Not Christian without Mary?

[Phatmasser777]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Dec 14 2004, 07:27 AM'] what you didn't know this?

THis has nothing to do with the veneration given to the first great disciple - Mary, the Mother of God.

I suggest you go read the Early Church Fathers. [/quote]
I have, and there is NOTHING on the scale of the 'border-line' worship there is today. There is a tonne, TONNE of respect but no parades, prayers etc until atleast the 4th century.

[Benedict]

How did you miss the [i]Sub Tuum Praesidium [/i]from the 3rd?

We fly to your patronage,
O Holy Mother of God,
despise not our petitions
in our necessities,
but deliver us from all danger,
O ever glorious and blessed Virgin.

(AD 250)

[Oik]

Read [i]Hail, Holy Queen[/i] by Scott Hahn. He talks about Marian devotion before the fourth century.

[Apotheoun]

As an Eastern Catholic I would hold that the veneration of the saints is necessary, because in venerating the saints one venerates God who made them holy. The practice of the Christian faith is a holistic experience, and so to deny one component of it, no matter how minor it may appear to be, affects the whole.

[jasJis]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Dec 13 2004, 08:50 AM'] Sure, but there are lots of people who are Roman Catholics who are either uneducated and don't know that (and come from backgrounds like the Mayans or Celtic Druidism who [i]do[/i] have goddess worship) or not Roman Catholics and look at the Church's teaching and think "Goddess worship"

For that reason alone, the practise of Marian devotion and elevation should be abandoned. [/quote]
Anything worth doing, is worth doing poorly.


Just because we imperfect people cannot worship God perfectly and venerate God's glory He infused in Mary by working His Grace through her acceptance of His Will, doesn't mean we shouldn't try. In trying, we head towards Him. In giving Him our failures, He gives us Victory. To not try is to be like the stupid and fearful servant who buried his talent so he wouldn't lose it. That pissed off the Master who punished him. Better to invest your talents of Faith in all that God has Glorified Himself, and that includes Mary, because Scripture tells us that her Soul Glorifies God and that the Holy Spirit overshadowed her.

[ICTHUS]

[quote]What is the Queen's role in the Kingdom?  She's the intercessor.  People go to her to ask for things from the King.  Look in first Kings 2:12-2:18.  You'll see that the way the people treated the Queen is almost exactly as we treat Mary: we ask her to get stuff for us from the King.[/quote] Read it, and I'm not convinced. You're forgetting I was once a Roman Catholic apologist.

Have you forgotten that our King died for us, and that no one who comes to Him, He will cast out? Why then do we need to entreat His Mother for things? Has He not promised to bless us with those things if we but ask?

[quote]Mary deserves our respect and we are obligated to give it.  To be a faithful Christian we *MUST* respect Mary.[/quote] Respect, yes. She is a wonderful New Testament model of faith and humility - besides Jesus, I would hazard to say the best in the entire Scriptures.

Worship such as the Catholic Church gives her, however? No. Mary is to be respected, not elevated to the level of a demi-goddess by giving her titles such as Immaculately Conceived, Queen of Heaven, Co-redemptrix, Sinless, Advocate, Benefactrix, Advocate, and co-Mediatrix.

[quote]And don't insult Our Mom again![/quote] I wasn't insulting her. And I'll thank you not to insult my Lord and Saviour again by lifting up His mother to a level where she is almost equal to Him.

[Archangel]

The miracle at Cana shows just how powerful Mary's intercession is. Jesus could've helped the wedding couple, but He didn't until Mary asked Him to.

Modern day Catholics aren't the only ones holding Mary in such high esteem. The Early Church Fathers esteemed her as well:

St. Irenaeus

"Consequently, then, Mary the Virgin is found to be obedient, saying, ‘Behold, O Lord, your handmaid; be it done to me according to your word.’ Eve, however, was disobedient, and, when yet a virgin, she did not obey. Just as she, who was then still a virgin although she had Adam for a husband—for in paradise they were both naked but were not ashamed; for, having been created only a short time, they had no understanding of the procreation of children, and it was necessary that they first come to maturity before beginning to multiply—having become disobedient, was made the cause of death for herself and for the whole human race; so also [b]Mary, betrothed to a man but nevertheless still a virgin, being obedient, was made the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race. . . . Thus, the knot of Eve’s disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. What the virgin Eve had bound in unbelief, the Virgin Mary loosed through faith[/b]" (Against Heresies 3:22:24 [A.D. 189]).

St. Ephraim

"[b]You alone and your Mother are more beautiful than any others, for there is no blemish in you nor any stains upon your Mother.[/b] Who of my children can compare in beauty to these?" (Nisibene Hymns 27:8 [A.D. 361]).

St. Ambrose

"Come, then, and search out your sheep, not through your servants or hired men, but do it yourself. Lift me up bodily and in the flesh, which is fallen in Adam. Lift me up not from Sarah but from [b]Mary, a virgin not only undefiled, but a virgin whom grace had made inviolate, free of every stain of sin[/b]" (Commentary on Psalm 118:22–30 [A.D. 387]).


If there's any "worship" of Mary, then God was the first one when He greeted her through the message of the angel Gabriel, "Hail, full of grace."

[ICTHUS]

The words of mere men saying something is true, do not make it true.

[Archangel]

So were they lying?

[Benedict]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Dec 25 2004, 01:49 AM'] The words of mere men saying something is true, do not make it true. [/quote]
A response without substance . . . and an irony at that.

Edited December 25, 2004 by Benedict

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='Archangel' date='Dec 25 2004, 03:15 AM'] So were they lying? [/quote]
They weren't lying, they just weren't inspired. As such, we can trust that the things they say are true only insofar as they can be found in the Word of God.

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='Benedict' date='Dec 25 2004, 02:09 PM'] A response without substance . . . and an irony at that. [/quote]
I fail to see how it is ironic, or how it is without substance. Yes, it proceeds from the epistemology of sola scriptura - but everything you say here proceeds from your epistemology of sola ecclesia. I could just as easily say that your responses are without substance.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Dec 25 2004, 05:58 PM'] I fail to see how it is ironic, or how it is without substance. Yes, it proceeds from the epistemology of sola scriptura - but everything you say here proceeds from your epistemology of sola ecclesia. I could just as easily say that your responses are without substance. [/quote]
Yes, your views are founded upon an epistemological system established almost 500 years ago. A true theological novum.

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Dec 25 2004, 10:18 PM'] Yes, your views are founded upon an epistemological system established almost 500 years ago. A true theological novum. [/quote]
Actually, it was established by Jesus and St. Paul.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Dec 25 2004, 08:34 PM'] Actually, it was established by Jesus and St. Paul. [/quote]
That is funny. If that is the case you might as well throw out the New Testament. ICTHUS use a little bit of reason from time to time, because doing so will save you embarrassment.

ICTHUS, prove from scripture alone the canon of scripture. Show where in scripture the canon of books is given; only then you will have proven the [i]sola scriptura[/i] doctrine.

God bless,
Todd