassed about" by this great cloud of witnesses (hebrews 12:1), if not in the sense that we are able to have communication with them?

So there it is, I took your bait. We can delve in it if you want, or just leave it here. The main point of the thread at this moment is, that there are some variant understandings of Scripture, and therefore different flavors of congregations.

 

[PeterDona]

Can you demonstrate the logical connection between "all generations will call me blessed" and praying to Mary?

In simple steps.

I can not if the assumption is, that catholics pray to Mary as if she was God. Because she is not, and we do not.

So, assuming an intellectual honesty and openness on your part, here is one way those steps could be formulated.

(1) From earliest archeological finds, before 300, we have prayers said to Mary: cæick
(2) this means, that we would find in the Bible texts that support the idea of prayer to Mary, or Mary as a helpful intercessor for us.
I am aware of one such text, namely john 2:3, where Mary asks Jesus to do something, and while he is unwilling, he nevertheless does it.
(3) having established that Mary has some special position before the face of Almighty God the Son Jesus, what would that be of use for us?
I will then jump to the concept of saints, or church sanctified, or the great cloud of witnesses to use a biblical term.
The idea is that we can communicate with the departed saints, though they be not God, and that Mary is one such saint.

(4) so now, actually 2 ideas are put together, in the rosary. Because for one we speak the blessing upon Mary, as prescribed in the text, and then we implore her prayers on our behalf, before the face of Almighty God, as alluded to by the rather curious interaction between Mary and Jesus in John 2.

I think this is the logical connection. A putting together of 2 ideas, so not logical in the sense of formal mathematical logic, but logical in the sense that it joins 2 ideas that both pertain to Mary.

 

[trophy33]

There is not a lot of it, but we do find enough, that "conversation with saints", to say it like that, should be considered an option
The rich man in hades asked father Abraham, a departed man, to send Lazarus, and also to send someone to his brothers (Luke 16:24+27).
The great cloud of witnesses in hebrews 11, is this not a reference to saints of the old testament? And how is it that we are "compassed about" by this great cloud of witnesses (hebrews 12:1), if not in the sense that we are able to have communication with them?

So there it is, I took your bait. We can delve in it if you want, or just leave it here. The main point of the thread at this moment is, that there are some variant understandings of Scripture, and therefore different flavors of congregations.

This is all just far stretched. Do you have a clear example or instruction given to Christians to pray to departed people?

Parables are not good enough. And even in this parable, it was not a living person praying to a departed person. It was a direct dialog.

 

[trophy33]

So there it is, I took your bait.

Its not a bait. "Show it in apostolic instructions or at least in apostolic example" is the basic/elementary requirement when encountering a strange, exotic doctrine.

 

[PeterDona]

This is all just far stretched.

I did not give the whole teaching in my short post, and I think that the reason you call it "far stretched" is because you are not well versed in the teaching.

You ask for one instruction about praying to a departed person. I would call your attention to John 2:3, the interaction between Mary and Jesus. Considering that the gospel of John was written probably around the year 100, at a time when Mary was long dead, what would be the importance of recording this peculiar interaction, if not to establish the fact that Mary had special favour with Jesus?

While as a catholic I do record these bible passages a bit matter of factly, I do acknowledge that it may come in as some of a suprise for you. But just to say, there is biblical precedent. And there is more bible passages than what I have shortly related here.

 

[trophy33]

I can not if the assumption is, that catholics pray to Mary as if she was God. Because she is not, and we do not.

So, assuming an intellectual honesty and openness on your part, here is one way those steps could be formulated.

(1) From earliest archeological finds, before 300, we have prayers said to Mary: cæick
(2) this means, that we would find in the Bible texts that support the idea of prayer to Mary, or Mary as a helpful intercessor for us.
I am aware of one such text, namely john 2:3, where Mary asks Jesus to do something, and while he is unwilling, he nevertheless does it.
(3) having established that Mary has some special position before the face of Almighty God the Son Jesus, what would that be of use for us?
I will then jump to the concept of saints, or church sanctified, or the great cloud of witnesses to use a biblical term.
The idea is that we can communicate with the departed saints, though they be not God, and that Mary is one such saint.

(4) so now, actually 2 ideas are put together, in the rosary. Because for one we speak the blessing upon Mary, as prescribed in the text, and then we implore her prayers on our behalf, before the face of Almighty God, as alluded to by the rather curious interaction between Mary and Jesus in John 2.

I think this is the logical connection. A putting together of 2 ideas, so not logical in the sense of formal mathematical logic, but logical in the sense that it joins 2 ideas that both pertain to Mary.

#1 is irrelevant, many dogmatic errors and strange practices can be find from early times
#2 "this means" does not follow from #1
#3 neither #1 nor #2 established that Mary has some perpetual special position outside of the specific situation you mentioned

 

[trophy33]

You ask for one instruction about praying to a departed person. I would call your attention to John 2:3, the interaction between Mary and Jesus.

Not about praying to Mary.

onsidering that the gospel of John was written probably around the year 100, at a time when Mary was long dead, what would be the importance of recording this peculiar interaction, if not to establish the fact that Mary had special favour with Jesus?

This is pure speculation. There are many various situations from Jesus life in Gospels, with various people, there is no reason why just this one should establish such serious doctrine. If it was the case, there would be some commentary of the writer, similar to other important places (like "and in this way He made all food clean".)

So far your arguments strongly resemble eisegesis - having already a doctrine and looking for in the Bible.

 

[PeterDona]

#1 is irrelevant, many dogmatic errors and strange practices can be find from early times
#2 "this means" does not follow from #1
#3 neither #1 nor #2 established that Mary has some perpetual special position outside of the specific situation you mentioned

I would just call to your attention, that you are having a conversation with me, not conducting a public debate.

This # gibble gobble makes no sense to me, and does disregard the context of the text, where I explicitly state that it is NOT a formal logical presentation. Feel most welcome to read my input again, and respond as a person rather than a public debater.

 

[PeterDona]

So far your arguments strongly resemble eisegesis - having already a doctrine and looking for in the Bible.

Much I could respond to in your post, but I think this could be fruitful.

I assume that you are "sola scriptura", with the idea that if something is not found solidly in scripture, then it is not required of christians?

The New Testament is a collection of books collected by the Catholic Church. So it is the canon of the Catholic Church. If you use the Bible, you actually already tacitly acknowledge the Catholic Church (!)

Right, so, a teaching not found solidly and explicitly in Scripture, may still be a valid teaching. Interestingly, Luther removed books from the Bible, amongst which were the 1 and 2 maccabees, where there is a scene where they pray for the dead. You would probably find this repulsive also, but it is in the Bible, or was until Luther removed it. useful link

My arguments resemble eisegesis, you do a good precise wording there, but it is more like, I point to a teaching that is already there, using those passages that point in the direction. Yes. Well spotted

excursion: Another teaching, which every christian holds to, but which is actually never stated explicitly and with irrefutable proof, is the existence of God (!) God is, through the whole Bible, presumed to exist.
Interestingly, this is where one of the most known atheists, Matt Dillahunty, takes out his opponents every time in debate. He makes them go too far, trying to prove God, whereas God has ordained that it must be by faith, not by proof. So in a funny twist you could say, that Matt Dillahunty uses God's precepts to refute the apologetes of God.

 

[The Liturgist]

@The Liturgist

Do you think your arguments are strong enough for a discussion? Or do you present them just as an opinion "good enough for you, personally"?

From a purely logical perspective, I do believe my arguments are strong enough for a discussion, insofar as they are not so much arguments as statements of fact. It is entirely factual to assert that scriptural support for traditional, liturgical Christianity including the veneration of the Theotokos is compelling, and furthermore the bulk of my argumentation, as I have stated, from Martin Luther’s use of the Hail Mary prayer to the contents of the New Testament is a matter of fact, and not opinion.

Now furthermore, I would not present as an argument an opinion “good enough for me personally” as this would not contribute in a positive manner to the discussion, as my goal is to satisfy the needs of forum members looking for objective truth concerning the relationship between the early church and the traditional liturgical churches of the present which collectively maintain its traditions and should be seen as its continuation, churches such as the confessional Lutherans, the traditionalist high church Anglicans, the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, the Assyrians, and various Catholic churches, particularly some of the more traditional Eastern Catholic Churches and also those parishes that Pope Francis is trying to abolish where the traditional Latin Mass according to the usus antiquor is still celebrated, as that, in my opinion, is a beautiful liturgy on a par with the exquisite liturgics of the Eastern churches. But there you see an aesthetic opinion, which it should be easy enough to differentiate from the purely factual assertions and logical deductions that preceded it.

Furthermore, to the extent humility requires that I admit my own arguments might prove inadequate, as much as I might find them personally satisfying, I would note that I am not the first person to defend the ancient doctrine of the Christian Church regarding the Theotokos. Everything I say is merely an inferior clone of what St. Cyril of Alexandria said at the Council of Ephesus, which was recorded, and which you can read, along with his writings, which I would recommend you consider doing forthwith, and also, further to that end, reading some of the other non-Nestorian fathers of the early church such as St. Maximus the Confessor, St. John of Damascus, St. Severus of Antioch, indeed virtually anyone whose writings are in the Philokalia, might well be highly edifying. In addition, the writings of more contemporary Orthodox theologians such as Metropolitan Kallistos Ware, memory eternal, or Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky, memory eternal, or Archpriest Andrew Stephen Damick, who is still with us; their works The Orthodox Way, Orthodox Dogmatic Theology and Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy, second edition, might prove greatly edifying for anyone seeking to understand the ancient doctrine of the Church concerning the Blessed Virgin Mary. Also Orthodox Christology by Fr. Peter Farrington represents a compelling Oriental Orthodox interpretation of the above. So insofar as anyone finds my arguments lacking, I should refer them to those more talented than myself, and also to members more knowledgeable and articulate than myself, such as my friends @prodromos @HTacianas @MarkRohfrietsch @ViaCrucis @chevyontheriver and @dzheremi, all of whom are of much greater piety than myself and whose prayers for my salvation I always solicit.

 

[The Liturgist]

Not about praying to Mary.

It is directly relevant on the basis of what happens. The Theotokos intercedes on behalf of the bridegroom, and our Lord procedes in accordance with her request. If what she had asked were actually sinful or inappropriate, He would not have done so, nor would she have asked for it, for it is the general consensus of traditional Protestants, Orthodox and Catholics alike that the blessed Virgin Mary while still requiring salvation due to original sin or ancestral sin or other factors in the case of Western Catholicism (owing to their reliance on the writings of St. Augustine rather than those of St. John Cassian, who had previously been favored in both the Greek and Roman churches, but for some reason was supplanted in the Western Church by St. Augustine in the latter half of the first millenium.

Also, as I said earlier, it is a fact that there is nothing in the New Testament that would preclude seeking the intercession of the Theotokos, or indeed that requires the use of the Regulatory Principle advocated by fundamentalist Calvinists.

 

[FenderTL5]

So far your arguments strongly resemble eisegesis - having already a doctrine and looking for in the Bible.

Just a thought: you understand that the New Testament (NT) was actually written that way? The NT is a product of the Church that was already there. Some of the letters/epistles were first, to churches already in existance and practicing the Faith as handed down. The Gospels were written as the eyewitnesses in the Church began to fade, as way of making certain the life of Christ didn't pass away with them. That''s why there are some basic Church teaching that may only be mentioned in passing if t all. They were practicng already, no need for an instruction manual.

 

[trophy33]

Just a thought: you understand that the New Testament (NT) was actually written that way? The NT is a product of the Church that was already there. Some of the letters/epistles were first, to churches already in existance and practicing the Faith as handed down. The Gospels were written as the eyewitnesses in the Church began to fade, as way of making certain the life of Christ didn't pass away with them. That''s why there are some basic Church teaching that may only be mentioned in passing if t all. They were practicng already, no need for an instruction manual.

The NT is not a product of a church, but a product of (inspired) apostles. They have the authority, not some vaguely defined "church". Church(es) only recognized and accepted this authority of Scriptures.

If we shift the authority to church, we can get into many errors, as happened frequently in history.

 

[trophy33]

I would just call to your attention, that you are having a conversation with me, not conducting a public debate.

This # gibble gobble makes no sense to me, and does disregard the context of the text, where I explicitly state that it is NOT a formal logical presentation. Feel most welcome to read my input again, and respond as a person rather than a public debater.

# represents "number". #1 refers to your (1) and so on.

I am a person and this is a public forum. So both apply, namely when we discuss possible logical connection between some verses and some doctrine. The connection must be demonstratively there, or else its just some random verse that has some subjective similarity to the topic, but thats all.

 

[FenderTL5]

The NT is not a product of a church, but a product of (inspired) apostles. They have the authority, not some vaguely defined "church". Church(es) only recognized and accepted this authority of Scriptures.

Christ established His Church, and He is the head. The Apostles were the leaders of the Church on earth. The letters were written by the Church/Apostles, to existing Churches to address specific issues within the Church. Those letters were passed around and read in all of the churches, eventually. That is how the Canon became to be. There were no New Testaments being passed out at the concierge table at the Ascension. If you fail to understand this, you will continue to fail to understand Christianity at all.
The Church is the Body of Christ on earth. Christ is the head we are merely members of the body. The Church is Christ on earth.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

The NT is not a product of a church, but a product of (inspired) apostles. They have the authority, not some vaguely defined "church". Church(es) only recognized and accepted this authority of Scriptures.

If we shift the authority to church, we can get into many errors, as happened frequently in history.

So, then, the Apostles are outside the Church?

 

[trophy33]

Much I could respond to in your post, but I think this could be fruitful.

I assume that you are "sola scriptura", with the idea that if something is not found solidly in scripture, then it is not required of christians?

The New Testament is a collection of books collected by the Catholic Church. So it is the canon of the Catholic Church. If you use the Bible, you actually already tacitly acknowledge the Catholic Church (!)

Right, so, a teaching not found solidly and explicitly in Scripture, may still be a valid teaching. Interestingly, Luther removed books from the Bible, amongst which were the 1 and 2 maccabees, where there is a scene where they pray for the dead. You would probably find this repulsive also, but it is in the Bible, or was until Luther removed it. useful link

My arguments resemble eisegesis, you do a good precise wording there, but it is more like, I point to a teaching that is already there, using those passages that point in the direction. Yes. Well spotted

excursion: Another teaching, which every christian holds to, but which is actually never stated explicitly and with irrefutable proof, is the existence of God (!) God is, through the whole Bible, presumed to exist.
Interestingly, this is where one of the most known atheists, Matt Dillahunty, takes out his opponents every time in debate. He makes them go too far, trying to prove God, whereas God has ordained that it must be by faith, not by proof. So in a funny twist you could say, that Matt Dillahunty uses God's precepts to refute the apologetes of God.

I am for both the apostolic teaching and reason to be authoritative for our life. Not sure if it qualifies as pure Sola Scriptura. But yes, I am a (European) protestant, so it will be around that, somewhere.

If the Catholic Church (in the meaning of the RCC) was already there or not, compiling the Scriptures, can be debated. But its irrelevant, for example we have also many Roman or Greek based laws or Arabian numbers. Good inventions or works do not mean we must accept the whole construction or system or organization behind them.

 

[FenderTL5]

If we shift the authority to church, we can get into many errors, as happened frequently in history.

You have it exactly reversed and wrong. It is a failure to recognize the Authority of the Church, especially when in council, that has spawned the many errors and divisions in the Church.

 

[trophy33]

Christ established His Church, and He is the head. The Apostles were the leaders of the Church on earth. The letters were written by the Church/Apostles, to existing Churches to address specific issues within the Church. Those letters were passed around and read in all of the churches, eventually. That is how the Canon became to be. There were no New Testaments being passed out at the concierge table at the Ascension. If you fail to understand this, you will continue to fail to understand Christianity at all.
The Church is the Body of Christ on earth. Christ is the head we are merely members of the body. The Church is Christ on earth.

And what exactly do you think this changes, regarding anything I said? You describe the process of collecting the books, I am talking about who is the source of authority - the authors of the books/letters.