Something About Mary

[MoreCoffee]

I have a couple of thoughts about what you wrote.

First the passages you alluded to.

• Mary was and is one of those who hear the word of God and keep it.
• Mary was and is among those who do the will of God.

On the language used in the Salve Regina

• You are right, it is effusive.
• It is also Latin and reflects southern European cultural norms of many centuries ago.

Modern English speaking culture is not given to emotive expressions either in writing or in actions. English speakers are disinclined to embrace never mind kiss. And that, I think, goes a long way towards explaining why you don't do what the Salve Regina says.

Let me preface this by saying this is not an anti-Catholic thread. If you would like to tell Catholics, EO, or others what they believe, there are plenty of other threads for you to get closed down. Go there.

I'm posting this because I have not seen it addressed anywhere else, and I'm looking for some insight.

A little background about myself: I was raised Evangelical with a tinge of anti-RCC (My parents both come from families that could have gotten booked on Montel Williams in a heart-beat. Both families were Catholic. That is no reflection on the church, but brains make patterns...that's just what they do.)

Whenever I asked people what was 'wrong' with the RCC the answers were the same. "They worship Mary." "They pray to saints." "They kiss idols." You know the drill. It's the same as what we see on these boards all day long.

Having grown up, and subsequently gotten smacked upside the head by grace, and being no longer willing to carry my own grudges, let alone those of others, I started being able to 'hear' the real answers that Catholics and others give.

And it is those real answers that I would like to discuss.

A while back on these boards, an EO fellow (I don't remember who, but I remember he was EO because he gave me a list of 47 books to read. ) took the time to explain to me the idea of the communion of the saints, both physically alive and physically dead. Lovely.

And just yesterday, an RCC posted in another thread to the effect that prayers to Mary reflect Jesus' love for his mother, which we glimpse in our own love for our own mothers. Again lovely.

But here's what I would like to look at: When one dear woman shouted out to Jesus, “Blessed is the womb that bore you, and the breasts at which you nursed!” His response was unexpected.

He said, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!”

And another time, when Jesus' mother and brothers came looking for him, Jesus said, "“Who are my mother and my brothers?” And looking about at those who sat around him, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! For whoever does the will of God, he is my brother and sister and mother.”"

Now Jesus was not denigrating Mary here, but rather pointing out his Father (as always) and lifting up the saints to Him. Even to the status of his mother.

The trouble I have (currently) with the idea of (me, personally) praying the rosary or kissing icons in reverence, is not that this is 'worship' or 'idolatry'. The trouble is that I do not treat any of the physically living saints with this particular 'type' of reverence.

I do not greet my brothers and sisters with a "Holy kiss". Ever. Though I love them very dearly.

I would not serenade my mother with, "My Queen, My Mother, I offer myself entirely to thee. And to show my devotion to thee, I offer thee this day, my eyes, my ears, my mouth, my heart, my whole being without reserve." Even though I love and admire her unreservedly. (And even if I did, I think she wouldn't to able to hear the end of my devoted speech over the racket of her own laughter.)

This leads me to believe that we have a culture clash on our hands, where flowery reverence to the physically dead saints became enshrined in tradition, while flowery reverence for the physically living saints went out of style with hats.

Thoughts?

 

[Cappadocious]

Yes, Jesus didn't glorify Himself. He was too busy pointing out the Father, the Father, the Father. Those He lifted up, he lifted because they did the will of the Father.

Yes.

Mary was no exception to that (clearly), so the question is: in light of this passage, should we revere the saints (here and elsewhere) less than Mary?

The Lord is glorious in his saints.

So the question isn't "which saint person deserves the most honor", but "what acts of God deserve attention and honor and reverence? What is his mighty act?"

Mary is called 'Theotokos' in my Church. Theotokos doesn't mean, "better than the women you know". Theotokos means "God-bearer", because she bore the Word of God in the flesh. An icon of the Theotokos and her Child is an icon of the incarnation, which defends the truth and reality of the Incarnation of the Word of God.

"My soul doth magnify the Lord.
And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.
Because he hath regarded the poverty of his slave;
For behold from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.
Because he that is mighty,
Hath done great things to me;
And holy is his name."

So to honor Mary is to honor that great mighty act done in her.

As for the reason why she is seen as such a great intercessor, there are plenty of reasons people will give like being the living container of the Word, the place of the mother in Davidic kingship, Christ's honoring of her at the Wedding of Cana, that sort of thing.


But I think it is really something quite human (and that is not a dirty word in my Church), that Christ having a mother and being close to her in all the human ways, speaks to us deeply as human beings. She is sort of the "firstfruits of the true mothers" Christ spoke of, in that sense, along with St. Elizabeth.

 

[SolomonVII]

Those passages seem to be telling us that there is nothing at all unique or special about the genetics of Jesus. Good is as good does, and holiness is not a matter of bloodline but of behaviour.

Milk is neither sinful, nor sinless. It is just milk, nurturance for the health and welfare of the body. Wombs are neither blessed nor cursed, neither pure and stainless, nor dirty. They are just wombs.

The goodness of a person is not defined by her milk or her womb, but by her behaviour.
Reverence for Mary on account of her goodness is merited, for her behaviour was indeed pure and worthy of emulation.
But ought we revere her womb as the literal ark of the covenant, holding the Word of God. Should we revere her breasts because they alone contain the food fit for God himself to eat?

No!!
Not according to Scripture any way.

There is nothing in the reverence shown to Mary that needs to be rejected. It is not Mary, but the Mariology, that focuses upon her stainless, ever pure, ever virginal womb that ends up contradicting the meaning of this scripture. Ever-Virgin Mary does not focus on the goodness and stainlessness of her behaviour, but on the stainlessness of her womb instead.

That has nothing to do with the message that Jesus left us with. "Rather, blessed are those who do the will of God".

Mary did the will of God. It is her behavior that merits emulation, and not her womb.

 

[Cappadocious]

Mary did the will of God. It is her behavior that merits emulation, and not her womb.

You divide where there is no need for division; you reduce where there is no need for reduction.

Mary's womb is holy by virtue of the behavior, for she submitted to God's will in choosing to make it an abode for the almighty.

Those passages seem to be telling us that there is nothing at all unique or special about the genetics of Jesus.

Except for the fact that the writers of the Gospels were extremely concerned about his heritage according to the flesh.

A better understanding would be, "who is really Israel?" "who is really clean?" "who is really a Jew"? Those are the sorts of questions one ought to read the passages in the light of.

You also didn't heed OP's request.

 

[squint]

Those passages seem to be telling us that there is nothing at all unique or special about the genetics of Jesus. Good is as good does, and holiness is not a matter of bloodline but of behaviour.

Ya think? Brilliant.

I could go into the notions that Mary 'had to be sinless' or somehow her 'genetics' were magically altered and differentiated from EVERYONE ELSE WHO HAD EVER LIVED by her 'freewill efforts in faith' and how that is utter nonsense, but whatever.

Some people are just compelled to want to bow down to strange things for some odd reason.

s

 

[seeingeyes]

I have a couple of thoughts about what you wrote.

First the passages you alluded to.

• Mary was and is one of those who hear the word of God and keep it.
• Mary was and is among those who do the will of God.

On the language used in the Salve Regina

• You are right, it is effusive.
• It is also Latin and reflects southern European cultural norms of many centuries ago.

Modern English speaking culture is not given to emotive expressions either in writing or in actions. English speakers are disinclined to embrace never mind kiss. And that, I think, goes a long way towards explaining why you don't do what the Salve Regina says.

What we end up with, then, is people making effusive prayers and declarations to statues and pictures of the saints and Mary ...and then turning around and giving Old Joe a handshake and a "Good morning".

Contrast this with non-'Apostolic' (more specifically non-liturgical) churches in which effusive language is used only in prayers and songs to God (there being no tradition-of-effusiveness other than the effusiveness in Scripture), and then they turn to Old Joe with a handshake and a "Good Morning".

You might see how a person from the latter church would look at a person from the former church and claim "You worship idols!" Even if they do not.

The 'holy fist bump' really would clear this right up.

 

[Albion]

What we end up with, then, is people making effusive prayers and declarations to statues and pictures of the saints and Mary ...and then turning around and giving Old Joe a handshake and a "Good morning".

Contrast this with non-'Apostolic' (more specifically non-liturgical) churches in which effusive language is used only in prayers and songs to God (there being no tradition-of-effusiveness other than the effusiveness in Scripture), and then they turn to Old Joe with a handshake and a "Good Morning".

You might see how a person from the latter church would look at a person from the former church and claim "You worship idols!" Even if they do not.

The 'holy fist bump' really would clear this right up.

Not that I want to oppose your point there, but the liturgy itself has very little to do with Mariolatry, etc. This is an issue that mainly concerns private devotions...and that isn't necessarily helpful since individuals get easily carried away with private prayer and opinion, bringing in lots of popular myths and folk religion, etc.

That raises an additional issue, which is what the church itself does or doesn't do to keep the reins on this. It is not to the credit of the priests that they either turn a blind eye or encourage it in the belief that it's harmless.

 

[seeingeyes]

Not that I want to oppose your point there, but the liturgy itself has very little to do with Mariolatry, etc. This is an issue that mainly concerns private devotions...and that isn't necessarily helpful since individuals get easily carried away with private prayer and opinion, bringing in lots of popular myths and folk religion, etc.

That raises an additional issue, which is what the church itself does or doesn't do to keep the reins on this. It is not to the credit of the priests that they either turn a blind eye or encourage it in the belief that it's harmless.

Oh, I mentioned non-liturgical churches specifically because 'floweriness' or 'poetry' is more prevalent in liturgical than in non-liturgical churches. It was is reference to culture, not doctrine. I should have clarified that. Thank you.

If the 'Apostolic' churches raised the bar on how the laity treats each other, that would solve the issue, no?

 

[SolomonVII]

......

You also didn't heed OP's request.

I can tell by the resultant flailing when I really strike a nerve with some people.
But this is really an unfair accusation against me.

This is not a denominational subforum where we are expected to deliver our holy kisses not just to the cheeks of Mary, but rather to the nether cheeks of EO or RCC doctrine.

It is not about Holy Breasts and Holy Wombs and Holy Bloodlines because I divide and reduce. It is not about divine breasts and wombs and bloodlines because Messiah Jesus said, "rather" it is about behaviour, about becoming directed by the Holy Spirit to perform the works that His Holy Father wills us to do.

The word "Rather" divides the wheat from the chafe here. It redirects the woman to consider how she too is the of the family of God, regardless of whether she is a descendant of David, regardless of whether or not she is a Jewess even. Outside of their role in prophecy foretelling the mode through which the Messiah will be delivered to us, our genetics and bloodlines simply do not define who we are.

Good is as good does. The Holy Scripture that the OP requested we share our thoughts on could not be more specific on that point.

 

[Albion]

Oh, I mentioned non-liturgical churches specifically because 'floweriness' or 'poetry' is more prevalent in liturgical than in non-liturgical churches. It was is reference to culture, not doctrine. I should have clarified that. Thank you.

All right. I didn't pick that up from your comments, it's true.

If the 'Apostolic' churches raised the bar on how the laity treats each other, that would solve the issue, no?

You'd have to explain that point to me a little bit further before I'd venture to answer. I don't see, at present, how excessive devotion towards the dead either promotes or discourages relationships with other members of the congregation.

 

[seeingeyes]

You'd have to explain that point to me a little bit further before I'd venture to answer. I don't see, at present, how excessive devotion towards the dead either promotes or discourages relationships with other members of the congregation.

If 'excessive devotion' were shown to the living, then the devotion shown to the dead would no longer be 'excessive'. It would just be devotion all around.

 

[SolomonVII]

If 'excessive devotion' were shown to the living, then the devotion shown to the dead would no longer be 'excessive'. It would just be devotion all around.

That doesn't really answer what Albion was asking you at all, but actually only twists the order around.

 

[seeingeyes]

That doesn't really answer what Albion was asking you at all, but actually only twists the order around.

No, you're right. But that's the idea that I'm trying to explore in this thread.

If the kind of devotion that is shown to the saints and to Mary were shown to the saints eating mac-n-cheese at the pot luck, would this even be an issue?

That's what I'm asking.

 

[SolomonVII]

No, you're right. But that's the idea that I'm trying to explore in this thread.

If the kind of devotion that is shown to the saints and to Mary were shown to the saints eating mac-n-cheese at the pot luck, would this even be an issue?

That's what I'm asking.

It is not an issue to me either way. My thoughts are more directed to what Jesus actually said in the verses included in the OP

I think that many Christians do go out of their way to show love to each other, and the fact that they do this is entirely unrelated to whether or not they have statues or liturgies on Mary.

I think that what keeping alive the memory of saints does do is keep alive the history of the church. Saints are examples of Christians that have come before and who have opened themselves up to God and allowed him to do great things through them. They serves as our examples of what being a Christian is all about, and they show us that the history of the church is something to celebrate too.

Praying to the saints, and showing devotion to them is more about getting them to intercede to God for you and your concerns. That in itself would not directly relate to you being more loving and devoted to others who are on your doorsteps right now. It is a purely spiritual exercise. There is none of the direct face to face, skin to skin contact that defines our relationship with people that we are personally intimate with.

The two behaviors don't seem to me to be related very much at all.

 

[Albion]

If 'excessive devotion' were shown to the living, then the devotion shown to the dead would no longer be 'excessive'. It would just be devotion all around.

Yes, that is what I thought you meant, but I guess I just don't see it that way. There's plenty of room to do both, from what I can tell, so it's not necessarily an either-or thing.

However, it does matter what the religious devotions ARE, and I can't appreciate the attitude taken by some people that if respect for past believers now passed on to their eternal reward is good, that fact means ANYTHING you do in the name of veneration or showing regard is just fine and dandy.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Something About Mary

Let me preface this by saying this is not an anti-Catholic thread. If you would like to tell Catholics, EO, or others what they believe, there are plenty of other threads for you to get closed down. Go there.

I'm posting this because I have not seen it addressed anywhere else, and I'm looking for some insight.

Let's hope not




.

 

[seeingeyes]

It is not an issue to me either way. My thoughts are more directed to what Jesus actually said in the verses included in the OP

I think that many Christians do go out of their way to show love to each other, and the fact that they do this is entirely unrelated to whether or not they have statues or liturgies on Mary.

I think that what keeping alive the memory of saints does do is keep alive the history of the church. Saints are examples of Christians that have come before and who have opened themselves up to God and allowed him to do great things through them. They serves as our examples of what being a Christian is all about, and they show us that the history of the church is something to celebrate too.

Praying to the saints, and showing devotion to them is more about getting them to intercede to God for you and your concerns. That in itself would not directly relate to you being more loving and devoted to others who are on your doorsteps right now. It is a purely spiritual exercise. There is none of the direct face to face, skin to skin contact that defines our relationship with people that we are personally intimate with.

The two behaviors don't seem to me to be related very much at all.

Well, what I have been told is that asking the saints there for intercession is analogous to asking saints here for intercession (i.e. "pray for me, brother"). Interceding for each other with our prayers is certainly Scriptural. What might be problematic is the idea that saints there should be more readily asked for intercession then saints here.

Such a discontinuity leads to what Albion was talking about whereby icons turn into magic genies with special powers all their own.

Churches might mitigate this tendency by insisting on the equality of saints past and present (for example).

 

[seeingeyes]

Something About Mary
Let's hope not




.

We seem to be doing alright. Don't start any trouble now!

 

[simonthezealot]

This belongs in the Mariology forum.

 

[Cappadocious]

This is not a denominational subforum where we are expected to deliver our holy kisses not just to the cheeks of Mary, but rather to the nether cheeks of EO or RCC doctrine.

You're telling us what we believe, though.

It is not about Holy Breasts and Holy Wombs and Holy Bloodlines because I divide and reduce.

It was important to the Gospel writers; not for the purpose of saying that we require a bloodline, but to demonstrate human continuity.

it is about behaviour, about becoming directed by the Holy Spirit to perform the works that His Holy Father wills us to do.

Does this ontologically change a human being, or are they just given a different external label?

Outside of their role in prophecy foretelling the mode through which the Messiah will be delivered to us, our genetics and bloodlines simply do not define who we are.

They are part of what defines who we are.

The Gospel is that they don't have to now.