|
|
Post by Maggie on Aug 24, 2013 19:16:51 GMT -6
Of all Catholic doctrines, those around the Blessed Mother of God are the most off-putting to Protestants and Evangelicals in general. I know that it was unbelievably hard for me to come to understand. I have said elsewhere that it took me ten full years of study and prayer to get to the point that I could honestly assent to all that the Church believes and teaches. That was especially the case in trying to understand Mary's role in our salvation history. With that in mind, I am going to meander through some of the matters that give non-Catholics the most trouble. Feel free to ask questions, as they arise. Mary, the Queen of HeavenThis one is always a showstopper! I still remember how hard it was to grapple with. I wrote the following on IGI but will repeat it here since I cannot improve on it. Part of the problem is that the language that has been historically used to describe her and address her is amazingly florid. The early fathers referred to her as the Ark (of the new covenant), Queen of Heaven, the new Eve (just as Jesus is the new Adam) and so on. Protestants and former Protestants see this as elevating her to divine status but, in fact, informed Catholics understand that she is the first and most perfect Christian. As his mother she is dear to him. You will remember that he performed his first miracle, even though it "wasn't time" because she asked him to! The notion that she is the Queen of Heaven has a sound scriptural basis. This is something I learned from a recent blog post by Fr. Longenecker. In the ancient world, and in the Old Testament, the king's mother would serve as queen. (This may have been a way of keeping the peace among multiple wives.) We see this in I Kings 2: 17-20: T hen he said, “Please speak to Solomon the king, for he will not refuse you, that he may give me Abishag the Shunammite as a wife.” Bathsheba said, “Very well; I will speak to the king for you.”
So Bathsheba went to King Solomon to speak to him for Adonijah. And the king arose to meet her, bowed before her, and sat on his throne; then he had a throne set for the king’s mother, and she sat on his right. Then she said, “I am making one small request of you; do not refuse me.” And the king said to her, “Ask, my mother, for I will not refuse you.”Solomon, of course, is David's son and Jesus is the heir to that renewed and heavenly kingdom which will never end. So, we believe that Mary is there as well, able and willing to add her prayers to ours. |
|
|
|
Post by Woodrow LI on Aug 24, 2013 20:35:30 GMT -6
I think this is an important part of Catholicism that needs to be clarified. The role of Mary is misunderstood by many non-Catholics and this leads to the mistaken belief by some that Catholics are not Christians.
I suspect that some non-Catholic Christians desire not to understand the Role of Mary in Catholicism as to do so would force them to consider that Catholics are Christians.
|
|
|
|
Post by jstwebbrowsing on Aug 24, 2013 23:58:37 GMT -6
I've never studied Mary much so I will have to speculate a bit. According to my beliefe, I wouldn't disagree she was a Christian. If she was then that would have made her one of the "anointed" (144,000). If so that would mean she is in heaven ruling with Christ along with others of the 144,000 right now.
However, I object to all four of those titles.
|
|
|
|
Post by questionmark on Aug 26, 2013 1:29:32 GMT -6
OP Earliest historical references.... 4th and 5th century AD.
Which is 300 years after this:
While he was still speaking to the people, behold, his mother and his brothers stood outside, asking to speak to him. But he replied to the man who told him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” And stretching out his hand toward his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.” The Bible, from Matthew 12
Congratulations Maggie, you are the queen of heaven
|
|
|
|
Post by jstwebbrowsing on Aug 26, 2013 13:30:34 GMT -6
Do Catholics identify the woman in Revelation that gives birth to a male child as Mary?
And what makes her the "most perfect Christian"?
|
|
|
|
Post by Maggie on Aug 26, 2013 14:50:46 GMT -6
Well, when was the last time an angel told you that you were "full of grace"? Grace means something. To be filled with grace is awesome! As to your other question, I am sure some do. But you have to understand that we do not believe that there is one right way and only one right way of understanding all of scripture. That is particularly the case with Revelation which is a piece of visionary literature that cannot be taken as literal. There was a lot of apocalyptic literature being produced in that era (first century). That is why Martin Luther wanted to throw Revelation out of the Bible (as did other figures of the era). Revelation simply doesn't have some special standing among us. One convert (I seem to find all the Protestant converts) has done a series of lessons on Mary that culminates in his interpretation of Revelation that I highly recommend (http://www.salvationhistory.com/studies/lesson/queen_a_biblical_introduction_to_mary) Of Rev. 12 he says: As it was written, John’s vision was this: "Then God’s temple in heaven was opened and the ark of the covenant could be seen in the temple . . . A great sign appeared in the sky, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars . . . ." (see Revelation 11:19-12:1).
We have already explored the New Testament’s depiction of Mary as the ark of the new covenant (see Lesson Three).
To understand this scene, we have to understand the "back-story" concerning the ark.
The ark had been missing since around 587 B.C., when the prophet Jeremiah hid it in a cave before the Babylonians invaded and destroyed the temple in Jerusalem (see 2 Maccabees 2:4-8).
Jeremiah foretold that the ark would remain hidden until "God gathers His people together again and shows them mercy."
The ark’s reappearance, then, was tied to the long hoped for restoration of the kingdom to Israel (see Acts 1:6).
Revelation 12 uses Old Testament imagery to describe the "woman" as both the mother of Jesus and as the mother of the Church - which is the new people of God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and the bride of Christ (see Revelation 21:1-3; 9-13; 22-24).
But to understand what it means to say that Mary is the virgin queen mother assumed into heaven, we need to look closely at John’s use of Old Testament ideas and images.
As we noted in Lesson Two, Israel was often portrayed in the Old Testament as a woman, a virgin daughter espoused to God in a covenant relationship compared to a marriage bond.
In Revelation, John presumes this Old Testament idea, and develops the Old Testament’s image of daughter Zion giving birth to the Messiah. ...
In Revelation, the seventh trumpet likewise sounds with an "earthquake," signaling the beginning of a new world - the everlasting kingdom of Jesus (see Revelation 11:15,19).
John is showing us the fulfillment of Jeremiah’s promise - and the promise of Israel’s exodus. The kingdom has been restored. The ark has been revealed.
And the ark is revealed to be a woman - as we see in the very next verse. ...
In foretelling Israel’s salvation, the prophet Isaiah said that Israel would be arrayed like a queen-bride - gloriously crowned, radiant with the brightness of the sun and the moon (see Isaiah 60:19-20; 62:3-5). In the same way, Solomon’s bride is described as a queen radiant as the moon and the sun (see Song of Songs 6:4,10).
John, in using this Old Testament imagery, is showing us the queen-bride, Israel.
The twelve stars of her crown are an obvious symbol of the twelve tribes of Israel. But throughout Revelation, the twelve tribes are also reckoned as signs of the twelve apostles, the representatives of the new Israel, the people of God, the Church (see Revelation 7:4-8; 21:12-14).
So the woman in Revelation is Daughter Zion and Mary. But as Daughter Zion was a symbol of whole people of God - Israel- the woman in John is also a symbol of the Church. Paul, in language similar to that of Revelation, called the Church "the Jerusalem above . . . our mother" (see Galatians 4:26-27; Isaiah 54:1), and spoke of the Church as the bride of Christ (see Ephesians 5:31-32). John referred to the Church as a "Lady" (see 2 John 5).
So it is natural to see that Mary, as presented in Revelation, is the mother of the Church, and is a symbol for the whole Church, which gives birth to a new people of God. Indeed, Mary, as the Mother of the Church, is said to have "offspring" in addition to the one male child she gives birth to. Those children are described as those who believe in Jesus (see Revelation 12:17).
John’s woman is depicted in a painful childbirth, again evoking Old Testament images of Daughter Zion in travail - suffering in exile, awaiting the birth of her salvation (see Micah 4:10; Isaiah 26:17-19). Really, the whole thing is worth reading if only because it demonstrates how seriously Catholics read the Bible as a whole-- Old and New Testament. |
|
|
|
Post by questionmark on Aug 27, 2013 7:48:13 GMT -6
In order for this to work for me, it would have to be unambiguous. Revelation 12 is ambiguous enough that even the Popes have said that it isn't about Mary.
|
|
|
|
Post by Maggie on Aug 27, 2013 9:28:16 GMT -6
Well, that is why I try to discourage literal readings of Revelation. You can read into it just about anything you like. Hahn (the guy I am quoting) is a very readable writer but sometimes I think he goes off the rails. Still, like I was saying, the thing I like about the online Bible study that section comes from is that it sends you back constantly to the Old Testament. He does a great job of showing how much one's study is enriched by reading both the Old and the New Testament holistically.
|
|
|
|
Post by questionmark on Aug 30, 2013 23:26:46 GMT -6
Maggie does it make you uncomfortable that in order to be a Roman Catholic you have to believe things that God never sought to clearly communicate?
We have these issues in non-Roman Catholic churches and it makes me EXTREMELY uncomfortable. I speak out against it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Maggie on Aug 31, 2013 8:34:45 GMT -6
No, because I think everything the RCC teaches is clearly biblical. You can't find a single doctrine that isn't amply defensible from scripture or the teachings of the earliest Church fathers. Jesus did not guarantee the books of the Bible. He guaranteed the teachings of the Church that he put Peter in charge of.
I grant you that it is very hard to wrap your head around this-- no one knows it better than I. I took my time researching it all. But, as Cardinal Newman said, anyone who goes very deep into church history is going to come out of that study a Catholic. Exaggeration? Maybe. But when you look at the lives of famous converts, like Newman, it is hard to argue with them.
|
|
|
|
Post by jstwebbrowsing on Aug 31, 2013 13:22:56 GMT -6
When you say, "earliest Church fathers" what time frame are we talking about?
|
|
|
|
Post by Maggie on Aug 31, 2013 14:56:04 GMT -6
A.D. 100 or so. We have surviving letters from those trained by the first generation of bishops who were trained directly by the Apostles. Are you familiar with Early Christian Writings? It is a rich source of historical source material. Migne's 39 vol. collected writings of the Early Church Fathers is still copyrighted but a few that didn't make it into his compilation can be found in Early Church Fathers - Additional TextsThere is another collection Early Church Fathers that includes later writings and a lot of Greek writings. These three are not everything that has survived but when you look at it, you get a good sense of how much more there is to know about the development of Christian doctrine than most of us ever suspect. I haven't read even a 10th of it, I hasten to add. But I have read a few things and, if I can find them easily, I will point out those that might be of interest to you. |
|
|
|
Post by questionmark on Aug 31, 2013 21:07:40 GMT -6
Maggie,
What is the undeniable justification of the immaculate conception and assumption of Mary from early church fathers or Scripture?
|
|
|
|
Post by Maggie on Sept 1, 2013 19:40:14 GMT -6
One can deny anything-- short of God and 40 of His angels appearing before one and ordering one to accept a given doctrine. In order to understand the position of the entire early Church on Mary (and she was universally revered) I think the most important thing is to know that we consider all doctrinal claims about Mary to be commentary on who Jesus is. You have seen yourself, I imagine, that denial of the virgin birth, for example, is denial of the incarnation of Christ.
Protestants can point to several scriptures about how all are sinners, most famously Romans 1:23. But this is not to be understood as a factual claim any more than "everybody loves chocolate ice cream" is. If it is a factual claim then Mary is a sinner and so is her son.
Mark Shea is the RCC go to convert on marian doctrines. He has written at length about those doctrines and much better than I ever could. He says for instance:
It is common in our Protestant and post-Protestant culture to somehow imagine that the sinlessness of Mary is a “late corruption” on “simple Bible teaching”—one of those things that “arose in the Dark Ages”.
But in fact, the seeds of the teaching are already present in Luke 1:28, which records the greeting of the angel Gabriel to our Lady: “Kaire, Kecharitomene!” (“Hail, Grace-Filled One!”). Essentially, what Catholic (and all) apostolic Christianity has done over the centuries is plumb the depths and measure the heights of that astonishing title. ...
“But Mary has to be a sinner or she’s not human!” cries the Protestant. This leads to the point of the dogma. For, as ever, the truth of Marian teaching is that the thing about Mary is that the thing is not about Mary. What the dogma is meant to do is show the scope of Christ’s power to save, and to reveal the truth of the dignity of our origins in Christ. When we pass from saying “Sin is normal” (which is what the doctrine of original sin teaches) to saying “Sin is natural” or “Sin is what makes us human” we make a deep and fundamental error about the human person. For of course, God is the author of nature and he does not create sin (cf. James 1:13-14). So original sin, while normal, does not constitute our nature, but instead destroys it.
The point Shea is making is this: as with other Marian doctrines, this one is about Christ and the work he came to do. Mary is a sign of what we will be. Our natures will be repaired, we will live with God in love.
I will look at the assumption next.
|
|
|
|
Post by questionmark on Sept 1, 2013 20:02:56 GMT -6
“Kaire, Kecharitomene!”
And based on a translation of this verse that didn't become remarkable enough for any of the Early Church Fathers to talk about, you are willing to excommunicate me?
|
|
|
|
Post by Maggie on Sept 2, 2013 9:43:54 GMT -6
You can't be excommunicated. You are not in communion with us. So rather than get all excited, why not do a little reading? you could start with the Shea essays I have linked to.
|
|
|
|
Post by questionmark on Sept 2, 2013 19:45:50 GMT -6
I've done a lot of reading, for the past 15 years. I grew up with a traditional Roman Catholic friend and his brother who was training to be a priest (now a Catholic Publisher). My best friend is Roman Catholic. I've read the whole dogma, and looked into it. Catholics hinge the doctrine of the immaculate conception and the assumption on papal infallibility.
And you might not excommunicate me, but that's because you won't accept me in the first place. And I am excited about this issue, because it's Christian unity. Nobody should be a Roman Catholic unless they are certain that's what God wants, and if you're certain God wants you to reject me then that's a big deal... something to get excited about.
|
|
|
|
Post by Maggie on Sept 2, 2013 22:08:26 GMT -6
You have been told at least 5 times by me now, quoting the catechism, that you are not rejected. I think you need to believe that because you reject the Church. Otherwise, I don't know why you can't hear me. Yes, I am certain that the RCC is the Church Christ established. The doctrines of the immaculate conception and the assumption do not hinge on papal infallibility. Those doctrines have been around, that we can trace, for 1800 years. The Pope finally formalized them as dogma. We do nothing hastily.
|
|
|
|
Post by questionmark on Sept 2, 2013 23:22:15 GMT -6
There's a disconnect here Maggie, and since I can provide texts... it's not with me.
You are clearly saying that your belief in the immaculate conception and the assumption of Mary come from 1800 years ago, yet Catholic Websites say that it doesn't. So, I'm assuming you know what you're talking about (My traditional Roman Catholic friends know a lot of things that average Catholics seem to be unaware of, so maybe you know something that all these websites don't know).
What I'm asking you for is not to restate your belief, but the reason you came to it. You say 200 AD, everyone else says 300 and 400 AD. What this would mean is that the earliest reference to this doctrine (the unbelief of which for a Catholic leads to excommunication) is about 300 years after the Apostles died. Yet Roman Catholics call this "Apostolic Tradition". However, the Apostolic Tradition refers to what the Apostles passed on. How in the world do we justify not writing about a doctrine for 300 years? We don't. It's silly. If something is important, it gets written about, talked about, and often people argue and die over it.
Except in the case that nobody ever thought about it because it wasn't actually a doctrine. Ironically, the quote on newadvent about the assumption says that it is a 'probable opinion'. A very strange way of saying it, since it is listed as de fide in the dogma of the Roman Church.
Alright, before I get too far off track, let me restate: The earliest references to the assumption and immaculate conception of Mary are in the 4th century.
|
|
|
|
Post by Maggie on Sept 3, 2013 6:59:01 GMT -6
I have been so busy tweaking stuff behind the scenes that I have not had much time to spend with the actual content of posts. I think that is going to stop. So I apologize for how briefly I have been answering.
In any case, if you really want to try to understand the development of Christian doctrine, then one thing you will need to do is think like a historian. You will look at things like the fact that feasts in honor of the assumption are documented very early on. You will look at things like the fact that no one ever tried to claim they had any relics of Mary, although relics of everyone associated with Jesus were eagerly sought from the very beginning of the Church's existence. (The RCC does not take a position on Mary's death. It is ok to believe she did not die, it is ok to believe she did. That, of course, is different in the East where they do believe she died.)
You will also consider the political situation. Would it have been a good idea to say or write much about Mary in an environment where female goddesses were so familiar? It is fairly easy to see why the early writers might choose not to do so. Of course, we believe she can be found in the Old and New Testament just as Jesus can.
I said previously that attacks on Mary are really attacks on Christ. Denying the Virgin birth denies Christ's divinity. It is the attempt to label him a bastard that rears its ugly head still, among atheists. When Nestorius demanded that people stop calling Mary "god-bearer" (Theotokos), he was arguing that Jesus was not fully man and fully God. It was an attempt to shore up his heresy. You can go through dozens of attacks like that and they are all ultimately aimed at discrediting Jesus. I might also add that the first Reformers were devoted to Mary. It is only as the reformation moved farther and farther from the Church that they moved farther away from Mary.
St Ambrose said of Mary that she is the "type of the Church". John tells us in his Gospel: "Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name." It is John who tells us that Jesus gave Mary to him and to us with the words "Behold your mother." As I have said many times, she is the first and most perfect Christian-- the model disciple. She is a sign to us all.
|
|
