The snare of devotion to Mary.

[justinangel]

That would be true if there was no evidence for black swans or any indication of them. instead, what we have are three independent writers of the Gospels who, in five explicit passages, state that Jesus had a mother - and brothers - and sisters - and even go so far as to name the brothers.

Explicit? You're aren't reading the Scriptures through Semitic lenses. As for Jesus' brothers, James, Judas (Jude/Thaddeus), and Simon were three of the Twelve. You'll find their names recorded in the lists of the Apostles in the Synoptic Gospels and in the Book of Acts. Their names are listed together in sequence, from eldest to youngest in two of the Gospels, since they are brothers, or closely related as may be the case with Simon (Simeon) who appears not to have come from Nazareth.

These are the twelve he appointed: Simon (to whom he gave the name Peter), James son of Zebedee and his brother John (to them he gave the name Boanerges, which means “sons of thunder”), Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James son of Alphaeus, Thaddaeus, Simon the Zealot and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him.
Mark 3, 16-19

Where did this man get these things?” they asked. “What’s this wisdom that has been given him? What are these remarkable miracles he is performing? Isn’t this the carpenter? Isn’t this Mary’s son and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas and Simon? Aren’t his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him.
Mark 6, 2-3

Do you honestly think that Jesus had uterine brothers who not only had the same names, but also ranked in age from eldest to youngest in exactly the same sequence as with the three apostles? I'm afraid that it's more explicitly clear that the brothers Mark refers to in Chapter 6 were cousins and extended male relatives of Jesus rather than his siblings.

PAX

 

[Albion]

Not necessarily. We are discussing a topic which divides Christians based upon the authority they trust for truth. Some of us trust the Bible and believe that, at worst, it states nothing concerning the marital relations of Joseph and Mary and, at best, it convincingly states that they had other children after the birth of Jesus Christ. Others of us trust their denominational leadership rather than the Bible or, at best, place the Bible within that leadership structure and refuse to recognize any possible contradictions.

Nice summary.

 

[patricius79]

The difficulty, of course, is that nobody has the slightest idea what was actually in any oral tradition because, being oral, it was never written or recorded for posterity. Hence, we have multiple different Traditional Churches with just as many Oral Traditions. If you can produce any written record of any of these Oral Traditions dating from the lifetime of the Apostles then you would be guilty of inventing an oxymoron - a written oral tradition.

Where does the Bible say that? And how do you follow the Scripture which says, "hold fast to what was handed on either orally or in writing" (2 Thes 2:15, 2 Jn 12, Acts 8:14)?

I don't think that the Catholic Church's oral traditions about the glories of Mary to be any harder to discern than the meaning of Scripture, the Canon of which is an oral tradition.

Do you?

 

[bbbbbbb]

or why she reacted so oddly when the Angel told her she would have a son
"how can it be when I have not known a man?"

most engaged young women would be expecting to have a child eventually

If I was a virgin, I would react "oddly" if I was told that I was pregnant. It seems to me to be a quite reasonable response.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Where does the Bible say that? And how do you follow the Scripture which says, "hold fast to what was handed on either orally or in writing" (2 Thes 2:15, 2 Jn 12, Acts 8:14)?

I don't think that the Catholic Church's oral traditions about the glories of Mary to be any harder to discern than the meaning of Scripture, the Canon of which is an oral tradition.

Do you?

The canon is very much a written item. It can hardly be said to be an oral tradition given the fact that the books of the Bible were written at least a millenium before the birth of Jesus Christ.

The difficulty which you apparently fail to discern is that there are multiple claims to an oral tradition by multiple denominations including your own. Who can rightly determine which, if any, oral tradition, is true when, in fact, it is one denomination's word against another's?

 

[patricius79]

The canon is very much a written item. It can hardly be said to be an oral tradition given the fact that the books of the Bible were written at least a millenium before the birth of Jesus Christ.

The difficulty which you apparently fail to discern is that there are multiple claims to an oral tradition by multiple denominations including your own. Who can rightly determine which, if any, oral tradition, is true when, in fact, it is one denomination's word against another's?

By the same light which reveals the meaning of the Scriptures, which say to "hold fast to the oral traditions, just as they were handed on, whether orally or by letter" (2 Thes 2:15).

How do you follow this Scripture if you hold to the oral tradition that oral tradition is not reliable?

I think Protestantism goes well beyond Scripture in its arguments against devotions to Mary.

Protestantism has as many oral traditions, which are insisted on, as Catholics do. But they certainly don't have as much historical evidence behind them, nor the testimony of God.

As to the Canon, it is not in Scripture, so its an oral tradition, right along with the teachings of the Word that Mary is the New Eve and the Mother of God, and the Immaculate Conception.

 

[bbbbbbb]

By the same light which reveals the meaning of the Scriptures, which say to "hold fast to the oral traditions, just as they were handed on, whether orally or by letter" (2 Thes 2:15).

How do you follow this Scripture if you hold to the oral tradition that oral tradition is not reliable?

I think Protestantism goes well beyond Scripture in its arguments against devotions to Mary.

Protestantism has as many oral traditions, which are insisted on, as Catholics do. But they certainly don't have as much historical evidence behind them, nor the testimony of God.

As to the Canon, it is not in Scripture, so its an oral tradition, right along with the teachings of the Word that Mary is the New Eve and the Mother of God, and the Immaculate Conception.

How does one even know what the oral tradition is when you have various denominations claiming to follow the Oral Tradition of the Apostles, yet none of them agree with the others concerning what it actually contains?

I am unaware of any Protestant denomination that defines its oral traditions in the same manner as the Oral Tradition of the Traditional Churches, are you? IOW, none maintains the concept of a unified Tradition which incorporates a canon of written scripture and and Oral Tradition, both equal in value to each other.

I find it odd that one can think that God has given His testimony to something which has no substantive existence aside from various individuals claiming it to have been passed along to them by word of mouth.

Your canon of scripture ceased to be an oral tradition when it was set in stone at the Council of Trent.

 

[patricius79]

How does one even know what the oral tradition is when you have various denominations claiming to follow the Oral Tradition of the Apostles, yet none of them agree with the others concerning what it actually contains?

I am unaware of any Protestant denomination that defines its oral traditions in the same manner as the Oral Tradition of the Traditional Churches, are you? IOW, none maintains the concept of a unified Tradition which incorporates a canon of written scripture and and Oral Tradition, both equal in value to each other.

I find it odd that one can think that God has given His testimony to something which has no substantive existence aside from various individuals claiming it to have been passed along to them by word of mouth.

Your canon of scripture ceased to be an oral tradition when it was set in stone at the Council of Trent.

The Bible says to "hold fast to what was handed on either orally or by letter" (2 Thes 2:15). So do you follow this Scripture, or not? And if so, how do you know that the Protestant oral traditions are the true ones?

Or how do you know that your interpretation of Scripture is correct when there are so many disagreements about the meaning of Scripture?

The true oral tradition says that Mary is the New Eve, Ever-Virgin, the Immaculate Conception, and the Ark of the Covenant.

As to Protestantism, it is true that they don't acknowledge how they are based on oral traditions, which shows that they don't accept 2 Thes 2:15, which suggests that maybe Catholics are right.

As to the Canon: again, it's not in Scripture. It's part of the Catholic Tradition, which also says that Mary is all the things I've said.

If you claim that something ceases to be an oral tradition once it is written down, then are you claiming that something ceases to be a Scripture, once it is preached orally?

 

[bbbbbbb]

The Bible says to "hold fast to what was handed on either orally or by letter" (2 Thes 2:15). So do you follow this Scripture, or not? And if so, how do you know that the Protestant oral traditions are the true ones?

Or how do you know that your interpretation of Scripture is correct when there are so many disagreements about the meaning of Scripture?

The true oral tradition says that Mary is the New Eve, Ever-Virgin, the Immaculate Conception, and the Ark of the Covenant.

As to Protestantism, it is true that they don't acknowledge how they are based on oral traditions, which shows that they don't accept 2 Thes 2:15, which suggests that maybe Catholics are right.

As to the Canon: again, it's not in Scripture. It's part of the Catholic Tradition, which also says that Mary is all the things I've said.

If you claim that something ceases to be an oral tradition once it is written down, then are you claiming that something ceases to be a Scripture, once it is preached orally?

And how do you know that "The true oral tradition says that Mary is the New Eve, Ever-Virgin, the Immaculate Conception, and the Ark of the Covenant."? Is it because someone told you so and you decided to trust them or is it because God told you so? I suspect that it is the former and that someone was a cleric in your denomination. Many similar denominations making identical claims concerning an oral tradition assuredly do not have that oral tradition.

 

[prodromos]

If I was a virgin, I would react "oddly" if I was told that I was pregnant. It seems to me to be a quite reasonable response.

She wasn't told she was pregnant (present tense) but that she would conceive (future tense), and a betrothed virgin would expect to conceive in the usual way. Her response indicates a very different expectation.

 

[Albion]

And how do you know that "The true oral tradition says that Mary is the New Eve, Ever-Virgin, the Immaculate Conception, and the Ark of the Covenant."? .

It's true that there are such legends. I can't imagine making dogma out of folklore, but that's the "proof"--

"Some people said, therefore...."



.

 

[patricius79]

And how do you know that "The true oral tradition says that Mary is the New Eve, Ever-Virgin, the Immaculate Conception, and the Ark of the Covenant."? Is it because someone told you so and you decided to trust them or is it because God told you so? I suspect that it is the former and that someone was a cleric in your denomination. Many similar denominations making identical claims concerning an oral tradition assuredly do not have that oral tradition.

Scripture says to "hold fast to the traditions, whether given orally or by letter". So how do you follow this Scripture?

And how do you know whose interpretation of Scripture correct, given so many denominations and differences in interpretation?

Or how do you know that Scripture alone is the rule of faith, or that God cannot preserve oral tradition, when the Bible says neither of these things?

The Word of God is that Mary is the New Eve, Ever-Virgin, the Immaculate Conception, and the Ark of the Covenant.

I know this by the same light which reveals that I should follow 2 Thes 2:15.

 

[patricius79]

It's true that there are such legends. I can't imagine making dogma out of folklore, but that's the "proof"--

"Some people said, therefore...."



.

Some people said it is a legend. Why do you believe this oral tradition?

Or how do you follow the Scripture which says, "hold fast to the oral traditions" (2 Thes 2:15)?

I follow it by accepting the Word of God that Mary is the Mediatrix of all Graces

 

[bbbbbbb]

Some people said it is a legend. Why do you believe this oral tradition?

Or how do you follow the Scripture which says, "hold fast to the oral traditions" (2 Thes 2:15)?

I follow it by accepting the Word of God that Mary is the Mediatrix of all Graces

No, it is the belief of your denomination that Mary is the Mediatrix of all Graces. It is assuredly not the Word of God. If I were you I would refrain from putting words into God's mouth.

 

[patricius79]

No, it is the belief of your denomination that Mary is the Mediatrix of all Graces. It is assuredly not the Word of God. .

The Bible doesn't say what you say here, does it?

Again, how do you follow the Word of God, which says "hold fast what was handed on orally OR in writing" (2 THes 2:15)?

My way is to accept the oral word of God about Mary.

 

[bbbbbbb]

The Bible doesn't say what you say here, does it?

Again, how do you follow the Word of God, which says "hold fast what was handed on orally OR in writing" (2 THes 2:15)?

My way is to accept the oral word of God about Mary.

How do you know that what your denomination says is the oral word of God is the very same thing that Paul was talking about? How do you know that the oral word of God in other denominations is not the actual oral word of God?

 

[patricius79]

How do you know that what your denomination says is the oral word of God is the very same thing that Paul was talking about? How do you know that the oral word of God in other denominations is not the actual oral word of God?

The same way I know the N.T. Canon and the meaning of Scripture is how I know that Mary is the Mediatrix of all Graces

 

[justinangel]

If I was a virgin, I would react "oddly" if I was told that I was pregnant. It seems to me to be a quite reasonable response.

The angel Gabriel did not tell Mary that she had conceived and will bear a son, but that she will conceive and bear a son. And he did not specify when. So Mary wasn't surprised because she was told that she was pregnant.

"And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name Him Jesus."
Luke 1, 31

Moreover, concerning Luke 1:34, the original Greek reading translated into English is: "How shall/can this be, seeing/because I know not (a) man?" ['I am not acquainted with a man.']

And Mary said to the angel: How shall this be done, because I know not man?
[DRB] (Catholic)

Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?
[KJV] (Protestant)

This unadulterated reading exegetically supports both Catholic and early Protestant belief in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary and confirms the sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church since earliest time. Mariologist Father Rene Laurentine states that "we must recognize the present tense as having to do with a condition rather than an instant of time. (The angel does not tell Mary that she has conceived or shall during her betrothal.) If someone to whom a cigarette is offered replies, 'I don't smoke, ' he is understood to mean 'I never smoke' and 'I'm not smoking now'." And, if I may add, he is understood to imply 'I have no intention of starting to smoke now or at any time in the future'. In other words, he is asserting that he is a 'non-smoker' just as Mary asserts that she is a virgin. She was surprised because she had no intention of having sexual relations with her husband Joseph after the betrothal period should come to an end. And so Mary asked the angel how it was possible for her to conceive a child if she were a virgin. 'The angel answered and said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy child shall be called the Son of God."' (Lk 1:35). Keep in mind that Mary was a Jew who expected the Messiah to be of human paternal lineage.

There are several Protestant versions of the NT that misinterpret what Mary tells the angel Gabriel which reflect the modern religious persuasion of many. The RSV, YLT, and the CEV suggest that Mary is telling the angel that she couldn't possibly have had any marital relations with Joseph until then, since their betrothal hadn't yet come to an end. But this interpretation makes no sense, since the angel doesn't tell Mary that she has conceived by this time. Nor does he even remotely imply that she will conceive the child before Joseph takes her into his home.

And Mary said to the angel, “How shall this be, since I have no husband?”
[RSV]

And Mary said unto the messenger, `How shall this be, seeing a husband I do not know?'
[YLT]

Mary asked the angel, “How can this happen? I am not married!”
[CEV]

In other Protestant versions we have a transition from the simple present to the perfect tense which radically alters the meaning of the original text and consequently favours the modern Protestant persuasion. The CEB,GWT, and HCSB suggest that Mary is telling the angel that she hasn't had any sexual relations at all by then; she is presently or "still" a virgin, implying that it doesn't necessarily mean that her condition will never change (ERV).This version reflects the modern Protestant argument against the PVM. Perhaps a couple of people I've debated with referred to this copy when they charged me with contending against the "Word of God." Sorry, but the angel does not say 'You have conceived and shall bear a son.' Nor does Mary ask 'How has this happened?'

Then Mary said to the angel, “How will this happen since I haven’t had sexual relations with a man?”
[CEB]

Mary asked the angel, “How can this be? I’ve never had sexual intercourse.”
[GWT]

Mary asked the angel, “How can this be, since I have not been intimate with a man?”
[HCSB]

Mary said to the angel, “How will this happen? I am still a virgin.”
[ERV]

The original Greek text proceeds from the sacred Tradition of the Church. I'm afraid that unless Scripture is interpreted in light of the Apostolic Tradition of the Church, the written word of God becomes fallible as a medium of divine revelation, since it now proceeds solely from human preconceptions. These particular Protestant versions I have cited proceed from "traditions of men" and are based on private judgment. Thus they are erroneous. What we have is not the word of God - but the word of man and a mistranslation of God's word.

PAX

 

[patricius79]

Nice summary.

Why is it a nice summary?

The early Church taught that the Woman who conceived our God and Savior is the Mediatrix of all Graces.

That is the teaching of the Church today also.

 

[justinangel]

No, it is the belief of your denomination that Mary is the Mediatrix of all Graces. It is assuredly not the Word of God. If I were you I would refrain from putting words into God's mouth.

There were no denominations, but only the Catholic Church in the early centuries which professed belief in Mary's mediatory role even before the Church ruled on the canon of Scripture. Sacred Tradition is the unwritten word of God (cf. Jn. 16:12-13).

Our salvation was accomplished by Jesus Christ our Lord. His passion and death were more than sufficient to make satisfaction for the sins of the world and ransom souls from the debt of sin and death. But in His wisdom and mercy, God willed that the Son's work of salvation be accomplished through the collaboration of a woman, while always honouring her free will (cf. Gal 4:4). God initially revealed His plan of redemption as one of collaboration between the Divine and the woman of promise when He said to the serpent: "I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed: she shall crush your head ..." (cf. Gen 3:15). This verse prophetically foreshadows Mary with her divine Son in the promise of victory over the serpent and what it had wrought. This first Messianic prophecy reveals God's intention that the woman share in the same enmity (total opposition) between herself and the serpent as does her offspring, our Lord and Saviour. This great battle and victory over the serpent foreshadows the divine work of salvation by the Son with his mother's intimate collaboration with him in his saving work. The theme of the free woman of promise which finds fulfilment in Mary as God's collaborator in His plan of redemption recurs in Scripture from Genesis to Revelation. The collaboration or cooperation between the divine Son and the Mother does not exist on an equal level, since Mary is only human. Her participation in her Son's work of salvation is secondary and subordinate. Her association takes nothing away from her Son's glory, for the Father does not will that human beings be completely passive in attaining their salvation. God wills to give His children a share in His attributes and works in order to be saved. It is in his humanity that Jesus acts as the one Mediator between God and humankind; and since our Lord has taken his flesh and blood from his mother to share in our humanity, Mary can act as our Mediatrix as a participant with him in the dispensation of grace which Christ alone has merited for us through the Incarnation. Mary claimed the maternal right of association when she freely consented to be the mother of our Lord. Without this consent, the Source of all grace would not have come into the world. Mary has acted as our Mediatrix from the moment she first pronounced her fiat to the angel Gabriel (cf. Lk 1:38).

Then Uzziah said to her, “O daughter, you are blessed by the Most High God above all other women on earth; and blessed be the Lord God, who created the heavens and the earth, who has guided you to cut off the head of the leader of our enemies. Your praise will never depart from the hearts of those who remember the power of God. May God grant this to be a perpetual honor to you, and may he reward you with blessings, because you risked your own life when our nation was brought low, and you averted our ruin, walking in the straight path before our God.” And all the people said, “Amen. Amen.”
Judith 13, 18-20

And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit and exclaimed with a loud cry, “Most blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb. And why has this happened to me, that the mother of my Lord comes to me? For as soon as I heard the sound of your greeting, the child in my womb leaped for joy. And blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfillment of what was spoken to her by the Lord.”
Luke 1, 41-45

Mary's co-redemptive role with her Son in his redemptive work emerged as an important theme in the early Church starting with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus in the 2nd century. They used the image of Jesus being the new Adam and Mary as the new Eve. The life of grace that the first Adam and the first Eve had jointly lost for humankind was jointly regained by the second Adam and the second Eve. The virgin Eve, by her disobedience to God the Father, morally cooperated with Adam in the sin that forfeited the life of grace for the human family (cf. Gen 3:6); the Virgin Mary, on the other hand, in her obedience to the will of the Father, morally cooperated with her divine Son - the new Adam - in his humanity in the salvation of humankind (cf. Lk 1:38). Mary's unequalled participation in the world's redemption and reconciliation with God as the new Eve and helpmate of the new Adam was a universal belief of the one Apostolic Catholic Church from the beginning. By the 4th century, the Church Fathers showed a more profound and articulated understanding of Mary's mediatory role in the economy of salvation. This is centuries long before the so-called reformers put the terms 'sola fide' and 'sola-Christo'- into God's mouth while establishing their own churches.

"With the Mediator, you are the Mediatrix of the entire world."
Ephraem, Syri opera graeca et latin, v. 3 [A.D. 373]

Jesus is the one (heis) mediator between God and the human race in uniqueness (cf. 1 Tim 2:5-6). But he is not the one and only (monos) mediator (cf. 1 Tim 2:1-4). All baptized Christians are called to actively participate in the one mediation of Christ by their prayers and sacrifices for others as 'stewards of grace'. Mary, however, was called to participate in her Son's mediation in a unique and highly privileged way like no other human being in salvation history. Whereas we may mediate Christ to others in an evangelical way, Mary did much more by having been placed between the Divine Word and the entire human race when the angel appeared to her. Her consent invited the Saviour into the world helping make our participation in Christ's mediation possible. Christ took his human nature from Mary because she had already conceived him in her heart, so Augustine believed. Mary's participation in her Son's mediation was of universal proportion. Thus the title Mediatrix of all Grace befits her. By having become the "God-bearer" (Theotokos) she thereby mediates the author of all grace, Jesus Christ. It is through the Incarnation that our Lord has merited all the graces necessary for our salvation. But without faith working through love (cf. Gal 5:6), the application of divine grace is void. Scripture confirms the vital significance of Mary's cooperation with God's grace for the spiritual benefit of humankind in the words of Elizabeth: "Blessed are you who believed that what was spoken to you by the Lord would be fulfilled" (Lk 1:45).

"Mediatrix of all graces" is also a fitting title for Mary in light of Luke 1:41, where the physical presence of Mary (the sound of her greeting) mediates grace to the unborn John the Baptist, by bringing to John the presence of the unborn Saviour, resulting in the sanctification of the Baptist. At the Wedding of Cana (cf. John 2:1-11), we again see Mary's mediation, and, most significantly, we see the effects of her mediation: "This, the first of his signs, Jesus did at Cana in Galilee, and manifested his glory; and his disciples believed in him" (John 2:11). It was through his mother's mediation that Jesus chose to begin his public ministry in the shadow of the cross. And as our Lord was dying on the cross, he gives to his mother the new role of Mother of all Christians: "Woman, behold, your son!...Behold, your mother!" (John 19:26) Jesus calls his mother woman in light of the first Messianic prophecy: "I shall put enmity between you and the woman ... She shall crush your head..." (cf. Gen 3:15) At the Lord's command the Woman of Promise becomes the mother of all the spiritually living - the new Eve and universal mother of all peoples who is called to exercise her supernatural responsibilities as our spiritual Mother. In effect Mary has the task of nourishing her children, and she does this by mediating the graces of the Redemption her divine Son has merited for humankind. Hence, she is "Mediatrix of all Graces" by her singular maternal right.


And coming to her the angel said: "Hail, full of grace. The Lord is with you."
Luke 1, 28

PAX