Why the devotion to Mary?

[enfuego]

Isn't Mary dead?  I don't understand why we would pray to a dead person...is God too busy to hear our prayers directly?

[enfuego]

El,

Why do I get the feeling that your picture is a live portrait of what you do all day long.

[redkim]

Why shouldn't she be above the Apostles? She is the one who gave birth to Our Lord. And so what if we don't see as many statues of Peter as we do of Mary? We have a whole Basilica devoted to him and we have his remains. And we don't have as many statues of Jesus because we also have Him in the Eucharist.

Yes, she was chosen to be the vessel to birth our Lord.  And God wouldn't have elected some unworthy woman to face such a task. 

However, from all biblical evidence we have, she didn't participate much in the ministry of Christ other than raising Jesus during his early years, who arguably didn't need much help because he was God incarnate. 

A few times in the gospels, her position was regulated to something a distraction to Jesus.  When Jesus was giving a sermon, a lady interrupted him and said something to the fact of "blessed is the woman who bore you."  He responded something like, "nay, blessed are those who do the work of my Father."  Jesus had every opportunity to put his mother on a pedestal, but he apparently saw that as a distraction to his ministry, which ironically is what I've been saying.

Again, Mary and Jesus' brothers and sisters went to visit Jesus while he was teaching.  When notified they were present, Jesus only acknowledged that everyone was his mother and siblings, which indicates yet again that he didn't like to be distracted from his ministry by biological kinship.

Actually, Christ was correcting the woman. He was saying that Mary is not blessed because she gave birth to Him, but she was blessed because she said Yes to God.

[redkim]

Isn't Mary dead?  I don't understand why we would pray to a dead person...is God too busy to hear our prayers directly?

No Mary is not dead. Catholicism teaches us that Mary was assumed bodily into heaven and that she is more alive now in Christ than she ever was on earth.

[Acumen]

This isn't the learn about Catholicism board?

If you don't know what Catholicism is then you shouldn't be critiquing it.

Red herring. 

[enfuego]

El,

That picture is so small I thought you were looking at a laptop.  My bad.

[Acumen]

Isn't Mary dead?  I don't understand why we would pray to a dead person...is God too busy to hear our prayers directly?

No Mary is not dead. Catholicism teaches us that Mary was assumed bodily into heaven and that she is more alive now in Christ than she ever was on earth.

Again, what exactly is Catholicism?  And why are we non-Catholics supposed to presume that because Catholics teach something that is extra-biblical, we are supposed to accept it as the truth?

[redkim]

Who said you have to accept it? And I am unclear as to why you are asking what Catholicism is

[Acumen]

Who said you have to accept it? And I am unclear as to why you are asking what Catholicism is

I presume that if it's the truth, then it is our obligation to accept it. 

You are stating, in one way or another, that the Roman Catholic Church teaches a true extra-biblical doctrine about Mary. 

My question is why, or better yet said, what rational justification is there for believing that because the Roman Catholic Church says so, therefore it is the truth.

Elluminati's response is, "because the Roman Catholic Church has taught us everything we know about Mary" (hidden presumption is Catholics gave us the bible, therefore they have expertise in interpreting it)

So my question to both of you is, what exactly is Catholicism in the context that "Catholicism gave us everything we know about Mary?"

What does Catholicism mean here?  Does it mean the early, fairly unorganized churches?  Does it mean the Post-Constantine Church?  Does it mean the Church magistarium?  Does it mean the mystical body of Christ?  Does it mean the tradition of the church (whatever that means?)?

-Acumen

[Acumen]

Actually, Christ was correcting the woman. He was saying that Mary is not blessed because she gave birth to Him, but she was blessed because she said Yes to God.

Being a protestant, I have a tendancy to hear out different interpretations of scripture before I decide for myself.

After examination of this passage, I agree with you that Jesus corrected the woman's proclamation.  However, there is not contextual support that Jesus referred particularly to Mary's obediance to God's word.  Of course, this is not to say that Mary wasn't obeying God's word, but rather Jesus didn't intend to make Mary the focus of the lesson.

When the woman cried out, "Blessed is the mother who gave you birth and nursed you," she emphasized the natural biology and kinship between Jesus and his mother.  The words "mother," "birth," and "nursed" are earthly terms, and they have no spiritual meaning in this context.  The lady was in fact stating Jesus' mother did a good job raising him, and thereby should be blessed.

Undoubtedly, Jesus agreed with the woman about Mary's blessedness.  However, he seized the opportunity to spiritualize his lesson. 

By saying, "Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it," he diminished the significance of biological kinship and promoted a spiritual relationship with God.  To Jesus, if Mary was to be an issue, it would only be because she was obedient to God, not because she gave birth or nursed him.

We actually see bits and pieces of this throughout the gospels.  Like previously mentioned, when Mary and Jesus' siblings when to see Jesus, we see him telling his disciples that they are in fact his mother and siblings if they do the work of the Lord.  Once again, this demonstrates that Mary had no special connection to him outside obedience to God.  He removed the special emphasis of his mother, and he imputed it to his disciples.    

[Acumen]

El,

This is a ridiculous assertion and I will tell you why.  The major problem with sola scriptura is that those who follow this practice tend to forget that context relies not only on all the other scriptures but in the customs of the people who write them and these customs are what the Church calls tradition.

Unless you check every interpretation you have concerning respective biblical passages against the authoritative Holy Catholic tradition, then what you said doesn't really mean a whole lot to protestants because you too are guilty of using your own judgment concerning biblical exegesis.

One of the Ten Commandments is to "honor your mother and your father."  What does it mean for one to "honor" his parents, let alone what it means for the perfect God-man to honor his parents?

Well, I'm pretty sure Jesus was honoring his Father by doing His will.  Wouldn't you say so?

-Acumen

[Acumen]

What about her?

[Acumen]

El,

How would the perfect God-man be honoring his mother by "diminishing the significance" of what actually makes Mary His mother, i.e His "biological kinship?"

Because in doing such, he is honoring his Father, which happens to be God.  There is no doubt that God had ordained familial relationships, and as such, we ought to honor the role of our parents.  However, God supercedes our human understanding of His ordinances.  If Jesus put his mother on an equal playing field with his disciples on the grounds that he was doing his Father's work, then that's what God wanted for the benefit of spreading the gospel message.

Do you recall the disciple who requested to stay and bury his father?  Jesus told him to let the dead bury the dead.  There are a few good points here.  First, couldn't it be said that by staying and burying his father, he was in fact honoring him?  And second, once again Jesus puts his ministry above familial relationships.       

The Israelites seemed to understand this by always honoring the Kings mother (queen mother) as it pertained to the line of David.

Try starting with this and continue to recognize how the king's mother was always mentioned with the king's lineage and given the utmost respect by the King and the rest of the Israelite community.

Okay, so the king's mother was to be respected, and?  Perhaps by doing the will of his Father, Jesus was showing the utmost honor to his mother.  We can play these games all day.

-Acumen

[Scribbles]

Because Catholicism is responsible for everything the world knows about Christ and his Church.

I find this truely offensive and blasphemous..

It reminds me that we will be judged for every idle word that comes out of our mouth...

Lets give glory to God yes?

[Thorolf]

The problem, El, is that "tradition" is not supposed to evolve. The MOMENT it changes from what it was originally - in ANY form - it is no longer tradition.

The one thing we can look at as unchanging is Scripture. Sure, interpretation may change  as man's understanding - or pride - progresses.

I'm not - and I don't think ANYBODY here is saying that we can only look at scripture to reach an understanding of God. However, we cannot rightly revere man's actions and his flawed intellect on the same level as the inspired Word of God.

Paul wrote to Timothy about the fact that people had been following traditions other than those taught to them by the Apostles, and that was just a few years after Christ. You spoke of people being naive to maintain sola scriptura - I would maintain it is not only naive, but foolish to presume that the "tradition" being followed 2000 years later is somehow pure and unchanged when men could not keep it from being contaminated within just a few years.

If you can't GUARANTEE and PROVE that today's "tradition" is identical to the tradition taught by the Apostles, then it has absolutely no place being on the same level as scripture - which I would possibly even argue is the inspired, written, and unchanging record of the Apostolic Tradition.

And saying "yes it is" a thousand times is neither a guarantee or proof. The fact is that the passage from Timothy should be enough to call into question man's ability to adhere to tradition.

[Acumen]

The games are soley yours, you are ignoring all reason and biblical history for the purpose of holding on to sola scriptura, which I find ironic because sola scripturists seem to have deny the scriptures in order to hold on to it.

With all due respect, that is a truly weak response.  I gave you an exegetical position stating what I thought Jesus meant, and why such as intentention in no way dishonored his mother.  I sited two passages that indicated that Jesus did not favor the natural kinship over matters of the heavenly kingdom. 

You didn't respond to my counter-example of the disciple who wished to bury his father because there is nothing you can say.  Once again, we have a clear example that spiritual matters supercede earthly ones.

I think the stronger position here is clear.  Telling us that I'm right because the Catholic Church said so doesn't cut it in this forum.

-Acumen

[Acumen]

El,

Not to mention the fact that the "tradition" I was referring to was the idoms and "traditions" of those who wrote the scriptures, in order to understand what they were trying to express.  

This doesn't make much sense.  Are you making a distinction between "tradition" and "traditions"?

Again, there is a difference between a deeper understanding and a total redirection in doctrine, you will will not find a contradiction in scriptural teachings of the Catholic Church throughout the ages.  Go ahead and pose a challenge.

That's a futile challenge and you know it.  Throughout the ages, the Roman Catholics have made their own rules that regulate what is and what is not a real contradiction of official teaching.  It's quite simple really.  If there is an error, then it really wasn't an official teaching.  For example, if a pope made an obvious mistake in issues of doctrine, then he really wasn't speaking from ex cathedra.  Not to mention, it is difficult to prove biblical doctrines wrong when there isn't much scripture to support them.  If the doctrines of purgatory, celibacy, praying to dead saints, or infant baptism don't have much biblical support, then how can we possibly show their contradictions?  Ultimately the debate must be centered on the basis of the Roman Catholic authority to teach such doctrines in addition to the biblical text.

"man's action and flawed intellect" played almost as big of a role in the creation of the scriptures as God did.

And how does one go about showing that?

You would have no clue or reason to believe what you do about the scriptures were it not for the Traditions of the Church.

And that of course depends upon how you define the term "traditions."

-Acumen

[johnnyjoe]

The problem, El, is that "tradition" is not supposed to evolve. The MOMENT it changes from what it was originally - in ANY form - it is no longer tradition......

If you can't GUARANTEE and PROVE that today's "tradition" is identical to the tradition taught by the Apostles, then it has absolutely no place being on the same level as scripture - which I would possibly even argue is the inspired, written, and unchanging record of the Apostolic Tradition.

And saying "yes it is" a thousand times is neither a guarantee or proof. The fact is that the passage from Timothy should be enough to call into question man's ability to adhere to tradition.

Let me understand what you are saying here.  You are saying that scripture - surely a product of Tradition - is more trustworthy than Tradition because Tradition is changeable and scripture is not?

You are preferring the "concrete-ness" of scripture over the percieved vageries of Tradition?

Do I have that right?

[johnnyjoe]

Again, what exactly is Catholicism?  And why are we non-Catholics supposed to presume that because Catholics teach something that is extra-biblical, we are supposed to accept it as the truth?

The Trinity is "extra-biblical", and is a widely held belief among many Christians.

Catholicism is pretty well defined - see, we publish a really big book called the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and it does a pretty nifty job of setting forth in simple terms the main points of our beliefs.  if you really want to get detailed, you can delve into the Code of Canon Law, and the Catholic Encyclopedia (www.newadvent.org) to help you get a few more details.

What you choose to except as truth is up to you, but the Catholic Church exists to preserve and teach the Truth until the end of the age.  She will continue to propose and espouse the Good News of Jesus Christ until Christ calls this world into darkness.
So... you will have to deal with her, for the the Church will not fail its founder - Jesus Christ.

[Thorolf]

Sorry, El, but if I sum up what you posted you basically said "yes it is, so there!"

We can discuss point-by-point, but one indisputable fact remains - Paul had to address the early church because the traditions of men were infecting the Apostolic tradition within just a few short years. How naive is it to presume that a letter to Timothy was enough to stem the tide.

I would go so far as to maintain that the New Testament is NOT scripture in the sense that was written about by Paul and others - rather, the New Testament IS the only reliable record of Apostolic tradition. We call it scripture today, but at the time that the early Christians were urged to adhere to the tradition of the Apostles, there was no written record of what the Apostles did, how they did it, and what they told other people to do.

Remember, at that time nobody had written down the stories of Jesus, collected Paul's epistles, or any of the other books that are now a part of the Bible. They weren't scripture! At that time, scripture and tradition were very, VERY different than what you're calling them.

And I'd simply request that we have less "it's the same because the Catholic Church (capital C) says it is," because the veracity of that claim is what is in contention here. Simply making the claim over and over again doesn't promote any sort of discussion.

Incidentally, I may be a touch confused - are you saying that there are mistakes in the Bible because flawed men were more responsible for it's collection than God?