Ads


Visions of Mary

I am not sure what my own first vision of Mary was, but from an early age I was aware of two images: one a literal picture, the other an imagined scene; and both remain with me half a century later.

The picture was a gilded reproduction of an icon, the original of which is displayed in Rome in the Church of Saint Alfonsus Liguiri, not far from the central railway station Termini. The image is known as that of ‘Our Lady of Perpetual Help,’ or more traditionally of ‘Perpetual Succour.’ Byzantine in style, it was brought to Rome more than 500 years ago.

Legend has it that the painting was stolen from a Church in Crete by a merchant who sailed home with it, then to be caught in a storm from which all aboard were only saved by invoking the intercession of Mary. Once in Rome the icon passed through several other less than wholly devout hands, but in due course it became an object of veneration, and it remains such today.

The image shows the Virgin Mary wrapped in a blue mantle whose folds are highlighted in gilt. Gathered in her left arm is the child Jesus who is looking over his shoulder to the golden sky where an angel hovers carrying a cross and nails. The figures are classically and stably posed, but the trauma of the crucifixion is anticipated, not least by the hand of Mary pointing to Jesus as if to say ‘this child is your savior and his sacrifice will be for your sake.’

The theology of redemption was no part of my childish appreciation of the reproduction that hung in the hallway. To me this was simply Mary Queen of Heaven from whom we sought intercession. That identity was confirmed in the second vision, this time the work of my own imagination. Every Friday evening we gathered to say the prayer known as the Memorare, and as we did I conjured up images of us gathered before the figure of Mary whose arms reached down to embrace us.

This well-known invocation of the Virgin began as part of a longer prayer composed in the West around the same time that the Eastern icon arrived in Rome. By coincidence, or by design, it was the same Pope, Pius IX, who in the nineteenth century commended both veneration of the icon, and the saying of the prayer.

The Memorare reminds Mary that “never was it known that anyone who fled to thy protection, implored thy help or sought thy intercession was left unaided” and it ends by saying “in thy mercy hear and answer us.” I imagine that millions across the world have recalled and recited those words like childhood verses, finding hope and comfort in them, even as their lives collapsed, or as they sank beneath oceans of troubles. Such is the paradoxical power of faith: it provides hope against the threat of despair, and then offers consolation in the midst of it.

Further images of Mary have featured in my own life. As a child I used to travel from Scotland to holiday with cousins in London and Kent, and en route, and whenever in the area of Victoria, would call into Westminster Cathedral. The vastness of the Byzantine-inspired building is made unthreatening by the marble and mosaic decorations, and by the division of the right and left sides into a series of sanctuaries. Among the first of these to be decorated was the Lady Chapel.

It is a place unto itself, walled in misty marbles and vaulted in sparkling gold. Behind the altar is the blue-robed virgin holding the infant Jesus; and in the mosaics above, Mary stands to one side of the Tree of Life surrounded by the figures of saints known to have had special devotion to her.

The imagery of the Lady Chapel has entered as deeply into my consciousness as did the Marian images of early childhood. I came back often, first as an art student and then when studying philosophy; it was there that I was married, and it is to there that I continue to return whenever in London.

It must be said, however, that as well as being a source of artistic and spiritual inspiration, the prominence of Mary in Catholic consciousness has been the subject of theological denunciation and of psychological analysis.

Her unique elevation has been criticized from two opposing quarters: On the one hand by Biblical Protestants who view it as superstitious, idolatrous and entirely without scriptural foundation; and on the other by radical feminists who regard it is as part of the confinement of women, casting them in maternal and submissive roles.

It’s worth exploring, therefore, the origins and meaning of the Catholic devotion to Mary.

Along with the figure of Jesus, that of his mother has shaped Christian iconography from the earliest periods. The art, architecture, music and liturgy of the Greek-speaking Eastern Church and of the Latin-speaking Western one draw upon a series of identities of Mary: as the bodily bearer of Christ; as a commanding parent of Jesus, as his suffering mother, and as the glorified Queen of Heaven.

Out of these foundational visionary images have been composed various ‘Litanies of Mary’ which include the following titles for her:

Mother of Christ, Mother of our Creator, Mother of our Savior, Mother of the Church, Mother of divine grace, Mother most amiable, Mother most admirable, Mother of good counsel…

Mirror of justice, Seat of wisdom, Cause of our joy, Spiritual vessel, Vessel of honor, Mystical rose, Gate of heaven, Morning star, Refuge of sinners, Comforter of the afflicted, Help of Christians…

Queen of angels, Queen of apostles, Queen of all saints, Queen conceived without original sin, Queen assumed into heaven, Queen of families Queen of peace,
and so on aplenty.

Some of these titles are the work of poetic imagination; some the product of fiercely fought theological controversies; while others are both. In particular three visions of Mary have dominated spiritual, theological and artistic reflection and practice:

First, Mary as Bearer or Mother of God—along with which has gone the idea of the virgin birth and the belief that she herself was conceived without stain of original sin (the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception).

Second, Mary as escaping the corruption of death—expressed in the idea that at the end of her earthly life she was assumed ‘Body and soul’ into heaven (the Dogma of the Assumption and in the east that of the Dormition (Mary’s ‘falling asleep’).

Third, Mary as chief among all created beings—standing as a mediator between God and humanity; sometimes expressed in terms of her being Queen of Saints.

Considering the criticisms of those who hold that all of this is mediaeval invention and pagan nonsense, I must first admit that the gospels say little about her. Mary first appears when an angel tells her that she is to conceive the Son of God; then we have the events leading up to and following the birth of Jesus. Thereafter Mary features as an attentive mother, aware of her son's mission and of his miraculous powers.

Her next appearances are during the period of the passion, culminating in Jesus’ words from the cross committing her to the care of the disciple John: “Woman, here is your son…Behold, here is your mother.” Finally, in the Acts of the Apostles we are told that Mary was with them after the ascension of the resurrected Jesus, and that they were all filled with the Holy Spirit.

There certainly seems a vast gap between these few elements and the complex and ornate edifice of Catholic ‘Mariology.’ Yet the foundation of the early Christian communities was not a book, but a combination of narratives, beliefs, and practices.

To understand the veneration of Mary, therefore, we need to look beyond the covers of the Bible. Among other writings there are eastern texts attributed to early church figures such as Melito of Sardis and Cyril of Jerusalem.

No less important, though somewhat neglected, is the early tradition of visual representations of Mary, and of liturgies in which she is specially honoured.

In the crypt of the Church of Santa Engracia at Saragossa in Spain, there is a sarcophagus one side of which depicts Mary’s Assumption into Heaven. It shows perhaps twelve men, with a central female figure being drawn upwards by a hand stretched down to grasp her. The probable dating of the sarcophagus, which contained bones presumed to be those of local martyrs, is around 320, and the technique and material suggest that it was made in Rome.

Somewhat later in the Eastern Church, there are exquisite Byzantine portrayals of Mary’s life, leading to her ‘falling asleep’ when the figure of the Christ is shown gathering the soul of his departed mother, and cradling the small and faint reclining spectre, just as she had cradled him in his infancy.

Ancient writings, art and liturgies testify to the antiquity of Mary’s veneration and to the idea that she has a special role interceding on behalf of humanity. In the medieval and later periods these traditions were expressed in the prayers and musical settings that have come to be known by their opening salutations: Ave Maria, Salve Regina, Memorare, and so on.

So much for origins and traditions, what of meanings? The key to this flowering of Marian devotion beyond the canon of scripture perhaps lies somewhere deeper in the idea of the relationship of mother and child: first, physically intimate, then nurturing and protective, next instructive and authoritative, and finally reversing into dependency. The idea of an eternal, all-powerful deity stands remote from human experience, but the idea that God entered the world through Mary and was subject to her care and direction provides an intermediary through whom pleas and petitions may pass.

It is upon this solid ground that the Catholic doctrines of the Immaculate Conception and of the Assumption were built. These hold first, that Mary alone among human beings was conceived without the inherited wounds of original sin, deriving from the fall; and second that at the end of her earthly life she was taken body and soul into heaven.

Both are products of deductive theology which begins with Mary’s vital role in the scheme of salvation: reflecting on what is fitting so far as the earthly Mother of Christ is concerned, and concluding that since God has the power to achieve whatever is fitting so he would have protected Mary from the fact and effects of inherited sin, and acted to exempt her from the process of bodily decay.

Far more powerful and compelling than logic in the minds of the faithful, however, is the imagery of a mother issuing instructions and requests to her son; and of he in turn acting in love and devotion towards her. Reflecting on this natural bond of mutual concern and affection what is perhaps surprising is not that Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox have made much of Mary, but that there are some Christians who have managed to find no place for her at all. Perhaps it is in this exiling of Mary and not in Marianism that we see the influence of an exclusive masculinism, and perhaps a narrowly exclusivist and fearful adherence to scripture.

The visions of Mary as aid and interceder, images that I, and millions of others first encountered in childhood speak to the reality of the human condition in its dependency, vulnerability and need of protection. At the same time, however, by denying that Mary is anything more than human, the uniqueness of God and the exclusiveness of his power to create and to sustain is preserved. Theologically and aesthetically that has proven to be an enduring and inspiring combination of ideas and images, a thoughtful vision.

John Haldane is professor of philosophy at the University of St. Andrews and author of Faithful Reason (2006), Practical Philosophy (2009), and Reasonable Faith (2010). He was recently appointed chairman of the Royal Institute of Philosophy. His Philosophy Lives appeared in the January issue.

Comments:

12.31.2010 | 12:10pm
This is beautiful. I will send it to friends. One peripheral reflection: How odd that modern thought finds a connection between "maternal" and "submissive".
12.31.2010 | 3:39pm
But if Mary is the "Mother of God," then this carries the implication that she is 1) prior to, 2) creator of, and therefore, 3) greater than, God himself.

No doubt, a thoroughly patriarchial Judaism needed SOME material respite, to be sure. Still?
12.31.2010 | 5:07pm
kentuckyliz says:
That is not correct, Joe. That would be a heresy and apostolic Christians don't believe that. Council of Ephesus, Theotokos.

There's so much more on this subject, even in the Bible if you know where to look--but I don't have time to post on it at the moment. I'm headed out the door to church, for intercessary reparation for the sins of the world in 2010, and the Vigil Mass for the Solemnity of Mary, Mother of God.

Blessed is she! Kaire, kecharithomene!

I will just say, I grew up in the devastated vineyard (the 70s Catholic Church) which was a totally de-Marianized sterile warehouse of a place. Blechh. I was never taught anything about Mary. Only as an adult did I first witness anyone ever praying the Rosary (at my mother's wake) and I learned about her and developed a devotion. I'm kind of mad about being cheated from having this earlier in my life, from the generation before, who did have it, and exiled her from the experience of young post-conciliar Catholic children and youth. Robbed!
12.31.2010 | 5:45pm
This title of Mother of God or Theotokos was much disputed a long time ago (Council of Ephesus, 431 AD) and the matter was only resolved as a result of vigorous discussions about the nature of Jesus Christ. They came to the conclusion that Jesus was both God and man, being one person and two natures (divine and human). Now mothers are mothers of individual persons and not of natures. Mary was then seen as the mother, in time, of a person Jesus who was God from eternity. Then to call her 'mother of God' was not just poetry but has a great reality to it. However,no believer that I know of has ever claimed she gave origin to God or was prior to Him in any way.
12.31.2010 | 6:03pm
What utter Catholic nonesense. ..........."there is only one mediator between God and Man, that being Christ Jesus". Mary is no mediator.unless, of course, Catholic theologians believe the Bible wrong or somehow interpret the above passage some other way.......but how? Ahhhhh......Tradition............What utter tripe.
12.31.2010 | 6:34pm
John2 says:
@ kentuckyliz,

Just a suggestion -- be happy you got onto the Church's teaching about Mary. Many people never come to appreciate her true position in the faith. They miss something big.

BTW, you have just met Joe the Human in one of his favorite incarnations; I recall 6 of his names; he goes from one to the another at his own whim. While in this or that identity, he fills our pages with comic misinterpretations of the faith. Don't take him too seriously. He'll do it again, and soon.

Happy New Year, kentuckyliz.... and you, too, Joe.
12.31.2010 | 6:38pm
slag310 says:
If you are interested in the pagan origins of the Christian religion, you might want to take a look at http://pierce.yolasite.com/pagansaints which gives some information about that.

Slag310
12.31.2010 | 6:44pm
John2 says:
@ Hortence W.,
Thank you for:
"What utter Catholic nonesense." (typo)
Perhaps you are commenting in good faith, that is, from an erroneous understanding of Catholic teaching.

Then you supply us with the priceless:
"Catholic theologians believe the Bible wrong" and "Tradition............What utter tripe."

You have made unfortunate conclusions from whatever source. If I were as uncharitable as you (seem to be), I might propose that you are rather a bigot.

But I won't start the year with any such proposition. Happy New Year, Hortence.
12.31.2010 | 7:35pm
Eric Giunta says:
Hortence:

Don't be foolish. What does Paul have in mind when he says Christ Jesus is the sole mediator between God and men? In what respect is Christ's the sole mediatorship?
12.31.2010 | 8:26pm
John2 - As a former Catholic, I am well aware of where the bigotry lies.

By the way, you bait easily.

"Nonesense" is no typo......look up the word in an proper English dictionary (i.e. not Amercan English).
1.1.2011 | 2:02am
Bob says:
Hortence, based upon what you wrote you have no clue what the Catholic Church teaches. Another one who left the fold based upon false perceptions instead of reality.
1.1.2011 | 3:08am
Max says:
Thank you Prof. Haldane for a beautiful column on the Blessed Virgin. I will be sending it to many. I am a former evangelical convert to Catholicism and intially found the Marian doctrines difficult. I had the good fortune of being assigned to teach an RCIA class on the doctrines which forced me to dig into the history of Mary's role on Christian theology. I was blown away by the clear scriptural, theological, and typological foundations for the Church's teaching on Mary. Joe is a long time naysayer so I am sure he will not take the advice, but Hortence, I strongly encourage you to check out Scott Hahn's book "Hail, Holy Queen". And as for your dismissal of tradition and Church authority vice scripture, I commend the following passages to you: 2 Thess. 2:15 (which clearly shows that some early Christian tradition was passed on by other than written scripture) and also 1 Tim. 3:15 (which states that the Church, not scripture, is the "pillar and bulwark of truth." I would also highly recommend that you read Bruce Sullivan's book "Christ in His Fullness" (about his journey from the Church of Christ to the Catholic Church) for probably the best summary of the scriptural and historical/theological bases for the Catholic Church's claims about itself and its teachings. If more parishes used this book in the formation of their own laity, Catholics would have a much better appreciation for their own faith. Happy New Year to all.
1.1.2011 | 10:07am
To be sure, it is often said that the Catholic Church long ago stipulated in the fine print somewhere, that the term "theotokos," or bearer of God, or Mother of God, did not mean that Mary was superior to, or before, God. Yet 1) the term "Mother of God" therefore, was always misleading in itself; as it was presented to the people. While then too 2) it was all too syncretistically convenient for the Church, purposely or accidentally adapting itself too readily to local matriarchies and goddesses. In a way similar to the way if adopted local gods as "saints." While "syncretism" is warned about in today's Catechism.

Personally, 3) I see a need for some kind of sympathetic femalre figure in Christianity; though Jesus left his family standing outside, while he inisted that his real family were those who heard his word, and obeyed it. So that I feel strongly that 4) women should follow Jesus, far more than Mary.

Many find in fact that 5) those women who mold themselves to Mary, have so very little material to serve as their role model; Mary was known largely for her passivity, obedience. So that in practice, the 6) many millions of women, especially Irish Catholic women, who accept Mary - and not say, jesus - as a role model, may seem excessively passive, to many in our generation. 7) And even from a theological standpoint as well.

"Let it be done to me" to be sure, was one tiny part of what Jesus wants for us all. But on the other hand, now and then, Jesus stood up and spoke out; and said and did many, many other things, rather than encouraging extreme, monolythic passivity.

For 8) that reason, even the Church itself suggests that if we follow or seem to worship Mary, that is always in danger of distracting us from more direct identification with the real God after all: including Jesus, himself.

For these and other reasons, the reference to Mary in connection with "icons" or "images,"might carry with it a semiconscious, polysemic note of caution, regarding Marion Worship - or even any very strong identification with Mary, rather than Jesus. Even especially, for women.
1.1.2011 | 2:15pm
Rachel says:
The reality of Mary is key to understanding the two natures of Christ, and this from the beginnings of the Church.

Gnostic heresy denied that Christ had a human nature (seeing him as an aeon), and the recognition of Mary as his birth Mother was essential to grounding Jesus in his humanity.

Arianism, which denied Jesus his godliness was again refuted by the reality Mary, who conceived of Jesus while remaining a virgin before, during and after his birth. This is why Mary appears in the Creed.

In later controversies, whether Christ had a divine soul or a human soul was brought into question. That Christ had a human soul while being Logos, the Word, through whom all things were made, was again grounded in Mary, who gave birth to the whole person of Jesus, fully God and fully human in his person. Hence her title, Theotokos, incompletely translated into English as God-bearer. The Greek meaning is so much more complete.

Kenosis (Philipians 2: 5-11) plays a big part of this understanding of Mary.

In Luke's narrative of the Annunciation, Mary mirrors the self-emptying of Christ in kenosis through her willing submission and acceptance of her mission. In this manner, she become the new Eve, the one who obeys and undoes the harm of the original Eve. We see this understanding of Mary as the New Eve emerge as one of the earliest doctrines about Mary. Justin Martyr was the first to express it, and it was subsequently developed by a long line of Early Church fathers: Irenaeus, Tertullian, Ephrem, Gregory of Nyssa, Cyril of Jerusalem.

The acknowledgment of Mary's role in the Incarnation is what keeps our understanding of Christ complete. Indeed, I have noticed in Protestants who refuse to acknowledge Mary's holiness and special place in the economy of salvation, frequent confusion at to Jesus Christ's true nature.
1.1.2011 | 5:13pm
John2 says:
@Hortence Washington
"John2 - As a former Catholic, I am well aware of where the bigotry lies."
Looks like you don't, unless you are holding out on a confession.

"By the way, you bait easily... Amercan English."
By the way, you baited yourself with "Amercan".

Are you Brettongarcia? Joe the ThisAndThat? Et al.?
1.1.2011 | 9:37pm
John2 = the local Catholic attack dog.................going to get a special dispensation from one of those Bishops/Cardinals who protected Catholic child molesters from law-enforcement investigators and prosecutors? Oh....I forgot....you entrust the interpretation of the Bible and the invention(s) of your "tradition" to these types...........disgusting.

And no, Johnny boy, I am not Brettongarcia or "Joe the ThisAndThat"...........getting a little paranoid, are we?

Here's a site for your edification: www.catholicarrogance.org
1.2.2011 | 1:01am
Colin says:
John2

Dude. Obviously a troll. Do not feed the trolls. Do NOT feed the trolls.
1.2.2011 | 1:20am
ER says:
As an interested Christian but not Catholic reader, what seems most foreign to me in Catholic Marian devotion (as I understand it) is the idea that one would approach Mary in prayer more frequently or more fervently than one would approach Christ or the other two Persons of the Trinity. I get the idea of asking the communion of saints/cloud of witnesses to pray for me, just as I might ask my brother or my brother in Christ to pray for me; I have no quarrel with the logic of that idea. But what seems strange on both an emotional and a logical level is to go repeatedly to Mary asking for intercession when one could send those prayers directly to Christ and be just as assured that one is heard. I may ask my brother once or twice to pray for my child to get well, but the continuous praying/asking will be to God, Father, Son, and Spirit. Much of Catholic Marian devotion (the Rosary in particular) seems to presuppose that one will in practice turn to Mary more frequently than one will to God Himself. That emphasis seems quite foreign to me.

The other part of Catholic Marian devotion I don't quite get (again on both the level of both logic and the emotions) are some of the qualities attributed to Mary that strike a discordant note to me every time I come across them in my reading. For example, the idea of Mary as merciful that Prof. Haldane quotes from the Memorare makes little sense to me unless Mary is being equated with the divine. The exercise of mercy is an exercise of power and saying that Mary is merciful makes it sound as if she is herself exercising the power of mercy. If she is truly just praying/interceding/asking on my behalf when I ask her to then she is not exercising mercy any more than my brother is when he prays in response to my request. Kind, perhaps utterly kind, but not merciful.

I would be interested to hear how Catholic (or Orthodox) readers would respond to these impressions. I should be clear that I am not attempting to stir up any sort of strife here and would appreciate non-polemical responses. I am trying to convey in an honest way what seems foreign to me in Marian devotion.
1.2.2011 | 1:55am
Terry Brown says:
Mary lived in a time when the Romans were raping the middle east and Israel. And based on early Jewish law, a woman not a virgin on her wedding day was to be stoned to death.

So most likely she was raped by a roman soldier. And concocted the idea that "I have known of no man". to protect her life.

And the rest is history.

Remember the old story about "Oh what a tangled web we weave, when we practice to deceive"?

I never understood until later in life that it most likely describes the catholic church hierarchy.

Who about a thousand years ago forbid priest marrying , so the church would inherit the priest property instead of his wife.

And you only need to ask most 15 year old youngsters and they understand that when you deny and say the normal sexual desires of people in their youth are dirty, eventually the desires come out. Picking up at the mental, though not physical age when they were suppressed.

And creating perverts - the priests who took advantage of the choir boys. And terrorized them with threats the kids would go to hell if they told the truth.

And the church of course hid their vile crimes for decades if not centuries.

Until the truth came out.

Be careful - you may be judged by with whom you associate and how you accept vile evil as truth.
1.2.2011 | 6:48am
Michael PS says:
Rachel

You are right. Justin Martyr, Tertullian and Irenaeus all say that “As the virgin Eve by her disobedience brought death, so the virgin Mary by her obedience brought new life.”

That these three 2nd century writers, from Palestine, North Africa and Asia Minor should give the same teaching, in more or less the same words, suggests that it was a piece of early catechesis in which we may well have the words of the Apostles themselves. At the very least, it is an early recognition of Mary as the meritorious cause of redemption – “by her obedience...”
1.2.2011 | 10:56am
John2 says:
Dear "Hortence",

Thank you for the parody website "www.catholicarrogance.org." Ray Dubuque is an able steward of his comic gifts.

As for paranoia, I guess you have it. Just look back at your own posts. Take credit for what you did to this thread. I am not paranoid because I have nothing to fear from you.

Best to you and yours.
1.2.2011 | 1:41pm
Will no place remain that is free of bitterness and hatred - or will First Things begin registering those who comment and monitoring content?
1.2.2011 | 5:19pm
A beautiful article by Prof. Haldane.

There are other elements that went into the development of Marian devotion. One is the biblical notion of Mary as the new Ark of the Covenant.
As biblical scholars have pointed out, there are many literary parallels between the scene where John the Baptist leaps in his mother's womb when in the presence of Mary, and David dancing before the Ark. The parallels are too numerous to be dismissed as unintended. There is also the scene in the Book of Revelation where heaven is opened and the Ark of the covenant is revealed --- immediately before the vision of the Woman who gives birth to a child who is clearly the Christ. This theme of Mary as the Ark, who bodily bore the divine presence just as the old Testament Ark bore the divine presence was a very common theme with the early Church Fathers. And recall that the first Ark was so holy that a man who inadvertently touched it died on the spot.

Another important (and biblical) theme was Mary as a "type" of the Church: Just as in Mary's womb God and man were united and the body of Christ took form, so in the womb of the Church new members are constantly added to Christ's Body, as human beings are redeemed and brought into union with God through Christ. Since the Church (again biblically) was seen by the early Church as the New Eve (the Church is the bride of Christ, who is the New Adam), so Mary too was seen symbolically as a New Eve. That indeed was her first title and goes back to the earliest Christian times. The early fathers often spoke of the disobedience of Adam and Eve being undone by the obedience of Jesus and his mother. Mary's obedience being shown in her "fiat": "let it be done to me according to thy will". Mary's "let it be done to me" mirrors that of Christ in Gethsemane "not my will but thine be done."

The roots of the doctrine of the Assumption were correctly set out by Prof. Haldane, but perhaps a bit sketchily. The bible says that Adam and Eve were offered the possibility of escaping death's corruption, but threw away this gift by their disobedience. Jesus was obedient even unto death, and therefore did not "taste corruption". (Recall the words of prophecy, that God's holy one would not be allowed to taste corruption.) Mary, whose obedience was also part of the story of our redemption, and who was "the Second Eve", also did not taste corruption, either of sin or of death. Just as Adam and Eve were the first of the human race, Jesus and his mother were the first of a redeemed humanity.

As Prof. Haldane says, no Catholic thinks Mary anything other than a creature. There is an infinite gap between any creature and the Creator. But we are not forbidden to admire and revere creatures. My late parents were creatures, but I admire and revere them. If one has a strong sense of God's transcendence and a robust worship of him, one is not afraid to give his creatures due respect. I have a suspicion that in some cases the fear that any respect or love shown to a creature will somehow detract from the greatness of God may be based on a *diminished* sense of God, not a heightened one. If one can confuse the natural affection shown to Mary for the worship due to God, then one may not really understand very well what the worship due to God consists of. If one is in awe of the Godhead, one will understand the immensity of being the one chosen to bear the Godhead in her womb.


Those who blithely dismiss reverence for Mary as unbiblical and "utter nonsense" doubtless do so in good faith, but in many cases they are unaware of the biblical roots of the doctrines about Mary, and of the deep theological reflection about Mary that went on in the first centuries of Christianity.

I can understand why those who think the doctrines about Mary not sufficiently grounded would reject them and even think them potentially dangerous. What I cannot understand is the bitter hostility, contempt for the intellects and honesty of their fellow Christians, and cocksure attitude evinced by some (such as one person above, whom I'd rather not name). To that person I say, You may not see Mary as a mother to be revered, but surely you can see your fellow Christians as your brothers and sisters? Why is it so heinous to show affection for a woman whom Jesus himself had so great an affection for, the woman he called his mother, who bore him in her womb, and who stood at the foot of the Cross when almost all others had fled?
1.2.2011 | 6:08pm
Rachel says:
ER, I will make an attempt to answer your questions about prayer, at least from my individual perspective. First, with regards to the Hail Mary, the first part is all about Jesus and the Incarnation, using the very same Scripture that describes the Incarnation in the prayer. Every time we say a Hail Mary, we are putting the Incarnation at the centre of our lives. The mysteries of the Rosary are all focused on Christ, and the events of his life, and this is what we focus our minds upon while reciting all of those Incarnational Hail Mary's. The Rosary is a profoundly Trinitarian prayer, which includes the Creed, and regular praise of the Trinity, as well as the Lord's prayer. The problem is that those who have not prayed a deeply meditated rosary on a regular basis, simply look at the stream of Hail Mary's and stop at the surface, fixated on the person of Mary instead of the mystery that surrounds her.

Mary is the first of Christians, and shows us what we can expect to become when our salvation becomes complete at the end of time. As such, she is more than the "cloud of witnesses".

We also have the example of the intercession of Mary, right in Scripture, at the wedding at Canna, and we see her present at Pentecost, as one of those who received the Holy Spirit, who was there supporting and nurturing the earliest Christians. It is only normal that Mary continue doing what she has always done.

Mary's maternity always points us to Christ. She actively intervenes in the lives of sinners to bring them closer to her Son. Mary is not an alternative to Jesus, but the instrument through which Jesus comes to us in our humanity.
1.2.2011 | 6:26pm
Out of concern for fellow human beings that they be not deceived, many of us are trying to warn conventional Catholics, traditional conservative Christians, of severe flaws in their beliefs. You are following a false idea of Christ.

For example: what do you make of it, when Mary and others ask to be admitted to be with Jesus ... but Jesus leaves her standing outside? Telling us in Luke 8.21 that his real mother and brothers are those who hear the word of Jesus, and do it?

It is precisely as human beings who are concerned for your welfare, that many are trying to warn you, that you have been deceived, in your sense of religion.

Don't just believe what the Church teaches you; the bible warned that many churches, even the very first Catholic/Christian churches, were often wrong. To help you find your way, read your Bible, warning you about church: Rev. 2.4, 2.20, 3.2, 3.15, to start.

The Bible - God - warned there are many "false" and bad things, even in those who present themselves as "fathers," as priests, as prophets. Therefore, you should not be too passively trusting and following them.

Follow God and Jesus and the Bible: not priests.

And "call no man on earth your father."
1.2.2011 | 7:31pm
Mikayla says:
A note to "Joe," who thinks women are better emulating Jesus rather than Mary, who is known for her "obedience" which he thinks equals passivity.
Just think, Jesus is known to have been obedient to God "unto death." How's that for obedience?

And why obedience is somehow equated with passivity in the modern world is beyond me.

The root of the word "obey" lies in the word meaning "to hearken to" or to "listen." Radical obedience, such as that shown by Mary and especially by Jesus (the new Adam and the new Eve) is really a form of great communion and even radical egalitarianism.

Mary's "yes" and her stalwart dedication to her mission took much courage. Dismissing her role as one of "passivity," rather than an active and challenging decision is to cave to misogyny.
1.3.2011 | 12:50am
Irenaeus says:
On 1.2.2011 at 3:26pm, among other things Joe the human wrote:

'Follow God and Jesus and the Bible: not priests.

And "call no man on earth your father." '
_________________________________

Hello Joe. It's too bad you were not around to correct Jesus when he referred to Abraham as a father:

John 8: 56-59:
56 Abraham your father rejoiced that he might see my day: he saw it and was glad. 57 The Jews therefore said to him: You are not yet fifty years old. And you have seen Abraham? 58 Jesus said to them: Amen, amen, I say to you, before Abraham was made, I AM. 59 They took up stones therefore to cast at him. But Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple.

And too bad that you were unavailable to correct St. John who, in his epistles, referred to his audience as his children, thereby implying that he is the father of that audience.

If you can understand it, and I think you can, then I recommend Karl Keating's "Catholicism and Fundamentalism: The attack on 'Romanism' by 'Bible Christians.'"
1.3.2011 | 4:17am
Michael says:
Some Claim that Catholics pay divine honour to Mary, when they call her Co-Redemptress and Mediatrix of All Graces. They should recall that Arius called her Son Redeemer and Mediator – Did Arius pay divine honour to Christ? All the churches of East and West would say no.
1.3.2011 | 7:06am
Irenaeus:


Abraham, note, was not "on earth" when JEsus called him "father"; he ws dead, in heaven. Read your Bible a little closer.



Mik:

Jesus emphasized obedience at times ... but other times mentioned dozens of other things; like doing good works, and so forth. The problem with following Mary, is that she just has one or two virtues ... out of the dozens that Jesus taught, and out of the dozens of things that you need to be a complete human being. While Jesus qualified the call to obedience; noting that there are many false prophets and bad priests and false churches out there, so that you should not so "blind"ly follow them. But ask hard questions, and demand proofs that they are really from God.


Others:

It may seem strange, that anyone should be concerned that the "theotokos" would appear to set up a Mother of God greater than God; since the Church has indeed corrected that opinion in the fine print. But the problem is that ... this phrase remains; and in itself it is misleading. While indeed, many uneducated Catholics never read - or in some cases, never hear of - the councils that corrected and amended or qualified this phrase.

So a misleading phrase remains out there.

And millions of women, especially, have been mislead by a Marion Devotion, that slides all too easily into Marion Worship; worshiping Mary. Women of course, seek a female figure to relate to; so that they inevitably end up concentrating too much on Mary; and thereby miss really knowing the fuller scope of Jesus, and God.

I used to debate Karl Keating on such subjects on EWTN/RN regularly; the way he and all conservative talk hosts win all their arguments, is that if you know too much, they turn off your microphone, and give themselves the last word. So they always end on an unanswerable point. The talk-show game is rigged; it mimics fair debate, but is no such thing.

Get out there, and listen to many different churches, many denominations, and many other opinions.

And "call no man on earth, your father."
1.3.2011 | 3:47pm
John2 says:
Joe the Multitude of Persons, Humans, Hortences, 'Dr.' Brettongarcia, et al.:
“I used to debate Karl Keating…; the way he and all conservative talk hosts win all their arguments, is that if you know too much, …”

Joe the Multitude, (if you met Keating) I see why he got rid of you ASAP. It was not because you knew too much.

“Get out there, and listen to many different churches, many denominations, and many other opinions.”

That will bring you to the truth, but the risk is -- it might take too long. Then you don't end up so well.

Go to the light, Joe. By now you know the true direction. If you pursue it in good faith, you really can't miss it.
1.3.2011 | 7:19pm
ER says:
Thanks for your response, Rachel.
2.6.2011 | 1:12pm
And millions of women, especially, have been mislead by a Marion Devotion, that slides all too easily into Marion Worship; worshiping Mary. Women of course, seek a female figure to relate to; so that they inevitably end up concentrating too much on Mary; and thereby miss really knowing the fuller scope of Jesus, and God. It may seem strange, that anyone should be concerned that the "theotokos" would appear to set up a Mother of God greater than God; since the Church has indeed corrected that opinion in the fine print. But the problem is that ... this phrase remains; and in itself it is misleading. While indeed, many uneducated Catholics never read - or in some cases, never hear of - the councils that corrected and amended or qualified this phrase.
type the text above in the box below

Links

Blogs

Find Us

Contact