Discussion in 'Non-Anglican Discussion' started by Stalwart, Oct 14, 2019.
Looks frankly heretical to me, both the image and the "saint".
Ever notice how the artwork never depicts Mary as an ugly woman? It's always a young, attractive female with a perfect complexion. I doubt the RCs would feel such intense devotion for a stout, lumpy woman with homely features.
It is so peculiar. Mention of the BVM occurs far, far more frequently in the Orthodox Liturgy and in the daily morning and evening prayers of the Orthodox, than it does in the RC Mass or the Divine Office (whether pre-Reform or post-Reform). The prayers to her in the Orthodox daily cycle prayed by the laity are quite lengthy and overflowing with (poetic) attributions to her of mediator-like powers, of an ability to personally meet all Christians at their death, and so on. One of her titles that occurs in the Sunday Liturgy is “our all-holy, immaculate, most blessed and glorious Lady Theotokos and Ever-Virgin Mary”. Orthodox do not refer to her as simply “Mary” or even “the Virgin Mary”, preferring instead Theotokos, or “Mother of God”. And yet, the Orthodox in general are not enthusiastic at all about ascribing titles to her such as “Mediatrix” or “Coredemptrix”, find the method of the Rosary to contrary to Orthodox spiritual principles, and would never contemplate exalting her to a status that would subordinate the activity of the Holy Spirit to her.
Why is that? And how is that possible, given that the RCs and EOs start from the same conciliar framework: Ephesus through Constantinople II? I’ve never been able to put my finger on the reason why RC Marian piety seems so uncontrolled despite being liturgically insignificant.
roman catholics posting their L’s
I'm sure FrDave is a nice man with many good thoughts and ideas, but this wasn't one of them!
And we know that Mary was conceived on December 8th because . . . ?
It's also the very idea that Mary really is the queen of salvation, lording over the baby jesus, and it's her incarnation that resolves the knots of sin, solves all the world's problems
RCs have really outdone themselves with the whole Mary issue. they've turned her into some kind of demi-god who basically controls Jesus as his mother. I never had time for this when I was an RC and I certainly don't have time for it now.
I would still love to see somebody attempt an explanation for why the Orthodox don’t fall prey to these excesses despite having a substantially similar Mariology. Maybe it is just the fact that for the Orthodox, the public Liturgy literally controls everything else in Orthodoxy, down to the smallest detail.
What is so heretical about displaying a picture of Christ with the woman who raised him and gave him his earthly flesh?
Nothing. That’s not what we’re talking about. We’re talking about the problems involved in ascribing attributes to the Mother of God that belong only to God.
Aside from the fact that other than Galations 4:4 saying that the Messiah was born of a woman, none of the epistle writers ever mention her in any of their letters including the one to the church at Rome and the two by Peter.
Something that I have thought about a lot is that 'God made Mary'. Obviously, this is obvious! But the reality of the statement is that any glory or holiness or sinlessness or let's face it, ANY good attribute that can be attributed to Mary, comes from God. She is human, dear RC folks, human. So HE made her for a purpose, to be the mother of His child. She said yes, she cooperated with God, she raised Jesus, she did what any good mother would do for her child. But all of this came about because God made her in the first place. He could have made another woman for the role, but he didn't. So rather than giving her lots of credit and crowning her for things, I would be saying, 'Lucky woman you are, Mary!' God created you for a special purpose and allowed you to be the one without sin, and God allowed you to bear His child, and God allowed you to be present at his death.' And so on, and so on.
God could have made anyone Jesus' mother. The credit is all His. And Mary was a very blessed and fortunate one to be chosen for this honour - Elizabeth even said so - 'blessed are you among women'. But she wasn't blessed because of something she had done, she was blessed because God CREATED her to be the mother of Jesus and ALLOWED her to be the mother of Jesus. Sure she cooperated but HE made her without sin. God. God did it. We can respect Mary all we want, but the credit and the glory are God's. He sent His son into the world. He could have chosen any method to do so, but He chose this one.
And honestly, this is not rubbishing Mary, this is just putting her into perspective. She can be respected and admired and loved but not worshipped, which is what has been happening over hundreds of years, to the point where now she has somehow become the 'Queen of Heaven' and 'Co-Mediatrix', as if she were some kind of deity. This is actually an insult to her in a way because it takes away from her humanness.
And finally, the one I always thought should have gotten a bit more attention was poor old Joseph, who was a human in every way, not an immaculate conception, not described as without sin, and yet did the honourable thing by marrying a woman who was pregnant with a child whose paternity was in doubt. He had amazing faith to stick by her and to believe. He is relegated to the list of saints, as is appropriate, rather than being elevated to a position alongside God, as Mary is by the RC faith. I think it actually would do Mary more of a service if the RCs treated Mary as they do Joseph, as a human being who cooperated with God in His great plan of salvation rather trying to fashion her into some kind of demi-goddess. Focusing on her is just wrong (IMO).
Mary owes all she has to the grace of God.
Many theologians also say she has the greatest debt to God, because of her immaculate conception.
No one has ever said mary achieved anything on her own
That's exactly right, Mary is pushed to the side in the Epistles. If the apostles knew that praying to Mary and venerating her were important activities for the Christian, surely they would have written about it. Surely Paul would have instructed the churches he wrote to concerning such a momentous person as Mary and how they all should ask her to intercede with her son for their needs. Surely God would not neglect to inspire the NT writers to include special mention of Mary's authority and influence. Surely Jesus would have taught His disciples, "After I'm gone, be sure to pray to My mother for whatever you want, because I will grant any request she makes of me when I've ascended."
But what do we get about this doctrine of Mary's specialness? Silence. One can hear the crickets. Jesus taught that we should ask the Father in His name (John 15:16 & 16:23), but not once did He teach that we should ask Mary.
Then why so much veneration of her? I was an RC nun and we literally put her on a pedestal and said prayers to her. It was supposed to be veneration, but it bordered on worship - and I'm not sure the line was all that clear, to be perfectly honest.
I loved the Rosary because it is a repetitive prayer that soothes, but even the words put Mary first. . . 'Blessed art thou among women' followed by
'and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.' She gets top billing.
If she owes everything to God, then she is in the same situation as the rest of us - we all owe God everything. But for some reason, she gets elevated beyond everyone else to the point that she is being considered as a co-mediatrix? Seriously? You can't use the argument that without Mary, Jesus could not exist, because that just isn't true. And you can't use the argument that Jesus depended upon Mary to help with salvation because that is just not true either.
And the fact that you are so defensive about her role in the RC Church just shows how much the RC worships her - but hides this under the term of veneration instead. She is worthy of respect but not worship.
I’ll help put it back on track. Here’s something that seems suspect, if you should like to discuss it:
Does it have any place in the Anglican tradition?
Depends on what you mean by “have any place”. In the most literal sense, no, because it appears in no version of the Prayer Book that I am aware of. If, on the other hand, you are asking if it is consistent with Anglican teaching or whether an Anglican may recite it in good conscience, I believe it is and one can. The language is poetic and is intended to express Christological orthodoxy. This antiphon is also part of the traditional Divine Office, to be said or sung at Compline during the appropriate season.
When Marian devotion is kept within the proper bounds, it is a truly powerful safeguard against Nestorianism. When done properly, it is neither idolatrous nor does it detract in any way from the sole mediatorship of her Son.
Thank you; that’s what I was asking. I wasn’t sure how much this bled over into Anglicanism.
I suppose as long as ‘remains the accessible gateway to heaven’, is indeed poetic. Certainly she was the gateway by which heaven came down, but not the gateway by which one goes up.