Roman Catholic Prayer to Mary - Is it scriptural?

[Ivan Hlavanda]

Thus, since God became incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, this validates the claim, along with St. Mary’s interactions with the Holy Archangel Gabriel, that God chose the Virgin Mary to serve, if she consented, which she did, as Theotokos.

Mary carried God in her womb and gave birth to Him. Mary was the human agent through whom the eternal Son of God took on a human body and a human nature and entered the world. The term Theotokos was a succinct expression of the biblical teaching of the Incarnation, and that is how the Council of Ephesus used the word. Mary is the “God-bearer” in that within her body the divine person of God the Son took on human nature in addition to His pre-existing divine nature. Since Jesus is fully God and fully man, it is correct to say that Mary “bore” God.

Even though the term Theotokos was originally used to help explain the Incarnation, many people today use the term, or the related mother of God, to communicate something different. Through the years, many legends accumulated around the person of Mary, and she became an object of worship in her own right. About 350 years after the Council of Ephesus used the term Theotokos in reference to Mary, the Second Council of Nicaea declared, “We honor and salute and reverently venerate . . . the image of . . . our spotless Lady the all-holy mother of God.” This shows the trend within the Roman Church to move from a focus on the Incarnation of God to a veneration of the “Mother of God,” even to the point of honoring her images and praying to her as the “Queen of Heaven,” “Benefactress,” and “Mediatrix.” The necessity of such veneration is not implied by the term Theotokos, but some people wrongly infer it.

Roman Catholic leaders teach their followers to go to Mary to find help in their time of need: “From the most ancient times the Blessed Virgin has been honored with the title of ‘Mother of God,’ to whose protection the faithful fly in all their dangers and needs” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, Part 1, Section 2, Chapter 3, Article 9, Paragraph 6, 971). The Eastern churches still use the term Theotokos, and they sing hymns called theotokia to Mary. This portion of a theotokion is from the liturgy of the Coptic Orthodox Church: “You are the pride of virgins, O Mary the Theotokos. / You are the soul’s city, where the Most High lived, who sits upon the throne, of the Cherubim. . . . / O Virgin Mary, the holy Mother of God, the trusted advocate, of the human race. / Intercede on our behalf, before Christ whom you have born, that He may grant unto us, the forgiveness of our sins” (from The Friday Theotokia – Watos). These views of Mary represent a theological shift away from Christ as our sole Redeemer and Intercessor (1 Timothy 2:5) and an overemphasis on Mary as the “Mother of God.”

 

[Jerry N.]

I have been following this thread carefully, but I don’t see why one should pray to Mary when the Holy Spirit dwells within us, and Jesus made it clear we can pray to Our Father directly. God is willing and able to answer the prayers of all of His children. Does the number of people praying and their “clout” make it more likely for God to answer prayer? God even answers the prayers of non-Christians, because He loves us. He chooses what prayers to answer and how, and He has no limits. Do we lobby God?

 

[jas3]

1. No Christian wrote even one word of the OT or the inserted Apocrypha. You don't need Josephus to tell you which books Christians wrote.

Authorship is a completely different discussion.

2. No text in OT or NT or Apocrypha includes Marian prayers or prayers to the dead at all.

Nor do they include prayers to the Holy Spirit.

3. No text in OT or NT or Apocrypha includes real life instances of prayers to anyone but God -- outside of a parable

There are plenty of other things we don't have instances of in the Bible, too. That doesn't mean that, for example, we shouldn't have crosses on our churches.

4. No text in OT or NT or Apocrypha appeals to anyone not on Earth to pray for them or to ask God to do a favor for them.

This is just a repeat of point 2.

 

[timothyu]

There are plenty of other things we don't have instances of in the Bible, too. That doesn't mean that, for example, we shouldn't have crosses on our churches.

Two points. One why would Jesus say take up your cross way before it even happened to Him. The Father toik Him a step at a time. Did some zealous scribe insert that after the fact?
Two.. what if He had been beheaded? Would there be axes all over the place?

 

[jas3]

How many people were saved in those centuries, I don't know. How many of those who were saved prayed to others I don't know either. God knows.

If as you say they were idolaters, it would stand to reason that the number of people who were saved is zero. But the bigger issue here is not the exact number of people who were saved, it's the implication that the Body of Christ can fall into idolatry.

Satan will always tell you the opposite of God. If God says to pray to others, then satan tells you to pray to God alone....it's nonsense.

Where does it say in the Bible that Satan will always tell you the opposite of what God says? He cited Scripture to Jesus in the desert. And as St. Paul writes, he "disguises himself as an angel of light." How could someone disguise himself as an angel if he can only say impious things?

 

[jas3]

Two points. One why would Jesus say take up your cross way before it even happened to Him. The Father toik Him a step at a time. Did some zealous scribe insert that after the fact?
Two.. what if He had been beheaded? Would there be axes all over the place?

Crucifixion was a well-known execution method practiced by the Romans long before it was used on our Lord. I don't know what would have happened in the case of Him being beheaded. I would guess that images of His face would be featured more prominently, but there were also other Christian images like the ichthys that could have become more significant.

 

[timothyu]

Crucifixion was a well-known execution method practiced by the Romans long before it was used on our Lord.

Yes it was but what He was implying would not only have happened yet, but no one would have understood the implication so why use it. So it must have been a later addition.

 

[jas3]

Yes it was but what He was implying would not only have happened yet, but no one would have understood the implication so why use it. So it must have been a later addition.

I highly doubt the Romans came up with the idea for Him to carry the cross on the spot. It would have been a spectacle the Apostles were familiar with from other executions. Either way, I don't see how this is relevant to the thread.

 

[Always in His Presence]

Certainly, as I explained in this post you can send me a PM, and then based on an assesment of your current knowledge of scripture I will guide you through the texts which on the basis of exegesis validate the Orthodox doctrine.

No need to do all that - just cite book, chapter and verse and let the Scriptures speak for themselves.

I'll continue to wait.

And just an FYI - it does not take a 300 word history lesson.

 

[Always in His Presence]

The Orthodox Church believes in Apostolic Succession, we practice intercessory prayers to the Theotokos, but we also don’t believe that doctrine can be updated.

And yet - without Doctrine being updated - Mary would have never been regarded Theotokos.

As a title for the Virgin Mary, Theotokos was recognized by the Orthodox Church at Third Ecumenical Council held at Ephesus in 431.

 

[The Liturgist]

And yet - without Doctrine being updated - Mary would have never been regarded Theotokos.

As a title for the Virgin Mary, Theotokos was recognized by the Orthodox Church at Third Ecumenical Council held at Ephesus in 431.

Incorrect. The third ecumenical deposed Nestorius as Patriarch of Constaninople for denying that the Blessed Virgin Mary was Theotokos, contradicting existing doctrine, and for developing a bifurcated Christology in response to this denial. The term Theotokos was in universal use in the Church of Constantiople before he became Patriarch.

 

[Always in His Presence]

Incorrect. The third ecumenical deposed Nestorius as Patriarch of Constaninople for denying that the Blessed Virgin Mary was Theotokos, contradicting existing doctrine, and for developing a bifurcated Christology in response to this denial. The term Theotokos was in universal use in the Church of Constantiople before he became Patriarch.

1. Adoption at the Third Ecumenical Council

As a title for the Virgin Mary, Theotokos was recognized by the Orthodox Church at Third Ecumenical Council held at Ephesus in 431. It had already been in use for some time in the devotional and liturgical life of the Church. The theological significance of the title is to emphasize that Mary's son, Jesus, is fully God, as well as fully human, and that Jesus' two natures (divine and human) were united in a single Person of the Trinity. The competing view at that council was that Mary should be called Christotokos instead, meaning "Birth-giver to Christ." This was the view advocated by Nestorius, then Patriarch of Constantinople. The intent behind calling her Christotokos was to restrict her role to be only the mother of "Christ's humanity" and not his divine nature.

 

[Always in His Presence]

Matt 12:46 While He was still talking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers stood outside, seeking to speak with Him. 47 Then one said to Him, “Look, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, seeking to speak with You.”​

​

48 But He answered and said to the one who told Him, “Who is My mother and who are My brothers?” 49 And He stretched out His hand toward His disciples and said, “Here are My mother and My brothers! 50 For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother.”​

Mark 3:31 Then His brothers and His mother came, and standing outside they sent to Him, calling Him. 32 And a multitude was sitting around Him; and they said to Him, “Look, Your mother and Your brothers are outside seeking You.”

33 But He answered them, saying, “Who is My mother, or My brothers?” 34 And He looked around in a circle at those who sat about Him, and said, “Here are My mother and My brothers! 35 For whoever does the will of God is My brother and My sister and mother.”

Luke 8:19 Then His mother and brothers came to Him, and could not approach Him because of the crowd. 20 And it was told Him by some, who said, “Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, desiring to see You.”​

​

21 But He answered and said to them, “My mother and My brothers are these who hear the word of God and do it.”​

​

Mark 6:3 Is this not the carpenter, the Son of Mary, and brother of James, Joses, Judas, and Simon? And are not His sisters here with us?” So they were offended at Him.

John 2:12 After this He went down to Capernaum, He, His mother, His brothers, and His disciples; and they did not stay there many days.​

​

Brothers - Greek - adelphos - his brothers by blood

 

[BobRyan]

I'd be happy to leave Josephus out of it if he weren't used as a means to deny parts of the Christian Bible

1. No Christian wrote even one word of the OT or the inserted Apocrypha. You don't need Josephus to tell you which books Christians wrote.
2. No text in OT or NT or Apocrypha includes Marian prayers or prayers to the dead at all.
3. No text in OT or NT or Apocrypha includes real life instances of prayers to anyone but God -- outside of a parable
4. No text in OT or NT or Apocrypha appeals to anyone not on Earth to pray for them or to ask God to do a favor for them.

that show the intercession of saints, which is one of the first things people took issue with in this thread.

Intercession of saints happens all the time when we pray for each other.
What is doubted on this thread is appeals to the dead on behalf of the living - strictly forbidden in Isaiah 8:20

I'd be happy to leave Josephus out of it if he weren't used as a means to deny parts of the Christian Bible

1. No Christian wrote even one word of the OT or the inserted Apocrypha. You don't need Josephus to tell you which books Christians wrote.
2. No text in OT or NT or Apocrypha includes Marian prayers or prayers to the dead at all.
3. No text in OT or NT or Apocrypha includes real life instances of prayers to anyone but God -- outside of a parable
4. No text in OT or NT or Apocrypha appeals to anyone not on Earth to pray for them or to ask God to do a favor for them.

that show the intercession of saints, which is one of the first things people took issue with in this thread.

Intercession of saints happens all the time when we pray for each other.
What is doubted on this thread is appeals to the dead on behalf of the living - strictly forbidden in Isaiah 8:20

Authorship is a completely different discussion.
Nor do they include prayers to the Holy Spirit.
There are plenty of other things we don't have instances of in the Bible, too. That doesn't mean that, for example, we shouldn't have crosses on our churches.
This is just a repeat of point 2.

Your response to the points I listed above is of the form
"that is all true - but I don't care".

Which is fine.

Don't be too surprised when people read that and say "well if both sides are admitting that that is all true -- hmm -- I do care"

 

[BobRyan]

Ivan Hlavanda said:
None of this is in the Bible.

Firstly, so what?

While it is true that many of Earth's religions make doctrinal claims that can't be found in the Bible - it is ALSO true that this fact matters to a great many Christians.

In Acts 17:11 the non-Christian Bereans "studied the scriptures daily TO SEE IF those things taught by the Apostle Paul - WERE SO"
Obviously the Berean followers of God thought that was important and the statement in Acts affirming them by saying "They were MORE noble minded than those in Thessalonica" shows us that the Author of Acts also affirmed them for doing it.

So while that sort of thing gets tossed into the "so what?" pile in certain custom and traditions -- it still matters a lot to the rest of us.

Secondly, you’re also in error, in that it is definitely in scripture

Not "Mary mother of God" any more than "Mary stronger than God" or "Mary instructor of God" - and of course that entire thing conflates the massive difference between INCARNATION and procreation. No wonder no one in the NT used such a title for Mary.

 

[BobRyan]

That is because Mary is unique. She was the Mother of God in the flesh.

Not once in all of scripture is Mary called "the Mother of God" -- as we all know
Not once in all of scripture is Joseph given the title "instructor of God" as we all know
Not once in all of scripture are Joseph and Mary said to be "stronger than God" or "protector of God" or "wiser than God" or...

The reason is - it sends the wrong message.

IN the case "Mother of God" it sends two wrong messages - second one being that Jesus is the result of procreation rather than incarnation of an already existing being.

Someone in the crowd listening to Jesus tried the idea of "blessed be Mary the mother of Jesus" and Jesus responded "28 But He said, “On the contrary, blessed are those who hear the word of God and observe it.” Luke 11:28 NASB

How often in the Catholic church do you hear something that starts with "on the contrary" in response to such statements

Conflating incarnation with procreation as if the infinite difference between the two can be ignored - leads to "queen of heaven" "co-redeemer with Christ" - an all-wise all-knowing all-powerful being as Mary is suggested to be in that conflation and one seeks for a miracle where Mary is too holy for her mother to give birth to her -- without first having a miracle provided for Mary's mother to do it in the first place.

So Jesus Christ is not God then according to your faith?

Nothing in my statement above says "Jesus is not God" - rather my point is that God the Son existed before Mary ever existed and the subject is NOT procreation - so "Mary mother of God" is no more valid than "Mary wiser than God" or "Mary stronger than God".

It is one person... two natures at the incarnation "by definition"

The "fun" of conflating the details in our discussion - ends when we pay attention to those details.

Because the only way for the Blessed Virgin Mary to not be the Mother of God is for Jesus Christ to not be God.

not true - as we all know.

Incarnation is the case of one person and two natures in this case. Obviously

 

[BobRyan]

stick with the Bible - you will be just fine

Whose interpretation of the Bible? The problem is that Scripture does not interpret itself, according 2 Peter 1:20-21.

The Non-Christian Bereans "studied the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things taught by the Apostle Paul - WERE SO" Acts 17:11
And were blessed for doing so according to the author of the book of Acts.
The point remains.

Your argument seems to rely on the hope that one cannot read the word of God - and know enough about what it says to apply the same test way the non-Christian Bereans were able to test doctrine/teaching.

I don't see how that logic will get very far when the details are taken into account.

 

[BobRyan]

Your denomination is well known for believing that the writings of Ellen G. White are infallible inspired prophecy

We have the same tendency to accept a prophet of God - if they pass the test of a prophet found in scripture - as people also did in both OT and NT times.

But to do that - one has to pay attention to the details of what the Bible says is to be used to test the teaching of someone claiming that God has given them a message in the way that God describes it in Numbers 12:6-8.

Notice how often I argue this or that point based on nothing-but-tradition as compared to how often you do it.
Notice how often I argue for this or that POV based on a sola-scriptura support - as compared to your appeals to tradition
I keep using the sola-scriptura method over-and-over-and-over. This is irrefutable.

 

[The Liturgist]

1. Adoption at the Third Ecumenical Council

As a title for the Virgin Mary, Theotokos was recognized by the Orthodox Church at Third Ecumenical Council held at Ephesus in 431. It had already been in use for some time in the devotional and liturgical life of the Church. The theological significance of the title is to emphasize that Mary's son, Jesus, is fully God, as well as fully human, and that Jesus' two natures (divine and human) were united in a single Person of the Trinity. The competing view at that council was that Mary should be called Christotokos instead, meaning "Birth-giver to Christ." This was the view advocated by Nestorius, then Patriarch of Constantinople. The intent behind calling her Christotokos was to restrict her role to be only the mother of "Christ's humanity" and not his divine nature.

Indeed, this is largely correct, although it fails to emphasize the novelty of the term Christotokos sufficiently, and it also does not make it clear that Nestorius was deposed because he had innovated in introducing this novel term, and furthermore, it doesn’t quite treat upon the divergent Christology Nestorius advocated in order to accomodate his crypto-antidicomarianism.

 

[jas3]

Your response to the points I listed above is of the form
"that is all true - but I don't care".

More like "this is special pleading" or "this isn't making the argument you think it is."