As we recently celebrated the Assumption and the Queenship of Mary, I figured it would be a prime time to discuss proper devotion to the Mother of God.
Proper Devotion to the Mother of God
2 Replies
Tag Archives: mariology
And the Wind Cried Mary
Sadly, I still haven't had time to properly respond to Ed Heckman's difficulties with the Church's beliefs concerning Mary. I did get one answer to my call for rebuttals from the peanut gallery. Here's Anonymous' defense of Marian doctrines. The opinions expressed by him/her may or may not reflect my beliefs or the beliefs of the Church.
1. Ed's first point is that Mary cannot be the most perfect example of human faithfulness because: a) she's no more faithful than Abraham; and b) she seems to have had doubts over the course of Christ's life.
In response, I would note that: a) Before God asked Abraham to be faithful, He promised Abraham a number of rewards for faithfulness. See Gen. 17. But He promised nothing to Mary directly, yet she was nevertheless willing to do his will. See Luke 1. Being faithful without knowing what the consequences will be is better than being faithful for a reward.
And b) the doubts that Mary had were not, as Ed claims, evidence of a weak faith; they were tests of faith that Mary passed. Simeon warned Mary that "you yourself a sword will pierce," Luke 2:35, and his prophecy came true in each of the instances Ed cites. See this.
2. Ed's second point is that Mary cannot rightly be considered a sinless "New Eve" because: a) she calls God her Savior in Luke 1, and the sinless do not need a savior; and b) there is no explicit scriptural support for Mary as a sinless "New Eve."
In response, I would note that: a) you can "save" people in two ways: getting them out of trouble, or keeping them from getting into it in the first place. Knocking someone out of the path of a speeding car saves that person just as much as providing medical care in the event that he is hit. God saved Mary from sin by keeping her from it; he saves us from sin by getting us out of it.
And b) Ed is right that there is no explicit scriptural support for calling Mary a sinless "New Eve." But this is not a problem for Catholics, who don't demand explicit scriptural support in the way that Protestants do. Catholics believe that the Church came before the Bible in that it preached before the Bible was written, and it chose the Books that were to become part of the Bible (choosing the synoptic Gospels over the gnostic ones, etc.). For this reason, the Church can proclaim a doctrine without explicit scripural support, for the Bible is a creature of the Church, and not the other way round.
It seems Jay is having similar discussions at Deo Omnis Gloria.
Linguistic Issues Regarding the Perpetual Virginity of Mary [regarding Jesus' "brothers"]
Linguistic Issues Regarding the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, Part II [regarding Joseph not knowing Mary "until" Jesus' birth]
Tempus Fugit
If only I had more time to blog. Between class, research, RCIA, choir, and spending time with my wife, I can’t spend nearly as much time writing as I would like. I’ve been trying to cut back on blogging so as to not neglect my wife, so I try to pick one big topic to tackle each week.
My exchange with Adrian Warnock regarding "the simple gospel" seems to be winding down, which opens up a "slot" for something else. On the other hand, I’ve been outlining an article I’d like to write on imitation of Christ, directly and by proxy through imitation of the saints. That leaves me little or no time to respond to Ed Heckman’s well-constructed thoughts regarding Mary, the Catholic Church, and Scripture.
In his latest post, Ed does what no other Protestant with whom I’ve debated has done – actually read the Catechism. I’m so thoroughly pleased and impressed that I wish all the more that I had time to respond. He does a pretty thorough job fisking some of the Catechism’s statements about Mary. Obviously I disagree with him, but I respect his analysis none the less. I would be overjoyed if some of my knowledgeable Catholic readers would respond to him criticisms.
Go to it!
Romanism, Mary and The Catechism, Part 1
Update: If you’d like to write a post-length rebuttal but don’t have a blog of your own, send your post to me and I’ll consider posting it here.
Mother Mary
"When I find myself in times of trouble, mother Mary comes to me,
speaking words of wisdom, let it be.
And in my hour of darkness she is standing right in front of me,
speaking words of wisdom, let it be. " – The Beatles, Let it Be
Some recent exchanges with Protestant have revolved around Mary, her sinless nature, her perpetual virginity, and her role in Christian life. Due to Real Life™ responsibilities, I don’t have time to directly answer the most recent arguments opposing the Church’s view of Mary. These arguments may be found here:
Romanism and Ales Rarus, Part 1
Romanism and Ales Rarus, Part 2
Romanism, Ales Rarus, and Mary, a Reply
As a stop-gap, here are some old posts I wrote relating to this issue. Rather than require my readers to go into my archives, I’ve reproduced the relevant entries here.
Did Mary Have to be Sinless to Carry the Messiah?
Thanks to some free advertising from RasorsKiss, Ed "What the" Heckman, of The Greatest Pursuits, found my response to Rand’s screed and tossed in his two cents. It’s an intelligent, thought-provoking response. Here’s a sample:
Is it unreasonable to think that if God/Jesus was in intimate contact with ‘sinners’ before the formal end of that separation then there would be no problem with intimate contact with Mary in spite of her own sins?
If anything, the Bible implies that it was necessary for Mary to be a sinner. Consider this passage in Galations:
But when the fulness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, in order that He might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons.
(Gal. 4:4-5, NASB)
I’m not sure when I’ll have time to respond, so I hope some of my readers will help me out.